Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0022-0782
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: FEDERAL REGISTER: 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 RE
Posted Date: 2001-01-19T05:00Z

Thursday,

September
14,
2000
Part
II
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;
Proposed
Rule
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55684
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
148,
261,
268,
271,
and
302
[SWH±
FRL±
6864±
5]

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:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
proposes
to
amend
the
regulations
for
hazardous
waste
management
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
by
listing
as
hazardous
three
wastes
generated
from
inorganic
chemical
manufacturing
processes.
We
also
propose
not
to
list
as
hazardous
various
other
process
wastes.
This
action
proposes
to
add
the
toxic
constituents
found
in
the
wastes
to
the
list
of
constituents
that
serves
as
the
basis
for
classifying
wastes
as
hazardous,
and
to
establish
treatment
standards
for
the
wastes.
The
effect
of
this
proposed
regulation
would
be
to
subject
the
wastes
to
stringent
management
and
treatment
standards
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
Additionally,
this
action
proposes
to
designate
the
wastes
proposed
for
listing
as
hazardous
substances
subject
to
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
(CERCLA)
and
to
adjust
the
onepound
statutory
reportable
quantities
(RQs)
for
some
of
these
substances.
DATES:
EPA
will
accept
public
comments
on
this
proposed
rule
until
November
13,
2000.
Comments
postmarked
after
this
date
will
be
marked
``
late''
and
may
not
be
considered.
Any
person
may
request
a
public
hearing
on
this
proposal
by
filing
a
request
with
Mr.
David
Bussard
by
September
28,
2000.
ADDRESSES:
If
you
wish
to
comment
on
this
proposed
rule,
you
must
send
an
original
and
two
copies
of
the
comments
referencing
docket
number
F±
2000±
ICMP±
FFFFF
to:
RCRA
Information
Center,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(5305G),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Headquarters,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460.
Hand
deliveries
of
comments
should
be
made
to
RCRA
Information
Center,
Crystal
Gateway
I,
First
Floor,
1235
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
Arlington,
VA.
You
also
may
submit
comments
electronically
by
sending
electronic
mail
through
the
Internet
to:
rcradocket@
epamail.
epa.
gov.
You
should
identify
comments
in
electronic
format
with
the
docket
number
F±
2000±
ICMP±
FFFFF.
You
must
submit
all
electronic
comments
as
an
ASCII
(text)
file,
avoiding
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
Address
requests
for
a
hearing
to
Mr.
David
Bussard
at:
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
Hazardous
Waste
Identification
Division
(5304W),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460,
(703)
308±
8880.
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,
D.
C.,
metropolitan
area,
call
(703)
920±
9810
or
TDD
(703)
412±
3323.
For
specific
aspects
of
the
rule,
contact
Ms.
Gwen
DiPietro,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(5304W),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.,
20460.
[E­
mail
addressee
and
telephone
number:
dipietro.
gwen@
epa.
gov
(703±
308±
8285).]
For
technical
information
on
the
CERCLA
aspects
of
this
rule,
contact
Ms.
Lynn
Beasley,
Office
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response,
Analytical
Operations
and
Data
Quality
Center
(5204G),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460,
[E­
mail
address
and
telephone
number:
beasley.
lynn@
epa.
gov
(703±
603±
9086).]
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
If
you
do
not
submit
comments
electronically,
we
ask
you
to
voluntarily
submit
one
additional
copy
of
your
comments
on
labeled
personal
computer
diskettes
in
ASCII
(text)
format
or
a
word
processing
format
that
can
be
converted
to
ASCII
(text).
It
is
essential
to
specify
on
the
disk
label
the
word
processing
software
and
version/
edition
as
well
as
your
name.
This
will
allow
us
to
convert
the
comments
into
one
of
the
word
processing
formats
we
utilize.
Please
use
mailing
envelopes
designed
to
physically
protect
the
submitted
diskettes.
We
emphasize
that
submission
of
comments
on
diskettes
is
not
mandatory
nor
will
it
result
in
any
advantage
or
disadvantage
to
any
commenter.
You
should
not
submit
electronically
any
confidential
business
information
(CBI).
You
must
submit
an
original
and
two
copies
of
CBI
under
separate
cover
to:
RCRA
CBI
Document
Control
Officer,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(5305W),
U.
S.
EPA,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460.
Any
CBI
data
should
be
specifically
and
clearly
marked.
In
addition,
please
submit
a
non­
CBI
version
of
your
comments
for
inclusion
in
the
public
record.
Supporting
documents
in
the
docket
for
this
proposal
are
also
available
in
electronic
format
on
the
Internet:
<http:/
/www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
id/
inorchem/
pr2000.
htm>.
We
will
keep
the
official
record
for
this
action
in
paper
form.
Accordingly,
we
will
transfer
all
comments
received
electronically
into
paper
form
and
place
them
in
the
official
record,
which
also
will
include
all
comments
submitted
directly
in
writing.
The
official
record
is
the
paper
record
maintained
at
the
RCRA
Information
Center,
also
referred
to
as
the
Docket.
Our
responses
to
comments,
whether
the
comments
are
written
or
electronic,
will
be
in
a
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
or
in
a
response
to
comments
document
placed
in
the
official
record
for
this
rulemaking.
We
will
not
immediately
reply
to
commenters
electronically
other
than
to
seek
clarification
of
electronic
comments
that
may
be
corrupted
in
transmission
or
during
conversion
to
paper
form,
as
discussed
above.
You
may
view
public
comments
and
supporting
materials
in
the
RCRA
Information
Center
(RIC),
located
at
Crystal
Gateway
I,
First
Floor,
1235
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
Arlington,
VA.
The
RIC
is
open
from
9
a.
m.
to
4
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
federal
holidays.
To
review
docket
materials,
we
recommend
that
you
make
an
appointment
by
calling
703±
603±
9230.
You
may
copy
a
maximum
of
100
pages
from
any
regulatory
docket
at
no
charge.
Additional
copies
cost
$0.15/
page.

Customer
Service
How
Can
I
Influence
EPA's
Thinking
on
This
Proposed
Rule?

In
developing
this
proposal,
we
tried
to
address
the
concerns
of
all
our
stakeholders.
Your
comments
will
help
us
improve
this
rule.
We
invite
you
to
provide
your
comments
on
all
data,
assumptions
and
methodologies
used
to
support
our
proposal,
your
views
on
options
we
have
proposed,
your
ideas
on
new
approaches
we
have
not
considered,
any
new
data
you
may
have,
your
views
on
how
this
rule
may
affect
you,
and
other
relevant
information.
Your
comments
must
be
submitted
by
the
deadline
in
this
proposal.
Your
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55685
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
comments
will
be
most
effective
if
you
follow
the
suggestions
below:
·
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible
and
provide
a
summary
of
the
reasoning
you
used
to
arrive
at
your
conclusions.
Provide
examples
to
illustrate
your
views
wherever
possible.
·
Provide
solid
technical
data
to
support
your
views.
·
If
you
estimate
potential
costs,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
your
estimate.
·
Tell
us
which
parts
of
this
proposal
you
support,
as
well
as
which
parts
you
disagree
with.
·
Offer
specific
alternatives.
·
Reference
your
comments
to
specific
sections
of
the
proposal
by
using
section
titles
or
page
numbers
of
the
preamble
or
the
regulatory
citations.
·
Clearly
label
any
CBI
submitted
as
part
of
your
comments.
·
Include
your
name,
date,
and
docket
number
with
your
comments.

Contents
of
This
Proposed
Rule
I.
Overview
A.
Who
Potentially
Will
be
Affected
by
this
Proposed
Rule?
B.
Why
Does
this
Rule
Read
Differently
from
Other
Listing
Rules?
C.
What
are
the
Statutory
Authorities
for
this
Proposed
Rule?
II.
Background
A.
How
Does
EPA
Define
a
Hazardous
Waste?
B.
How
Does
EPA
Regulate
RCRA
Hazardous
Wastes?
C.
What
is
the
Consent
Decree
Schedule
for
and
Scope
of
this
Proposal?
III.
Approach
Used
in
this
Proposed
Listing
A.
Summary
of
Today's
Action
B.
What
Wastes
Associated
with
the
14
Sectors
Are
Outside
the
Scope
of
the
Consent
Decree?
1.
Mineral
processing
wastes
exempt
under
the
``
Bevill''
exemptions
2.
Residuals
used
or
reused
in
different
industrial
processes
3.
Debris
and
other
nonprocess
wastes
C.
What
Information
Did
EPA
Collect
and
Use?
1.
The
RCRA
Section
3007
Survey
2.
Field
work:
site
visits,
sampling
and
analysis
3.
Other
sources
D.
How
Did
EPA
Evaluate
Wastes
for
Listing
Determinations?
1.
Listing
policy
2.
Characteristic
hazardous
waste
3.
Evaluations
of
particular
units
and
pathways
of
release
4.
Evaluation
of
Secondary
Materials
E.
Description
of
Risk
Assessment
Approaches
1.
What
risk
thresholds
were
used?
2.
What
leaching
procedures
were
used?
3.
How
were
wastes
screened
to
determine
if
further
assessment
was
needed?
4.
How
was
the
groundwater
pathway
evaluated?
5.
How
was
the
surface
water
pathway
evaluated?
6.
What
are
the
limitations
and
uncertainties
of
the
assessment?
F.
Sector­
specific
Listing
Determination
Rationales
1.
Antimony
oxide
2.
Barium
carbonate
3.
Boric
acid
4.
Cadmium
pigments
5.
Inorganic
hydrogen
cyanide
6.
Phenyl
mercuric
acetate
7.
Phosphoric
acid
from
the
dry
process
8.
Phosphorus
pentasulfide
9.
Phosphorus
trichloride
10.
Potassium
dichromate
11.
Sodium
chlorate
12.
Sodium
dichromate
13.
Sodium
phosphate
from
wet
process
phosphoric
acid
14.
Titanium
dioxide
G.
What
is
the
Status
of
Landfill
Leachate
from
Previously
Disposed
Wastes?
IV.
Proposed
Treatment
Standards
Under
RCRA's
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
A.
What
are
EPA's
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
(LDRs)?
B.
What
are
the
treatment
standards
for
K176
(baghouse
filters
from
production
of
antimony
oxide)
C.
What
standards
are
the
treatment
standards
for
K177
(slag
from
the
production
of
antimony
oxide
that
is
disposed
of
or
speculatively
accumulated)?
D.
What
are
the
treatment
standards
for
K178
(nonwastewaters
from
the
production
of
titanium
dioxide
by
the
chloride­
ilmenite
process)?
E.
What
Other
LDR
Provisions
Are
Proposed
to
Apply?
1.
Debris
2.
Soil
3.
Underground
Injection
Wells
that
can
be
found
in
the
administrative
record
for
this
rule
F.
Is
There
Treatment
Capacity
for
the
Proposed
Wastes?
1.
What
Is
a
Capacity
Determination?
2.
What
are
the
Capacity
Analysis
Results?
V.
Compliance
Dates
A.
Notification
B.
Interim
Status
and
Permitted
Facilities
VI.
State
Authority
A.
Applicability
of
Rule
in
Authorized
States
B.
Effect
on
State
Authorizations
VII.
Designation
of
Inorganic
Chemical
Wastes
under
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
(CERCLA)
A.
Reporting
Requirements
B.
Basis
for
Proposed
RQ
Adjustment
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),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
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
13084:
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
H.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
I.
Overview
A.
Who
Potentially
Will
Be
Affected
by
This
Proposed
Rule?

Beginning
January
1,
1999
all
documents
related
to
EPA's
regulatory,
compliance
and
enforcement
activities,
including
rules,
policies,
interpretive
guidance,
and
site­
specific
determinations
with
broad
application,
should
properly
identify
the
regulated
entities,
including
descriptions
that
correspond
to
the
applicable
SIC
codes
or
NAICS
codes
(source:
October
9,
1998
USEPA
memo
from
Peter
D.
Robertson,
Acting
Deputy
Administrator
of
USEPA).
Today's
action,
if
finalized,
could
potentially
affect
those
who
handle
the
wastes
that
we
are
proposing
to
add
to
EPA's
list
of
hazardous
wastes
under
the
RCRA
program.
This
action
also
may
affect
entities
that
may
need
to
respond
to
releases
of
these
wastes
as
CERCLA
hazardous
substances.
These
potentially­
affected
entities
are
described
in
the
Economics
Background
Document
placed
in
the
docket
in
support
of
today's
proposed
rule.
A
summary
is
shown
in
the
table
below.

SUMMARY
OF
FACILITIES
POTENTIALLY
AFFECTED
BY
THE
USEPA'S
2000
INORGANIC
CHEMICAL
MANUFACTURING
WASTE
LISTING
PROPOSAL
Item
SIC
code
Industry
sector
name
Number
of
U.
S.
relevant
inorganic
mfg.
facilities
1
........................
2816
Inorganic
Pigments
...................................................................................................................
3
1
........................
2819
Industrial
Inorganic
Chemicals,
not
elsewhere
classified
.........................................................
3
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55686
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
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
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
proposed
rules
amending
RCRA
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.
Why
Does
This
Rule
Read
Differently
From
Other
Listing
Rules?

Today's
proposed
listing
determination
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
new
format
is
part
of
our
efforts
toward
regulatory
reinvention
and
it
makes
today's
rule
read
differently
from
other
listing
rules.
We
believe
that
this
new
format
will
help
readers
understand
the
regulations,
which
should
then
increase
compliance,
make
enforcement
easier,
and
foster
better
relationships
between
EPA
and
the
regulated
community.

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

These
regulations
are
proposed
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
proposed.
II.
Background
A.
How
Does
EPA
Define
a
Hazardous
Waste?

Section
3001
of
RCRA
and
EPA's
regulations
establish
two
ways
of
identifying
wastes
as
hazardous
under
RCRA.
A
waste
may
be
hazardous
either
if
it
exhibits
certain
properties
(called
``
characteristics'')
which
pose
threats
to
human
health
and
the
environment,
or
if
it
is
included
on
a
specific
list
of
wastes
EPA
has
evaluated
and
found
to
pose
unacceptable
risks.
EPA's
regulations
in
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(CFR)
define
four
hazardous
characteristics:
ignitability,
corrosivity,
reactivity,
or
toxicity.
(See
40
CFR
261.21
through
261.24.)
As
a
generator,
you
must
determine
whether
or
not
a
waste
exhibits
any
of
these
characteristics
by
testing
the
material
or
by
using
your
knowledge
of
the
process
that
produced
the
waste.
(See
40
CFR
262.11(
c).)
EPA
may
also
conduct
a
more
specific
assessment
of
a
waste
or
category
of
wastes
and
``
list''
them
if
they
meet
criteria
set
out
in
40
CFR
261.11.
As
described
in
40
CFR
261.11,
we
may
list
a
waste
as
hazardous
if
it:
ÐExhibits
any
of
the
characteristics
noted
above
,
i.
e.,
ignitability,
corrosivity,
reactivity,
or
toxicity
(261.11(
a)(
1));
ÐIs
``
acutely''
hazardous,
i.
e.,
if
they
are
fatal
to
humans
or
in
animal
studies
at
low
doses,
or
otherwise
capable
of
causing
or
significantly
contributing
to
an
increase
in
serious
illness
(261.11(
a)(
2));
or
ÐIs
capable
of
posing
a
substantial
present
or
potential
hazard
to
human
health
or
the
environment
when
improperly
managed
(261.11(
a)(
3)).
Under
the
third
criterion
at
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3),
we
may
decide
to
list
a
waste
as
hazardous
(1)
if
it
contains
hazardous
constituents
identified
in
Appendix
VIII
to
40
CFR
Part
261,
and
(2)
if,
after
considering
the
factors
noted
in
this
section
of
the
regulations,
we
``
conclude
that
the
waste
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.
''
We
place
a
chemical
on
the
list
of
hazardous
constituents
on
Appendix
VIII
only
if
scientific
studies
have
shown
a
chemical
has
toxic
effects
on
humans
or
other
life
forms.
When
listing
a
waste,
we
also
add
the
hazardous
constituents
that
serve
as
the
basis
for
listing
to
Appendix
VII
to
part
261.
Residuals
from
the
treatment,
storage,
or
disposal
of
most
listed
hazardous
wastes
are
also
classified
as
hazardous
wastes
based
on
the
``
derived­
from''
rule
(see
40
CFR
261.3(
c)(
2)(
i)).
For
example,
ash
or
other
residuals
from
the
treatment
of
a
listed
waste
generally
carries
the
original
hazardous
waste
code
and
is
subject
to
the
hazardous
waste
regulations.
Also,
the
``
mixture''
rule
(see
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iii)
and
(iv))
provides
that,
with
certain
limited
exceptions,
any
mixture
of
a
listed
hazardous
waste
and
a
solid
waste
is
itself
a
RCRA
hazardous
waste.
Some
materials
that
would
otherwise
be
classified
as
hazardous
wastes
under
the
rules
described
above
are
excluded
from
jurisdiction
under
RCRA
if
they
are
recycled
in
certain
ways.
The
current
definition
of
solid
waste
at
40
CFR
261.2
excludes
secondary
materials
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
that
are
used
directly
(i.
e.,
without
reclamation)
as
ingredients
in
manufacturing
processes
to
make
new
products,
used
directly
as
effective
substitutes
for
commercial
products,
or
returned
directly
to
the
original
process
from
which
they
are
generated
as
a
substitute
for
raw
material
feedstock.
(See
40
CFR
261.2(
e).)
As
discussed
in
the
January
4,
1985,
rulemaking
that
promulgated
this
regulatory
framework,
these
are
activities
which,
as
a
general
matter,
resemble
ongoing
manufacturing
operations
more
than
conventional
waste
management
and
so
are
more
appropriately
classified
as
not
involving
solid
wastes.
(See
50
FR
637±
640).
Our
approach
to
these
issues
is
described
in
more
detail
below
in
section
III.
D.
4.

B.
How
Does
EPA
Regulate
RCRA
Hazardous
Wastes?
Wastes
exhibiting
any
hazardous
characteristic
or
listed
as
hazardous
are
subject
to
federal
requirements
under
RCRA.
These
regulations
affect
persons
who
generate,
transport,
treat,
store
or
dispose
of
such
waste.
Facilities
that
must
meet
the
hazardous
waste
management
requirements,
including
the
need
to
obtain
permits
to
operate,
commonly
are
referred
to
as
``
Subtitle
C''
facilities.
Subtitle
C
is
Congress'
original
statutory
designation
for
that
part
of
RCRA
that
directs
EPA
to
issue
those
regulations
for
hazardous
wastes
as
may
be
necessary
to
protect
human
health
or
the
environment.
EPA
standards
and
procedural
regulations
implementing
Subtitle
C
are
found
generally
at
40
CFR
Parts
260
through
272.
All
RCRA
hazardous
wastes
are
also
hazardous
substances
under
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
(CERCLA),
as
described
in
section
101(
14)(
C)
of
the
CERCLA
statute.
This
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55687
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
1
As
required
in
40
CFR
262.30,
the
listing
description
includes
the
hazard
code.
Wastes
listed
under
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
1)
due
to
the
toxicity
characteristic
are
designated
``
E,
''
and
wastes
listed
under
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3)
for
toxicity
are
designated
``
T''.
applies
to
wastes
listed
in
40
CFR
261.31
through
261.33,
as
well
as
any
wastes
that
exhibit
a
RCRA
characteristic.
Table
302.4
at
40
CFR
302.4
lists
CERCLA
hazardous
substances
along
with
their
reportable
quantities
(RQs).
Anyone
spilling
or
releasing
a
substance
at
or
above
the
RQ
must
report
this
to
the
National
Response
Center,
as
required
in
CERCLA
Section
103.
In
addition,
Section
304
of
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
(EPCRA)
requires
facilities
to
report
the
release
of
a
CERCLA
hazardous
substance
at
or
above
its
RQ
to
State
and
local
authorities.
Today's
rule
proposes
to
establish
RQs
for
some
of
the
newly
listed
wastes.

C.
What
Is
the
Consent
Decree
Schedule
for
and
Scope
of
This
Proposal?
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,
the
Environmental
Defense
Fund
(EDF)
filed
a
lawsuit
to
enforce
the
statutory
deadlines
for
listing
decisions
in
RCRA
Section
3001(
e)(
2).
(EDF
v.
Browner;
D.
D.
C.
Civ.
No.
89±
0598).
To
resolve
most
of
the
issues
in
the
case,
EDF
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
proposal
satisfies
EPA's
duty
under
paragraph
1.
g
to
propose
determinations
for
inorganic
chemical
industry
wastes.
As
described
above,
the
consent
decree
provides
that
EPA
does
not
need
to
make
listing
determinations
for
certain
wastes
that
it
has
exempted
from
hazardous
waste
regulations
under
the
``
Bevill
amendments''
to
RCRA.
See
the
discussion
of
``
exempt
mineral
processing''
wastes
in
section
III.
B.
1
below.

III.
Approach
Used
in
This
Proposed
Listing
A.
Summary
of
Today's
Action
Manufacturers
of
the
inorganic
chemical
products
described
above
identified
over
170
categories
of
residuals
generated
as
part
of
their
production
processes.
We
first
determined
which
of
these
residuals
fell
within
the
scope
of
our
consent
decree
obligations.
We
then
evaluated
the
risks
posed
by
each
of
the
remaining
categories
of
residual
materials.
In
some
cases
we
used
quantitative
or
qualitative
screening
methods.
For
18
wastes
we
conducted
full­
scale
modeling
to
predict
risks.
As
a
result
of
this
evaluation,
we
found
that
three
wastes
generated
in
the
14
inorganic
chemicals
manufacturing
operations
which
we
evaluated
meet
the
criteria
for
listing
set
out
in
either
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
1)
or
261.11(
a)(
3).
We
conducted
full­
scale
modeling
of
two
of
these
wastes
and
propose
to
list
them
under
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3).
We
found
that
one
waste
warranted
listing
under
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
1)
because
it
exhibited
hazardous
waste
characteristics.
We
did
not
model
this
waste.
Since
these
are
wastes
from
specific
inorganic
chemical
industries,
we
propose
to
add
them
to
Section
261.32
with
K­
waste
codes.
The
three
wastestreams
we
propose
to
list
as
hazardous,
along
with
their
corresponding
hazard
code
and
proposed
EPA
Hazardous
Waste
Numbers,
are:
1
K176
Baghouse
filters
from
the
production
of
antimony
oxide.
(E)
K177
Slag
from
the
production
of
antimony
oxide
that
is
disposed
of
or
speculatively
accumulated.
(T)
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).)
(T)
We
found
that
all
of
the
remaining
wastes
that
we
evaluated
did
not
meet
the
criteria
for
listing
in
40
CFR
261.11,
and
we
are
proposing
not
to
list
them
as
hazardous
wastes.
More
information
on
our
evaluations
of
particular
wastes
is
set
out
in
the
background
documents
and
the
sector­
specific
discussions
in
section
III.
F
of
this
preamble.
We
have
previously
listed
as
hazardous
a
number
of
wastes
in
40
CFR
261.32
from
other
inorganic
chemicals
industries,
including
wastes
from
the
production
of
inorganic
pigments
(codes
K002
through
K008),
and
wastes
from
chlorine
production
(codes
K071,
K073,
and
K106).
Today's
proposal
does
not
affect
the
scope
of
any
existing
hazardous
waste
listing,
and
we
are
not
soliciting
comments
on
those
existing
listing
determinations.
We
are
also
proposing
other
changes
to
the
RCRA
regulations
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
listings.
These
changes
include
adding
constituents
to
Appendices
VII
and
VIII
for
Part
261,
and
setting
new
land
disposal
restrictions.
We
are
proposing
to
add
the
following
constituents
to
Appendix
VII
that
serve
as
the
basis
for
listing:
K176Ð
arsenic
and
lead,
K177Ð
antimony,
and
K178Ð
manganese
and
thallium.
We
are
also
proposing
to
add
manganese
to
the
list
of
hazardous
constituents
in
Appendix
VIII,
based
on
scientific
studies
that
demonstrate
manganese
has
toxic
effects
on
humans
and
other
life
forms.
Section
IV
of
today's
proposal
describes
the
proposed
changes
to
the
land
disposal
restrictions,
which
would
establish
treatment
standards
for
specific
constituents
in
the
wastes
proposed
for
listing.
Also
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
listings,
these
wastes
would
become
hazardous
substances
under
CERCLA.
Therefore,
in
today's
rule
we
are
proposing
to
designate
these
wastestreams
as
CERCLA
hazardous
substances,
and
to
adjust
the
one­
pound
statutory
RQs
for
two
of
these
wastestreams;
this
is
described
in
section
VII
of
today's
proposal.

B.
What
Wastes
Associated
With
the
14
Sectors
Are
Outside
the
Scope
of
the
Consent
Decree?
Determining
the
scope
of
our
consent
decree
obligations
was
more
complicated
than
usual
for
two
reasons.
First,
Paragraph
1.
g
(quoted
above
in
II.
C)
does
not
tell
EPA
which
wastestreams
it
must
evaluate.
For
most
other
listing
obligations
set
out
in
the
consent
decree,
the
decree
specifies
particular
wastestreams
which
EPA
must
evaluate
for
listing.
See,
for
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55688
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
2
The
revised
consent
decree
is
available
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.
example,
paragraph
1.
k
identifying
14
specific
petroleum
wastestreams.
2
Second,
paragraph
1.
g
contains
an
exemption
for
wastes
found
to
be
exempt
from
hazardous
waste
regulation
in
previous
EPA
actions
implementing
the
so­
called
``
Bevill
exemptions''
for
mineral
processing
wastes.
Thus,
we
needed
to
conduct
some
analysis
to
determine
the
scope
of
our
obligations.
We
began
by
asking
facilities
to
identify
all
of
the
residuals
generated
by
their
production
processes.
We
then
reviewed
their
lists.
We
found
that
some
residuals
were
actually
exempt
``
Bevill''
wastes
that
we
need
not
address.
We
found
that
other
wastes
were
really
associated
with
the
manufacture
of
other
materials.
Also,
we
concluded
that
a
few
residuals
were
not
``
production''
wastes
and
therefore
were
not
covered
by
the
decree.
With
the
exceptions
discussed
below
in
our
evaluation
of
the
sodium
dichromate
and
titanium
dioxide
sectors,
we
chose
not
to
evaluate
any
of
the
wastes
that
we
considered
to
be
outside
the
scope
of
the
decree.
We
concluded
that
evaluation
was
not
possible
under
the
time
frame
set
out
in
the
decree.
In
the
following
sections
we
provide
an
overview
of
the
types
of
wastes
that
we
consider
outside
the
scope.

1.
Mineral
Processing
Wastes
Exempt
Under
the
``
Bevill''
Exemptions
Many
of
the
inorganic
chemical
manufacturing
processes
we
address
in
this
rule
use
ores
and
minerals
as
feedstocks.
Some
wastes
derived
from
the
processing
of
ores
and
minerals
are
exempt
from
regulation
as
RCRA
hazardous
wastes
under
decisions
EPA
made
under
statutory
requirements
known
as
the
``
Bevill''
amendments.
RCRA
Sections
3001(
b)(
3)
and
8002(
p)
required
EPA
to
determine
whether
wastes
from
the
extraction,
beneficiation
or
processing
of
ores
and
minerals
warranted
regulation
as
hazardous
wastes
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
Between
1989
and
1991
EPA
completed
a
series
of
rules
and
studies
establishing
which
mining
wastes
fit
within
the
``
extraction,
''
``
beneficiation,
''
or
``
processing''
definitions,
and
which
of
the
wastes
within
each
category
were
exempt
from
regulation
as
hazardous
wastes.
EPA
concluded
that
all
wastes
produced
during
extraction
and
beneficiation
are
entitled
to
an
exemption.
EPA
found
that
20
categories
of
wastes
from
subsequent
``
mineral
processing''
operations
met
the
``
high
volume/
low
toxicity''
criteria
and
were
exempt
as
well.
See
54
FR
36592
(Sept.
1,
1989),
55
FR
2322
(Jan.
23,
1990),
the
July
31,
1990
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
Mineral
Processing,
and
56
FR
27300
(June
13,
1991).
EPA
codified
these
``
Bevill''
exemptions
at
40
CFR
261.4
(b)(
7).
EPA
discussed
some
of
these
exemptions
further
in
a
1998
final
rule
promulgating
treatment
standards
for
non­
exempt
mineral
processing
wastes
that
exhibit
the
toxicity
characteristic.
See
the
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
Phase
IV
Final
Rule
at
63
FR
28598
(May
26,
1998).
Paragraph
1.
g
of
the
consent
decree
provides
that
EPA
need
not
make
listing
determinations
for
wastes
from
any
of
the
14
inorganic
chemical
manufacturing
processes
which
are
``
excluded
from
hazardous
waste
regulation
under
Section
3001(
b)(
3)(
A)(
ii)
of
RCRA
and
for
which
it
has
determined
that
such
regulation
is
unwarranted
pursuant
to
Section
3001(
b)(
3)(
C)
of
RCRA.
''
In
other
words,
the
consent
decree
does
not
require
us
to
make
listing
determinations
for
wastes
which
we
exempted
under
the
statute's
``
Bevill''
provisions.
Paragraph
1.
g.
of
the
consent
decree
requires
EPA
to
make
a
listing
determination
for
``*
*
*
titanium
dioxide
production
wastes
(except
for
chloride
process
waste
solids).
''
EPA
interprets
the
exception
to
refer
to
the
chloride
process
waste
solids
from
the
production
of
titanium
tetrachloride
which
are
exempt
under
the
Bevill
rule,
rather
than
all
solids
from
the
chloride
process.
Solids
generated
after
titanium
tetrachloride
forms
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree.
We
reviewed
the
generators'
lists
of
process
residuals
to
determine
whether
they
had
included
any
Bevill
exempt
wastes
which
we
need
not
assess.
(In
some
cases,
the
generators
had
claimed
that
certain
wastes
were
exempt
under
EPA's
Bevill
decisions.)
This
process
was
not
always
simple.
We
found
it
was
sometimes
difficult
to
determine
whether
a
particular
facility's
waste
fit
within
one
of
the
exempt
categories.
For
example,
the
mineral
processing
exemption
for
titanium
dioxide
covers
only
solid
materials
from
an
initial
step
in
the
production
process.
It
was
not
always
easy
to
tell
whether
particular
waste
solids
were
generated
from
the
portion
of
the
process
that
would
make
them
exempt,
or
from
later
production
steps.
Sector­
specific
information
regarding
our
conclusions
appears
in
section
III.
F
of
this
preamble
for
those
sectors
where
we
found
this
exemption
had
some
relevance.
We
found
that
facilities
in
only
three
of
the
consent
decree
sectors
generate
Bevill
exempt
wastes:
Boric
acid,
sodium
dichromate,
and
titanium
dioxide.
In
other
sectors,
the
facilities
produce
inorganic
product
chemicals
from
a
mineral
product.
Under
the
Bevill
exemption
(54
FR
36620±
21),
chemical
manufacturing
begins
if
there
is
any
further
processing
of
a
saleable
mineral
product.
Since
these
facilities
use
saleable
mineral
products
as
feedstock,
their
processes
are
chemical
manufacturing,
and
may
not
be
classified
as
mineral
processing.
Therefore,
none
of
the
wastestreams
generated
by
these
facilities
in
the
production
of
the
other
inorganic
chemicals
are
Bevill
exempt.
We
emphasize
that
we
are
not
reopening
any
Bevill
decisions
made
in
earlier
actions
regarding
the
exemptions.
We
are
not
re­
defining
the
boundaries
between
``
extraction''
and
``
beneficiation,
''
between
``
beneficiation''
and
``
mineral
processing,
''
or
between
``
mineral
processing''
and
non­
exempt
chemical
manufacturing.
Nor
are
we
revisiting
our
decision
that
all
wastes
uniquely
associated
with
the
extraction
and
beneficiation
of
ores
and
minerals
are
exempt.
Similarly,
we
are
not
reopening
any
of
our
earlier
decisions
as
to
which
categories
of
mineral
processing
wastes
are
exempt.
Rather,
we
are
determining
whether
particular
wastestreams
fall
within
any
of
the
exempt
categories.
We
are
not
requesting
comment
on,
and
do
not
intend
to
respond
to
comments
relating
to
the
earlier
decisions.
We
also
found
that
some
inorganic
chemical
processes
generate
composite
wastestreams
that
contain
both
a
Bevill
exempt
waste
and
one
or
more
nonexempt
wastes.
We
evaluated
the
nonexempt
portions
of
such
wastes
to
fulfill
our
consent
decree
requirements.
We
apportioned
risks
between
the
exempt
and
nonexempt
portion
of
such
commingled
wastes,
and
made
listing
determinations
for
the
non­
exempt
portions.
We
did
not,
however,
assess
the
exempt
portions
of
such
streams.
This
assessment,
therefore,
does
not
reopen
any
earlier
decision
regarding
exemptions
for
the
``
Bevill''
component
of
the
commingled
streams.

2.
Residuals
Used
or
Reused
in
Different
Industrial
Processes
In
some
cases,
facilities
within
the
14
inorganic
chemicals
sectors
set
out
in
the
consent
decree
produce
residuals
that
are
used
or
reused
in
processes
that
are
not
among
those
listed
in
the
decree.
Those
industries
in
turn
produced
residuals
derived
from
the
materials
generated
in
the
consent
decree
industries.
We
evaluated
the
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55689
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
management
of
the
original
industry's
material
up
to
the
point
that
the
second
industry
inserts
it
into
its
production
process.
However,
we
generally
considered
the
second
production
process
and
its
associated
wastes
to
be
beyond
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree.
We
did
not
evaluate
for
listing
purposes
wastes
generated
from
these
nonconsent
decree
industries.
For
example,
in
the
titanium
dioxide
sector,
one
facility
uses
a
residual
from
the
production
of
titanium
dioxide
as
an
ingredient
to
make
salt.
We
considered
salt­
making
to
be
a
separate
production
process
outside
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree.
We
are
not
proposing
any
listing
determinations
for
wastes
generated
in
the
salt
plant.
However,
in
some
cases,
the
reuse
of
the
residual
from
a
consent
decree
process
involved
an
activity
which
we
always
regulate
as
waste
management.
In
this
situation,
we
considered
the
reuse
to
be
waste
management,
and
the
waste
to
be
within
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree.
Consequently,
we
evaluated
the
residual
for
listing.
For
example,
we
found
that
one
of
the
facilities
which
produces
boric
acid
generates
a
waste
which
is
used
as
a
fuel.
Under
our
recycling
regulations,
we
regulate
burning
for
energy
recovery
and
so,
we
evaluated
this
waste.
See
40
CFR
261.2(
c)(
2).
We
found
that
the
waste
is
already
being
managed
in
a
RCRA
Subtitle
C
unit
and
decided
not
to
list
the
waste.
Others
examples
of
reuse
that
we
evaluated
include
land
application
of
biological
treatment
solids
from
hydrogen
cyanide
production
as
a
fertilizer
or
soil
amendment,
and
land
application
of
gypsum
from
the
titanium
dioxide
sector.
In
two
cases,
however,
we
decided
to
make
listing
decisions
for
residuals
generated
during
the
production
of
non­
consent
decree
products.
In
the
titanium
dioxide
sector,
the
residuals
are
commingled
with
other
wastes
clearly
within
the
scope
of
the
decree.
See
the
discussions
of
the
sodium
dichromate
sector
and
the
titanium
dioxide
sector
in
section
III.
F.
In
the
sodium
dichromate
sector,
residuals
from
the
non­
consent
decree
process
are
piped
back
to
the
consent
decree
process,
making
it
difficult
to
determine
whether
the
two
processes
are
really
separate.

3.
Debris
and
Other
Nonprocess
Wastes
Some
generators
also
identified
debris
and
structural
components
of
their
production
plants
as
intermittentlygenerated
wastes.
We
concluded
that
these
materials
do
not
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
decree.
Most
of
the
wastes
that
fell
in
this
category
were
refractory
bricks
which
become
wastes
when
facilities
remove
them
to
refurbish
their
furnaces.
We
consider
this
material
to
be
a
structural
component
of
the
plant
where
production
takes
place
rather
than
a
waste
from
the
``
production''
of
an
inorganic
chemical.
Similarly,
we
consider
a
few
analogous
types
of
plant
debris
to
fall
outside
the
scope
of
the
decree.
This
debris
includes
miscellaneous
construction
materials,
insulation,
reactor
bed
material,
and
piping.
These
wastes
were
reported
for
the
following
inorganic
sectors:
Phosphoric
acid,
barium
carbonate,
sodium
dichromate,
hydrogen
cyanide,
antimony
oxide,
sodium
phosphate,
and
titanium
dioxide.
We
have
never
interpreted
the
decree
to
require
us
to
consider
listing
tanks,
pads,
or
other
structural
components
housing
production
processes
when
they
become
wastes
by
being
removed
from
use.
Other
paragraphs
of
the
decree
support
this
position.
Paragraphs
1.
c.
(coke
byproducts)
and
1.
k.
(petroleum
refining
wastes)
cover
production
processes
involving
reaction
vessels
lined
with
refractory
or
similar
materials,
and
in
neither
case
did
the
decree
include
wastes
related
to
the
reaction
vessels
themselves
or
related
materials.
Nor
do
any
other
provisions
in
the
decree
direct
us
to
list
any
other
type
of
structural
components.
We
note
that
discarded
refractory
bricks
and
other
debris
would
be
regulated
as
hazardous
wastes,
if
these
materials
were
contaminated
with
a
listed
waste
(including
wastes
listed
as
a
result
of
today's
rulemaking),
or
if
they
exhibited
a
hazardous
waste
characteristic.
A
few
facilities
also
reported
environmental
media
(excavated
soils
or
recovered
groundwater)
contaminated
with
process
residuals
as
wastes
from
their
production
processes.
We
consider
such
contaminated
media
to
be
outside
the
scope
of
today's
listing
determinations,
because
these
are
not
wastes
generated
during
production
processes,
but
rather
wastes
generated
due
to
construction
or
remedial
action.
We
note
that
none
of
the
other
consent
decree
provisions
require
us
to
evaluate
contaminated
media.
See
the
specific
listing
background
documents
for
the
different
sectors
for
a
full
listing
of
the
wastes
we
considered
to
be
out
of
scope
of
the
decree.

C.
What
Information
Did
EPA
Collect
and
Use?
Our
investigation
of
the
wastes
generated
by
the
inorganic
chemicals
manufacturing
industry
included
two
major
information
collection
efforts:
A
survey
of
the
industries
and
field
investigations.
The
survey
effort
included
the
development,
distribution,
and
assessment
of
an
extensive
questionnaire
sent
under
the
authority
of
RCRA
section
3007
to
all
known
facilities
engaged
in
any
of
the
14
inorganic
chemical
manufacturing
processes.
During
our
field
investigations
we
made
site
visits
to
familiarize
ourselves
with
processes
and
residuals,
and
made
additional
visits
to
collect
samples
of
residuals
which
we
sent
to
laboratories
for
analysis.
Finally,
we
collected
data
from
other
sources
to
help
characterize
the
settings
in
which
some
of
the
wastes
are
managed.
Each
of
these
efforts
is
summarized
below.

1.
The
RCRA
Section
3007
Survey
We
developed
an
extensive
questionnaire
under
the
authority
of
Section
3007
of
RCRA
for
distribution
to
the
inorganic
chemicals
manufacturing
industry.
The
purpose
of
the
survey
was
to
gather
information
about
solid
and
hazardous
waste
generation
and
management
practices
in
the
U.
S.
for
the
fourteen
inorganic
chemical
industry
sectors.
The
questionnaire
collected
information
about
the
inorganic
chemical
products
manufactured,
the
processes
used,
the
wastes
generated,
the
wastes
characteristics,
and
how
the
wastes
were
managed.
The
questionnaire
is
included
in
the
``
General
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination.
''
which
is
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.
This
document
also
provides
more
details
on
the
producers
identified
in
the
inorganic
sectors.
We
distributed
the
survey
in
March
of
1999
to
all
124
facilities
that
we
had
identified
as
potential
manufacturers
of
chemicals
in
the
14
targeted
sectors.
We
developed
the
list
of
facilities
from
a
review
of
the
available
literature,
which
included
directories
of
chemical
producers,
reference
works
of
chemical
technology,
chemical
profile
information,
and
previous
work
by
EPA
on
these
industries.
From
the
surveys
distributed,
57
facilities
indicated
that
they
manufacture
chemicals
from
at
least
one
of
the
14
sectors.
The
other
facilities
notified
us
that
they
had
either
stopped
operations
or
did
not
manufacture
inorganic
chemical
products.
From
the
survey,
we
confirmed
that
one
product
was
no
longer
manufactured
in
this
country
(phenyl
mercuric
acetate).
We
also
conducted
an
exhaustive
engineering
review
of
the
submitted
surveys
for
accuracy
and
completeness.
We
conducted
quality
assurance
reviews
of
the
data
to
identify
any
inappropriate
entries
and
missing
data.
The
engineering
review
of
each
facility's
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55690
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
response
resulted
in
follow­
up
letters
and/
or
telephone
calls
to
the
facilities
seeking
clarifications,
corrections,
and
additional
data
where
needed.
Where
we
conducted
sampling
and
analysis
of
the
waste,
we
used
this
analytical
data
in
our
analysis
(see
the
following
section).
Facilities
also
submitted
data
in
their
survey
on
the
composition
of
some
of
their
wastes.
In
the
absence
of
our
own
analytical
data,
we
used
data
provided
by
facilities
in
our
evaluation.
These
cases
are
noted
in
the
sector­
specific
discussions
in
section
III.
F.
In
some
cases,
these
data
consisted
of
results
from
testing
to
determine
whether
the
wastes
exhibited
characteristics.
We
thought
such
data
were
reliable
because
of
the
consequences
the
facilities
would
face
if
their
characteristic
data
were
not
accurate.
In
addition,
survey
respondents
were
required
to
certify
the
accuracy
of
their
submittal.

2.
Field
Work:
Site
Visits,
Sampling
and
Analysis
As
part
of
our
field
work,
we
visited
production
facilities
(engineering
site
visits),
we
took
preliminary
samples
(familiarization
sampling),
and
we
obtained
samples
to
fully
characterize
the
waste
for
constituents
of
concern
(record
sampling).
We
initiated
the
sampling
phase
of
this
listing
determination
with
the
development
of
a
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
(QAPP)
for
sampling
and
analysis.
The
QAPP
describes
the
quality
assurance
and
quality
control
requirements
for
the
data
collection.
We
also
developed
sampling
and
analysis
plans
(SAPs)
for
sampling
at
individual
facilities.
The
QAPP
and
the
SAPs
are
available
in
the
public
docket
for
this
proposal.
The
primary
purpose
of
the
engineering
site
visits
was
to
gain
first
hand
knowledge
of
the
manufacturing
processes,
the
waste
generation
and
management,
and
to
identify
potential
locations
for
waste
sampling.
We
conducted
site
visits
at
25
facilities
in
12
of
the
sectors.
We
selected
the
facilities
to
visit
based
on
logistics
and
to
visit
sites
that
represent
the
variety
of
process
and
wastes
generated
within
industry
sectors.
Site
visit
reports
are
available
in
the
docket
for
today's
rule.
During
some
of
the
engineering
site
visits,
we
collected
22
familiarization
samples
to
help
us
identify
potential
sampling
or
analytical
problems
for
the
wastes
of
interest.
For
example,
we
used
the
familiarization
samples
to
assess
the
effectiveness
of
the
analytical
methods
that
we
planned
to
use
during
record
sampling
for
a
number
of
the
targeted
waste
matrices.
During
record
sampling,
we
collected
69
waste
samples
from
13
different
facilities.
Additional
samples
were
collected
for
QA/
QC
purposes.
Largely
due
to
the
time
constraints
imposed
by
our
consent
decree
schedule,
we
focused
the
sampling
effort
on
the
wastes
that
we
most
expected
to
present
significant
potential
risks.
Based
on
information
obtained
from
the
RCRA
Section
3007
Surveys,
we
established
sampling
priorities
by
considering
the
reported
management
practices
(e.
g.,
wastes
going
to
Subtitle
D
landfills
and
impoundments
were
of
concern),
and
the
likely
presence
of
contaminants
of
concern.
We
also
found
that
we
were
able
to
make
listing
decisions
on
a
variety
of
reported
wastes
without
conducting
sampling.
In
some
cases,
we
were
able
to
use
information
about
the
processes
and
the
raw
materials
to
conclude
that
a
waste
was
not
likely
to
present
a
significant
risk.
Also,
we
did
not
typically
sample
wastes
that
were
reported
to
be
characteristically
hazardous
waste
and
were
already
regulated
as
hazardous
under
RCRA.
We
felt
that,
for
these
wastes,
we
could
make
listing
decisions
without
further
information
on
waste
constituents.
In
addition,
we
did
not
attempt
to
sample
wastes
that
we
found
to
be
outside
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree,
as
described
in
Section
III.
B.
Thus,
for
example,
we
did
not
sample
a
number
of
wastes
that
appeared
to
be
exempt
under
the
Bevill
regulations.
We
believe
that
the
69
record
samples
from
13
sites
provide
an
adequate
characterization
of
the
wastes
that
we
sampled.
The
13
sites
represent
approximately
30%
of
the
42
identified
production
facilities
within
the
specific
sectors
we
chose
for
sampling.
The
wastes
sampled
also
represent
the
major
waste
types
of
concern,
e.
g.,
specific
process
wastes/
sludges,
wastewater
treatment
sludges,
wastewaters,
and
spent
filter
material.
Section
III.
F
of
this
proposal
provides
information
on
the
specific
wastes
sampled
in
each
sector.
The
docket
for
today's
proposal
also
contains
background
documents
for
the
specific
sectors,
which
give
details
on
which
wastes
we
sampled
and
our
evaluation
of
the
need
for
sampling
or
modeling
certain
wastes.
For
most
sectors,
we
focused
our
analyses
on
metal
constituents,
because
these
are
the
constituents
expected
from
the
inorganic
processes
under
evaluation.
We
analyzed
for
other
constituents
in
those
cases
where
we
expected
they
might
be
present
in
the
waste,
or
if
other
constituents
showed
up
in
the
familiarization
sampling.
Thus,
we
analyzed
wastes
from
the
inorganic
hydrogen
cyanide
industry
for
cyanide
and
volatile
organics
because
of
their
potential
to
be
present
from
the
process.
Similarly,
in
the
titanium
dioxide
sector,
we
analyzed
waste
samples
for
semivolatile
and
chlorinated
organics
due
to
the
use
of
coke
and
chlorine
as
raw
materials
in
the
production
process
for
the
titanium
chloride
intermediate.
The
overall
list
of
target
analytes
are
in
the
QAPP,
which
is
in
the
docket
for
today's
rule.
The
docket
also
contains
the
background
documents
for
each
sector
and
the
corresponding
waste
characterization
data
reports,
which
show
the
chemical
analyses
performed
and
the
analytes
found
in
the
waste
samples.
In
our
analyses
of
wastes
samples,
we
performed
analyses
to
measure
constituent
concentrations
in
the
wastes
themselves
(``
total''
analysis),
as
well
as
analyses
for
constituents
that
leach
out
of
the
wastes.
We
generally
used
the
methods
specified
in
OSW's
methods
manual
(``
Test
Methods
for
Evaluating
Solid
Waste,
Physical/
Chemical
Methods,
''
SW±
846),
as
described
in
the
QAPP,
the
SAPs,
and
the
background
documents
for
the
specific
sectors.
We
used
two
extraction
methods
to
measure
leaching,
the
Toxicity
Characteristic
Leaching
Procedure
(TCLP,
SW±
846
method
1311),
and
the
Synthetic
Precipitation
Leaching
Procedure
(SPLP,
SW±
846
method
1312).
In
general,
we
were
able
to
measure
the
concentrations
of
constituents
in
waste
samples
at
very
low
detection
levels.
However,
for
some
constituents
in
some
matrices
the
SPLP
and/
or
TCLP
analyses
provided
detection
limits
that
were
somewhat
above
health­
based
levels
of
concern.
In
such
cases,
we
examined
all
of
the
analytical
data
to
determine
if
the
undetected
constituent
might
possibly
present
a
potential
risk.
Where
we
did
not
detect
the
constituent
in
the
total
analysis
(i.
e.,
the
analysis
of
a
sample
prior
to
any
leaching),
we
assumed
that
the
constituent
was
not
present
in
the
leachate.
However,
if
the
totals
analysis
showed
the
presence
of
a
constituent
that
we
did
not
detect
in
the
leachate,
then
we
assessed
the
risk
that
would
be
posed
if
the
constituent
were
present
at
a
concentration
equal
to
onehalf
the
detection
limit.
Section
III.
F
shows
the
cases
where
we
used
this
assumption
in
our
evaluation
of
wastes
for
the
different
inorganic
sectors,
and
further
details
are
available
in
the
background
documents
for
each
sector.

3.
Other
Sources
We
also
collected
data
from
a
variety
of
other
sources
to
help
characterize
the
settings
in
which
these
wastes
are
managed.
For
example,
we
contacted
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55691
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
several
state
and
local
authorities
to
collect
information
regarding
the
location
of
drinking
water
wells.
We
also
obtained
information
and,
in
some
cases
analytical
data,
from
state
authorities
and
other
sources
to
help
in
our
evaluations.
We
note
these
sources
in
the
sector­
specific
discussions
in
Section
III.
F
when
we
relied
on
such
data.

D.
How
Did
EPA
Evaluate
Wastes
for
Listing
Determinations?

1.
Listing
Policy
As
discussed
in
section
II.
A.
of
this
preamble,
we
consider
the
listing
criteria
set
out
in
40
CFR
261.11,
in
light
of
all
the
information
we
have
relevant
to
the
criteria,
in
making
listing
determinations.
For
decisions
made
under
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3),
today's
proposed
listing
determinations
follow
the
elements
of
the
EPA's
hazardous
waste
listing
policy
presented
the
proposed
listing
for
wastes
generated
by
the
dyes
and
pigments
industry
(see
FR
66072,
December
22,
1994).
We
have
modified
and
adapted
this
policy
in
subsequent
listings.
See
for
example
the
recent
Petroleum
Refining
proposal
(60
FR
57747;
November
20,
1995)
and
the
Solvents
waste
proposal
(61
FR
42318;
August
14,
1996).
This
policy
uses
a
``
weight­
ofevidence
approach
in
which
calculated
risk
information
is
a
key
factor
to
consider
in
making
a
listing
determination
under
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3).
The
criteria
provided
in
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3)
include
eleven
factors
for
determining
``
substantial
present
or
potential
hazard
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
''
We
incorporate
nine
of
these
factors,
as
described
generally
below,
into
our
risk
evaluation
for
the
wastestreams
of
concern:
ÐToxicity
(261.11(
a)(
3)(
i))
is
considered
in
developing
the
health
benchmarks
used
in
the
risk
evaluation.
ÐConstituent
concentrations
and
waste
quantities
(261.11(
a)(
3)(
ii)
and
261.11(
a)(
3)(
viii))
are
used
to
define
the
initial
conditions
for
the
risk
evaluation.
ÐPotential
to
migrate,
persistence,
degradation,
and
bioaccumulation
of
the
hazardous
constituents
and
any
degradation
products
(261.11(
a)(
3)(
iii),
261.11(
a)(
3)(
iv),
261.11(
a)(
3)(
v),
and
261.11(
a)(
3)(
vi))
are
all
considered
in
our
evaluation
of
constituent
mobility
(e.
g.,
leaching
from
waste)
and
fate
and
transport
models
we
used
to
project
potential
concentrations
of
the
contaminants
to
which
individuals
might
be
exposed.
We
considered
two
additional
factors,
plausible
mismanagement
and
other
regulatory
actions
(261.11(
a)(
3)(
vii)
and
261.11(
a)(
3)(
x))
in
selecting
the
waste
management
scenarios
we
evaluated
in
our
risk
assessments.
For
example,
we
used
information
that
the
waste
generators
submitted
in
their
Section
3007
questionnaires
to
decide
what
types
of
waste
management
units
are
used.
Using
information
about
other
federal
environmental
regulatory
programs,
we
concluded
that
some
units
or
some
pathways
did
not
pose
risks
requiring
evaluation.
We
separately
considered
the
remaining
factor,
whether
the
available
information
indicated
any
impact
on
human
health
or
the
environment
from
improper
management
of
the
wastes
of
concern
(261.11(
a)(
3)(
ix)).
Thus,
we
examined
a
variety
of
databases
for
information
on
damage
incidents
for
the
inorganic
chemical
production
processes
under
investigation.
For
example,
we
examined
databases
for
information
on
potential
and
actual
Superfund
sites
(CERCLIS),
releases
reported
under
the
Toxic
Release
Inventory
System
(TRIS),
civil
cases
filed
on
behalf
of
EPA,
and
spills
and
releases
reported
to
the
National
Response
Center
(NRC).
A
full
description
of
our
search
is
in
the
docket
for
this
rule.
Most
of
the
cases
found
for
these
industries
typically
resulted
from
spills
or
releases
of
products,
and
did
not
provide
any
useful
information
of
possible
risks
presented
by
the
wastes
we
evaluated
for
listing.
In
a
few
cases
we
found
sites
on
the
Superfund
National
Priority
List
(NPL)
that
included
inorganic
manufacturing
processes.
However
these
sites
usually
encompassed
a
variety
of
chemical
manufacturing
and
mining
industries,
and
it
is
difficult
to
attribute
the
damage
reported
to
the
specific
inorganic
manufacturing
wastes
under
evaluation.
Furthermore,
contamination
at
these
sites
appears
linked
to
historical
management
practices
at
closed
or
inactive
manufacturing
plants,
and
these
were
not
useful
in
assessing
current
or
potential
hazards
for
the
wastes
at
issue.
In
addition,
Federal
and
State
regulatory
controls
are
now
in
place
that
would
prevent
mismanagement.
For
example,
many
of
the
wastes
examined
in
today's
proposal
are
regulated
as
characteristic
waste,
and
releases
or
disposal
to
the
land
are
addressed
under
the
existing
RCRA
regulations.
We
did
not
find
any
evidence
of
actual
damage
cases.
We
describe
our
decisions
under
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3)
in
more
detail
in
the
sector­
specific
discussion
in
section
III.
F
below,
and
in
the
background
documents.
Generally,
we
conducted
full­
scale
risk
modeling
for
18
wastes
in
5
sectors.
We
found
that
we
could
adequately
address
the
risks
of
the
remaining
wastes
with
a
variety
of
less
time­
consuming
approaches.
Some
were
qualitative;
others
were
quantitative,
but
not
as
complex
as
full
modeling.
We
evaluated
one
waste
using
the
single
criterion
set
out
in
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
1)
rather
than
the
eleven
factors
referenced
in
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3).
This
is
the
first
time
under
this
consent
decree
that
we
have
proposed
to
make
a
listing
decision
based
on
this
criterion.
It
relies
on
the
existing
characteristics
to
identify
wastes
posing
significant
risks
and
does
not
require
the
use
of
modeling.
See
the
discussion
of
wastes
from
the
production
of
antimony
oxide
in
section
III.
F.
1
of
the
preamble.
Our
proposed
listing
determinations
are
based
upon
estimates
of
individual
risk.
We
relied
on
individual
risk
estimates
(HQs
>
1),
and
not
population
risk
estimates,
because
we
are
concerned
about
risks
to
individuals
who
are
exposed
to
potential
releases
of
hazardous
constituents.
We
believe
that
using
individual
risk
as
a
basis
for
our
listing
determinations
(rather
than
population
risk
estimates)
also
is
appropriate
to
protect
against
potential
risks,
as
well
as
present
risks
that
may
arise
due
to
the
generation
and
management
of
particular
wastestreams.
EPA
acknowledges
that
in
cases
where
small
populations
are
exposed
to
particular
wastes
and
waste
management
practices,
population
risks
may
be
very
small.
We
did
not
attempt
to
calculate
population
risks
for
the
proposed
listings.
In
general,
we
expect
population
risks
arising
from
contaminated
groundwater
due
to
waste
management
to
be
small,
because
often
only
a
limited
number
of
domestic
wells
will
be
near
these
facilities,
and
groundwater
contamination
often
moves
very
slowly.
Nevertheless,
the
increased
risk
for
an
exposed
individual
may
be
significant.
In
proposing
the
listing
determinations
for
K176,
K177,
and
K178,
EPA
is
protecting
against
the
potential
risk
for
exposed
individuals,
regardless
of
how
many
individuals
are
exposed.
We
set
out
below
general
observations
about
some
of
our
approaches
to
risk
assessment.

2.
Characteristic
Hazardous
Waste
We
describe
in
Section
a.
below
our
analysis
for
wastes
which
are
``
100%
characteristic''Ð
wastes
which
all
generators
report
as
characteristic
and
which
all
generators
appear
to
manage
in
compliance
with
applicable
hazardous
waste
regulations.
We
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55692
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
3
On
April
9,
1999,
the
D.
C.
Circuit
in
Great
Lakes
Chemical
Corporation
v.
EPA
ordered
that
the
organobromine
listing
determinations
be
vacated.
Accordingly,
EPA
removed
the
listings
from
CFR
(see
65
FR
14472:
March
17,
2000).
describe
our
approach
to
wastes
which
are
occasionally
characteristicÐ
but
managed
in
complianceÐ
in
Section
b.
below.
Finally,
we
discuss
in
Section
c.
one
waste
which
appears
to
exhibit
a
characteristic
frequently,
but
does
not
appear
to
be
managed
in
compliance
with
hazardous
waste
regulations.
a.
Wastes
consistently
exhibiting
characteristics.
For
wastes
which
these
industries
identified
as
characteristic
and
managed
in
compliance
with
hazardous
waste
regulations,
we
are
proposing
to
find
that
there
is
no
``
plausible
mismanagement''
scenario
to
evaluate
for
listing.
(See
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3)(
vii).)
The
Subtitle
C
rules
applying
to
characteristic
wastes
adequately
protect
human
health
and
the
environment,
especially
where
waste
generators
are
complying
with
them.
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3)(
x)
authorizes
us
to
consider
actions
taken
by
other
regulatory
programs.
We
believe
we
can
reasonably
interpret
this
to
include
the
rules
for
characteristic
wastes
under
Subtitle
C
.
We
acknowledge
that
the
regulation
of
characteristic
wastes
differs
in
some
ways
from
the
regulation
of
listed
wastes.
For
example,
for
characteristic
wastes,
residues
from
treatment
required
by
the
land
disposal
restrictions
need
not
always
be
placed
in
hazardous
waste
disposal
units.
However,
we
do
not
regard
the
differences
as
``
mismanagement.
''
Rather,
we
believe
that
both
approaches
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
Consequently,
for
the
purposes
of
this
rule
we
decided
that
we
would
not
propose
to
list
a
``
100%
characteristic''
waste
unless
we
found
evidence
of
extraordinary
risks
under
one
or
more
of
the
other
factors
in
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3).
For
a
few
of
the
100%
characteristic
wastes
in
this
rule,
we
found
factors
warranting
further
consideration.
For
example,
we
found
that
the
sole
generator
of
cadmium
pigment
wastes
codes
them
as
hazardous,
arranges
for
treatment
to
comply
with
the
land
disposal
restrictions,
and
then
disposes
of
treated
residues
in
a
Subtitle
D
landfill.
At
the
same
time,
we
found
that
the
waste
contains
very
high
levels
of
cadmium.
We
decided
to
investigate
further
to
ensure
that
the
treatment
residues
did
not
present
significant
risks.
We
examined
data
relating
to
the
treatment
process
and
leachate
monitoring
data
from
the
landfill
receiving
the
residues.
Based
on
these
data,
we
concluded
that
the
residues
did
not
pose
risks
warranting
listing.
b.
Wastes
which
sometimes
exhibit
characteristics.
Information
submitted
in
responses
to
the
Section
3007
questionnaires
also
showed
that
there
are
a
number
of
wastes
that
exhibit
characteristics
at
some
facilities,
but
not
others.
Consistent
with
previous
listing
decisions
(see
for
example,
the
most
recent
petroleum
refining
listing
at
63
FR
42137),
we
focused
on
the
volumes
of
waste
that
did
not
exhibit
characteristics
in
our
listing
evaluation.
For
wastestreams
identified
as
exhibiting
characteristics
and
apparently
managed
in
compliance
with
applicable
regulations,
we
relied
on
the
``
no
plausible
mismanagement''
and
``
other
regulations''
analysis
described
above.
A
hypothetical
example
follows.
If
one
facility
generated
40
tons
per
year
of
a
properly­
managed
characteristic
waste,
and
a
second
facility
generated
60
tons
per
year
of
a
non­
characteristic
waste,
we
would
not
evaluate
the
total
of
100
tons
of
waste
under
a
single
approach.
Rather,
we
would
evaluate
the
characteristic
waste
under
the
approach
described
above.
For
the
waste
that
did
not
exhibit
a
characteristic,
we
would
conduct
the
type
of
risk
assessment
described
below
in
section
III.
E.
c.
Characteristic
wastes
not
managed
in
compliance
with
Subtitle
C.
In
one
case,
we
found
a
characteristic
waste
where
we
believe
that
existing
Subtitle
C
rules
do
not
adequately
prevent
mismanagement.
Four
facilities
generate
a
baghouse
filter
waste
from
the
production
of
antimony
oxide.
Data
from
our
sampling
and
analysis
at
2
facilities
showed
exceedences
of
the
toxicity
characteristic.
Two
facilities
recycle
these
wastes
in
a
manner
that
may
comply
with
applicable
regulations.
Two
other
facilities,
however,
did
not
identify
their
waste
as
characteristic
wastes,
and
appear
to
manage
them
in
ways
which
do
not
comply
with
Subtitle
C
rules.
Because
of
this
apparent
noncompliance,
we
concluded
that
it
would
be
appropriate
to
disregard
the
characteristic
rules
in
an
analysis
of
the
factors
in
40
CFR
261.(
a)(
3).
However,
we
also
concluded
that
it
was
not
necessary
to
conduct
such
an
analysis.
Since
this
waste
fails
the
toxicity
characteristic,
it
clearly
contains
levels
of
constituents
which
could
pose
threats
to
human
health
via
groundwater
when
placed
in
a
municipal
landfill,
if
leachate
were
to
migrate
to
a
drinking
water
well
at
sufficient
concentrations.
Since
the
generators
are
not
managing
the
wastes
in
compliance
with
applicable
Subtitle
C
regulations,
we
assume
that
this
type
of
mismanagement
could
occur
at
other
sites.
Accordingly,
we
exercised
our
authority
to
propose
to
list
this
waste
under
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
1).
As
noted
above,
this
provision
authorizes
(but
does
not
require)
EPA
to
list
wastes
that
exhibit
characteristics
without
the
analysis
required
under
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3).
We
believe
that
noncompliance
is
an
appropriate
reason
to
use
this
authority
to
list
a
characteristic
waste.
d.
Non­
characteristic
wastes
disposed
of
in
hazardous
waste
units.
We
identified
nine
wastes
which
do
not
appear
to
exhibit
any
characteristic,
but
which
are
disposed
of
in
Subtitle
C
management
units.
Four
of
these
wastes
are
sent
to
combustion
unit
regulated
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
The
remaining
5
wastes
are
sent
to
Subtitle
C
landfills.
We
found
that
all
of
these
wastes
receive
some
treatment
before
land
disposal.
In
one
case
available
data
indicates
that
the
waste
meets
applicable
LDR
treatment
standards
as
generated.
In
general,
these
wastes
have
very
limited
potential
for
mismanagement
under
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3)(
vii).
This
is
particularly
true
for
wastes
which
generators
place
in
on­
site,
Subtitle
C
units
with
ample
capacity.
Also,
in
some
cases,
some
of
the
wastes
are
generated
in
very
small
quantities
(less
than
1
metric
ton
per
year).
These
wastes
are
distinguishable
from
a
noncharacteristic
organobromine
waste
sent
to
a
hazardous
waste
unit
that
we
decided
to
list
in
1998.
That
waste
had
extremely
high
concentrations
of
a
constituent
posing
significant
risks,
and
received
no
treatment
(see
May
4,
1998;
63
FR
24596).
3
We
request
comment
on
the
individual
rationales
set
out
in
the
sector­
specific
discussions
and
the
background
documents.

3.
Evaluations
of
Particular
Units
and
Pathways
of
Release
We
are
proposing
to
find
that
some
pathways
of
release
from
some
units
present
low
risks
because
they
are
adequately
controlled
under
other
Federal
environmental
regulations
that
minimize
the
likelihood
of
releases.
We
are
also
proposing
to
find
that
other
risk
pathways
present
low
risks
due
to
physical
or
chemical
attributes
of
the
wastes.
In
some
cases,
we
evaluated
all
release
pathways
at
a
single
unit
under
a
combination
of
these
approaches.
a.
Wastewater
management.
Facilities
in
these
industries
generally
treat
wastewaters
in
on­
site
wastewater
treatment
plants
and
discharge
to
surface
waters,
or
pretreat
the
waste
and
discharge
to
an
off­
site
wastewater
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00010
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55693
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
4
In
fact,
40
CFR
261.4
excludes
``
any
mixture
of
domestic
sewage
and
other
wastes
that
passes
through
a
sewer
system
to
a
POTW
for
treatment''
(40
CFR
261.4(
a)(
1)(
ii),
and
industrial
wastewater
discharges
that
are
point
source
discharges
subject
to
regulation
under
Section
402
of
the
CWA
(40
CFR
261.4(
a)(
2)).
5
Clean
Air
ActÐ
Title
III:
Upcoming
MACT
StandardsÐ
Cyanide
Chemical
Manufacturing;
Unified
Air
Toxics
Website:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
uatw/
mactupd.
html:
The
hydrogen
cynaide
industry
would
also
be
subject
to
regulations
under
40
CFR
Part
60,
Subpart
YYY
under
the
CAA
for
volatile
organic
compound
(VOC)
emissions
from
wastewater
treatment
at
facilities
in
the
synthetic
organic
chemical
manufacturing
industry
(SOCMI),
which
was
proposed
September
19,
1994
(59
FR
46780).
treatment
facility,
e.
g.,
a
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works
(POTW).
Under
the
Clean
Water
Act
(CWA),
discharges
to
surface
waters
are
controlled
under
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(NPDES)
and
require
an
NPDES
permit,
while
discharges
to
a
POTW
are
subject
to
State
and
national
pretreatment
standards.
4
Point
source
discharges
for
the
various
sectors
in
the
inorganics
listing
are
regulated
under
the
CWA
by
the
effluent
guidelines
and
pretreatment
standards
in
40
CFR
Parts
415
(Inorganic
chemical
manufacturing)
and
422
(Phosphate
manufacturing).
Therefore,
we
did
not
evaluate
NPDES
effluent
or
discharges
to
POTWs
in
today's
proposal.
This
approach
is
consistent
with
other
listing
rules.
See,
for
example,
60
FR
57759
(November
20,
1995,
petroleum
refining
wastes
proposal).
In
a
few
cases,
facilities
reported
disposal
of
wastewaters
by
deep
well
injection
in
a
permitted
Class
I
UIC
hazardous
waste
injection
well.
In
these
cases,
the
wells
were
units
regulated
by
the
Underground
Injection
Control
(UIC)
program
under
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
(40
CFR
Part
144).
These
wells
also
had
no
migration
exemptions
under
Section
148.20
to
allow
disposal
of
untreated
hazardous
waste.
Therefore,
we
did
not
evaluate
this
scenario
further.
For
surface
impoundments,
we
concluded
that
releases
to
air
were
not
likely
to
present
concerns.
For
most
sectors,
the
constituents
of
concern
are
nonvolatile
metals,
and
this
makes
volatilization
a
highly
unlikely
pathway
for
constituents
from
normal
wastewater
treatment
practices.
We
recognize
that
releases
of
volatile
organic
chemicals
from
impoundments
may
be
a
potential
route
of
concern
for
one
sector,
inorganic
hydrogen
cyanide
production.
EPA
is
developing
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(MACT)
standards
for
cyanide
manufacturing
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(CAA),
which
may
address
these
emissions.
5
EPA
is
evaluating
possible
air
releases
from
wastewaters
in
impoundments
as
part
of
the
MACT
rulemaking.
Therefore,
we
did
not
do
any
further
evaluation
of
these
emissions
as
part
of
today's
listing
determination.
We
assessed
the
potential
for
groundwater
releases
from
the
impoundments.
For
sectors
and
wastes
where
facilities
did
not
use
surface
impoundments
for
wastewater
management,
we
determined
that
``
plausible
mismanagement''
would
be
continued
management
in
existing
tank­
based
treatment
systems.
We
do
not
view
abandonment
of
existing
treatment
systems
for
surface
impoundments
as
``
plausible,
''
because
the
manufacturers
have
already
made
a
considerable
investment
in
wastewater
treatment
systems
using
tanks
and
will
continue
to
use
them.
Further,
we
assumed
that
wastewater
treatment
tanks
retain
sufficient
structural
integrity
to
prevent
wastewater
releases
to
the
subsurface
(and
therefore
to
groundwater),
and
that
overflow
and
spill
controls
prevent
significant
wastewater
releases.
Thus,
based
on
the
lack
of
any
significant
likelihood
of
release
of
the
constituents
to
groundwater,
we
did
not
project
significant
risks
to
groundwater
from
these
wastes
in
the
tank­
based
wastewater
treatment
scenario.
We
did
not
model
any
releases
to
groundwater
from
tanks.
This
is
consistent
with
our
approach
in
other
listing
rules
(see,
for
example,
the
proposed
rule
for
chlorinated
aliphatics
production
wastes
at
64
FR
46476;
August
25,
1999).
We
also
considered
the
possibility
of
air
releases
from
tanks.
For
most
wastes,
the
constituents
of
concern
are
nonvolatile
metals,
making
volatilization
a
very
unlikely
pathway
of
release
from
tanks.
For
the
hydrogen
cyanide
sector,
where
volatile
compounds
are
likely
and
tanks
are
used
in
wastewater
treatment
systems,
the
tanks
will
also
be
covered
by
other
CAA
regulations
as
described
above.
In
addition,
in
many
cases
facilities
have
installed
tank
covers,
further
reducing
the
likelihood
of
release
to
the
air.
As
a
result,
we
have
not
modeled
releases
to
air
from
tanks
for
any
wastes
in
this
listing
determination.
b.
Waste
solids
management.
We
concluded
that
we
did
not
need
to
model
any
releases
of
volatile
constituents
from
solids
for
the
same
reasons
set
out
above.
The
management
practices
of
concern
for
waste
solids
were
landfills,
including
disposal
in
onsite
and
off­
site
landfills,
and
in
a
few
cases,
waste
piles.
We
evaluated
the
potential
for
groundwater
releases
from
all
landfills
and
piles.
We
also
considered
the
possibility
of
releases
of
airborne
particulates
by
a
multistep
process
where
we
compared
the
total
concentrations
of
the
constituents
of
concern
to
a
series
of
soil
screening
levels
(see
section
III.
E.
3).

4.
Evaluation
of
Secondary
Materials
RCRA
gives
EPA
jurisdiction
only
over
materials
that
are
discarded.
EPA's
current
definition
of
discard
is
set
out
in
the
definition
of
solid
waste
at
40
CFR
261.2.
Under
this
approach,
process
residuals
(or
``
secondary
materials'')
destined
for
recycling
are
solid
wastes
within
our
jurisdiction
if
the
recycling
closely
resembles
waste
management.
Conversely,
if
the
materials
are
recycled
as
part
of
an
ongoing
manufacturing
process,
they
are
not
solid
wastes.
The
existing
rules
specifically
exclude
secondary
materials
from
jurisdiction
that
are
used
directly
(without
reclamation),
as
ingredients
in
manufacturing
processes
to
make
new
products,
used
directly
as
effective
substitutes
for
commercial
products,
or
returned
directly
to
the
original
process
from
which
they
are
generated
as
a
substitute
for
raw
material
feedstock.
40
CFR
261.2(
e).
In
addition,
the
existing
rules
allow
for
closed
loop
reclamation
where
secondary
materials
can
be
reclaimed
and
returned
to
the
original
production
process
provided
that
the
entire
process
is
closed,
the
reclamation
does
not
involve
controlled
flame
combustion,
and
the
reclaimed
material
is
not
used
to
produce
a
fuel
or
a
material
that
is
used
in
a
manner
constituting
disposal.
(40
CFR
261.4(
a)(
8))
As
discussed
in
the
January
4,
1985,
rulemaking,
these
are
activities
which,
as
a
general
matter,
resemble
ongoing
manufacturing
operations
more
than
conventional
waste
management
and
so
are
more
appropriately
classified
as
not
involving
solid
wastes.
However,
materials
which
would
otherwise
qualify
for
exclusion
under
these
provisions
are
not
excluded
if
EPA
finds
that
the
recycling
is
not
legitimate.
EPA
considers
a
variety
of
economic
and
chemical
factors
when
it
determines
whether
or
not
a
specific
recycling
practice
is
legitimate.
(See
Memorandum
from
Sylvia
K.
Lowrance,
Director
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
concerning
F006
Recycling,
dated
April
26,
1989).
These
determinations
are
very
site­
specific
and
tend
to
be
very
time
consuming.
EPA
typically
makes
them
in
the
context
of
site­
specific
enforcement
or
permitting
actions.
The
existing
rules,
however,
do
not
exclude
materials
that
are
either
contained
in
or
used
to
produce
fuels
or
that
are
directly
used,
or
incorporated
into
a
product
that
is
used,
in
a
manner
constituting
disposal.
EPA
asserts
RCRA
jurisdiction
for
these
types
of
use/
reuse
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00011
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55694
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
6
On
May
26,
1998,
we
promulgated
a
conditional
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
for
secondary
materials
(other
than
listed
wastes)
generated
within
the
primary
mineral
processing
industry
from
which
minerals,
acids,
cyanide,
water,
or
other
values
are
recovered
by
mineral
processing,
with
certain
provisions.
Because
this
conditional
exclusion
only
applied
to
non­
listed
wastes,
and
we
were
making
listing
determinations,
we
did
not
use
this
exclusion
as
a
basis
to
not
evaluate
wastes
for
listing
purposes.
On
April
21,
2000,
the
D.
C.
Circuit
Court
issued
a
decision
vacating
a
portion
of
this
conditional
exclusion.
[See
Association
of
Battery
Recyclers,
Inc.
v.
EPA.
208
F.
3d
1047
(D.
C.
Cir.
2000)].
circumstances
as
they
more
closely
resemble
conventional
waste
management
rather
than
ongoing
manufacturing.
(See
50
FR
637±
640,
January
4,
1985).
A
series
of
court
decisions
also
address
the
issue
of
our
jurisdiction
over
recycled
materials.
In
general,
they
hold
that
EPA
lacks
authority
to
regulate
materials
that
are
immediately
reused
in
an
ongoing
manufacturing
or
industrial
process.
American
Mining
Congress
v.
EPA
(824
F.
2d
1177
(D.
C.
Cir.
1987)
(AMC
I));
American
Mining
Congress
v.
EPA
(907
F.
2d
1179,
1186
(D.
C.
Cir.
1990)
(AMC
II));
American
Petroleum
Institute
v.
EPA
(216
F.
3d
50
(D.
C.
Cir.
2000)).
The
most
recent
decision,
Association
of
Battery
Recyclers,
Inc.
v.
EPA
(208
F.
3d
1047
(D.
C.
Cir
2000)),
remanded
a
rule
regulating
the
reuse
of
some
closely
related
materials.
We
are
still
evaluating
the
impacts
of
this
decision.
However,
the
remand
does
not
affect
this
rule
because
we
are
not
relying
on
the
exemptions
in
the
remanded
rule.
6
For
almost
all
of
the
residual
materials
from
these
manufacturing
processes
which
are
re­
used
or
recycled
in
some
way,
we
decided
not
to
attempt
to
determine
whether
the
recycling
practice
is
not
subject
to
regulation
under
the
court
decisions
and
regulations
described
above.
Such
determinations
can
be
very
timeconsuming
particularly
where
we
find
recycling
practices
that
appear
not
to
be
regulated,
and
then
need
to
determine
whether
or
not
such
practices
are
legitimate.
Consequently,
we
decided
that
it
would
be
more
efficient
to
examine
first
the
potential
risks
posed
by
the
reported
recycling
practices.
If
we
found
no
significant
risks,
we
would
decide
not
to
list
the
material.
If,
on
the
other
hand,
we
found
risks,
we
evaluate
the
recycling
practice
prior
to
making
a
listing
decision.
To
assess
the
risks
of
materials
recycled
on­
site
by
reusing
them
in
one
of
the
consent
decree
manufacturing
processes,
we
first
evaluated
the
management
of
the
materials
prior
to
their
re­
use.
We
looked
for
closed
piping,
covers
on
containers,
or
similar
barriers
to
releases
to
the
environment.
Where
we
found
such
management
practices,
we
determined
that
there
was
no
significant
potential
for
releases.
We
then
evaluated
the
potential
for
releases
from
the
consent
decree
process
itself.
We
found
that
the
only
points
at
which
releases
were
expected
were
either
those
where
we
were
already
evaluating
solid
wastes
for
the
purposes
of
this
listing
or
points
where
the
facility
released
uncontained
gases
outside
of
RCRA
jurisdiction.
Consequently,
we
felt
that
we
were
evaluating
all
of
the
potential
risks
(within
our
jurisdiction)
associated
with
the
recycling
of
these
materials.
In
the
antimony
oxide
sector,
however,
we
found
one
residual
that
was
being
held
in
containers
for
several
years
for
potential
reuse.
Our
rules
identify
this
practice
as
``
speculative
accumulation''
and
classify
the
materials
held
in
such
a
manner
as
solid
wastes.
Accordingly,
we
assessed
the
risks
posed
by
these
accumulated
wastes.
We
found
that
a
few
materials
are
inserted
into
separate
manufacturing
processes
co­
located
on­
site
with
consent
decree
processes.
We
evaluated
the
potential
for
releases
prior
to
reinsertion
into
that
separate
process.
However,
as
explained
above
in
section
III.
B,
we
did
not
evaluate
any
risks
posed
by
use
of
residuals
in
processes
that
are
not
subject
to
our
consent
decree
deadline.
We
also
considered
the
risks
of
materials
recycled
off­
site.
We
considered
the
potential
for
release
before
the
materials
were
transferred
offsite
We
did
not
assess
the
off­
site
uses
which
involved
non­
consent
decree
manufacturing
processes.
In
a
few
cases,
however,
we
found
that
the
reuse
involved
land
placement
or
burning
for
energy
recovery.
These
activities
are
always
regulated
as
waste
management
under
the
rules
and
court
decisions
described
above.
In
those
cases,
we
concluded
that
the
materials
were
wastes
from
the
consent
decree
process
where
they
were
generated,
and
we
evaluated
risks
posed
by
the
use.
For
example,
we
evaluated
the
risks
posed
by
use
of
residual
materials
from
the
production
of
boric
acid
as
fuels
for
cement
kilns.
In
one
case
involving
antimony
oxide
residuals,
we
found
that
the
residuals
were
sent
off­
site
to
another
smelter
producing
antimony
oxide.
This
smelter
happens
to
be
located
outside
of
the
country.
We
did
not
evaluate
risks
from
its
residuals,
as
we
have
no
legal
jurisdiction
to
regulate
them.
We
have
evaluated
the
production
of
antimony
oxide
within
the
U.
S.
in
this
rulemaking,
so
we
have
evaluated
the
risks
that
would
be
posed
if
this
generator
changed
its
practice
and
sent
the
materials
to
an
antimony
oxide
smelter
located
within
the
U.
S.
For
purposes
of
convenience,
in
the
sector
specific
discussions
below
(and
in
the
various
background
documents)
we
describe
all
of
the
residuals
as
wastes.
We
emphasize,
however,
that
we
have
not
determined
whether
any
of
the
residuals
that
are
recycled
are
solid
wastes
as
defined
in
40
CFR
260.2.
We
believe
it
is
more
appropriate
to
leave
such
site­
specific
determinations
to
other
decision­
making
processes.

E.
Description
of
Risk
Assessment
Approaches
Before
turning
to
the
details
of
the
risk
assessment
approaches
used,
we
want
to
highlight
two
general
issues.
First,
we
note
that
for
this
proposal
we
used
a
variety
of
screening
methodologies
to
assess
a
large
number
of
wastes.
Due
to
time
constraints
imposed
by
the
consent
decree
schedule,
we
chose
Ðwhere
appropriateÐ
to
use
these
methodologies
rather
than
conducting
more
time­
consuming,
full­
scale,
risk
assessment
modeling.
In
general,
however,
we
believe
that
these
screening
methodologies
conservatively
assessed
risks,
so
that
wastes
that
we
``
screened
out''
are
unlikely
to
present
significant
risks.
Second,
we
want
to
describe
our
selection
of
plausible
mismanagement
practices
for
both
screening
and
full
modeling
assessments.
In
general,
we
assessed
the
types
of
management
units
which,
according
to
data
available
to
us,
facilities
have
actually
used
or
contemplated
using.
Frequently,
we
found
that
facilities
had
made
economic
investments
that
would
make
them
likely
to
continue
to
use
the
same
types
of
units.
For
example,
where
facilities
had
paid
to
install
tanks
to
store
or
treat
wastes,
we
assumed
that
they
would
continue
to
use
tanks
rather
than
place
wastes
in
pits
or
surface
impoundments.
Furthermore,
we
found
that
some
waste
quantities
were
so
large
that
it
would
be
prohibitively
expensive
to
transport
wastes
off­
site.
Similarly,
where
facilities
had
installed
piping
to
return
residual
materials
to
their
production
processes,
we
assumed
that
they
would
continue
to
use
these
systems
to
recycle
those
residuals.
We
also
assumed
that
such
facilities
had
found
it
more
economical
to
return
those
residuals
to
their
processes,
and
were
thus
not
likely
to
send
them
to
landfills
or
other
types
of
disposal
units.
We
seek
comment
on
all
data,
assumptions
and
methodologies
used
in
our
risk
assessment
for
this
proposal.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00012
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55695
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
7
EPA's
Integrated
Risk
Information
System
(IRIS)
may
be
found
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
iris.
See
also
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes''
(August
2000)
for
a
discussion
of
the
toxicity
benchmark
values
used
in
today's
rule.
1.
What
Risk
Thresholds
Were
Used?
EPA's
listing
program
generally
defines
risk
levels
of
concern
for
carcinogens
as
risks
within
or
above
a
range
of
1´10
­6
to
1´10
­4
(from
1
in
1,000,000
to
1
in
10,000)
at
the
upper
end
of
the
risk
distribution
(e.
g.,
90th
or
95th
percentile
risk
for
a
particular
exposure
scenario).
The
level
of
concern
for
non­
cancer
effects
is
generally
indicated
by
a
hazard
quotient
(HQ)
of
1
or
greater
at
the
upper
end
of
the
distribution.
Consistent
with
the
listing
policy
described
in
the
dyes
and
pigments
proposal
(59
FR
66075±
66078)
we
used
a
1´10
­5
risk
level
and/
or
HQs
of
one
to
identify
which
wastes
are
candidates
for
listing.
To
make
a
listing
determination,
we
then
used
a
weightof
evidence
approach
that
considers
the
risk
estimates
along
with
other
information
related
to
the
factors
described
in
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3).
For
cancer,
a
risk
threshold
of
one
in
1,000,000
represents
the
probability
that
an
individual
will
develop
cancer
over
a
lifetime
as
a
result
of
exposure
to
a
chemical
contaminant.
When
we
estimate
the
lifetime
excess
cancer
risk,
we
use
an
upper
bound
estimate
of
the
carcinogenic
slope
factor
(CSF)
as
derived
from
laboratory
studies
in
animals
or
from
human
epidemiological
studies.
In
addition,
because
the
CSF
typically
relies
on
a
number
of
extrapolations
(e.
g.,
from
animals
to
humans
and
from
high
doses
to
low
doses)
there
is
some
uncertainty
in
the
value
of
the
CSF.
For
non­
cancer
effects,
which
include
a
wide
variety
of
health
effects,
we
used
EPA's
reference
dose
(RfD)
as
a
risk
threshold.
A
reference
dose
is
an
estimate
of
an
oral
exposure
that
is
likely
to
be
without
an
appreciable
risk
of
adverse
effects
in
the
general
population,
including
sensitive
individuals,
over
a
lifetime.
The
RfD
can
be
derived
from
a
NOAEL,
LOAEL,
or
benchmark
dose.
Uncertainty
factors
are
applied
to
address
limitations
of
the
available
toxicological
data
and
are
necessary
to
ensure
the
RfD
is
protective
of
individuals
in
the
general
population.
The
use
of
uncertainty
factors
is
based
on
long­
standing
scientific
practice.
Uncertainty
factors
when
combined
commonly
range
from
10
to
1000
depending
on
the
nature
and
quality
of
the
underlying
data.
The
RfD
methodology
is
expected
to
have
an
uncertainty
spanning
perhaps
an
order
of
magnitude.
To
assess
risks
associated
with
non­
cancer
effects,
we
used
a
hazard
quotient
(HQ),
which
is
defined
as
the
ratio
of
the
estimated
dose
of
a
given
chemical
to
an
individual
to
the
reference
dose
for
that
chemical.
A
hazard
quotient
(HQ)
of
one
(1)
indicates
that
the
estimated
dose
is
equal
to
the
reference
dose
(RfD)
and,
therefore
an
HQ
of
1
is
EPA's
threshold
of
concern
for
non­
cancer
effects.
Usually,
doses
less
than
the
RfD
(HQ<
1)
are
not
likely
to
be
associated
with
adverse
health
risks
and,
therefore,
are
less
likely
to
be
of
regulatory
concern.
As
the
frequency
and/
or
magnitude
of
the
exposures
exceeding
the
RfD
increase
(HQ>
1),
the
probability
of
adverse
effects
in
a
human
population
increases.
However,
it
should
not
be
categorically
concluded
that
all
doses
below
the
RfD
are
``
acceptable''
(or
will
be
risk­
free)
and
that
all
doses
in
excess
of
the
RfD
are
``
unacceptable''
(or
will
result
in
adverse
effects).
The
values
of
the
CSF
and
RfD
that
we
use
for
assessing
risks
are
generally
taken
from
EPA's
on­
line
toxicity
data
base
called
IRIS.
However,
in
some
cases
we
used
EPA's
compilation
of
toxicity
benchmarks
known
as
HEAST
or
other
sources,
such
as
toxicological
issue
papers
prepared
by
EPA's
National
Center
for
Environmental
Assessment
(NCEA).
7
2.
What
Leaching
Procedures
Were
Used?
As
noted
in
III.
C,
we
used
the
TCLP
and
SPLP
leaching
procedures
to
evaluate
the
wastes
in
today's
rule.
EPA
developed
the
TCLP
as
a
tool
to
predict
the
leaching
of
constituents
from
the
waste
in
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill,
and
the
TC
regulations
use
this
method
to
determine
if
a
waste
is
hazardous
under
261.24
(see
the
Toxicity
Characteristic
rule,
55
FR
46369;
November
2,
1990).
We
have
also
used
the
TCLP
in
the
listing
program
to
estimate
leaching
concentrations
for
use
in
groundwater
modeling
(for
example,
see
the
recent
petroleum
listing,
63
FR
42110,
August
6,
1998).
We
believe
the
TCLP
is
the
most
appropriate
leaching
procedure
to
use
for
wastes
in
municipal
landfills,
because
the
leaching
solution
is
similar
to
the
type
of
leachate
generated
from
the
decomposition
of
municipal
waste.
The
TCLP
leaching
solution
is
a
solution
containing
acetic
acid
that
is
adjusted
to
a
pH
of
4.93
or
2.88,
depending
on
the
acidity
of
the
waste
sample.
EPA
developed
the
SPLP
as
a
method
to
predict
leaching
from
wastes
or
soils
under
exposure
to
the
slightly
acidic,
dilute
solution
generated
by
normal
rainfall.
The
SPLP
test
uses
a
leach
solution
which
mimics
acid
rain,
while
the
TCLP
uses
a
leach
solution
which
mimics
acids
formed
in
municipal
landfills.
In
past
actions,
EPA
has
recognized
that
the
TCLP's
use
of
organic
acids
may
not
be
appropriate
for
disposal
scenarios
that
do
not
involve
municipal
landfills.
For
example,
in
the
proposed
rule
for
management
and
disposal
of
lead­
based
paint
debris,
EPA
used
the
SPLP
to
assess
leaching
from
landfills
that
do
not
accept
municipal
wastes
(see
63
FR
70189;
December
18,
1998).
Similarly,
EPA
utilized
the
SPLP
in
screening
low
hazard
wastes
as
part
of
its
1989
Bevill
determination
(see
54
FR
36592;
September
1,
1989).
In
the
context
of
EPA's
more
recent
mineral
processing
sector
actions,
we
considered
the
relative
merits
of
both
the
TCLP
and
the
SPLP
for
various
wastes
in
the
mineral
processing
industries;
EPA
decided
to
continue
to
rely
on
the
TCLP
for
defining
characteristically
hazardous
Bevill
wastes,
in
part
because
we
found
that
disposal
in
municipal
landfills
did
occur
for
some
sectors.
See
the
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
Phase
IV
Final
Rule
at
63
FR
28598
(May
26,
1998).
For
today's
rule,
however,
we
have
specific
data
showing
that
some
wastes
do
not
go
to
municipal
landfills
and
are
unlikely
to
be
disposed
of
in
municipal
landfills.
We
used
the
SPLP
sampling
results
for
wastes
that
were
not
likely
to
go
to
municipal
landfills,
and
we
used
the
TCLP
results
for
wastes
going
to
municipal
landfills.

3.
How
Were
Wastes
Screened
To
Determine
If
Further
Assessment
Was
Needed?
We
used
a
number
of
approaches
to
eliminate
from
further
consideration
those
wastes
that
could
not
plausibly
pose
unacceptable
risks.
This
served
to
identify
those
wastes
and
chemical
constituents
that
required
further
assessment.
Different
screening
approaches
were
used
depending
on
the
type
of
waste
management
practices
employed
in
the
industry
and,
in
some
instances,
the
waste
volume
and
the
location
of
the
waste
management
units.
For
wastes
that
are
managed
in
landfills,
groundwater
contamination
is
the
primary
source
of
human
exposures,
particularly
for
certain
metals
and
other
inorganic
compounds
that
are
nonvolatile,
such
as
those
present
in
the
wastes
that
are
the
subject
of
today's
rule.
We
compared
leachate
concentrations
derived
from
the
TCLP
or
SPLP
test
measurements
to
levels
in
drinking
water
that
are
protective
of
human
health.
These
levels,
referred
to
as
health­
based
levels
(HBLs),
are
designed
to
be
protective
of
both
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55696
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
8
Details
on
how
HBLs
are
derived
may
be
found
in
the
risk
assessment
background
document
for
today's
proposal,
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes''
(August
2000).
9
We
used
professional
judgment
to
screen
out
constituents
with
concentrations
within
a
factor
of
two
of
the
HBLs.
Historically,
our
models
have
suggested
that
the
dilution
and
attenuation
of
constituents
in
the
subsurface
will
generally
result
in
dilution
and
attenuation
factors
(DAFs)
of
2
or
greater.
(See,
for
example,
the
DAFs
estimated
for
the
petroleum
refining
listing
determination,
63
FR
42110,
and
the
docket
for
today's
rulemaking
for
DAFs
calculated
to
support
today's
proposal.)
If
our
consideration
of
site­
specific
factors
had
indicated
that
a
very
low
DAF
were
likely
for
actual
exposure
(e.
g.
known
drinking
water
wells
placed
very
close
to
the
management
until
boundary),
we
would
have
modeled
that
waste
rather
than
screening
it
out
using
professional
judgment.
10
Different
statistics
may
be
used
for
characterizing
background
levels
depending
on
the
data
available.
The
mathematical
properties
of
the
arithmetic
mean
allow
it
to
be
used
when
only
average
values
rather
than
the
original
data
are
available.
However,
if
the
original
data
are
available,
the
data
can
be
pooled
and
a
geometric
mean
can
be
calculated.
If
the
data
are
positively
skewed,
as
is
often
the
case,
the
arithmetic
mean
will
be
higher
than
the
geometric
mean.
We
consider
either
statistic
to
be
a
central
tendency
measure
of
background
levels.
However,
background
levels
are
highly
variable
and
may
be
considerably
higher
or
lower
than
the
national
average
at
any
given
location.
See,
for
example,
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
paper
``
Elemental
Concentrations
in
Soils
and
Other
Surficial
Materials
in
the
Conterminous
United
States,
''
paper
1270,
U.
S.
Government
Printing
Office,
1984.
11
See
U.
S.
EPA,
``
Revised
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Air
Characteristic
Study,
''
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
EPA
530±
R±
99±
019,
November
1999.
children
and
adults.
Health­
based
levels
(HBLs)
are
levels
in
environmental
media
that
would
not
exceed
EPA's
risk
thresholds
given
conservative
assumptions
regarding
exposure
(e.
g.,
a
level
in
drinking
water
that
would
not
exceed
a
risk
threshold
for
an
individual
whose
drinking
water
intake
was
at
the
high
end
of
the
distribution
for
the
general
population).
8
Although
an
HBLs
represents
a
concentration
level
at
the
point
of
exposure,
we
conservatively
assumed
direct
contact
with
the
wastes
(i.
e.,
no
dilution)
for
the
purpose
of
screening
out
wastes
and
chemical
constituents
that
could
not
pose
unacceptable
risks
and,
therefore,
do
not
merit
further
analysis.
As
explained
previously,
we
used
SPLP
measurements
for
wastes
that
are
managed
in
landfills
containing
only
industrial
wastes
and
TCLP
measurements
for
wastes
that
are
managed
in
landfills
which
also
contain
municipal
wastes.
For
wastewaters
that
are
managed
in
surface
impoundments,
we
used
the
concentration
in
the
filtered
liquid
(i.
e.,
the
SPLP
filtrate)
because
the
filtrate
is
more
representative
of
the
fraction
of
the
waste
that
could
infiltrate
into
the
subsurface
environment.
Regardless
of
the
type
of
measurement,
if
the
result
of
the
chemical
analysis
for
a
particular
compound
was
below
the
limit
of
detection
but
the
compound
was
detected
in
the
waste,
then
we
used
1
¤2
the
value
reported
by
the
laboratory
as
the
limit
of
detection
for
that
compound.
Any
chemical
contaminant
in
a
waste
that
did
not
screen
out
against
HBLs
(i.
e.,
the
waste
concentration
was
a
factor
of
2
or
less
times
the
HBLs
9
)
we
identified
as
a
constituent
of
concern
(CoC)
requiring
further
assessment.
However,
very
low
volume
wastes
were
subject
to
further
screening,
as
described
below.
For
very
low
volume
wastes
that
did
not
screen
out
against
HBLs,
we
performed
an
additional
conservative
screen
to
determine
if
the
waste
could
plausibly
pose
a
risk
to
human
health
when
disposed
of
in
a
landfill.
Typically
wastes
generated
in
volumes
of
less
than
1
or
2
metric
tons
per
year
were
considered
as
candidates
for
this
de
minimis
analysis.
This
analysis
assumed
that
the
entire
mass
of
the
chemical
contaminant
in
a
volume
of
waste
that
is
generated
in
a
year's
time
would
leach
out
of
the
waste
and
infiltrate
into
groundwater
in
the
same
year.
The
only
dilution
that
was
assumed
to
occur
was
with
the
volume
of
water
that
infiltrated
into
the
landfill.
To
minimize
the
amount
of
dilution
we
chose
a
conservative
infiltration
rate
based
on
the
infiltration
that
could
occur
for
a
relatively
low
permeability
soil
underlying
a
relatively
small
landfill
(corresponding
to
the
10th
percentile
of
the
distribution
of
municipal
landfill
areas
nationwide).
However,
in
some
cases
the
resulting
infiltration
was
less
than
the
amount
of
water
that
would
be
withdrawn
from
a
well
by
a
household
for
domestic
usage.
In
these
instances,
we
diluted
the
infiltrate
into
the
minimum
volume
of
water
needed
to
support
a
household
well,
which
we
estimated
from
data
on
U.
S.
per
capita
water
consumption
assuming
a
family
of
four.
The
concentration
derived
using
this
procedure
was
then
compared
to
the
HBLs.
Any
chemical
contaminant
that
did
not
screen
out
as
a
result
of
this
analysis
we
identified
as
a
constituent
of
concern
(CoC)
requiring
further
assessment.
While
we
do
expect
the
de
minimis
screen
to
be
conservative
overall,
the
degree
to
which
it
is
conservative
depends
on
many
waste
and
site­
specific
factors.
(For
example,
our
sampling
and
analysis
data
indicate
that
in
some
cases
essentially
all
of
the
chemical
constituent
leached
out
of
the
sample
over
the
duration
of
the
leach
test.)
For
wastes
managed
in
waste
piles
and
landfills,
we
performed
a
multilevel
screening
analysis
to
determine
if
further
assessment
of
the
air
pathway
was
needed.
Wind
blown
dust
from
wastes
managed
in
piles
is
a
potential
source
of
human
exposures.
This
pathway
is
also
possible
for
landfills,
but
likely
to
result
in
much
lower
releases
due
to
the
common
usage
of
daily
and
longer­
term
cover
at
landfills.
In
the
first
level
screen
we
compared
the
waste
contaminant
total
concentrations
to
background
levels
in
soils.
Background
soil
levels
were
taken
from
published
compilations
of
levels
in
native
soils
nationwide
and
were
generally
characterized
using
a
geometric
mean
or
(in
a
few
instances)
an
arithmetic
mean
concentration
of
the
available
data.
10
If
the
waste
concentrations
exceeded
background
levels
in
soils,
we
performed
a
second
level
screen
by
comparing
the
waste
concentrations
with
soil
ingestion
HBLs.
Soil
ingestion
HBLs
assume
direct
contact
with
the
waste
and,
therefore,
are
more
conservative
than
HBLs
based
on
inhalation
exposures.
In
those
instances
when
the
waste
concentrations
exceeded
both
background
levels
and
soil
ingestion
HBLs,
we
performed
a
third
level
screen
using
the
results
of
EPA's
air
characteristics
study.
This
study
developed
levels
of
chemical
contaminants
in
wastes
that
are
protective
of
human
health
with
respect
to
inhalation
exposures
when
managed
in
a
variety
of
ways.
11
In
particular,
air
characteristic
levels
were
developed
for
waste
piles
at
several
different
distances
from
a
potential
receptor.
We
used
the
air
characteristic
levels
corresponding
to
a
downwind
distance
of
25
or
150
meters
(80
or
500
feet).
Because
the
air
characteristic
levels
include
the
effect
of
atmospheric
dilution,
they
are
significantly
higher
than
soil
ingestion
HBLs.
In
most
cases
waste
concentrations
are
either
below
background
or
below
soil
ingestion
HBLs
for
the
wastes
EPA
evaluated.
Moreover,
we
found
no
instances
in
which
air
characteristic
levels
are
exceeded.
In
the
cases
where
waste
concentrations
exceeded
the
soil
ingestion
levels,
the
exceedence
was
typically
less
than
a
factor
of
2
to
3.
We
believe
it
is
highly
unlikely
that
off­
site
exceedences
due
to
windblown
dust
from
piles
or
landfills
would
actually
exceed
the
soil
ingestion
levels
given
this
low
level
of
exceedence
in
the
waste.
Therefore,
we
conclude
that
risks
associated
with
particulates
from
piles
and
landfills
transported
by
an
air
pathway
are
not
significant
and
no
further
assessment
is
needed.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00014
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55697
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
12
See
the
risk
assessment
background
document
for
today's
proposal,
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wasters''
(August
2000).
13
See
EPA's
``
Exposure
Factors
Handbook''
(EPA/
600/
P±
95/
002Fa),
August
1997,
for
additional
details
on
human
exposure
factors.
14
We
relied
upon
the
probabilistic
risk
estimates
for
today's
proposal.
However,
both
deterministic
and
probabilistic
approaches
are
presented
in
the
risk
assessment
background
document.
15
See
HWIR
proposal
at
64
FR
63429,
November
19,
1999,
and
the
final
rule
for
the
recent
listing
of
wastes
from
petroleum
refining
at
63
FR
42157,
August
6,
1998.
EPA
derived
HBLs
for
chemical
contaminants
from
toxicity
benchmarks
and
a
set
of
exposure
assumptions
that
differ
depending
on
the
type
of
health
effect
and
exposure
pathway.
For
carcinogenic
effects,
HBLs
were
derived
from
a
cancer
slope
factor
(CSF)
for
the
oral
route
of
exposure.
For
non­
cancer
effects,
HBLs
were
derived
from
EPA's
oral
reference
dose
(RfD)
for
the
compound.
Risk
thresholds
were
as
described
previously.
Drinking
water
and
soil
ingestion
HBLs
for
individual
chemical
contaminants
are
presented
elsewhere.
12
The
exposure
assumptions
we
used
for
deriving
the
HBLs
are
described
as
follows.
For
drinking
water
exposures,
we
derived
HBLs
for
carcinogenic
effects
for
an
adult
exposed
for
30
years
and
having
a
tap
water
intake
of
1.4
liters
per
day.
This
represents
21
milliliters
per
day
on
a
per
kilogram
body
weight
basis,
which
is
the
mean
tap
water
intake
for
adults.
A
duration
of
exposure
of
30
years
represents
the
95th
percentile
of
the
distribution
of
residential
occupancy
periods
for
adults
nationwide.
We
derived
HBLs
for
noncancer
effects
for
a
child
having
a
tap
water
intake
of
1.3
liters
per
day.
This
represents
64
milliliters
per
day
on
a
per
kilogram
body
weight
basis
and
corresponds
to
the
90th
percentile
of
the
distribution
of
tap
water
intakes
in
children
that
are
1
to
10
years
of
age.
13
Because
the
drinking
water
HBLs
incorporate
conservative
exposure
assumptions,
we
consider
them
to
be
appropriate
for
screening
purposes.
Soil
ingestion
HBLs
were
derived
from
either
the
CSF
or
the
RfD
assuming
a
soil
ingestion
rate
of
200
milligrams
per
day
and
an
exposure
duration
of
8
years.
A
soil
ingestion
rate
of
200
milligrams
per
day
(about
3/
100th
of
a
teaspoon)
is
a
conservative
estimate
of
the
mean
intake
rates
for
children
in
the
age
range
of
1
to
7.
An
exposure
duration
of
8
years
is
an
estimate
of
the
mean
residential
occupancy
period
for
a
6
year
old
child.
In
selecting
these
values
for
use
in
deriving
soil
ingestion
HBLs,
we
considered
the
likelihood
that
children
would
actually
come
into
direct
contact
with
the
wastes.
In
cases
where
wastes
are
known
to
be
managed
in
on­
site
landfills
or
surface
impoundments
that
are
located
adjacent
to
or
in
close
proximity
to
surface
waters,
we
used
additional
screening
criteria
to
identify
wastes
that
could
have
the
potential
to
adversely
impact
surface
waters
before
eliminating
the
wastes
from
further
consideration.
We
used
EPA's
national
water
quality
criteria
for
this
purpose.
Specifically,
we
compared
waste
concentrations
(i.
e.,
SPLP
measurements
for
wastes
managed
in
on­
site
landfills
and
SPLP
filtrate
measurements
for
wastes
managed
in
surface
impoundments)
directly
to
ambient
water
quality
criteria
that
have
been
established
for
the
protection
of
both
human
health
and
aquatic
life.
Any
chemical
contaminant
in
a
waste
managed
under
these
circumstances
that
did
not
screen
out
against
ambient
water
quality
criteria
(within
a
factor
of
2)
we
identified
as
a
constituent
of
concern
(CoC)
requiring
further
assessment.
EPA
recently
republished
ambient
water
quality
criteria
for
a
large
number
of
chemical
contaminants
(see
63
FR
68354;
December
10,
1998).
Separate
criteria
for
the
protection
of
aquatic
life
have
been
established
for
fresh
water
and
salt
water.
In
a
number
of
instances
waste
management
units
are
located
adjacent
to
estuarine
environments.
In
these
cases,
for
screening
purposes,
we
used
the
lower
of
the
fresh
water
and
salt
water
criteria.

4.
How
Was
the
Groundwater
Pathway
Evaluated?
We
conducted
modeling
analyses
to
assess
possible
risks
to
human
health
from
wastes
managed
in
land­
based
units
such
as
landfills
and
surface
impoundments.
We
used
fate
and
transport
models
to
estimate
contaminant
concentrations
that
might
occur
in
a
residential
drinking
water
well
from
migration
of
uncontrolled
releases
of
leachate
from
a
waste
management
unit
through
the
subsurface
environment.
We
assessed
human
exposures
to
these
contaminants
from
information
on
the
amount
of
tap
water
an
individual
drinks
and
the
length
of
time
an
individual
might
reside
at
a
residence
and
utilize
water
from
a
residential
well.
We
then
assessed
what
the
human
health
risks
would
be
as
a
consequence
of
such
exposures.
We
took
a
probabilistic
approach
to
the
assessment
of
human
exposures.
In
this
approach,
we
used
Monte
Carlo
simulation
techniques
to
determine
the
distribution
of
groundwater
concentrations
to
which
an
individual
could
be
exposed
and
combined
this
with
distributional
data
for
the
general
population
on
the
intake
rates
of
tap
water
and
the
duration
of
exposure.
We
then
assessed
the
risks
to
human
health
from
both
the
middle
(central
tendency)
and
upper
(high
end)
portions
of
the
distribution
of
human
exposures.
EPA
defines
high
end
as
the
90th
percentile
and
greater
of
the
distribution
of
exposures
in
the
population.
Central
tendency
generally
refers
to
the
mean
or
50th
percentile
of
the
distribution.
Central
tendency
and
high
end
estimates
may
be
generated
using
either
probabilistic
or
deterministic
approaches.
14
We
evaluated
potential
groundwater
exposures
over
a
10,000
year
time
period.
Evaluating
peak
doses
over
this
time
horizon
allows
the
model
to
capture
the
slow
movement
of
some
chemicals
through
the
subsurface.
While
exposure
assumptions
(e.
g.,
land
use
patterns,
climate,
environmental
and
other
exposure
assumptions)
are
expected
to
change
over
10,000
years,
such
changes
are
difficult
to
predict.
We
believe
such
a
time
period
is
appropriate
to
ensure
human
health
is
protected.
Even
with
long
time
periods,
we
are
still
concerned
with
the
risk
that
would
result
once
contamination
reaches
potential
drinking
water
wells.
Given
that
the
metals
of
concern
do
not
degrade
in
the
environment,
we
believe
a
long
modeling
time
period
is
necessary.
Further,
there
is
uncertainty
in
when
peak
concentrations
at
the
receptor
well
may
occur,
and
using
the
10,000
year
time
frame
makes
it
more
likely
that
we
will
capture
the
peak
risk
in
our
evaluation.
EPA
has
used
similar
time
horizons
for
groundwater
modeling
in
past
hazardous
waste
rules.
15
For
modeling
chemical
concentrations
in
ground
water,
many
input
parameters
were
varied.
These
included
waste
characterization
data
(e.
g.,
chemical
concentrations
and
waste
volumes),
waste
management
practices
(e.
g.,
waste
management
unit
size
and
infiltration
rates),
hydrogeological
parameters
(e.
g.,
depth
to
water
table,
hydraulic
conductivity,
and
aquifer
thickness),
and
chemical
parameters
(e.
g.,
soilwater
partition
coefficient).
We
conducted
extensive
sensitivity
analyses
to
determine
which
of
these
parameters
had
the
greatest
influence
on
the
risk
results.
For
a
detailed
discussion
of
the
ground
water
analysis,
including
parameter
distributions,
input
assumptions,
and
sensitivity
analyses,
see
the
risk
assessment
background
document
for
today's
proposal,
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes''
(August
2000).

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55698
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
16
A
log
uniform
distribution
is
a
distribution
that
has
equal
probabilities
at
all
percentiles
when
the
parameter
is
transformed
into
logarithms.
For
these
chemical
constituents,
we
used
a
log
uniform
distribution
that
was
centered
on
the
geometric
mean
of
the
available
data
and
had
a
width
of
3
logs.
This
was
done
to
better
account
for
the
variability
normally
seen
in
measurements
of
Kd.
17
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
``
Draft
National
Survey
of
Solid
Waste
(Municipal)
Landfill
Facilities,
''
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
Washington,
D.
C.,
1988
(EPA/
530±
SW±
88±
034).
18
See
assumptions
made
for
the
recent
proposed
hazardous
waste
identification
rule
at
64
FR
63382;
November
19,
1999.
In
assessing
groundwater
exposures
for
wastes
managed
in
off­
site
landfills,
we
considered
the
locations
of
every
industrial
and
municipal
landfill
known
to
receive
the
wastes
and
the
volume
of
wastes
managed
at
each
of
these
sites.
In
so
doing,
we
considered
only
that
volume
of
waste
that
is
currently
not
being
managed
as
hazardous
waste.
For
wastes
managed
on­
site
by
multiple
facilities,
we
generally
considered
only
those
facilities
where
groundwater
exposures
are
expected
to
be
the
highest.
These
locations
were
identified
by
considering
the
concentration
levels
of
chemical
constituents
in
the
waste
managed
at
the
site
and
the
proximity
of
on­
site
waste
management
units,
namely
landfills
and
surface
impoundments,
to
potential
off­
site
receptors.
Our
rationale
for
selecting
particular
locations
for
conducting
modeling
analyses
is
discussed
in
section
III.
F
for
the
specific
inorganic
sectors.
a.
How
were
contaminant
concentrations
in
groundwater
modeled?
For
modeling
fate
and
transport
in
the
subsurface
environment,
we
used
the
groundwater
model
EPACMTP
(EPA's
Composite
Model
for
Leachate
Migration
with
Transformation
Products).
The
model
consists
of
two
coupled
modules:
(1)
A
one­
dimensional
module
that
simulates
infiltration
and
dissolved
contaminant
transport
through
the
unsaturated
zone,
and
(2)
a
three­
dimensional
saturated
zone
flow
and
transport
module.
Fate
and
transport
processes
accounted
for
in
the
model
are
advection,
hydrodynamic
dispersion,
sorption
equilibria,
hydrolysis,
and
dilution
from
recharge
to
the
saturated
zone.
The
model
assumes
that
the
soil
and
aquifer
are
uniform
porous
media.
EPACMTP
(as
used
in
this
analysis)
does
not
account
for
heterogeneity
of
the
aquifer
or
for
preferential
migration
pathways
such
as
fractures
and
macro­
pores
or
for
colloidal
transport,
any
or
all
of
which
could
be
important
at
a
particular
site.
Although
EPACMTP
simulates
steadystate
groundwater
flow
in
both
the
unsaturated
zone
and
the
saturated
zone,
the
model
(as
used
in
this
analysis)
simulates
contaminant
transport
from
a
finite
source
and
predicts
the
peak
contaminant
concentration
arriving
at
a
downgradient
groundwater
well.
Only
migration
of
chemical
contaminants
within
the
surficial
aquifer
is
modeled
by
EPACMTP.
We
did
not
model
migration
of
contaminants
to
deeper
aquifers
but,
instead,
based
our
assessment
on
exposures
that
might
occur
from
groundwater
withdrawn
from
the
uppermost
aquifer
where
contaminant
concentrations
are
expected
to
be
the
highest.
Equilibrium
sorption
of
chemical
contaminants
onto
soil
and
aquifer
materials
is
parameterized
in
the
EPACMTP
model
using
a
soil­
water
partition
coefficient
(Kd).
For
today's
proposed
rule,
we
used
values
for
Kd
that
have
been
derived
from
field
studies
and
have
been
published
in
the
scientific
literature.
An
empirical
distribution
was
used
to
characterize
the
variability
of
Kd
for
chemical
contaminants
for
which
sufficient
published
data
were
available.
However,
for
several
chemical
contaminants
having
relatively
few
published
values
(e.
g.,
antimony
and
thallium),
a
log
uniform
distribution
was
used.
16
Our
use
of
empirically
derived
partition
coefficients
assumes
that
sorption
is
linear
with
respect
to
groundwater
concentration
(i.
e.,
the
Kd
isotherm
is
linear).
However,
sorption
is
not
unlimited
and
will
tend
to
level
off
as
groundwater
concentrations
increase
beyond
the
linear
range
(i.
e.,
the
Kd
isotherm
becomes
non­
linear).
This
condition
is
most
likely
to
occur
in
the
unsaturated
zone
where
dilution
is
limited,
if
leachate
concentrations
are
sufficiently
high.
EPA
has
sometimes
used
the
MINTEQA2
equilibrium
speciation
model
to
estimate
Kd's
for
a
variety
of
metals
rather
than
relying
solely
on
field
measurements.
However,
recently
a
number
of
technical
issues
have
been
raised
concerning
the
model
and
its
application.
EPA
is
in
the
process
of
evaluating
the
model
to
address
those
issues.
Therefore,
we
have
decided
not
to
use
MINTEQA2
for
today's
proposed
rule.
Once
the
evaluation
is
completed
and
the
issues
are
satisfactorily
resolved,
EPA
may
again
choose
to
use
the
model
in
an
appropriate
form
in
future
rulemakings.
Infiltration
of
leachate
from
landfills
into
the
subsurface
is
modeled
using
the
HELP
model
(Hydrologic
Evaluation
for
Landfill
Performance),
a
quasi­
twodimensional
hydrologic
model
used
to
compute
water
balances
for
landfills.
We
assumed
that
landfills
have
a
final
earthen
cover
but
no
liner
or
leachate
collection
system.
The
net
infiltration
rate
that
is
calculated
by
the
model
considers,
among
other
factors,
precipitation,
evapotranspiration,
and
surface
runoff
and
depends
on
the
type
of
soil
and
the
climate
where
the
landfill
is
located.
For
surface
impoundments,
the
infiltration
rate
is
estimated
from
the
liquid
depth
in
the
impoundment
and
from
the
hydraulic
conductivities
and
thicknesses
of
the
sediments
and
the
underlying
soil.
We
assumed
that
surface
impoundments
have
no
liner
or
leachate
collection
system.
Unconsolidated
or
loose
sediments
are
treated
as
free
liquid
so
that
the
pressure
head
on
the
underlying,
consolidated
sediments
is
determined
by
the
depth
of
the
liquid
in
the
impoundment
and
the
depth
of
the
unconsolidated
sediments.
As
sediment
accumulates
at
the
base
of
the
impoundment,
the
weight
of
the
liquid
and
upper
sediments
acts
to
compress
(or
consolidate)
the
lower
sediments.
The
result
is
the
formation
of
a
consolidated
sediment
layer
having
a
hydraulic
conductivity
that
is
much
lower
than
the
previously
unconsolidated
sediment.
We
assumed
that
landfills
have
an
operational
life
of
30
years.
17
In
landfills,
leaching
of
contaminants
from
the
waste
leads
to
an
exponential
decrease
in
the
leachate
concentration
with
time.
The
rate
at
which
this
occurs
depends
on
the
volume
of
waste
disposed
of
in
the
landfill
and
the
total
concentration
of
chemical
contaminants
in
the
waste.
We
used
the
measured
TCLP
concentration
(for
disposal
in
a
municipal
landfill)
or
SPLP
concentration
(for
disposal
in
an
industrial
landfill)
as
the
initial
leachate
concentration
for
modeling.
In
contrast,
we
assumed
that
surface
impoundments
have
an
operational
life
of
50
years.
18
Many
surface
impoundments
are
periodically
dredged
and,
therefore,
can
be
maintained
in
service
for
longer
periods
of
time.
With
surface
impoundments,
leachate
concentrations
are
not
expected
to
decrease
over
time
and,
therefore,
leachate
concentrations
are
assumed
to
remain
constant
during
their
operational
life.
We
used
the
total
concentration
of
chemical
contaminant
measured
in
the
wastewater
or
(for
wastewaters
with
high
levels
of
solids)
the
concentration
measured
in
the
SPLP
filtrate
as
the
leachate
concentration
for
modeling.
The
fate
and
transport
simulation
modules
in
EPACMTP
are
linked
to
a
Monte
Carlo
module
to
allow
quantitative
consideration
of
variability
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55699
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
19
Ibid.
20
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
``
Exposure
Factors
handbook'',
Volumes
I
and
III,
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
National
Center
for
Enironmental
Assessment,
Washington,
DC.,
August
1997
(EPA/
600/
P±
95/
002Fa
and
c).
and
uncertainty
in
groundwater
concentrations
due
to
variability
and
uncertainty
in
model
input
parameters.
We
use
a
regional
site­
based
methodology
to
associate
the
appropriate
regional
climatic
and
hydrogeologic
conditions
to
the
location
of
actual
waste
management
sites.
This
methodology
accommodates
dependencies
between
the
various
model
input
parameters.
In
this
approach,
a
site
location
is
assigned
to
one
of
13
hydrogeologic
regions
and
one
of
97
climatic
regions
that
are
linked
to
databases
of
climatic
and
hydrogeologic
parameters.
A
climatic
data
set
provides
infiltration
and
recharge
values
for
three
soil
textures
at
each
of
97
climatic
centers
in
the
contiguous
United
States.
The
soil
textures
are
based
on
a
Soil
Conservation
Service
soil
mapping
database
and
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
definitions
of
coarse,
medium,
and
fine
soil
textures.
(These
textures
are
represented
in
EPACMTP
by
sandy
loam,
silt
loam,
and
silty
clay
loam,
respectively.)
Infiltration
rates
for
the
waste
management
unit
and
the
recharge
rate
for
the
surrounding
region
were
determined
for
each
soil
type
and
climatic
center
using
the
HELP
model.
A
site
location
is
generally
assigned
to
the
climatic
center
that
is
geographically
closest
to
the
site.
Each
site
location
is
also
located
on
a
groundwater
resource
map
(from
a
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
inventory
of
State
groundwater
resource
maps)
and
a
hydrogeologic
region
is
assigned
to
the
site
based
on
the
primary
aquifer
type
at
that
location.
A
hydrogeologic
database
provides
a
distribution
of
values
for
depth
to
groundwater,
aquifer
thickness,
hydraulic
gradient,
and
hydraulic
conductivity
for
each
of
13
hydrogeologic
regions.
The
hydrogeologic
data
base
(HGDB)
was
developed
from
a
survey
of
hydrogeologic
parameters
for
approximately
400
hazardous
waste
sites
nationwide.
These
site­
specific
data
were
then
regrouped
according
to
hydrogeologic
classifications,
and
a
distribution
of
parameter
values
was
generated
for
each
of
the
13
hydrogeologic
regions
(made
up
of
12
specific
hydrogeologic
environments
and
one
miscellaneous
category).
In
the
analysis
for
today's
rule,
we
modified
the
above
approach
for
on­
site
waste
management
units
to
enable
available
site­
specific
information
on
depth
to
groundwater
to
be
used
in
place
of
the
values
found
in
the
database.
We
also
used
a
regional
site­
based
methodology
to
associate
the
appropriate
soil
characteristics
to
a
given
site
location.
In
this
approach,
a
distribution
of
soil
textures
at
a
site
is
determined
by
associating
the
site
location
with
a
soils
classification
region.
We
defined
soil
classification
regions
from
information
on
the
soil
types
found
within
a
100
mile
radius
of
the
site
location.
The
distribution
of
soil
textures
for
the
region
was
determined
by
identifying
the
soil
texture
classifications
from
data
contained
in
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
(Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service)
STATSGO
(State
Soil
Geographic)
data
base.
The
predominant
soil
textures
within
each
mapping
unit
(which
represents
a
collection
of
soils)
were
identified
and
the
fraction
of
the
three
soil
textures
used
in
the
EPACMTP
model
were
determined
(i.
e,
sandy
loam,
silt
loam,
and
silty
clay
loam).
These
soil
classification
regions
were
used
for
modeling
off­
site
municipal
and
industrial
landfill
sites.
A
similar
approach
was
taken
for
on­
site
landfills
and
surface
impoundments
except
that
the
predominate
soil
textures
from
mapping
units
that
correspond
to
the
site
location
itself
were
identified.
These
were
compared
for
consistency
with
other
soils
information
available
for
the
site.
Once
the
fraction
of
the
three
soils
textures
is
determined
for
a
given
site
location,
a
distribution
of
soil
parameter
values
is
generated
from
information
on
the
distribution
of
soil
parameter
values
for
the
three
soil
textures
and
the
fraction
of
each
soil
texture
for
the
site.
These
parameters
are
used
for
modeling
groundwater
flow
and
contaminant
transport
in
the
unsaturated
zone
and
include
saturated
conductivity,
moisture
retention
properties,
water
content,
and
organic
matter
content.
A
full
description
of
the
groundwater
modeling
analyses
conducted
for
today's
proposed
rule
may
be
found
in
the
background
document,
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes''
(August,
2000).
b.
How
were
human
exposures
assessed?
Our
assessment
of
human
exposures
to
contaminated
ground
water
is
based
on
a
residential
drinking
water
scenario.
A
different
approach
was
used
for
determining
the
location
of
exposure
depending
on
whether
the
wastes
are
managed
on­
site
or
are
shipped
off­
site
for
disposal.
For
waste
shipped
to
off­
site
municipal
landfills,
we
used
EPA's
National
Survey
of
Municipal
Landfills
19
to
determine
the
distance
from
the
landfill
to
the
receptor
well.
We
also
used
these
same
data
for
off­
site
industrial
landfills.
For
wastes
managed
on­
site
in
either
landfills
or
surface
impoundments,
we
attempted
to
determine
the
closest
point
at
which
a
residential
well
could
be
located
and,
therefore,
the
point
at
which
human
exposures
could
plausibly
occur.
We
considered
the
location
of
the
facility
property
boundary,
the
type
of
land
use
adjacent
to
the
property
boundary,
the
presence
of
surface
waters
that
could
intercept
ground
water
flow,
utilization
of
ground
water
for
residential
or
agriculture
uses,
and
the
existence
of
residential
drinking
water
wells
in
the
direction
of
ground
water
flow.
For
both
on­
site
and
off­
site
waste
management,
we
assumed
the
receptor
well
was
located
down­
gradient
from
the
waste
management
unit
and
that
ground
water
is
withdrawn
from
the
top
ten
meters
of
the
aquifer
and
within
the
lateral
extent
of
the
contaminant
plume.
Exposures
were
further
assumed
to
occur
out
to
a
distance
of
a
mile
from
the
waste
management
unit.
Our
assessment
of
human
exposures
did
not
consider
naturally
occurring
background
levels
in
ground
water.
Background
levels
in
ground
water
are
not
a
significant
source
of
human
exposure
for
several
of
the
more
important
chemical
constituents
in
the
wastes
that
are
the
subject
of
today's
proposal
(e.
g.,
antimony
and
thallium).
However,
for
manganese,
dietary
exposures
are
a
significant
source
of
background
exposures.
We
did
not
attempt
to
quantify
the
cumulative
risks
from
both
dietary
and
drinking
water
exposures
combined
and,
therefore,
this
is
a
source
of
uncertainty
in
our
assessment
of
risks
from
manganese
in
these
wastes.
Human
exposures
were
characterized
in
terms
of
lifetime
average
daily
dose
(LADD)
and
average
daily
dose
(ADD)
for
both
children
and
adults.
We
used
the
LADD
for
assessing
cancer
risks
and
the
ADD
for
assessing
risks
from
noncancer
effects
(including
reproductive,
developmental,
neurological,
cardiovascular,
hematologic,
metabolic,
and
a
wide
variety
of
other
physiologic
effects).
Exposures
to
children
of
age
one
to
six
years
and
adults
of
age
20
to
64
years
were
assessed.
We
used
information
from
EPA's
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
20
to
characterize
tap
water
intake
rates
for
individuals
and
residential
occupancy
periods
of
households
(and,
therefore,
the
length
of
time
an
individual
could
be
exposed
to
contaminated
ground
water).
Distributional
data
on
tap
water
intake
rates
for
individuals
and
residential
occupancy
periods
for
households
were
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55700
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
21
Industrial
wastewater
discharges
that
are
regulated
under
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(NPDES)
Permit
Program
are
specifically
excluded
from
regulation
as
hazardous
wastes
under
40
CFR
261.4(
a)(
2).
22
EPA
guidance
provides
a
simple
rule
of
thumb
for
estimating
the
30Q5
from
the
7Q10
depending
on
the
size
of
the
river.
For
smaller
rivers
(defined
as
those
with
a
low
flow
of
50
cfs
or
less),
the
30Q5
is
1.1
times
the
7Q10.
For
larger
rivers
(low
flow
of
600
cfs
or
greater),
the
30Q5
is
1.4
times
the
7Q10.
See
``
Technical
Support
Document
for
Water
Quality­
Based
Toxics
Control,
''
EPA/
505/
2±
90±
001,
March
1991.
23
The
harmonic
mean
is
defind
as
the
inverse
of
the
average
of
the
sum
of
the
inverses
of
the
recorded
flows.
used
to
generate
both
the
ADD
and
LADD
exposure
estimates.
For
assessing
lifetime
exposures,
we
averaged
the
well
water
concentrations
over
the
duration
of
exposure
(i.
e.,
the
residential
occupancy
period).
We
also
averaged
the
tap
water
intake
rates
over
the
duration
of
exposure
to
account
for
the
changes
in
tap
water
intake
rates
with
age
that
are
seen
among
children.
For
estimating
the
ADD,
we
used
the
peak
9­
year
average
well
water
concentration
but
did
not
further
average
the
estimated
exposure
(which
we
believe
would
be
inappropriate
given
the
range
of
possible
health
effects
we
want
to
protect
against).
Previous
work
with
the
EPACMTP
ground
water
model
has
shown
that
the
peak
9­
year
concentration
and
the
maximum
predicted
concentration
are
nearly
identical.
A
full
description
of
the
methods
and
data
used
in
the
exposure
assessment
for
today's
proposed
rule
may
be
found
in
the
background
document,
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes''
(August,
2000).

5.
How
Was
the
Surface
Water
Pathway
Evaluated?
A
number
of
facilities
that
generate
wastes
covered
by
today's
proposed
rule
are
located
adjacent
to
rivers
or
bays.
As
a
consequence,
the
potential
exists
for
subsurface
releases
of
chemical
contaminants
from
on­
site
management
of
the
wastes
to
enter
these
river
and
bay
systems
through
ground
water
inflow.
In
instances
where
no
direct
contact
with
ground
water
is
likely
to
occur
(as
there
would
otherwise
be
if,
for
example,
ground
water
was
being
used
for
residential
drinking
water),
it
becomes
important
to
evaluate
the
potential
water
quality
impacts
of
these
releases
on
surface
waters
in
the
context
of
hazardous
waste
listings.
However,
we
wish
to
emphasize
that
the
surface
water
impacts
considered
in
today's
proposed
rule
are
due
to
subsurface
releases
to
ground
water
only.
Direct
discharges
to
surface
waters
are
already
regulated
by
the
Clean
Water
Act
under
the
NPDES
permit
system
and
are
not
considered
further
in
today's
proposal.
21
We
conducted
a
screening
level
analysis
to
evaluate
potential
surface
water
impacts.
In
this
analysis,
we
estimated
the
volume
of
leachate
that
would
infiltrate
into
ground
water
and
assumed
that
this
entire
volume
would
be
intercepted
by
surface
water.
Because
this
is
a
screening
analysis,
we
made
conservative
assumptions
that
are
likely
to
overstate
the
infiltration
of
leachate
and,
therefore,
the
potential
release
to
surface
water.
For
example,
for
on­
site
landfills,
we
assumed
a
soil
type
(sandy
loam)
that
is
likely
to
overstate
the
infiltration
rate
even
in
the
absence
of
liners
or
leachate
collection
systems.
Similarly,
for
surface
impoundments
we
assumed
a
sludge
thickness
(8
inches)
and
soil
type
(sandy
loam)
that
is
likely
to
overstate
the
infiltration
rate.
In
addition,
we
assumed
no
retardation
in
the
migration
of
chemical
contaminants
in
ground
water
due
to
sorption
or
other
processes.
Due
to
the
nature
of
these
releases,
which
are
likely
to
occur
over
a
wide
area,
we
assumed
that
the
inflow
of
contaminated
ground
water
was
rapidly
diluted
into
surface
water
and
that
there
was
little
or
no
mixing
zone.
We
followed
EPA's
Office
of
Water
guidance
for
determining
the
design
flows
for
rivers
as
regards
water
quality
criteria.
The
appropriate
design
flow
depends
on
the
particular
water
quality
impact
being
evaluated.
For
assessing
potential
impacts
on
aquatic
life,
we
used
the
``
7Q10''
as
the
design
flow.
The
7Q10
is
the
seven
day
low
flow
with
a
return
frequency
of
once
every
10
years
and
is
the
recommended
design
flow
for
use
with
chronic
water
quality
criteria
for
the
protection
of
aquatic
life.
We
believe
that
chronic
water
quality
criteria
are
the
appropriate
criteria
for
evaluating
the
potential
impact
of
continuing
steady
releases,
such
as
those
that
would
result
from
subsurface
discharge
of
contaminated
ground
water.
On
the
other
hand,
EPA
generally
uses
the
``
30Q5''
as
the
design
flow
for
assessing
potential
impacts
on
human
health.
The
30Q5
is
the
thirty
day
low
flow
with
a
return
frequency
of
once
every
5
years
and
is
the
recommended
design
flow
for
use
with
water
quality
criteria
for
the
protection
of
human
health
as
regards
non­
cancer
effects.
However,
a
30Q5
design
flow
was
not
available
in
all
cases.
In
these
instances,
we
estimated
the
30Q5
based
on
the
7Q10
design
flow.
22
For
carcinogens
(e.
g.,
arsenic),
lifetime
exposures
are
the
primary
concern
and
a
design
flow
that
corresponds
to
a
longer
averaging
time
is
appropriate.
For
this
reason,
EPA
recommends
the
long­
term
harmonic
mean
be
used
as
the
design
flow.
23
The
harmonic
mean
is
always
less
than
the
arithmetic
mean
and
is
used
in
place
of
it
because
low
flow
conditions
drive
long­
term
average
water
quality.
However,
because
this
flow
statistic
was
not
available,
we
estimated
the
harmonic
mean
flow
from
the
arithmetic
mean
flow
and
the
7Q10.
As
a
result
of
the
screening
level
analysis,
all
wastes
screened
out
for
which
the
ground
water
to
surface
water
pathway
was
a
concern.
Therefore,
no
additional
analysis
of
this
pathway
was
conducted.

6.
What
Are
the
Limitations
and
Uncertainties
of
the
Assessment?

Our
assessment
of
exposures
and
risks
is
subject
to
a
variety
of
limitations
and
uncertainties.
These
are
discussed
in
some
detail
in
the
background
document
for
today's
proposed
rule.
A
number
of
these
are
highlighted
here.
We
assumed
our
sampling
and
analysis
data
are
fully
representative
of
the
range
of
wastes
generated
in
the
effected
industries.
However,
our
own
data
show
that
there
are
significant
variations
in
waste
concentrations
across
facilities
in
a
given
industry.
Variability
in
waste
concentration
that
is
unaccounted
for
could
lead
to
an
over­
or
under­
estimation
of
risks.
However,
any
tendency
toward
underestimation
is
likely
to
be
mitigated
to
some
extent
by
our
selection
of
wastes
and
exposure
scenarios
that
are
intended
to
capture
the
highest
risks.
We
also
assumed
that
our
methods
for
measuring
the
leaching
behavior
of
wastes
(i.
e.,
the
TCLP
and
SPLP
test
procedures)
are
both
representative
of
the
range
of
leaching
conditions
that
exist
under
real
world
conditions
and
accurately
quantify
the
concentrations
of
contaminants
that
leach
into
the
subsurface
environment
from
a
given
waste
management
unit.
However,
we
know
that
many
metals
exhibit
varying
(or
amphoteric)
behavior
with
respect
to
pH
and
that
any
one
test
procedure
is
capable
of
characterizing
leaching
behavior
only
under
a
particular
set
of
conditions.
The
ground
water
model
we
used
in
our
analysis
(i.
e.,
EPACMTP)
is
designed
to
characterize
dilution
and
attenuation
in
the
subsurface
environment
under
homogeneous
conditions.
The
model
does
not
account
for
subsurface
heterogeneities,
nor
does
it
account
for
fractured
flow
or
colloidal
transport.
These
conditions,
if
present
at
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55701
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
a
site,
can
lead
to
less
dilution
and
attenuation
of
contaminant
levels
than
predicted
by
the
model,
causing
ground
water
concentrations
to
be
under
estimated.
In
addition,
sorption
of
metal
species
onto
soil
and
aquifer
materials
exhibits
considerable
variability
depending
on
geochemical
conditions
and
the
total
concentration
of
the
metal
present
at
a
given
location.
Although
our
use
of
empirically
derived
Kd
values
captures
some
of
this
variability,
the
available
published
data
are
fairly
limited
for
certain
metals
(e.
g.,
antimony).
We
have
accounted
for
the
uncertainty
associated
with
the
small
number
of
data
points
explicitly
for
these
metals
by
expanding
the
range
of
Kd
values
used
for
modeling
(to
three
orders
of
magnitude).
Even
for
metals
that
have
abundant
data
(e.
g.,
arsenic),
it
is
unlikely
that
the
range
of
variability
apparent
in
the
data
could
exist
at
a
given
site.
Uncertainty
associated
with
the
specification
of
Kd
as
noted
above
could
lead
to
an
over­
or
under­
estimation
of
risk.
However,
a
tendency
toward
overestimation
is
likely
to
be
mitigated
by
the
fact
that
under
near
steady­
state
conditions
(when
ground
water
impacts
are
the
greatest),
concentrations
in
ground
water
are
little
influenced
by
Kd.
Under
non­
steady
conditions,
any
tendency
toward
over­
or
underestimation
is
limited
by
the
variability
inherent
in
the
empirical
distributions
of
Kd
used
in
the
analysis,
which
include
both
relatively
high
and
relatively
low
values
of
Kd.
Nevertheless,
in
general
the
risk
estimates
are
sensitive
to
the
specification
of
Kd
and,
therefore,
this
is
an
important
source
of
uncertainty
in
our
analysis.
As
indicated
previously,
for
wastes
managed
on­
site
we
based
our
assessment
of
human
exposures
on
the
plausibility
of
ground
water
being
used
for
drinking
water.
While
some
information
was
available
on
utilization
of
ground
water
for
drinking
water,
very
limited
information
was
available
from
which
to
determine
the
location
of
exposure
at
a
given
site.
For
wastes
managed
off­
site
we
assumed
that
ground
water
is
used
for
drinking
water
(or
will
be
in
the
future)
and
we
used
national
data
on
the
distribution
of
distances
to
residential
wells
to
assess
human
exposures
and
risk.
Our
analysis
did
not
consider
possible
changes
in
the
location
of
on­
site
waste
management
operations
in
the
future.
These
exposure
assumptions
(about
which
there
is
considerable
uncertainty)
may
have
an
impact
on
the
estimated
risks
and,
therefore,
the
outcome
of
the
risk
assessment.
Other
important
uncertainties
include
those
related
to
the
health
effects
of
chemical
contaminants
in
humans
(hazard
identification),
absorption
and
metabolism
of
ingested
contaminates
(pharmacokinetics),
and
biological
response
(dose­
response
relationships).
These
and
other
limitations
and
uncertainties
are
discussed
in
the
background
document,
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes''
(August,
2000).

F.
Sector­
Specific
Listing
Determination
Rationales
We
seek
comments
on
all
proposed
listing
decisions
in
this
section,
and
the
underlying
rationales
used
to
support
our
proposals.

1.
Antimony
Oxide
a.
Summary.
We
have
evaluated
antimony
oxide
production
wastes
and
propose
to
list
two
wastes
from
this
process
as
hazardous:
(1)
Baghouse
filters
and
(2)
slag
that
is
disposed
of
or
speculatively
accumulated.
We
propose
to
list
the
baghouse
filter
waste
under
the
criterion
in
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
1)
because
it
routinely
exhibits
one
or
more
of
the
characteristics
of
hazardous
waste,
but
the
waste
is
not
consistently
managed
in
compliance
with
Subtitle
C
regulations.
We
propose
to
list
the
slag
under
the
criteria
in
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3)
because
of
risks
associated
with
land
disposal.
K176
Baghouse
filters
from
the
production
of
antimony
oxide.
(E)
K177
Slag
from
the
production
of
antimony
oxide
that
is
disposed
of
or
speculatively
accumulated
(T).
Other
wastes
generated
by
the
antimony
oxide
industry
do
not
meet
the
criteria
set
out
at
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3)
for
listing
a
waste
as
hazardous.
They
do
not
pose
a
substantial
present
or
potential
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
We
identified
no
risks
of
concern
associated
with
the
current
management
of
these
other
wastes.
b.
Description
of
the
antimony
oxide
industry.
Antimony
oxide
was
produced
by
four
facilities
in
the
United
States
in
1998.
Antimony
oxide
is
used
as
a
flame
retardant
in
plastics
and
textiles,
a
smoke
suppressant,
a
stabilizer
for
plastics,
an
opacifier
in
glass,
ceramics
and
vitreous
enamels,
and
a
coating
for
titanium
dioxide
pigments
and
chromate
pigment.
The
manufacturers
use
two
different
processes
to
produce
antimony
oxide.
In
the
first
process,
antimony
metal
is
roasted
in
the
presence
of
air.
The
antimony
oxide
forms
as
a
fume,
cools
and
condenses
in
a
baghouse.
In
the
second
process,
crude
(low
grade)
antimony
oxide
is
roasted
in
the
presence
of
air
to
produce
higher
grade
antimony
oxide.
The
antimony
oxide
cools
and
condenses
in
a
baghouse.
The
crude
antimony
oxide
comes
either
from
off­
site
or
is
recycled
from
within
the
facility.
c.
How
does
the
Bevill
Exclusion
apply
to
wastes
from
the
antimony
oxide
manufacturing
processes?
Antimony
oxide
producers
use
a
range
of
raw
materials
to
produce
antimony
oxide,
including
antimony
metal
ingots,
sodium
antimonate,
and
antimony
ore
concentrate,
and
some
facilities
have
claimed
that
wastes
generated
from
the
production
of
antimony
oxide
are
Bevill
exempt.
Wastes
generated
from
processes
using
either
antimony
ingots
or
sodium
antimonate
(both
of
which
are
saleable
mineral
products)
are
considered
chemical
manufacturing
wastes
rather
than
mineral
processing
wastes
and
are
not
eligible
for
the
Bevill
exemption.
The
September
1,
1989
Bevill
final
rule
states
at
54
FR
36620±
21
that
chemical
manufacturing
begins
if
there
is
any
further
processing
of
mineral
product.
Two
of
the
facilities
also
purchase
an
antimony
ore
concentrate
as
a
raw
material
and
place
this
material
in
kilns
to
produce
antimony
oxide.
The
smelting
of
a
ore
concentrate
above
the
fusion
point
is
defined
as
mineral
processing
(See
54
FR
36618).
At
these
antimony
oxide
facilities,
since
mineral
processing
has
begun,
wastes
from
the
process
are
not
eligible
for
the
Bevill
exemption
as
beneficiation
wastes
(See
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
7)(
i)).
In
addition,
although
there
is
a
Bevill
exemption
for
20
specific
mineral
processing
wastes
form
various
mineral
processing
sectors,
the
wastes
generated
from
antimony
oxide
mineral
processing
are
not
included
as
one
of
these
20
wastes
and
are
not
excluded.
(See
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
7)(
ii)).
Thus
there
are
no
antimony
oxide
wastes
that
qualify
for
the
Bevill
exemption.
d.
Wastes
generated
by
these
processes.
Table
III±
1
summarizes
our
information
about
the
wastes
generated
from
the
production
of
antimony
oxide:

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55702
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
24
``
United
States
Antimony
Corp.
Stibnite
Hill
Mine
Project
Operating
Permit
00045'',
6th
review
draft,
January
1999.
This
draft
permit
is
issued
under
the
Metal
Mine
Reclamation
Act,
82±
4±
301
MCA.
It
was
prepared
by
the
facility,
approved
by
the
State
of
Montana
on
August
12,
1999
(with
a
number
of
stipulations),
and
subsequently
approved
by
the
Forest
Service.
25
``
Above
Ground
Land
Emplacement
Facilities,
N.
J.
Law,
''
Letter
to
Honorable
James
J.
Florio,
Chairman,
Subcommittee
on
Commerce,
Transportation,
and
Tourism,
Committee
on
Energy
and
Commerce,
House
of
Representatives,
from
J.
Winston
Porter,
Administrator,
EPA,
dated
March
26,
1986.
TABLE
III±
1.Ð
ANTIMONY
OXIDE
PRODUCTION
WASTES
Waste
category
Number
of
reported
generators
1998
volume
(MT)
Reported
waste
hazard
codes
Management
practices
Antimony
slag
not
recycled
in
process
........
3
113
D008
.........................
Sent
to
lead
smelters
for
lead
and/
or
antimony
recovery;
or
on­
site
drum
storage
prior
to
future
on­
site
land
disposal.
Baghouse
filters
...........................................
4
9
No
code
reported
.....
In­
process
antimony
recovery;
off­
site
antimony
recovery;
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill;
or
non­
hazardous
waste
incinerator
Empty
supersacks
........................................
1
15
No
code
reported
.....
Disposal
in
off­
site
Subtitle
D
landfill
or
recycled

In
addition
to
these
wastes,
there
are
other
materials
produced
that
are
reused
in
the
antimony
oxide
production
process.
Antimony
oxide
and
antimony
slag
are
captured
at
various
points
in
the
facility
and
reinserted
into
a
furnace
to
produce
antimony
oxide,
either
on­
site
or
off­
site.
Because
these
materials
are
managed
prior
to
reuse
in
ways
that
present
low
potential
for
release,
and
because
we
evaluated
process
waste
generated
after
the
secondary
materials
are
reinserted
into
the
process,
we
do
not
believe
that
these
secondary
materials
present
significant
risks.
e.
Agency
evaluation.
(1)
Antimony
slag
not
recycled
in
antimony
oxide
process.

How
Are
These
Wastes
Currently
Managed?

Three
facilities
produced
antimony
slag
that
is
not
recycled
in
the
antimony
oxide
process.
Two
of
these
facilities
send
the
slag
to
lead
smelters.
One
of
the
two
facilities
reported
its
slag
to
be
TC
hazardous
because
of
its
lead
content
(D008).
The
third
facility,
however,
has
historically
stored
a
portion
of
its
slag
on­
site
in
drums,
reporting
that
they
plan
to
reclaim
antimony
when
antimony
prices
are
more
favorable.
Recent
revisions
to
the
facility's
Operating
Permit,
24
however,
require
that
the
slag
be
placed
in
an
on
site
engineered
``
slag
storage
pit''
to
be
constructed
in
the
next
two
to
three
years.
We
assessed
the
on­
site
disposal
scenario,
reflecting
the
projected
management
practice
for
this
waste.
For
a
number
of
years,
the
facility
has
been
placing
approximately
20
MT/
yr
in
steel
drums
on
pallets
on
the
ground.
The
facility
reported
that
they
intend
to
reclaim
the
antimony
from
this
slag
when
antimony
prices
are
favorable.
We
consider
storage
on­
site
for
more
than
one
year
to
be
speculative
accumulation
and
consider
these
materials
to
be
solid
wastes.
We
believe
that
the
length
of
time
secondary
materials
are
accumulated
before
being
recycled
is
an
important
indicator
of
whether
or
not
they
are
wastes.
This
is
supported
by
the
large
number
of
recycling
damage
cases
where
secondary
materials
that
were
overaccumulated
over
time
caused
extensive
harm.
(See
50
FR
614)
``
Under
RCRA
and
the
implementing
regulations,
permanent
placement
of
hazardous
waste,
including
perpetual
``
storage''
falls
into
the
regulatory
category
of
land
disposal.
''
25
(See
also
American
Petroleum
Institute
v.
EPA,
216
F.
3d
50
(D.
C.
Cir.
2000).)
Since
the
Operating
Permit
requires
the
facility
to
build
and
use
an
on­
site,
land­
based
unit
for
this
waste,
we
assessed
the
onsite
landfill
scenario
for
this
waste.

How
Was
This
Waste
Category
Characterized?

We
selected
two
of
the
three
facilities
for
sampling
and
analysis.
At
the
site
which
stores
the
slag
indefinitely,
we
collected
one
sample
of
``
reduction
furnace
slag''
that
was
designated
as
containing
less
than
5
percent
antimony
(AC±
1±
AO±
01)
and
one
sample
of
``
reduction
furnace
slag''
that
was
designated
as
containing
between
5
and
10
percent
antimony
(AC±
1±
AO±
06).
Based
on
characterization
information
provided
by
the
facility
in
its
RCRA
Section
3007
Survey
response,
we
believe
these
samples
are
representative
of
all
of
the
slags
generated
at
the
facility.
We
conducted
total,
TCLP
and
SPLP
analyses
of
these
slags.
The
analytical
results
for
the
constituents
found
to
be
present
in
the
leachates
at
levels
exceeding
the
HBLs
are
presented
in
Table
III±
2.
We
collected
a
third
sample
(LI±
1±
AO±
01)
at
a
facility
that
reclaims
its
slag
for
lead.
This
sample
failed
the
TC
for
lead,
as
the
facility
reported
in
its
RCRA
Section
3007
Survey
response.
The
results
are
available
in
``
Waste
Characterization
Report,
Laurel
Industries
Inc.,
La
Porte,
Texas''
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.

TABLE
III±
2.Ð
CHARACTERIZATION
OF
SPECULATIVELY
ACCUMULATED
ANTIMONY
SLAG
Constituent
of
concern
AC±
1±
AC±
01
AC±
1±
AO±
06
HBL
mg/
L
Total
mg/
kg
TCLP
mg/
L
SPLP
mg/
L
Total
mg/
kg
TCLP
mg/
L
SPLP
mg/
L
Antimony
..........................................
11,500
55.8
114
127,000
110
211
0.006
Arsenic
.............................................
301
2.0
2.9
478
3.1
3.
8
0.0007
Boron
................................................
<500
9.8
9.3
<2,500
8.5
8.
1
1.4
Selenium
..........................................
<50
0.6
0.6
<250
0.6
0.
3
0.08
Vanadium
.........................................
<50
1.3
1.1
<250
0.6
1.
0
0.14
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55703
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
How
Was
the
Groundwater
Ingestion
Risk
Assessment
Established?

We
modeled
the
annual
volume
reported
to
be
stored
on­
site
indefinitely
(20
MT).
(The
facility
reports
that
it
processes
sodium
antimonate
from
two
facilities
and
returns
the
resultant
slag
to
the
process
for
further
processing.
We
did
not
include
these
recycled
slag
volumes
in
our
modeling.)
We
used
the
total
and
SPLP
results
as
model
inputs,
reflecting
the
industrial
nature
of
the
on­
site
unit.
We
used
only
the
analytical
results
for
the
facility
that
stores
the
slag
indefinitely.
Both
of
the
samples
for
this
facility
are
relevant
because
they
represent
the
material
stored
on­
site
and
destined
for
the
onsite
slag
pit.
We
did
not
model
the
sample
from
the
other
sampled
facility
because
they
acknowledged
that
their
waste
exhibited
the
TC.
Both
this
facility
and
the
facility
that
was
not
sampled
reclaim
these
wastes
in
a
manner
that
is
excluded
from
regulation
under
Subtitle
C.
We
believe
that
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
they
will
continue
to
manage
their
slags
in
ways
that
do
not
violate
Subtitle
C
regulations.
Also,
in
this
case,
the
SPLP
results
are
higher
than
the
TCLP
results,
making
the
industrial
landfill
the
worst
case
scenario.
We
examined
records
available
from
the
State
where
the
slag
is
stored
to
determine
the
appropriate
distance­
towell
to
model.
We
identified
four
residential
wells
within
several
miles
of
the
facility.
These
data
demonstrate
that
groundwater
is
a
viable
and
actively
used
resource
in
this
area.
One
well
is
located
1.4
miles
directly
downgradient.
Based
on
local
topography
and
groundwater
information,
we
do
not
believe
the
other
identified
wells
could
be
affected
by
releases
to
groundwater
from
the
facility.
We
modeled
potential
releases
to
a
downgradient
residential
well.
Given
that
our
groundwater
model
is
not
configured
at
this
time
to
model
releases
further
than
one
mile,
we
did
not
assess
the
full
distance
to
the
known
well.
In
our
probabilistic
analysis,
we
varied
the
well
distance
from
the
closest
property
boundary
that
appeared
to
be
potentially
downgradient
to
the
limit
of
the
model
(one
mile).
Our
results
therefore
are
conservative
with
respect
to
this
particular
well,
but
otherwise
reflect
the
fact
that
future
residences
and
wells
may
be
placed
closer
to
the
facility
and
any
potential
groundwater
plumes
associated
with
its
operation.
Specifically,
we
modeled
potential
distances
to
wells
from
the
facility's
southern
boundary
to
one
mile.
We
used
a
regional
site­
based
approach
in
modeling
this
unit,
as
described
in
section
III.
E.
4.
We
modified
this
to
enable
us
to
use
available
depth
to
groundwater
information
at
this
particular
site.

What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?

Where
these
slags
are
reused
and
present
no
exposure
route
of
concern,
we
did
not
evaluate
these
secondary
materials
further.
The
results
of
the
risk
assessment
for
the
on­
site
disposal
scenario
for
boron,
selenium,
and
vanadium
were
very
low.
In
the
90th
to
the
95th
percentile
range,
the
highest
hazard
quotient
for
these
three
constituents
was
in
the
range
of
0.001.
For
this
reason,
the
full
results
for
these
three
constituents
are
not
presented
here.
The
results
of
the
risk
assessment
for
the
on­
site
disposal
scenario
for
antimony
and
arsenic
are
presented
in
Table
III±
3:

TABLE
III±
3.Ð
PROBABILISTIC
RISK
ASSESSMENT
RESULTS
FOR
SPECULATIVELY
ACCUMULATED
ANTIMONY
SLAG
Percentile
Adult
risk
Child
risk
Adult
risk
Child
risk
1
Antimony
hazard
quotient
1
ArsenicÐ
cancer
risk
90
th
%
............................................................................................................................
2.2
4.6
4
E±
07
3
E±
07
95
th
%
............................................................................................................................
4.5
9.4
1
E±
06
9
E±
07
For
a
more
complete
description
of
this
analysis,
see
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes''
(August
2000)
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.
In
our
modeling
results,
the
dilution
and
attenuation
factors
(DAFs)
were
relatively
high.
For
example,
high
end
antimony
DAFs
were
as
high
as
8,000.
This
is
the
result
of
the
hydrogeological
setting
of
the
site
evaluated.
Due
to
the
high
hydraulic
conductivity
we
used
in
modeling,
the
landfill
leachate
is
readily
diluted
into
a
large
volume
of
groundwater.
Given
the
uncertainty
about
the
actual
ultimate
management
practice
and
the
site­
specific
nature
of
the
modeling,
DAFs
could
be
considerably
lower
in
other
disposal
scenarios,
resulting
in
much
higher
hazard
quotients
and,
therefore,
higher
potential
risks.
Our
modeling
approach
assumes
that
the
slag
will
be
placed
in
an
unlined
unit.
Information
from
the
facility,
however,
indicates
that
they
plan
to
place
the
waste
in
an
on­
site
lined
storage
pit,
upon
completion
of
construction,
that
will
be
governed
by
a
state
mining
permit.
We
considered
whether
our
decisionmaking
should
account
for
the
added
protection
provided
by
a
liner
system.
Our
first
consideration
is
the
current
uncertainty
regarding
this
waste's
disposition.
While
the
facility
has
stated
its
intended
placement
of
this
waste
in
a
lined
unit,
our
most
recent
information
indicates
that
construction
had
not
yet
begun.
The
facility
may
in
fact
choose
to
place
this
waste
in
an
off­
site
commercial
landfill
that
would
not
necessarily
be
lined.
This
uncertainty
is
greater
than
in
most
waste
management
scenarios
that
we
have
assessed
in
this
rulemaking,
where
there
is
a
long
term
history
of
management
in
a
particular
type
of
management
unit
(e.
g.,
an
operating
onsite
landfill,
a
local
off­
site
landfill).
Because
of
this
uncertainty,
we
are
hesitant
to
give
much
weight
to
a
liner
system
that
may
be
constructed
in
the
future.
More
generally,
we
considered
the
efficacy
of
landfills
(and
any
liners)
over
the
modeled
risk
assessment
period,
which
covers
10,000
years.
Landfills
are
used
actively
until
their
capacity
is
reached
(our
models
assume
an
active
life
of
30
years),
and
at
the
end
of
their
active
life,
we
assume
landfills
are
closed
and
the
wastes
remain
in
the
unit
indefinitely.
The
effectiveness
of
liner
systems
depends
on
how
they
are
designed.
Composite
and
double
liners
that
combine
two
or
more
layers
of
liner
material
with
leachate
collection
and
leak
detection
will
no
doubt
minimize
leakage
to
the
subsurface
during
the
period
when
the
leachate
collection
system
is
actively
managed.
However,
depending
on
the
regulatory
controls
relevant
for
a
particular
unit,
monitoring
would
continue
for
a
limited
postclosure
period.
There
is
also
uncertainty
associated
with
liner
performance,
in
the
near
term
as
well
as
in
the
long
term.
There
are
a
variety
of
factors
that
may
influence
longevity
and
performance,
such
as
poor
construction,
installation
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55704
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
26
A
material
is
not
accumulatively
speculatively,
however,
if
the
person
accumulating
it
can
show
that
the
material
is
potentially
recyclable
and
has
a
feasible
means
of
being
recycled
and
thatÐ
during
the
calendar
year
(commencing
on
January
1)Ð
the
amount
of
material
that
is
recycled
or
transferred
to
a
different
site
for
recycling
equals
at
least
75
percent
by
weight
or
volume
of
the
amount
of
that
material
accumulated
at
the
beginning
of
the
period.
(40
CFR
261.1(
c)(
8))
or
facility
operation,
or
geologic
movement
below
the
liner
that
can
cause
holes,
tears
or
larger
failures.
Some
defects
may
have
a
significant
effect.
Because
of
our
uncertainty
regarding
the
efficacy
of
the
liner
system
over
long
periods
of
time,
and
the
uncertainty
over
the
ultimate
disposal
for
this
waste,
we
believe
our
use
of
the
modeling
results
for
an
unlined
landfill
is
appropriate.
In
deciding
whether
to
list
this
waste
as
hazardous,
we
also
considered
other
factors
in
addition
to
the
risk
results
noted
above.
First,
we
considered
the
very
high
levels
of
toxic
constituents
present
in
the
waste
and
in
test
leachate
(which
is
one
of
the
criterion
cited
in
261.11(
a)(
3)(
ii)).
The
levels
of
antimony
and
arsenic
are
quite
high.
The
antimony
level
exceeds
10%
in
the
waste
(up
to
127,000
mg/
kg),
and
the
SPLP
antimony
concentration
exceeds
the
drinking
water
HBL
by
a
factor
of
>35,000.
Another
key
factor
is
the
lack
of
any
appreciable
degradation
expected
for
these
metals
(a
constituent's
degradation
or
persistence
is
also
a
criterion
for
listing
given
in
261.11(
a)(
3)).
Unlike
some
organic
compounds,
metals
such
as
antimony
will
not
degrade
over
time.
Thus,
even
if
the
loss
in
effectiveness
of
a
liner
system
only
occurs
over
the
very
long
term,
the
metals
would
still
be
present
for
leaching.
It
is
difficult
to
assess
the
impact
of
the
long­
term
effectiveness
of
the
liner
system
in
question
for
today's
proposal.
However,
we
note
that
the
effectiveness
of
the
liner
system
would
have
to
be
sufficient
to
reduce
the
antimony
concentration
at
the
well
by
close
to
90%
in
order
to
keep
the
risks
below
an
HQ
of
1.
Therefore,
given
the
reasons
cited
above,
we
propose
to
list
these
slags
as
hazardous:
K177
Slag
from
the
production
of
antimony
oxide
that
is
disposed
of
or
speculatively
accumulated.
It
is
important
to
note
that
this
listing
has
been
developed
to
capture
only
those
wastes
that
are
not
recycled.
Thus,
this
listing,
as
proposed,
would
not
apply
to
generators
that
recycle
or
reclaim
this
material
as
long
as
it
is
not
speculatively
accumulated.
If
slags
have
been
speculatively
accumulated
(i.
e.,
held
for
more
than
a
calendar
year
without
recycling)
at
the
time
of
the
effective
date
of
this
final
rule,
these
slags
would
meet
the
listing
immediately.
26
We
also
propose
to
add
antimony
to
Appendix
VII
to
Part
261,
which
designates
the
hazardous
constituents
for
which
K177
would
be
listed.
(2)
Baghouse
filters.

How
Are
These
Wastes
Currently
Managed?

These
filters
capture
product
or
offspecification
product.
Two
facilities
place
antimony
laden
baghouse
filters
in
their
on­
site
production
furnaces.
One
of
these
facilities
also
sends
a
portion
of
its
baghouse
filters
to
Mexico
for
antimony
recovery.
Two
other
facilities
dispose
of
these
wastes
in
a
nonhazardous
waste
incinerator
and
an
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.
None
of
these
wastes
are
handled
as
hazardous,
although
our
sampling
efforts
showed
this
waste
to
exhibit
the
toxicity
characteristic
for
lead
and
arsenic.

How
Was
This
Waste
Category
Characterized?

We
collected
a
total
of
three
samples
of
this
waste
category
from
two
facilities.
At
one
facility
we
collected
one
sample
of
the
``
oxidation
furnace''
baghouse
filters
(AC±
1±
AO±
03)
and
one
sample
of
the
``
reduction
furnace''
baghouse
filters
(AC±
1±
AO±
07).
At
the
other
facility,
we
collected
a
sample
of
the
baghouse
associated
with
its
kiln
(LI±
1±
AO±
03).
Because
the
facilities
sampled
represented
the
range
of
production
practices
within
the
industry,
we
believe
these
samples
are
representative
of
all
of
the
baghouse
filters
generated
by
this
industry.
We
conducted
total,
TCLP
and
SPLP
analyses
of
these
baghouse
filters.
The
analytical
results
for
the
constituents
found
to
be
present
in
the
leachates
at
levels
exceeding
the
HBLs
are
presented
in
Table
III±
4.
Two
of
the
three
samples
of
the
waste,
one
from
each
facility
that
generate
this
waste,
exceed
the
toxicity
characteristic
for
either
lead
or
arsenic.
(The
third
sample
exhibits
TCLP
lead
levels
close
to
the
TC
standard).

TABLE
III±
4.Ð
CHARACTERIZATION
OF
BAGHOUSE
FILTERS
FROM
ANTIMONY
OXIDE
PRODUCTION
(MG/
KG
OR
MG/
L)

Constituent
of
Concern
LI±
1±
AO±
03
AC±
1±
AC±
03
AC±
1±
AO±
07
HBL
TC
Total
TCLP
SPLP
Total
TCLP
SPLP
Total
TCLP
SPLP
Limit
Antimony
.....................................................
91,400
9.3
6.2
150,000
9.9
4.3
145,000
68.7
287
0.006
..............
Arsenic
........................................................
114
<0.5
0.6
<250
<0.5
0.09
<250
1
6.9
6.9
0.0007
5.0
Boron
...........................................................
24.0
6.5
1.0
<2500
<2
0.2
<2500
<2
0.7
1.4
..............
Cadmium
.....................................................
5.3
0.3
0.5
<250
0.3
0.3
411
<0.05
0.9
0.0078
1.0
Lead
............................................................
3.1
1
8.5
16.9
<2500
2.8
1.0
<250
<0.5
<0.05
0.015
5.0
Mercury
.......................................................
0.9
<0.002
0.001
0.1
<0.002
<0.0002
95.2
0.03
0.4
0.0047
0.2
Thallium
.......................................................
<2
<2
0.06
<1000
<2
0.06
<1000
<2
0.1
0.0013
..............

1
Exceeds
Toxicity
Characteristic
level.

What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?

We
propose
to
list
the
baghouse
filters
waste
because
our
data
show
it
routinely
exhibits
one
or
more
of
the
characteristics
of
hazardous
waste
(i.
e.,
TC
lead
or
arsenic),
yet
the
generators
do
not
identify
their
wastes
as
exhibiting
the
toxicity
characteristic
and
the
generators
that
dispose
of
this
waste
do
not
comply
with
Subtitle
C
regulations.
We
propose
to
list
this
waste
under
the
261.11(
a)(
1)
criteria:

K176
Baghouse
filters
from
the
production
of
antimony
oxide
(E).

Because
we
believe
we
have
sufficient
reason
to
list
this
waste
under
261.11(
a)(
1)
based
on
the
TC
exceedences
and
lack
of
compliance
with
hazardous
waste
regulation,
we
chose
to
conserve
our
time
and
resources
and
did
not
conduct
formal
risk
assessment
modeling
of
the
off­
site
landfill
scenario,
as
we
would
traditionally
do
to
support
a
261.11(
a)(
3)
listing.
Such
modeling
would
reflect
reported
management
practices.
Antimony
is
not
a
TC
constituent
and,
therefore,
was
not
considered
in
the
261.11(
a)(
1)
listing
decision.
However,
antimony
levels
are
high
and
would
likely
result
in
risk
if
modeled.
Leach
results
for
the
waste
exceed
the
HBLs
by
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00022
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55705
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
27
As
noted
above,
these
filters
capture
product
materials.
EPA
does
not
regulate
reclamation
of
these
products.
See
50
FR
14216,
April
11,
1985:
``
Under
the
final
rules,
commercial
chemical
products
and
intermediates,
off­
specification
variants,
spill
residues,
and
container
residues
listed
in
40
CFR
261.33
are
not
considered
solid
wastes
when
recycled
except
when
they
are
recycled
in
ways
that
differ
from
their
normal
useÐ
namely,
when
they
are
burned
for
energy
recovery
or
used
to
produce
a
fuel''
28
Since,
as
explained
below,
we
find
no
significant
risks
from
the
larger
volume
wastes
we
assessed,
we
conclude
that
any
low
volume
wastes
from
this
third
facility
also
would
not
pose
any
risks
warranting
listing.
a
wide
margin,
e.
g.,
the
SPLP
results
for
antimony
are
up
to
48,000
times
the
HBL.
The
high
levels
of
antimony
in
the
waste
(up
to
15%)
would
provide
a
long­
term
source
of
the
metal
for
leaching
into
the
groundwater.
Thus,
we
expect
that
modeling
an
off­
site
Subtitle
D
scenario
would
yield
significant
drinking
water
risk.
Note
that,
when
facilities
process
the
antimony
oxide
product
captured
in
these
filters
by
reinserting
the
productcontaining
filters
back
into
the
furnace
where
the
antimony
oxide
originated,
without
reclamation,
these
materials
would
not
be
solid
wastes.
27
We
also
propose
to
add
arsenic
and
lead
to
Appendix
VII
to
Part
261,
which
designates
the
hazardous
constituents
for
which
K176
would
be
listed.
The
``
mixture''
rule
for
listed
wastes
currently
provides
an
exemption
for
wastes
listed
solely
because
they
exhibit
characteristics
(see
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iii)).
Mixtures
of
such
listed
wastes
lose
their
listed
waste
status
when
they
cease
to
exhibit
characteristics
for
which
they
were
listed.
(However,
they
would
still
need
to
comply
with
Land
Disposal
Restriction
requirements.)
In
the
both
of
the
last
two
Hazardous
Waste
Identification
Rule
(HWIR)
proposals
(60
FR
66344,
December
21,
1995)
and
(64
FR
63382,
November
19,
1999),
we
proposed
to
narrow
the
exemption
to
only
include
wastes
listed
for
ignitability,
corrosivity,
and
reactivity.
This
narrowing
would
make
any
waste
listed
for
the
toxicity
characteristic
(TC)
(including
the
waste
proposed
today
for
listing
under
the
(a)(
1)
criteria)
ineligible
for
the
current
exemption.
In
other
words,
under
current
mixture
rule
regulations,
mixtures
containing
these
baghouse
filters
would
become
nonhazardous
wastes
once
they
ceased
exhibiting
the
characteristic.
Under
the
HWIR
proposal,
however,
such
mixtures
would
remain
hazardous
wastes
even
after
they
cease
to
exhibit
the
TC.
As
we
state
in
the
TC
rule,
chemicals
can
still
pose
hazardous
at
levels
below
the
TC
(see
55
FR
11799,
March
29,
1990).
Under
an
amended
consent
decree
(Environmental
Technology
Council
v.
Browner,
C.
A.
No.
94±
2119
(TFH),
April
11,
1997),
EPA
is
required
to
sign
a
notice
taking
final
action
with
respect
to
the
proposed
revisions
to
the
mixture
rule
by
April
30,
2001.
(3)
Empty
supersacks.
One
facility
ships
crude
antimony
oxide
in
supersacks
and
then
reuses
them
to
store
intermediate
materials
until
they
wear
out.
The
facility
then
sends
these
empty
supersacks
either
to
an
off­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill
or
to
an
offsite
plastic
recycler.
The
facility
claims
that
the
supersacks
are
empty
and
would
meet
the
standard
in
40
CFR
261.7
(which
exempts
``
empty''
containers
formerly
used
to
manage
hazardous
waste).
Although
40
CFR
261.7
does
not
literally
apply
to
these
sacks,
we
think
it
is
reasonable
to
take
a
similar
approach
here.
We
believe
that
the
levels
of
crude
antimony
oxide
in
worn­
out
supersacks
would
be
low
because
the
material
is
the
primary
feedstock
(raw
material)
used
in
this
process.
We
do
not
believe
it
follows
that
these
supersacks
should
be
regulated,
when
other
similarly
empty
containers
would
be
exempt.
Therefore,
we
propose
not
to
list
this
waste
as
hazardous.

2.
Barium
Carbonate
a.
Summary.
We
have
evaluated
the
wastes,
waste
management
practices,
and
potential
risk
exposure
pathways
associated
with
the
barium
carbonate
production
processes
and
propose
not
to
list
any
wastes
from
this
industry
as
hazardous
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
Some
wastes
in
this
industry
are
D002
or
D005
characteristic
hazardous
wastes,
which
are
both
currently
subject
to
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulation
and
managed
in
compliance
with
those
regulations.
For
other
wastes,
not
identified
as
characteristic
hazardous
wastes,
we
have
identified
no
risks
of
concern
associated
with
the
current
management
of
these
wastes
that
would
warrant
listing.
These
wastes
do
not
meet
the
criteria
listed
under
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3)
for
listing
a
waste
as
hazardous.
b.
How
is
barium
carbonate
produced?
There
are
two
facilities
in
the
United
States
that
produce
significant
quantities
of
barium
carbonate.
A
Georgia
facility
produces
barium
carbonate
for
commercial
sale.
A
Pennsylvania
facility
produces
barium
carbonate
only
for
use
as
a
feedstock
in
its
own
internal
manufacturing
processes.
A
third
facility
is
a
specialty
manufacturer
that
produces
extremely
small
amounts
of
barium
carbonate
(approximately
10
kg
in
1998).
28
For
more
detailed
information
concerning
this
industry,
see
``
Barium
Carbonate
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.
Barium
carbonate
(BaCO3)
has
a
wide
range
of
uses,
including
feedstock
for
production
of
other
barium
chemicals,
an
additive
in
various
glasses,
ceramics,
bricks,
and
other
construction
materials,
an
additive
in
oil­
drilling
suspensions,
and
a
brine
purification
chemical
in
the
chlor­
alkali
industry.
The
two
primary
barium
carbonate
production
facilities
use
different
manufacturing
processes
to
make
barium
carbonate.
The
Georgia
facility
uses
locally
mined
barite
ore,
containing
barium
in
the
form
of
barium
sulfate,
as
the
primary
feedstock.
The
ore
is
crushed
and
milled,
thermally
reduced
in
a
roasting
kiln,
and
leached
with
water
to
dissolve
the
barium.
The
resulting
barium
sulfide
solution
is
filtered
and
reacted
with
carbon
dioxide
gas
to
produce
a
barium
carbonate
precipitate.
This
precipitate
is
then
dried,
and
sized
for
sale.
The
Pennsylvania
facility
uses
a
commercially
purchased
high
purity
barium
chloride
solid
as
the
primary
feedstock.
The
facility
dissolves
the
barium
chloride
in
water,
heats
and
filters
the
resulting
solution,
and
precipitates
barium
carbonate
by
reacting
the
barium
chloride
solution
with
ammonium
bicarbonate.
The
resulting
barium
carbonate
precipitate
is
washed,
filtered,
dried
and
sized
before
the
facility
utilizes
it
as
a
feedstock
in
other
manufacturing
processes
on­
site.
c.
What
wastes
are
generated?
Table
III±
5
below
briefly
lists
the
facilityreported
residuals
from
the
barium
carbonate
manufacturing
processes,
residual
volumes
generated
in
1998,
reported
RCRA
hazard
codes,
and
residual
management
practices.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00023
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55706
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
29
Note
that
primary
barite
ore
has
wide
use
in
drilling
muds
for
the
petroleum
industry
and
numerous
other
industrial
uses,
including
use
as
feedstock
for
barium
chemicals;
see
``
Barite''
U.
S.
Geological
SurveyÐ
Minerals
Information,
1997,
http://
minerals.
usgs.
gov/
minerals/
pubs/
commodity/
barite/
index.
htm.
TABLE
III±
5.Ð
BARIUM
CARBONATE
PRODUCTION
WASTES
Waste
category
1998
volume
(MT)
Reported
RCRA
hazard
codes
Sequential
residual
management
practices
Barite
Ore
Feedstock
ProcessÐ
Georgia
Facility
Treated
barium
wastes
(D005
barium
wastes
include
barite
ore
leaching
waste,
barium
sulfide
filtration
sludge,
and
barium
carbonate
production
area
cleaning
and
maintenance
wastes).
18,300
...................
None
(D005
prior
to
treatment).
Disposal
in
local,
captive,
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill
(after
treatment
of
D005
wastes
in
onsite
Subtitle
C
treatment
unit).

Wastewater
from
BaCO
3
precipitate
dewatering
..
313,000
.................
None
......................
Treatment
in
on­
site,
tank­
based
WWTP
prior
to
NPDES
discharge
to
Etowah
River.
WWTP
sludge
.......................................................
11,000
...................
None
......................
(1)
Dewatered;
(2)
Treated
on­
site;
(3)
Disposal
in
local,
captive,
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.
Spent
polypropylene
and
nylon
filter
media
and
baghouse
dust
collector
bags.
3
(filter
media)
.......
~1.5
(baghouse
bags).
None
......................
(1)
Washed
and
washwaters
re­
inserted
to
barium
carbonate
production
process.
Solids
managed
as
barium
carbonate
production
area
cleaning
and
maintenance
wastes.
(2)
Treated
materials
disposed
in
off­
site
municipal
Subtitle
D
landfill.

High
Purity
Barium
Chloride
Feedstock
ProcessÐ
Pennsylvania
Facility
Ammonia
vapor
scrubber
water
and
ammonia
reclamation
unit
wastewaters.
Not
reported
..........
D002
......................
Treatment
in
on­
site,
tank­
based
WWTP.

Barium
carbonate
precipitate
washwater
..............
1,600
.....................
None
......................
Treatment
in
on­
site,
tank­
based
WWTP
prior
to
NPDES
discharge
to
Susquehanna
River.
WWTP
sludge
.......................................................
8,200
.....................
None
......................
(1)
Stored
in
roll­
off
bin;
(2)
Disposal
in
off­
site
municipal
Subtitle
D
landfill
Ammoniated
spent
process
solution
storage
tank
solids.
1
............................
None
......................
Disposal
in
off­
site
municipal
Subtitle
D
landfill.

Sludge
and
spent
filter
media
from
filtration
of
barium
chloride
solution
and
BaCO3
drying
and
sizing
unit
dusts.
<1.23
.....................
D005
......................
(1)
Stored
in
closed
container;
(2)
Sent
to
off­
site
Subtitle
C
facility
for
treatment
and
disposal.

In
addition
to
these
wastes,
the
two
barium
carbonate
manufacturing
facilities
also
produce
other
materials
which
are
either
piped
directly
back
to
the
production
process
or
are
used
for
other
purposes.
Residues
from
the
barite
ore
feedstock
production
process,
ore
crusher/
grinder,
kiln,
barium
carbonate
drier,
granulation
and
packaging
processes
are
directly
returned
to
their
unit
of
origin
with
no
significant
pathways
for
exposure
of
these
materials
to
the
environment
prior
to
reuse.
Barium
carbonate
production
area
cleaning
and
maintenance
wastewaters
are
also
re­
inserted
to
the
barium
carbonate
production
process
with
no
significant
pathways
for
exposure
of
these
materials
to
the
environment
prior
to
reuse.
Because
these
materials
are
managed
prior
to
reuse
in
ways
that
present
low
potential
for
release,
and
because
we
evaluated
all
wastes
generated
after
they
are
reinserted
into
the
process,
we
do
not
believe
that
these
secondary
materials
present
significant
threats.
The
barite
ore
feedstock
facility
also
produces
molten
sulfur
or
sodium
hyposulfate
from
hydrogen
sulfide
gas
piped
from
the
barium
carbonate
manufacturing
process.
Because
the
material
is
a
gas
from
a
production
unit,
rather
than
from
a
waste
management
unit,
and
is
conveyed
to
its
destination
through
piping,
the
gas
is
not
a
solid
waste.
RCRA
Section
1004(
27)
excludes
non­
contained
gases
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste,
and
therefore
they
cannot
be
considered
a
hazardous
waste
(see
54
FR
50973).
The
facility
using
barium
chloride
as
its
feedstock
reclaims
ammonia
in
the
form
of
ammonium
hydroxide
from
barium
carbonate
production
wastes
and
uses
this
material
throughout
the
facility
as
a
feedstock
and
reagent.
Spent
ammoniated
process
solution
is
piped
from
the
process
unit
where
it
forms
to
a
storage
tank
where
it
is
commingled
with
ammoniated
spent
process
solutions
from
several
other
on­
site
manufacturing
processes.
The
ammoniated
spent
process
solutions
from
these
other
manufacturing
processes
are
beyond
the
scope
of
this
listing
determination.
From
the
storage
tank,
the
facility
pipes
the
commingled
ammoniated
spent
process
solutions
to
an
ammonia
reclamation
unit
which
reclaims
the
ammonia
in
the
form
of
ammonium
hydroxide.
Ammonium
hydroxide
is
used
on­
site
in
various
manufacturing
processes,
including
the
production
of
ammonium
bicarbonate
solution
for
use
in
the
barium
carbonate
production
process.
Because
the
spent
solution
is
piped
to
the
reclamation
unit
with
no
significant
potential
for
exposure
to
the
environment,
we
did
not
evaluate
the
solution
further.
Both
facilities
produce
barium
carbonate
from
a
saleable
mineral
product.
29
Under
the
Bevill
exemption
(54
FR
36620±
21),
chemical
manufacturing
begins
if
there
is
any
further
processing
of
a
saleable
mineral
product.
Since
these
facilities
use
saleable
mineral
products
as
feedstock,
their
processes
are
chemical
manufacturing,
and
are
not
classified
as
mineral
processing.
Therefore
none
of
the
wastestreams
generated
by
these
facilities
during
the
production
of
barium
carbonate
are
Bevill
exempt.
See
the
``
Barium
Carbonate
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''
for
more
details
on
these
residuals.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00024
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55707
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
d.
Waste
characterization
and
Agency
evaluation.
Barium
is
the
primary
constituent
of
potential
concern
in
the
wastes
from
both
facilities.
Barium
occurs
in
several
production
wastes
at
high
levels,
in
some
cases
exceeding
the
TC
level
(100
mg/
L)
in
TCLP
leachate
samples.
These
TC
wastes
are
coded
and
treated
as
hazardous
(D005).
The
Georgia
facility
holds
a
hazardous
waste
treatment
permit
to
allow
on­
site
stabilization
of
barium,
and
the
Pennsylvania
facility
sends
all
of
their
D005
wastes
off­
site
for
treatment
and
disposal
at
a
hazardous
waste
treatment
and
disposal
facility.
We
decided
not
to
do
characterization
sampling
for
wastes
from
either
facility
because
both
facilities
submitted
information
to
us
on
the
nature
of
their
wastes.
We
also
received
some
additional
analytical
data
from
the
State
of
Georgia
for
the
Georgia
facility.
These
data
provided
information
on
the
concentrations
(or
absence)
of
the
metal
constituents
of
potential
concern
in
the
wastes
and
in
test
leachates
from
the
wastes.
We
believe
the
available
information
is
sufficient
to
adequately
characterize
the
wastes
and
to
allow
us
to
evaluate
their
risk
potential
for
the
purposes
of
a
listing
decision.
``
Barium
Carbonate
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''
summarizes
the
analytical
data
and
other
information
available
for
these
wastes.
We
propose
not
to
list
any
of
the
wastes
from
the
barium
carbonate
manufacturing
industry.
Many
wastes
from
this
industry
are
characteristically
hazardous
and
managed
as
hazardous
wastes
either
on­
site
or
at
permitted
Subtitle
C
treatment
facilities
off­
site.
Other
wastes
did
not
exhibit
constituents
at
levels
of
concern
for
purposes
of
a
listing
given
the
nature
of
their
management
and
disposal.
Several
groups
of
wastes
from
each
of
the
facilities
are
disposed
of
in
a
treated
form,
rather
than
an
as­
generated
form.
In
general,
therefore,
we
focused
our
evaluation
on
the
treated
form
of
the
wastes.
The
paragraphs
below
describe
how
the
wastes
are
generated
and
managed
for
the
two
processes
and
our
rationale
for
proposing
not
to
list
the
wastes.
We
solicit
comments
on
the
proposed
listing
decisions
described
below.
(1)
Wastes
from
the
production
of
barium
carbonate
from
barite
ore
feedstock.
(a)
Treated
barium
wastes.
The
waste
category,
``
treated
barium
wastes,
''
is
the
treatment
residue
from
the
commingling
and
treatment
of
several
barium
wastes
in
an
on­
site
hazardous
waste
treatment
unit.
The
barium
wastes,
which
are
consistently
characteristically
hazardous
for
barium
(D005)
before
treatment
(or
are
consistently
assumed
by
the
facility
to
be
D005
wastes),
include:
ÐBarite
ore
leaching
waste,
which
is
solids
from
the
filtration
of
the
liquid
product
stream
from
the
barite
ore
roasting
and
leaching
units,
ÐBarium
sulfide
sludge,
which
is
from
polishing
filtration
of
liquid
barium
sulfide,
and,
ÐWastes
from
cleaning
and
maintenance
of
the
barium
carbonate
production
area.
A
RCRA
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
treatment
facility
permit
governs
the
onsite
treatment
process
for
these
barium
wastes.
The
three
wastes
are
sent
directly
to
the
treatment
unit,
or
they
are
stored
prior
to
treatment
for
short
time
periods
in
Subtitle
C
closed
containers.
The
treatment
process
is
a
stabilization
process
for
barium
using
gypsum
(primarily
calcium
sulfate)
to
precipitate
soluble
barium
as
less
soluble
barium
sulfate.
According
to
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulations,
the
treated
barium
waste
must
meet
the
LDR
UTS.
Treatment
takes
place
in
concrete
mixer­
type
trucks.
Once
treatment
is
complete,
the
treatment
trucks
immediately
transport
the
waste
to
the
facility's
captive
Subtitle
D
landfill
for
disposal,
located
approximately
2
miles
from
the
production
facility
on
facilityowned
property.
State
and
facility
information
indicate
that
the
treated
barium
wastes
no
longer
exceed
the
TC
level
for
barium
(100
mg/
L
from
TCLP
analysis)
and
typically
leach
less
than
1
mg/
L
barium,
according
to
both
SPLP
and
TCLP
analyses.
In
addition,
according
to
data
the
facility
and
the
state
of
Georgia
submitted
to
EPA
from
sampling
events
conducted
during
the
past
two
years
at
the
facility,
the
waste
meets
the
LDR
UTS
for
all
regulated
constituents.
The
treated
barium
wastes
are
disposed
of
in
the
landfill
without
daily
cover.
However,
the
waste
has
a
relatively
high
moisture
content
(approximately
50%)
when
placed
in
the
landfill
and,
according
to
the
facility,
hardens
over
time
and
does
not
create
dust.
In
addition,
the
waste
does
not
contain
any
known
volatile
constituents
of
concern.
To
assess
the
potential
for
groundwater
releases
from
the
captive,
industrial
landfill,
we
compared
the
SPLP
leaching
data
from
the
facility
and
the
state
of
Georgia
to
existing
HBLs
for
ingestion
of
groundwater.
SPLP
data
are
appropriate
for
evaluating
this
waste
because
it
is
placed
in
a
Subtitle
D
industrial
landfill.
We
did
not
find
any
constituents
in
the
available
SPLP
data
that
exceeded
the
health­
based
levels
by
more
than
a
factor
of
2
(see
section
III.
E.
3
for
a
discussion
of
this
riskscreening
criterion).
See
the
``
Barium
Carbonate
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''
for
further
details
on
the
available
data.
In
addition,
we
found
only
one
exceedence
of
AWQC
standards
among
the
SPLP
leaching
data
for
treated
barium
wastes.
Selenium
was
found
at
a
level
of
0.04±
0.06
mg/
L,
which
exceeds
the
AWQC
standard
(0.0050
mg/
L)
by
a
factor
of
8
to
12.
However,
the
landfill
in
which
the
treated
barium
wastes
are
placed
is
1,700
feet
from
the
nearest
downgradient
water
body,
the
Etowah
River,
and
also
lies
beyond
the
river's
100
year
flood
plain.
In
recent
years,
the
Etowah
River
in
the
vicinity
of
the
landfill
has
had
a
flow
rate
varying
between
9.9
to
230
m
3
per
second
on
a
daily
basis.
Given
the
distance
over
which
leachate
from
the
treated
barium
wastes
would
need
to
travel
before
reaching
the
river,
dilution
and
attenuation
during
transport
in
local
groundwater,
and
further
dilution
in
the
Etowah
River,
we
believe
the
levels
of
selenium
in
the
leachate
would
decrease
to
a
level
which
would
no
longer
pose
a
risk
to
the
environment.
We
do
not
believe
it
is
necessary
to
assess
other
management
practices
for
the
treated
barium
wastes.
The
facility
has
treated
and
disposed
of
their
treatment
residues
in
a
similar
manner
for
over
15
years.
The
production
facility
itself
relies
on
a
local
source
of
barite
ore,
has
operated
from
its
current
location
since
1942
and
is
therefore
not
likely
to
change
its
location
in
the
near
future.
The
dedicated
landfill
has
a
remaining
life
of
nearly
20
years
and
is
located
approximately
2
miles
from
the
production
facility.
Given
the
dedicated
nature
of
the
landfill,
its
proximity
to
the
production
facility,
and
the
significant
remaining
capacity,
we
believe
it
is
unlikely
that
the
Georgia
facility
will
dispose
of
their
wastes
in
any
other
unit
in
the
near
future.
Thus
there
is
no
need
to
assess
additional
management
scenarios
for
this
wastestream.
Given
the
facility's
Subtitle
C
waste
treatment
permit,
we
believe
that
the
facility's
untreated
D005
wastes
are
adequately
managed
with
respect
to
this
rulemaking.
In
addition,
we
have
found
no
potential
for
releases
to
air,
groundwater,
or
surface
water
at
levels
of
concern
from
the
treated
wastes.
Therefore
we
propose
not
to
list
these
wastes.
(b)
Wastewater
from
barium
carbonate
precipitate
dewatering.
The
facility
filters
barium
carbonate
precipitate
from
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00025
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55708
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
residual
process
solutions
and
sends
this
filtrate
to
the
facility's
tank­
based
wastewater
treatment
plant
(WWTP)
for
treatment.
According
to
the
facility's
RCRA
Section
3007
Survey
response,
the
wastewater
does
not
exceed
the
TC
level
for
any
constituent.
Wastewater
from
the
barium
carbonate
production
process
commingle
in
the
WWTP
with
wastewaters
from
other
facility
processes
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking
and
comprise
approximately
17%
of
the
total
WWTP
flow­
through.
The
wastewater
treatment
is
an
oxidation
process.
Treatment
of
the
wastewaters
occurs
in
tanks
equipped
with
secondary
containment.
Given
the
controlled
manner
in
which
the
wastewater
is
managed
in
tanks,
the
lack
of
any
volatile
constituents
of
concern,
and
NPDES
regulation
of
the
WWTP
effluent,
we
propose
not
to
list
this
wastewater.
(c)
Treated
wastewater
treatment
plant
sludge.
The
facility's
WWTP
generates
a
treatment
sludge
from
the
commingling
and
treatment
of
wastewaters
discussed
above
in
the
preceding
section.
The
resulting
sludge
is
dewatered
to
25%
solids
content
in
an
uncovered
tank.
None
of
the
information
the
facility
provided
on
this
waste
indicates
the
presence
of
volatile
constituents
of
concern.
The
facility
places
the
dewatered
WWTP
sludge
directly
from
the
WWTP
unit
into
a
treatment
unit
consisting
of
a
concrete
mixer­
type
truck
containing
gypsum
(primarily
calcium
sulfate).
The
truck
mixes
the
wastewater
treatment
sludge
with
the
gypsum
to
convert
soluble
barium
to
a
less
soluble
barium
sulfate
prior
to
transporting
the
waste
to
the
facility's
off­
site,
captive,
Subtitle
D
landfill.
We
found
low
potential
for
releases
from
either
the
dewatering
tank
or
the
treatment
unit.
Analytical
data
from
the
state
shows
that
the
treatment
process
reduced
leachable
barium
in
the
sludge,
according
to
SPLP
analysis,
from
53
mg/
L
to
0.03
mg/
L.
SPLP
analytical
data
from
the
State
also
show
no
potential
constituents
of
concern
in
treated
WWTP
sludge
samples
at
concentrations
above
HBLs
or
above
AWQCs.
Therefore,
this
waste
screened
out
from
any
further
risk
evaluation
for
groundwater
or
surface
water.
The
SPLP
data
are
appropriate
for
evaluating
this
waste
because
it
is
placed
in
a
Subtitle
D
industrial
landfill.
Similar
to
the
treated
barium
wastes
described
above
in
section
(a),
the
waste
has
a
high
moisture
content
when
placed
in
the
landfill
and
is
reported
by
the
facility
to
harden
over
time.
Therefore,
we
do
not
believe
this
waste
poses
a
significant
risk
through
releases
of
airborne
dust.
In
addition,
the
waste
does
not
contain
any
known
volatile
constituents
of
concern.
We
do
not
believe
it
is
necessary
to
assess
other
management
practices
for
this
waste.
The
facility
has
treated
and
disposed
of
their
wastewater
treatment
plant
sludge
in
a
similar
manner
for
over
15
years.
Given
the
dedicated
nature
of
the
landfill,
its
proximity
to
the
production
facility,
and
the
significant
remaining
capacity,
we
believe
it
is
unlikely
that
the
facility
will
dispose
of
their
wastes
in
any
other
facility
in
the
foreseeable
future.
Based
on
our
knowledge
of
the
current
nature
of
the
management
of
the
treated
wastewater
treatment
plant
sludge
and
of
the
low
level
of
constituents
of
concern
it
contains,
including
volatile
constituents,
we
propose
not
to
list
the
treated
wastewater
treatment
plant
sludge.
(d)
Spent
polypropylene
and
nylon
filter
media
and
baghouse
dust
collector
bags.
Baghouse
dust
collector
bags
and
polypropylene
and
nylon
filter
media
fabric
at
the
Georgia
facility
deteriorate
over
time
and
must
be
replaced
periodically.
The
facility
washes
the
bags
and
filters
with
water
and
then
soaks
them
in
sulfate
solution
to
stabilize
any
remaining
barium.
The
facility
then
disposes
of
the
bags
and
filter
fabric
in
a
local
municipal
Subtitle
D
landfill.
Wastewaters
from
the
washing
of
the
filters
and
bags
are
returned
to
the
production
process.
Solids
from
the
washing
of
the
filters
and
bags
become
part
of
the
cleaning
and
maintenance
wastes
that
are
treated
as
discussed
above
in
section
(a).
The
facility
did
not
provide
chemical
composition
analyses
for
these
wastes.
However,
we
do
not
expect
either
baghouse
bags
or
nylon
and
polypropylene
filter
fabrics,
which
are
used
primarily
for
physical
separation
of
solids
from
liquids
in
the
barium
carbonate
production
process,
to
contain
notable
levels
of
any
potential
constituent
of
concern
besides
barium.
According
to
the
facility,
neither
the
bags
nor
the
filters
exceed
the
TC
level
for
any
constituent.
In
addition,
the
facility
treats
the
materials
to
stabilize
any
remaining
barium
before
disposing
of
them
in
a
Subtitle
D
municipal
solid
waste
landfill.
The
facility
does
not
produce
a
large
volume
of
these
wastes;
approximately
3
metric
tons
per
year
of
filters
and
approximately
1.5
metric
tons
per
year
of
baghouse
bags.
Because
barium
is
not
volatile,
and
because
we
do
not
expect
the
filter
media
and
bags
to
contain
any
other
volatile
constituents,
we
do
not
believe
these
residuals
pose
any
risk
through
airborne
pathways.
Given
the
relatively
small
volume
of
these
wastes,
the
inert
nature
of
the
filters
and
bags
themselves,
and
the
facility's
washing
and
stabilization
of
barium
prior
to
disposal,
we
believe
these
treated
bag
wastes
do
not
warrant
listing
as
hazardous
wastes.
(2)
Wastes
from
the
production
of
barium
carbonate
from
high
purity
barium
chloride
feedstock.
(a)
Barium
carbonate
production
wastewaters
and
wastewater
treatment
plant
sludge.
The
Pennsylvania
facility
commingles
and
treats
wastewaters
from
several
manufacturing
processes
at
their
facility
in
an
on­
site,
tank­
based
WWTP.
Wastewaters
from
the
barium
carbonate
production
process
are
piped
directly
to
the
WWTP
and
comprise
less
than
1%
of
total
WWTP
flow
through;
the
remainder
of
the
wastewaters
entering
the
WWTP
are
from
manufacturing
processes
not
within
the
scope
of
this
listing
determination.
Wastewaters
from
the
barium
carbonate
production
process
include:
ÐAmmonia
vapor
scrubber
waters
and
ammonia
reclamation
unit
wastewater.
ÐBarium
carbonate
precipitate
washwater.
A
scrubber
captures
ammonia
vapor
from
the
mixing
of
ammonium
bicarbonate
solution
with
the
barium
chloride
solution
to
precipitate
barium
carbonate.
Water,
sodium
hydroxide,
and
emissions
from
other
manufacturing
processes
in
the
facility
mix
with
the
ammonia
vapor
in
the
scrubber
to
produce
this
wastestream.
An
ammonia
reclamation
unit
recovers
ammonia
from
ammoniated
spent
process
solutions
from
multiple
manufacturing
processes,
including
the
barium
carbonate
manufacturing
process,
in
the
form
of
28%
ammonium
hydroxide
solution.
The
unit
also
produces
a
wastewater.
Approximately
1%
of
the
total
ammonia
reclamation
unit
inflow
derives
from
the
barium
carbonate
production
process.
Therefore,
a
small
percentage
of
the
unit's
wastewater
derives
from
barium
carbonate
production.
The
facility
also
produces
a
wastewater
from
the
washing
of
barium
carbonate
precipitate
with
deionized
water
in
order
to
remove
any
process
solution
remaining
on
the
precipitate.
The
only
possible
release
route
of
concern
from
the
tank­
based
system
for
the
wastewaters
would
be
through
air
releases.
This
pathway
is
highly
unlikely
for
the
nonvolatile
metals
that
are
the
potential
constituents
of
concern
in
these
wastes.
Given
the
controlled
manner
in
which
the
wastewaters
are
managed
and
the
regulation
of
the
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00026
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55709
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
30
The
Agency
has
previously
evaluated
the
Bevill
status
of
wastestreams
at
the
Searles
Lake
facility;
see
memos
dated
February
14,
1992
and
June
30,
1993
in
Appendix
E
of
the
``
Boric
Acid
Background
Continued
treatment
unit's
discharge
under
the
NPDES
program,
we
propose
not
to
list
these
wastewaters.
Treatment
of
the
commingled
wastewaters
consists
of
neutralization
followed
by
filtration.
The
treatment
generates
a
sludge.
According
to
the
facility's
RCRA
Section
3007
Survey
response,
the
sludge
does
not
exceed
the
TC
level
for
any
constituent.
The
facility
disposes
of
the
sludge
in
a
local
Subtitle
D
municipal
solid
waste
landfill.
We
do
note
the
presence
of
some
potential
constituents
of
concern
in
the
WWTP
sludge.
These
constituents
include
vanadium,
nickel,
and
antimony.
However,
we
do
not
believe
that
these
constituents
derive
from
the
barium
carbonate
manufacturing
process.
Because
the
barium
carbonate
production
process
wastewaters
contribute
less
than
1%
of
the
total
input
to
the
on­
site
WWTP,
any
constituents
in
the
barium
carbonate
production
wastewaters
sent
to
the
WWTP
also
make
a
minimal
contribution
to
the
total
level
of
constituents
in
the
combined
wastewater
in
the
WWTP
and
the
resulting
sludge.
In
addition,
the
process
uses
high
purity
barium
chloride
dissolved
in
deionized
water
as
its
primary
feedstock
and
reclaims
much
of
the
residual
ammonia
from
its
ammonium
bicarbonate
feedstock.
Therefore,
the
likelihood
that
the
constituents
of
concern
in
the
sludge
might
arise
from
the
barium
carbonate
production
process
is
very
low.
Moreover,
the
facility
has
provided
information
to
us
indicating
that
the
barium
carbonate
process
is
not
the
source
of
these
potential
constituents
of
concern
and
that
they
derive
instead
from
on­
site
manufacturing
processes
beyond
the
scope
of
today's
listing
proposal
(see
``
Barium
Carbonate
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''
for
further
details).
Given
the
minimal
potential
for
contribution
of
constituents
of
concern
by
the
barium
carbonate
process
wastewaters
to
the
WWTP
sludge,
we
propose
not
to
list
this
sludge
under
this
rulemaking
effort.
(b)
Ammoniated
spent
process
solution
storage
tank
solids.
The
facility
pipes
residual
process
solution
containing
ammonia
directly
from
the
barium
carbonate
precipitate
settling
unit
to
covered
storage
tanks
prior
to
routing
it
through
an
on­
site
ammonia
reclamation
unit.
The
barium
carbonate
process
wastewater
is
one
of
many
ammoniated
residual
process
solutions
the
facility
routes
to
the
storage
tanks
and
constitutes
approximately
1%
of
the
unit's
total
input.
The
ammoniated
spent
process
solution
storage
tank
accumulates
solids
which
the
facility
removes
and
disposes
of
in
a
local
Subtitle
D
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
on
a
yearly
basis.
The
tank
solids
are
a
small
volume
waste
of
1
MT/
yr.
According
to
analytical
data
provided
by
the
facility,
the
solids
do
not
exceed
the
TC
level
for
any
constituent,
though
they
do
contain
vanadium,
nickel,
and
antimony
at
levels
of
potential
concern.
However,
as
noted
for
the
wastewater
treatment
plant
sludge,
the
constituents
of
concern
in
the
solids
are
unlikely
to
arise
from
the
barium
carbonate
production
process
because
the
barium
carbonate
production
process
contributes
only
1%
of
the
total
wastewaters
in
the
storage
tanks.
In
addition,
information
the
facility
provided
indicates
that
the
nickel,
vanadium
and
antimony
found
in
the
sludge
derive
from
other
manufacturing
processes
that
are
beyond
the
scope
of
this
listing
determination.
Thus,
given
the
solids'
small
volume
and
the
low
likelihood
that
the
barium
carbonate
process
wastewater
contributes
any
constituents
of
concern,
we
propose
not
to
list
the
ammoniated
spent
process
solution
tank
solids
in
this
listing
determination.
(c)
Sludge
and
spent
filter
media
from
filtration
of
barium
chloride
solution
and
barium
carbonate
drying
and
sizing
unit
air
pollution
control
residues.
Both
the
air
pollution
control
dusts
from
the
barium
carbonate
drying
and
sizing
unit
and
sludge
and
the
spent
filter
materials
from
barium
chloride
solution
filtration
exceed
the
TC
regulatory
level
for
barium
(100
mg/
L).
The
facility
codes
the
waste
as
characteristic
hazardous
waste
(D005).
The
facility
stores
these
small
volume
wastes
in
closed
containers
on­
site
before
sending
them
to
a
RCRA
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
treatment
and
disposal
facility
for
treatment
and
disposal.
We
believe
that
the
containers
present
no
significant
potential
for
release
to
the
environment.
We
believe
that
regulations
applying
to
characteristic
wastes
adequately
protect
against
mismanagement.
Furthermore,
these
wastes
comprise
a
very
small
volume
(<
1.23
metric
tons
per
year).
Thus,
we
propose
not
to
list
these
wastes.

3.
Boric
Acid
a.
Summary.
We
have
evaluated
the
wastes
from
the
production
of
boric
acid
and
propose
not
to
list
any
wastes
from
this
process
as
hazardous
under
RCRA.
These
wastes
do
not
meet
the
criteria
set
out
at
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3)
for
listing
wastes
as
hazardous.
They
do
not
pose
a
substantial
present
or
potential
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
We
have
identified
no
risks
of
concern
associated
with
the
current
management
of
the
wastes.
b.
Description
of
the
boric
acid
industry.
Boric
acid
was
produced
by
two
facilities
in
the
United
States
in
1998.
These
two
facilities
are
both
located
in
the
Mojave
Desert
in
California,
one
of
the
few
areas
where
borate
minerals
can
be
mined
in
the
United
States.
The
two
facilities
mine
borates
from
different
sources
to
produce
boric
acid.
The
first
recovers
borate
from
brines
pumped
from
beneath
Searles
Dry
Lake,
California.
The
second
facility
mines
sodium
borate
ores
near
Boron,
California.
The
first
facility
extracts
highly
mineralized
brine
and
uses
a
liquidliquid
extraction
process
to
remove
the
borates
from
the
brine.
During
the
first
production
step,
called
the
``
loading
section,
''
the
facility
mixes
the
brine
with
a
chelating
agent
in
a
kerosene
solution
that
causes
most
of
the
boron
and
some
of
the
sodium
and
potassium
compounds
in
the
brine
to
bind
to
the
extractant.
The
loaded
extractant
is
sent
through
strippers
where
it
is
mixed
with
dilute
sulfuric
acid
to
strip
the
boron,
sodium
and
potassium
from
the
extractant
to
form
boric
acid,
sodium
sulfate
and
potassium
sulfate.
The
solution
is
then
sent
to
a
solution
settler
from
which
the
liquor
goes
to
boric
acid
recovery
using
crystallization
and
evaporation
techniques.
The
second
facility
mines
sodium
borate
kernite
ore
to
produce
boric
acid
through
a
process
of
dissolution,
classification,
thickening,
filtration
and
crystallization.
Because
the
facilities
use
such
different
sources
and
production
processes,
their
resulting
wastes
are
very
different
and
are
discussed
separately.
For
more
detailed
information
concerning
this
industry,
see
the
``
Boric
Acid
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.
c.
Agency
evaluation
of
wastes
generated
by
the
brine
recovery
process.

Are
There
Any
Wastes
in
This
Process
That
Fall
Under
the
Bevill
Exemption?

The
depleted
brine
from
the
loading
section
of
the
brine
recovery
process
is
exempt
as
a
mineral
processing
beneficiation
waste
under
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
7)(
i).
30
This
waste
from
the
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00027
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55710
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''
in
the
docket.
extraction/
beneficiation
of
ores
and
minerals
is
thus
outside
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree.
The
facility
reported
generating
4,600,000
MT
in
1998.
This
Bevill
exempt
waste
is
commingled
with
wastes
which
do
not
qualify
for
the
Bevill
exclusion
later
in
the
process.
The
portion
of
the
waste
which
does
not
qualify
for
the
Bevill
exclusion
is
within
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree
and
is
discussed
below.
As
discussed
in
the
Agency's
prior
Bevill
evaluations
for
this
facility,
mineral
processing
begins
at
the
liquidliquid
extraction
step
where
sulfuric
acid
is
added
to
the
loaded
extractant
to
produce
sodium
sulfate
and
boric
acid.
Wastes
generated
before
this
step,
including
spent
brine,
are
beneficiation
wastes
and
retain
their
Bevill
exemption.
All
wastes
generated
after
the
beginning
of
mineral
processing
are
non­
exempt
solid
wastes.
Therefore,
all
of
the
wastes
at
this
facility
which
are
generated
from
the
liquid
extraction
step
to
the
end
of
the
process
are
all
non'exempt
solid
wastes.
See
the
``
Boric
Acid
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''
in
the
docket
for
more
information
on
the
Bevill
exemption
for
wastes
at
this
facility.

What
Kinds
of
Wastes
Are
Generated
by
the
Brine
Recovery
Process?

The
Bevill
exempt
depleted
brine
from
the
loading
section
is
sent
through
an
API
settler
and
Wemco
floatation
cells
designed
to
separate
organic
compounds
from
the
brine.
The
organic
emulsions
generated
in
these
units
and
in
the
process
settlers
are
sent
to
an
onsite
``
crud''
treatment
facility
which
breaks
down
the
emulsion
into
aqueous
and
organic
components.
This
treatment
process
generates
a
non­
exempt
hydrocarbon
waste
(fuel
oil)
that
is
sent
off­
site
to
a
used
oil
refinery.
The
Bevill
exempt
brine
is
sent
to
the
``
Trona
skimmer''
where
it
is
combined
with
other
non­
exempt
wastewaters
generated
during
the
process.
The
Trona
skimmer
acts
as
a
settling
pond
promoting
phase
separation
of
remaining
organic
materials
in
the
brine.
The
Bevill
exempt
brine
is
then
returned
to
the
dry
lake
for
recharging
as
required
by
the
facility's
Bureau
of
Land
Management
permit.
Because
the
non­
exempt
wastewaters
are
commingled
with
the
Bevill
exempt
brine
in
the
Trona
skimmer,
the
nonexempt
wastewaters
are
also
returned
to
the
dry
lake
as
a
small
percentage
of
the
overall
volume.
The
non­
exempt
organic
waste
removed
at
the
Trona
skimmer
is
stored
on­
site
in
a
tank
until
it
is
shipped
off­
site
to
a
commercial
blender
and
subsequently
burned
for
energy
recovery.

Additional
wastes
generated
by
the
brine
recovery
process
that
are
not
Bevill
exempt
include:
ÐPetroleum
contaminated
sludges
from
containment
areas
around
the
API
settler,
Wemco
floatation
cells,
loading
section
and
liquid­
liquid
extraction
(LLX)
strippers
ÐSpent
activated
carbon
collected
from
the
carbon
filter
system
used
to
purify
the
borate
liquor
before
it
goes
into
the
crystallization
units
In
addition
to
the
above
wastes,
the
facility
also
produces
other
materials
during
the
production
of
boric
acid
that
are
either
piped
directly
back
to
the
production
process
or
used
for
other
purposes.
These
materials
include
aqueous
residuals
and
kerosene
recovered
from
the
crud
treatment
process,
off­
specification
product,
scrubber
water
and
condensate
that
are
returned
to
on­
site
production
units
for
use.
Because
these
materials
are
reused
on­
site
in
production
units
and
there
is
no
significant
potential
for
exposure
of
these
materials
to
the
environment
prior
to
reuse,
we
found
that
they
present
no
significant
threat.
Also,
off­
specification
product,
when
reinserted
without
reclamation
into
the
process
where
it
originated,
is
not
a
solid
waste.

How
Are
the
Wastes
From
the
Brine
Recovery
Process
Currently
Managed?

Table
III±
6
summarizes
our
information
about
the
wastes
from
this
process:

TABLE
III.±
6.Ð
BORIC
ACID:
BRINE
RECOVERY
PROCESS
WASTES
Waste
category
1998
volume
(MT)
Sequential
management
practices
Fuel
oil
from
crud
treatment
facility
....................
690
...................................................................
(1)
Stored
in
covered
tank;
(2)
Sent
off­
site
to
a
Subtitle
C
permitted
used
oil
refinery.
Miscellaneous
wastewaters
................................
194,040
(The
Bevill
exempt
partially
depleted
brine
volume
is
4.6
million
MT).
(1)
Combined
wastewaters;
discharged
to
Trona
skimmer
with
the
Bevill
exempt
partially
depleted
brine;
(2)
Removal
of
organics
in
skimmer
unit;
(3)
Commingled
partially
depleted
brine
and
process
wastewaters
are
returned
to
Searles
Dry
Lake
for
recharging.
Organics
from
Trona
skimmer
............................
10
.....................................................................
(1)
Stored
in
covered
tank;
(2)
Sent
to
off­
site
Subtitle
C
blender;
(3)
Burned
for
energy
recovery.
Sludges
from
containment
areas
.......................
20
.....................................................................
(1)
Drum
storage;
(2)
20
cubic
yard
roll­
off
bins;
(3)
Transported
with
manifest
off­
site
to
Subtitle
C
landfill
as
California­
only
hazardous
waste.
Spent
activated
carbon
......................................
43
.....................................................................
(1)
Washed;
(2)
Reclaimed
in
an
on­
site
furnace;
(3)
Reused
in
the
process.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00028
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55711
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
31
Based
on
the
RfD
in
IRIS
(2E±
1
mg/
kg­
day)
and
a
90th
percentile
drinking
water
intake
rate
in
children
(64
mL/
Kg/
day).
What
Is
EPA's
Decision
About
Whether
to
List
These
Wastes
as
Hazardous?

We
propose
not
to
list
any
wastes
from
the
brine
recovery
process
for
the
production
of
boric
acid.
Our
rationale
for
each
waste
is
presented
below.
(1)
Fuel
oil
from
the
crud
treatment
facility.
We
propose
not
to
list
the
fuel
oil
generated
at
the
crud
treatment
facility.
The
facility
characterized
the
fuel
oil
as
100
percent
hydrocarbons.
The
fuel
oil
is
stored
on­
site
in
a
covered
tank
prior
to
being
shipped
offsite
to
a
Subtitle
C
permitted
used
oil
refinery.
For
those
scenarios
where
wastes
are
managed
in
a
tank,
the
impervious
nature
of
the
construction
materials
(concrete,
fiberglass,
or
steel)
of
tanks
is
unlikely
to
result
in
releases
to
groundwater
in
all
but
the
most
catastrophic
scenarios.
We
also
are
not
concerned
with
potential
air
releases
because
the
tank
is
covered.
The
subsequent
treatment
at
the
permitted
used
oil
refinery
is
already
regulated
under
Subtitle
C
and
the
used
oil
regulations.
Therefore,
we
propose
not
to
list
this
waste.
(2)
Miscellaneous
wastewaters.
We
propose
not
to
list
the
miscellaneous
wastewaters.
We
evaluated
the
potential
for
an
exposure
pathway
via
groundwater
ingestion
and
determined
that
no
such
pathway
exists.
The
facility
producing
boric
acid
by
recovering
borates
mined
from
Searles
Dry
Lake
is
located
in
California's
Mojave
Desert.
The
process
and
associated
wastewaters
are
tied
to
the
Mojave
Desert
location
because
it
is
the
source
of
the
borate
rich
brine.
The
environment
is
arid
with
only
4
inches
of
precipitation
annually.
The
groundwater
under
the
facility
has
total
dissolved
solids
(TDS)
levels
as
high
as
450,000
ppm.
All
wastewaters,
including
the
Bevill
exempt
depleted
brine,
are
co­
managed
and
ultimately
returned
to
the
dry
lake
resource.
Due
to
the
extremely
high
TDS
levels
in
the
area,
the
water
is
non­
potable.
The
surrounding
communities
have
drinking
water
piped
in
from
25
miles
away.
Therefore,
no
groundwater
exposure
pathway
exists.
Furthermore,
the
total
volume
of
the
miscellaneous
wastewaters
is
4
percent
of
the
volume
of
the
depleted
brine;
any
contaminants
in
these
wastewaters
would
therefore
be
diluted
by
a
factor
of
25
prior
to
return
to
the
dry
lakebed.
Most
of
the
miscellaneous
wastewaters
are
generated
in
the
later
part
of
the
process
and
thus
we
do
not
expect
they
will
contain
constituents
of
concern
at
significant
levels.
There
is
one
wastewater
that
contains
organic
constituents
not
found
in
the
influent
brine
(formaldehyde
and
fuel
hydrocarbons).
This
wastewater
is
generated
at
the
carbon
column.
However,
it
only
represents
0.03
percent
of
the
total
volume
that
is
returned
to
the
dry
lake.
Also,
the
reported
level
of
formaldehyde
in
the
waste
would
be
well
below
the
HBL
for
this
chemical
(3
mg/
L)
31
after
mixing
with
other
wastewaters.
We
are
not
concerned
with
potential
air
releases
because
the
Trona
skimmer,
where
the
wastes
are
mixed,
is
covered.
The
facility
also
mixes
a
characteristic
(D002)
HCl
acid
waste
stream
with
the
Bevill
exempt
depleted
brine
prior
to
reaching
the
Trona
skimmer.
The
resultant
mixture
is
not
characteristic
and
the
mixing
takes
place
within
a
pipeline
where
there
is
no
opportunity
for
exposure
to
the
characteristic
waste
before
or
during
the
mixing.
Given
the
factors
listed
above,
particularly
the
lack
of
an
exposure
pathway,
we
propose
not
to
list
the
miscellaneous
wastewaters.
(3)
Organics
from
the
Trona
skimmer.
We
propose
not
to
list
the
organics
(chlorinated
hydrocarbons)
recovered
from
the
Trona
skimmer.
The
organics
are
stored
in
a
covered
tank
before
being
shipped
off­
site.
For
those
scenarios
where
wastes
are
managed
in
a
tank,
the
impervious
nature
of
the
construction
materials
(concrete,
fiberglass,
or
steel)
of
tanks
is
unlikely
to
result
in
releases
to
groundwater
in
all
but
the
most
catastrophic
scenarios.
We
also
are
not
concerned
with
potential
air
releases
because
both
the
Trona
skimmer
and
tank
are
covered.
The
waste
is
shipped
off­
site
to
a
Subtitle
C
permitted
blender
prior
to
being
burned
for
energy
recovery
in
cement
kilns.
Burning
by
cement
kilns
is
regulated
under
MACT
standards
for
cement
kilns
(64
FR
31989,
June
14,
1999
and
64
FR
52827,
September
30,
1999).
Therefore,
we
did
not
further
evaluate
potential
risks
from
burning
the
organics
under
this
listing.
The
facility
reported
a
California­
only
hazardous
waste
code
CA343
(organic
liquids,
unspecified)
for
the
waste
but
did
not
report
any
federal
characteristic
codes.
The
facility
manifests
the
waste
using
the
California
code
when
they
send
it
to
the
blender.
Because
this
waste
has
significant
BTU
value
and
also
carries
a
state
hazardous
waste
code,
we
expect
this
management
practice
to
continue;
we
do
not
believe
there
would
be
any
significant
benefit
to
the
environment
by
listing
this
waste.
(4)
Sludges
from
containment
areas.
We
propose
not
to
list
the
sludges
collected
from
containment
areas
around
the
process
tanks,
the
loading
section,
LLX
strippers,
Wemco
flotation
cells
and
API
settlers.
The
facility
reported
a
California­
only
hazardous
waste
code
CA611
(petroleum
contaminated
soils)
for
the
waste
but
did
not
report
any
federal
characteristic
codes.
The
facility
stores
the
waste
onsite
in
drums,
transfers
to
it
to
20
cubic
yard
roll­
off
bins
and
mixes
the
sludge
with
soil,
and
then
ships
the
waste
offsite
with
a
manifest
as
a
California­
only
hazardous
waste
to
a
Subtitle
C
landfill.
The
facility
is
tied
to
its
location
in
California
so
we
believe
it
is
plausible
that
the
waste
will
always
be
treated
as
a
California­
only
hazardous
waste.
We
do
not
believe
there
would
be
any
significant
benefit
to
the
environment
by
listing
this
waste.
(5)
Spent
activated
carbon.
We
propose
not
to
list
the
carbon
that
is
regenerated
on­
site.
The
carbon
is
regenerated
in
an
on­
site
furnace.
The
carbon
filtration
process
occurs
later
in
the
process
after
much
of
the
organic
additives
have
settled
out
of
the
borate
liquor.
Consequently,
we
expect
that
the
filters
will
not
collect
high
concentrations
of
constituents
of
concern,
except
perhaps
kerosene
related
organics.
We
expect
any
such
constituents
that
are
filtered
out
using
carbon
adsorption
to
be
combustible.
There
is
no
potential
for
exposure
prior
to
the
regeneration
process
or
during
the
return
of
the
activated
carbon
to
the
carbon
filter.
The
furnace
is
permitted
by
the
State
of
California
Air
Control
Board.
Although
the
permit
does
not
contain
any
requirements
for
emission
controls,
it
does
require
annual
reporting.
We
reviewed
the
emissions
data
and
do
not
believe
that
the
emissions
from
the
furnace
are
of
concern.
The
reported
emission
levels
are
significantly
below
the
MACT
standards
for
permitted
hazardous
waste
incinerators
(64
FR
52827,
September
30,
1999).
We
expect
the
use
of
this
furnace
to
continue
because
it
is
expedient
to
regenerate
the
carbon
onsite
and
the
facility
is
unlikely
to
relocate
given
the
proximity
of
the
mineralized
brine
source.
Therefore,
we
propose
not
to
list
this
waste.
d.
Agency
evaluation
of
wastes
generated
by
the
kernite
ore
process.

What
Kinds
of
Wastes
Are
Generated
by
the
Kernite
ore
Process?
The
facility
generates
two
primary
wastestreams:
Tailings
and
gangue.
The
tailings
include
the
wastewaters
and
fine
insolubles
from
ore
processing
and
boric
acid
production.
The
tailings
are
managed
in
tanks
and
then
pumped
to
on­
site
evaporation
ponds/
surface
impoundments.
The
boric
acid
gangue
which
includes
clay,
sand
and
other
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00029
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55712
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
32
California
Water
Quality
Control
Plan
for
the
Lathontan
Regions,
revised
1991
(p.
4.6±
1)
33
Source:
California
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
permit,
board
order
6±
93±
17.
course
insolubles,
is
produced
during
the
separation
of
solids
from
the
borate
liquor,
a
step
the
facility
calls
``
classification.
''
The
gangue
is
placed
on
a
slab
for
drainage
and
then
managed
in
on­
site
waste
piles
with
gangue
produced
from
the
other
production
process
at
the
facility.
The
drainage
from
the
slab
is
sent
to
the
tailings
ponds.
The
remaining
wastestream
is
comprised
of
the
filters
from
the
filtration
of
the
borate
liquor
to
remove
any
remaining
insoluble
ore
material
prior
to
crystallization.
The
filter
aid
is
washed
off
weekly
and
managed
with
the
tailings.
The
spent
filters
are
transferred
to
a
solid
waste
bin
in
preparation
for
on­
site
disposal
in
a
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.
In
addition
to
the
above
wastes,
the
facility
also
produces
off­
specification
product
that
is
put
directly
back
to
the
production
process.
Because
the
material
is
reused
on­
site
in
production
units
in
ways
that
present
low
potential
for
release,
and
because
we
evaluated
process
waste
generated
after
the
secondary
material
is
reinserted
into
the
process,
we
do
not
believe
that
the
offspecification
product
presents
significant
risks.
Note
that,
when
facilities
process
off­
specification
product
by
reinserting
the
offspecification
product
back
into
the
process
where
it
originated,
without
reclamation,
the
off­
specification
product
would
not
be
a
solid
waste.
The
facility
made
beneficiation
exemption
claims
under
the
Bevill
amendments
for
the
tailings
and
gangue
wastes.
Because
we
propose
not
to
list
these
wastes,
we
did
not
review
the
facility's
Bevill
exemption
claims.

How
Are
the
Wastes
From
the
Kernite
Ore
Process
Currently
Managed?

Table
III±
7
summarizes
our
information
about
these
wastes:

TABLE
III±
7.Ð
BORIC
ACID:
KERNITE
ORE
PROCESS
WASTES
Waste
category
1998
volume
Sequential
management
practices
Tailings
...............................................................
Up
to
750,000
gallons/
day
1
.............................
(1)
Stored
in
tank;
(2)
Pumped
to
evaporation
ponds/
surface
impoundments
Gangue
...............................................................
Portion
of
900,000
MT
2
....................................
(1)
Placed
on
slab
for
drainage;
(2)
Trucked
to
on­
site
waste
piles.
Spent
filters
........................................................
3
.......................................................................
(1)
Stored
in
solid
waste
bin;
(2)
On­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.

1
Capacity
volume
for
boric
acid
surface
impoundments.
Current
daily
quantity
is
lower.
Source:
California
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
permit,
board
order
6±
93±
17.
2
The
boric
acid
coarse
gangue
is
co­
mingled
with
gangue
from
the
other
production
process
at
the
facility.
That
process
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree.
The
boric
acid
gangue
represents
only
a
minor
proportion
of
the
total
900,000
tons
of
gangue
typically
deposited
annually
on
the
waste
piles.
Source:
California
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
permit,
board
order
6±
93±
17.

What
Is
EPA's
Decision
About
Whether
To
List
These
Wastes
as
Hazardous?

For
the
reasons
set
out
below,
we
propose
not
to
list
any
wastes
from
the
kernite
ore
process
for
the
production
of
boric
acid.
(1)
Tailings.
We
propose
not
to
list
the
tailings
from
boric
acid
production.
The
tailings
are
managed
in
a
tank
and
then
pumped
to
evaporation
ponds.
The
facility
provided
TCLP
data
for
the
tailings.
Those
data
show
waste
contains
arsenic
and
antimony
above
health­
based
drinking
water
levels.
The
Agency
also
assumed
that
boron
was
present
in
significant
levels
due
to
the
nature
of
the
ore.
The
facility
provided
total
levels
for
the
boron
concentration
in
the
waste.
We
conducted
an
in­
depth
review
of
the
groundwater
conditions
at
the
site
and
have
concluded
that
a
groundwater
exposure
pathway
does
not
exist.
No
one
is
currently
living
near
the
facility
boundary
closest
to
the
waste
management
unit
areas
and
it
is
unlikely
that
future
development
will
occur.
The
closest
existing
drinking
water
well
is
two
miles
away
from
the
waste
management
units.
It
is
a
community
well
and
is
subject
to
all
applicable
drinking
water
standards.
In
addition,
there
are
several
factors
described
below
which
make
contamination
of
this
well
from
a
potential
release
from
the
facility's
evaporation
ponds
unlikely.
The
groundwater
under
the
off­
site
area
of
land
closest
to
the
waste
management
units
is
not
suitable
for
use
as
drinking
water.
The
ore
body,
which
is
the
raw
material
for
the
process,
has
a
localized
impact
on
the
groundwater
in
its
vicinity.
Monitoring
wells
in
the
area
show
that
the
groundwater
in
the
geologic
strata
underneath
the
off­
site
area
adjacent
to
the
waste
management
units
has
total
dissolved
solids
(TDS)
levels
in
excess
of
three
times
the
maximum
level
for
an
aquifer
to
be
considered
a
drinking
water
source
in
California.
32
Additional
factors
such
as
low
flow
rate
and
high
treatment
cost
make
the
potential
for
a
private
well
in
that
area
highly
unlikely.
Municipalities
can
tap
into
an
alternative
water
source
through
a
regional
pipeline
and
need
not
rely
on
groundwater.
The
geology
of
the
area
has
several
characteristics
that
reduce
the
potential
for
releases
from
the
impoundments
from
reaching
known
drinking
water
sources.
The
transport
time
to
groundwater
for
the
constituents
of
concern
appears
to
be
significant
given
the
depth
to
groundwater
under
the
waste
management
units
(170±
220
feet)
and
the
affinity
of
these
constituents
to
bind
with
soil.
33
The
area
under
the
facility
has
several
geologic
faults
that
act
as
groundwater
barriers.
The
South
Borax
fault
is
likely
to
prevent
any
potential
release
from
the
waste
management
units
from
reaching
the
drinking
water
source
for
the
existing
community
well.
The
fault
is
located
just
south
of
the
waste
management
units,
between
the
units
and
the
well.
In
addition,
the
groundwater
underlying
the
waste
management
units
is
contained
in
the
tertiary
soil
layer
whereas
the
community
well
draws
from
the
quaternary
layer.
We
believe
that
migration
between
these
two
layers
would
be
limited.
(The
facility
submitted
a
detailed
summary
of
the
geologic
conditions
at
the
site.
This
information
has
been
placed
in
the
docket
for
this
rulemaking.
See
``
Summary
of
Boron
Operations
Hydrogeology,
Potential
Groundwater
Receptors
and
BAP
Waste
Management
Parameters'').
Finally,
we
note
that
the
impoundments
in
question
are
designed
with
a
triple
liner
and
leachate
collection
system,
making
any
significant
release
less
likely
over
the
active
life
of
the
units.
Based
on
these
factors,
we
do
not
believe
there
is
a
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00030
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55713
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
groundwater
exposure
pathway
from
the
tailings.
We
also
assessed
the
potential
for
air
releases
from
the
tailings
ponds.
Because
the
constituents
of
concern
from
this
process
are
nonvolatile
metals,
we
are
not
concerned
with
releases
through
volatilization.
Although
the
surface
impoundments
are
evaporation
ponds,
the
facility
claims
that
there
is
still
some
level
of
moisture
in
the
ponds
at
all
times,
thereby
minimizing
release
of
particulates
to
the
air.
The
particulates
would
not
likely
be
subject
to
wind
blown
erosion
due
to
the
moisture
level
of
the
waste.
Furthermore,
the
closest
off­
site
receptors
are
at
least
two
miles
away
from
the
unit.
Due
to
dispersion,
it
is
unlikely
that
any
particulate
releases
would
reach
such
receptors
at
significant
levels.
The
facility
also
provided
a
risk
assessment
which
assessed
the
air
risks
from
the
tailings
ponds.
Their
assessment
did
not
show
any
air
risks
from
the
tailings
ponds
even
when
they
assumed
a
conservative
dry
down
process
for
the
unit.
(The
facility's
air
risk
assessment
is
available
in
the
RCRA
docket
for
today's
proposal).
In
summary,
there
are
several
site
specific
factors
that
need
to
be
taken
into
account
when
evaluating
risks
from
this
waste.
This
is
the
only
facility
in
the
country
producing
boric
acid
from
ore.
The
facility
is
tied
to
its
location
because
it
is
the
source
of
the
ore.
The
hydrogeology
of
the
site
is
such
that
local
groundwater
is
not
suitable
for
drinking
water
use,
and
any
potential
releases
from
the
unit
would
be
unlikely
to
migrate
to
any
drinking
water
source.
Furthermore,
the
facility
is
remote
with
the
nearest
receptors
two
miles
away.
Based
on
all
of
these
facts,
we
propose
not
to
list
the
tailings
from
the
kernite
ore
process
for
the
production
of
boric
acid.
(2)
Gangue.
We
propose
not
to
list
the
gangue
generated
during
the
boric
acid
process.
Initially,
the
gangue
is
placed
on
a
slab
to
drain.
The
drainage
from
the
gangue
is
collected
and
managed
with
the
tailings
(we
assessed
the
drainage
as
part
of
the
tailings
wastestream;
see
section
(1)
above
for
our
listing
recommendation).
The
drained
gangue
is
trucked
to
on­
site
waste
piles.
The
gangue
is
wet
when
transported
to
the
waste
pile
but
most
of
the
moisture
evaporates
quickly
in
the
dry
desert
environment.
The
same
geological
conditions
apply
to
the
gangue
waste
unit
as
described
above
for
the
tailings
waste
unit.
The
gangue
is
ultimately
managed
as
a
dry
waste
pile
and
there
is
virtually
no
precipitation
to
cause
leaching.
We
assumed
a
greater
risk
to
groundwater
would
come
from
the
tailings
because
there
is
any
liquid
associated
with
the
gangue
would
evaporate
before
leaching
into
the
subsurface.
Based
on
our
decision
regarding
the
tailings,
we
did
not
further
evaluate
the
risks
to
groundwater
from
the
gangue.
We
did
assess
in
more
detail
the
potential
for
air
releases
from
the
waste
pile.
We
do
not
expect
releases
of
the
nonvolatile
metals
from
this
waste.
The
moist
gangue
solids
are
trucked
to
onsite
waste
piles.
The
gangue
contains
enough
sodium
sulfate
to
cause
the
gangue
piles
to
set
up
like
cement
when
it
dries,
helping
prevent
erosion
and
air
release
of
particulates
from
the
pile.
As
a
further
check
of
potential
air
releases,
we
examined
the
potential
for
release
of
the
constituent
of
most
concern,
arsenic.
According
to
data
provided
by
the
facility,
the
total
levels
of
arsenic
in
the
gangue
vary
between
25
and
78
mg/
kg.
We
compared
these
total
concentrations
to
one
of
the
levels
calculated
as
part
of
the
EPA's
Air
Characteristic
Study
(530±
R±
99±
019b,
Aug
1999,
Table
4±
3).
The
Study
evaluated
different
waste
management
and
receptor
scenarios
to
determine
waste
concentrations
that
would
remain
below
a
specific
target
risk.
Using
the
waste
pile
scenario
at
a
receptor
distance
of
150
meters,
the
study
showed
that
arsenic
levels
of
6,000
ppm
did
not
cause
exceedences
of
the
target
risk
levels.
The
concentration
levels
in
the
gangue
are
well
below
this
number.
In
addition,
the
location
of
the
facility
is
remote
with
the
closest
residence
two
miles
away,
which
is
significantly
beyond
the
150
meter
range.
The
Air
Characteristics
Study
only
evaluated
direct
risks
from
inhalation,
not
indirect
risks.
However,
due
to
the
desert
environment
where
the
facility
is
located,
risks
related
to
consumption
of
soil,
plants
or
animals
are
highly
unlikely
to
arise.
Based
on
these
factors,
we
believe
that
the
arsenic
levels
in
the
gangue
do
not
present
unacceptable
risks
via
the
air
pathway.
In
addition
to
arsenic,
boron
and
antimony
are
the
two
other
constituents
of
concern
present
in
the
gangue.
Based
on
data
provided
by
the
facility,
antimony
is
found
at
total
concentrations
ranging
from
36
mg/
kg
to
84
mg/
kg
in
the
gangue.
The
facility
estimated
the
boron
total
concentration
levels
to
be
25,000
ppm
based
on
average
daily
sampling
of
the
gangue.
Arsenic
is
the
most
toxic
of
the
three
constituents.
Because
the
particulate
releases
and
exposure
scenario
would
likely
be
the
same
for
all
three
constituents
and
because,
as
discussed
above,
we
do
not
believe
arsenic
poses
a
concern,
we
also
believe
there
are
no
unacceptable
levels
of
risk
from
the
antimony
and
boron
in
the
gangue.
After
assessing
possible
risks
from
arsenic,
we
compared
the
ratios
of
the
waste
concentrations
for
the
three
constituents
to
the
ingestion
health­
based
level
for
each
constituent.
This
ratio
for
arsenic
was
an
order
of
magnitude
higher
than
the
ratios
for
antimony
and
boron,
indicating
that
the
highest
potential
risk
from
ingestion
would
arise
from
the
arsenic.
Thus,
based
on
the
lack
of
significant
risk
for
arsenic
in
this
waste,
the
Agency
concluded
that
neither
antimony
nor
boron
pose
a
significant
air
risk
at
this
site.
In
addition,
as
mentioned
above
in
the
tailings
section,
the
facility
has
conducted
an
air
risk
assessment.
The
document
shows
no
significant
risk
from
the
management
practices
for
the
gangue
waste
pile.
The
facility's
risk
assessment
is
available
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.
Therefore,
based
on
all
of
these
factors,
we
propose
not
to
list
the
gangue
from
the
production
of
boric
acid
using
the
kernite
ore
process.
(3)
Spent
filters.
We
propose
not
to
list
the
spent
filters
generated
during
the
filtration
step
of
the
boric
acid
production
process.
The
spent
filters
are
stored
in
a
solid
waste
bin
and
then
managed
in
an
on­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.
The
filtration
step
occurs
late
in
the
process,
so
we
expect
minimal
contamination.
In
addition,
because
the
filters
are
washed
weekly,
the
vast
majority
of
any
contaminants
filtered
out
at
this
stage
would
be
captured
by
the
wash
process
and
managed
with
the
tailings
(see
section
(1)
above
for
listing
determination
on
the
tailings).
The
facility
applies
a
daily
cover
at
the
landfill
which
protects
against
residual
particulates
from
being
released
into
the
air.
Furthermore,
the
quantity
of
spent
filters
is
relatively
small
(3
MT),
making
it
unlikely
to
present
a
significant
risk
in
the
landfill.
Finally,
the
location
of
the
facility
is
remote
with
the
closest
residence
being
two
miles
away.
Therefore,
we
propose
not
to
list
the
spent
filters
from
the
kernite
ore
process
for
the
production
of
boric
acid.

4.
Cadmium
Pigments
a.
Summary.
We
propose
not
to
list
any
wastes
from
the
production
of
cadmium
pigments.
All
of
the
nonwastewater
residuals
consistently
exhibit
the
toxicity
characteristic
for
barium,
cadmium,
and
selenium.
There
is
only
one
producer,
and
over
the
past
seven
years
the
producer
has
drummed
and
shipped
with
manifests
all
its
nonwastewater
residuals
to
an
off­
site
Subtitle
C
facility
for
treatment
to
applicable
LDR
standards.
The
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00031
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55714
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
34
USGS
Minerals
Information,
Mineral
Commodity
Summary,
1996
(see
http://
minerals.
usgs.
gov/
minerals/
pubs/
commodity/
cadmium/
140396.
txt)
wastewaters
are
pretreated
on­
site
in
closed
tanks
prior
to
discharge
to
a
POTW,
which
is
regulated
under
the
Clean
Water
Act.
We
conclude
that
the
existing
regulatory
controls
adequately
reduce
risks,
and
there
are
no
exposure
pathways
of
concern.
These
wastes
do
not
pose
a
substantial
present
or
potential
hazard,
and
thus
do
not
meet
the
criteria
for
listing
set
out
in
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3).
b.
Description
of
the
cadmium
pigments
industry.
One
facility
produced
cadmium
pigments
in
the
United
States
in
1998
and
1999.
Cadmium
pigments
are
cadmium
sulfides
of
variable
composition,
usually
produced
as
powders
but
also
available
in
other
forms
such
as
pastes
and
liquids.
Cadmium
pigments
are
used
to
provide
shades
of
bright
yellow,
orange,
red,
and
maroon.
The
shades
depend
on
the
ratio
of
cadmium
and
zinc
to
sulfides
and
selenium.
Current
uses
of
cadmium
pigments
include
decorative
and
protective
coatings
for
plastics,
glass,
ceramics,
rubber
and
other
materials.
The
coatings
provide
heat
resistance
to
surfaces
and
a
barrier
to
chemical
and
sunlight
exposures.
Cadmium
pigments
are
produced
by
digesting
cadmium
metal
in
sulfuric
acid,
nitric
acid,
and
water
to
produce
a
cadmium
sulfate
solution
(liquor).
Chemical
reagents
are
added
to
the
liquor
to
selectively
precipitate
out
metals
which
are
present
as
impurities.
Sodium
sulfide
and
metals
(e.
g.,
zinc,
selenium)
are
added
to
the
purified
liquor
to
yield
a
slurry
which,
after
filtration,
is
the
``
greencake'',
the
first
intermediate
product
from
the
cadmium
pigments
production.
The
greencakes
are
then
washed,
sized,
and
calcined.
The
calcined
materials
are
ground,
rewashed,
filtered,
dried,
milled,
and
blended
to
make
different
shades.
The
use
of
cadmium
pigments
is
declining.
34
Growth
in
the
overall
demand
for
cadmium
pigments
is
limited
to
the
manufacturing
areas
requiring
use
of
cadmium
pigments,
such
as
the
plastics
industry,
where
no
substitute
is
adequate.
Our
RCRA
Section
3007
Survey
results
show
that
six
out
of
seven
facilities
ceased
production
of
cadmium
pigments
in
recent
years.
The
domestic
demand
for
cadmium
pigments
in
the
next
few
years
is
likely
to
remain
stable.
A
more
complete
discussion
of
this
process
and
the
industry
is
provided
in
the
``
Cadmium
Pigments
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.
b.
What
kinds
of
wastes
are
generated
by
this
process?.
Using
the
facility's
survey
response,
we
divided
the
wastes
into
two
broad
categories:
Wastewaters
and
non­
wastewaters.
Table
III±
8
summarizes
the
types
of
wastes
in
each
category,
the
characteristics
of
each
waste,
waste
volume,
and
current
management
practices:

TABLE
III±
8.Ð
CADMIUM
PIGMENT
PRODUCTION
WASTES
Waste
category
Reported
waste
codes
1998
waste
volume
(MT)
Management
practice
Non­
wastewaters
Miscellaneous
solid
wastes,
including
materials
from
dust
collectors,
plant
cleanup,
filtered
pigments
from
the
presses,
and
from
the
on­
site
wastewater
pretreatment
process.
D005
D006
D010
33.5
..................
Each
waste
is
drummed
(separately
or
sometimes
combined)
and
shipped
to
a
commercial
off­
site
hazardous
waste
treatment
facility
to
be
treated
and
decharacterized
before
placing
in
a
Subtitle
D
landfill
Note:
D005Ð
barium
D006Ð
cadmium
D010Ð
selenium
Contaminated
paper
and
cloth,
including
filter
bags,
filter
cloths,
filter
cartridges,
and
dust
collector
bags.
D005
D006
D010
9.3
Contaminated
gaskets
generated
from
the
red
and
yellow
calciners.
D005
D006
D010
0.3
Iron
press
residue
generated
from
digestion
of
cadmium
metal.
D005
D006
D010
4.5
Wastewaters
Gas
scrubber
wastewater
(spent
caustic
from
scrubbing
vapors
generated
from
calcination
process).
Not
reported
.....
pH
adjusted,
treated
to
remove
zinc
and
cadmium
The
resulting
sludge
is
a
part
of
the
miscellaneous
solid
wastes.
All
these
wastewaters
are
then
combined
and
further
treated
in
on­
site
closed
tanks
for
pH
adjustment
2­
step
filtration
monitoring
for
turbidity
prior
to
discharge
to
a
POTW.
Process
wastewater
from
filtering
the
greencake
........
Not
reported
.....
pH
adjusted,
treated
to
recover
cadmium.
Process
wastewaters
from
wet
washing
system
.........
Not
reported.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00032
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55715
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
35
Quarterly
leachate
monitoring
data
from
March
95
to
September
98,
provided
by
Michigan's
Department
of
Environment,
Wayne
County
District
Office
and
Local
Office.
c.
Agency
evaluation.
After
evaluating
the
characteristics
and
current
management
practices
of
all
the
waste
residuals,
we
determined
that:
(1)
all
the
non­
wastewater
wastes
are
being
properly
treated
and
managed
as
hazardous
wastes
under
RCRA
regulations,
and
(2)
all
the
wastewaters
are
being
treated
on­
site
in
closed
tanks
and
discharged
to
a
permitted
POTW,
where
they
are
subject
to
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Therefore,
we
did
not
pursue
risk
assessment
modeling
for
any
of
these
wastes.
The
following
are
the
details
of
our
evaluation:
(1)
Non­
wastewaters.
In
its
RCRA
Section
3007
Survey,
the
facility
classified
all
four
wastes
of
this
category
as
characteristic
hazardous,
as
generated,
for
barium,
cadmium,
and
selenium.
The
facility
also
provided
data
characterizing
each
non­
wastewater
residual
for
total
and
TCLP
concentrations
of
eight
TC
metals.
Except
for
chromium
(which
was
detected
in
the
TCLP
leachate
of
one
waste
below
its
health­
based
level),
no
other
hazardous
constituents
were
reported.
The
total
volume
of
these
four
wastes
was
47.6
metric
tons
in
1998.
Over
the
past
seven
years
the
generator
has
managed
all
its
nonwastewater
wastes
generated
from
the
production
of
cadmium
pigments
as
TC
hazardous
wastes.
These
wastes
are
drummed
and
shipped
with
manifests
to
a
commercial
off­
site
Subtitle
C
facility
for
treatment.
The
off­
site
treatment
includes
mixing
and
treating
the
wastes
with
other
solid
wastes
and
the
addition
of
lime
and
fly
ash
to
meet
the
current
LDR
treatment
standards
(via
stabilization).
The
resultant
mixture
forms
a
concrete­
like
residue,
which
no
longer
exhibits
a
characteristic
and
is
managed
in
a
Subtitle
D
landfill.
We
believe
this
management,
which
complies
with
existing
Subtitle
C
regulations,
adequately
protects
human
health
and
the
environment.
Although
we
generally
believe
that
Subtitle
C
regulations
for
characteristic
wastes
adequately
prevent
mismanagement,
we
have
additional
data
that
help
confirm
our
conclusion
for
this
waste.
The
landfill
information
and
leachate
data
provided
by
the
local
and
state
governments
(per
our
request)
indicate
that
the
landfill
has
a
liner
with
a
leachate
collection
system.
The
landfill
leachate
data
35
we
have
to
date
demonstrate
that
constituents
detected
in
the
landfill
leachates
are
not
attributable
to
the
cadmium
pigments
production
wastes.
The
landfill
information
and
leachate
data
are
provided
in
the
``
Cadmium
Pigments
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.
We
recognize
that
the
residues
from
commercial
treatment
facilities
represent
the
commingling
of
wastes
from
a
variety
of
facilities
and
wastes.
Therefore,
information
on
the
landfill
leachate
from
treated
material
is
of
limited
use.
However,
the
data
available
indicate
that
the
cadmium
pigment
wastes
do
not
present
a
substantial
hazard
when
disposed.
Given
that
the
generating
facility
has
followed
the
reported
management
practice
for
seven
years,
we
believe
use
of
this
or
comparable
treatment
and
disposal
will
continue.

What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
These
Wastes?
We
propose
not
to
list
any
of
the
four
wastes
in
this
category
as
hazardous
because
they
are
already
managed
in
compliance
with
existing
hazardous
waste
regulations,
including
full
compliance
with
the
BDAT
requirements
for
treatment
prior
to
land
disposal.
We
conclude
that
available
data
on
the
specific
cadmium
pigment
manufacturing
wastes
do
not
support
a
decision
to
list
the
wastes
as
hazardous.
(2)
Wastewaters.
We
propose
not
to
list
the
wastewaters
as
hazardous
because
the
gas
scrubber
and
the
process
wastewaters
are
pretreated
onsite
in
closed
tanks
prior
to
discharge
to
a
POTW.
The
wastewater
treatment
tanks
provide
sufficient
structural
integrity
to
minimize
potential
releases
to
groundwater.
We
are
unlikely
to
find
potential
air
releases
from
these
tanks
as
neither
volatile
contaminants
nor
airborne
particulates
are
likely
to
be
present
in
these
wastewaters.
During
treatment,
the
closed
tanks
present
no
significant
threat
of
release
to
the
environment.
After
treatment,
the
wastewaters
are
subject
to
the
Clean
Water
Act
program.
We
conclude
that
the
wastewaters
do
not
warrant
listing.
We
assessed
solids
from
the
on­
site
treatment
as
miscellaneous
wastes
discussed
above
in
section
(1).

5.
Inorganic
Hydrogen
Cyanide
a.
Summary.
We
propose
not
to
list
any
wastes
from
the
production
of
inorganic
hydrogen
cyanide
(HCN)
as
hazardous
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
These
wastes
are
managed
in
on­
site
wastewater
treatment
processes,
industrial
landfills,
municipal
landfills,
hazardous
waste
incinerators,
hazardous
waste
landfills,
and
hazardous
waste
injection
wells.
After
analysis
of
these
waste
management
practices
and
potential
exposure
pathways,
we
concluded
that
there
are
no
risk
pathways
of
concern.
These
wastes
do
not
meet
the
criteria
set
out
at
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3)
for
listing
as
hazardous.
They
do
not
pose
a
substantial
present
or
potential
hazard
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
b.
Description
of
the
inorganic
hydrogen
cyanide
industry.
Hydrogen
cyanide
(HCN)
is
used
in
the
manufacture
of
a
number
of
important
chemicals
including:
adiponitrile
to
produce
nylon,
methyl
methacrylate
to
produce
clear
acrylic
plastics,
sodium
cyanide
for
the
recovery
of
gold,
triazines
for
agricultural
herbicides,
methionine
for
animal
food
supplements,
and
chelating
agents
for
water
treatment.
HCN
is
manufactured
via
two
primary
inorganic
synthesis
processes:
Andrussow
and
Blausa
¨
ure­
MethanAmmoniak
(BMA).
The
Andrussow
process
involves
the
reaction
of
ammonia,
methane
(natural
gas)
and
air
over
a
platinum
catalyst;
the
BMA
process
is
similar
except
the
reaction
occurs
in
the
absence
of
air.
The
reaction
products
are
quenched
with
water.
Excess
ammonia
reactant
is
recovered
for
reuse
in
the
reaction
or
converted
to
an
ammonium
salt.
The
aqueous
HCN
product
is
purified
and
concentrated
for
use
as
a
liquid
feedstock
for
manufacturing
of
one
or
more
of
the
final
products
mentioned
above.
Two
of
the
Andrussow
process
manufacturers
do
not
produce
a
liquid
hydrogen
cyanide
intermediate
product
but
immediately
convert
the
hydrogen
cyanide
in
the
reactor
gases
in
a
sodium
hydroxide
contactor
to
produce
liquid
sodium
cyanide.
There
are
ten
manufacturers
of
hydrogen
cyanide
in
the
United
States
who
use
the
Andrussow
or
the
BMA
process.
Of
these
ten
manufacturers,
only
one
uses
the
BMA
process.
Two
of
the
nine
Andrussow
manufacturers
use
an
abbreviated
version
of
the
Andrussow
process
to
produce
sodium
cyanide.
Manufacture
of
sodium
cyanide
as
a
final
product
results
in
fewer
wastes
and
significantly
lower
wastewater
volumes.
The
inorganic
hydrogen
cyanide
industry
subject
to
this
rulemaking
is
composed
only
of
the
facilities
that
produce
hydrogen
cyanide
as
an
intermediate
product
or
feedstock
to
manufacture
a
variety
of
commercial
chemicals
using
the
Andrussow
and
BMA
processes.
This
proposal
specifically
does
not
cover
wastes
from
the
manufacturing
of
HCN
as
a
byproduct
in
the
manufacture
of
acrylonitrile
by
the
ammoxidation
of
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00033
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55716
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
propylene
(Sohio
process).
The
Sohio
process
is
inherently
an
organic
chemical
manufacturing
process,
and
is
not
within
the
scope
of
the
inorganic
chemicals
manufacturing
industry
or
the
consent
decree.
Furthermore,
we
have
already
evaluated
wastes
for
acrylonitrile
manufacturing,
and
the
cyanide
wastes
associated
with
the
Sohio
process
(K011,
K013,
and
K014)
are
subject
to
Subtitle
C
regulation.
c.
What
kinds
of
wastes
are
generated
by
this
process?

How
Did
We
Categorize
the
Wastes?

Wastes
generated
from
the
production
of
hydrogen
cyanide
consist
of
various
types
of
wastewater,
various
types
of
spent
filter
media,
spent
catalyst,
biological
solids
from
wastewater
treatment,
and
ammonium
salts.
Based
on
an
assessment
of
the
wastes
reported
in
the
survey,
the
wastes
were
categorized
as
follows:
ÐCommingled
wastewaters.
This
waste
includes
continuously
generated
wastewaters
such
as
HCN
purification
wastewater
and
ammonia
purification
wastewater.
ÐAmmonia
recycle
cartridge
and
spent
carbon
filters.
This
waste
consists
of
spent
filter
material
and
filter
solids
that
are
generated
during
the
filtration
of
the
recycled
unreacted
ammonia
stream
prior
to
being
reused
as
process
feedstock.
ÐBiological
wastewater
treatment
solids.
The
biosolids
are
generated
from
the
biological
treatment
of
process
and
non­
process
wastewaters
to
remove
residual
cyanide
and
organonitrile
contaminants.
ÐFeed
gas
cartridge
and
spent
carbon
filters.
This
waste
consists
of
spent
filter
material
and
filter
solids
that
are
generated
during
the
filtration
of
natural
gas
prior
to
being
used
as
process
feedstock.
ÐProcess
air
cartridge
filters.
This
waste
consists
of
spent
filter
material
and
filter
solids
that
are
generated
during
the
filtration
of
ambient
air
that
is
used
in
the
reaction.
ÐAcid
spray
cartridge
filters.
The
waste
consists
of
spent
filter
cartridges
and
filter
solids
from
acid
spray
filters
used
in
the
hydrogen
cyanide
stripper.
ÐSpent
catalyst.
This
waste
consists
of
metal
gauze
panels
that
contain
the
precious­
metal
catalyst
used
to
catalyze
the
synthesis
reaction.
The
catalyst
activity
diminishes
with
time
and
needs
to
be
replaced
with
fresh
catalyst
periodically.
ÐAmmonium
sulfate
and
ammonium
phosphate.
The
ammonium
wastes
are
generated
from
the
neutralization
of
excess
ammonia
in
the
process
using
sulfuric
or
phosphoric
acid.
ÐMiscellaneous
wastewaters.
These
numerous
wastewaters
are
generated
during
plant
upsets
or
shutdowns
for
maintenance
and
are
reported
in
detail
in
the
``
Inorganic
Hydrogen
Cyanide
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination.
''
ÐHCN
polymer
and
sump
wastes.
These
wastes
are
generated
in
process
vessels,
tanks,
and
wastewater
collection
sumps
and
removed
during
periodic
plant
maintenance
operations.
ÐSludge
from
wastewater
collection
tank.
This
waste
is
generated
from
the
settling
of
suspended
solids
in
wastewater
tanks
and
removed
during
periodic
plant
maintenance
operations.
ÐHCN
storage
tank
solids.
These
solids
settle
out
of
the
HCN
product.
The
solids
are
generated
during
manual
tank
cleaning
after
thorough
washing.
ÐWastewater
filters.
These
are
generated
from
the
filtration
of
process
wastewater
prior
to
deep­
well
injection.
ÐAmmonium
sulfate
filters.
This
waste
is
from
the
filtration
of
the
ammonium
sulfate
solution
from
the
neutralization
of
excess
ammonia
by
sulfuric
acid.
The
filtered
ammonium
sulfate
solution
is
then
crystallized
into
solid
form
prior
to
sale
as
fertilizer.
ÐSpent
ammonium
phosphate.
Ammonium
phosphate
solution
is
used
to
scrub
the
off­
gas
from
the
reactor
to
assist
in
ammonium
recovery.
ÐOrganic
layer
from
wastewater
collection
tank.
This
is
generated
from
the
treatment
of
commingled
HCN
wastewater
and
predominantly
nonHCN
process
wastewater.
In
addition
to
these
wastes,
other
residuals
are
produced
by
some
of
the
facilities
that
are
recycled
back
to
the
production
process.
These
materials
consist
of
process
water
and
recovered
ammonia.
These
residuals
are
reused
on­
site
via
enclosed
piping
systems
and
tanks,
minimizing
the
potential
for
environmental
releases.
Also,
we
evaluated
all
wastes
generated
after
these
secondary
materials
are
reinserted
or
reused;
we
do
not
believe
that
these
secondary
materials
present
significant
risks.
Consequently,
we
did
not
evaluate
them
further.

How
Are
These
Wastes
Currently
Being
Managed?

Table
III±
9
summarizes
the
major
waste
categories,
waste
characteristics,
waste
volumes,
and
their
current
management
practices:

TABLE
III±
9.Ð
INORGANIC
HYDROGEN
CYANIDE
PRODUCTION
WASTES
Waste
Category
(Number
of
facilities)
Reported
Waste
Codes
1
1998
volume
(MT)
Management
practices
Commingled
wastewaters
(8)
............................................................................
D002
........
5,600,000
On­
site
wastewater
treatment
in
tanks
or
surface
impoundments,
discharge
to
NPDES
outfall
or
POTW.
Ammonia
recycle
cartridge
and
spent
carbon
filters
(5)
...................................
none
.........
73
Off­
site
municipal
D
landfill;
off­
site
industrial
D
landfill;
on­
site
Subtitle
C
landfill;
on­
site
Subtitle
C
incineration
Biological
wastewater
treatment
solids
(4)
........................................................
none;
F039
3
.
45,397
Off­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill;
off­
site
municipal
Subtitle
D
landfill;
on­
site
Subtitle
C
landfill.
Feed
gas
cartridge
and
spent
carbon
filters
(9)
................................................
none
........
9.7
Off­
site
municipal
D
landfill;
off­
site
industrial
D
landfill;
on­
site
Subtitle
C
landfill
as
non­
hazardous
waste;
offsite
recycle/
reuse
via
return
to
manufacturer
Process
air
cartridge
filters
(8)
..........................................................................
none
........
7.5
Off­
site
municipal
D
landfill;
off­
site
industrial
D
landfill;
reclamation.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00034
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55717
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
III±
9.Ð
INORGANIC
HYDROGEN
CYANIDE
PRODUCTION
WASTESÐ
Continued
Waste
Category
(Number
of
facilities)
Reported
Waste
Codes
1
1998
volume
(MT)
Management
practices
Acid
spray
cartridge
filters
(1)
...........................................................................
none
.........
1.1
On­
site
Subtitle
C
landfill
as
nonhazardous
waste.
Spent
catalyst
(10)
.............................................................................................
none
........
4.06
Off­
site
reclamation.
Ammonium
sulfate
and
ammonium
phosphate
(3)
...........................................
none
........
27,425
Off­
site
use
as
fertilizer.
Miscellaneous
wastewaters
(4)
.........................................................................
none
.........
209,000
Managed
with
commingled
wastewaters
described
above.
HCN
polymer
and
sump
wastes
(1)
..................................................................
none
........
0.7
Off­
site
industrial
D
landfill
Sludge
from
wastewater
collection
tank
(2)
......................................................
D001;
D018
2
3.9
Stabilization/
off­
site
Subtitle
C
landfill;
off­
site
Subtitle
C
incineration.
HCN
storage
tank
solids
(1)
..............................................................................
none
........
0.3
Off­
site
municipal
D
landfill
Wastewater
filters
(1)
.........................................................................................
none
........
450
Captive
off­
site
Subtitle
C
incineration.
Ammonium
sulfate
filters
(1)
..............................................................................
none
........
1.1
Off­
site
industrial
D
landfill
Spent
Ammonium
Phosphate
(1)
......................................................................
none
........
230
On­
site
reuse
as
biological
treatment
system
nutrient
source
or
on­
site
nonhazardous
waste
incineration
Organic
layer
from
wastewater
collection
tank
(1)
............................................
D001
........
43.3
(1993)
Off­
site
Subtitle
C
incineration
1
D001
(ignitability),
D002
(corrosivity),
D018
(benzene).
2
Includes
2.1
MT
reported
for
1993.
3
One
facility
commingles
wastewater
to
generate
a
hazardous
waste
derived
from
F039
wastewater.

d.
Agency
evaluation.
We
selected
three
facilities
in
Alabama,
Tennessee,
and
Texas
to
collect
record
samples
of
wastes
for
the
listing
determination.
These
facilities
were
selected
based
on
the
survey
information
for
the
entire
industry
sector
and
collectively
represent
all
the
wastes
generated
and
all
of
the
waste
management
practices
used
by
the
manufacturing
sector.
(1)
Commingled
wastewaters.

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

Eight
of
the
ten
facilities
generated
commingled
wastewaters
from
the
inorganic
hydrogen
cyanide
process.
The
total
volume
of
commingled
wastewaters
reported
by
these
facilities
was
5.5
million
MT
in
1998.
Six
of
these
eight
facilities
treat
the
commingled
wastewaters
using
one
or
more
of
the
following
operations
in
their
on­
site
wastewater
treatment
processes:
(a)
steam
stripping
to
remove
cyanide
and
ammonia,
with
off­
gasses
vented
to
flares,
scrubbers
or
incinerators;
(b)
pH
adjustment;
(c)
aerated
or
non­
aerated
biological
treatment
in
tanks
or
lined/
unlined
surface
impoundments;
(d)
ozone
treatment
in
tanks;
(e)
oxychlorination
in
surface
impoundments;
(f)
settling
in
surface
impoundments;
and
NPDES
outfalls,
or
POTWs.
In
addition
to
commingling
of
the
hydrogen
cyanide
process
wastewaters,
some
facilities
also
commingle
these
wastewaters
with
wastewaters
from
other
non­
HCN
processes
generated
in
the
same
chemical
manufacturing
complex.
The
remaining
two
facilities
manage
their
commingled
wastewaters
by
filtration
and
disposal
via
deepwell
injection.

What
Management
Scenarios
Were
Assessed?
Based
on
the
reported
management
practices,
we
assessed
the
potential
for
releases
from
tanks
and
surface
impoundments.
We
decided
that
risks
from
the
ultimate
discharges
to
NPDES
outfalls
and
POTWs
are
adequately
controlled
by
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Risks
from
discharges
to
Class
I
injection
wells
with
RCRA
``
no­
migration''
variances
are
adequately
regulated
under
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
and
RCRA
(see
section
III.
D.
3).
Potential
releases
to
groundwater.
We
assessed
both
the
tank
and
surface
impoundment
scenarios
for
potential
releases
to
groundwater
and
determined
that
the
unlined
surface
impoundment
scenario
poses
a
more
significant
potential
risk
to
groundwater
than
the
tank
scenario.
We
focused
on
the
surface
impoundment
pathway
because
several
of
the
reported
surface
impoundments
are
unlined,
posing
a
potential
direct
release
pathway
to
groundwater.
We
take
the
position
that
tanks,
by
the
impervious
nature
of
the
construction
materials
(concrete,
fiberglass,
or
steel)
are
not
likely
to
result
in
significant
releases
to
groundwater.
We
conducted
sampling
and
analysis
of
these
wastewaters
at
the
three
facilities
located
in
Alabama,
Tennessee,
and
Texas
currently
using
surface
impoundment­
based
wastewater
treatment
systems.
We
assessed
each
site
individually,
because
we
believe
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
large
volume
wastewaters
managed
in
impoundments
in
question
would
not
be
moved
off­
site
or
to
different
locations.
Our
decision
on
what
scenario
to
assess
was
based
on
review
of
our
analytical
data
and
the
characteristics
of
the
surface
impoundments
used
at
the
three
facilities.
We
evaluated
the
potential
for
groundwater
releases
to
drinking
water
wells
at
the
Alabama
site,
and
potential
surface
water
impacts
at
the
Tennessee
facility.
The
analytical
data
for
the
wastewater
managed
in
the
surface
impoundment
at
the
Texas
facility
showed
that
all
levels
of
the
toxicants
of
concern
are
below
healthbased
levels,
or
are
associated
with
other
commingled
on­
site
production
processes
and
are
not
due
to
HCN
production.
The
Alabama
facility
manages
wastewater
in
a
series
of
surface
impoundments
and
tanks
that
provide
equalization,
oxidation,
maturation,
rock­
reed
filtration,
and
mixing.
In
addition,
the
facility
has
an
emergency
holding
basin
which
has
also
been
used
for
HCN
process
wastewaters.
The
surface
impoundments
are
equipped
with
double
synthetic
liners
with
leachate
detection
and
collection
systems.
The
oxidation
basin
is
a
concrete­
lined
structure
with
an
additional
synthetic
liner.
Our
analytical
data
indicates
that
concentrations
at
the
inlet
to
the
impoundments
would
exceed
the
HBLs
for
one
constituent
of
concern
(acetonitrile).
A
study
of
existing
wells
near
the
facility
indicates
the
presence
of
private
water
wells
within
a
one­
mile
radius
of
the
property
boundary.
We
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00035
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55718
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
36
The
``
Inorganic
Hydrogen
Cyanide
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination,
''
available
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal,
provides
all
analytical
data
we
developed,
as
well
as
split
samples
collected
by
industry,
where
available.
therefore
assessed
these
units
further
for
potential
releases
to
groundwater.
The
Tennessee
facility
manages
the
wastewater
in
unlined
surface
impoundments
and
some
of
the
toxicants
of
concern
were
above
the
health­
based
levels
and
water
quality
criteria,
thus,
we
assessed
this
facility's
impoundments
for
potential
releases
to
groundwater.
As
described
below,
the
Tennessee
facility
and
its
surface
impoundments
are
sited
on
the
banks
of
the
Loosahatchie
River,
with
no
off­
site
downgradient
wells.
However,
we
did
assess
the
impact
from
potential
releases
to
groundwater
to
the
nearby
river
at
this
site.
Potential
releases
to
air.
We
also
examined
the
air
exposure
pathway
for
the
wastewater
treatment
impoundments
and
tanks
because
of
the
potential
release
of
volatile
organic
compounds
and
hydrogen
cyanide
from
the
wastewater
treatment
units.
EPA
is
developing
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(MACT)
standards
for
cyanide
manufacturing
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(CAA),
which
may
address
these
emissions.
Although
this
rule
will
be
technology­
based,
the
CAA
ultimately
requires
EPA
to
regulate
significant
risks
remaining
after
the
imposition
of
technology­
based
controls.
EPA
has
also
proposed
regulations
under
the
CAA
for
volatile
organic
compound
(VOC)
emissions
from
wastewater
at
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Industry
(SOCMI)
facilities,
which
would
cover
the
HCN
manufacturers
(see
proposal
at
60
FR
46780,
September
12,
1994).
Therefore,
we
are
deferring
control
of
any
air
releases
to
the
MACT
and
SOCMI
standards
and
did
not
assess
this
pathway
further
in
today's
proposal.

How
Was
This
Waste
Category
Characterized?

We
conducted
sampling
and
analysis
of
these
wastewaters
at
the
three
facilities
currently
using
surface
impoundment­
based
wastewater
treatment
systems.
We
collected
samples
at
various
places
in
the
process,
including
prior
to
commingling,
so
that
we
could
assess
the
risks
of
the
wastestream
at
issue
here.
Today's
proposal
is
based
primarily
on
samples
of
the
commingled
wastewaters
collected
in
the
wastewater
treatment
plants.
36
For
assessing
the
groundwaterto
drinking
water
pathway
at
the
Alabama
facility,
we
used
the
sample
collected
at
the
HCN
wastewater
collection
tank
where
the
HCN
wastewaters
are
collected
prior
to
mixing
with
other
non­
HCN
wastewaters
in
the
equalization
impoundment.
We
estimated
the
concentration
of
the
constituents
of
concern
in
the
equalization
impoundment
by
applying
the
dilution
factor
in
the
impoundment
(e.
g.,
36
to
1
total
wastewaters
to
HCN
wastewaters),
and
we
assessed
these
concentrations
in
our
modeling
for
this
pathway.
For
the
groundwater­
tosurface
water
pathway
at
the
Tennessee
facility,
we
used
the
sample
collected
at
the
exit
from
the
surface
impoundments.
We
used
the
sample
from
wastewater
exiting
the
unit,
rather
than
at
the
inlet,
because
treatment
occurs
in
the
impoundment.
However,
the
inlet
data
are
similar,
and
even
using
the
inlet
data
would
not
significantly
increase
the
surface
water
screening
results.
We
analyzed
the
waste
for
both
amenable
and
total
cyanide,
as
well
as
a
number
of
volatile
organics
and
metals.
We
used
the
amenable
cyanide
results
as
our
cyanide
risk
assessment
inputs
because
we
believe
that
amenable
cyanide
most
closely
represents
the
fraction
of
cyanide
likely
to
be
mobile
in
a
groundwater
scenario
and
the
``
free
cyanide''
assessed
in
our
health­
based
level
(HBL).
However,
this
had
no
impact
on
our
risk
results,
because
our
data
show
that
amenable
and
total
cyanide
results
for
this
waste
are
the
same.
We
sampled
the
wastewater
at
the
Alabama
facility
in
August,
1999.
The
analytical
data
for
the
commingled
HCN
wastewaters
(DG±
1±
HC±
07)
represent
waste
concentrations
prior
to
commingling
with
other
non­
HCN
wastewaters.
Our
results
for
a
key
chemical,
acetonitrile,
are
qualified
as
``
estimated''
for
this
sample
as
a
result
of
problems
during
sampling
and
analyses
at
this
site
as
described
further
in
Waste
Characterization
Report,
Degussa­
Huls;
February
25,
2000,
available
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.
The
facility's
split
samples
were
more
problematic,
because
the
analytical
instruments
were
not
calibrated
for
key
constituents
being
analyzed;
thus,
the
split
sample
results
appear
even
more
uncertain.
Despite
the
estimated
nature
of
the
results
for
acetonitrile
in
this
waste
sample,
the
data
clearly
indicate
that
acetonitrile
is
likely
to
be
present
in
the
waste.
Acetonitrile,
also
commonly
referred
to
as
methyl
cyanide,
is
a
likely
by­
product
from
the
main
reaction
between
methane
and
ammonia
to
form
hydrogen
cyanide.
In
addition,
samples
we
collected
at
the
Tennessee
facility
show
that
significant
levels
of
acetonitrile
are
present
in
the
wastewater,
albeit
at
somewhat
lower
levels
than
we
found
at
the
Alabama
site.

We
initially
sampled
at
the
Tennessee
facility
in
August
of
1999
(sample
DM±
1±
HC±
08).
We
used
the
analytical
results
for
this
sample
as
input
to
the
risk
assessment
(described
further
below).
However,
because
our
analytical
results
for
amenable
cyanide
were
qualified
due
to
holding
time
exceedences,
we
sampled
at
this
facility
a
second
time
in
October
of
1999
to
better
understand
the
potential
impact
of
this
waste
on
the
environment
(DM±
2±
HC±
08).
All
of
the
analytical
data
for
these
samples
are
available
in
``
Inorganic
Hydrogen
Cyanide
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemicals
Listing
Determination''
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.
The
second
round
of
sampling
showed
lower
levels
of
the
key
constituent
of
potential
concern
than
found
in
the
first
round
of
sampling.
Due
to
time
constraints,
we
did
not
re­
run
the
risk
assessment
model
for
this
pathway
to
incorporate
the
second
round
of
analytical
data.
However,
this
would
result
in
somewhat
lower
risks,
and
thus
would
have
had
not
impacted
our
proposed
decision.

The
critical
analytical
results
for
the
commingled
wastewaters
for
the
Tennessee
and
Alabama
surface
impoundments
are
presented
below
in
Table
III±
10.
These
represent
the
constituents
found
to
be
present
in
the
wastewaters
at
level
exceeding
the
HBLs
or
AWQC.
(Several
other
constituents
were
marginally
above
the
AWQC
and
were
not
important
in
the
surface
water
screening.)

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00036
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55719
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
37
The
facility
reported
that
the
cover
on
the
equalization
unit
was
installed
to
ensure
compliance
with
expected
new
regulations
to
control
volatile
organic
carbon
emissions
from
wastewater
sources
for
the
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Industry
(SOCMI)
(proposal,
59
FR
46780,
September
9,
1994).
38
U.
S.
EPA
Phase
II
RFI
Workplan,
Potentiometric
Surface
Plan,
March
3
&
4,
1999.
TABLE
III±
10.Ð
CHARACTERIZATION
OF
COMMINGLED
WASTEWATERS
FROM
INORGANIC
HCN
PRODUCTION
(MG/
L)

Constituent
of
concern
Sample
DM±
1±
HC±
08
Sample
DM±
2±
HC±
08
2nd
Rnd
Sample
DG±
1±
HC±
07
1
HBL
AWQC
Amenable
CN
..............................................................................
0.638
<0.01
0.509
0.3
0.005
Nitrite
as
N
..................................................................................
11.5
no
analysis
<2.5
2
1
Vinyl
chloride
...............................................................................
0.029
3
0.0066
L
<0.001
0.0009
(0.1)
0.002
Acetonitrile
...................................................................................
4
50
K
28
L
190
0.09
(0.045)
2
N/
A
Acrylonitrile
..................................................................................
0.013
<0.001
<0.0005
0.002
(0.03)
5.9E±
05
1
HBL
in
parenthesis
based
on
inhalation
pathway
from
residential
use
of
water
(
e.
g.,
showering).
2
N/
A:
Not
Applicable.
3
L:
Qualified
result
with
a
low
bias
for
positive
result.
4
K:
Qualified
result
with
a
high
bias
for
positive
result.

How
Was
the
Groundwater­
To­
Drinking
Water
Risk
Assessment
Established?
The
Alabama
facility's
surface
impoundments
are
located
in
the
center
of
an
industrial
park
on
the
west
side
of
Mobile
Bay.
The
wastewater
treatment
impoundments
are
located
near
the
eastern
property
boundary
of
the
facility
and
approximately
4,000
feet
south
of
the
State
of
Alabama
barge
canal.
We
chose
to
assess
surface
water
risks
at
the
Tennessee
facility,
which
is
closer
to
a
surface
water
body.
However,
given
the
use
of
groundwater
in
the
area
around
the
Alabama
facility,
we
assessed
the
possible
impact
on
drinking
water
wells.
We
selected
the
equalization
basin
as
the
unit
for
quantitative
modeling.
This
is
the
first
surface
impoundment
in
the
series
and
is
likely
to
hold
the
highest
level
of
constituents
of
concern.
We
elected
not
to
assess
the
emergency
holding
pond,
which
is
used
primarily
during
high
stormwater
events.
Due
to
the
intermittent
use
of
the
holding
pond,
we
expect
the
potential
for
significant
groundwater
releases
to
be
greater
for
the
equalization
pond.
In
addition,
the
equalization
pond
is
covered
with
a
floating
synthetic
membrane,
while
the
holding
pond
is
not.
37
Our
modeling
of
the
covered
equalization
pond
did
not
assume
any
loss
of
the
volatile
constituents
of
concern,
thus
allowing
more
of
the
constituents
to
infiltrate
to
the
groundwater
rather
than
volatilize
to
the
air.
Based
on
information
available
in
a
corrective
action
plan
related
to
a
product
spill
on­
site
(Risk­
Based
Corrective
Action
Plan
for
the
Sodium
Cyanide
Production
Unit
at
Degussa
Corporation
Alabama
Facility,
Theodore,
Alabama;
March
19,
1998),
the
most
likely
direction
of
groundwater
flow
is
to
the
low­
lying
areas
to
the
north­
northeast
of
the
surface
impoundments.
We
found
there
are
drinking
water
wells
located
due
east
of
the
equalization
surface
impoundment.
Although
the
wells
are
located
east
of
the
surface
impoundment
instead
of
the
estimated
north­
northeast
groundwater
flow
direction,
they
are
at
somewhat
lower
ground
elevation
than
the
surface
impoundment.
Given
the
uncertainty
in
the
direction
of
the
groundwater
flow,
we
assumed
that
contaminated
groundwater
from
the
surface
impoundment
could
migrate
to
the
east
and
reach
these
wells.
Based
on
the
available
land
use
and
groundwater
use
information
for
this
area,
we
performed
risk
modeling
for
potential
releases
to
drinking
water
wells
located
between
3,100
and
5,280
feet
east
of
the
surface
impoundment.
The
minimum
distance
of
3,100
feet
is
based
on
the
distance
from
the
impoundment
to
the
eastern
boundary
of
the
industrial
area
controlled
by
the
facility.
The
maximum
distance
of
5,280
is
the
distance
east
from
the
impoundment
to
the
closest
known
well.
This
drinking
water
well
appears
to
be
located
just
inside
the
eastern
boundary
of
the
state
property,
which
lies
to
the
east
of
the
industrial
park
where
the
facility
is
located.
We
also
assumed
that
a
future
well
may
be
placed
in
the
same
State
property
directly
east
of
the
facility's
undeveloped
tract
at
approximately
3,100
feet
from
the
surface
impoundment.
The
details
of
this
assessment
are
presented
in
the
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes''
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.
The
results
of
the
risk
modeling
for
the
only
drinking
water
constituent
of
concern
are
presented
in
Table
III±
11
below.
TABLE
III±
11.Ð
GROUNDWATER
RISK
RESULTS
FOR
COMMINGLED
WASTEWATERS
FROM
THE
PRODUCTION
OF
INORGANIC
HYDROGEN
CYANIDE
Percentile
Acetonitrile
hazard
quotient
(HQ)
1
90th
%
......................................
0.3
95th
%
......................................
0.5
1
Risk
from
inhalation
scenario
during
showering
included
exposure
factors
for
both
adult
and
child
in
the
analysis.

How
Was
The
Groundwater­
To­
Surface
Water
Risk
Assessment
Established?
The
Tennessee
facility
and
its
surface
impoundments
are
sited
on
the
banks
of
the
Loosahatchie
River.
The
surface
impoundments
are
located
approximately
800
feet
from
the
river.
Based
on
information
available
in
the
Remedial
Facility
Investigation
(RFI),
38
the
direction
of
the
groundwater
flow
is
documented
to
be
south
towards
the
Loosahatchie
River.
The
possibility
of
a
public
water
supply
well
or
private
well
being
located
downgradient
of
the
Tennessee
surface
impoundments
is
unlikely
because
the
facility
boundary
extends
to
the
river
to
the
south.
Hence,
based
on
the
geologic
setting
of
the
facility
as
detailed
above,
we
believe
it
is
highly
unlikely
that
these
impoundments
could
impact
drinking
water
wells
via
migration
of
a
contaminated
groundwater
plume.
Based
on
these
facts
we
did
not
assess
the
groundwater­
to­
drinking
water
well
pathway
further
at
this
site.
We
did,
however,
conduct
a
screening
analysis
of
potential
releases
of
groundwater
to
surface
water
and
subsequent
exposure
via
ingestion
because
of
the
proximity
of
the
unit
to
the
river.
We
calculated
the
concentrations
in
the
river
that
would
result
from
discharge
of
contaminated
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00037
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55720
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
groundwater
by
estimating
the
infiltration
rate
for
the
unlined
impoundment
and
diluting
the
resulting
leachate
volume
into
the
river
under
various
flow
conditions.
The
results
of
this
screening
level
analysis
suggest
that
concentrations
of
the
constituents
of
concern
in
the
river
would
be
well
below
the
aquatic
life
AWQC
and
HBLs
for
drinking
water.
The
details
of
the
screening
analysis
are
presented
in
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes''
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.

What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?

Our
risk
assessment
results
for
the
surface
impoundment
scenario,
summarized
above
for
drinking
water
in
Table
III±
11,
suggest
that
the
only
constituent
of
concern
that
required
modeling
(acetonitrile)
does
not
pose
a
substantial
present
or
potential
hazard
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
HQ
was
below
one
at
both
the
90th
and
95th
percentile
in
the
probabilistic
risk
distribution.
The
results
of
our
risk
analysis
also
show
that
hypothetical
releases
to
the
adjacent
river
would
not
result
in
exceedences
of
risk
thresholds.
Our
analysis
was
conducted
at
a
screening
level
and
thus
is
based
on
a
number
of
conservative
assumptions
that
may
overstate
actual
risk.
We
did
not
account
for
dilution
of
the
potential
plume
in
groundwater
flowing
under
the
surface
impoundment
that
would
result
in
yet
lower
river
concentrations.
We
did
not
account
for
the
likelihood
that
river
water
would
be
pretreated
prior
to
use
for
drinking
and
showering.
We
did
not
account
for
volatilization,
biodegradation,
or
hydrolysis
of
the
cyanide
and
other
constituents
prior
to
exposure.
Even
if
we
used
the
surface
impoundment
influent
concentrations,
rather
than
the
exit
concentrations,
as
input
to
the
analysis,
this
waste
would
not
exceed
risk
thresholds
in
the
adjacent
river.
For
these
reasons,
we
propose
not
to
list
this
waste
category
as
hazardous.
For
a
more
complete
description
of
this
analysis,
see
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determination
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes''
in
the
docket
for
this
proposal.
(2)
Ammonia
recycle
cartridge
and
spent
carbon
filters.

How
Many
Facilities
Generate
This
Waste
Category
and
How
Is
It
Managed?
Five
facilities
reported
generating
73
MT/
year
of
filter
media
and
waste
solids
in
1998
from
the
removal
of
organonitrile
polymers
from
the
ammonia
recycle
stream.
The
management
methods
reported
by
the
industry
were
off­
site
municipal
Subtitle
D
landfill,
off­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill,
on­
site
Subtitle
C
incineration,
and
on­
site
Subtitle
C
landfill.

What
Management
Scenarios
Were
Assessed?
We
conducted
risk
assessment
modeling
for
off­
site
disposal
in
both
a
municipal
and
an
industrial
landfill,
using
only
those
two
waste
volumes
reported
to
be
managed
in
off­
site
Subtitle
D
landfills;
volumes
managed
as
hazardous
wastes
were
not
included
in
this
array.
No
significant
volatile
constituents
were
detected
in
this
waste
(only
non­
volatile
metals
were
detected;
see
following
section),
thus
volatilization
from
landfills
to
the
air
was
not
a
pathway
of
concern.
We
did
not
conduct
risk
assessment
of
the
voluntary
Subtitle
C
landfill
and
incineration
practices
because
we
assumed
that
listing
would
not
significantly
increase
regulatory
control
for
these
wastes.
Note
that
these
on­
site
captive
units
have
sufficient
capacity
and
flexibility
to
accept
these
relatively
small
volume
non­
hazardous
wastes.

How
Was
This
Waste
Category
Characterized?

Two
samples
were
collected
at
different
facilities.
We
sampled
again
at
both
facilities
because
of
problems
with
the
cyanide
analyses
for
the
first
set
of
analyses
and
elevated
detection
limits
for
certain
metals
in
the
Tennessee
sample.
Due
to
the
schedule
constraints
of
this
determination,
we
initiated
the
risk
analyses
using
the
first
round
of
samples.
The
risk
analysis
and
second
round
of
sampling
and
analysis
were
conducted
in
parallel.
HBLs
are
shown
in
Table
III±
12.

TABLE
III±
12.Ð
CHARACTERIZATION
OF
AMMONIA
RECYCLE
FILTERS
[mg/
L]

Parameter
RH±
1±
HC±
05
(1st
data
set)
RH±
2±
HC±
05
(2nd
data
set)
DM±
1±
HC±
04
(1st
data
set)
DM±
02±
HC±
04
(2nd
data
set)
HBL
TCLP
SPLP
TCLP
SPLP
TCLP
SPLP
TCLP
SPLP
Antimony
......................................
1
0.55
J
0.59
<0.5
0.237
<0.5
<0.5
0.8
0.08
0.006
Arsenic
.........................................
2
0.045
L
0.039
<0.5
0.0137
<0.5
<0.05
<0.5
0.0112
0.0007
Nickel
...........................................
0.50
J
0.61
<0.2
0.303
<0.2
0.0654
<0.2
0.0178
0.31
Total
CN
................................
N/
A
2.4
L
0.230
0.243
0.218
0.187
L
3
0.222
0.303
4
0.31
1
J:
Estimated
result,
due
to
poor
field
duplication.
2
L:
Qualified
result
with
a
low
bias
for
positive
result.
3
Average
of
duplicate
sample
results.
4
HBL
for
hydrogen
cyanide.

How
Was
the
Groundwater
Ingestion
Risk
Assessment
Established?

We
assessed
the
off­
site
landfill
scenario
for
the
ammonia
recycle
filter
cartridges,
reflecting
the
types
of
management
reported
for
this
waste.
We
assessed
the
groundwater
ingestion
pathway
for
these
landfills.
Our
model
inputs
included
different
hydrogeologic
settings
reflecting
the
two
regions
where
the
wastes
are
reported
to
be
managed.
As
noted
in
section
III.
C.,
we
used
the
TCLP
results
for
the
municipal
landfill
scenario
and
the
SPLP
for
the
industrial
landfill
scenario.
As
described
above,
we
had
some
initial
concerns
about
our
analytical
data
and
determined
that
re­
analysis
would
serve
to
demonstrate
the
validity
of
these
data.
Due
to
the
time
constraints
of
this
listing
determination,
we
could
not
delay
the
risk
assessment
modeling
until
the
validated
results
of
the
second
round
of
analyses
became
available,
and
thus
used
the
first
round
of
samples
for
the
Texas
facility
as
model
input.
Subsequently,
having
reviewed
all
the
analytical
data,
we
believe
that
the
modeled
data
set
appropriately
characterizes
the
risks
of
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00038
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55721
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
all
constituents
included
in
the
first
sampling
round,
and
that
re­
running
the
model
with
the
second
round
of
analytical
data
would
not
increase
the
predicted
risk.
The
only
additional
constituent
of
concern
found
in
the
second
analysis
was
cadmium.
We
modeled
this
constituent
using
the
same
two
scenarios
and
found
no
significant
risk.
What
is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?

The
results
of
our
probabilistic
risk
assessment
are
provided
in
Table
III±
13
below
(we
also
completed
deterministic
risk
modeling
and
the
results
were
comparable;
see
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes''
for
details).
At
the
90th
and
95th
percentile
cumulative
risk
level,
we
found
no
cancer
risk
in
excess
of
1E±
07,
nor
did
we
find
any
hazard
quotients
that
exceeded
one.
As
a
matter
of
policy,
we
generally
do
not
consider
listing
wastes
with
predicted
cancer
risks
of
less
than
1E±
06
or
hazard
quotients
of
less
than
1.0.
We
see
no
special
concerns
warranting
an
exception
to
this
policy.
Based
on
these
results
we
conclude
that
this
waste
does
not
pose
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
at
levels
that
warrant
listing.
We
therefore
are
proposing
not
to
list
ammonia
recycle
filters
from
inorganic
hydrogen
cyanide
production.

TABLE
III±
13.Ð
GROUNDWATER
RISK
RESULTS
FOR
AMMONIA
RECYCLE
FILTERS
1
Percentile
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Adult
HQ
Child
HQ
Adult
cancer
risk
Child
cancer
risk
Adult
HQ
Child
HQ
Industrial
Landfill:
90th
...........................................................................
7.9E±
02
1.6E±
01
3.8E±
08
2.8E±
08
3.6E±
04
7.7E±
04
95th
...........................................................................
1.9E±
01
3.9E±
01
1.6E±
07
1.2E±
07
1.6E±
03
3.4E±
03
Municipal
Landfill:
90th
...........................................................................
8.7E±
02
1.8E±
01
3.9E±
08
3.1E±
08
4.0E±
04
8.5E±
04
95th
...........................................................................
2.0E±
01
4.2E±
01
1.8E±
07
1.3E±
07
1.7E±
03
3.7E±
03
1
Modeling
for
two
other
constituents
(nickel
and
cyanide)
yielded
HQs
that
were
extremely
small
(<
1E±
16)
even
at
the
95th%.

(3)
Biological
wastewater
treatment
solids.

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

Four
facilities
reported
a
total
volume
of
45,397
MT/
year
for
this
waste.
The
management
methods
reported
are
offsite
municipal
and
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfills,
on­
site
Subtitle
C
landfill,
and
off­
site
use
as
agricultural
liming
agent
(volume
not
reported).

What
Management
Scenarios
Were
Assessed?

We
evaluated
the
Subtitle
D
landfill
and
the
agricultural
liming
agent
scenario
reflecting
the
reported
management
practices.
We
assessed
the
landfill
scenario
using
our
TCLP
and
SPLP
results
for
the
wastes
reported
managed
in
such
landfills.
We
assessed
the
agricultural
use
scenario
by
comparing
total
constituent
concentrations
to
the
soil
screening
levels
(see
section
III.
C.
3).

How
Was
This
Waste
Category
Characterized?

We
collected
two
samples
of
this
waste
at
two
different
facilities.
We
conducted
total
and
leaching
analyses
of
these
samples.
To
evaluate
the
industrial
landfill
disposal
scenario
we
compared
the
SPLP
leaching
results
to
constituent
HBLs,
and
for
the
municipal
landfill
scenario
we
compared
TCLP
leaching
results
to
the
HBLs.
In
all
cases
the
SPLP
and
TCLP
levels
corresponding
to
the
management
practice
were
below
the
HBLs.
For
the
agricultural
liming
scenario,
we
compared
the
total
concentrations
in
the
waste
to
the
soil
screening
levels;
no
constituents
exceeded
these
screening
levels,
i.
e.,
all
constituents
were
below
background
or
direct
soil
ingestion
levels.
The
full
analyses
are
summarized
in
the
``
Inorganic
Hydrogen
Cyanide
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemicals
Listing
Determination''
and
the
analytical
results
are
reported
in
detail
in
the
Waste
Characterization
Reports
for
this
sector;
these
documents
are
available
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.

What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?

We
propose
not
to
list
this
waste
as
hazardous
because
the
levels
of
toxicant
constituents
found
in
the
waste
are
below
the
levels
of
concern.
(4)
Feed
gas
cartridge
and
spent
carbon
filters.

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

Nine
facilities
reported
a
total
volume
of
9.7
MT/
year
for
this
waste.
The
management
methods
reported
are
offsite
manufacturer
refurbishing
for
reuse,
off­
site
municipal
D
landfill,
off­
site
industrial
D
landfill,
and
on­
site
C
hazardous
landfill.
The
facility
using
the
hazardous
C
landfill
for
disposal
of
the
filters
is
managing
the
filters
as
nonhazardous
waste
in
a
captive
on­
site
C
landfill.

What
Management
Scenarios
Were
Assessed?

We
assessed
the
municipal
and
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill
scenarios
using
our
TCLP
and
SPLP
results,
respectively.
No
volatile
constituents
were
detected
in
this
waste
(only
nonvolatile
metals
were
detected;
see
following
section),
thus
volatilization
from
landfills
to
the
air
was
not
a
pathway
of
concern.
We
did
not
assess
the
voluntary
Subtitle
C
landfill
scenario
because
we
assumed
that
listing
would
not
significantly
increase
regulatory
control.
Note
that
the
on­
site
unit
has
sufficient
capacity
to
continue
to
accept
this
small
volume
waste.

How
Was
This
Waste
Category
Characterized?

We
collected
one
sample
of
this
waste.
The
analytical
results
showed
that
SPLP
levels
for
all
constituents
are
below
drinking
water
HBLs.
The
TCLP
results
showed
levels
that
exceeded
HBLs
for
the
constituents
summarized
below
in
Table
III±
14:

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00039
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55722
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
III±
14.Ð
CHARACTERIZATION
OF
FEED
GAS
FILTERS
FROM
INORGANIC
HCN
PRODUCTION
[mg/
kg
or
mg/
L]

Constituent
Total
TCLP
SPLP
HBL
Boron
...............................................................................................................................
17,900
7.4
<0.5
1.4
Lead
.................................................................................................................................
18.5
1
0.03
1
0.003
0.015
Nickel
...............................................................................................................................
91.0
0.4
<0.05
0.31
Zinc
..................................................................................................................................
1,060
13
<0.5
5
1
Results
are
less
than
the
typical
laboratory
reporting
limit,
but
are
greater
than
the
calculated
instrument
detection
limits.

Split
sample
results
provided
by
the
facility
were
comparable.
We
did
not
find
cyanide
in
these
wastes.
The
full
analytical
results
are
summarized
in
the
``
Inorganic
Hydrogen
Cyanide
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemicals
Listing
Determination''
and
are
reported
in
detail
in
the
Waste
Characterization
Reports
for
this
sector;
these
documents
are
available
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.

How
Was
the
Groundwater
Ingestion
Risk
Assessment
Established?
We
assessed
the
groundwater
ingestion
pathway
for
the
off­
site
landfill
scenario
for
this
waste,
reflecting
the
types
of
management
reported.
As
noted
in
section
III.
E.,
we
used
the
TCLP
results
for
the
municipal
landfill
scenario
and
the
SPLP
for
the
industrial
landfill
scenario.
We
found
that
the
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill
scenario
screened
out
because
all
constituents
in
the
SPLP
analysis
were
below
their
respective
HBLs.
The
constituents
of
concern
that
exceeded
their
respective
HBLs
in
the
TCLP
results
were
boron,
lead,
nickel,
and
zinc.
We
evaluated
these
constituents
using
the
de
minimis
volume
screening
analysis,
as
described
in
section
III.
E.
3
of
today's
proposal.
The
analysis
suggests
that
lead,
nickel
and
zinc
are
not
of
concern.
We
modeled
the
remaining
constituent,
boron,
using
our
standard
groundwater
model
for
the
municipal
landfill
scenario.
We
modeled
the
municipal
landfill
scenario,
using
a
hydrogeologic
setting
reflecting
the
region
where
the
waste
was
reported
to
be
managed.

What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?
As
noted
above,
the
industrial
landfill
scenario
screened
out.
For
the
municipal
landfill
scenario,
the
results
in
Table
III±
15
show
that
the
HQs
are
well
below
one
at
both
the
90th
and
95th%
for
the
constituent
of
concern.
Thus,
our
risk
assessment
results
suggest
that
the
only
constituent
of
concern
that
required
modeling
(boron)
does
not
pose
a
substantial
present
or
potential
hazard
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
For
a
more
complete
description
of
this
analysis,
see
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes'
in
the
docket.
Thus,
we
propose
not
to
list
this
waste
as
hazardous.

TABLE
III±
15.Ð
GROUNDWATER
RISK
RESULTS
FOR
FEED
GAS
FILTERS
FOR
BORON
Percentile
Adult
HQ
Child
HQ
90th
.......................................
0.007
0.01
95th
.......................................
0.01
0.05
(5)
Process
air
cartridge
filters.

How
Many
Facilities
Generate
This
Waste
Category
and
How
Is
It
Managed?
Eight
facilities
reported
a
total
volume
of
7.5
MT/
year
for
this
waste.
The
management
methods
reported
are
offsite
industrial
D
landfill,
off­
site
manufacturer
refurbishing
for
reuse,
offsite
municipal
D
landfill,
and
on­
site
industrial
D
landfill.
Most
facilities
reported
the
practice
of
filtering
the
air
that
they
feed
to
the
reactors.
Very
small
volumes
of
spent
filters
are
generated
periodically.
We
did
not
assess
these
wastes
beyond
the
characterization
provided
in
the
RCRA
Section
3007
Survey
results
because
no
wastes
were
available
to
sample
when
we
conducted
our
sampling.
The
level
of
toxic
constituents
is
expected
to
be
low
because
the
filters
are
only
used
to
remove
airborne
solids
from
the
ambient
air
used
in
the
process.

What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?
We
propose
not
to
list
this
waste
as
hazardous
because
we
do
not
believe
that
the
level
of
any
toxic
constituents
in
these
small
waste
volumes
would
exceed
levels
of
concern
that
would
pose
a
risk
based
on
management
in
Subtitle
D
landfills.
(6)
Acid
spray
cartridge
filters.

How
Many
Facilities
Generate
This
Waste
Category
and
How
Is
It
Managed?
One
facility
reported
a
total
volume
of
1.1
MT/
year
for
this
waste.
The
management
method
reported
was
onsite
Subtitle
C
disposal
as
a
nonhazardous
waste.
The
cartridge­
type
filter
elements
are
used
in
the
process
to
prevent
clogging
of
spray
nozzles
used
to
inject
the
hydrogen
cyanide
intermediate
product
into
the
HCN
stripper.
The
filters
remove
process
particulates,
including
rust,
from
the
hydrogen
cyanide
intermediate
product.
The
waste
is
generated
when
the
spent
filter
elements
are
replaced
weekly.
While
this
waste
is
classified
as
nonhazardous,
the
generator
disposes
of
it
in
the
facility's
on­
site
Subtitle
C
landfill.

How
Was
This
Waste
Category
Characterized?
No
sample
of
this
waste
was
collected
because
of
unavailability
during
the
sampling
time
frame
and
because
the
level
of
toxic
constituents
is
expected
to
be
low.
The
filters
are
used
to
remove
inert
impurities
such
as
pipe
scale.
The
facility
washes
the
filters
prior
to
removal
of
the
filters
from
the
process.
We
expect
that
any
hydrogen
cyanide
contamination
is
removed
during
this
washing.
The
facility
reported
in
its
RCRA
Section
3007
Survey
that
the
waste
contains
a
total
concentration
of
cyanide
of
one
ppm.

What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?
We
propose
not
to
list
this
waste
as
hazardous
because
the
level
of
toxic
constituents
found
in
this
waste
are
expected
to
be
below
levels
of
concern.
While
we
do
not
have
any
leaching
test
data,
we
can
conservatively
estimate
that
any
leachable
level
of
cyanide
would
be
at
least
20­
fold
less
than
the
1
ppm
total
level
reported,
i.
e,
less
than
0.05
mg/
L.
This
is
well
below
the
HBL
for
amenable
cyanide
(0.3
mg/
L).
Furthermore,
this
small
volume
waste
is
already
managed
in
a
Subtitle
C
landfill.
(7)
Spent
catalyst.
All
ten
facilities
reported
generation
of
this
waste,
with
a
combined
total
volume
of
4.1
MT/
year.
The
management
method
reported
was
off­
site
metals
reclamation
or
regeneration.
These
catalysts
gradually
lose
their
effectiveness
over
time
and
are
periodically
reclaimed.
Due
to
the
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00040
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55723
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
39
Note
that
the
SPLP/
HBL
groundwater
screen
for
this
scenario
is
likely
to
be
a
worse­
case
screening,
because
the
fertilizer
application
scenario
isn
ot
analogous
to
a
landfill
scenario,
particularly
with
respect
to
application
rates.
high
value
of
these
precious­
metal
materials,
generators
maintain
close
control
over
these
materials.
The
spent
material
is
an
impermeable
metal
gauze
that
undergoes
thorough
cleaning
and
decontamination
to
eliminate
cyanide
concentrations
prior
to
removal
from
the
reactor.
We
have
chosen
not
to
evaluate
these
materials
further
because
management
practices
for
these
materials
prior
to
reuse
minimize
the
potential
for
environmental
releases.
Therefore,
we
propose
not
to
list
this
waste
as
hazardous
because
there
are
no
significant
known
exposure
pathways
that
would
present
risk.
(8)
Ammonium
sulfate
and
ammonium
phosphate.

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

Three
facilities
reported
a
total
volume
of
27,425
MT/
year
for
this
waste.
The
management
method
reported
was
off­
site
use
as
fertilizer.

What
Management
Scenarios
Were
Assessed?

We
assessed
the
agricultural
end
use
of
this
waste
by
comparing
the
total
constituent
results
to
the
soil
screening
levels.
In
this
case
we
evaluated
the
material,
because
it
is
land
applied.

How
Was
This
Waste
Category
Characterized?

One
sample
of
this
by­
product
was
collected
from
the
Alabama
site.
The
analytical
data
results
show
that
the
detected
constituents
of
concern
in
the
total
analyses
are
below
the
soil
screening
levels.
In
addition,
we
compared
the
SPLP
leaching
results
to
the
HBLs
as
a
screen
of
potential
groundwater
exposure.
39
The
detected
SPLP
results
are
below
the
HBLs.
The
analytical
results
showing
the
level
of
toxic
constituents
are
included
in
the
``
Inorganic
Hydrogen
Cyanide
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemicals
Listing
Determination.
''

What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?

We
propose
not
to
list
this
waste
as
hazardous
because
the
levels
of
toxic
constituents
found
in
the
waste
are
below
levels
of
concern.
(9)
Miscellaneous
wastewaters.

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

Four
facilities
reported
a
total
volume
of
209,000
MT/
year
for
this
waste
category;
the
total
volume
represents
twenty
two
different
miscellaneous
wastestreams
that
are
generated
on
an
intermittent
or
periodic
basis.
The
management
method
reported
was
commingling
with
other
major
process
wastewater
streams
described
above
as
the
``
commingled
wastewaters''
category.

What
Management
Scenarios
Were
Assessed?
We
did
not
assess
these
numerous
wastewater
streams
individually.
The
wastewaters
were
assessed
indirectly
within
the
commingled
wastewater
category
discussed
earlier.
The
volume
and
constituents
represented
by
these
miscellaneous
wastewaters
are
represented
in
the
total
commingled
major
and
miscellaneous
wastewater
streams.

How
Was
This
Waste
Category
Characterized?
We
did
not
collect
samples
of
these
miscellaneous
wastewater
streams.
The
levels
of
toxic
contaminants
in
these
wastewaters
are
reflected
in
the
contaminant
concentrations
of
the
total
commingled
wastewater
streams
at
each
facility.
See
the
commingled
wastewater
category
discussed
earlier
in
this
section
for
a
discussion
on
how
the
commingled
major
and
miscellaneous
wastewater
streams
were
characterized.
Two
of
the
miscellaneous
wastewaters
were
reported
to
contain
potentially
high
concentrations
of
hydrogen
cyanide
when
generated.

What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste
Category?
We
propose
not
to
list
this
waste
category
as
hazardous.
There
is
no
direct
exposure
pathway
into
the
environment
from
these
individual
wastes,
because
they
are
treated
and
commingled
with
the
other
wastewaters
generated
at
each
facility.
Although
high
concentrations
of
hydrogen
cyanide
in
the
wastewaters
are
possible
for
some
of
these
wastes,
the
risk
is
reduced
by
the
high
dilution
that
occurs
when
these
wastewaters
are
mixed
with
other
large
volume
wastewaters
in
the
facility­
wide
wastewater
collection
system.
These
miscellaneous
wastewaters
are
generated
intermittently
and
infrequently.
Thus,
any
potential
releases
from
land­
based
management
of
the
wastes
after
dilution
in
with
other
wastewaters
would
be
short­
lived,
and
unlikely
to
result
in
any
significant
long­
term
risk.
In
addition,
the
hydrogen
cyanide
contaminant
is
readily
and
rapidly
treated
in
the
wastewater
treatment
systems,
so
that
any
risk
is
minimized.
For
example,
the
tank
farm
scrubber
water
from
the
Tennessee
facility
is
treated
through
oxychlorination,
which
rapidly
destroys
the
hydrogen
cyanide.
As
noted
earlier,
potential
hydrogen
cyanide
releases
via
the
air
pathway
would
be
covered
by
the
Hydrogen
Cyanide
MACT
rule.
(10)
HCN
polymer
and
HCN
sump
wastes.
One
facility
reported
a
total
volume
of
0.7
MT/
year
(0.3
MT/
yr
polymer
and
0.4
MT/
year
sump
wastes)
for
these
two
wastes.
The
physical
description
of
the
wastes
was
reported
as
dirt,
debris
and
inert
polymer
solids.
The
wastes
are
disposed
of
in
an
off­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.
Very
small
volumes
of
these
wastes
are
generated
periodically.
We
did
not
assess
these
wastes
beyond
the
characterization
provided
in
the
RCRA
Section
3007
Survey
results
because
of
the
unavailability
under
the
sample
schedule
and
because
of
the
low
concentrations
of
toxic
constituents
expected
to
be
present
in
this
waste.
In
the
RCRA
Section
3007
Survey,
the
one
generator
reported
that
total
levels
of
cyanide
were
50
mg/
kg
for
the
HCN
polymer
and
5
mg/
kg
for
the
sump
wastes.
These
levels
are
unlikely
to
pose
a
risk
in
a
landfill
scenario
for
these
very
small
waste
volumes.
In
support
of
this,
we
note
here,
as
we
did
above
for
the
acid
spray
filter
cartridge
waste
category,
leaching
test
results
would
be
at
least
20­
fold
less
than
the
total
levels.
This
would
mean
any
leaching
from
sump
waste
would
be
below
the
HBL
for
cyanide.
While
this
20­
fold
factor
would
leave
the
HCN
polymer
somewhat
above
the
HBL
at
2.5
ppm
cyanide,
we
note
that
groundwater
modeling
for
cyanide
for
the
ammonia
recycle
filters
indicates
similar
levels
of
cyanide
in
a
larger
waste
volume
presents
very
low
levels
of
risk
in
a
landfill
scenario.
Therefore,
we
propose
not
to
list
HCN
polymer
and
HCN
sump
wastes.
(11)
Sludge
from
wastewater
collection
tank.
One
facility
reported
a
volume
of
2.1
MT
over
a
seven
year
period,
or
approximately
0.3
MT/
year
for
this
waste.
The
waste
was
coded
as
hazardous
(D001),
stabilized
on­
site
and
disposed
of
in
an
off­
site
Subtitle
C
landfill.
The
waste
is
generated
approximately
every
ten
years;
the
volume
reported
was
for
1993
with
no
generation
of
that
waste
since
that
date.
This
waste
results
from
sedimentation
in
a
wastewater
collection
tank.
HCN
wastewaters
managed
in
this
tank
only
account
for
ten
percent
of
throughput;
the
sediment
thus
is
only
marginally
associated
with
HCN
production.
One
other
facility
reported
generating
1.8
MT
of
this
waste,
and
also
codes
it
as
characteristically
hazardous
waste
(in
this
case
as
D018
for
benzene).
This
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00041
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55724
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
second
facility
sends
the
waste
off­
site
to
a
Subtitle
C
incinerator;
the
facility
reported
that
the
benzene
was
derived
from
other
on­
site
processes.
We
propose
not
to
list
these
wastes
because
they
are
very
small
volume
wastes
that
are
already
managed
as
characteristically
hazardous
wastes
in
full
compliance
with
the
Subtitle
C
regulations.
In
addition,
the
wastes
are
generated
from
the
treatment
of
predominantly
non­
HCN
wastewater
from
unrelated
petrochemical
processes
at
the
facilities.
(12)
HCN
storage
tank
solids.
One
facility
reported
a
volume
of
0.3
MT/
year
for
this
waste.
During
periodic
shutdowns
of
this
product
tank
for
cleaning,
solids
are
removed
after
rigorous
washing
of
the
tank
interior
to
remove
soluble
cyanide.
The
waste
consists
of
polymer
and
tank
scale.
The
waste
is
disposed
of
in
an
off­
site
municipal
Subtitle
D
landfill.
A
sample
of
this
waste
was
not
collected
because
of
unavailability
during
the
sampling
time
frame.
However,
the
waste
description
provided
by
the
facility
indicates
the
waste
is
similar
in
composition
to
the
ammonia
recycle
filters,
which
we
have
proposed
not
to
list.
Given
the
much
smaller
volume
here,
this
waste
is
not
expected
to
present
significant
risk.
Therefore,
we
are
proposing
not
to
list
this
waste
as
hazardous.
(13)
Wastewater
filters.
One
facility
reported
a
volume
of
450
MT/
year
for
this
waste.
The
waste
is
managed
in
a
captive,
off­
site
Subtitle
C
incinerator
as
characteristically
hazardous
waste.
The
waste
is
spent
filters
from
the
filtration
of
commingled
wastewaters
from
various
on­
site
processes
prior
to
on­
site
deepwell
injection
and
is
generated
periodically.
A
sample
of
this
waste
was
not
available
during
the
sampling
time
frame.
However,
the
one
generator
reported
that
the
waste
is
characteristically
hazardous
due
to
benzene,
and
the
facility
manages
the
waste
as
D018.
The
source
of
the
benzene
is
the
waste
from
other
nonHCN
process
wastewaters
at
the
facility.
We
propose
not
to
list
this
waste
because
it
is
already
managed
as
a
hazardous
waste
in
accordance
with
Subtitle
C
regulations.
(14)
Ammonium
sulfate
filters.
One
facility
reported
a
volume
of
1.1
MT/
year
for
this
waste.
The
waste
is
managed
in
an
off­
site
industrial
landfill.
The
waste
is
generated
periodically.
We
did
not
assess
this
waste
beyond
the
characterization
provided
in
the
RCRA
Section
3007
Survey
results
because
of
the
unavailability
of
samples
under
the
sample
schedule.
However,
the
facility
reported
concentrations
of
cyanide
(1
mg/
kg)
and
ammonium
sulfate
(5,000
mg/
kg).
This
concentration
of
cyanide
is
considered
to
be
very
small
and
is
not
expected
to
be
of
concern
(see
discussion
of
cyanide
for
acid
spray
cartridge
filters).
In
addition,
we
collected
a
sample
of
the
ammonium
sulfate
by­
product
(i.
e.,
the
material
being
filtered
to
generate
this
waste)
and
did
not
find
any
constituents
of
concern.
See
discussions
for
ammonium
sulfate
and
ammonium
phosphate.
Therefore,
we
propose
not
to
list
this
waste
as
hazardous
because
we
do
not
believe
that
there
are
any
significant
levels
of
toxic
constituents
in
the
waste.
(15)
Spent
ammonium
phosphate.
One
facility
reported
a
volume
of
230
MT/
year
for
this
waste.
The
waste
is
reused
on­
site
as
a
nutrient
source
in
the
biological
treatment
unit
or
incinerated
on­
site
in
a
nonhazardous
waste
incinerator.
The
waste
is
generated
in
batches
one
or
two
times
per
year.
The
waste
is
generated
from
the
scrubbing
of
the
reactor
off­
gas
stream
using
aqueous
monoammonium
phosphate
solution
in
the
ammonia
recovery
process.
The
resulting
diammonium
phosphate
solution
is
then
purified
to
recover
the
ammonia
and
the
resulting
spent
ammonium
phosphate
solution
is
stored
in
tanks
prior
to
final
management.
We
did
not
assess
this
waste
beyond
the
characterization
provided
in
the
§
3007
Survey
results
because
of
the
unavailability
of
samples
under
the
sample
schedule;
the
characterization
indicates
the
presence
of
organonitrile
compounds
in
the
waste.
However,
the
preferred
management
method
is
to
reuse
the
waste
as
a
nutrient
source
in
the
biotreatment
system,
with
incineration
only
when
this
is
not
possible
due
to
the
solution
becoming
spent
or
when
the
concentrations
of
phosphate
and
ammonia
are
incompatible
with
the
wastewater
treatment
system.
We
believe
the
levels
of
organonitrile
compounds
do
not
pose
a
risk
under
either
management
scenario.
The
wastewater
treatment
scenario
results
in
the
destruction
of
the
compounds
via
biodegradation
and
the
incineration
scenario
would
also
result
in
destruction
of
the
volatile
organonitriles.
Additionally,
emissions
from
the
on­
site
incinerator
would
be
regulated
under
the
Hydrogen
Cyanide
MACT
standards
which
will
be
proposed
in
2000.
Therefore,
we
propose
not
to
list
this
waste
as
hazardous.
(16)
Organic
layer
from
wastewater
collection
tank.
One
facility
reported
a
volume
of
43.3
MT/
year
for
this
waste.
The
waste
is
coded
as
D001
and
sent
offsite
Subtitle
C
incineration.
This
waste
is
generated
approximately
every
ten
years;
the
volume
reported
was
for
1993
with
no
generation
of
the
waste
since
that
date.
Thus,
on
an
annualized
basis
the
waste
quantity
generated
would
be
approximately
4
MT/
yr.
We
did
not
assess
these
wastes
beyond
the
characterization
provided
in
the
RCRA
Section
3007
Survey
results
because
of
the
unavailability
of
samples
under
the
sample
schedule.
We
propose
not
to
list
this
waste
as
hazardous
because
the
waste
is
managed
as
characteristically
hazardous
in
accordance
with
all
applicable
Subtitle
C
standards,
which
adequately
protect
against
mismanagement.
Further,
the
waste
is
generated
from
the
treatment
of
predominantly
non­
HCN
wastewater
from
other
unrelated
petrochemical
processes
at
the
facility.
Only
ten
percent
of
the
wastewater
throughput
in
the
tank
generating
this
waste
is
associated
with
HCN
production;
the
percentage
contribution
from
the
HCN
process
to
this
oily
layer
is
likely
to
be
much
lower,
because
other
petrochemical
processes
on­
site
are
likely
sources
of
the
organic
material.

6.
Phenyl
Mercuric
Acetate
a.
Summary.
We
propose
not
to
list
any
wastes
from
the
production
of
phenyl
mercuric
acetate
(PMA)
as
hazardous
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
PMA
currently
is
not
manufactured
in
the
United
States,
and
it
is
extremely
unlikely
that
it
will
be
manufactured
in
the
United
States
in
the
future.
Therefore,
there
are
no
wastes
being
generated
that
could
be
subject
to
a
listing
determination.
b.
Description
of
the
phenyl
mercuric
acetate
industry.
PMA
(C8H8Hg
O2)
is
an
organic
mercury
compound,
a
white
to
creamy
white
odorless
crystalline
powder
or
clear
solution.
Prior
to
1990
it
was
the
predominant
fungicide
used
in
the
latex
paint
industry.
In
1990,
EPA
banned
the
use
of
PMA
in
interior
paint
(55
FR
26754,
June
29,
1990)
and
subsequently,
the
paint
industry
ceased
using
PMA
in
paint
production.
PMA
is
still
used
for
other
limited
purposes
(e.
g.,
slimicide
in
paper
mills;
selective
herbicide
for
crabgrass;
fungicide
for
diseases
of
turf
on
golf
greens
and
tees;
fungicidal
seed
dressing
for
seed­
and
soil­
borne
diseases
of
cereals,
sorghum,
and
groundnuts).
Based
on
our
research
and
the
results
of
our
RCRA
Section
3007
Survey,
we
conclude
that
there
is
no
domestic
production
of
PMA.
Any
domestic
demand
is
met
by
imports
from
other
countries.
See
the
``
Phenyl
Mercuric
Acetate
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''
for
details.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00042
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55725
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
40
One
facility
has
shut
down
their
phosphoric
acid
process
and
reported
few
wastes
generated
in
1998.
This
facility's
wastes
therefore
are
not
included
in
the
following
overview,
but
were
evaluated
to
determine
their
potential
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
The
details
of
this
facility's
waste
generation
and
management
practices
are
included
in
the
``
Phosphoric
Acid
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''.
c.
Agency
evaluation.
PMA
is
not
produced
within
the
United
States
and
is
not
widely
used
in
domestic
manufacturing
processes.
Therefore,
we
have
no
reason
to
believe
that
wastes
from
the
production
of
PMA
are
generated
within
the
U.
S.
Given
the
compound's
limited
market
within
the
U.
S.,
it
is
highly
unlikely
that
new
production
of
PMA
will
occur
within
the
U.
S.
in
the
future.
As
a
result
of
these
market
conditions,
there
are
no
wastes
that
can
be
assessed
for
this
sector.
Therefore,
we
propose
not
to
list
any
PMA
production
wastes
as
hazardous.

7.
Phosphoric
Acid
From
the
Dry
Process
a.
Summary.
We
have
evaluated
the
wastes
from
the
production
of
phosphoric
acid
manufactured
via
the
dry
process,
and
propose
not
to
list
any
wastes
from
this
process
as
hazardous
wastes.
These
wastestreams
do
not
meet
the
criteria
set
out
at
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3)
for
listing
wastes
as
hazardous.
They
do
not
pose
a
substantial
present
or
potential
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
We
have
identified
no
risks
of
concern
associated
with
the
current
management
of
these
wastes.
b.
Description
of
the
phosphoric
acid
industry.
Phosphoric
acid
was
produced
by
the
dry
process
by
eight
facilities
in
the
United
States
in
1998.
The
majority
of
phosphoric
acid
is
consumed
in
the
manufacture
of
phosphate
salts.
These
phosphorus­
containing
compounds
are
used
in
detergents,
animal
feed
supplements,
dentifrices,
fertilizers,
metal
treating,
water
softening,
leavening
agents,
and
flame
and
fire
retardants.
In
the
dry
process,
elemental
phosphorous
is
burned
in
excess
air
generating
phosphorous
pentoxide
(P2O5).
The
resulting
phosphorus
pentoxide
is
hydrated
with
a
spray
of
recycled
phosphoric
acid
and
water,
forming
phosphoric
acid
that
is
collected
as
product.
Scrubbers
are
employed
for
the
hydrator
off­
gases
to
absorb
as
much
phosphoric
acid
mist
as
possible
from
the
excess
air.
The
strong
phosphoric
acid
stream
from
the
hydrator
is
purified
with
hydrogen
sulfide
to
precipitate
out
arsenic
trisulfide.
This
sludge
is
removed
by
filtration.
In
some
cases,
offspecification
product
is
filtered
and
recycled
into
the
process.
The
product
may
also
be
filtered
after
it
leaves
the
storage
tank
and
prior
to
loading
in
truck
and
railcars.
c.
Description
of
wastes
generated
by
the
phosphoric
acid
process.
We
have
identified
fourteen
waste
categories
from
the
production
of
phosphoric
acid
(via
the
dry
process)
that
required
assessment.
These
waste
categories
are
described
briefly
and
in
more
detail
in
the
following
subsections.
40
ÐArsenic
filter
cake
is
the
result
of
filtering
the
phosphoric
acid
after
the
addition
of
sodium
hydrosulfide
or
hydrogen
sulfide
gas
and
a
filter
aid.
The
precipitate
consists
of
arsenic
trisulfide
and
other
heavy
metal
sulfides
which
are
essentially
insoluble
in
strong
acid.
ÐCombustion
chamber
slag
(infrequently
generated)
is
the
result
of
residue
buildup
on
the
walls
of
the
chamber.
ÐOff­
specification
phosphoric
acid
is
generated
when
the
product
does
not
meet
color
or
concentration
specifications.
ÐSpent
filters
(from
purification)
are
generated
from
the
units
that
are
used
to
remove
arsenic
from
the
phosphoric
acid.
ÐCaustic
scrubber
water
is
generated
when
air
used
to
remove
hydrogen
sulfide
gas
at
the
acid
purification
step
is
scrubbed.
This
scrubbing
operation
controls
odor
and
acid
mist
before
the
air
is
discharged
to
the
atmosphere.
ÐPhosphoric
acid
spills
occur
around
the
process
or
storage
tanks
area.
These
materials
are
collected
in
contained
areas
and
pumped
to
management
units.
ÐClean­
up
and
washdown
water
from
across
the
units
is
collected
in
a
sump
and
discharged
to
the
wastewater
treatment
system.
ÐProcess
acid
leaks
occur
when
piping
and
coupling
break,
or
during
equipment
maintenance.
These
materials
are
collected
in
contained
areas
and
pumped
to
management
units.
ÐSpent
mist
eliminator
packing
(filters)
are
used
in
the
scrubber
system
to
remove
gas
and
acid
particulates
from
the
phosphoric
acid.
The
filter
packing
material
is
reported
to
consist
of
polyester
fibers,
stainless
steel,
steel
wool
or
fiberglass.
The
filters
are
periodically
replaced
and
the
spent
packing
is
washed
prior
to
disposal.
ÐRubber
liners
of
product
storage
tanks
are
periodically
replaced.
ÐSpent
filters
for
product
are
generated
when
product
is
filtered
prior
to
loading
into
tank
cars
and
trucks
to
remove
settled
solids.
The
filters
are
changed
periodically
and
rinsed
with
water
prior
to
disposal.
ÐSpent
activated
carbon
for
offspecification
product
is
generated
when
carbon
is
used
to
remove
traces
of
contaminants
from
the
offspecification
product.
ÐSpent
filters
for
off­
specification
product
is
generated
when
filters
are
used
to
remove
solids
from
the
offspecification
product.
ÐWastewater
treatment
sludges
are
generated
when
wastewaters
from
the
phosphoric
acid
and
other
processes
are
treated.
These
sludges
are
only
marginally
derived
from
phosphoric
acid
wastewaters
due
to
commingling
with
large
volumes
of
other
nonphosphoric
acid
wastewaters.
The
solids
that
are
removed
by
filtration
are
landfilled
or
sold.
Three
facilities
reported
that
they
collect
phosphoric
acid
in
air
pollution
control
devices
(i.
e.,
vent
scrubbers,
absorbers,
mist
eliminator).
Each
site
reported
that
they
then
recycle
these
acids
into
the
production
process.
This
material
is
continuously
reused
in
the
production
process.
Based
on
our
site
visits,
the
material
is
piped
from
the
generating
unit
to
the
production
process,
minimizing
the
potential
for
releases
to
the
environment
prior
to
reuse.
We
evaluated
all
wastes
generated
after
the
materials
are
reused
and
concluded
that
none
merited
listing.
Consequently,
we
do
not
believe
that
these
materials
present
significant
threats.
At
two
of
the
facilities,
the
caustic
scrubber
water,
generated
from
scrubbing
the
air
to
remove
hydrogen
sulfide
gas,
is
returned
as
makeup
solution
to
the
purification
process.
Based
on
information
from
one
of
the
facilities
and
our
site
visit,
the
material
is
piped
from
the
generating
unit
to
the
production
process,
and
there
is
no
significant
potential
for
exposure.
Also,
process
acid
leaks
are
collected
in
tanks
at
one
facility
and
piped
back
to
the
acid
process,
with
no
significant
exposure
route
for
this
material.
As
stated
above,
we
evaluated
all
wastes
generated
after
the
materials
are
reused
and
concluded
that
none
merited
listing.
Consequently,
we
do
not
believe
that
these
materials
present
significant
threats.
We
have
organized
our
discussion
of
these
wastes
in
terms
of
how
they
are
currently
managed:
characteristic
wastes,
wastewaters,
and
noncharacteristic
solid
wastes.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00043
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55726
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
d.
Agency
evaluation.
(1)
Characteristic
wastes.
The
RCRA
Section
3007
Surveys
show
that
a
number
of
wastes
are
managed
as
RCRA
characteristic
wastes
at
all
times.
These
wastes
are
hazardous
wastes
because
they
exhibit
the
characteristics
of
corrosivity
or
toxicity
for
arsenic.
We
believe
that
these
wastes
are
managed
according
to
the
applicable
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulations,
including
LDR
standards.
The
LDR
restrictions
apply
prior
to
land
disposal.
Furthermore,
these
wastes
are
managed
or
disposed
in
Subtitle
C
management
units.
Table
III±
16
summarizes
our
information
regarding
the
generation
and
management
of
these
wastes.

TABLE
III±
16.Ð
CHARACTERISTIC
WASTES
FROM
PHOSPHORIC
ACID
PRODUCTION
DISPOSED
IN
SUBTITLE
C
UNITS
Waste
category
Number
of
reported
generators
1998
Volume
(MT)
Reported
hazard
codes
Final
management
practices
Arsenic
filter
cake
...........................
7
614
D002,
D004
....................................
Subtitle
C
landfill
Combustion
chamber
slag
..............
1
0.1
D002
...............................................
Subtitle
C
incineration
Off­
specification
phosphoric
acid
...
1
0.71
D002
...............................................
Subtitle
C
landfill
Spent
filters
(from
purification)
.......
2
4.6
D004
...............................................
Subtitle
C
incineration
or
Subtitle
C
landfill
We
propose
not
to
list
these
four
waste
categories
as
hazardous
wastes
under
RCRA.
All
generators
of
these
wastes
already
report
managing
these
materials
as
hazardous
from
the
point
of
generation
through
disposal,
because
they
exhibit
one
or
more
of
the
hazardous
waste
characteristics.
We
believe
that
the
rules
applying
to
characteristic
wastes
adequately
protect
against
mismanagement.
(2)
Other
characteristic
waste.

TABLE
III±
17.Ð
OTHER
CHARACTERISTIC
WASTES
FROM
THE
PRODUCTION
OF
PHOSPHORIC
ACID
Waste
category
Number
of
reported
generators
1998
Volume
(MT)
Reported
hazard
codes
Sequential
management
practices
Phosphoric
acid
spills
.....................
2
2.2
D002
...............................................
(1)
Neutralized,
(2)
roll­
off
bin,
(3)
Subtitle
D
landfill;
(1)
Tanks,
(2)
neutralized
in
surface
impoundment,
(3)
NPDES
We
assessed
the
specific
management
practices
employed
for
this
wastestream,
as
summarized
in
Table
III±
17,
and
determined
that
no
exposure
scenarios
of
concern
exist.
One
facility
reported
that
the
wastestream
is
managed
as
hazardous
(D002),
neutralized,
and
disposed
of
in
a
Subtitle
D
landfill.
These
product
spills
are
expected
to
be
mostly
phosphoric
acid,
which
is
hazardous
because
it
is
corrosive.
The
facility
effectively
treats
and
neutralizes
these
wastes
prior
to
disposal.
There
is
no
significant
risk
expected
from
the
disposal
of
the
small
volume
(0.5
MT/
yr)
of
treated
spills
to
the
landfill.
The
second
facility
reported
placing
the
untreated
spills
into
its
wastewater
treatment
system,
which
includes
both
tanks
and
impoundments.
Again,
we
expect
that
this
waste
presents
hazards
because
of
its
corrosivity,
not
because
it
contains
hazardous
constituents.
We
do
not
expect
releases
to
groundwater
from
tanks
because
we
assume
that
they
function
effectively.
With
regard
to
the
surface
impoundment,
we
note
that
the
facility
has
estimated
that
these
small
volume
spills
make
up
less
than
0.001%
of
the
total
wastewater
volumes.
We
expect
that
dilution
of
this
magnitude
would
effectively
treat
the
spills
rapidly.
Further,
the
facility
reported
that
the
wastewaters
in
the
impoundment
are
neutralized.
Consequently,
we
do
not
anticipate
that
any
potential
releases
from
the
surface
impoundment
would
pose
a
significant
threat
to
groundwater.
Ultimately,
the
spills
are
discharged,
along
with
the
much
larger
volume
of
wastewaters
generated
on­
site,
to
surface
waters
under
a
NPDES
permit,
which
provides
effective
control
and
an
exemption
from
RCRA
regulations.
We
also
note
that
we
expect
no
release
of
constituents
of
concern
to
the
air
from
either
the
tank
or
the
impoundments,
because
the
waste
contains
no
volatile
constituents.
(3)
Wastewaters.
Wastewaters
are
generated
at
various
points
in
the
process
as
a
result
of
scrubbing
operations,
equipment
cleanup,
and
management
of
leaks
and
spills.
As
reported
by
the
facilities,
the
primary
constituents
of
concern
in
these
wastewaters
are
phosphoric
acid
and
traces
of
hydrogen
sulfide,
which
are
readily
treated
and
controlled
via
neutralization.
Phosphoric
acid,
when
neutralized,
forms
various
phosphate
salts,
none
of
which
are
known
to
pose
a
significant
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Similarly,
hydrogen
sulfide
is
neutralized
to
form
nonvolatile
salts.
All
facilities
report
that
these
wastewaters
comprise
very
small
portions
of
the
overall
wastewater
treatment
throughput,
which
contains
wastewaters
from
other
unrelated
onsite
processes.
Table
III±
18
summarizes
our
information
on
these
wastewaters.

TABLE
III±
18.Ð
WASTEWATERS
FROM
PHOSPHORIC
ACID
PRODUCTION
Waste
category
Number
of
reported
generators
1998
Volume
(MT)
Reported
hazard
codes
Sequential
management
practices
Caustic
scrubber
water
.................................
1
36
none
.................
(1)
pretreatment
in
covered
tanks,
(2)
POTW
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00044
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55727
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
III±
18.Ð
WASTEWATERS
FROM
PHOSPHORIC
ACID
PRODUCTIONÐ
Continued
Waste
category
Number
of
reported
generators
1998
Volume
(MT)
Reported
hazard
codes
Sequential
management
practices
Cleanup
water
...............................................
1
small
volume
(volume
not
reported)
none
.................
(1)
pretreatment
in
covered
tanks,
(2)
POTW
Process
acid
leaks
........................................
1
25
1
none
.................
(1)
pretreatment
in
covered
tanks,
(2)
NPDES
1
The
25
tons
include
leaks
from
eight
processes,
of
which
one
is
phosphoric
acid
production.
The
individual
volume
of
leaks
from
phosphoric
acid
production
is
unknown.

We
have
assessed
the
management
practices
employed
for
these
wastes
and
determined
that
no
exposure
pathway
of
concern
exists.
We
believe
these
wastewaters
will
continue
to
be
managed
in
existing
tank­
based
treatment
systems.
We
believe
the
manufacturers
have
made
a
considerable
investment
in
wastewater
treatment
systems
using
tanks
and
will
continue
to
use
them.
Further,
we
assumed
that
wastewater
treatment
tanks
retain
sufficient
structural
integrity
to
prevent
wastewater
releases
to
the
subsurface
(and
therefore
to
groundwater),
and
that
overflow
and
spill
controls
prevent
significant
wastewater
releases.
Thus,
based
on
the
lack
of
any
significant
likelihood
of
release
of
the
constituents
to
groundwater,
we
did
not
project
significant
risks
to
groundwater
from
these
wastes
in
the
tank­
based
wastewater
treatment
scenario.
Furthermore,
discharges
to
POTWs
and
surface
waters
under
NPDES
are
regulated
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
are
exempt
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulation
and
thus
were
not
assessed.
We
also
considered
the
possibility
of
air
releases
from
tanks.
The
only
potential
volatile
constituent
of
concern
in
these
wastes
is
hydrogen
sulfide.
The
treatment
processes
employed
are
designed
to
neutralize
this
compound,
reducing
the
potential
for
volatilization.
In
addition,
the
facilities
have
installed
tank
covers,
further
reducing
the
likelihood
of
release
to
the
air.
As
a
result,
we
did
not
model
releases
to
air
from
tanks
from
the
production
of
phosphoric
acid.
Thus,
we
propose
not
to
list
these
wastewaters
as
hazardous
wastes
under
RCRA.
(4)
Non­
characteristic
solid
wastes.
The
phosphoric
acid
sector
reported
six
waste
categories
that
do
not
routinely
exhibit
any
of
the
hazardous
waste
characteristics
and
that
are
often
managed
in
Subtitle
D
landfills,
as
summarized
in
Table
III±
19:

TABLE
III±
19.Ð
NON­
CHARACTERISTIC
SOLID
WASTES
Waste
category
Number
of
reported
generators
1998
Volume
(MT)
Reported
hazard
codes
Sequential
management
practices
Spent
mist
eliminator
packing
.......................
5
28.4
None
.................
(1)
storage
in
containers,
(2)
treatment
to
control
acid
(washing,
neutralization,
or
off­
site
stabilization
by
one
facility),
(3)
recycling
or
disposal
in
Subtitle
C
or
D
landfills
Rubber
liners
.................................................
2
19.8
None
.................
(1)
storage
in
containers,
(2)
Subtitle
C
incineration
or
neutralization
before
Subtitle
D
landfill.
Spent
filters
for
product
.................................
1
0.5
None
.................
(1)
storage
in
containers,
(2)
off­
site
stabilization
(3)
Subtitle
D
landfill.
Spent
activated
carbon
for
off­
specification
product.
1
1
3
None
.................
(1)
storage
in
containers,
(2)
off­
site
stabilization
(3)
Subtitle
D
landfill.
Spent
filters
for
off­
specification
product
.......
1
0.5
None
.................
(1)
storage
in
containers,
(2)
off­
site
stabilization
(3)
Subtitle
D
landfill.
Wastewater
treatment
sludges
......................
3
2
0.005
None
.................
(1)
storage
in
containers,
(2)
Subtitle
D
landfill.

1
1996
volume;
none
generated
in
1997
or
1998.
2
Two
facilities
did
not
report
volumes
due
to
very
small
input
of
phosphoric
acid
production
wastes
to
the
WWT
system;
one
facility
estimated
that
0.0001%
of
4,640
MT
sludge
generated
(or
0.005
MT)
was
from
phosphoric
acid
production.

The
spent
mist
filters
collect
phosphoric
acid
mist
before
arsenic
trisulfide
is
precipitated
out.
The
material
which
condenses
in
the
filters
is
expected
to
be
corrosive
and
may
contain
some
arsenic.
However,
the
material
used
for
filter
packing
in
the
mist
eliminators
is
typically
polyester,
fiberglass,
or
steel
wool.
The
filter
packing
provides
surface
area
for
condensation,
not
absorption,
and
is
not
expected
to
accumulate
waste
or
constituents.
Thus,
arsenic
is
not
expected
to
adhere
to
the
filters
as
condensate
drops
back
into
process.
The
generators
treat
the
spent
filters
prior
to
disposal
to
remove
or
immobilize
any
low
levels
of
constituents
that
may
remain.
The
rubber
liners
and
spent
filters
for
product
are
associated
with
food­
grade
products.
We
expect
any
contaminant
levels
to
be
extremely
low
due
to
purity
requirements.
Consequently,
we
believe
it
is
unlikely
that
they
contain
any
constituent
at
levels
of
concern
(i.
e.,
above
health­
based
limits
for
ingestion).
We
also
note
that
both
wastes
are
treated
prior
to
disposal
in
landfills.
Similarly,
we
do
not
expect
the
spent
carbon
or
spent
filters
associated
with
off­
specification
product
to
contain
significant
levels
of
constituents
of
concern.
Product
is
classified
as
``
offspecification
due
to
color
and
concentration
of
acid,
rather
than
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00045
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55728
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
because
of
the
presence
of
any
contaminants.
We
note
again
that
these
wastes
undergo
treatment
prior
to
placement
in
landfills.
In
addition,
both
the
activated
carbon,
which
is
infrequently
generated,
and
the
offspecification
filters
are
very
low
volume
wastes
(on
an
annualized
basis,
the
spent
carbon
totals
about
1
MT
and
the
spent
off­
specification
filters
equal
0.5
MT).
As
stated
in
the
wastewater
rationale,
the
wastewater
contribution
from
the
phosphoric
acid
process
is
insignificant.
Therefore,
the
volumes
of
treatment
sludge
(and
any
constituents
of
potential
concern)
attributable
to
the
phosphoric
acid
process
are
small
and
unlikely
to
present
any
significant
risk.
We
do
not
believe
any
of
these
materials
contain
significant
concentrations
of
any
contaminants
of
concern.
Therefore,
we
propose
not
to
list
these
wastes
as
listed
hazardous
wastes
under
RCRA.

8.
Phosphorus
Pentasulfide
a.
Summary.
We
have
evaluated
the
wastes
from
the
production
of
phosphorus
pentasulfide
and
propose
not
to
list
any
wastes
from
this
process
as
hazardous.
These
wastestreams
do
not
meet
the
criteria
set
out
at
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3)
for
listing
a
waste
as
hazardous.
They
do
not
pose
a
substantial
present
or
potential
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
We
have
identified
no
risks
of
concern
associated
with
the
current
management
of
these
wastes.
b.
Description
of
the
phosphorus
pentasulfide
industry.
Phosphorus
pentasulfide
was
produced
by
three
facilities
in
the
United
States
in
1998.
Phosphorus
pentasulfide
is
used
in
the
manufacture
of
lubricating
oil
additives,
insecticides,
ore
flotation
agents
and
specialty
chemicals.
The
production
of
phosphorus
pentasulfide
begins
by
feeding
liquid
phosphorus
and
liquid
sulfur
into
a
reactor.
The
reaction
is
carefully
controlled
because
phosphorus
pentasulfide
reacts
violently
with
air
forming
phosphorus
pentoxide
and
sulfur
dioxide
and
because
toxic
hydrogen
sulfide
gas
forms
when
phosphorus
pentasulfide
combines
with
moisture
on
exposure
to
air.
To
reduce
this
hazard,
the
process
equipment
is
continuously
purged
with
nitrogen.
The
phosphorus
pentasulfide
vapors
are
distilled
and
the
liquid
from
the
process
is
solidified,
milled
and
packaged.
One
facility
operates
its
entire
process
under
nitrogen
blanket.
The
blanketed
vessels,
packaging
area
and
tote­
bin
wash
systems
are
all
vented
to
a
caustic
scrubber.
A
second
facility
vents
the
reactor
to
a
caustic
scrubber
that
removes
the
sulfur
dioxide
and
hydrogen
sulfide
and
generates
a
blowdown
wastestream.
The
facility
has
other
scrubbers
that
remove
phosphorus
pentoxide
from
the
exhaust
stream
and
reacts
it
with
water
to
produce
a
dilute
phosphoric
acid
that
is
routed
to
their
acid
plant.
The
third
facility
fills
the
reactor,
condenser
and
packaging
equipment
with
nitrogen
to
prevent
oxidation.
This
nitrogen
stream
is
scrubbed
with
recirculating
water
to
remove
phosphorus
pentasulfide
dust.
The
scrubber
liquor
is
treated
and
discharged.
c.
Description
of
wastes
generated
by
the
phosphorus
pentasulfide
process.
We
have
identified
nine
waste
categories
from
the
production
of
phosphorus
pentasulfide
that
required
assessment.
These
waste
categories
are
described
briefly
and
in
more
detail
in
the
following
subsections.
ÐStill
residue/
reactor
waste
is
the
result
of
impurities
being
left
behind
when
the
phosphorus
pentasulfide
is
distilled
to
remove
undesirables
(high
boilers).
This
residue
consists
of
glassy
phosphates,
carbon,
and
iron
sulfide
compounds
and
is
removed
from
the
reactor
during
unit
turnaround
ÐPhosphorus
pentasulfide
scrap
waste
is
occasionally
generated
during
certain
maintenance
operations
or
equipment
failure.
This
waste
can
also
consist
of
commercial
offspecification
material
and
fugitive
dust
from
the
packaging
operation.
ÐAbsorbents
contaminated
with
phosphorus
pentasulfide
and
Therminol
(benzylated
ethyl
benzene)
are
generated
from
cleaning
up
leaks
during
maintenance
operations.
The
absorbent
material
may
be
in
the
form
of
floor
dry
(a
granular
material)
or
an
absorbent
pillow.
ÐWaste
Therminol
is
a
spent
heat
transfer
product
used
for
the
vessels
and
pipes
to
prevent
freeze
up
of
the
liquid
phosphorus
pentasulfide.
ÐScrubber
water
is
generated
as
a
result
of
a
nitrogen
stream
being
scrubbed
to
remove
phosphorus
pentasulfide
dust.
The
packaging
equipment
is
filled
with
nitrogen
to
prevent
oxidation.
ÐCaustic
scrubber
water
is
the
result
of
the
reactor,
packing
and
tote
bin
wash
system
being
vented
to
the
scrubber
to
remove
sulfur
dioxide
and
residual
hydrogen
sulfide.
ÐTote
bin
wash
water
results
from
cleaning
the
shipping
containers
that
hold
the
product.
The
phosphorus
pentasulfide
residue
is
washed
from
the
returned
containers
with
water
and
caustic.
ÐScrap
sulfur
is
occasionally
generated
when
making
or
breaking
couplings
to
hoses
where
sulfur
comes
into
the
reaction.

One
facility
reported
that
they
filter
elemental
phosphorus
before
feeding
it
to
the
reactor.
The
filter
solids,
called
phosphorus
impurities,
are
managed
in
tanks
and
then
are
piped
to
that
facility's
phosphoric
acid
production
furnace
for
phosphorus
reclamation.
Because
there
is
low
potential
for
significant
exposure
from
on­
site
storage
prior
to
entry
in
the
furnace,
we
did
not
evaluate
this
material
further
under
this
sector.
Note
that
wastes
generated
from
the
production
of
phosphoric
acid
via
the
dry
process,
including
this
facility's
phosphoric
acid
furnace,
are
addressed
in
section
III.
F.
7
of
today's
proposal.
We
have
organized
our
discussion
of
these
wastes
in
terms
of
how
they
are
currently
managed:
characteristic
wastes,
wastewaters,
and
scrap
sulfur.
d.
Agency
evaluation.
(1)
Characteristic
wastes.
The
RCRA
Section
3007
Surveys
show
that
a
number
of
the
phosphorus
pentasulfide
wastes
categories
are
managed
as
RCRA
hazardous
wastes
at
all
times.
These
wastes
are
hazardous
because
they
exhibit
the
characteristics
of
ignitability,
reactivity
or
toxicity
for
chromium
or
benzene.
The
facility
that
generates
the
largest
volume
waste,
phosphorus
pentasulfide
scrap
waste,
considers
it
to
be
a
listed
hazardous
waste
(U189).
The
surveys
also
show
that
these
wastes
are
managed
as
hazardous
wastes,
with
final
disposition
by
incinerated
in
Subtitle
C
units.
Table
III±
20
summarizes
our
information
about
these
wastes.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00046
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55729
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
41
One
facility
discontinued
production
as
of
November
1999
and
has
no
future
plans
to
resume
production
of
phosphorus
trichloride.
This
facility's
wastes
therefore
are
not
included
in
the
following
overview,
but
were
evaluated
to
determine
their
potential
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
The
details
of
this
facility's
waste
generation
and
management
practices
are
included
in
the
``
Phosphoric
Acid
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination.
''
TABLE
III±
20.Ð
CHARACTERISTIC
WASTES
FROM
PHOSPHORUS
PENTASULFIDE
PRODUCTION
DISPOSED
IN
SUBTITLE
C
UNITS
Waste
category
Number
of
reported
generators
1998
volume
(MT)
Reported
hazard
codes
Final
management
practices
Still
residue/
reactor
waste
.............................
2
4.6
D003,
D007
......
Subtitle
C
incineration.
Phosphorus
pentasulfide
scrap
waste
..........
3
67.75
D001,
D003,
U189.
Subtitle
C
incineration.

Contaminated
absorbent
...............................
1
1.2
(1996)
D003
.................
Subtitle
C
incineration.
Waste
Therminol
...........................................
1
1.4
D018
.................
Subtitle
C
incineration.

We
propose
not
to
list
these
four
waste
categories
as
hazardous
wastes
under
RCRA.
All
generators
of
these
wastes
already
report
managing
these
materials
as
hazardous
from
the
point
of
generation
through
incineration
because
they
exhibited
one
or
more
of
the
hazardous
waste
characteristics.
Again,
the
rules
applying
to
characteristic
wastes
adequately
protect
against
mismanagement.
Furthermore,
ninety
percent
of
the
waste
are
already
listed
as
commercial
chemical
product
(U189).
Therefore,
we
propose
not
to
list
these
wastes.
(2)
Wastewaters.
Wastewaters
are
generated
at
various
points
in
the
process
as
a
result
of
scrubbing
operations
and
tote
bin
washing.
As
identified
by
the
facilities,
the
primary
constituents
of
concern
in
these
wastewaters
are
phosphoric
acid
and
hydrogen
sulfide
which
are
readily
controlled
via
neutralization.
The
management
practices
for
these
wastewaters
do
not
allow
for
the
release
of
phosphoric
acid
and
hydrogen
sulfide
to
the
environment
in
an
undiluted
or
unneutralized
state.
Table
III±
21
summarizes
our
information
on
these
wastewaters:

TABLE
III±
21.Ð
WASTEWATERS
FROM
PHOSPHORUS
PENTASULFIDE
PRODUCTION
Waste
category
Number
of
reported
generators
1998
Volume
(MT)
Reported
hazard
codes
Sequential
management
practices
Process
scrubber
water
................................
1
77,377
none
.................
(1)
Sewer,
(2)
POTW
Caustic
scrubber
water
.................................
2
2,177
none
.................
(1)
Covered
tanks,
(2)
off­
site
treatment,
(3)
NPDES;
(1)
Treatment
in
covered
tanks,
(2)
POTW.
Tote
bin
wash
water
......................................
2
188
(1)
D003
...........
(2)
none
............
(1)
Covered
tanks,
(2)
off­
site
treatment,
(3)
NPDES;
(1)
Treatment
in
covered
tanks,
(2)
POTW.

We
assessed
the
management
practices
for
these
wastes
and
determined
that
no
exposure
pathway
of
concern
exists.
Thus,
we
propose
not
to
list
these
wastes
as
listed
hazardous
wastes
under
RCRA.
The
covered
tanks
employed
minimize
potential
for
releases
to
groundwater
and
air.
Discharges
to
surface
waters
under
NPDES
are
exempt
from
RCRA
regulation.
Discharges
to
POTWs
via
the
facility's
common
sewage
line
are
excluded
from
RCRA
(40
CFR
261.4(
a)(
1)(
ii)).
(3)
Scrap
sulfur.
One
facility
reported
generation
of
scrap
sulfur
that
occasionally
exhibits
the
characteristic
of
TC
for
lead.
This
sulfur
is
managed
as
hazardous
in
a
Subtitle
C
incinerator.
The
1998
waste
volume
was
0.12
MT.
We
do
not
believe
this
material
warrants
listing
as
hazardous
waste
and,
therefore,
propose
not
to
list
this
waste
as
hazardous
under
RCRA.
While
this
waste
category
was
reported
to
periodically
exhibit
a
characteristic,
the
generator
always
manages
the
waste
in
a
Subtitle
C
incinerator.
We
believe
this
management
practice
is
likely
to
continue
because
the
cost
to
treat
it
as
hazardous
is
low
for
such
a
small
volume
wastes,
and
because
the
waste
may
be
TC
hazardous
as
generated.
This
waste
is
also
small
volume
and
highly
unlikely
to
present
a
significant
risk.

9.
Phosphorus
Trichloride
a.
Summary.
We
have
evaluated
the
wastes
from
the
production
of
phosphorus
trichloride
and
propose
not
to
list
any
wastes
from
this
process
as
hazardous
wastes.
These
wastes
do
not
meet
the
criteria
set
out
at
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3)
for
listing
a
waste
as
hazardous.
They
do
not
pose
a
substantial
present
or
potential
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
We
have
identified
no
risks
of
concern
associated
with
the
current
management
of
these
wastes.
b.
Description
of
the
phosphorus
trichloride
industry.
Six
facilities
in
the
United
States
reported
producing
phosphorus
trichloride
in
1997
or
1998.
We
are
assessing
wastes
from
the
five
facilities
that
still
produce
this
product.
41
Phosphorus
trichloride
is
used
as
an
intermediate
in
the
production
of
a
variety
of
chemicals.
These
chemicals
are
used
to
make
pesticides,
herbicides,
antiscaling
additives,
corrosion
inhibitors
for
cooling
towers
and
heat
exchangers,
surfactants,
sequestrants,
and
textile­
treating
agents.
Phosphorus
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00047
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55730
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
trichloride
is
used
as
a
raw
material
in
the
production
of
chemicals
that
are
used
extensively
as
lubricating
oil
additives
to
control
corrosion
and
as
antioxidants
and
flame
retardants
in
plastics.
Phosphorus
trichloride
(PCl3)
is
a
clear,
volatile
liquid
with
a
pungent,
irritating
odor.
Phosphorus
trichloride
is
produced
by
one
basic
process.
Liquid
phosphorus
and
chlorine
gas
are
continuously
introduced
into
a
reaction
vessel.
The
phosphorus
trichloride
vapor
phase
is
purified
in
a
packed
column
and
then
liquified
in
a
condenser.
Most
raw
material
impurities
remain
in
the
reactor
and
are
removed
as
solid
waste
periodically
during
unit
turnaround.
Some
facilities
filter
the
product
before
shipment
to
ensure
there
is
no
dirt
or
other
particles
in
the
final
product.
A
scrubber
is
used
to
collect
materials
from
various
points
in
the
process.
For
example,
hydrochloric
acid
and
phosphorus
acid
(H3PO3),
the
hydrolysis
products
of
phosphorus
trichloride
vapors
are
vented
to
the
scrubber
from
the
reactor.
Also,
phosphorus
trichloride
vapor
generated
during
transfer
of
the
product
into
shipping
containers
is
collected
and
vented
to
the
same
scrubber.
The
wastewater
generated
from
the
scrubber(
s)
is
commingled
with
miscellaneous
wastewaters
(e.
g.,
reactor
washout,
spent
filter
wash,
process
area
wash
water)
and
sent
for
treatment.
Some
facilities
generate
a
wastewater
treatment
sludge
from
the
cleanout
of
treatment
tanks.
All
of
these
facilities
produce
a
variety
of
other
products
that
are
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rule,
and
they
commingle
the
wastewaters
from
PCl3
production
with
wastewaters
from
other
processes.
c.
What
kinds
of
wastes
are
generated
by
this
process?.
We
have
organized
our
discussion
of
these
wastes
in
terms
of
how
they
are
currently
managed:
characteristic
wastes,
wastewaters,
recycled
phosphorus,
and
noncharacteristic
non­
wastewaters.
The
wastes
generated
by
this
process
include:
ÐReactor
cleanout
sludge
consists
of
impurities
from
the
elemental
phosphorus
and
chlorine
raw
materials,
including
high
boiling
impurities
such
as
arsenic
trichloride
that
are
retained
in
the
reactor.
These
materials
are
sent
to
Subtitle
C
incinerators.
ÐInitial
washout
water
from
reactor
is
generated
as
a
result
of
rinsing
out
the
reactor
after
sludge
removal.
In
one
case,
the
reactor
is
cleaned
with
hot
water
only
and
there
is
no
initial
sludge
removal
step.
These
materials
are
treated
and
discharged
to
an
POTW
and
under
a
NPDES
permit.
ÐProduct
storage
tank
cleanout
with
nonreactive
phosphate
ester
is
the
rinsate
generated
from
cleaning
the
storage
tank
or
equipment.
When
this
rinse
is
done,
the
rinsate
is
drummed
for
off­
site
disposal
as
a
hazardous
waste.
ÐProduct
storage
tank
cleanout
with
water
is
generated
as
a
result
of
additional
rinsing
that
follows
phosphate
ester
rinsing.
This
potentially
acidic
rinse
water
is
sent
to
wastewater
treatment
for
neutralization.
ÐSpent
filter
washwater
for
product
is
generated
as
the
result
of
washing
the
spent
filters
used
to
remove
dirt
and
particles
from
the
product.
This
wash
water
is
mixed
with
other
wastewaters
and
sent
to
wastewater
pretreatment.
ÐProcess
area
wash
water
consists
of
pad
washdown/
rain
water
and
any
spilled
material
collected
in
contained
areas.
This
wash
water
is
mixed
with
other
wastewaters
and
sent
to
wastewater
pretreatment.
ÐFinal
washout
water
from
reactor
is
the
rinsate
from
additional
reactor
washing
after
sludge
removal.
The
one
facility
reporting
this
rinsate
commingles
it
with
other
wastewaters
prior
to
wastewater
pretreatment.
ÐCaustic
scrubber
water
consists
of
small
amounts
of
sodium
salts
and
residual
caustic.
Phosphorus
trichloride,
acid
vapors,
traces
of
chlorine
and
carbon
dioxide
are
vented
from
various
points
of
the
process.
The
vent
releases
mixed
with
air
are
scrubbed
before
the
air
is
released
to
the
atmosphere.
The
spent
scrubber
charge
is
sent
along
with
other
wastewaters
to
wastewater
pretreatment.
ÐProcess
scrubber
water
consists
of
a
weak
acidic
solution
from
scrubbing
residual
gases
from
distillation
and
from
various
storage
tank
vents.
ÐSpent
filters
for
product
are
generated
due
to
filtering
dirt
and
other
particles
from
the
product
before
shipment.
The
filters
are
washed
and
dried
before
disposal.
ÐWastewater
treatment
sludges
are
generated
when
wastewaters
from
the
phosphorus
trichloride
and
other
processes
are
biologically
treated.
These
sludges
are
only
marginally
derived
from
phosphorus
trichloride
wastewaters
due
to
commingling
with
large
volumes
of
other
nonphosphorus
trichloride
wastewaters.
The
solids
that
are
removed
by
filtration
are
landfilled.
One
facility
reported
recycling
three
secondary
materials:
phosphorous
storage
tank
sediment;
phosphorous
transfer
water;
and
absorber
residual.
The
phosphorous
storage
tank
sediment
is
generated
periodically
when
the
phosphorus
storage
tanks
are
cleaned.
Because
the
material
is
stored
in
containers
prior
to
being
sent
off­
site
for
recovery
of
phosphorus
we
found
low
potential
for
significant
exposure
from
on­
site
storage.
The
phosphorous
recovery
process
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree
so
we
did
not
evaluate
its
wastes.
At
this
same
facility,
raw
material
phosphorous
is
unloaded
from
rail
cars
and
conveyed
through
the
facility
using
a
closed
pressurized
piping
system
that
uses
water
to
push
the
phosphorous
in
the
piping
system.
To
unload
the
phosphorous
from
each
rail
car,
water
is
pumped
into
the
rail
car
to
push
the
phosphorous
out.
Because
the
phosphorous/
water
filled
rail
cars
are
then
returned
to
the
phosphorous
manufacturers,
where
the
phosphorous
is
then
recovered,
we
found
no
potential
for
significant
exposure,
and
did
not
evaluate
this
material
further.
The
third
instance
of
recycling
at
this
facility,
gases
vented
from
the
product
check,
storage
tanks,
and
reflux
separator
are
collected
in
an
absorber.
The
vapors
from
the
absorber
are
captured
in
a
caustic
scrubber
and
sent
to
wastewater
treatment
(see
wastewaters
in
section
d(
2)
below).
According
to
the
facility,
the
non­
vapor
phosphorous
trichloride
residual
from
the
absorber
is
collected
and
piped
to
a
non­
consent
decree
production
process
where
the
phosphorous
trichloride
is
incorporated
into
the
non­
consent
decree
product.
Because
this
material
is
piped
from
the
phosphorous
trichloride
process
to
the
non­
consent
decree
process,
and
there
is
no
significant
potential
for
exposure,
we
did
not
evaluate
this
residual
further.
d.
Agency
evaluation.
We
have
organized
our
discussion
of
these
wastes
in
terms
of
how
they
are
currently
managed:
characteristic
wastes,
noncharacteristic
wastewaters,
and
noncharacteristic
solid
wastes.
(1)
Wastes
that
are
characteristically
hazardous
wastes.
Many
of
the
phosphorus
trichloride
producers
stated
that
a
number
of
their
wastes
exhibit
RCRA
characteristics.
These
wastes
are
hazardous
wastes
because
they
exhibit
the
characteristics
of
ignitability,
corrosivity,
reactivity
or
toxicity.
The
Toxicity
Characteristic
was
reported
for
arsenic,
cadmium,
chromium,
lead,
mercury,
selenium
or
silver.
These
characteristic
wastes
are
subject
to
the
applicable
LDR
standards.
Furthermore,
these
wastes
are
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00048
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55731
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
ultimately
disposed
in
Subtitle
C
management
units
or
as
discharges
regulated
under
the
Clean
Water
Act.
We
believe
that
the
applicable
Subtitle
C
and
Clean
Water
Act
regulations
adequately
protect
against
mismanagement.
Table
III±
22
summarizes
our
information
about
these
wastes.

TABLE
III±
22.Ð
CHARACTERISTIC
WASTES
FROM
PHOSPHORUS
TRICHLORIDE
PRODUCTION
Waste
category
Number
of
reported
generators
1998
Volume
(MT)
Reported
hazard
codes
Sequential
management
practices
Reactor
cleanout
sludge
...............................
4
1
66
D001±
004,
D006±
009,
D010,
D011.
(1)
container
(2)
Subtitle
C
incineration
Initial
washout
water
from
reactor
.................
4
1
478
(1)
D002,
D004,
D006,
D007.
(2)
D002,
D004
(3)
D004,
D007
(1)
off­
site
pretreatment,
(2)
POTW;
(1)
neutralized
in
tanks,
(2)
surface
impoundment,
(3)
biotreat
in
tank,
(4)
NPDES;
(1)
tank,
(2)
off­
site
biotreatment,
(3)
NPDES
Product
storage
tank
cleanout
with
nonreactive
phosphate
ester.
1
10
D002,
D003
......
(1)
container
(2)
Subtitle
C
incineration
Product
storage
tank
cleanout
with
water
.....
1
15
D002
.................
(1)
neutralized
in
tanks,
(2)
NPDES
Spent
filter
wash
for
product
.........................
1
15
D002
.................
(1)
pretreatment
in
tanks,
(2)
NPDES
Process
area
wash
water
..............................
1
1,400
D002
.................
(1)
tanks,
(2)
NPDES
1
Volumes
from
1996
or
1997
are
included
in
the
totals
when
the
wastes
were
not
generated
by
a
facility
in
1998.

For
all
but
one
of
the
wastes
in
the
above
table,
the
generators
report
managing
these
materials
as
hazardous
from
the
point
of
generation
through
disposal
(or
the
point
at
which
they
become
discharges
to
surface
water
regulated
under
NPDES
or
POTW
regulations).
We
believe
these
wastes
are
sufficiently
regulated
such
that
mismanagement
is
unlikely.
Thus,
we
propose
not
to
list
these
seven
waste
categories.
One
facility
appears
to
treat
initial
washout
reactor
water
in
tanks
and
then
pass
it
through
a
nonhazardous
waste
surface
impoundment.
(All
other
units
used
to
manage
this
waste
have
RCRA
permits
or
are
exempt
from
permitting.)
While
we
have
no
analytical
data
on
the
treated
waste
that
enters
the
impoundment,
we
do
not
believe
this
waste
is
likely
to
pose
significant
risk.
The
waste
is
generated
infrequently
(once
a
year)
and
combined
with
wastewaters
from
other
processes.
Based
on
information
supplied
by
the
facility,
we
estimated
that
the
washout
water
would
be
diluted
at
least
a
hundred­
fold
by
the
daily
throughput
to
the
wastewater
treatment
system.
Any
potential
releases
from
the
impoundment
after
dilution
with
other
wastewaters
would
be
unlikely
to
result
in
any
significant
long­
term
risk.
Therefore,
we
believe
that
this
specific
waste
also
does
not
pose
significant
threats
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
(2)
Non­
characteristic
wastewaters.
Wastewaters
are
generated
at
various
points
in
the
process
as
a
result
of
scrubbing
operations,
equipment
cleanup,
and
washing
the
process
area.
According
to
the
data
submitted
by
the
facility,
the
primary
constituents
of
concern
in
these
wastewaters
are
hydrochloric
acid
and
phosphorous
acid,
which
are
readily
controlled
via
neutralization.
The
management
practices
for
these
wastewaters
minimize
opportunities
for
the
release
of
hydrochloric
acid
or
phosphorous
acid
to
the
environment
in
an
undiluted
or
unneutralized
state.
Table
III±
23
summarizes
our
information
on
these
wastewaters.

TABLE
III±
23.Ð
WASTEWATERS
FROM
PHOSPHORUS
TRICHLORIDE
PRODUCTION
Waste
category
Number
of
reported
generators
1998
Volume
(MT)
Reported
hazard
codes
Sequential
management
practices
Final
washout
water
from
reactor
.................
1
not
reported
none
.................
(1)
pretreatment
in
tanks,
(2)
POTW.
Caustic
scrubber
water
.................................
3
4,236
1
none
.................
(1)
pretreatment
in
tanks,
(2)
POTW
or
NPDES.
Process
scrubber
water
................................
3
12,528
1
D002
(one
facility
(1)
pretreatment
or
neutralized
in
tanks,
(2)
POTW
or
NPDES.

1
Volumes
from
1996
or
1997
are
included
in
the
totals
when
the
wastes
were
not
generated
by
a
facility
in
1998.

We
have
assessed
the
management
practices
employed
for
these
wastes
and
determined
that
no
exposure
pathway
of
concern
exists
that
warrants
listing.
We
have
determined
that
plausible
management
would
be
continued
management
in
existing
tank­
based
treatment
systems.
We
believe
the
manufacturers
have
made
a
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00049
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55732
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
considerable
investment
in
wastewater
treatment
systems
using
tanks
and
will
continue
to
use
them.
Further,
we
assumed
that
wastewater
treatment
tanks
retain
sufficient
structural
integrity
to
prevent
wastewater
releases
to
the
subsurface
(and
therefore
to
groundwater),
and
that
overflow
and
spill
controls
prevent
significant
wastewater
releases.
Thus,
based
on
the
lack
of
any
significant
likelihood
of
release
of
the
constituents
to
groundwater,
we
did
not
project
significant
risks
to
groundwater
from
these
wastes
in
the
tank­
based
wastewater
treatment
scenario.
Furthermore,
discharges
to
POTWs
and
surface
waters
under
NPDES
are
regulated
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
are
exempt
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulation
and
thus
were
not
assessed.
We
also
considered
the
possibility
of
air
releases
from
tanks.
For
most
wastes,
the
constituents
of
concern
are
nonvolatile
metals,
making
volatilization
a
very
unlikely
pathway
of
release
from
tanks.
In
addition,
the
facilities
have
installed
tank
covers,
further
reducing
the
likelihood
of
release
to
the
air.
As
a
result,
we
did
not
model
releases
to
air
from
tanks
from
the
production
of
phosphorus
trichloride.
Thus,
we
propose
not
to
list
these
wastewaters
as
hazardous
wastes
under
RCRA.
(3)
Non­
characteristic
nonwastewaters
The
phosphorus
trichloride
sector
reported
two
waste
categories
that
do
not
routinely
exhibit
any
characteristic
and
that
are
often
managed
in
Subtitle
D
landfills;
these
wastes
are
summarized
in
Table
III±
24.

TABLE
III±
24.Ð
NON­
CHARACTERISTIC
SOLID
WASTES
Waste
category
Number
of
reported
generators
1998
Volume
(MT)
Reported
hazard
codes
Management
practices
Spent
filters
for
product
.................................
1
0.1
none
.................
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.
Wastewater
treatment
sludges
......................
4
1
1,100
none
2
...............
Subtitle
D
landfill
or
Subtitle
C
landfill.

1
Volumes
from
1997
are
included
in
the
totals
when
the
wastes
were
not
generated
by
a
facility
in
1998.
2
One
facility
reported
that
this
wastewater
treatment
sludge
is
occasionally
characteristically
hazardous
for
D028
(dichloroethane),
and
the
waste
is
then
sent
to
a
Subtitle
C
landfill.
The
dichloroethane
is
used
in
a
process
unrelated
to
the
phosphorus
trichloride
process
of
interest
in
today's
proposal.

The
phosphorus
trichloride
product
is
filtered
to
remove
PCl4
and
PCl5.
These
compounds
produce
a
slime
on
the
product
and
are
more
viscous
than
the
product.
The
facility
washes
the
filters
before
sending
them
to
disposal.
The
contaminants
are
easily
washed
off
because
of
their
ready
solubility
in
water.
The
spent
filters
are
generated
in
very
small
volumes.
We
are
proposing
not
to
list
them
because
we
do
not
expect
the
washed
filters
to
contain
significant
levels
of
contaminants
of
concern.
All
four
of
the
facilities
that
generate
wastewater
treatment
sludges
commingle
wastewaters
from
PCl3
production
with
wastewaters
from
other
processes.
The
wastewater
contribution
from
the
phosphorus
trichloride
process
is
very
small
compared
to
volumes
of
wastewaters
from
the
other
processes.
Therefore,
the
phosphorus
trichloride
process
does
not
contribute
significant
amounts
of
constituents
to
this
sludge.
We
do
not
believe
any
of
these
materials
warrant
listing
as
hazardous
wastes
from
the
production
of
phosphorus
trichloride.
Therefore,
we
propose
not
to
list
these
wastes
as
hazardous
wastes
under
RCRA
in
this
rulemaking.

10.
Potassium
Dichromate
a.
Summary.
We
evaluated
the
wastes
from
the
production
of
potassium
dichromate
and
propose
not
to
list
any
wastes
from
this
process
as
hazardous
wastes
under
RCRA.
These
wastes
do
not
meet
the
criteria
set
out
at
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3)
for
listing
as
hazardous.
They
do
not
pose
a
substantial
present
or
potential
hazard
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
b.
Description
of
the
potassium
dichromate
industry.
Potassium
dichromate,
which
has
a
wide
variety
of
industrial
uses,
was
produced
by
a
single
facility
in
the
United
States
in
1998.
The
U.
S.
demand
for
this
chemical
is
very
limited
and
has
mostly
been
replaced
by
sodium
dichromate
for
industrial
use.
Any
demand
not
met
by
the
U.
S.
facility
is
met
by
imports
to
U.
S.
distributors.
Potassium
dichromate
is
produced
by
reacting
chromium
trioxide
with
potassium
hydroxide.
The
reactants
are
mixed
in
a
reactor
along
with
a
crystal
modifier.
The
potassium
dichromate
is
crystallized,
sent
through
a
centrifuge
to
remove
any
remaining
mother
liquor,
dried
and
packaged
for
sale.
The
single
waste
is
filtered
out
from
the
mother
liquor.
The
mother
liquor
is
recycled
back
into
the
process.
c.
What
kinds
of
wastes
are
generated
by
this
process?
There
is
one
waste
category
generated
from
this
process:
filter
solids
and
spent
filter
media.
According
to
data
submitted
by
the
facility,
this
waste
typically
contains
12.5
percent
chromium.
The
facility
reports
the
waste
as
hazardous
for
chromium
and
manages
it
as
hazardous
(D007).
The
reported
waste
volume
for
1998
was
0.6
MT.
The
waste
is
stored
on­
site
in
drums
and
is
shipped
off­
site
to
a
commercial
Subtitle
C
facility
for
stabilization
to
meet
the
land
disposal
restrictions
(40
CFR
268.40
and
268.48)
and
final
disposal
in
a
Subtitle
C
landfill.
Because
the
total
chromium
levels
are
so
high,
we
believe
this
waste
will
always
exhibit
the
toxicity
characteristic.
d.
Agency
evaluation.
We
propose
not
to
list
this
waste
as
hazardous
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
This
waste
is
currently
managed
as
hazardous
from
the
point
of
generation
through
ultimate
disposal
because
it
is
characteristically
hazardous.
The
composition
of
the
waste
is
such
that
it
is
likely
to
always
be
characteristic
for
chromium.
The
rules
applying
to
characteristic
wastes
adequately
protect
against
mismanagement.

11.
Sodium
Chlorate
a.
Summary.
We
propose
not
to
list
any
wastes
from
the
production
of
sodium
chlorate
(NaClO3)
as
hazardous
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
Process
sludges,
spent
filters,
wastewaters
and
hydrogen
gas
are
generated
from
the
production
of
sodium
chlorate.
These
wastes
and
materials
are
managed
in
a
variety
of
ways.
After
analysis
of
the
management
practices
and
potential
exposure
pathways
of
these
wastes
and
materials,
we
concluded
that
there
are
no
risk
pathways
of
concern.
These
wastes
and
materials
do
not
meet
the
criteria
set
out
at
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3)
for
listing
as
hazardous.
They
do
not
pose
a
substantial
present
or
potential
hazard
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
b.
Description
of
the
sodium
chlorate
industry.
There
were
ten
facilities
producing
sodium
chlorate
in
1999.
This
industry
manufactures
sodium
chlorate
crystals
and
solutions
from
electrolysis
of
a
sodium
chloride
brine.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00050
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55733
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
Sodium
chlorate
is
the
raw
material
used
for
the
production
of
chlorine
dioxide,
which
is
replacing
chlorine
and
sodium
hypochlorite
to
be
used
as
an
oxidizing
bleaching
agent
by
the
pulp
and
paper
industry.
The
replacement
of
elemental
chlorine
with
chlorine
dioxide
reduces
effluent
emissions
of
dioxin
formed
in
the
bleaching
process
of
paper
and
pulp.
Approximately
ninety­
eight
percent
of
sodium
chlorate
is
used
to
generate
chlorine
dioxide.
The
other
important
use
of
sodium
chlorate
is
as
an
intermediate
in
the
production
of
other
chlorates,
perchlorates,
and
chlorites.
All
ten
facilities
use
a
similar
process
in
producing
sodium
chlorate.
These
facilities
dissolve
sodium
chloride
salt
in
water
to
create
a
liquid
brine.
The
brine
is
treated
to
remove
impurities,
such
as
calcium
carbonate
and
magnesium
hydroxide.
The
treated
brine
is
filtered
and
pumped
into
electrolytic
cells.
In
the
cells,
sodium
chloride
is
converted
to
chlorine
and
sodium
hydroxide
which
further
react
to
form
sodium
chlorate
and
hydrogen
gas.
This
reaction
is
catalyzed
by
sodium
dichromate.
Sodium
chlorate
is
then
treated
with
heat
and
urea
to
remove
residual
sodium
hypochlorite.
Sodium
chlorate
is
then
processed
further
for
crystallization,
centrifuging,
drying,
and
packaging.
A
more
complete
discussion
of
this
process
and
the
industry
can
be
found
in
``
Sodium
Chlorate
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.
c.
What
kinds
of
wastes
are
generated
by
this
process?
Wastes
generated
from
the
production
of
sodium
chlorate
consist
of
process
sludges,
spent
filters
and
wastewaters.
Based
on
an
evaluation
of
survey
responses
from
the
ten
sodium
chlorate
producers,
we
divided
the
wastes
further
into
six
general
waste
categories
based
on
the
presence
or
absence
of
chromium
and
lead.
The
sodium
chlorate
industry
in
general
characterizes
wastes
that
have
been
in
contact
with
chromium
or
lead
as
hazardous
(D007
or
D008).
Chromium
is
introduced
into
the
process
by
the
addition
of
sodium
dichromate
into
electrolytic
cells
to
protect
electrodes
from
corrosion
and
to
improve
product
yields.
The
presence
of
lead
in
the
wastes
results
from
the
deterioration
of
anodes
that
can
be
used
in
the
electrolytic
cells.
The
six
waste
categories
are:
ÐProcess
sludges
with
chromium
or
lead.
These
include
electrolytic
cells
sludge,
product
filter
press
sludge,
and
those
brine
treatment
sludges
generated
from
purification
where
brine
is
formed
by
mixing
salts
with
chrome­
laden
wastewaters
recycled
from
various
steps
of
the
process.
ÐProcess
sludges
without
chromium
and
lead.
These
wastes
include
filter
press
sludge
or
drum
sludge
from
treatment
of
brine,
when
recycled
chrome­
laden
wastewater
is
not
used
in
the
brine
dissolution
step.
ÐSpent
filters
with
chromium
or
lead.
The
filters
are
generated
at
several
points
in
the
production
process,
but
most
are
generated
after
the
electrolysis
of
the
brine
solution
when
the
mother
liquor
is
filtered
to
remove
impurities.
ÐSpent
filters
without
chromium
and
lead.
Examples
include
disposable
cartridge
and
sock
filters
from
treatment
of
brine,
when
recycled
chrome­
laden
wastewater
is
not
used
in
the
brine
dissolution
step.
ÐWastewaters
with
chromium
that
are
not
recycled
back
to
the
process.
ÐOther
wastewaters
that
do
not
contain
chromium
or
lead
and
are
not
recycled
(condensate,
cooling
water,
and
ion­
exchange
wastewater).
In
addition
to
these
wastes,
other
materials
are
produced
by
all
ten
facilities
during
the
production
of
sodium
chlorate
that
are
piped
directly
back
to
the
production
process.
Scrubber
waters
and
filtrates
are
piped
to
on­
site
sodium
chlorate
production
units
for
use.
Because
these
materials
are
managed
prior
to
reuse
in
ways
that
present
low
potential
for
releases
to
the
environment,
and
because
we
evaluated
process
wastes
generated
after
they
are
reused,
we
do
not
believe
that
these
secondary
materials
present
significant
threats.
At
all
ten
facilities,
hydrogen
gas
is
produced
by
the
electrolysis
units
and
is
either
piped
to
on­
site
boilers,
vented,
or
in
one
case,
piped
to
a
compression
plant
where
it
is
compressed
and
sold.
Because
the
material
is
a
gas
produced
from
a
production
unit
rather
than
a
waste
management
unit
and
is
conveyed
to
its
destination
via
piping,
the
gas
is
not
a
solid
waste.
RCRA
Section
1004(
27)
excludes
non­
contained
gases
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
and
thus
they
cannot
be
considered
a
hazardous
waste.
(See
54
FR
50973)
Because
the
gaseous
materials
are
not
solid
wastes
when
produced,
we
did
not
evaluate
them
further
for
purposes
of
listing.
One
facility
reports
generating
a
wastewater
(sulfate
solution)
from
brine
treatment.
The
wastewater
is
transported
to
an
off­
site
facility
and
used
in
their
black
liquor
pulping
process.
The
sulfate
solution
is
added
to
black
liquor
for
use
in
a
wood
digester.
The
process
in
the
digester
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree
and
we
have
not
evaluated
risks
from
wastes
that
it
produces.
We
note,
however,
that
the
reuse
of
black
liquor
is
excluded
from
regulation
(40
CFR
261.4(
a)(
6)).
The
sulfate
solution
is
stored
in
tanks
prior
to
use
in
the
pulping
process,
which
minimizes
the
potential
for
releases.

How
Are
These
Wastes
Currently
Being
Managed?

Table
III±
25
summarizes
the
six
waste
categories,
waste
characteristics,
waste
volumes,
and
their
current
management
practices:

TABLE
III±
25.Ð
WASTE
FROM
SODIUM
CHLORATE
PRODUCTION
Waste
category
(number
of
facilities)
Reported
Waste
Codes
1
1998
Volume
(MT)
Management
practices
Process
sludges
with
chromium
or
lead
(10).
D001,
D002,
D007,
D008
........................
28,547
Nine
facilities
store
the
waste
on
site
in
containers
and
then
send
it
to
Subtitle
C
landfills
or
incinerators;
one
facility
decharacterizes
the
waste
in
tanks
before
managing
it
in
on­
site
surface
impoundments
Two
facilities
did
not
report
hazard
codes.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00051
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55734
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
III±
25.Ð
WASTE
FROM
SODIUM
CHLORATE
PRODUCTIONÐ
Continued
Waste
category
(number
of
facilities)
Reported
Waste
Codes
1
1998
Volume
(MT)
Management
practices
Process
sludges
without
chromium
and
lead
(5
2
).
none
reported
..........................................
1,886
Three
facilities
store
the
waste
on
site
in
containers
and
then
send
it
off­
site
to
municipal
Subtitle
D
landfills;
one
facility
stores
the
waste
on
a
concrete
pad
with
secondary
containment
before
applying
it
to
an
on­
site
land
farm;
one
facility
stores
the
waste
on
site
in
containers
and
then
sends
it
off­
site
to
an
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill;
one
facility
stores
the
waste
on
site
in
containers
before
sending
it
off­
site
for
recycling.
Spent
filters
with
chromium
or
lead
(7)
...
D001,
D007,
D008
..................................
82.9
All
seven
facilities
classify
the
waste
as
hazardous;
six
send
the
waste
to
Subtitle
C
landfills
or
incinerators;
one
facility
decharacterizes
the
waste
on­
site
in
tanks,
stores
it
in
a
closed
compactor
then
ships
the
waste
off­
site
to
an
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.
Spent
filters
without
chromium
and
lead
(4).
none
reported
..........................................
3.52
Three
facilities
store
the
waste
on
site
in
containers
and
send
it
off­
site
to
Subtitle
D
landfills.
One
facility
stores
the
waste
with
process
sludge
in
on­
site
containers
and
then
sends
it
off­
site
to
a
Subtitle
C
facility
for
stabilization
prior
to
disposal
in
a
Subtitle
C
landfill.
Wastewaters
with
chromium
that
are
not
recycled
back
to
the
process
(2).
D002,
D007
.............................................
26,736
One
facility
sends
the
wastewater
to
an
off­
site
Subtitle
C
facility
for
treatment
and
disposal.
One
facility
combines
and
treats
the
wastewater
with
other
process
wastewaters
in
tanks
prior
to
discharge
to
on­
site
surface
impoundments
Other
wastewaters
that
do
not
contain
chromium
or
lead
and
are
not
recycled
(condensate,
cooling
water,
ion­
exchange
wastewater).
none
reported
..........................................
10,744
3
Discharged
via
NPDES
permit
or
to
a
POTW.

1
D001
(ignitability);
D002
(corrosivity);
D007
(chromium);
D008
(lead).
2
One
facility
contributes
more
than
one
residuals
to
this
waste
group.
3
Two
facilities
did
not
report
volumes
of
this
wastewater.

d.
Agency
evaluation.
We
selected
wastes
from
three
facilities
for
sampling.
As
described
in
detail
in
``
Sodium
Chlorate
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal,
we
selected
these
facilities
and
wastes
because
based
on
the
survey
information
collected,
we
believe
that
the
wastes
generated
by
these
three
facilities
are
fully
representative
of
the
wastes
generated
by
this
industry
and
their
management
practices.
We
evaluated
the
characteristics
and
current
management
practices
of
each
of
the
six
waste
categories.
The
details
of
our
evaluation
follow.
(1)
Process
sludge
with
chromium
or
lead.

How
Is
This
Waste
Managed?

The
predominant
source
of
process
sludge
with
chromium
or
lead
is
from
the
periodic
cleanout
of
electrolytic
cells
used
to
convert
the
brine
solution
to
sodium
chlorate.
All
ten
facilities
generate
this
waste.
Seven
facilities
classify
their
wastes
as
characteristic
and
send
it
off­
site
to
Subtitle
C
landfills
or
incinerators.
Two
facilities
do
not
classify
their
wastes
as
characteristic
but
nevertheless
send
their
wastes
to
Subtitle
C
landfills.
The
tenth
facility,
located
in
Hamilton,
Mississippi,
reports
this
waste
to
be
characteristic
and
treats
it
in
tanks
to
reduce
hexavalent
chromium
to
the
relatively
stable
trivalent
state.
The
facility
commingles
this
sludge
with
wastes
from
the
production
of
titanium
dioxide
(TiO2)
in
these
tanks.
The
treated
mixture
is
subsequently
managed
in
a
series
of
four
surface
impoundments,
three
of
which
are
lined
with
leachate
collection
systems.
Today's
proposal
separately
addresses
the
titanium
dioxide
wastes
that
are
commingled
with
this
sodium
chlorate
sludge
(see
section
III.
F.
14.
c.(
14)).
How
Was
This
Waste
Characterized?

We
collected
a
total
of
six
samples
to
assess
this
waste
categories.
Three
samples
of
the
sludge
from
electrolytic
cells
were
collected
at
two
facilities
where
the
wastes
were
destined
for
Subtitle
C
treatment
and
disposal.
These
two
facilities
generate
and
manage
this
waste
as
characteristically
hazardous.
These
samples
were
part
of
the
record
characterizing
this
waste
category,
but
were
not
used
for
risk
assessment.
We
collected
another
three
samples
from
the
Hamilton,
Mississippi
facility
that
classifies
this
waste
as
characteristically
hazardous
and
treats
it
in
tanks
to
remove
the
characteristic
prior
to
pumping
the
effluent
to
on­
site
surface
impoundments.
One
sample
(KM±
SC±
01)
reflects
the
untreated
sodium
chlorate
sludge
collected
from
a
dedicated
sump
prior
to
commingling
with
the
titanium
dioxide
wastewaters.
The
second
sample
(KM±
SI±
01)
is
the
treated
combined
wastes
collected
at
the
inlet
to
the
surface
impoundments.
The
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00052
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55735
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
third
sample
(KM±
SI±
04)
is
the
treated
commingled
sludge
collected
from
one
of
the
on­
site
surface
impoundments.
Table
III±
26,
below,
represents
the
analytical
results
for
the
Hamilton,
Mississippi
samples
for
total
and
hexavalent
chromium,
the
primary
constituent
of
concern.
Total
constituent
analyses
were
conducted
for
the
untreated
waste.
No
other
toxicants
in
the
untreated
wastewater
sample
(KM±
SC±
01)
exceed
the
health­
based
levels.
For
the
treated
waste
and
the
sludge
collected
from
the
impoundment,
total
and
leaching
analyses
were
conducted
to
allow
us
to
assess
potential
releases
to
the
environment.
Our
analytical
data
shows
that
total
hexavalent
chromium
level
in
the
treated
sample
(KM±
SI±
01)
is
below
the
HBL
for
hexavalent
chromium,
demonstrating
the
effectiveness
of
the
treatment
process.
We
assessed
the
treated
commingled
sludge
settled
in
the
impoundments
and
found
that
the
chromium
levels
did
not
exceed
the
HBLs.

TABLE
III±
26.Ð
ANALYTICAL
DATA
FOR
SODIUM
CHLORATE
Constituents
of
concern
KM±
SC±
01
(Untreated
NaC1O3
wastes
only)
KM±
SI±
01
(Treated
commingled
NaC1O3
and
TiO2
wastes)
KM±
SI±
04
(Treated
commingled
NaC1O3
and
TiO2
sludge
in
impoundment)
HBL
Total
(mg/
1)
Total
(mg/
kg)
SPLP
(mg/
l)
Total
(mg/
kg)
SPLP
(mg/
l)

Chromium
.........................................................................
0.99
31.1
<0.05
1,140
0.05
23
Hexavalent
Chromium
.....................................................
0.85
L
<0.02
<0.02
<0.8
0.03
0.05
L:
Concentration
reported
from
analysis
performed
outside
method
recommended
holding
time.
Value
should
be
considered
biased
low.

The
total
chromium
concentration
in
the
treated
waste
is
higher
than
the
untreated
waste
due
to
commingling
with
other
wastes
from
the
titanium
dioxide
production
process.
There
are
other
constituents
detected
in
the
treated
commingled
waste
sample
(KM±
SI±
01)
that
are
attributable
to
the
titanium
dioxide
production
process;
these
constituents
are
assessed
in
section
III.
F.
14.
c.(
14)
of
today's
proposal.

What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?
We
propose
not
to
list
this
waste
category.
Seven
facilities
consider
wastes
in
this
category
to
be
characteristically
hazardous
(for
D001,
D002,
D007
or
D008)
and
manage
the
wastes
under
Subtitle
C
regulations.
We
believe
that
these
regulations
adequately
protect
against
mismanagement.
Two
facilities
do
not
classify
their
wastes
as
characteristic
but
send
them
to
Subtitle
C
landfills.
We
also
believe
that
this
practice
adequately
prevents
mismanagement.
The
remaining
facility
(which
does
not
identify
its
sludges
as
characteristic
hazardous
wastes)
treats
the
sludge
in
tanks
to
reduce
hexavalent
chromium
to
trivalent
chromium
prior
to
placement
in
on­
site
surface
impoundments.
We
found
that
the
waste
did
not
pose
risks
during
treatment
because
there
are
no
exposure
pathways
of
concern
for
the
on­
site
treatment
tanks.
The
wastes
are
treated
in
concrete
tanks
with
secondary
containment
which
minimize
potential
releases
to
groundwater.
We
also
are
not
concerned
with
potential
air
releases
from
these
tanks
as
neither
volatile
contaminants
nor
airborne
particulates
are
likely
to
be
present
in
the
wastes.
As
discussed
above,
the
primary
constituent
of
concern
in
this
waste
is
hexavalent
chromium,
which
is
treated
to
form
relatively
stable
trivalent
chromium.
The
physical
form
of
the
wastes
(i.
e.,
sludge
with
high
water
content)
eliminates
the
potential
for
a
significant
release
of
airborne
particulates.
Furthermore,
our
analytical
data
show
that
the
waste,
after
treatment,
does
not
contain
any
constituents
of
concern
at
levels
exceeding
health­
based
levels.
(2)
Process
sludge
without
chromium
and
lead.

How
Is
This
Waste
Managed?

This
sludge
is
produced
as
part
of
the
initial
purification
of
the
brine
solution.
Five
facilities
report
generating
this
type
of
waste
and
managing
it
as
nonhazardous.
Four
facilities
manage
the
waste
in
an
on­
site
land
farm,
offsite
municipal
Subtitle
D
landfills,
and
an
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.
One
facility
ships
their
waste
off­
site
for
recycling.
We
collected
a
total
of
four
samples
of
this
waste
category
from
two
facilities.
Two
of
the
four
samples
(HT±
SN±
01
and
EC±
SN±
03)
are
representative
of
wastes
that
are
land
disposed.
The
other
two
samples
(EC±
SN±
01
and
EC±
SN±
02)
are
representative
of
wastes
that
are
generally
recycled
and
occasionally
also
landfilled.
Table
III±
27
identifies
the
constituents
of
concern
that
we
found
to
be
present
in
the
waste
at
levels
exceeding
their
respective
HBLs
and/
or
soil
screening
levels.

TABLE
III±
27.Ð
ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
FOR
SODIUM
CHLORATE
PROCESS
SLUDGE
WITHOUT
CHROMIUM
AND
LEAD
(PPM)

Parameter
HT±
SN±
01
EC±
SN±
03
EC±
SN±
01
EC±
SN±
02
HBL
1
SSL
Total
TCLP
SPLP
Total
TCLP
SPLP
Total
TCLP
SPLP
Total
TCLP
SPLP
Arsenic
..............................................
14.3
2
0.03
<0.05
<5
<0.005
<0.05
<5
<0.005
<0.05
<5
<0.005
<0.05
0.0007
5.2
Cadmium
...........................................
27.4
<0.05
<0.05
<5
<0.05
<0.05
<5
<0.05
<0.05
<5
<0.05
<0.05
0.0078
4.3
Chromium
.........................................
57.3
<0.05
<0.05
15.3
<0.05
<0.05
<5
<0.05
<0.05
10.1
<0.05
<0.05
23
37
Copper
..............................................
17.2
<0.25
<0.05
15.3
<0.05
<0.05
<5
<0.25
<0.05
5.3
<0.25
<0.05
1.3
17
Lead
..................................................
14.8
0.024
<0.03
139
<0.03
<0.03
19.3
0.12
E
0.001
34.9
0.05
E
0.002
E
0.015
400*
Manganese
.......................................
69.2
0.08
<0.05
238
4.5
<0.05
125
0.5
<0.05
51.9
0.7
<0.05
0.73
330
Mercury
.............................................
0.5
L
<0.002
<0.0002
<0.1
<0.002
<0.0002
<0.1
<0.002
<0.0002
<0.1
<0.002
<0.0002
0.0047
24*
Nickel
................................................
7.4
<0.2
<0.05
12.1
0.4
<0.05
<5
<0.2
<0.05
<5
<0.2
<0.05
0.31
13
Silver
.................................................
1.1
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.1
<0.01
0.078
400*
Zinc
...................................................
111
<2
<0.5
279
10.6
<0.5
<50
<2
<0.5
<50
<2
<0.5
4.7
48
1
SSL:
Soil
Screening
Level
based
on
geometric
mean
background
concentration
(mg/
kg)
in
soils
in
conterminous
U.
S.
or
soil
ingestion
HBL
(marked
*).
2
Results
are
less
than
the
typical
laboratory
reporting
limit,
but
are
greater
than
the
calculated
instrument
detection
limit.
E:
Analysis
performed
outside
recommended
holding
time.
Reported
value
should
be
considered
as
estimated.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00053
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55736
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
What
Management
Scenarios
Did
We
Aassess?
We
evaluated
wastes
managed
under
the
four
identified
management
scenarios:
on­
site
land
farm,
municipal
Subtitle
D
landfill,
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill,
and
recycling.
Land
farm
scenario.
One
facility
reports
managing
37
MT/
year
of
this
waste
in
an
on­
site
permitted
land
farm.
EPA
previously
assessed
this
same
land
farm
as
part
of
the
chlorinated
aliphatics
listing
determinations
(see
proposed
rule
at
64
FR
46475,
August
25,
1999).
Today's
assessment
of
sodium
chlorate
waste
placed
in
the
same
unit
is
based
on
our
earlier
modeling
of
this
unit
for
a
waste
from
the
production
of
chlorinated
aliphatics
(EDC/
VCM
sludges).
In
assessing
this
management
scenario,
we
first
compared
the
total
constituent
concentrations
of
all
four
record
samples
to
background
soil
concentrations.
The
following
metals
exceeded
this
screening
criteria:
arsenic,
cadmium,
chromium,
copper,
lead,
mercury,
silver,
and
zinc.
We
then
used
the
metal
modeling
results
generated
from
the
chlorinated
aliphatics
listing
determination
to
calculate
the
proportional
sodium
chlorate
risk.
The
calculated
modeling
results
of
arsenic,
cadmium,
hexavalent
chromium,
and
zinc
for
the
same
land
farm
are
all
below
a
hazard
quotient
(HQ)
of
1
and
10
´6
risk
thresholds
for
the
land
treatment
scenario.
Finally,
we
compared
the
total
concentrations
of
copper,
lead,
mercury,
and
silver
of
all
samples
to
the
soil
ingestion
HBL
because
these
constituents
were
not
assessed
in
the
chlorinated
aliphatics
risk
analyses.
The
maximum
total
concentrations
of
lead,
mercury,
and
silver
are
well
below
the
soil
ingestion
HBL,
and
the
maximum
total
concentration
of
copper
in
this
waste
(i.
e.,
17.2
mg/
kg)
is
very
close
to
the
soil
ingestion
HBL
(i.
e.,
17
mg/
kg).
We
believe
that
after
mixing
with
soil
in
the
land
application
unit,
the
copper
concentration
in
the
unit
will
be
even
lower.
We
do
not
believe
this
waste
poses
risk
via
volatilization
to
the
air
pathway
because
it
does
not
contain
any
significant
toxic
volatile
chemicals.
In
addition,
the
comparison
described
above
for
this
unit,
where
we
determined
that
the
detected
waste
constituents
are
present
in
the
waste
at
levels
below
or
very
close
to
the
soil
ingestion
levels,
suggests
that
any
wind
blown
dust
from
the
unit
should
not
pose
risk
at
levels
of
concern.
Based
on
our
analysis,
we
conclude
that
the
waste
does
not
present
a
substantial
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment
when
land
applied.
Landfill
scenarios.
Three
facilities
manage
their
wastes
in
municipal
Subtitle
D
landfills
and
one
facility
manages
its
waste
in
an
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.
We
used
the
SPLP
results
of
all
four
relevant
samples
to
evaluate
the
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill
management
scenario.
We
found
that
the
waste
poses
no
substantial
present
or
potential
hazard
to
human
health
and
the
environment
when
managed
in
an
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill
because
the
SPLP
leachate
concentration
of
all
constituents
of
the
four
samples
of
this
waste
category
are
below
their
respective
HBLs.
We
used
the
TCLP
results
of
all
four
relevant
samples
to
assess
the
municipal
Subtitle
D
landfill
scenario.
We
modeled
all
three
volumes
reported
being
sent
to
municipal
Subtitle
D
landfills.
We
focused
our
assessment
on
the
geological
regions
in
the
northwestern
and
southeastern
areas
of
the
country
because
of
the
locations
of
the
facilities
and
the
landfills
currently
being
used.
The
constituents
we
modeled
are
arsenic,
lead,
manganese,
nickel,
and
zinc.
The
details
regarding
our
modeling
inputs
and
assumptions
are
provided
in
``
Sodium
Chlorate
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''
and
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes'
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.
The
results
of
our
risk
assessment
are
summarized
below
in
Table
III±
28.

TABLE
III±
28.Ð
GROUNDWATER
PATHWAY
RISK
ASSESSMENT
RESULTS
FOR
PROCESS
SLUDGE
WITHOUT
CHROMIUM
AND
LEAD
Percentile
Arsenic
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Adult
cancer
risk
Child
cancer
risk
Adult
HQ
Child
HQ
Adult
HQ
Child
HQ
Adult
HQ
Child
HQ
90th
..................................................
3E±
08
......
2E±
08
......
2E±
04
......
4E±
04
......
2E±
06
......
3E±
06
......
5E±
08
......
1E±
07
95th
..................................................
2E±
07
......
2E±
07
......
6E±
04
......
1E±
03
......
2E±
05
......
3E±
05
......
5E±
06
......
1E±
05
Based
on
these
risk
assessment
results,
we
conclude
that
process
sludge
without
chromium
and
lead
does
not
pose
a
substantial
present
or
potential
hazard
to
human
health
and
the
environment
when
managed
in
municipal
Subtitle
D
landfills.
We
calculated
hazard
quotients
for
noncarcinogenic
compounds
(lead,
manganese,
nickel,
and
zinc),
and
all
of
these
were
well
below
a
value
of
one.
We
found
no
adult
or
child
cancer
risk
for
arsenic
in
excess
of
1E±
06
at
the
95th
percentile.
Based
on
these
results
we
conclude
that
this
waste
does
not
pose
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
For
a
more
complete
description
of
this
analysis,
see
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes''
in
the
docket
for
this
proposal.
Recycling
scenario.Ð
One
facility
ships
their
wastes
to
an
off­
site
facility
for
reuse.
The
material
is
added
to
mined
gypsum
used
to
retard
the
setting
of
concrete.
We
assessed
this
use
because
it
involves
land
placement,
with
higher
likelihood
of
releases
to
the
environment.
Two
samples
of
this
waste
category
were
collected
from
the
facility
that
produces
and
manages
this
waste
in
such
a
fashion.
We
compared
this
use
to
a
less
protective
landfarming
scenario,
which
we
modeled,
and
found
no
risk
of
concern.
The
volume
of
the
waste
is
quite
small
(<
1%)
when
compared
to
the
volume
of
mined
gypsum
used
by
the
off­
site
facility.
We
believe
that
the
constituent
concentrations
in
the
final
cement
product
would
be
even
lower
due
to
mixing
with
other
materials.

What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
For
This
Waste?

Based
on
our
assessments
of
the
four
management
scenarios
(on­
site
land
farm,
municipal
Subtitle
D
landfill,
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill,
and
recycling),
we
found
that
the
wastes
do
not
present
a
substantial
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
Therefore,
we
propose
not
to
list
these
wastes.
(3)
Spent
filters
with
chromium
or
lead.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00054
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55737
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
How
Is
This
Waste
Managed?

Spent
filters
are
generated
at
several
points
in
the
production
process
but
most
are
generated
after
the
electrolysis
of
the
brine
solution.
Seven
facilities
report
generating
this
waste.
Six
of
the
seven
facilities
report
this
waste
to
be
characteristic
and
ship
it
to
off­
site
Subtitle
C
landfills
or
incinerators.
The
seventh
facility
generates
a
very
small
volume
of
D007
waste
that
is
acidwashed
and
decharacterized
(to
meet
UTS)
before
being
landfilled
at
an
offsite
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.

How
Was
This
Waste
Characterized?
We
collected
one
sample
of
the
spent
filter
that
was
decharacterized
prior
to
being
sent
to
an
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.
We
did
not
sample
any
of
the
six
facilities
that
already
adequately
managed
the
waste
under
Subtitle
C
regulations.
Table
III±
29
presents
the
analytical
results
for
the
total
and
leaching
analyses
of
the
decharacterized
spent
filter
sample
(KM±
FB±
01)
for
arsenic,
lead,
total
chromium,
and
hexavalent
chromium.
Chromium
and
lead
are
the
two
primary
constituents
of
concern
in
wastes
of
this
category.
The
sample
was
not
collected
from
the
facility
that
uses
anodes
with
lead
coating,
thus
lead
was
not
present
in
this
sample.
Arsenic
was
the
only
constituent
detected
in
the
SPLP
analysis
of
this
sample
at
levels
exceeding
the
HBL.

TABLE
III±
29.Ð
ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
FOR
SPENT
FILTERS
WITH
CHROMIUM
(KM±
FB±
01)

Parameter
Total
(mg/
kg)
TCLP
(mg/
l)
SPLP
(mg/
l)
Drinking
water
HBLs
(mg/
l)

Arsenic
.............................................................................................................
<0.5
<0.5
1
0.005
0.0007
Chromium
........................................................................................................
41.0
<0.05
<0.05
20
Hexavalent
Chromium
.....................................................................................
16.8
2
NA
2
<0.022
0.05
Lead
.................................................................................................................
<5
<0.5
<0.03
0.015
1
Results
are
less
than
the
typical
laboratory
reporting
limit,
but
are
greater
than
the
calculated
instrument
detection.
2
NA
Not
applicable.
Typical
TCLP
leaching
solution
is
not
suitable
for
leachable
hexavalent
chromium
because
most
(or
all)
hexavalent
chromium
in
TCLP
waste
leachates
were
converted
to
trivalent
chromium.
The
leach
test
for
hexavalent
chromium
was
modified
by
replacing
the
typical
(TCLP/
SPLP)
solution
with
deionized
water.

What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
For
This
Waste?

As
previously
noted,
six
of
the
seven
generators
of
this
waste
report
managing
their
wastes
in
Subtitle
C
facilities
as
characteristically
hazardous
from
the
point
of
generation
through
ultimate
disposal.
We
did
not
conduct
risk
assessment
on
wastes
identified
as
hazardous
wastes
and
managed
in
Subtitle
C
facilities
because
listing
would
not
provide
any
significant
incremental
control
of
wastes
already
managed
under
Subtitle
C.
We
evaluated
the
small
volume
waste
(i.
e.,
2.3
MT/
yr)
generated
by
the
seventh
facility
that
decharacterizes
its
waste
before
landfilling
in
an
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.
Because
the
volume
of
this
waste
is
relatively
small,
we
used
a
screening
analysis
(described
in
section
III.
E.
3)
to
screen
the
potential
risk
to
groundwater
associated
with
landfilling
this
waste.
We
found
that
the
SPLP
data
for
arsenic
screens
out
because
the
volume
of
the
waste
generated
by
the
facility
is
insufficient
to
release
arsenic
at
levels
of
concern.
For
a
more
complete
description
of
this
analysis,
see
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes''
in
the
docket
for
this
proposal.
Our
analytical
data
demonstrate
that
the
waste
is
effectively
decharacterized
and
does
not
pose
risks
warranting
listing
for
chromium,
the
primary
constituent
of
concern
in
this
waste.
The
result
of
the
screening
analysis
for
arsenic,
the
only
constituent
present
in
the
waste's
leachate
at
levels
exceeding
the
HBL,
shows
that
the
arsenic
in
this
waste
does
not
pose
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Therefore,
we
propose
not
to
list
spent
filters
with
chromium.
(4)
Spent
filters
without
chromium
and
lead.

How
Is
This
Waste
Managed?
This
residual
is
usually
generated
as
part
of
the
initial
brine
purification
steps,
where
impurities
are
removed
from
the
brine
solution,
and
from
filtering
of
product
during
packaging.
Four
facilities
report
generating
this
type
of
waste.
Two
of
these
four
facilities
manage
their
wastes
as
nonhazardous
in
municipal
Subtitle
D
landfills.
One
facility
manages
its
waste
as
nonhazardous
in
an
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.
One
facility
sends
their
spent
filters
along
with
process
sludge
off­
site
to
a
Subtitle
C
facility
for
stabilization
prior
to
disposal
in
a
Subtitle
C
landfill.
These
wastes
are
generated
in
very
small
volumes.

How
Was
This
Waste
Characterized?

We
collected
two
samples
(HT±
FB±
01
and
HT±
FB±
02)
from
one
facility.
These
two
samples
are
representative
of
wastes
in
this
category
that
are
land
disposed.
We
found
that
antimony,
arsenic,
boron,
hexavalent
chromium,
and
lead
in
the
TCLP
or
SPLP
waste
leachates
exceeded
their
HBLs.
We
also
found
that
cadmium
was
not
detected
in
the
leachates
at
a
detection
level
of
six
times
higher
than
its
HBL.
The
detection
limit
was
high
due
to
dilution
to
minimize
sample
matrix
interferences.
Information
on
constituents
of
concern
is
summarized
in
Table
III±
30.

TABLE
III±
30.Ð
ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
FOR
SPENT
FILTERS
WITHOUT
CHROMIUM
OR
LEAD
Parameter
HT±
FB±
01
HT±
FB±
02
HBL
(mg/
l)
Total
(mg/
kg)
TCLP
(mg/
l)
SPLP
(mg/
l)
Total
(mg/
kg)
TCLP
(mg/
l)
SPLP
(mg/
l)

Antimony
......................
34.1
0.018
<0.005
<5
0.012
<0.005
0.006
Arsenic
.........................
7.3
0.014
0.003
5.3
<0.005
<0.005
0.0007
Boron
............................
<50
6.1
<0.05
<50
0.67
<0.5
1.4
Cadmium
......................
22.5
<0.05
<0.05
<5
<0.05
<0.05
0.008
Cr,
+6
...........................
<0.8
NA
<0.02
2.8
L
NA
0.19
L
0.05
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00055
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55738
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
III±
30.Ð
ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
FOR
SPENT
FILTERS
WITHOUT
CHROMIUM
OR
LEADÐ
Continued
Parameter
HT±
FB±
01
HT±
FB±
02
HBL
(mg/
l)
Total
(mg/
kg)
TCLP
(mg/
l)
SPLP
(mg/
l)
Total
(mg/
kg)
TCLP
(mg/
l)
SPLP
(mg/
l)

Lead
.............................
8.7
0.024
0.06
7.1
0.020
0.012
0.015
L:
Concentration
reported
from
analysis
performed
outside
required
holding
time.
Value
should
be
considered
biased
low.

What
Management
Scenarios
Were
Assessed?
We
modeled
both
the
industrial
(0.6
MT/
year)
and
municipal
(2.8
MT/
year)
landfill
scenarios,
based
on
the
reported
management
practices.
We
used
the
SPLP
leachate
concentrations
to
evaluate
the
industrial
landfill
scenario.
The
constituents
of
concern
that
exceeded
their
respective
HBLs
in
the
SPLP
results
were
arsenic,
hexavalent
chromium,
and
lead.
We
evaluated
these
constituents
using
the
de
minimis
volume
screening
analysis,
as
described
in
section
III.
E.
3
of
today's
proposal.
The
analysis
suggests
that
hexavalent
chromium
and
lead
are
not
of
concern.
We
then
modeled
arsenic
using
our
standard
groundwater
model
for
the
industrial
landfill
scenario.
We
used
the
TCLP
leachate
concentrations
to
evaluate
the
municipal
landfill
scenario.
Using
the
de
minimis
volume
analysis,
we
screened
out
boron,
hexavalent
chromium,
and
lead.
We
then
conducted
full
groundwater
modeling
for
the
municipal
scenario
for
antimony,
arsenic,
and
cadmium.

What
Are
the
Results
of
EPA's
Risk
Assessment
for
This
Waste
When
Managed
in
an
Industrial
Subtitle
D
Landfill?
Our
risk
assessment
results
for
the
industrial
landfill
scenario,
summarized
below
in
Table
III±
31,
suggest
that
the
only
constituent
of
concern
that
required
modeling
(arsenic)
does
not
pose
a
substantial
present
or
potential
hazard
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
We
found
no
arsenic
cancer
risk
in
excess
of
1E±
08
at
the
95th
percentile
for
either
adult
or
child
exposure
scenarios.
Therefore,
we
believe
that
this
waste
when
managed
in
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfills
clearly
does
not
warrant
listing.
For
a
more
complete
description
of
this
analysis,
see
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes''
in
the
docket
for
this
proposal.

TABLE
III±
31.Ð
RISK
RESULTS
FOR
FILTERS
WITHOUT
CHROMIUM
AND
LEADÐ
INDUSTRIAL
SUBTITLE
D
LANDFILL
SCENARIO
Percentile
Arsenic
Adult
cancer
risk
Child
cancer
risk
90th
.......................
1E±
09
8E±
10
95th
.......................
5E±
09
4E±
09
What
Are
the
Results
of
EPA's
Risk
Assessment
for
This
Waste
When
Managed
in
Municipal
Subtitle
D
Landfills?

Our
risk
assessment
results
for
the
municipal
landfill
scenario,
summarized
below
in
Table
III±
32,
suggest
that
the
three
constituents
of
concern
(antimony,
arsenic,
and
cadmium)
do
not
pose
a
substantial
present
or
potential
hazard
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
hazard
quotients,
for
both
the
adult
and
child
exposure
scenarios,
of
antimony
are
less
than
0.01
at
the
95th
percentile,
and
of
cadmium,
are
less
than
0.001
at
the
95th
percentile.
We
found
no
arsenic
cancer
risk
in
excess
of
1E±
08
at
the
95th
percentile
for
either
adult
or
child
exposure
scenarios.
Therefore,
we
believe
that
this
waste
when
managed
in
municipal
Subtitle
D
landfills
does
not
warrant
listing.
For
a
more
complete
description
of
this
analysis,
see
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes''
in
the
docket
for
this
proposal.

TABLE
III±
32.
RISK
RESULTS
FOR
FILTERS
WITHOUT
CHROMIUM
AND
LEAD
MUNICIPAL
SUBTITLE
D
LANDFILL
SCENARIO
Percentile
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Adult
HQ
Child
HQ
Adult
cancer
risk
Child
cancer
risk
Adult
HQ
Child
HQ
90th
..............................................................................................
5E±
04
1E±
03
5E±
10
4E±
10
3E±
05
6E±
05
95th
..............................................................................................
2E±
03
4E±
03
5E±
09
4E±
09
1E±
04
3E±
04
(5)
Wastewaters
with
chromium
that
are
not
recycled
back
to
the
process.

How
Is
This
Waste
Managed
and
How
Is
It
Characterized?

Two
facilities
report
generating
this
wastewater
and
characterize
it
as
hazardous
(D002
and
D007).
One
facility
generates
11
MT
per
year
of
this
wastewater
from
its
on­
site
laboratory
testings
of
the
electrolyte
in
the
electrolytic
cells,
the
excess
caustic
from
the
hydrogen
purification
step,
and
the
wastewater
from
the
production
of
sodium
chlorate
crystals.
The
facility
stores
the
wastewater
on­
site
in
closed
tanks
before
sending
it
off­
site
to
a
hazardous
waste
facility
for
treatment
and
disposal.
The
other
facility
generates
26,725
MT
per
year
of
this
wastewater
from
acid
washing
filters
and
anodes
to
remove
buildup
of
trace
metals
on
the
surface.
The
facility
combines
the
wastewaters
with
the
wastewaters
from
its
titanium
dioxide
production
process
and
treats
the
commingled
wastewaters
in
tanks.
The
treated
wastewater
is
then
discharged
to
on­
site
surface
impoundments.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00056
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55739
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?

One
facility
identifies
the
waste
as
hazardous
and
manages
it
in
accordance
with
Subtitle
C
regulations.
We
believe
that
applicable
Subtitle
C
regulations
adequately
protect
against
mismanagement,
and
we
did
not
investigate
it
further.
For
the
other
facility,
in
Hamilton,
Mississippi,
we
evaluated
its
combined
wastewaters
and
solids
as
described
above
in
the
``
process
sludges
with
chromium
or
lead''
category.
Today's
proposal
separately
addresses
the
titanium
dioxide
wastes
that
are
commingled
with
this
sodium
chlorate
waste.
We
propose
not
to
list
these
wastes.
(6)
Other
wastewaters
that
do
not
contain
chromium
or
lead
and
are
not
recycled.

How
Is
This
Waste
Managed?

There
are
other
wastewaters
generated
from
several
points
of
the
process,
including
process
condensate,
cooling
waters,
and
ion­
exchange
wastewater.
Four
facilities
reported
generating
these
wastewaters.
Two
facilities
generate
process
condensates
from
condensing
water
vapor
from
their
crystalizers,
steam
jets,
or
pad
water
evaporator.
Both
facilities
store
their
process
condensates
in
closed
tanks.
One
facility
neutralizes
the
condensate
prior
to
discharging
it
to
an
NPDES
permitted
outfall.
The
other
facility
does
not
treat
the
condensate,
but
tests
to
ensure
it
meets
its
State
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
permit
prior
to
discharge
to
a
river.
One
facility
generates
wastewater
from
regeneration
of
the
ion­
exchange
unit
that
is
used
for
purification
of
the
brine.
The
wastewater
is
collected
in
a
tank
for
pH
neutralization
before
it
is
discharged
to
a
POTW.
One
facility
generates
wastewater
from
cooling
tower
blowdown,
chemical
storage
tank
scrubber
pad,
hydrogen
scrubber
pad,
and
water
demineralization
area.
These
wastewaters
are
piped
to
its
on­
site
NPDES
facility
to
be
processed
and
discharged.

What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?

We
propose
not
to
list
these
wastewaters
as
hazardous.
We
evaluated
these
wastewaters
that
are
stored
and
treated
in
tanks
or
in
a
NPDES
permitted
facility.
We
found
that
these
wastewaters
do
not
pose
risks
warranting
regulation
during
treatment
because
there
are
no
exposure
pathways
of
concern.
The
wastewater
treatment
tanks
and
the
wastewater
treatment
facility
provide
sufficient
structural
integrity
and
have
secondary
containment
areas
to
minimize
potential
releases
to
groundwater.
We
are
unlikely
to
find
potential
air
releases
from
these
tanks
or
the
permitted
facility
as
neither
volatile
contaminants
nor
airborne
particulates
are
likely
to
be
present
in
these
wastewaters.

12.
Sodium
Dichromate
a.
Summary.
We
have
evaluated
the
wastes,
waste
management
practices,
and
potential
risk
exposure
pathways
associated
with
the
sodium
dichromate
production
processes
and
propose
not
to
list
any
wastes
from
this
industry
as
hazardous
wastes
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
These
wastes
do
not
meet
the
criteria
listed
under
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3)
for
listing
a
waste
as
hazardous.
They
do
not
pose
a
substantial
present
or
potential
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
We
have
identified
no
risks
of
concern
associated
with
the
current
management
of
these
wastes.
Note
that
certain
wastes
from
this
sector
are
exempt
mineral
processing
wastes
which
are
not
within
the
scope
of
today's
listing
proposal.
b.
Description
of
the
sodium
dichromate
industry.
Two
facilities
in
the
United
States
produce
sodium
dichromate;
one
in
North
Carolina
and
one
in
Texas.
Both
facilities
sell
their
product
on
the
open
market
in
addition
to
using
the
material
as
a
feedstock
for
various
manufacturing
processes
onsite
The
majority
of
sodium
dichromate
is
used
as
a
feedstock
for
the
production
of
chromic
acid.
It
is
also
used
in
a
wide
variety
of
other
uses.
For
more
detailed
information
concerning
this
industry,
see
``
Sodium
Dichromate
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.
The
two
sodium
dichromate
production
facilities
use
somewhat
different
manufacturing
processes
and
generate
somewhat
different
wastes.
Both
facilities
use
imported
chromite
ore
as
their
primary
feedstock.
They
dry
and
grind
the
ore
and
feed
it
into
a
roasting
kiln
or
hearth
with
other
materials
such
as
soda
ash,
lime,
and
sodium
hydroxide.
The
facilities
roast,
then
quench
and
leach
the
ore
with
water,
producing
sodium
chromate
solution
and
solid
ore
residues.
Both
facilities
return
the
ore
residues
to
the
manufacturing
process
for
further
roasting
and
leaching.
The
facilities
purify
the
resulting
sodium
chromate
solution
product
stream
by
adjusting
its
pH,
treating
it
with
sodium
carbonate,
and,
at
the
Texas
facility,
sodium
dichromate,
and
filtering
out
the
resulting
solid
impurities.
The
two
facilities'
processes
diverge
significantly
at
this
point.
At
the
Texas
facility,
the
sodium
chromate
solution
is
either
crystallized
and
sold
or
processed
electrolytically
to
convert
the
sodium
chromate
to
sodium
dichromate.
The
electrolytic
cell
system
also
produces
sodium
hydroxide
solution
which,
the
facility
reports,
they
sell.
The
North
Carolina
facility
converts
the
sodium
chromate
solution
to
sodium
dichromate
through
acidification,
and
the
sodium
dichromate
is
then
partially
evaporated.
The
acidification
process
also
produces
sodium
sulfate
and
lower
purity
sodium
sulfate
``
saltcake,
''
both
of
which
the
facility
sells.
The
sodium
dichromate
is
then
either
used
in
liquid
form
or
further
evaporated
to
produce
a
crystalline
product.
c.
How
does
the
Bevill
Exclusion
apply
to
wastes
from
the
sodium
dichromate
manufacturing
processes?
The
sodium
dichromate
manufacturing
facilities
produce
two
types
of
residuals
which
are
eligible
for
the
Bevill
exemption
once
disposed:
beneficiation
wastes
(See
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
7)(
i))
and
mineral
processing
wastes
referred
to
as
treated
residue
from
roasting/
leaching
of
chromium
ore
(see
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
7)(
ii)(
N)).
Under
the
Bevill
exemption,
any
wastes
generated
from
beneficiation
of
ores,
such
as
crushing,
mixing,
and
milling,
are
Bevill
exempt.
Both
facilities
beneficiate
ore
by
drying
and
grinding
chromite
ore
and
mixing
the
ore
with
other
ingredients
prior
to
placement
in
the
roasting
kiln
and
generate
air
pollution
control
dusts
from
these
processes.
However,
the
residuals
from
these
processes,
which
would
be
Bevill
exempt,
are
not
disposed
of
but
rather
captured
and
returned
to
the
process
from
which
they
originated
for
chromium
recovery.
In
terms
of
when
beneficiation
stops
and
mineral
processing
starts,
EPA
determined
in
1989
that
the
roasting/
leaching
of
chromium
ore
to
produce
sodium
chromate
is
mineral
processing
rather
than
beneficiation.
54
FR
36592
(September
1,
1989)
stated:

``
A
specific
exception
to
the
above
categorization
system
applies
when
the
roasting/
leaching
sequence
produces
a
final
or
intermediate
product
that
does
not
undergo
further
beneficiation
or
processing
steps
(e.
g.,
the
leach
liquor
serves
as
an
input
to
inorganic
chemical
manufacturing).
In
this
type
of
situation,
the
Agency
believes
that
the
operation
is
most
appropriately
considered
a
processing,
rather
than
a
beneficiation,
operation.
In
the
context
of
this
rulemaking,
one
candidate
Bevill
waste
(roast/
leach
ore
residue
from
primary
chrome
ore
processing)
is
affected
by
this
distinction;
EPA
believes
that
this
material
is
clearly
a
waste
from
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00057
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55740
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
processing,
rather
than
beneficiation,
of
an
ore
or
mineral.
''

The
wastes
generated
after
mineral
processing
begins
are
not
Bevill
exempt
unless
and
until
they
become
treated
residue
from
the
roasting/
leaching
of
chromium
ore
as
specified
in
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
7)(
ii)(
N).
The
wastes
eligible
for
the
exclusion,
once
they
are
treated,
are
referred
to
later
in
this
preamble
and
associated
background
documents
as
spent
post­
leach,
spent
postneutralization
ore
residue,
and
waste
heat
boiler
washout.
These
wastes
are
generated
from
roasting
and
leaching
(including
precipitation
and
filtration
to
remove
the
resulting
impurities)
of
chromite
ore.
Both
facilities
generate
these
wastes,
treat
them
in
on­
site
treatment
systems,
and
dispose
of
them
in
on­
site
surface
impoundments.
Note
that
in
the
January
23,
1990
Federal
Register,
EPA
stated
that
the
Bevill
exemption
applies
to
``
only
those
solids
which
are
entrained
in
the
slurry
as
it
leaves
the
treatment
facility
and
which
settle
out
in
disposal
impoundments.
''
Wastes
generated
following
the
roasting/
leaching
processes
to
produce
sodium
chromate
for
sodium
dichromate
production
are
not
Bevill
exempt
because
they
are
not
from
the
roasting/
leaching
of
chromite
ore.
Wastes
generated
at
these
facilities
that
are
not
Bevill
exempt
include
sodium
chromate
evaporation
unit
wastewaters
(Texas
facility),
sodium
dichromate
evaporation
unit
wastewaters
(Texas
facility),
caustic
filter
sludge
(Texas
facility),
and
salt
cake
drier
scrubber
wastewater
(North
Carolina
facility).
As
described
below,
both
facilities
in
the
sodium
dichromate
manufacturing
industry
commingle
wastes
during
the
treatment
process,
ultimately
producing
a
commingled
treatment
residue
which
is
a
mixture
of
Bevill
exempt
wastes
and
wastes
which
do
not
qualify
for
the
Bevill
exemption.
In
general,
the
majority
of
these
mixtures
consist
of
Bevill
exempt
wastes.
Mixing
Bevill
exempt
wastes
with
non­
hazardous
wastes
does
not
affect
the
regulatory
status
of
the
Bevill
wastes,
but
it
also
does
not
conversely
extend
Bevill
exempt
status
to
the
non­
hazardous
wastes
in
the
mixture
(see
63
FR
28595).
Therefore,
in
this
rulemaking
we
have
addressed
that
portion
of
the
treatment
residue
mixture
which
derives
from
wastes
which
do
not
qualify
for
the
Bevill
exemption.
In
addition,
in
general,
if
any
of
the
non­
Bevill
wastes
exhibit
a
characteristic
and
is
mixed
with
the
Bevill
wastes,
the
entire
mixture
may
become
subject
to
Subtitle
C
based
on
the
Bevill
mixture
rule
(See
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)).
d.
What
kinds
of
wastes
are
generated
by
these
processes?
Table
III±
33
below
briefly
lists
the
facility­
reported
residuals
from
the
sodium
dichromate
manufacturing
industry,
total
industry
residual
volumes
generated
in
1998,
RCRA
hazard
codes,
and
residual
management
practices.

TABLE
III±
33.Ð
SODIUM
DICHROMATE
PRODUCTION
RESIDUALS
Waste
category
1998
volumes
(MT)
Reported
waste
codes
Sequential
management
practices
North
Carolina
Facility
Residuals
commingled
in
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit
1
:
Spent
post­
neutralization
ore
residue
(Bevill
exempt
after
treatment).
146,937
............
D007
.................
Sent
on­
site
to
tank­
based
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit
with
NPDES
permitted
discharge.
Spent
post­
leach
ore
residue
(Bevill
exempt
after
treatment).
25,930
..............
D007
.................
Sent
on­
site
to
tank­
based
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit
with
NPDES
permitted
discharge.
Saltcake
drier
scrubber
wastewater
...................
13,851
..............
D007
.................
Sent
on­
site
to
tank­
based
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit
with
NPDES
permitted
discharge.
Waste
heat
boiler
washout
(Bevill
exempt
after
treatment).
70
.....................
D007
.................
Sent
on­
site
to
tank­
based
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit
with
NPDES
permitted
discharge.
Residuals
disposed
of
on­
site:
Reduced
chromium
treatment
residues
commingled
Bevill
exempt
and
non­
exempt
residues
129,503
............
None
.................
Sent
to
on­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
disposal
unit.

Commingled
treated
wastewaters
(commingled
Bevill
exempt
and
non­
exempt
residues).
920,161
............
None
.................
Passed
through
sand
filters
then
discharged
directly
under
NPDES
permit
or
sent
to
on­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
disposal
unit.
Residuals
disposed
of
off­
site:
Chromium­
contaminated
filters,
membranes,
and
other
plant
waste.
67
.....................
D007
.................
Stored
in
on­
site
roll­
off
bin
before
off­
site
treatment
and
landfill
disposal
at
Subtitle
C
facility.
Spent
sand
filter
sands
(commingled
Bevill
exempt
and
non­
exempt
residues).
21.7
(1997)
.......
None
.................
Stored
in
on­
site
drums
or
roll­
off
bins
before
disposal
in
off­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.

Texas
Facility
Residuals
commingled
in
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit:
Spent
post­
neutralization
ore
residue
(Bevill
exempt
after
treatment).
60,000
..............
D007
.................
Sent
to
on­
site,
covered,
tank­
based,
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit
with
NPDES
permitted
discharge
Caustic
filter
sludge
............................................
80
.....................
D002
.................
Sent
to
on­
site,
covered,
tank­
based,
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit
with
NPDES
permitted
discharge
Residuals
commingled
in
wastewater
treatment
unit
2
:
Sodium
dichromate
evaporation
unit
wastewater
~2,500
...............
None
.................
Sent
to
on­
site,
tank­
based
wastewater
treatment
unit
with
NPDES
permitted
discharge.
Sodium
chromate
evaporation
unit
wastewater
~300
..................
None
.................
Sent
to
on­
site,
tank­
based
wastewater
treatment
unit
with
NPDES
permitted
discharge.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00058
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55741
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
III±
33.Ð
SODIUM
DICHROMATE
PRODUCTION
RESIDUALSÐ
Continued
Waste
category
1998
volumes
(MT)
Reported
waste
codes
Sequential
management
practices
Residuals
disposed
of
on­
site:
Reduced
chromium
treatment
residues
from
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit
(commingled
Bevill
exempt
and
non­
exempt
residues).
60,000
..............
None
.................
Sent
to
on­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D,
double­
lined
surface
impoundment
for
dewatering
and
disposal
Impoundment
has
NPDES
permitted
outflow
Reduced
chromium
treatment
residues
from
wastewater
treatment
unit
(commingled
Bevill
exempt
and
non­
exempt
residues).
~30,000
(1999)
None
.................
Sent
to
on­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D,
double­
lined
surface
impoundment
for
dewatering
and
disposal
Impoundment
has
NPDES
permitted
outflow
Commingled
treated
wastewaters
(commingled
Bevill
exempt
and
non­
exempt
residues).
186,515
............
None
.................
Sent
to
on­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
surface
impoundment
filtered
through
sand
filters,
then
discharged
directly
under
NPDES
permit.
Residuals
disposed
of
off­
site:
Process
filters
and
membranes,
baghouse
bags,
chromium­
contaminated
empty
containers
and
other
plant
wastes.
24
.....................
D007
.................
Stored
in
on­
site
roll­
off
box
before
treatment
and
landfill
disposal
at
Subtitle
C
facility.

Spent
sand
filter
sands
(commingled
Bevill
exempt
and
non­
exempt
wastes).
~2
MT
once
every
two
years.
None
.................
Placed
in
on­
site
non­
hazardous
soil
waste
bin
and
then
disposed
of
in
off­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.

1
Remediation
well
water,
cooling
tower
blowdown,
and
stormwater
are
also
treated
in
this
unit.
These
materials
are
beyond
the
scope
of
this
listing
determination.
2
Stormwater
and
remediation
well
water
are
also
treated
in
this
unit.
Contaminated
media
are
not
within
the
scope
of
this
listing
determination.

In
addition
to
these
wastes,
the
sodium
dichromate
manufacturers
produce
residuals
which
are
either
piped
back
to
the
production
process
or
sold
for
use
in
other
manufacturing
processes.
Air
pollution
control
devices
capture
materials
that
are
returned
to
their
units
of
origin
or
to
other
manufacturing
process
units.
At
the
North
Carolina
facility,
ore
residue
washwaters
and
calcium
carbonate
residuals
are
returned
to
the
production
process
for
chromium
recovery.
Chromium­
bearing
solution
from
the
saltcake
purification
process
is
directly
reused
in
the
roasted
ore
quench,
leach
and
filter
process.
At
the
Texas
facility,
chromium­
containing
residuals
from
scrubbers
on
the
hearth
and
on
the
sodium
chromate
and
dichromate
evaporation/
crystallization
units
are
reused
in
the
hearth
kiln
and
quench
tank
units.
Because
these
materials
are
reused
in
production
units
in
ways
that
present
low
potential
for
release,
and
because
we
evaluated
process
wastes
generated
after
the
secondary
material
is
reinserted
into
the
process,
we
do
not
believe
that
these
materials
present
significant
risk.
The
North
Carolina
facility
also
produces
for
sale
sodium
sulfate
``
saltcake''
and
purified
sodium
sulfate
anhydrous
from
the
sodium
dichromate
production
process.
The
Texas
facility
sells
hydroxide
solution
from
their
sodium
dichromate
production
process.
We
found
no
information
indicating
that
the
facilities
which
purchase
these
materials
burn
them
for
energy
recovery
or
incorporate
them
into
products
that
are
used
on
the
land
(use
constituting
disposal).
Since
these
processes
are
outside
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree
we
did
not
evaluate
any
of
these
materials
further.
We
did
however,
evaluate
some
residuals
produced
onsite
at
the
North
Carolina
and
Texas
facilities
during
the
preparation
of
the
materials
that
are
sold.
See
the
discussions
in
the
sections
below
of
salt
cake
drier
scrubber
water
and
caustic
filter
sludge.
Finally,
the
North
Carolina
facility
produces
some
off­
specification
product,
which
it
reinserts
into
the
sodium
dichromate
manufacturing
process.
Off­
specification
product,
when
reinserted
without
reclamation
into
the
process
from
where
it
originated,
is
not
a
solid
waste.
See
the
``
Sodium
Dichromate
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''
for
more
details
on
these
residuals.
e.
Waste
characterization
and
Agency
evaluation.
Chromium
is
the
primary
constituent
of
concern
in
the
wastes
from
both
facilities.
Chromium
occurs
in
several
production
wastes
at
high
levels,
in
some
cases
exceeding
the
TC
level
(5.0
mg/
L)
in
TCLP
leachate
samples.
These
wastes
are
coded
as
hazardous
(D007).
Both
facilities
treat
some
of
their
D007
wastes
on­
site
and
send
other
D007
wastes
off­
site
for
treatment
and
disposal
at
permitted
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
facilities.
Various
other
wastes
which
fall
below
D007
regulatory
levels
are
either
treated
on­
site
or
sent
off­
site
for
disposal.
No
other
constituents
of
concern
were
reported
to
be
present
in
the
wastes
at
levels
of
concern.
We
propose
not
to
list
any
of
the
wastes
from
the
sodium
dichromate
manufacturing
industry.
Many
wastes
from
this
industry
are
Bevill
exempt
once
treated,
and
therefore
not
within
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree
requirements.
Other
wastes
are
characteristically
hazardous
and
are
managed
at
permitted
Subtitle
C
facilities
off­
site.
Some
wastes
did
not
exhibit
constituents
at
levels
of
concern
for
purposes
of
a
listing
given
the
nature
of
their
management
and
disposal.
The
main
constituent
of
concern,
chromium,
is
treated
on­
site
for
many
of
the
wastes.
Several
wastes
from
each
of
the
facilities
are
disposed
of
in
a
treated
form,
rather
than
an
as­
generated
form.
In
general,
we
focused
our
evaluation
on
the
treated
form
of
wastes
because
it
is
ultimately
only
the
treated
wastes
which
are
disposed.
The
sections
below
describe
how
wastes
are
generated
and
managed
at
the
two
sodium
dichromate
manufacturing
facilities,
each
with
its
own
production
process,
and
our
rationale
for
proposing
not
to
list
the
wastes.
We
solicit
comments
on
the
proposed
listing
decisions
described
below.
(1)
North
Carolina
Facility.
(a)
Residuals
Commingled
in
Spent
Ore
Residue
Treatment
Unit.
The
North
Carolina
facility
commingles
and
treats
several
characteristic
wastes
from
sodium
dichromate
manufacturing
in
an
on­
site,
tank­
based
treatment
unit
at
the
North
Carolina
facility.
These
four
sodium
dichromate
manufacturing
wastes
are:
ÐWaste
heat
boiler
washout,
which
are
accumulated
solids
from
the
internal
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00059
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55742
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
components
of
the
roasting
kiln
waste
heat
boilers
(Bevill
exempt
after
treatment)
ÐSpent
post­
leach
ore
residue
(Bevill
exempt
after
treatment)
ÐSpent
post­
neutralization
ore
residue
(Bevill
exempt
after
treatment)
ÐSaltcake
drier
scrubber
wastewater
We
consider
the
saltcake
drier
scrubber
wastewater
to
be
a
wastestream
associated
with
the
production
of
sodium
sulfate
at
the
North
Carolina
facility,
rather
than
a
sodium
dichromate
manufacturing
waste.
Nevertheless,
we
chose
to
exercise
our
discretion
to
evaluate
the
risk
posed
by
the
treated
and
untreated
form
of
this
residue.
As
explained
below,
we
did
not
find
risks
warranting
listing.
All
four
wastes
catalogued
above
go
directly
from
their
points
of
generation
to
the
on­
site
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit
without
intervening
storage.
The
facility
treats
non­
contact
cooling
tower
blowdown,
remediation
well
water,
and
stormwater
in
the
treatment
unit
as
well.
The
four
manufacturing
wastes
comprise
approximately
60±
65%
by
volume
of
the
wastes
entering
the
treatment
unit.
The
entire
treatment
process
takes
place
in
a
series
of
tanks
with
secondary
containment.
Treatment
consists
of
conversion
of
hexavalent
chromium
in
the
wastes
to
trivalent
chromium
with
pickle
liquor
(ferrous
chloride
reducing
agent).
Trivalent
chromium
is
a
generally
less
toxic
and
less
soluble
form
of
chromium.
Wastes
containing
a
high
percentage
of
solids
(waste
heat
boiler
washout,
spent
post­
leach
ore
residue,
and
spent
post­
neutralization
ore
residue)
are
also
neutralized
with
lime
slurry
in
order
to
increase
precipitation
of
trivalent
chromium
compounds
out
of
solution.
The
treatment
sludge
is
then
thickened
in
a
series
of
clarifier
tanks.
Limestone
is
added
to
the
thickened
sludge
to
further
stabilize
chromium
and
other
metals.
All
of
the
tanks
in
the
treatment
train
have
secondary
containment
and
some
are
covered.
Treated
wastewaters,
after
passing
through
sand
filters,
discharge
from
the
treatment
unit
under
an
NPDES
permit
or
travel
with
the
treated
solid
residues
to
the
on­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
disposal
unit
(see
section
III.
F.
12.
e(
1)(
b)
ii
below
regarding
the
commingled
treated
wastewaters).
The
Bevill
exemption
applies
to
the
waste
heat
boiler
washout,
spent
postleach
ore
residue,
and
spent
postneutralization
ore
residue
only
after
the
wastes
are
treated.
We
evaluated
the
potential
for
releases
from
the
treatment
tanks.
We
assumed
that
the
tanks
were
intact
structures
with
minimal
potential
for
releases
to
groundwater.
We
do
not
anticipate
significant
air
releases
because
the
wastes
do
not
contain
volatile
constituents
and
have
high
moisture
content.
Also,
some
of
the
tanks
have
covers
which
further
reduce
the
possibility
of
air
releases.
We
are
proposing
not
to
list
any
of
these
four
wastestreams
undergoing
treatment
in
this
tank
system.
(b)
Residuals
Disposed
of
On­
Site.
(i)
Commingled
reduced
chromium
treatment
residues.
The
reduced
chromium
sludge
from
the
on­
site
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit
is
slurried
and
conveyed
directly
from
the
treatment
unit
to
one
of
two
on­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
disposal
units
(former
limestone
quarries).
Of
the
several
treatment
residues
contributing
to
the
final
commingled
treatment
residue,
only
one
falls
within
the
scope
of
today's
listing
proposal;
residue
from
treatment
of
saltcake
drier
scrubber
wastewater
(we
believe
this
is
not
within
scope
of
the
consent
decree
but
are
evaluating
it
in
this
rule
making).
Residues
from
the
treatment
of
waste
heat
boiler
washout,
spent
post­
leach
ore
residue,
and
spent
postneutralization
ore
residue
are
Bevill
exempt
mineral
processing
wastes
beyond
the
scope
of
today's
listing
proposal
(see
Section
III.
F.
12(
c)).
Stormwater
and
remediation
well
water
are
contaminated
media
whose
treatment
residues
we
also
consider
to
be
beyond
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree
(see
section
III.
B
of
today's
proposal).
Therefore,
we
do
not
consider
the
risks
posed
by
these
treatment
residues.
According
to
information
the
facility
submitted
in
their
RCRA
Section
3007
Survey
response,
the
only
potential
constituent
of
concern
in
the
untreated
saltcake
drier
scrubber
wastewater
is
chromium,
detected
at
a
level
of
6
mg/
L.
Therefore,
chromium
is
the
only
constituent
we
considered
when
assessing
the
level
of
risk
from
saltcake
drier
scrubber
wastewater
treatment
residues.
Of
the
total
mass
of
chromium
found
in
the
commingled
reduced
chromium
treatment
residues,
the
saltcake
drier
scrubber
wastewater
contributes
approximately
0.001%.
This
estimate
is
based
on
calculations
using
information
the
North
Carolina
facility
provided
to
us
on
chromium
contents
and
tonnages
of
waste
exiting
the
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit.
Both
the
information
and
the
calculations
are
further
detailed
in
the
``
Sodium
Dichromate
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination.
''
We
found
the
treatment
residues
from
saltcake
drier
scrubber
solution
to
pose
no
significant
risks
to
groundwater.
After
treatment
for
hexavalent
chromium,
the
commingled
reduced
chromium
treatment
residues
from
1998
showed
weekly
TCLP
analysis
levels
of
leachable
chromium
in
the
range
of
0.01±
1.00
mg/
L
for
composite
samples
and
<0.01±
0.76
mg/
L
for
grab
samples.
Assuming
that
the
saltcake
drier
scrubber
wastewater's
percent
contribution
to
total
chromium
in
the
commingled
residues
is
equal
to
its
percent
contribution
to
total
chromium
leaching
from
the
commingled
residues
(0.001%),
the
saltcake
scrubber
solution
was
responsible
for
TCLP
leaching
levels
of
1´10
´7
to
1´10
´5
mg/
L
for
composite
samples
and
<3´10
´7
to
2.28´10
´5
mg/
L
for
grab
samples.
The
HBL
for
ingestion
of
hexavalent
chromium
is
0.047
mg/
L
and
23
mg/
L
for
trivalent
chromium.
The
AWQC
for
hexavalent
chromium
is
0.011
mg/
L
and
0.74
mg/
L
for
trivalent
chromium.
Even
at
a
maximum
leaching
level
of
1´10
´5
mg/
L,
the
leachable
chromium
contribution
of
the
saltcake
drier
scrubber
wastewater
indicates
a
very
low
level
of
risk
to
groundwater.
The
treated
wastes
are
disposed
in
an
uncovered
disposal
unit
that
resembles
a
surface
impoundment.
However,
given
the
inorganic,
nonvolatile
nature
of
the
treated
wastes,
we
do
not
believe
they
pose
a
risk
through
airborne
pathways.
Given
the
low
level
of
chromium
leaching
attributable
to
the
one
treatment
residue
within
the
scope
of
today's
listing
proposal
and
the
lack
of
volatile
constituents
of
concern,
we
propose
not
to
list
residues
deriving
from
the
treatment
of
saltcake
drier
scrubber
wastewater.
(ii)
Commingled
treated
wastewaters.
The
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit
described
in
the
sections
above
has
clarifier
units
which
discharge
a
wastewater
stream
to
tank­
based
sand
filters.
After
passing
through
sand
filters,
the
treated
wastewaters
discharge
through
an
NPDES­
permitted
outfall.
These
wastewaters
are
a
mixture
of
nonBevill
exempt
and
Bevill
exempt
treatment
residues,
and
other
treatment
residues
beyond
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree.
The
solids
suspended
in
the
wastewaters
are
a
mixture
of
Bevill
exempt
and
non­
Bevill
exempt
treatment
residues.
The
liquid
portion,
the
majority
of
this
wastestream,
is
a
mixture
of
non­
Bevill
exempt
residues,
some
of
which
are
within
the
scope
of
this
listing
determination,
and
some
of
which
derive
from
treatment
of
contaminated
media
and
are
therefore
not
with
the
scope
of
this
listing
determination.
We
did
not
find
any
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00060
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55743
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
42
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
enviro/
index_java.
html.
43
As
described
in
Section
III.
E.
3,
we
used
engineering
judgment
to
screen
out
constituents
with
concentrations
within
a
factor
of
two
of
the
HBL.
significant
potential
for
releases
from
the
tanks.
(We
assess
spent
filter
media
from
the
sand
filters
separately
in
section
III.
F.
12.
e(
1)(
c)
ii
below.)
We
concluded
that
the
NPDES
discharge
is
exempt
from
RCRA
regulation.
A
portion
of
the
commingled
treated
wastewaters
remains
with
the
commingled
reduced
chromium
treatment
residues
discharged
for
disposal
to
the
facility's
on­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
disposal
units.
The
facility
also
adds
water
to
this
mixture
from
either
the
nearby
Northeast
Cape
Fear
River
or
the
quarry
in
order
to
help
slurry
and
convey
the
residues
to
the
disposal
units.
The
liquids
which
separate
from
the
settled
treatment
residues
in
the
facility's
disposal
units
are
not
Bevill
exempt
wastes
(see
Section
III.
F.
12.
c).
Because
these
liquids
derive
from
the
same
treatment
unit
from
which
the
NPDES­
discharged
wastewaters
discussed
above
derive,
we
are
assuming
their
chemical
composition
is
very
similar
to
that
of
the
wastewaters
discharged
under
the
facility's
NPDES
permit.
We
used
NPDES
permit
discharge
data,
available
to
the
public
from
the
EPA's
Envirofacts
database,
42
as
a
surrogate
for
characterization
of
this
wastewater
(see
discussion
of
SPLP
filtrate
in
Section
III.
E.
3).
The
exposure
pathway
of
concern
is
the
groundwater
underlying
the
facility's
disposal
units
and
consumption
of
the
groundwater
as
drinking
water.
According
to
the
North
Carolina
facility's
NPDES
permit,
the
facility
is
allowed
to
discharge
0.31
pounds
per
day
of
hexavalent
chromium
to
the
Northeast
Cape
Fear
River.
Given
the
amount
of
treated
wastewater
reported
to
be
discharged
in
1998
and
using
the
permit
loading
as
an
upperbound
value,
we
estimate
that
the
facility
produced
an
NPDES
effluent
with
an
average
hexavalent
chromium
concentration
of
0.056
mg/
L.
This
concentration
is
less
than
twice
the
HBL
for
hexavalent
chromium
(0.047
mg/
L).
43
However,
according
to
NPDES
compliance
monitoring
data
for
the
facility,
no
hexavalent
chromium
was
detected
in
the
facility's
NPDES
effluent
in
1998.
Therefore,
it
is
likely
that
the
actual
concentration
of
hexavalent
chromium
in
the
facility's
commingled
treated
wastewaters
is
less
than
the
concentration
the
facility
is
permitted
to
release.
According
to
the
North
Carolina
facility's
NPDES
permit,
the
facility
is
also
permitted
to
discharge
2.72
pounds
of
combined
hexavalent
and
trivalent
chromium
per
day.
Making
the
conservative
assumption
that
all
2.72
pounds
of
chromium
are
trivalent
chromium
and
given
the
amount
of
treated
wastewater
discharged
in
1998,
we
estimated
that
the
facility
produced
an
NPDES
effluent
with
an
average
chromium
concentration
of
0.49
mg/
L,
which
is
less
than
23
mg/
L,
the
HBL
for
trivalent
chromium.
Actual
reported
levels
of
total
chromium
release
were
well
below
the
permit
limit.
Given
that
the
levels
of
chromium
present
in
the
on­
site
disposal
unit
liquids
are
less
than
or
within
a
factor
of
two
of
the
HBLs,
we
do
not
believe
they
pose
a
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment
through
groundwater
underlying
the
disposal
unit
that
supports
listing
these
wastewaters
as
a
hazardous
waste.
(c)
Residuals
Disposed
of
Off­
Site.
(i)
Chromium­
contaminated
filters,
membranes,
and
other
plant
wastes.
This
waste
category
from
the
North
Carolina
facility
includes
spent
filters,
membranes,
and
various
other
plant
wastes
which
exceed
the
TC
level
for
chromium.
The
wastes
are
stored
in
a
closed
roll­
off
bin
on­
site
before
being
sent
off­
site
to
a
permitted
Subtitle
C
facility
for
treatment
and
disposal
in
a
landfill.
We
feel
that
applicable
Subtitle
C
regulations
adequately
prevent
mismanagement
and
therefore
propose
not
to
list
these
wastes.
(ii)
Spent
sand
filter
sands.
The
North
Carolina
facility
generates
waste
sand
material
from
the
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit
sand
filters
which
filter
treated
wastewaters
prior
to
their
NPDES­
permitted
discharge.
The
purpose
of
the
sand
filters
is
to
remove
any
residual
solids
which
the
treatment
unit
clarifiers
fail
to
remove
upstream
in
the
treatment
process.
Since
the
clarifiers
capture
the
majority
of
the
solids,
the
sand
filters
capture
smaller
amounts
of
treatment
residue.
The
most
recent
disposal
of
sand
from
the
filters
took
place
in
1997.
The
facility
stores
the
spent
sand
in
closed
drums
or
rolloff
bins
on­
site
before
disposing
of
them
in
an
off­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
solid
waste
landfill.
According
to
information
submitted
to
EPA
by
the
North
Carolina
facility,
this
residue
does
not
exhibit
any
constituent
above
the
TC
level
according
to
TCLP
leachate
analysis.
The
only
detected
constituent
of
potential
concern
was
chromium,
at
a
level
of
0.2
mg/
L.
Residue
from
treatment
of
saltcake
drier
scrubber
wastewater
is
the
only
residue
contributing
to
the
chromium
levels
in
the
spent
sand
filters
which
also
falls
within
the
scope
of
today's
listing
proposal.
All
other
wastes
are
either
Bevill
exempt
wastes
or
treatment
residues
from
contaminated
media
or
non­
contact
cooling
water,
none
of
which
falls
within
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree.
As
discussed
in
section
III.
F.
12.
e(
1)(
b),
the
saltcake
drier
scrubber
solution
contributes
approximately
0.001%
of
the
total
chromium
exiting
the
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit.
Assuming
that
a
waste's
percent
contribution
to
total
chromium
exiting
the
treatment
unit
is
equal
to
its
percent
contribution
to
total
chromium
leaching
from
waste
exiting
the
unit,
the
figures
above
indicate
a
TCLP
leaching
level
of
2´10
´6
mg/
L
due
to
the
contributions
of
the
saltcake
drier
scrubber
wastewater.
The
HBL
for
hexavalent
chromium
is
0.047
mg/
L
and
23
mg/
L
for
trivalent
chromium.
The
AWQC
for
hexavalent
chromium
is
0.011
mg/
L
and
0.74
mg/
L
for
trivalent
chromium.
At
a
level
of
2´10
´6
mg/
L,
the
leachable
chromium
contribution
of
the
saltcake
drier
scrubber
wastewater
presents
a
very
low
level
of
risk.
The
waste
is
inorganic
in
nature
and
therefore
we
do
not
expect
it
to
contain
volatile
constituents
of
concern.
In
addition,
the
waste
is
stored
before
disposal
in
a
closed
container.
We
do
not
believe,
therefore,
that
this
waste
poses
a
risk
via
airborne
pathways.
Given
the
low
level
of
risk
posed
by
the
saltcake
drier
scrubber
wastewater
treatment
residue
contribution
to
leachable
chromium
levels
in
the
spent
sand
filters
and
its
nonvolatile
nature,
we
propose
not
to
list
this
waste.
(2)
Texas
Facility.
(a)
Residuals
Commingled
in
On­
Site
Treatment
Units.
At
the
Texas
facility,
commingling
and
treatment
of
four
untreated
wastes
takes
place
in
two
different
on­
site,
tank­
based
treatment
units.
The
treatment
residues
from
the
two
treatment
units
are
then
codisposed
in
an
on­
site,
Subtitle
D
treatment
surface
impoundment.
The
first
treatment
unit,
the
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit,
treats
the
following
two
sodium
dichromate
manufacturing
wastestreams:
Ðspent
post­
neutralization
ore
residue
(Bevill
exempt
after
treatment)
Ðcaustic
filter
sludge
from
filtration
of
sodium
hydroxide
We
consider
caustic
filter
sludge
to
be
a
wastestream
associated
with
the
production
of
sodium
hydroxide
rather
than
a
sodium
dichromate
manufacturing
waste.
Nevertheless,
we
chose
to
exercise
our
discretion
to
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00061
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55744
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
evaluate
the
risk
posed
by
the
treated
and
untreated
forms
of
this
residue.
The
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit
treatment
tanks
have
both
secondary
containment
and
covers.
Treatment
consists
of
converting
the
hexavalent
chromium
in
the
units
to
trivalent
chromium.
Trivalent
chromium
is
typically
a
less
soluble
and
less
toxic
form
of
chromium.
Ore
residue
wastes
are
not
Bevill
exempt
and
therefore
beyond
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree
until
treatment
occurs.
Therefore,
we
have
evaluated
the
potential
for
releases
from
these
treatment
tanks.
We
assume
the
tanks
are
intact
structures
with
minimal
potential
for
releases
to
groundwater.
We
believe
the
covers
on
the
tanks
reduce
the
potential
for
air
releases.
Also,
the
wastes
do
not
contain
volatile
constituents.
The
second
treatment
unit,
the
wastewater
treatment
unit,
treats
the
following
two
sodium
dichromate
manufacturing
wastestreams:
Ðsodium
chromate
evaporation
unit
wastewaters
Ðsodium
dichromate
evaporation
unit
wastewaters
The
wastewater
treatment
unit
also
treats
remediation
well
water
and
stormwater,
two
types
of
contaminated
media
which
are
outside
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree.
The
two
wastewaters
within
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree
make
up
approximately
9%
of
the
total
volume
of
the
wastes
entering
the
treatment
unit.
The
facility
converts
hexavalent
chromium
to
less
toxic
trivalent
chromium
during
this
treatment
process.
The
tanks
do
not
have
covers.
We
evaluated
the
tanks
for
potential
releases
to
the
environment.
We
assumed
the
tank
structures
were
intact
and
therefore
posed
minimal
potential
for
releases
to
groundwater.
Since
the
wastewaters
contain
no
volatile
constituents,
we
found
no
significant
potential
for
air
releases.
We
are
proposing
not
to
list
the
wastes
in
these
treatment
tanks.
The
facility
disposes
the
treatment
materials
from
the
two
tank
systems
described
above
in
an
on­
site
surface
impoundment.
We
describe
that
surface
impoundment
in
the
next
section.
(b)
Residuals
Disposed
of
On­
Site.
(i)
Commingled
reduced
chromium
treatment
residues.
The
treatment
residues
from
the
two
treatment
tank
systems
described
in
the
section
above
are
piped
directly
to
the
facility's
onsite
double­
lined,
Subtitle
D
surface
impoundment
for
co­
disposal
and
dewatering.
Of
the
several
treatment
residues
contributing
to
the
mass
of
reduced
chromium
treatment
residue
disposed
of
in
the
Subtitle
D
surface
impoundment
at
the
Texas
facility,
only
three
fall
within
the
scope
of
today's
listing
proposal:
residue
from
treatment
of
caustic
filter
sludge,
residue
from
treatment
of
sodium
chromate
evaporation
unit
wastewaters,
and
residue
from
treatment
of
sodium
dichromate
evaporation
unit
wastewaters.
Residues
from
the
treatment
of
post­
neutralization
spent
ore
residue
are
Bevill
exempt
mineral
processing
wastes
beyond
the
scope
of
today's
listing
proposal
(see
section
III.
F.
12.
c).
Stormwater
and
remediation
well
water
are
contaminated
media
whose
treatment
residues
we
also
consider
to
be
beyond
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree
(see
section
III.
B).
Therefore,
we
do
not
consider
the
risks
posed
by
these
residues.
According
to
information
the
facility
submitted
in
their
RCRA
Section
3007
Survey
response,
the
only
potential
constituent
of
concern
in
the
untreated
sodium
dichromate
evaporation
unit
wastewater,
sodium
dichromate
evaporation
unit
wastewaters,
and
the
caustic
filter
sludge
is
chromium,
measured
at
a
level
of
0.5
mg/
L,
0.5
mg/
L
and
20
mg/
kg,
respectively.
Therefore,
chromium
is
the
only
constituent
we
considered
when
assessing
the
level
of
risk
from
sodium
dichromate
evaporation
unit
wastewater,
sodium
chromate
evaporation
unit
wastewater,
and
caustic
filter
sludge
treatment
residues.
Of
the
total
chromium
contributed
to
the
co­
disposed
reduced
chromium
treatment
residue
by
all
incoming
wastes,
the
sodium
dichromate
evaporation
unit
wastewater,
sodium
chromate
evaporation
unit
wastewater,
and
the
caustic
filter
sludge
contribute
5´10
±5
percent
by
weight.
This
estimate
is
based
on
calculations
using
information
the
Texas
facility
provided
to
us
on
chromium
contents
and
tonnages
of
wastes
entering
the
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit
and
the
wastewater
treatment
unit
on­
site.
Both
the
information
and
the
calculations
are
described
further
in
the
``
Sodium
Dichromate
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination.
''
The
facility
did
not
provide
us
with
TCLP,
SPLP,
or
total
constituent
analyses
for
the
co­
disposed
reduced
chromium
treatment
residues.
However,
the
facility
did
report
to
us
that
reduced
chromium
treatment
residues
do
not
exceed
the
TC
level
of
5.0
mg/
L
according
to
TCLP
analysis.
In
addition,
the
facility
reported
that
for
the
time
period
between
October
1,
1998
and
December
31,
1998,
weekly
samples
of
reduced
chromium
treatment
residues
from
the
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit
analyzed
with
a
facility­
modified
version
of
the
TCLP
ranged
between
0.16
and
1.75
mg/
L
chromium
(see
``
Sodium
Dichromate
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''
for
details).
Therefore,
conservatively
assuming
a
maximum
TCLP
chromium
leaching
level
of
4.9
mg/
L
and
assuming
that
the
percent
contribution
by
the
three
wastes
to
total
chromium
entering
the
treatment
units
is
equal
to
their
percent
contribution
to
total
chromium
leaching
from
treatment
residues
exiting
the
treatment
units,
the
caustic
filter
sludge,
sodium
chromate
evaporation
unit
wastewaters,
and
sodium
dichromate
evaporation
unit
wastewaters
were
responsible
for
TCLP
chromium
leaching
levels
of
2.45´10
±6
mg/
L.
The
HBL
for
hexavalent
chromium
is
0.047
mg/
L
and
23
mg/
L
for
trivalent
chromium.
The
AWQC
for
hexavalent
chromium
is
0.011
mg/
L
and
0.74
mg/
L
for
trivalent
chromium.
At
a
leaching
level
of
2.45´10
±6
mg/
L,
the
leachable
chromium
contribution
of
the
caustic
filter
sludge,
sodium
chromate
evaporation
unit
wastewaters,
and
the
sodium
dichromate
evaporation
unit
wastewaters
indicates
a
very
low
level
of
risk
to
groundwater
from
potential
releases
from
the
surface
impoundment.
The
waste
is
metallic
and
inorganic
in
nature
and
therefore
we
do
not
expect
it
to
contain
volatile
constituents
of
concern.
We
do
not
believe,
therefore,
that
this
waste
poses
a
risk
via
airborne
pathways.
Given
the
low
level
of
chromium
leachate
deriving
from
the
three
treatment
residues
within
the
scope
of
today's
listing
proposal
and
placed
into
the
surface
impoundments,
we
propose
not
to
list
residues
deriving
from
the
treatment
of
caustic
filter
sludge,
sodium
chromate
evaporation
unit
wastewater,
and
sodium
dichromate
evaporation
unit
wastewater.
(ii)
Commingled
treated
wastewaters.
Treated
wastewaters
commingled
with
the
commingled
reduced
chromium
treatment
residues
separate
from
these
solid
residues
in
the
Texas
facility's
surface
impoundment
disposal
unit.
These
liquids
are
not
Bevill
exempt
wastes
(see
Section
III.
F.
12.3).
The
solids
suspended
in
the
wastewaters
are
a
mixture
of
Bevill
exempt
and
nonBevill
exempt
treatment
residues.
The
liquid
portion,
the
majority
of
this
wastestream,
is
a
mixture
of
non­
Bevill
exempt
residues,
some
of
which
are
within
the
scope
of
this
listing
determination,
and
some
of
which
derive
from
treatment
of
contaminated
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00062
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55745
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
44
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
enviro/
index_java.
html
media
and
are
therefore
not
within
the
scope
of
this
listing
determination.
The
commingled
treated
wastewaters
discharge
from
the
surface
impoundment
through
an
NPDESpermitted
outfall
after
passing
through
sand
filters
to
remove
residual
solids
(see
discussion
below
in
Section
III.
F.
12.
e(
2)(
c)(
ii).
We
therefore
assume
that
the
chemical
composition
of
the
treated
wastewaters
in
the
surface
impoundment
is
very
similar
to
that
of
the
NPDES
permitted
discharge.
We
used
NPDES
permit
discharge
data,
available
to
the
public
from
the
EPA's
Envirofacts
database,
44
as
a
surrogate
for
characterization
of
this
wastewater
(see
discussion
of
SPLP
filtrate
in
Section
III.
E.
3).
The
exposure
pathway
of
concern
is
the
groundwater
underlying
the
facility's
disposal
units
and
consumption
of
the
groundwater
as
drinking
water.
According
to
the
Texas
facility's
1998
NPDES
monitoring
data,
the
facility
discharged
an
average
of
0.018
pounds
of
hexavalent
chromium
each
day
through
their
internal
NPDES
outfall.
Given
the
amount
of
treated
wastewater
the
facility
reported
as
discharge
from
the
surface
impoundment
in
1998,
we
estimate
that
the
facility
produced
an
NPDES
effluent
with
an
average
hexavalent
chromium
concentration
of
0.016
mg/
L.
This
concentration
is
less
than
the
HBL
for
hexavalent
chromium
(0.047
mg/
L).
According
to
the
Texas
facility's
NPDES
monitoring
data
for
1998,
the
facility
released
an
average
of
0.46
pounds
of
combined
hexavalent
and
trivalent
chromium
per
day.
Making
the
conservative
assumption
that
all
0.46
pounds
of
chromium
are
trivalent
chromium
and
given
the
amount
of
treated
wastewater
discharged
in
1998,
we
estimated
that
the
facility
produced
an
NPDES
effluent
with
an
average
chromium
concentration
of
0.41
mg/
L,
which
is
less
than
23
mg/
L,
the
HBL
for
trivalent
chromium.
Wastes
in
the
surface
impoundment
dewater
and
the
resulting
wastewaters
pass
out
of
the
surface
impoundment
and
through
tank­
based
sand
filters.
From
the
sand
filters,
the
treated
wastewaters
then
discharge
through
an
NPDES­
permitted
outfall.
These
wastewaters
are
a
mixture
of
non­
Bevill
exempt
and
Bevill
exempt
treatment
residues,
and
other
treatment
residues
beyond
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree.
We
did
not
find
any
significant
potential
for
releases
from
the
sand
filter
tanks.
(We
assess
spent
filter
media
from
the
sand
filters
separately
in
Section
III.
F.
12.
e(
2)(
c)(
ii)
We
concluded
that
the
NPDES
discharge
is
exempt
from
RCRA
regulation.
(c)
Residuals
Disposed
of
Off­
Site.
(i)
Process
filters
and
membranes,
baghouse
bags,
chromium­
contaminated
empty
containers,
and
other
plant
wastes.
The
Texas
facility
reports
in
their
RCRA
Section
3007
Survey
response
that
process
filters
and
membranes
and
baghouse
bags
from
their
facility
exceed
the
TC
level
for
chromium
and
are
coded
D007.
The
facility
also
reports
that
they
produce
empty
containers
and
other
plant
wastes
contaminated
with
chromium
which
are
also
coded
D007.
The
facility
stores
these
hazardous
wastes
in
a
closed
rolloff
bin
on­
site
before
sending
them
off­
site
to
a
permitted
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
facility
for
treatment
and
landfill
disposal.
These
wastes
are
sufficiently
managed
under
current
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulations
and
therefore
we
propose
not
to
list
these
wastes.
(ii)
Spent
sand
filter
sands.
The
Texas
facility
generates
waste
sand
material
from
the
sand
filters
which
filter
treated
wastewaters
prior
to
their
NPDES
permitted
discharge
from
the
facility's
on­
site
surface
impoundment.
The
purpose
of
the
sand
filters
is
to
remove
any
residual
solids
which
fail
to
settle
in
the
surface
impoundment.
Since
the
majority
of
the
solids
settle
in
the
surface
impoundment,
the
sand
filters
captures
smaller
amounts
of
reduced
chromium
treatment
residue.
Approximately
2
MT
of
spent
sand
filter
sand
is
disposed
of
every
two
years.
The
facility
stores
the
spent
sand
in
nonhazardous
soil
bins
on­
site
before
disposing
of
it
at
an
off­
site
Subtitle
D
industrial
landfill.
According
to
the
Texas
facility,
this
residue
does
not
exhibit
any
constituent
above
the
TC
level
according
to
TCLP
leachate
analysis.
Residues
from
treatment
of
caustic
filter
sludge,
sodium
chromate
evaporation
unit
wastewaters,
and
sodium
dichromate
evaporation
unit
wastewaters
are
the
only
residues
contributing
to
the
potential
constituent
of
concern
levels
in
the
spent
sand
filters
which
also
fall
within
the
scope
of
today's
listing
proposal.
All
other
wastes
are
either
Bevill
exempt
wastes
or
treatment
residues
from
contaminated
media,
neither
of
which
falls
within
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree.
Chromium
was
the
only
potential
constituent
of
concern
detected
in
the
sodium
chromate
evaporation
unit
wastewaters,
sodium
dichromate
evaporation
unit
wastewaters
and
the
caustic
filter
sludge,
and
is
therefore
the
only
potential
constituent
of
concern
we
considered
in
the
spent
sand
filter
sands.
As
discussed
in
the
section
on
commingled
reduced
chromium
treatment
residues,
the
residues
contribute
5´10
±5
percent
of
the
total
chromium
mass
entering
the
spent
ore
residue
treatment
unit.
Assuming
a
maximum
TCLP
chromium
leaching
level
of
4.9
mg/
L,
and
assuming
that
the
percent
contribution
to
total
chromium
by
the
three
wastes
entering
the
treatment
units
is
equal
to
their
percent
contribution
to
total
chromium
leaching
from
treatment
residues
exiting
the
treatment
units,
the
caustic
filter
sludge,
sodium
chromate
evaporation
wastewaters,
and
sodium
dichromate
evaporation
unit
wastewaters
were
responsible
for
TCLP
chromium
leaching
levels
of
2.4´10
±6
mg/
L.
The
HBL
for
hexavalent
chromium
is
0.047
mg/
L
and
23
mg/
L
for
trivalent
chromium.
The
AWQC
for
hexavalent
chromium
is
0.011
mg/
L
and
0.74
mg/
L
for
trivalent
chromium.
At
a
level
of
2.4´10
±6
mg/
L,
the
leachable
chromium
contribution
of
the
sodium
dichromate
evaporation
unit
wastewater,
the
sodium
chromate
evaporation
wastewaters,
and
the
caustic
filter
sludge
presents
a
very
low
level
of
risk.
The
waste
is
metallic
and
inorganic
in
nature,
and
therefore
we
do
not
expect
it
to
contain
volatile
constituents
of
concern.
We
do
not
believe,
therefore,
that
this
waste
poses
a
risk
via
airborne
pathways.
Given
the
low
level
of
risk
posed
by
the
contribution
of
constituents
in
the
spent
filter
sands
attributable
to
caustic
filter
sludge,
sodium
chromate
evaporation
unit
wastewaters,
and
sodium
dichromate
evaporation
unit
wastewater
treatment
residue,
the
absence
of
volatile
constituents
of
concern,
and
the
relatively
small
volume
of
the
total
waste,
we
propose
not
to
list
this
waste.

13.
Sodium
Phosphate
From
Wet
Process
Phosphoric
Acid
a.
Summary.
We
propose
not
to
list
any
wastes
from
the
production
of
sodium
phosphate
from
wet
process
phosphoric
acid
as
hazardous
under
subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
Many
of
these
secondary
materials
are
piped
back
into
the
production
process;
other
wastes
are
discharged
to
a
permitted
publiclyowned
treatment
works
(POTW).
Other
materials
are
sent
to
Subtitle
D
industrial
landfills.
After
an
analysis
of
waste
management
practices
and
potential
exposure
pathways,
we
conclude
that
there
are
no
risk
pathways
of
concern.
These
wastes
do
not
meet
the
criteria
set
out
at
40
CFR
261.11(
a)(
3)
for
listing
as
hazardous.
b.
Description
of
the
sodium
phosphate
industry.
Sodium
phosphate
is
the
more
general
chemical
name
for
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00063
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55746
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
45
In
this
preamble,
we
often
refer
to
sodium
phosphate
produced
for
the
food
industry
as
``
food
grade.
''
The
Food
and
Drug
Administration
(FDA),
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services,
refers
to
the
various
sodium
phosphates
used
in
the
food
industry
as
``
substances
generally
recognized
as
safe''
(GRAS).
The
FDA
states
that:
``
This
substance
is
generally
recognized
as
safe
when
used
as
in
accordance
with
good
manufacturing
practice.
''
(See,
for
example,
21
CFR
182.1778,
182.6290,
182.6778,
and
182.8778.)
In
deciding
whether
a
food
additive
should
be
approved,
the
FDA
considers
the
composition
and
properties
of
the
substance,
the
amount
likely
to
be
consumed,
its
probable
long­
term
effects
and
various
safety
factors.
a
wide
variety
of
salts
produced
from
the
neutralization
of
phosphoric
acid.
Some
of
the
salts
produced
by
the
facilities
in
this
industry
are
monosodium
dihydrogen
phosphate
(H2NaPO4),
disodium
monohydrogen
phosphate
(HNa2PO4),
trisodium
phosphate
(Na3PO4),
sodium
hexametaphosphate
(Na4P
4O12),
and
sodium
tripolyphosphate
(Na5P3O10).
The
various
phosphate
salts
produced
are
used
for
a
wide
variety
of
purposes,
ranging
from
a
water
soluble
solid
acid
and
pH
buffer
for
acidic
cleaners
to
products
manufactured
for
the
food
industry
45
.
Sodium
phosphate
is
produced
from
wet
process
phosphoric
acid
by
two
manufacturing
companies
at
four
locations
in
the
United
States.
For
more
detailed
information
concerning
this
industry,
see
``
Sodium
Phosphate
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination''
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.
The
processes
for
monosodium
dihydrogen
phosphate,
disodium
monohydrogen
phosphate,
and
trisodium
phosphate
are
similar
except
for
the
ratio
of
phosphoric
acid
to
soda
ash
at
the
reactor
stage
and
the
type,
size
and
construction
of
the
crystallizing
and
drying
equipment.
The
raw
materials
are
water,
phosphoric
acid,
soda
ash,
and
caustic.
The
purified
phosphoric
acid
is
manufactured
elsewhere
through
the
wet­
acid
purification
method
and
is
food
grade.
The
process
starts
with
a
reaction
between
phosphoric
acid,
soda
ash,
and
caustic.
The
solution
is
used
to
make
the
monosodium
dihydrogen
phosphate,
which
passes
through
a
polishing
filter
before
shipment
to
customers.
The
sodium
to
phosphorus
ratio
of
the
solution
is
adjusted
with
caustic
to
make
disodium
monohydrogen
phosphate
and
trisodium
phosphate.
These
solutions
are
filtered
and
then
crystallized.
The
crystals
from
each
process
pass
through
dryers.
The
finished
product
is
packaged
or
shipped
in
bulk.
Sodium
hexametaphosphate
and
sodium
tripolyphosphate
are
also
produced
from
food­
grade
phosphoric
acid
and
soda
ash.
Both
processes
start
with
a
reaction
between
phosphoric
acid
and
soda
ash.
For
the
sodium
hexametaphosphate
process,
the
product
is
fed
to
a
furnace
which
melts
the
mix
and
converts
it
to
sodium
hexametaphosphate.
For
the
sodium
tripolyphosphate
process,
the
reaction
discharge
is
dried
and
heat
treated
in
a
converter
to
convert
it
to
sodium
tripolyphosphate.
In
both
processes,
the
product
is
cooled,
sized,
stored,
and
packaged
for
shipment.
c.
What
kinds
of
wastes
are
generated
by
these
processes?
A
brief
description
of
the
waste
categories,
how
they
are
generated,
their
volumes
across
the
industry,
and
how
they
are
managed
is
presented
in
Table
III±
34:

TABLE
III±
34.Ð
SODIUM
PHOSPHATE
PRODUCTION
WASTES
Waste
category
1998
Volume
(MT)
Source
Management
practices
Filter
press
cakes
....................................
120
...................
Product
polishing
...................................
Recycled
or
Subtitle
D
landfill.
Mix
area
filters
.........................................
0.009
................
Product
polishing
...................................
Subtitle
D
landfill.
Dust
collector
filter
bags
..........................
2.1
....................
Drying
and
grinding
processes
..............
Subtitle
D
landfill.
Scrubber
waters
and
effluents
................
32
.....................
Process
vapor
scrubbers
.......................
POTW
or
recycled.
Product
dust
collected
.............................
Not
reported
.....
Drying
and
grinding
processes
..............
Recycled
or
Subtitle
D
landfill.
Off­
specification
product
..........................
771
...................
Off­
specification
grinding
or
customer
returns.
Recycled
or
Subtitle
D
landfill.

For
those
scenarios
where
secondary
materials
(filter
press
cakes,
product
dust,
off­
specification
product,
and
scrubber
water)
are
piped
back
to
the
production
process,
we
could
identify
no
potential
route
for
significant
exposure
prior
to
reuse.
In
addition,
we
evaluated
all
wastes
generated
after
reinsertion
of
these
materials
into
the
process
and
we
do
not
believe
that
these
secondary
materials
present
significant
threats.
Also,
off­
specification
product,
when
reinserted
without
reclamation
into
the
process
from
where
it
originated,
is
not
a
solid
waste.
For
those
scenarios
where
wastes
are
discharged
via
the
facility's
common
sewage
line
to
permitted
publiclyowned
treatment
works
(POTWs),
these
wastes
are
excluded
from
RCRA
(40
CFR
261.4(
a)(
1)(
ii)).
For
those
scenarios
where
wastes
are
sent
to
industrial
subtitle
D
landfills,
we
performed
a
risk
assessment
to
help
us
determine
whether
these
risks
warranted
listing.
d.
Agency
evaluation.
(1)
Filter
press
cake
and
mix
area
filters.
How
Was
This
Waste
Characterized?

We
collected
two
samples
of
this
residual
at
one
facility.
Based
on
our
assessment
of
the
raw
materials
and
production
processes
used
across
the
industry,
we
believe
these
samples
are
representative
of
the
range
of
waste
characteristics
at
the
other
three
sodium
phosphate
production
facilities.
Constituents
detected
above
their
HBLs
are
summarized
in
Table
III±
35.

TABLE
III±
35.Ð
CHARACTERIZATION
OF
FILTER
PRESS
CAKES
FROM
SODIUM
PHOSPHATE
PRODUCTION
Parameter
Total
(mg/
kg)
TCLP
(mg/
l)
SPLP
(mg/
l)
HBL
(mg/
l)

Primary
filter
press
cake
(Sample
RCH±
1±
SP±
01):
Antimony
...................................................................................................................
0.5
<0.5
0.0298
0.006
Thallium
....................................................................................................................
<2
<2
0.0055
0.001
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00064
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55747
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
III±
35.Ð
CHARACTERIZATION
OF
FILTER
PRESS
CAKES
FROM
SODIUM
PHOSPHATE
PRODUCTIONÐ
Continued
Parameter
Total
(mg/
kg)
TCLP
(mg/
l)
SPLP
(mg/
l)
HBL
(mg/
l)

Tray
filter
cake
(Sample
RCH±
1±
SP±
02):
Antimony
...................................................................................................................
<0.5
<0.5
<0.025
0.006
Thallium
....................................................................................................................
<2
<2
0.0079
0.001
What
Management
Scenarios
Were
Assessed
and
How
Was
the
Risk
Assessment
Established?
These
wastes
go
to
industrial
subtitle
D
landfills
and
we
therefore
determined
that
we
would
model
the
scenario
of
offsite
disposal
in
an
industrial
D
landfill.
We
assessed
the
off­
site
landfill
scenario
using
the
hydrogeologic
properties
associated
with
the
geographic
areas
where
the
landfills
reported
in
the
survey
are
located.
We
gave
the
SPLP
results
primary
consideration
as
there
is
no
reported
management
in
municipal
landfills
(where
the
TCLP
results
would
be
relevant).
Based
on
the
sampling
results
summarized
above,
we
decided
that
modeling
was
necessary
for
two
constituents
of
concern:
antimony
and
thallium.
For
antimony,
we
used
onehalf
of
the
detection
limit
as
a
model
input
for
sample
RCH±
1±
SP±
02.
We
used
the
probabilistic
approach
for
an
off­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill
described
in
section
III.
E
of
today's
proposal.

What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?
From
the
results
of
the
risk
assessment,
summarized
below
in
Table
III±
36,
neither
antimony
nor
thallium
(the
constituents
of
concern)
pose
a
substantial
present
or
potential
hazard
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
hazard
quotients
for
both
constituents,
for
both
the
adult
and
child
exposure
scenarios,
are
less
than
0.008
at
the
95th
percentile.
As
a
matter
of
policy,
EPA
generally
does
not
consider
listing
wastes
with
predicted
hazard
quotients
of
less
than
1.0.
We
see
no
special
concerns
warranting
an
exception
to
this
policy.
Therefore,
we
believe
that
these
wastes
do
not
warrant
listing.
For
the
mix
area
filters,
the
location
of
these
filters
indicates
that
any
contaminants
found
would
be
similar
to
those
of
the
filter
press
cake.
Given
that
our
evaluation
of
the
much
larger
volume
filter
press
cake
yielded
no
significant
risk,
we
are
also
proposing
not
to
list
the
very
small
volume
mix
area
filters.
For
a
more
complete
description
of
these
analyses,
see
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes''
in
the
docket
for
this
proposed
rulemaking.

TABLE
III±
36.Ð
PROBABILISTIC
RISK
RESULTS
FOR
FILTER
PRESS
CAKES
Percentile
Antimony
Thallium
Adult
HQ
Child
HQ
Adult
HQ
Child
HQ
Industrial
landfill:
90th
...........
0.001
0.003
0.002
0.003
95th
...........
0.004
0.008
0.004
0.008
(2)
Dust
collector
filter
bags.

How
Was
This
Waste
Characterized?

We
collected
one
sample
of
this
residual.
Based
on
our
assessment
of
the
raw
materials
and
production
processes
used
across
the
industry,
we
believe
this
sample
is
representative
of
similar
wastes
at
the
other
three
sodium
phosphate
production
facilities.
The
waste
constituents
detected
at
levels
above
their
HBLs
are
summarized
in
Table
III±
37:

TABLE
III±
37.Ð
CHARACTERIZATION
OF
DUST
COLLECTOR
FILTER
BAG
FROM
SODIUM
PHOSPHATE
PRODUCTION
[Sample
RCH±
1±
SP±
03]

Parameter
Total
(mg/
kg)
TCLP
(mg/
l)
SPLP
(mg/
l)
HBL
(mg/
l)

Antimony
48.8
<0.5
0.309
0.006
Arsenic
..
<0.5
<0.5
0.0064
0.0007
What
Management
Scenarios
Were
Assessed
and
How
Was
the
Risk
Assessment
Established?

Industry
reported
that
this
waste
is
managed
in
off­
site
industrial
D
landfills.
We
assessed
this
scenario.
Antimony
and
arsenic
are
the
constituents
of
concern.
Because
the
volume
of
this
waste
is
relatively
small,
we
first
used
the
de
minimis
waste
quantity
screening
analysis
(described
in
section
III.
E.
3)
to
screen
the
potential
risk
to
groundwater
associated
with
landfilling
this
waste.
We
found
that
the
SPLP
data
for
arsenic
screens
out
because
the
waste
volume
is
insufficient
to
release
arsenic
at
levels
of
concern.
For
a
more
complete
description
of
this
analysis,
see
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes''
in
the
docket
for
this
proposed
rulemaking.
The
detected
SPLP
levels
for
antimony
did
not
screen
out
using
the
de
minimis
volume
analysis.
We
conducted
full
groundwater
modeling
for
the
industrial
landfill
scenario
for
this
constituent.
We
assessed
the
off­
site
landfill
scenario
using
the
probabilistic
approach
for
off­
site
landfills
described
in
section
III.
E.

What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?
From
the
results
of
the
risk
assessment,
summarized
below
in
Table
III±
38,
antimony
(the
constituent
of
concern)
does
not
pose
a
substantial
present
or
potential
hazard
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
hazard
quotients
for
antimony,
for
both
the
adult
and
child
exposure
scenarios,
are
less
than
0.007
at
the
95th
percentile.
As
a
matter
of
policy,
EPA
generally
does
not
consider
listing
wastes
with
predicted
hazard
quotients
of
less
than
1.0.
We
see
no
special
concerns
warranting
an
exception
to
this
policy.
Therefore,
we
believe
that
this
waste
does
not
warrant
listing.
For
a
more
complete
description
of
this
analysis,
see
``
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Listing
Determinations
for
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Wastes''
in
the
docket
for
this
proposed
rulemaking.

TABLE
III±
38.Ð
PROBABILISTIC
RISK
RESULTS
FOR
DUST
COLLECTOR
BAGS
Percentile
Antimony
Adult
HQ
Child
HQ
Industrial
landfill:
90th
............................
0.001
0.002
95th
............................
0.003
0.003
(3)
Scrubber
waters
and
effluents.
We
did
not
evaluate
scenarios
where
these
secondary
materials
are
piped
back
into
the
production
process
because
there
is
no
potential
for
exposure.
For
those
scenarios
where
wastes
are
managed
in
a
tank,
the
impervious
nature
of
the
construction
materials
(concrete,

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00065
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55748
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
fiberglass,
or
steel)
of
tanks
are
unlikely
to
result
in
releases
to
groundwater
in
all
but
the
most
catastrophic
scenarios.
We
also
are
not
concerned
with
potential
air
releases
from
these
tanks
as
neither
volatile
contaminants
nor
airborne
particulates
are
likely
to
be
present
in
these
aqueous
wastes.
For
those
scenarios
where
wastes
are
discharged
via
the
facility's
common
sewage
line
to
POTWs,
these
wastes
are
excluded
from
RCRA
(40
CFR
261.4(
a)(
1)(
ii)).
Furthermore,
these
discharges
are
regulated
by
the
Clean
Water
Act
pretreatment
standards.
They
do
not
warrant
listing.
We
propose
not
to
list
this
waste.
(4)
Product
dust
collected.
All
collected
dust
that
can
be
recycled
is
recycled
back
into
the
production
process.
Due
to
production
constraints,
some
portion
of
this
collected
product
dust
cannot
be
recycled
back
to
the
process
and
is
instead
sent
to
an
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.
However,
this
landfilled
product
is
still
food­
grade
product.
Because
this
``
waste''
is,
in
fact,
food­
grade
product,
we
believe
it
unlikely
that
it
contains
any
constituent
exceeding
health­
based
limits
based
on
ingestion.
Therefore,
we
propose
not
to
list
this
waste.
(5)
Off­
specification
product.
Much
of
this
material
is
reused
in
the
production
process
with
no
potential
for
exposure.
However,
because
of
production
constraints,
they
cannot
always
work
all
of
this
material
back
into
the
process,
and
it
must
be
disposed
in
an
industrial
subtitle
D
landfill.
In
all
cases,
product
is
rejected
by
a
customer
because
of
physical
property
problemsÐ
i.
e.,
particle
sizeÐ
rather
than
chemical
problems
or
contaminants.
Because
this
``
waste''
is,
in
fact,
food­
grade
product,
we
believe
it
unlikely
that
it
contains
any
constituent
exceeding
health­
based
limits
based
on
ingestion.
Therefore,
we
propose
not
to
list
this
waste.

14.
Titanium
Dioxide
a.
Summary.
We
evaluated
wastes
from
the
production
of
titanium
dioxide
and
propose
to
list
one
waste
and
not
to
list
all
of
the
others.
Certain
wastes
from
titanium
dioxide
production
are
exempt
mineral
processing
wastes
and
were
not
assessed
as
part
of
today's
listing
determination
because
they
are
outside
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree.
We
are
proposing
to
list
nonwastewaters
from
the
chloride
ilmenite
process
(unless
otherwise
exempted).
K178
Nonwastewaters
from
the
production
of
titanium
dioxide
by
the
chloride­
ilmenite
process.
(T)
[This
listing
does
not
apply
to
chloride
process
waste
solids
from
titanium
tetrachloride
production
exempt
under
section
261.4(
b)(
7)]
We
propose
not
to
list
the
remainder
of
the
wastes
generated
by
this
sector.
We
do
not
believe
these
wastes
pose
threats
to
human
health
or
the
environment
that
warrant
listing.
We
have
not
identified
risks
of
concern
associated
with
the
current
management
of
these
wastes
that
support
a
listing
determination.
Our
findings,
however,
do
not
change
the
applicability
of
existing
standards
and
regulations,
such
as
the
hazardous
waste
characteristics,
to
these
wastes
and
this
industry.
b.
Description
of
the
titanium
dioxide
industry.
There
are
nine
facilities
producing
titanium
dioxide.
There
are
three
distinct
processes
currently
in
use:
the
chloride
process,
the
sulfate
process,
and
the
chloride­
ilmenite
process.
Six
facilities
use
the
chloride
process.
Two
of
these
six
facilities
also
produce
titanium
dioxide
via
the
sulfate
process.
Three
separate
facilities
use
only
the
chloride­
ilmenite
process.
Chloride
Process.
In
the
chloride
process,
rutile
or
high­
grade
ilmenite
is
converted
to
titanium
tetrachloride
(TiCl4).
The
conversion
takes
place
in
a
chlorinator
in
the
presence
of
chlorine
gas
with
petroleum
coke
added
as
a
reductant.
All
U.
S.
producers
of
TiCl4
use
fluidized
bed
chlorinators.
Vent
gases
from
the
chlorinator
are
scrubbed
prior
to
venting
to
the
atmosphere.
Nonvolatile
metal
chlorides
and
unreacted
coke
and
ore
solids
are
removed
from
the
gaseous
product
stream.
The
facilities
also
generate
waste
acid,
which
they
mingle
with
coke
and
ore
solids
before
treatment.
Vent
gases
from
the
chlorinator
are
scrubbed
prior
to
venting
to
the
atmosphere.
The
volatile
TiCl4
and
other
volatile
metal
compounds
such
as
vanadium
oxychloride,
exit
the
chlorinator
as
overhead
vapor.
The
gaseous
product
stream
is
purified
to
separate
the
titanium
tetrachloride
from
other
metal
chloride
impurities
using
processes
such
as
partial
condensation
and
chemical
treatment.
Finally,
vanadium
compounds,
which
have
boiling
points
close
to
that
of
TiCl4,
are
removed
from
the
titanium
tetrachloride
by
complexing
with
mineral
oil
and
reducing
with
hydrogen
sulfide,
or
by
complexing
with
copper.
The
purified
TiCl4
is
then
oxidized
to
TiO2,
driving
off
chlorine
gas,
which
is
recycled
to
the
chlorinator.
The
pure
TiO2
is
slurried
and
sent
to
the
finishing
process
which
includes
milling,
addition
of
inorganic
and
organic
surface
treatments,
and/
or
spray
drying
of
the
product
TiO2.
The
product
can
be
sold
as
a
packaged
dry
solid
or
a
water­
based
slurry.
Sulfate
Process.
In
the
sulfate
process,
ilmenite
ore
or
slag
with
high
TiO2
content
is
digested
with
sulfuric
acid,
forming
a
porous
cake;
this
cake
is
further
dissolved
by
dilute
acid
to
form
titanyl
sulfate
(TiOSO4).
Iron
may
be
added
to
the
digestion
process
to
ensure
that
iron
impurities
remain
in
the
ferrous
(Fe
2¶
)
state
so
that
the
eventual
TiO2
product
can
be
easily
washed.
The
titanyl
sulfate
solution
is
then
clarified,
yielding
a
waste
sulfate
digestion
sludge,
and
then
concentrated
through
vacuum
evaporation.
The
filtered
titanyl
sulfate
solution
is
vacuum­
evaporated
a
second
time
and
hydrolyzed
to
precipitate
hydrated
titania
(TiO(
OH)
2).

The
titania
hydrate
is
then
filtered
and
washed,
yielding
filtrate
waste
and
wastewater,
respectively,
before
being
calcined
at
1,000°C
to
produce
the
TiO2
product.
Chloride­
Ilmenite
Process.
In
the
chloride­
ilmenite
process,
ilmenite
ore
is
converted
to
titanium
tetrachloride.
As
in
the
chloride
process,
the
chlorideilmenite
process
takes
place
in
a
chlorinator
in
which
the
ore
is
chlorinated
in
the
presence
of
coke
as
a
reducing
agent.
Vent
gases
from
the
chlorinator
are
scrubbed
prior
to
venting
to
the
atmosphere.
Non­
volatile
metal
chlorides
and
unreacted
coke
and
ore
solids
are
removed
from
the
gaseous
product
stream.
The
gaseous
product
stream
then
is
purified
further
to
separate
the
titanium
tetrachloride
from
other
volatile
metal
chloride
impurities,
including
ferric
chloride
(FeCl3)
which
is
present
in
higher
concentrations
than
the
chloride
process
due
to
the
high
iron
content
in
the
ore.
The
separation
is
done
via
condensation
and
chemical
treatment.
The
process
for
converting
the
purified
TiCl4
product
stream
to
TiO2
is
similar
to
that
used
in
the
chloride
process,
as
described
above.
c.
What
kind
of
wastes
are
generated
by
these
processes?.
The
wastes
generated
by
the
titanium
dioxide
sector
are
described
in
overview
below,
organized
by
process.
Additional
detail
on
these
wastes
is
provided
in
the
background
document
for
this
sector.
The
wastes
generated
by
the
chloride
process
include:
ÐCommingled
wastewaters,
including
process
and
non­
process
wastewaters
from
chlorinator
coke
and
ore
solids
recovery,
reaction
and
chemical
tank
storage
scrubbers,
product
finishing
operations,
wastewater
treatment
and
chlorinator
solids
decantation,
and
on­
site
landfill
leachate.
ÐChloride
process
waste
solids
from
titanium
tetrachloride
production
(exempt
as
mineral
processing
wastes,
see
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
7)).

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00066
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55749
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
ÐWastewater
treatment
sludges
generated
by
facilities
that
have
chloride­
only
processes
(exempt
mineral
processing
wastes
at
those
facilities
with
no
contribution
of
solids
from
oxidation
and
finishing)
ÐWaste
sands
from
finishing
(milling)
of
the
titanium
dioxide
product
and
scouring
of
oxidation
process
units.
ÐVanadium
wastes
generated
in
the
purification
process.
The
wastes
generated
by
the
sulfate
process
(used
at
two
plants
that
also
use
the
chloride
process)
include:
ÐPrimary
and
secondary
gypsum,
which
is
produced
when
the
waste
sulfuric
acid
generated
from
the
filtering
of
titanium
dioxide
hydrate
solution
is
neutralized
with
calcium
carbonate.
ÐDigestion
sludge
from
the
clarification
of
the
titanyl
sulfate
liquor
that
is
produced
during
the
acid
digester
step.
ÐWastewaters
from
the
sulfuric
acid
digestion
scrubber
which
removes
acidic
components
and
entrained
solids
from
reaction
gases,
evaporator
condensate
from
the
precipitation
unit,
the
calciner
scrubber,
the
sulfate
waste
sludge
settling
pond
supernatant,
and
the
primary
and
secondary
gypsum
precipitation
units.
These
wastewaters
are
commingled
with
wastewaters
from
the
chloride
process.
ÐWastewater
treatment
sludges.
These
wastewater
treatment
sludges
are
generated
from
commingled
chloride
process
and
sulfate
process
wastewaters
by
facilities
that
have
both
processes.
The
wastewater
treatment
consists
of
elementary
neutralization
and
precipitation
or
filtration.
ÐAcids
from
intermediate
titanium
product
filtration/
bleaching
units
and
product
calciner
overhead
scrubbers.
ÐProduct
milling
sand
from
finishing
operations.
The
wastes
generated
by
the
chlorideilmenite
process
include:
ÐCoke
and
ore
solids
(exempt
as
mineral
processing
wastes,
see
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
7))
that
are
not
consumed
by
the
chlorination
process.
These
solids
are
conveyed
through
the
process
as
part
of
various
wastestreams.
ÐWaste
acid
(metal
chloride)
solution,
usually
called
ferric
or
iron
chloride,
that
is
separated
from
the
gaseous
titanium
tetrachloride
product
stream
and
acidified.
ÐProcess
and
non­
process
wastewaters
from
reaction
and
oxidation
scrubbers,
reactant
and
treatment
chemical
storage
scrubbers,
product
finishing,
HCl
storage
vent
scrubber,
oxidation
unit
tank
and
equipment
vents,
supernatant
or
filtrate
from
coke
and
ore
solids
management
and
wastewater
treatment
disposal
impoundments.
The
wastewaters
are
commingled
prior
to
being
introduced
into
the
wastewater
treatment
system.
ÐOther
spent
scrubber
waters
from
the
reaction
fume
disposal
system.
The
wastewaters
are
pretreated
and
are
subsequently
commingled
with
other
wastewaters
prior
to
being
introduced
to
the
wastewater
treatment
system.
ÐNon­
exempt
non­
wastewaters,
including
the
portion
of
wastewater
treatment
solids
derived
from
the
neutralization
of
process
and
nonprocess
wastewaters
from
oxidation
and
finishing,
and
solids
from
ferric
chloride
filtration.
ÐHCl
from
the
reaction
scrubber.
ÐAdditive
feeder
vent
filter
solids
generated
in
the
oxidation
process.
ÐVanadium
waste
generated
in
the
purification
process.
ÐOff­
specification
titanium
dioxide
product.
ÐRail
car
product
washout
wastewater.
ÐWaste
sand
removed
from
a
reactor
purge
stream
(coke
and
ore
solids)
Table
III±
39,
below,
summarizes
our
information
about
the
wastes
generated
rom
the
production
of
titanium
dioxide.

TABLE
III±
39.Ð
TITANIUM
DIOXIDE
WASTES
Waste
category
Number
of
generators
1998
volumes
(MT)
Reported
hazard
codes
Management
practices
Commingled
chloride
process
wastewaters
..
4
7,614,358
.........
D002,
D007
......
Neutralization,
solids
settling,
NPDES
discharge
Chloride
process
solids
(Bevill
exempt)
........
6
1,200,000
.........
none
.................
On­
site
impoundments,
on­
site
Subtitle
D
landfills.
Waste
sands
from
oxidation,
milling
and
scouring.
3
9,485
................
none
.................
On­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill;
off­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.
Gypsum
from
sulfate
process
........................
2
46
69,500
...........
none
.................
On­
site
waste
pile
storage;
on­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill;
sold
for
various
uses.
Digestion
scrubber
water
...............................
2
2,000,333
.........
Neutralization
in
dedicated
impoundment;
commingled
with
other
wastewaters.
Digestion
sludge
from
sulfate
process
..........
2
41,494
..............
D002
.................
Unlined
impoundment,
dewatering,
on­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.
Commingled
wastewaters
from
the
chloride
and
sulfate
process.
2
16,184,031
.......
none
.................
Neutralization,
solids
settling
in
unlined
surface
impoundments,
NPDES
discharge.
Wastewater
treatment
sludges
from
commingled
chloride
and
sulfate
process
(partially
Bevill
exempt).
2
159,121
............
none
.................
Dewatering,
on­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.

Waste
acid
(ferric
chloride)
from
chloride­
ilmenite
process.
3
1,883,000
.........
D002,
D007,
D008.
On­
site
hazardous
waste
underground
injection
reuse
as
raw
material
in
sodium
chloride
production;
storage
in
tanks
and
unlined
impoundment
prior
to
sale
as
water
and
wastewater
treatment
reagent.
Chloride
ilmenite
process
solids
(Bevill
exempt
3
not
reported
......
none
.................
On­
site
dewatering;
on­
site
Subtitle
D
industrial
landfill;
on­
site
unlined
impoundment;
various
reuses.
Non­
exempt
nonwastewaters
from
the
chloride
ilmenite
process.
3
14,600
..............
none
.................
On­
site
dewatering;
on­
site
Subtitle
D
industrial
landfill;
on­
site
unlined
impoundment;
various
reuses.
HCl
from
reaction
scrubber,
chloride­
ilmenite
process.
3
not
reported
......
D002
.................
On­
site
wastewater
treatment,
on­
site
reuse.

Commingled
wastewaters
from
the
chlorideilmenite
process.
3
13,556,000
.......
none
.................
On­
site
neutralization,
solids
settling,
NPDES
discharge.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00067
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55750
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
47
All
sulfate
process
waste
solids
and
liquids
are
non­
exempt
mineral
processing
wastes
(see
55
FR
2322,
January
23,
1990).
55
FR
2392
noted
that
all
sulfate
process
waste
solids
and
wastewaters
from
the
production
of
titanium
dioxide
do
not
meet
the
high
volume/
low
hazard
criteria
established
in
the
September
1,
1989
Bevill
rule
and
therefore
were
not
eligible
for
continued
coverage
under
the
Bevill
exclusion
(see
54
FR
36592).
TABLE
III±
39.Ð
TITANIUM
DIOXIDE
WASTESÐ
Continued
Waste
category
Number
of
generators
1998
volumes
(MT)
Reported
hazard
codes
Management
practices
Additive
vent
filter
solids
from
chloride­
ilmenite
process.
1
<
1
....................
none
.................
Off­
site
Subtitle
D
industrial
landfill.

Vanadium
waste
from
the
chloride­
ilmenite
and
chloride
process.
4
not
reported
......
none
.................
Returned
to
reaction
area
for
TiCl
4
recovery
remaining
vanadium
wastes
are
incorporated
in
solids
streams.
Off­
spec
titanium
dioxide
product
..................
2
563
...................
none
.................
Off­
site
Subtitle
D
industrial
landfill.
Railcar/
trailer
product
washout
......................
1
<10,000
............
none
.................
On­
site
storage
in
unlined
surface
impoundment
on­
site
wastewater
treatment.

46
Additional
volumes
are
used
as
products.

The
manufacturers
also
produce
materials
that
are
reused
in
other
processes
that
are
outside
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree.
With
one
exception
described
below,
we
did
not
evaluate
these
materials,
or
wastes
generated
during
co­
product
production
for
the
purposes
of
today's
listing
determinations,
because
they
were
outside
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree.
One
facility
produces
sulfur
from
the
treatment
of
off­
gases.
Because
the
offgas
is
produced
from
a
production
unit
rather
than
a
waste
management
unit
and
is
conveyed
to
its
destination
via
piping,
the
gas
is
not
a
solid
waste.
RCRA
Section
1004(
27)
excludes
noncontained
gases
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
and
thus
they
cannot
be
considered
a
hazardous
waste.
(See
54
FR
50973)
Because
this
gas
is
not
a
solid
waste
when
produced,
we
did
not
evaluate
it
further
for
purposes
of
listing.
d.
What
wastes
from
these
processes
are
exempt
mineral
processing
wastes?
In
July
of
1988,
the
U.
S.
Court
of
Appeals,
for
the
D.
C.
Circuit
in
Environmental
Defense
Fund
v.
EPA
(EDF
II),
852
F.
2d
1316
(D.
C.
Cir.
1988),
cert.
denied,
489
U.
S.
1011(
1989),
ordered
EPA
to
restrict
the
scope
of
the
Bevill
mining
waste
exclusion,
as
it
applied
to
mineral
processing
wastes.
In
response,
EPA
promulgated
rules
on
September
1,
1989
(54
FR
36592)
and
on
January
23,
1990
(55
FR
2322),
issued
a
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
Mineral
Processing
on
July
31,
1990,
and
published
a
regulatory
determination
published
on
June
13,
1991
(56
FR
27300).
The
list
of
Bevill
exempt
wastes
is
set
out
at
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
7).
We
relied
on
these
Bevill
rulemakings
to
determine
the
Bevill
status
of
waste
streams
in
the
titanium
dioxide
sector.
The
production
of
titanium
dioxide
results
in
the
generation
of
2
categories
of
exempt
waste:
beneficiation
wastes
and
exempt
mineral
processing
wastes.
These
categories
are
described
below.
The
industry
reported
a
number
of
wastes
generated
from
the
storage
and
handling
of
various
raw
materials
which
are
exempt
because
they
are
associated
with
beneficiation.
Solid
wastes
from
the
extraction/
beneficiation
of
ores
and
minerals
are
Bevill
exempt
solid
wastes
(see
51
FR
24496,
July
3,
1986
and
54
FR
36592,
September
1,
1989).
These
wastes
are
described
in
the
background
document
for
this
sector.
We
have
not
assessed
these
wastes
because
they
are
exempt
under
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
7).
The
only
relevant
mineral
processing
waste
exemption
consists
of
``
chloride
process
waste
solids
from
titanium
tetrachloride
production''
(see
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
7)(
ii)(
S)).
The
consent
decree
mandating
today's
proposal
states
in
paragraph
1.
g
that
Bevill
exempt
wastes
are
not
within
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree
as
it
applies
to
the
inorganic
chemical
listing
determinations,
and
specifically
that
``
chloride
process
waste
solids''
need
not
be
assessed
within
the
titanium
dioxide
sector.
Titanium
tetrachloride
production
occurs
in
both
the
chloride
and
chloride­
ilmenite
processes.
47
The
chloride
process
waste
solids
are
generated
during
the
chlorination
reaction
of
the
titanium
ore
in
the
reducing
presence
of
coke
at
elevated
temperatures,
and
are
generated
from
both
the
chloride
process
and
the
chloride­
ilmenite
process.
The
majority
of
these
solids
are
removed
from
the
reaction
area
as
a
mass
and
are
quenched,
neutralized,
settled
and
disposed
as
exempt
materials.
Additional
solids
from
the
reactor
are
carried
overhead
with
the
TiCl4
product
gas
stream
and
are
subsequently
removed
in
various
scrubbing
units.
Although
EPA
has
not
previously
discussed
these
solids,
we
believe
that
they
also
fall
within
the
exemption.
While
they
are
removed
from
the
product
stream
and
various
other
wastes
at
points
other
than
where
the
majority
of
the
solids
are
separated
from
the
TiCl4
gas
stream,
they
are
similarly
composed
of
unreacted
ore
and
coke
solids
from
the
chlorination
reactor.
They
fit
within
the
plain
language
of
the
exemption.
Solids
also
are
generated
from
the
oxidation
and
finishing
stages
of
titanium
dioxide
production.
These
solids
are
non­
exempt
solid
wastes
(not
covered
by
the
exemption).
Most
titanium
dioxide
producers
commingle
wastewaters
from
titanium
tetrachloride
production
with
wastewaters
from
oxidation
and
finishing.
To
the
extent
that
the
resultant
sludges
contain
nonexempt
solids,
we
have
assessed
that
portion
of
those
solids.
Due
to
process
variations,
each
facility
using
the
chloride
or
chlorideilmenite
process
generates
its
exempt
solids
in
slightly
different
ways.
The
general
principles
that
we
used
to
determine
the
Bevill
status
of
these
wastes
include
the
following:

ÐExtraction
and
beneficiation
ends
just
before
chlorination
occurs.
Wastes
generated
prior
to
this
point
are
Bevill
exempt,
outside
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree
and
therefore
not
addressed
in
this
rulemaking.
The
chlorinator
marks
the
beginning
of
mineral
processing
because
the
ore
undergoes
a
physical/
chemical
change
(see
54
FR
36619,
September
1,
1989).
54
FR
36621
further
notes,
``
Likewise,
EPA
considered
titanium
tetrachloride
produced
during
the
titanium
chloride
[sic]
process
to
be
a
saleable
product;
any
further
processing
subsequent
to
its
production
is
considered
to
be
chemical
manufacturing.
''
ÐMineral
processing
ends
when
titanium
dioxide
is
produced
in
the
oxidation
unit.
Further
steps
are
chemical
manufacturing.
The
Agency
defines
the
beginning
of
oxidation
as
the
beginning
of
chemical
manufacturing
because
the
facility
is
using
a
saleable
mineral
product,
titanium
tetrachloride,
to
produce
titanium
dioxide
(see
54
FR
366211).

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00068
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55751
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
48
``
If
EPA
finds
that
this
exemption
is
not
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment
and
if
an
examination
of
titanium
tetrachloride
waste
management
shows
any
continuing
or
new
problems,
the
Agency
will
reconsider
this
subtitle
D
determination
for
chloride
process
waste
solids
from
titanium
tetrachloride
production.
''
56
FR
273000,
June
13,
1991.
ÐThe
mineral
processing
exemption
only
covers
solids
from
the
production
of
titanium
tetrachloride.
These
solids,
therefore,
are
outside
of
the
consent
decree.
At
least
six
streams
of
solid­
bearing
material
leave
the
chlorination
reaction
area.
The
status
of
these
streams
is
as
follows:
(1)
Titanium
tetrachloride
going
on
for
further
production.
All
wastes
formed
during
further
processing
of
this
gaseous
product
stream
are
chemical
manufacturing
wastes
that
are
outside
the
scope
of
the
Bevill
exemption.
(2)
Solids
removed
from
the
gaseous
titanium
tetrachloride
stream.
These
solids
are
associated
with
the
production
of
titanium
tetrachloride.
These
solids
are
typically
slurried
to
impoundments
for
storage
or
disposal
and
are
Bevill­
exempt
(with
one
exception
described
below).
(3)
Waste
acids.
In
1990
and
1998
rulemakings
for
LDR
Phase
IV
(see
63
FR
28601),
EPA
took
the
position
that
the
waste
acids
do
not
meet
the
high­
volume,
lowtoxicity
test
and
thus
are
not
exempt
mineral
processing
wastes.
(4)
Gases
going
to
scrubbers.
Offgases
from
the
chlorinators
pass
through
various
air
pollution
control
systems
which
generate
scrubber
waters.
In
1998,
EPA
stated
that
scrubber
waters
and
sludges
from
scrubber
waters
were
not
Bevill­
exempt.
However,
as
a
result
of
the
information
collection
activities
associated
with
today's
proposal,
it
is
now
clear
to
EPA
that
gases
from
the
chlorinator
contain
some
solids
from
the
chlorinator.
We
are
interpreting
the
exemption
today
to
cover
these
particles
when
they
drop
out
of
scrubber
waters
to
form
sludges.
(Gas
streams
and
wastewaters
are
not
Bevill
exempt,
even
when
they
are
carrying
solid
particles
from
chlorinator.)
(5)
Solids
purged
from
the
reactor.
A
purge
stream
from
the
reactor
may
be
taken
to
reduce
silica
levels
in
the
reactor.
This
stream
is
Bevill
exempt.
(6)
Recovered
solids
from
the
reaction
area.
Housekeeping
results
in
the
collection
of
coke
and
ore
solids
from
the
vicinity
of
the
reaction
area.
These
wastes
are
Bevill
exempt.
In
one
case,
the
facility
conducts
some
processing
of
their
ferric
chloride
waste
acid
(which
is
subsequently
sold
as
a
water
and
wastewater
reagent),
and
generates
a
solids
stream.
We
consider
the
processing
that
this
facility
conducts
to
be
either
an
ancillary
process
or
chemical
manufacturing,
and
thus
the
subsequent
solids
stream
is
not
generated
from
mineral
processing
and
therefore
is
not
exempt.

What
Is
The
Status
of
the
Mineral
Processing
Exemption
for
``
Chloride
Waste
Solids
From
Titanium
Tetrachloride
Production'?
As
part
of
our
waste
characterization
of
the
titanium
dioxide
sector,
we
conducted
analyses
for
chlorinated
dibenzo­
p­
dioxins
(CDDs)
and
dibenzop
furans
(CDFs).
We
were
concerned
that
these
compounds
might
be
present
in
the
wastes
as
a
result
of
the
chlorination
step
which
occurs
in
the
presence
of
coke,
and
in
fact
we
found
measurable
levels
of
these
compounds
in
wastes
from
the
chloride
and
chloride­
ilmenite
processes.
These
data
are
presented
in
the
Titanium
Dioxide
Listing
Background
Document
and
associated
analytical
data
reports
in
the
docket
for
today's
notice.
As
explained
in
this
background
document,
we
believe
that
these
compounds
are
formed
in
the
chlorinator,
and
are
predominantly
associated
with
the
exempt
mineral
processing
solids
(additional
details
regarding
this
conclusion
are
provided
in
the
referenced
background
document).
These
compounds
were
not
assessed,
however,
as
part
of
the
rulemakings
which
established
the
mineral
processing
exemptions,
and
so
these
results
could
present
new
issues
for
these
wastes
if
such
compounds
were
found
to
pose
unacceptable
risks.
During
the
development
of
the
mineral
processing
exemption,
EPA
anticipated
certain
conditions
might
suggest
the
appropriateness
of
re­
opening
these
exemptions.
48
We
are
considering
whether
we
should
re­
assess
the
status
of
these
wastes
as
exempt
mineral
processing
wastes.
Any
reassessment
of
these
wastes
would
involve
a
separate
analysis
and
opportunity
for
notice
and
comment.

How
Did
EPA
Assess
Mixtures
of
Exempt
and
Non­
Exempt
Wastes
From
the
Production
of
Titanium
Dioxide?
There
are
a
number
of
wastes
from
the
titanium
dioxide
sector
that
remain
partially
within
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree
because
they
are
composed
of
both
exempt
and
non­
exempt
solids.
Because
they
are
not
``
100
percent
exempt''
in
composition,
we
have
assessed
their
potential
impacts
on
the
environment,
and
attempted
to
isolate
the
risks
associated
with
the
nonexempt
solids
and
wastewaters.
Any
assessment
of
the
CDD
and
CDF
loading
in
exempt
wastes
will
involve
a
separate
analysis
and
opportunity
for
notice
and
comment.
Finally,
we
are
assessing
one
nonexempt
waste
generated
at
the
Delaware
facility,
non­
exempt
non­
wastewaters
from
the
chloride­
ilmenite
process,
which
contains
some
CDDs
and
CDFs
at
levels
exceeding
our
initial
screening
criteria.
We
did
not,
as
part
of
today's
listing
determination,
conduct
sufficient
risk
assessment
to
fully
evaluate
the
potential
for
risks.
See
section
III.
F.
14.
e(
10)
below.

5.
Agency
Evaluation
(1)
Commingled
wastewaters
from
the
chloride
process,
including
wastewaters
from
coke
and
ore
recovery,
scrubber
water,
finishing
wastewaters
and
sludge
supernatants.

How
Many
Facilities
Generate
This
Waste
Category
and
How
Is
It
Managed?
Four
facilities
generated
commingled
wastewaters
from
the
chloride
process.
(As
will
be
discussed
further
in
III.
F.
14.
e(
7),
two
additional
facilities
generate
the
same
wastewaters
and
commingle
them
with
wastewaters
from
the
sulfate
process.)
Three
of
the
four
``
chloride
only''
facilities
treat
their
wastewaters
in
surface
impoundmentbased
treatment
systems;
the
fourth
facility
uses
a
tank­
based
wastewater
treatment
system.
Each
of
the
impoundment
systems
include
unlined
units.
These
large
volume
wastes
are
generated
in
excess
of
29
million
metric
tons
per
year.
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).
Many
facilities
commingle
waste
hydrochloric
acids
(generated
as
scrubber
water)
with
their
combined
wastewaters.
Three
other
facilities,
however,
return
waste
acids
on
site
or
sell
the
acids
for
reuse.
Because
these
materials
have
no
exposure
route
of
concern,
we
did
not
further
evaluate
risk
scenarios
associated
with
reuse
of
this
material.

What
Management
Scenarios
Were
Assessed?
For
this
rulemaking,
we
determined
that
the
surface
impoundment
scenario
poses
a
more
significant
potential
risk
than
the
tank
scenario,
and
thus
assessed
the
groundwater
pathway
for
surface
impoundments.
We
assessed
potential
groundwater
releases
to
both
surface
water
and
drinking
water
wells.
We
concluded
that
the
air
pathway
does
not
present
significant
risks
for
these
wastes
because
the
wastes
do
not
contain
volatile
organics
or
other
constituents
that
pose
risk
due
to
air
releases.

How
Was
This
Waste
Category
Characterized?
One
of
the
four
facilities,
located
in
Hamilton,
Mississippi,
was
selected
for
sampling
and
analysis.
This
facility's
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00069
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55752
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
49
This
facility
also
commingles
wastewaters
from
sodium
clorate
production,
which
account
for
approximately
1.7
percent
of
the
total
4aste
volume.
50
U.
S.
EPA
RCRA
Facility
Assessment
of
Kerr
McGee
Chemical
Corporation;
Hamilton,
MS.
June
16,
1995.
waste
is
representative
of
the
four
chloride­
only
facilities.
The
sample
was
collected
at
the
inlet
to
this
facility's
surface
impoundment
train.
49
This
sample
contained
a
high
level
of
solids,
reflecting
the
facility's
practice
of
managing
all
waste
solids
(including
Bevill­
exempt
solids)
and
process
wastewaters
in
the
same
units
which
serve
as
settling
ponds.
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
(see
III.
E.
2
and
3
for
further
discussion
on
the
use
of
SPLP
filtrate).
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±
40
(the
Titanium
Dioxide
Listing
Background
Document
contains
the
full
set
of
analytical
results).

TABLE
III±
40.Ð
CHARACTERIZATION
OF
COMMINGLED
WASTEWATERS
FROM
CHLORIDE
PROCESS,
TITANIUM
DIOXIDE
Constituent
of
concern
Detected
levels
in
Sample
KM±
SI±
01
(mg/
L)
HBL
AWQC
Total
SPLP
Filtrate
Antimony
..........................................................................................................................................
<0.05
0.044
0.006
0.014
Arsenic
.............................................................................................................................................
0.04
0.001
0.0007
0.000018
Manganese
......................................................................................................................................
25.9
0.46
0.73
0.05
Molybdenum
....................................................................................................................................
0.53
0.23
0.078
NA
Thallium
...........................................................................................................................................
0.086
1
<0.005
0.001
0.0017
1
Thallium
is
identified
as
a
potential
constituent
of
concern
because
it
was
detected
in
the
totals
analysis
at
levels
exceeding
the
HBL
and
AWQC,
and
the
SPLP
filtrate
analysis
detection
limit
was
too
high
to
confirm
that
mobile
levels
of
thallium
do
not
exceed
these
standards.
One
half
the
detection
limit
was
used
as
input
to
the
risk
assessment
(see
III.
E.
3).

How
Was
the
Groundwater­
to­
Surface
Water
Risk
Assessment
Established?
We
assumed
that
surface
impoundments
present
greater
risks
to
the
environment
than
tanks.
Therefore
we
focused
on
the
3
facilities
that
manage
wastewaters
in
impoundments.
We
selected
the
sampled
facility
for
modeling
because
(1)
its
management
practices
(i.
e.,
treatment
in
surface
impoundments)
are
representative
of
3
of
the
4
chloride­
only
facilities,
(2)
the
analytical
data
for
this
waste
were
obtained
from
this
site,
and
(3)
its
setting
is
similar
to
the
other
2
facilities
that
use
surface
impoundments.
The
facility
selected
for
modeling
is
bounded
on
two
sides
by
a
river,
tributary
creeks,
and
swamps.
The
RCRA
Facility
Assessment
50
for
this
site
provides
maps
showing
distances
to
these
potential
receptors
and
groundwater
flow
directions
in
the
vicinity
of
the
surface
impoundments
and
plant­
wide
flow
directions,
with
the
overall
flow
being
toward
the
river.
We
calculated
infiltration
rates
for
the
unlined
impoundment,
and
divided
this
flow
rate
into
the
flow
rate
of
the
river
to
determine
potential
concentrations
of
the
five
metals
of
concern
in
the
river
as
a
result
of
recharge
with
contaminated
groundwater.
The
results
of
this
screening
(see
``
Risk
Assessment
Support
to
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Industry
Listing:
Background
Information
Document'')
demonstrate
that
concentrations
of
the
constituents
of
concern
are
likely
to
be
well
below
risk
thresholds
for
both
human
health
and
aquatic
life
in
surface
water.

How
Was
the
Groundwater
Ingestion
Risk
Assessment
Established?

We
were
able
to
collect
specific
information
regarding
the
physical
setting
of
the
modeled
facility,
and
thus
used
primarily
site­
specific
data
as
input
to
the
risk
assessment.
We
chose
this
site
for
modeling
because
the
amount
of
available
information
best
supported
our
data
requirements
for
modeling
and
because
we
believe
this
facility
is
representative
of
other
generators
of
this
waste
category
in
terms
of
hydrogeological
setting
and
waste
characterization.
Based
on
information
presented
in
the
RFA
for
the
facility
of
concern,
as
well
as
from
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
Groundwater
Site
Inventory,
there
are
groundwater
wells
north
of
the
plant.
The
RFA
also
indicates
that
groundwater
flow
direction
in
the
localized
vicinity
of
the
surface
impoundments
is
to
the
northwest.
We
modeled
the
potential
impact
of
the
unlined
portion
of
the
surface
impoundment
train
on
drinking
water
wells
located
within
2,000±
5,000
feet
(based
on
well
locations
and
the
closest
facility
property
lines).
The
resultant
concentrations
are
presented
below
in
Table
III±
41.

TABLE
III±
41.Ð
GROUNDWATER
PATHWAY
RISK
ASSESSMENT
RESULTS
FOR
COMMINGLED
WASTEWATERS
FROM
CHLORIDE
PROCESS,
TITANIUM
DIOXIDE
Constituent
of
concern
Risk
or
hazard
quotient
90th%
95th%

Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Antimony
HQ
...................................................................................................................
0.
1
0.2
0.2
0.5
Arsenic
cancer
risk
..........................................................................................................
2E±
08
2E±
08
8E±
08
6E±
08
Molybdenum
HQ
..............................................................................................................
0.03
0.07
0.06
0.1
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00070
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55753
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
51
This
waste
volume
includes
the
non­
exempt
sulfate
solids
generated
at
one
of
the
2
facilities
that
commingle
wastes
from
the
chloride
and
sulfate
processes.
52
The
sodium
chlorate
wastewaters
account
for
only
1.7%
of
the
total
volume
of
managed
wastewater,
and
for
only
4.4%
of
the
solids
generated.
The
predominant
potential
constituent
of
concern
in
the
sodium
chlorate
solids
is
chromium;
analytical
data
for
the
commingled
solids
(KM±
SI±
04)
show
that
the
SPLP
concentration
is
<0.05
mg/
L
and
not
of
concern.
See
section
III.
F.
11
for
further
discussion
of
this
facility's
sludge.
TABLE
III±
41.Ð
GROUNDWATER
PATHWAY
RISK
ASSESSMENT
RESULTS
FOR
COMMINGLED
WASTEWATERS
FROM
CHLORIDE
PROCESS,
TITANIUM
DIOXIDEÐ
Continued
Constituent
of
concern
Risk
or
hazard
quotient
90th%
95th%

Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Thallium
HQ
.....................................................................................................................
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.07
What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?

We
propose
not
to
list
commingled
wastewaters
from
the
production
of
titanium
dioxide
via
the
chloride
process.
The
results
of
our
risk
assessment
show
that
this
waste
category
does
not
pose
significant
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Our
assessment
of
the
air
and
surface
water
exposure
pathways
shows
no
risk
of
concern.
Our
assessment
of
the
groundwater
exposure
pathway
similarly
shows
no
risk
of
concern
for
the
constituents
of
concern.
(2)
Chloride
process
solids
(Bevill
exempt).
Six
facilities
generate
waste
solids
from
the
chloride
process.
As
previously
discussed,
the
Agency
determined
at
56
FR
27312
(June
13,
1991)
that
chloride
process
waste
solids
from
titanium
tetrachloride
production
are
Bevill
exempt
mineral
processing
wastes
(40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
7)(
ii)(
S)).
Five
of
the
six
facilities
generate
their
solids
in
surface
impoundments;
the
sixth,
located
in
Louisiana,
uses
tank­
based
settling
to
segregate
the
solids
from
their
wastewaters.
All
six
facilities
dispose
of
their
solids
in
their
surface
impoundments
or
on­
site
landfills.
Approximately
1.2
million
MT
of
this
waste
was
generated
in
1998.
51
The
waste
solids
at
each
of
these
sites
contains
contributions
from
Bevill
exempt
solids
ranging
from
100%
to
40%,
as
discussed
further
below.
At
the
two
facilities
located
in
Georgia
and
Louisiana,
coke
and
ore
solids
are
generated
as
entirely
segregated
wastes
that
are
not
commingled
with
nonexempt
solids;
these
exempt
wastes
are
clearly
outside
the
scope
of
the
consent
decree
dictating
today's
proposal
and
have
not
been
assessed
further.
At
three
other
facilities,
the
facilities
conduct
some
commingling
of
their
wastewaters,
resulting
in
small
potential
contributions
of
non­
exempt
solids
to
their
waste
solids.
Two
of
these
facilities,
both
located
in
Ohio,
commingle
wastewaters
from
oxidation
and
finishing
(i.
e.,
generated
after
the
production
of
titanium
tetrachloride
and
therefore
potentially
bearing
nonexempt
solids)
with
the
wastewaters
from
titanium
tetrachloride
production
that
bear
exempt
solids.
Neither
facility
reported
any
solids
in
their
oxidation
and
finishing
wastewaters,
although
data
from
similar
wastewaters
from
the
chloride­
ilmenite
process
indicate
that
very
low
levels
of
solids
can
be
present
in
similar
wastewaters.
(We
assess
solids
from
the
chloride­
ilmenite
process
in
section
III.
F.
14.
e(
10)
of
this
proposal.)
At
the
third
facility
(located
in
Mississippi),
which
operates
a
slightly
different
process,
there
were
no
reported
wastewaters
or
solids
from
oxidation
and
finishing.
Note
that
the
wastewaters
bearing
the
exempt
solids
at
this
facility
are
commingled
with
comparatively
small
volumes
of
wastewaters
from
sodium
chlorate
production
(described
in
section
III.
F.
11
of
today's
proposal).
52
We
believe
that
the
contribution
of
any
non­
exempt
solids
to
the
volume
of
exempt
solids
from
these
three
facilities
would
be
very
small.
Thus,
we
have
chosen
not
to
attribute
any
risks
to
the
nonexempt
portion
of
these
commingled
solids.
Two
of
the
six
facilities
generating
chloride
process
waste
solids
also
operate
sulfate­
based
titanium
dioxide
production
lines.
These
plants
are
sited
in
Georgia
and
Maryland.
Wastewaters
from
the
chloride
process
and
sulfate
processes
are
commingled
and
results
in
commingled
wastewater
treatment
solids
that
are
partially
composed
of
exempt
solids.
The
non­
exempt
wastewater
treatment
solids
are
described
separately
in
section
III.
F.
14.
e(
8).
They
contain
significant
volumes
of
non­
exempt
solids
(>
35%).
(3)
Various
sands
from
oxidation,
milling
and
scouring.

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

Two
facilities
using
the
chloride
process
reported
disposal
of
250
MT
of
milling
sand
in
off­
site
and
dedicated
on­
site
Subtitle
D
landfills.
One
facility
also
reported
landfilling
over
2,300
MT
of
scouring
sand.
One
facility
reported
6,935
MT/
yr
of
waste
oxidation
sand
that
is
managed
in
an
on­
site
industrial
Subtitle
D
landfill.
All
of
these
sands
are
similar
and
are
associated
with
titanium
dioxide
finishing
operations.
All
of
these
sands
are
produced
after
the
beginning
of
chemical
manufacturing
and
therefore
are
not
exempt.

What
Management
Scenarios
Were
Assessed?

We
assessed
the
off­
site
industrial
landfill
scenario
for
milling
sand
and
a
dedicated
on­
site
landfill
for
scouring
sand,
reflecting
the
types
of
management
reported
for
these
wastes.
We
assessed
the
groundwater
ingestion
pathway
for
these
landfills.
The
on­
site
landfill
scenario
for
scouring
sand
screened
out
when
we
compared
the
SPLP
results
for
this
waste
directly
to
the
HBLs.

How
Was
This
Waste
Category
Characterized?

We
collected
samples
of
both
the
milling
sand
and
the
scouring
sand.
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
because
there
is
no
contact
with
municipal
landfill
leachate
in
the
reported
management
practices,
and
no
indication
that
other
practices
are
likely.
The
SPLP
analytical
results
of
concern
for
the
milling
sand
are
presented
below
in
Table
III±
42.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00071
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55754
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
53
Additional
volumes
are
used
as
products.

54
See
``
Update
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Groundwater
Task
Force'',
April
1998.
Maryland
Department
of
the
Environment.
RCRA
Operation
and
Maintenance
Inspection
of
SCM
Chemicals
(now
Millennium
Inorganic
Chemicals,
Inc.);
Hawkins
Point
Plant;
Baltimore,
MD.
October
1994.
TABLE
III±
42.Ð
CHARACTERIZATION
OF
MILLING
SAND
FROM
TITANIUM
DIOXIDE
PRODUCTION
Constituent
of
concern
Detected
SPLP
levels
in
KP±
SO±
05
(mg/
L)
HBL
(mg/
L)

Antimony
.......................
0.024
0006
How
Was
the
Groundwater
Ingestion
Risk
Assessment
Established?

As
described
in
Section
III.
D.
4.
we
used
our
standard
distance­
to­
well
assumptions
for
an
off­
site
landfill,
and
assumed
hydrogeologic
conditions
would
be
comparable
to
those
for
the
reported
off­
site
landfill.
As
shown
in
Table
III±
43,
the
resultant
risks
were
calculated.

TABLE
III±
43.Ð
GROUNDWATER
PATHWAY
RISK
ASSESSMENT
RESULTS
FOR
MILLING
SAND
FROM
TITANIUM
DIOXIDE
PRODUCTION
Antimony
HQ
Percentile
Adult
risk
Child
risk
90th
.......................................
0.003
0.006
95th
.......................................
0.008
0.02
What
is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?

We
propose
not
to
list
this
waste
because
the
modeled
and
screening
risk
for
antimony,
the
sole
constituent
of
concern,
is
well
below
a
hazard
quotient
of
unity.
(4)
Gypsum
from
the
sulfate
process.

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

The
Maryland
and
Georgia
facilities
generate
this
waste.
Both
sites
pipe
their
acid
directly
to
their
gypsum
plants
where
it
is
neutralized
to
form
gypsum.
We
found
no
significant
potential
for
release
of
this
acid
waste
prior
to
its
treatment
in
the
gypsum
plant.
The
two
facilities
reported
production
of
69,500
MT/
yr
of
gypsum
that
is
landfilled.
53
We
chose
to
look
further
at
this
material
because
it
is
disposed
of
in
a
landfill
and
used
in
a
manner
constituting
disposal
(i.
e.,
as
fertilizer),
and
because
the
generators
conduct
on­
site
land
placement
(piles).
Specifically,
the
Georgia
facility
places
their
gypsum
in
piles
prior
to
sale
for
use
in
agricultural
chemicals,
cement,
chemical
products,
and
wall
board.
The
Maryland
facility
generates
primary
and
secondary
gypsum,
both
of
which
are
also
placed
in
piles
prior
to
use
in
wall
board
manufacture
or
disposal
in
an
on­
site
landfill.
As
described
above,
the
gypsum
is
not
an
exempt
mineral
processing
waste
because
this
sulfate
process
wastestream
did
not
meet
the
high
volume/
low
toxicity
criteria
noted
in
54
FR
36592
(September
1,
1989).

What
Management
Scenarios
Were
Assessed?

We
assessed
each
of
the
reported
management
scenarios
that
involve
land
placement:
agricultural
chemicals,
cement,
piles
and
landfills.
We
evaluated
potential
releases
to
both
air
and
groundwater.
Samples
were
collected
at
both
facilities,
and
included
both
primary
and
secondary
gypsum
samples
at
the
Maryland
site.
The
management
scenarios
were
assessed
using
the
appropriate
sample
for
the
type
of
gypsum
reported
for
that
scenario.
All
pathways
screened
out
except
for
the
landfill
scenario
at
the
Maryland
site.
For
the
Maryland
landfill
we
found
constituent
concentrations
at
levels
of
potential
concern
for
the
groundwater
and
surface
water
pathways.
The
primary
gypsum
contained
lower
levels
of
leachable
metals
than
the
secondary
gypsum;
we
focused
our
modeling
efforts
on
the
higher
volume
secondary
gypsum
as
it
was
more
likely
to
show
risk
when
modeled
and
the
management
scenarios
are
identical
(they
are
placed
in
the
same
on­
site
industrial
landfill).
The
screening
results
are
discussed
further
in
the
``
Titanium
Dioxide
Listing
Background
Document
for
the
Inorganic
Chemical
Listing
Determination,
''
available
in
the
docket
for
today's
notice.

We
assessed
the
landfill
scenario
for
potential
impacts
to
both
surface
water
and
drinking
water
wells.
The
facility
selected
for
modeling
is
bounded
to
the
north
and
east
by
the
Patapsco
River,
which
is
an
estuary.
The
expected
groundwater
flow,
while
not
characterized
definitively,
is
expected
to
be
eastward,
toward
the
river.
54
How
Was
This
Waste
Category
Characterized?

We
collected
three
samples
of
this
waste
for
analysis.
We
conducted
total,
TCLP
and
SPLP
analyses
on
the
waste
matrices.
We
used
the
SPLP
results
(rather
than
TCLP)
to
assess
potential
releases
to
groundwater
and
surface
water
because
there
is
no
contact
with
municipal
landfill
leachate
in
the
reported
management
practices.
We
used
total
results
to
assess
potential
air
releases,
and
this
pathway
screened
out.
The
SPLP
analytical
results
for
the
secondary
gypsum
that
we
used
to
assess
groundwater
releases
from
landfilling
are
presented
below
in
Table
III±
44.

TABLE
III±
44.Ð
CHARACTERIZATION
OF
SECONDARY
GYPSUM
FROM
SULFATE
PROCESS,
TITANIUM
DIOXIDE
Constituent
of
concern
Detected
SPLP
levels
in
MI±
SO±
03
(mg/
L)
HBL
(mg/
L)
AWQC
(mg/
L)

Antimony
..................................................................................................................................................
0.055
0.006
0.014
Arsenic
.....................................................................................................................................................
<0.0035
0.0007
0.000018
Manganese
..............................................................................................................................................
3.1
0.73
0.05
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00072
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55755
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
How
Was
the
Groundwater­
to­
Surface
Water
Risk
Assessment
Established?
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
three
metals
of
concern
(see
Table
III±
44)
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
expected
to
be
well
below
risk
thresholds
for
human
health
and
aquatic
life
in
surface
water.

How
Was
the
Groundwater
Ingestion
Risk
Assessment
Established?

While
we
are
not
aware
of
any
actual
drinking
water
wells
in
the
vicinity
of
the
Maryland
facility,
we
were
unable
to
determine
definitively
that
there
are
not
private
wells
in
use
in
the
residential
area
to
the
south
of
the
facility,
or
that
potentially
contaminated
groundwater
would
not
reach
this
neighborhood.
We
thus
decided
to
model
potential
exposure
at
this
neighborhood.
We
modeled
the
potential
impact
of
the
unlined
landfill
on
drinking
water
wells
located
within
2,500±
5,000
feet
(based
on
distances
to
the
nearest
residential
area).
The
resultant
risks
were
calculated
and
are
summarized
in
Table
III±
45.

TABLE
III±
45.Ð
GROUNDWATER
PATHWAY
RISK
ASSESSMENT
RESULTS
FOR
SECONDARY
GYPSUM
FROM
SULFATE
PROCESS,
TITANIUM
DIOXIDE
Antimony
HQ
ArsenicÐ
cancer
risk
Manganese
HQ
Adult
risk
Child
risk
Adult
risk
Child
risk
Adult
risk
Child
risk
90th
..................................................................................
0.23
0.49
6.
E±
07
4.
E±
07
0.1
0.2
95th
..................................................................................
0.35
0.75
1.
E±
06
1.
E±
06
0.1
0.3
What
is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?
We
propose
not
to
list
gypsum
from
the
sulfate
process.
The
results
of
our
risk
assessment
demonstrate
that
there
is
no
significant
risk
associated
with
this
material,
and
that
it
does
not
warrant
control
as
a
listed
hazardous
waste.
At
the
95th
percentile,
the
risks
for
antimony
(HQ=
0.75)
and
arsenic
(1E
´6
),
approach
levels
at
which
EPA
considers
listing
wastes
(HQ=
1.0
and
cancer
risk>
10
´6
,
respectively).
We
believe
that
our
modeled
exposure
scenario,
while
plausible,
contains
a
number
of
conservative
assumptions
that
likely
overstate
these
marginal
risks.
In
particular,
our
assumptions
regarding
groundwater
flow
direction
(i.
e.,
that
a
contaminated
plume
from
the
landfill
would
flow
to
the
south
toward
the
nearest
residences,
rather
than
due
west
toward
the
river)
and
the
use
of
groundwater
for
drinking
water
at
these
residences
(records
indicate
this
community
uses
public
water)
may
overstate
actual
risks.
(5)
Digestion
scrubber
water
from
the
sulfate
process.

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

The
Maryland
and
Georgia
facilities
reported
generation
of
digestion
scrubber
water
from
the
sulfate
process.
The
Maryland
facility
manages
this
wastewater
in
a
dedicated
surface
impoundment
after
neutralization.
The
other
facility
commingles
this
wastewater
with
other
wastewaters
from
their
chloride
and
sulfate
processes.
As
described
above,
the
gypsum
is
not
an
exempt
mineral
processing
waste
because
this
sulfate
process
wastestream
did
not
meet
the
high
volume/
low
toxicity
criteria
noted
in
54
FR
36592
(September
1,
1989).
(See
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
7)(
ii).)

What
Management
Scenarios
Were
Assessed?

We
assessed
the
waste
in
its
commingled
form
as
managed
by
the
Maryland
facility,
as
described
below
in
section
III.
F.
14.
e(
7).
We
also
modeled
the
dedicated
surface
impoundment
scenario
using
the
physical
parameters
describing
the
dedicated
Georgia
impoundment.
This
impoundment
is
placed
directly
on
the
banks
of
a
river,
and
thus
we
were
primarily
concerned
with
potential
releases
to
surface
water.
We
did
not
model
a
drinking
water
well
scenario
because
there
are
no
constituents
of
concern
in
this
wastewater
at
levels
exceeding
HBLs.

How
Was
This
Waste
Category
Characterized?

We
collected
one
sample
of
this
waste
for
analysis.
We
conducted
total
analyses
(leaching
was
not
conducted
given
the
low
levels
of
percent
solids
in
this
waste),
which
are
summarized
below
in
Table
III±
46
for
the
constituents
of
potential
concern.

TABLE
III±
46.Ð
CHARACTERIZATION
OF
DIGESTION
SCRUBBER
WATER
FROM
SULFATE
PROCESS,
TITANIUM
DIOXIDE
Constituent
of
concern
Detected
levels
in
MI±
WW±
03
(mg/
L)
HBL
(mg/
L)
AWQC
(mg/
L)

Aluminum
.................................................................................................................................................
0.58
16
0.087
Manganese
..............................................................................................................................................
0.58
0.73
0.05
Mercury
....................................................................................................................................................
0.0032
0.005
0.000050
How
Was
the
Groundwater­
to­
Surface
Water
Risk
Assessment
Established?

We
calculated
infiltration
rates
for
the
unlined
surface
impoundment,
and
divided
this
flow
rate
into
the
flow
rate
of
the
river
to
determine
potential
concentrations
of
the
three
metals
of
concern
(see
Table
III±
46)
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
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00073
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55756
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
well
below
risk
thresholds
for
human
health
and
aquatic
life
in
surface
water.

What
is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?

We
propose
not
to
list
digestion
scrubber
water
from
the
production
of
titanium
dioxide
via
the
sulfate
process.
The
results
of
our
risk
assessment
show
that
this
waste
category
does
not
warrant
listing
as
a
hazardous
waste.
(6)
Sulfate
process
digestion
sludges.

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

The
Maryland
and
Georgia
facilities
generate
this
sludge.
The
Georgia
facility
manages
it
in
a
dedicated
surface
impoundment
and
the
Maryland
facility
places
it
in
an
on­
site
landfill.
As
described
above,
the
waste
is
not
an
exempt
mineral
processing
waste
because
this
sulfate
process
wastestream
did
not
meet
the
high
volume/
low
toxicity
criteria
noted
in
54
FR
36592
(September
1,
1989).
(See
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
7)(
ii).)

What
Management
Scenarios
Were
Assessed?
We
assessed
both
management
scenarios
using
the
respective
samples
collected
at
each
facility.
The
surface
impoundment
scenario
screened
out;
the
levels
of
constituents
in
the
wastewater
were
below
HBLs
and
AWQC.
We
modeled
the
landfill
scenario
for
potential
releases
to
both
groundwater
drinking
wells
and
surface
water.

How
Was
This
Waste
Category
Characterized?

We
collected
one
sample
of
this
waste
for
analysis
at
the
Maryland
facility.
We
conducted
total,
TCLP,
and
SPLP
analyses.
We
used
the
SPLP
results
as
inputs
to
the
on­
site
landfill,
which
are
summarized
below
in
Table
III±
47
for
the
constituents
of
potential
concern.

TABLE
III±
47.Ð
CHARACTERIZATION
OF
DIGESTION
SLUDGE
FROM
SULFATE
PROCESS,
TITANIUM
DIOXIDE
Constituent
of
concern
Detected
SPLP
Levels
in
MI±
SO±
02
(mg/
L)
HBL
(mg/
L)
AWQC
(mg/
L)

Aluminum
.................................................................................................................................................
2.0
16
0.087
Antimony
..................................................................................................................................................
0.023
0.006
0.014
Copper
.....................................................................................................................................................
0.37
1.3
0.0031
Iron
...........................................................................................................................................................
12.0
5
1
Lead
.........................................................................................................................................................
1
0.004
0.015
0.0025
Manganese
..............................................................................................................................................
0.36
0.73
0.05
Vanadium
.................................................................................................................................................
0.42
0.14
Zinc
..........................................................................................................................................................
0.30
4.7
0.12
1
Results
are
less
than
the
typical
laboratory
reporting
limit,
but
are
greater
than
the
calculated
instrument
detection
limits.

How
Was
the
Groundwater­
to­
Surface
Water
Risk
Assessment
Established?

We
calculated
infiltration
rates
for
the
landfill,
and
divided
this
flow
rate
into
the
flow
rate
of
the
river
to
determine
potential
concentrations
of
the
three
metals
of
concern
(see
preceding
table)
in
the
river
as
a
result
of
recharge
with
contaminated
groundwater.
Note
that
this
is
the
same
Maryland
landfill
described
elsewhere
in
III.
F.
14.
e(
4)
and
(8).
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
groundwater
ingestion
scenario
was
assessed
for
antimony
and
vanadium
because
the
detected
SPLP
concentrations
exceeded
their
respective
HBLs.
We
did
not
assess
the
iron
HBL
exceedence
because
the
HBL
is
at
or
above
the
solubility
limit
in
ground
water
under
most
conditions.
The
resultant
risks
were
calculated
and
are
summarized
in
Table
III±
48.

TABLE
III±
48.Ð
GROUNDWATER
PATHWAY
RISK
ASSESSMENT
RESULTS
FOR
DIGESTION
SLUDGE
FROM
SULFATE
PROCESS,
TITANIUM
DIOXIDE
Antimony
HQ
Vanadium
HQ
Adult
risk
Child
risk
Adult
risk
Child
risk
90th
..................................................................................................................................
0.13
0.27
0.02
0.03
95th
..................................................................................................................................
0.18
0.39
0.03
0.07
What
Is
EPA's
Listing
Rationale
for
This
Waste?

We
propose
not
to
list
this
waste.
The
results
of
our
risk
assessment
modeling
show
that
this
waste
does
not
contain
mobile
metals
that
are
likely
to
pose
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
due
to
transport
through
the
subsurface.
(7)
Commingled
wastewaters
from
the
chloride
and
sulfate
process.
How
Many
Facilities
Generate
This
Waste
Category
and
How
Is
It
Managed?
The
Maryland
and
Georgia
facilities
generate
this
waste
category.
Both
facilities
neutralized
their
commingled
wastewaters
and
manage
them
in
surface
impoundments
prior
to
NPDES
discharge
(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).

What
Management
Scenarios
Were
Assessed?

We
collected
samples
at
both
facilities
at
the
influent
to
their
surface
impoundment
trains.
We
screened
the
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00074
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55757
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
55
Although
wastes
from
calcining
are
generally
treated
as
Bevill
exempt
extraction/
beneficiation
wastes,
wastes
from
titanium
dioxide
calcination
are
post­
mineral
processing,
chemical
manufacturing
wastes.
The
Agency
noted
at
54
FR
36619,
``
As
discussed
in
the
April
NPRM,
the
Agency
considers
any
operations
following
the
initial
[mineral]
processing
operation
to
be
[mineral]
processing
operations,
regardless
of
whether
the
activity
was
included
on
the
list
of
RTC
beneficiation
activities
or
has
traditionally
been
considered
beneficiation.
''
Therefore,
since
mineral
processing
ends
and
chemical
manufacturing
starts
at
the
beginning
of
oxidation,
and
the
calcining
step
occurs
after
oxidation,
all
wastes
generated
from
the
calcining
step
are
non­
exempt
wastes.
risk
at
both
facilities
using
the
analytical
data
describing
their
respective
wastes.
We
concluded
that
the
Georgia
facility
was
not
a
modeling
candidate
because
none
of
the
constituents
detected
in
its
waste
exceeded
our
health­
based
levels
or
the
ambient
water
quality
criteria.
At
the
Maryland
facility,
we
modeled
the
surface
impoundment
scenario
using
the
physical
parameters
describing
their
unlined
impoundment.
We
assessed
both
the
surface
water
and
drinking
water
well
scenario.

How
Was
This
Waste
Category
Characterized?

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.

C.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
information
collection
requirements
in
this
proposed
rule
have
been
submitted
for
approval
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(OMB)
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
An
Information
Collection
Request
(ICR)
document
has
been
prepared
(ICR
No.
1968.01)
and
a
copy
may
be
obtained
from
Sandy
Farmer
by
mail
at
Collection
Strategies
Division;
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(2822);
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460,
by
email
at
farmer.
sandy@
epamail.
epa.
gov,
or
by
calling
(202)
260±
2740.
A
copy
may
also
be
downloaded
off
the
internet
at
http:/
/www.
epa.
gov/
icr.
This
rule
is
proposed
under
the
authority
of
sections
3001(
e)(
2)
and
3001(
b)(
1)
of
the
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
(HSWA)
of
1984.
The
effect
of
listing
the
wastes
described
earlier
will
be
to
subject
industry
to
management
and
treatment
standards
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA).
This
proposed
rule
does
not
contain
any
new
information
collection
requirements,
nor
does
it
propose
to
modify
any
existing
information
collection
requirements.
As
a
result,
this
proposed
rule
represents
only
an
incremental
increase
in
burden
for
generators
and
subsequent
handlers
of
the
newly
listed
wastes
in
complying
with
existing
RCRA
information
collection
requirements.
The
total
annual
respondent
burden
and
cost
for
all
existing
paperwork
associated
with
this
proposed
rule
presented
here
represents
the
incremental
increase
in
paperwork
burden
under
six
existing
Information
Collection
Requests
(ICRs).
We
estimate
the
total
annual
respondent
burden
for
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00093
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55776
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
all
information
collection
activities
to
be
approximately
417
hours,
at
an
annual
cost
of
approximately
$19,916.
Comments
are
requested
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques.
Send
comments
on
the
ICR
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division;
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(2822);
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
St.,
N.
W.,
Washington,
DC
20503,
marked
``
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
''
Include
the
ICR
number
in
any
correspondence.
Since
OMB
is
required
to
make
a
decision
concerning
the
ICR
between
30
and
60
days
after
September
14,
2000,
a
comment
to
OMB
is
best
assured
of
having
its
full
effect
if
OMB
receives
it
by
October
16,
2000.
The
proposed
rule
will
respond
to
any
OMB
or
public
comments
on
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
this
proposal.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(UMRA),
Public
Law
104±
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
proposed
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
Today's
rule
contains
no
Federal
mandates
(under
the
regulatory
provisions
of
Title
II
of
the
UMRA)
for
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
the
private
sector.
The
rule
would
not
impose
any
federal
intergovernmental
mandate
because
it
imposes
no
enforceable
duty
upon
state,
tribal
or
local
governments.
States,
tribes
and
local
governments
would
have
no
compliance
costs
under
this
rule.
It
is
expected
that
states
will
adopt
similar
rules,
and
submit
those
rules
for
inclusion
in
their
authorized
RCRA
programs,
but
they
have
no
legally
enforceable
duty
to
do
so.
For
the
same
reasons,
we
determined
that
this
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
We
have
fulfilled
the
requirement
for
analysis
under
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act.

E.
Executive
Order
12898:
Environmental
Justice
EPA
is
committed
to
addressing
environmental
justice
concerns
and
is
assuming
a
leadership
role
in
environmental
justice
initiatives
to
enhance
environmental
quality
for
all
populations
in
the
United
States.
The
Agency's
goals
are
to
ensure
that
no
segment
of
the
population,
regardless
of
race,
color,
national
origin,
or
income
bears
disproportionately
high
and
adverse
human
health
or
environmental
impacts
as
a
result
of
EPA's
policies,
programs,
and
activities,
and
that
all
people
live
in
safe
and
healthful
environments.
In
response
to
Executive
Order
12898
and
to
concerns
voiced
by
many
groups
outside
the
Agency,
EPA's
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
formed
an
Environmental
Justice
Task
Force
to
analyze
the
array
of
environmental
justice
issues
specific
to
waste
programs
and
to
develop
an
overall
strategy
to
identify
and
address
these
issues
(OSWER
Directive
No.
9200.3±
17).
Today's
proposed
rule
covers
wastes
from
inorganic
chemical
production.
It
is
not
certain
whether
the
environmental
problems
addressed
by
this
rule
could
disproportionately
affect
minority
or
low­
income
communities.
Today's
proposed
rule
is
intended
to
reduce
risks
of
hazardous
wastes
as
proposed,
and
to
benefit
all
populations.
As
such,
this
rule
is
not
expected
to
cause
any
disproportionately
high
and
adverse
impacts
to
minority
or
lowincome
communities
versus
nonminority
or
affluent
communities.
In
making
hazardous
waste
listing
determinations,
we
base
our
evaluations
of
potential
risk
from
the
generation
and
management
of
solid
wastes
on
an
analysis
of
potential
individual
risk.
In
conducting
risk
evaluations,
our
goal
is
to
estimate
potential
risk
to
any
population
of
potentially
exposed
individuals
(e.
g.,
home
gardeners,
adult
farmers,
children
of
farmers,
anglers)
located
in
the
vicinity
of
any
generator
or
facility
handling
a
waste.
Therefore,
we
are
not
putting
poor,
rural,
or
minority
populations
at
any
disadvantage
with
regard
to
our
evaluation
of
risk
or
with
regard
to
how
the
Agency
makes
its
proposed
hazardous
waste
listing
determinations.
In
proposing
today
to
list
wastes
as
hazardous
(i.
e.,
filter
baghouses
and
low
antimony
slags
from
antimony
oxide
production
that
are
discarded,
nonexempt
nonwastewater
from
the
titanium
dioxide
chloride­
ilmenite
process,),
all
populations
potentially
exposed
to
these
wastes
or
potentially
exposed
to
releases
of
the
hazardous
constituents
in
the
wastes
will
benefit
from
the
proposed
listing
determination.
In
addition,
listing
determinations
take
effect
at
the
national
level.
The
wastes
proposed
to
be
listed
as
hazardous
will
be
hazardous
regardless
of
where
they
are
generated
and
regardless
of
where
they
may
be
managed.
Although
the
Agency
understands
that
the
proposed
listing
determinations,
if
finalized,
may
affect
where
these
wastes
are
managed
in
the
future
(in
that
hazardous
wastes
must
be
managed
at
subtitle
C
facilities),
the
Agency's
decision
to
list
these
wastes
as
hazardous
is
independent
of
any
decisions
regarding
the
location
of
waste
generators
and
the
siting
of
waste
management
facilities.
Similarly,
in
cases
where
the
Agency
is
proposing
not
list
a
solid
waste
as
hazardous
because
the
waste
does
not
meet
the
criteria
for
being
identified
as
a
hazardous
waste,
these
decisions
are
based
upon
an
evaluation
of
potential
individual
risks
located
in
proximity
to
any
facility
handling
the
waste.
Therefore,
any
population
living
proximately
to
a
facility
that
produces
a
solid
waste
that
the
Agency
has
proposed
not
to
list
would
not
be
adversely
affected
either
because
the
waste
is
already
being
managed
as
a
hazardous
waste
in
the
Subtitle
C
system
or
because
the
solid
waste
does
not
pose
a
sufficient
risk
to
the
local
population.
We
encourage
all
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00094
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55777
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
stakeholders
including
members
of
the
environmental
justice
community
and
members
of
the
regulated
community
to
provide
comments
or
further
information
related
to
potential
environmental
justice
concerns
or
impacts,
including
information
and
data
on
facilities
that
have
evaluated
potential
ecological
and
human
health
impacts
(taking
into
account
subsistence
patterns
and
sensitive
populations)
to
minority
or
low­
income
communities.

F.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045,
``
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks''
(62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997),
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(1)
is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
This
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
Executive
Order
because
it
is
not
economically
significant
as
defined
in
E.
O.
12866,
and
because
the
Agency
does
not
have
reason
to
believe
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
addressed
by
this
action
present
a
disproportionate
risk
to
children.
The
topic
of
environmental
threats
to
children's
health
is
growing
in
regulatory
importance
as
scientists,
policy
makers,
and
village
leaders
continue
to
recognize
the
extent
to
which
children
are
particularly
vulnerable
to
environmental
hazards.
Recent
EPA
actions
have
been
in
the
forefront
of
addressing
environmental
threats
to
the
health
and
safety
of
children.
Today's
proposed
rule
further
reflects
our
commitment
to
mitigating
environmental
threats
to
children.
A
few
significant
physiological
characteristics
are
largely
responsible
for
children's
increased
susceptibility
to
environmental
hazards.
First,
children
eat
proportionately
more
food,
drink
proportionately
more
fluids,
and
breathe
more
air
per
pound
of
body
weight
than
do
adults.
As
a
result,
children
potentially
experience
greater
levels
of
exposure
to
environmental
threats
than
do
adults.
Second,
because
children's
bodies
are
still
in
the
process
of
development,
their
immune
systems,
neurological
systems,
and
other
immature
organs
can
be
more
easily
and
considerably
affected
by
environmental
hazards.
Today's
proposed
rule
is
intended
to
avoid
releases
of
hazardous
constituents
to
the
environment
at
levels
that
will
cause
unacceptable
risks.
We
considered
risks
to
children
in
our
risk
assessment.
The
more
appropriate
and
safer
management
practices
proposed
in
this
rule
are
projected
to
reduce
risks
to
children
potentially
exposed
to
the
constituents
of
concern.
The
public
is
invited
to
submit
or
identify
peerreviewed
studies
and
data,
of
which
the
agency
may
not
be
aware,
that
assess
results
of
early
life
exposure
to
the
proposed
hazardous
constituents
from
wastes
from
inorganic
chemical
production
proposed
for
listing
in
today's
rulemaking.

G.
Executive
Order
13084:
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Under
Executive
Order
13084,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
that
significantly
or
uniquely
affects
the
communities
of
Indian
tribal
governments,
and
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs
on
those
communities,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
the
tribal
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
those
governments.
If
EPA
complies
by
consulting,
Executive
Order
13084
requires
EPA
to
provide
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
in
a
separately
identified
section
of
the
preamble
to
the
rule,
a
description
of
the
extent
of
EPA's
prior
consultation
with
representatives
of
affected
tribal
governments,
a
summary
of
the
nature
of
their
concerns,
and
a
statement
supporting
the
need
to
issue
the
regulation.
In
addition,
Executive
Order
13084
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
effective
process
permitting
elected
officials
and
other
representatives
of
Indian
tribal
governments
``
to
provide
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
on
matters
that
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
their
communities.
''
For
the
reasons
described
above,
today's
proposed
rule
does
not
create
a
mandate
on
State,
local
or
tribal
governments,
nor
does
it
impose
any
enforceable
duties
on
these
entities.
Accordingly,
the
requirements
of
section
3(
b)
of
Executive
Order
13084
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.

H.
Executive
Order
13132Ð
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.
''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.
''
Under
Section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
State
and
local
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
EPA
also
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications
and
that
preempts
State
law,
unless
the
Agency
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
Section
4
of
the
Executive
Order
contains
additional
requirements
for
rules
that
preempt
State
or
local
law,
even
if
those
rules
do
not
have
federalism
implications
(i.
e.,
the
rules
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
states,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government).
Those
requirements
include
providing
all
affected
State
and
local
officials
notice
and
an
opportunity
for
appropriate
participation
in
the
development
of
the
regulation.
If
the
preemption
is
not
based
on
express
or
implied
statutory
authority,
EPA
also
must
consult,
to
the
extent
practicable,
with
appropriate
State
and
local
officials
regarding
the
conflict
between
State
law
and
Federally
protected
interests
within
the
agency's
area
of
regulatory
responsibility.
This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
This
proposed
rule
directly
affects
primarily
inorganic
chemical
producers.
There
are
no
State
and
local
government
bodies
that
incur
direct
compliance
costs
by
this
rulemaking.
State
and
local
government
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00095
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55778
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
66
For
more
information,
please
refer
to
Appendix
C
of
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.
implementation
expenditures
are
expected
to
be
less
than
$500,000
in
any
one
year.
66
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
6
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.
This
proposed
rule
would
preempt
State
and
local
law
that
is
less
stringent
for
these
inorganic
chemical
production
wastes
as
hazardous
wastes.
Under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA),
42
U.
S.
C.
6901
to
6992k,
the
relationship
between
the
States
and
the
national
government
with
respect
to
hazardous
waste
management
is
established
for
authorized
State
hazardous
waste
programs,
42
U.
S.
C.
6926
(3006),
and
retention
of
State
authority,
42
U.
S.
C.
6929
(3009).
Under
section
3009
of
RCRA,
States
and
their
political
subdivisions
may
not
impose
requirements
less
stringent
for
hazardous
waste
management
than
the
national
government.
By
publishing
and
inviting
comment
on
this
proposed
rule,
we
hereby
provide
State
and
local
officials
notice
and
an
opportunity
for
appropriate
participation.
Thus,
we
have
complied
with
the
requirements
of
section
4
of
the
Executive
Order.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(``
NTTAA''),
Public
Law
104±
113,
section
12(
d)
(15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities,
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
This
proposed
rulemaking
involves
technical
standards.
EPA
proposes
to
use
Toxicity
Characteristic
Leaching
Procedure
(TCLP)
for
treatment
standards
for
associated
with
hazardous
metal
constituents
in
wastes
proposed
for
listing
in
today's
proposal.
The
TCLP
is
the
standard
test
method
used
to
evaluate
the
toxicity
characteristic
for
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
(see
40
CFR
261.24)
and
treatment
standards
for
metal
constituents
under
the
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
(see
40
CFR
268.40
and
268.48.).
The
Agency
has
used
the
TCLP
in
completing
its
treatment
standards
for
the
same
hazardous
metal
constituents
across
a
range
of
listed
and
characteristic
hazardous
wastes.
The
performance
level
for
leachability
is
based
on
the
Best
CommerciallyAvailable
Demonstrated
Technology
(BDAT).
The
use
of
the
TCLP
for
the
same
constituents
assures
uniformity
and
consistency
in
the
treatment
of
hazardous
waste
in
fulfillment
of
the
Congressional
Mandate
to
minimize
long­
term
threats
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
42
U.
S.
C.
6924(
m).
The
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standard
would
be
impractical
with
applicable
law
because
it
would
require
a
different
leaching
method
than
is
currently
used
to
determine
hazardous
characteristics.
The
use
of
different
chemical
methods
to
assess
hazardousness
of
the
waste
and
compliance
with
treatment
standards
would
create
disparate
results
between
hazardous
waste
identification
and
effective
treatment
of
land
disposed
hazardous
wastes.
We
have
not,
therefore,
used
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.
EPA
welcomes
comments
on
this
aspect
of
the
proposed
rulemaking
and,
specifically,
invites
the
public
to
identify
potentially­
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards
and
to
explain
why
such
standards
should
be
used
in
this
regulation.
EPA
has
also
issued
an
advanced
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
for
the
Land
Disposal
Restriction
program
(65
FR
37932,
June
19,
2000)
that
has
included
discussion
on
the
effectiveness
of
stabilization
on
metals
in
hazardous
wastes.

List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Part
148
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Hazardous
waste,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Water
supply.

40
CFR
Part
261
Environmental
protection,
Hazardous
materials,
Waste
treatment
and
disposal,
Recycling.

40
CFR
Part
268
Environmental
protection,
Hazardous
materials,
Waste
management,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Land
Disposal
Restrictions,
Treatment
Standards.

40
CFR
Part
271
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Confidential
business
information,
Hazardous
material
transportation,
Hazardous
waste,
Indians­
lands,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Penalties,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Water
pollution
control,
Water
supply.

40
CFR
Part
302
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Chemicals,
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act,
Extremely
hazardous
substances,
Hazardous
chemicals,
Hazardous
materials,
Hazardous
materials
transportation,
Hazardous
substances,
Hazardous
wastes,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Natural
resources,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Superfund,
Waste
treatment
and
disposal,
Water
pollution
control,
Water
supply.

Dated:
August
30,
2000.
Carol
M.
Browner,
Administrator.
For
the
reasons
set
forth
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
proposed
to
be
amended
as
follows:

PART
148Ð
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
INJECTION
RESTRICTIONS
1.
The
authority
citation
for
Part
148
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
Secs.
3004,
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act,
42
U.
S.
C.
6901
et
seq.

2.
Section
148.18
is
amended
by
adding
paragraphs
(l)
and
(m)
to
read
as
follows:

§
148.19
Waste­
specific
prohibitions
newly
listed
and
identified
wastes.

*
*
*
*
*
(l)
Effective
[date
six
months
after
publication
of
final
rule],
the
wastes
specified
in
40
CFR
261.32
as
EPA
Hazardous
Waste
Numbers
K176,
K177,
and
K178
are
prohibited
from
underground
injection.
(m)
The
requirements
of
paragraphs
(a)
through
(l)
of
this
section
do
not
apply:
(1)
If
the
wastes
meet
or
are
treated
to
meet
the
applicable
standards
specified
in
subpart
D
of
part
268
of
this
chapter;
or
(2)
If
an
exemption
from
a
prohibition
has
been
granted
in
response
to
a
petition
under
subpart
C
of
this
part;
or
(3)
During
the
period
of
extension
of
the
applicable
effective
date,
if
an
extension
has
been
granted
under
§
148.4.

PART
261Ð
IDENTIFICATION
AND
LISTING
OF
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
3.
The
authority
citation
for
Part
261
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6912(
a),
6921,
6922,
6924(
y),
and
6938.

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00096
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55779
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
4.
Section
261.4
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(b)(
15)
to
read
as
follows:

§
261.4
Exclusions.

*
*
*
*
*
(b)
*
*
*
(15)
Leachate
or
gas
condensate
collected
from
landfills
where
certain
solid
wastes
have
been
disposed,
provided
that:
(i)
The
solid
wastes
disposed
would
meet
one
or
more
of
the
listing
descriptions
for
Hazardous
Waste
Codes
K169,
K170,
K171,
K172,
K174,
K175,
K176,
K177,
and
K178,
if
these
wastes
had
been
generated
after
the
effective
date
of
the
listing;
(ii)
The
solid
wastes
described
in
paragraph
(b)(
15)(
i)
of
this
section
were
disposed
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
the
listing:
(iii)
The
leachate
or
gas
condensate
do
not
exhibit
any
characteristic
of
hazardous
waste
nor
are
derived
from
any
other
listed
hazardous
waste;
(iv)
Discharge
of
the
leachate
or
gas
condensate,
including
leachate
or
gas
condensate
transferred
from
the
landfill
to
a
POTW
by
truck,
rail,
or
dedicated
pipe,
is
subject
to
regulation
under
Sections
307(
b)
or
402
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
(v)
After
February
13,
2001,
leachate
or
gas
condensate
derived
from
K169±
K172
will
no
longer
be
exempt
if
it
is
stored
or
managed
in
a
surface
impoundment
prior
to
discharge.
After
[date
24
months
after
publication
date
of
the
final
rule],
leachate
or
gas
condensate
derived
from
K176,
K177,
and
K178
will
no
longer
be
exempt
if
it
is
stored
or
managed
in
a
surface
impoundment
prior
to
discharge.
There
is
one
exception:
if
the
surface
impoundment
is
used
to
temporarily
store
leachate
or
gas
condensate
in
response
to
an
emergency
situation
(e.
g.,
shutdown
of
wastewater
treatment
system),
provided
the
impoundment
has
a
double
liner,
and
provided
the
leachate
or
gas
condensate
is
removed
from
the
impoundment
and
continues
to
be
managed
in
compliance
with
the
conditions
of
paragraph
(b)(
15)(
v)
after
the
emergency
ends.

*
*
*
*
*
5.
In
§
261.32,
the
table
is
amended
by
adding
in
alphanumeric
order
(by
the
first
column)
the
following
wastestreams
to
the
subgroup
``
Inorganic
Chemicals''
to
read
as
follows:

§
261.32
Hazardous
waste
from
specific
sources.

*
*
*
*
*

Industry
and
EPA
hazardous
waste
No.
Hazardous
waste
Hazardous
code
*******
Inorganic
chemicals:

*******
K176
............................
Baghouse
filters
from
the
production
of
antimony
oxide
...............................................................................
(E)
K177
............................
Slag
from
the
production
of
antimony
oxide
that
is
disposed
of
or
speculatively
accumulated
...................
(T)
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
section
261.4(
b)(
7)].
(T)

*******

*
*
*
*
*
6.
Appendix
VII
to
Part
261
is
amended
by
adding
the
following
wastestreams
in
alphanumeric
order
(by
the
first
column)
to
read
as
follows:
APPENDIX
VII
TO
PART
261Ð
BASIS
FOR
LISTING
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
EPA
hazardous
waste
No.
Hazardous
constituents
for
which
listed
*****
K176
.................
Arsenic,
lead.
K177
.................
Antimony.
K178
.................
Manganese,
thallium.
*
*
*
*
*
7.
Appendix
VIII
to
Part
261
is
amended
by
adding
in
alphabetical
sequence
of
common
name
the
following
entries:

APPENDIX
VIII
TO
PART
261Ð
HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
Common
name
Chemical
abstracts
name
Chemical
abstracts
No.
Hazardous
waste
No.

*******
Manganese
........................................................................
Same
................................................................................
7439±
96±
5
....................

*******

PART
268Ð
LAND
DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
8.
The
authority
citation
for
Part
268
continues
to
read
as
follows:
Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6912(
a),
6921,
and
6924.
Subpart
CÐ
Prohibitions
on
Land
Disposal
9.
Section
268.36
is
added
to
read
as
follows:

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00097
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55780
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
§
268.36
Waste
specific
prohibitionsÐ
inorganic
chemical
wastes.
(a)
Effective
[date
six
months
from
date
of
publication
of
final
rule],
the
wastes
specified
in
40
CFR
Part
261
as
EPA
Hazardous
Wastes
Numbers
K176,
K177,
and
K178,
and
soil
and
debris
contaminated
with
these
wastes,
radioactive
wastes
mixed
with
these
wastes,
and
soil
and
debris
contaminated
with
radioactive
wastes
mixed
with
these
wastes
are
prohibited
from
land
disposal.
(b)
The
requirements
of
paragraph
(a)
of
this
section
do
not
apply
if:
(1)
The
wastes
meet
the
applicable
treatment
standards
specified
in
Subpart
D
of
this
Part;
(2)
Persons
have
been
granted
an
exemption
from
a
prohibition
pursuant
to
a
petition
under
§
268.6,
with
respect
to
those
wastes
and
units
covered
by
the
petition;
(3)
The
wastes
meet
the
applicable
treatment
standards
established
pursuant
to
a
petition
granted
under
§
268.44;
(4)
Hazardous
debris
has
met
the
treatment
standards
in
§
268.40
or
the
alternative
treatment
standards
in
§
268.45;
or
(5)
Persons
have
been
granted
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
a
prohibition
pursuant
to
§
268.5,
with
respect
to
these
wastes
covered
by
the
extension.
(c)
To
determine
whether
a
hazardous
waste
identified
in
this
section
exceeds
the
applicable
treatment
standards
specified
in
§
268.40,
the
initial
generator
must
test
a
sample
of
the
waste
extract
or
the
entire
waste,
depending
on
whether
the
treatment
standards
are
expressed
as
concentrations
in
the
waste
extract
or
the
waste,
or
the
generator
may
use
knowledge
of
the
waste.
If
the
waste
contains
regulated
constituents
in
excess
of
the
applicable
Subpart
D
levels,
the
waste
is
prohibited
from
land
disposal,
and
all
requirements
of
Part
268
are
applicable,
except
as
otherwise
specified.
10.
In
§
268.40,
the
Table
is
amended
by
adding
in
alphanumeric
order
new
entries
for
K176,
K177,
and
K178
to
read
as
follows:

§
268.40
Applicability
of
treatment
standards.

*
*
*
*
*

TREATMENT
STANDARDS
FOR
HAZARDOUS
WASTES
[Note:
NA
means
not
applicable]

Waste
code
Waste
description
and
treatment
regulatory
subcategory
1
Regulated
hazardous
constituent
Wastewaters
Nonwastewaters
Common
name
CAS
2
number
Concentration
in
mg/
L
3
,
or
technology
code
4
Concentration
in
mg/
kg
5
unless
noted
as
``
mg/
L
TCLP'',
or
technology
code
*******
K176
.........
Baghouse
filters
from
the
pro
duction
of
antimony
oxide.
Antimony
..................................
Arsenic
.....................................
7440±
36±
0
7440±
38±
2
1.9
.............................
1.4
.............................
1.15
mg/
L
TCLP
5.0
mg/
L
TCLP
Cadmium
.................................
7440±
43±
9
0.69
...........................
0.11
mg/
L
TCLP
Lead
.........................................
7439±
92±
1
0.69
...........................
0.75
mg/
L
TCLP
Mercury
....................................
7439±
97±
6
0.15
...........................
0.025
mg/
L
TCLP
K177
.........
Slag
from
the
production
of
an
timony
oxide
that
is
dis
posed
of
or
speculatively
ac
cumulated.
Antimony
..................................
Arsenic
.....................................
Lead
.........................................
7440±
36±
0
7440±
38±
2
7439±
92±
1
1.9
.............................
1.4
.............................
0.60
...........................
1.15
mg/
L
TCLP
5.0
mg/
L
TCLP
0.75
mg/
L
TCLP
K178
.........
Nonwastewaters
from
the
pro
duction
of
titanium
dioxide
by
the
chloride­
ilmenite
proc
ess.
[This
listing
does
not
apply
to
chloride
process
waste
solids
from
titanium
tetrachloride
production
exempt
under
section
261.4(
b)(
7).].
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
Heptachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
(1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
HpCDD).
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
Heptachlorodibenzofuran
(1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
HpCDF).
35822±
39±
4
67562±
39±
4
0.000035
or
CMBST
11
0.000035
or
CMBST
11
0.0025
or
CMBST
11
0.0025
or
CMBST
11
0.0025
or
CMBST
11
1,2,3,4,7,8,9­
Heptachlorodibenzofuran
(1,2,3,4,7,8,9­
HpCDF).
55673±
89±
7
0.000035
or
CMBST
11
0.0025
or
CMBST
11
HxCDDs
(All
Hexachlorodibenzo­
pdioxins
34465±
46±
8
0.000063
or
CMBST
11
0.001
or
CMBST
11
HxCDFs
(All
Hexachlorodibenzofurans).
55684±
94±
1
0.000063
or
CMBST
11
0.001
or
CMBST
11
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9­
Octachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
(OCDD).
3268±
87±
9
0.000063
or
CMBST
11
0.005
or
CMBST
11
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9­
Octachlorodibenzofuran
(OCDF).
39001±
02±
0
0.000063
or
CMBST
11
0.005
or
CMBST
11
PeCDDs
(All
Pentachlorodibenzo­
pdioxins
36088±
22±
9
0.000063
or
CMBST
11
0.001
or
CMBST
11
PeCDFs
(All
Pentachlorodibenzofurans).
30402±
15±
4
0.000035
or
CMBST
11
0.001
or
CMBST
11
TCDDs
(All
tetrachlorodibenzo
p­
dioxins).
41903±
57±
5
0.000063
or
CMBST
11
0.001
or
CMBST
11
TCDFs
(All
tetrachlorodibenzofurans).
55722±
27±
5
0.000063
or
CMBST
11
0.001
or
CMBST
11
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00098
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55781
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
TREATMENT
STANDARDS
FOR
HAZARDOUS
WASTESÐ
Continued
[Note:
NA
means
not
applicable]

Waste
code
Waste
description
and
treatment
regulatory
subcategory
1
Regulated
hazardous
constituent
Wastewaters
Nonwastewaters
Common
name
CAS
2
number
Concentration
in
mg/
L
3
,
or
technology
code
4
Concentration
in
mg/
kg
5
unless
noted
as
``
mg/
L
TCLP'',
or
technology
code
Manganese
..............................
7439±
96±
5
17.1
...........................
3.6
mg/
L
TCLP
Thallium
...................................
7440±
28±
0
1.4
.............................
0.20
mg/
L
TCLP
*******

*******
FOOTNOTES
TO
TREATMENT
STANDARD
TABLE
268.40
1
The
waste
descriptions
provided
in
this
table
do
not
replace
waste
descriptions
in
40
CFR
part
261.
Descriptions
of
Treatment/
Regulatory
Subcategories
are
provided,
as
needed,
to
distinguish
between
applicability
of
different
standards.
2
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.
3
Concentration
standards
for
wastewaters
are
expressed
in
mg/
L
and
are
based
on
analysis
of
composite
samples.
4
All
treatment
standards
expressed
as
a
Technology
Code
or
combination
of
Technology
Codes
are
explained
in
detail
in
40
CFR
268.
42
Table
1Ð
Technology
Codes
and
Descriptions
of
Technology­
Based
Standards.
5
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.
*******
11
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).

11.
In
§
268.48,
the
Table
is
amended
by
adding
in
alphabetical
order
under
the
heading
of
``
Inorganic
Constituents''
a
new
entry
to
read
as
follows:
(The
footnotes
are
republished
without
change.)
§
268.48
Universal
treatment
standards.

*
*
*
*
*

UNIVERSAL
TREATMENT
STANDARDS
[Note:
NA
means
not
applicable]

Regulated
Constituent
common
name
CAS
1
number
Wastewater
standard
Nonwastewater
standard
Concentration
in
mg/
l
2
Concentration
in
mg/
kg
3
unless
noted
as
``
mg/
l
TCLP'

*******
Inorganic
Constituents
*******
Manganese
7439±
96±
5
17.1
3.6
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
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
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.

*
*
*
*
*

PART
271Ð
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
AUTHORIZATION
OF
STATE
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
PROGRAMS
12.
The
authority
citation
for
Part
271
continues
to
read
as
follows:
Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6912(
a),
and
6926.

13.
Section
271.1(
j)
is
amended
by
adding
the
following
entries
to
Table
1
and
Table
2
in
chronological
order
by
date
of
publication
to
read
as
follows.
§
271.1
Purpose
and
scope.

*
*
*
*
*

(j)
*
*
*

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00099
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2
55782
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
179
/
Thursday,
September
14,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
1.Ð
REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTING
THE
HAZARDOUS
AND
SOLID
WASTE
AMENDMENTS
OF
1984
Promulgation
date
Title
of
regulation
Federal
Register
reference
Effective
date
*******
[
insert
date
of
signature
of
final
rule]
Listing
of
Hazardous
Wastes
K176,
K177,
and
K178
[
insert
Federal
Register
page
numbers]
[
insert
effective
date
of
final
rule]

*******

TABLE
2.Ð
SELF­
IMPLEMENTING
PROVISIONS
OF
THE
SOLID
WASTE
AMENDMENTS
OF
1984
Effective
date
Self­
implementing
provision
RCRA
citation
Federal
Register
reference
*******
[
effective
date
of
final
rule].
Prohibition
on
land
disposal
of
K176,
K177,
and
K178
wastes,
and
prohibition
on
land
disposal
of
radioactive
waste
mixed
with
K176,
K177,
and
K178
wastes,
including
soil
and
debris.
3004(
g)(
4)(
C)
and
3004(
m).
[
date
of
publication
of
final
rule]
[
FR
page
numbers].

*******

PART
302Ð
DESIGNATION,
REPORTABLE
QUANTITIES,
AND
NOTIFICATION
14.
The
authority
citation
for
Part
302
continues
to
read
as
follows:
Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
9602,
9603,
and
9604;
33
U.
S.
C.
1321
and
1361.

15.
In
§
302.4,
Table
302.4
is
amended
by
adding
the
following
new
entries
in
alphanumeric
order
at
the
end
of
the
table
to
read
as
follows:

§
302.4
Designation
of
hazardous
substances
*
*
*
*
*

TABLE
302.4.Ð
LIST
OF
HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES
AND
REPORTABLE
QUANTITIES
[Note:
All
Comments/
Notes
Are
Located
at
the
End
of
This
Table]

Hazardous
substance
CASRN
Regulatory
synonyms
Statutory
Final
RQ
RQ
Code
*
RCRA
Waste
Number
Category
Pounds
(Kg)

*******
K176
......................................................................................
................
................
*1
4
K176
X
1
(0.454)
Baghouse
filters
from
the
production
of
antimony
oxide.
K177
......................................................................................
................
................
*1
4
K177
X
5,000
(2,270)
Slag
from
the
production
of
antimony
oxide.
K178
......................................................................................
................
................
*1
4
K178
X
#
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).].

*
Indicates
the
statutory
source
as
defined
by
1,
2,
3,
and
4
below.
*******
4­
Indicates
that
the
statutory
source
for
designation
of
this
hazardous
substance
under
CERCLA
is
RCRA
Section
3001.
1*
Indicates
that
the
1­
pound
RQ
is
a
CERCLA
statutory
RQ.
#
The
Agency
may
adjust
the
statutory
RQ
for
this
hazardous
substance
in
a
future
rulemaking;
until
then
the
statutory
RQ
applies.

*******

[FR
Doc.
00±
22810
Filed
9±
13±
00;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560±
50±
U
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
20:
03
Sep
13,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00100
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14SEP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
14SEP2