Datasets:

nkandpa2

/

regulations

like 0

EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0030-0017

Supporting & Related Material

APPENDIX 2C Definitions of Key Business Ratios From Dun & Bradstreet Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 SOLVENCY RATIOS Quick Ratio Cash + Accounts Receivable Current Liabilities The Quick Ratio is computed by divided cash plus accounts receivable by total current liabilities. Current liabilities are all the liabilities that fall due within one year. This ratio reveals the protection afforded short­ term creditors in cash or near­ cash assets. It shows the number of dollars of liquid assets available to cover each dollar of current debt. Any time this ratio is as much as 1 to 1 ( 1.0) the business is said to be in a liquid condition. The larger the ratio the greater the liquidity. Current Ratio Current Assets Current Liabilities Total current assets are divided by total current liabilities. Current assets include cash, accounts and notes receivable ( less reserves for bad debts) , advances on inventories, merchandise inventories and marketable securities. This ratio measures the degree to which current assets cover current liabilities. The higher the ratio the more assurance exists that the retirement of current liabilities can be made. The current ratio measures the margin of safety available to cover any possible shrinkage in the value of current assets. Normally a ratio of 2 to 1 ( 2.0) or better is considered good. Current Liabilities to Net Worth Current Liabilities Net Worth Current Liabilities to Net Worth is derived by dividing current liabilities by net worth. This contrasts the funds that creditors temporarily are risking with the funds permanently invested by the owners. The smaller the net worth and the larger the liabilities, the less security for the creditors. Care should be exercised when selling any firm with current liabilities exceeding two­ thirds ( 66.6 percent) of net worth. 2C­ 1 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Current Liabilities to Inventory Current Liabilities Inventory Dividing current liabilities by inventory yields another indication of the extent to which the business relies on funds from disposal of unsold inventories to meet its debts. This ratio combines with Net Sales to Inventory to indicate how management controls inventory. It is possible to have decreasing liquidity while maintaining consistent sales­ to­ inventory ratios. Large increases in sales with corresponding increases in inventory levels can cause an inappropriate rise in current liabilities if growth isn t made wisely. Total Liabilities to Net Worth Total Liabilities Net Worth Obtained by dividing total current plus long­ term and deferred liabilities by net worth. The effect of long­ term ( funded) debt on a business can be determined by comparing this ratio with Current Liabilities to Net Worth. The difference will pinpoint the relative size of long­ term debt, which, if sizable, can burden a firm with substantial interest charges. In general, total liabilities shouldn t exceed net worth ( 100 percent) since in such cases creditors have more at stake than owners. Fixed Assets to Net Worth Fixed Assets Net Worth Fixed assets are divided by net worth. The proportion of net worth that consists of fixed assets will very greatly from industry to industry but generally a smaller proportion is desirable. A high ratio is unfavorable because heavy investment in fixed assets indicates that either the concern has a low net working capital and is overtrading or has utilized large funded debt to supplement working capital. Also, the larger the fixed assets, the bigger then annual depreciation charge that must be deducted from the income statement. Normally, fixed assets over 75 percent of net worth indicate possible over­ investment and should be examined with care. 2C­ 2 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 EFFICIENCY RATIOS Collection Period Accounts Receivable Sales x 365 Accounts receivable are divided by sales and then multiplied by 365 days to obtain this figure. The quality of the receivables of a company can be determined by this relationship when compared with selling terms and industry norms. IN some industries where credit sales are not the normal way of doing business, the percentage of cash sales should be taken into consideration. Generally, where most sales are for credit, any collection period more than one­ third over normal selling terms ( 40.0 for 30­ day terms) is indicative of some slow­ turning receivables. When comparing the collection period of one concern with that of another, allowances should be made for possible variations in selling terms. Sales to Inventory Annual Net Sales Inventory Obtained by dividing annual net sales by inventory. Inventory control is a primate management objective since poor controls allow inventory to become costly to store, obsolete or insufficient to meet demands. The sales­ to­ inventory relationship is a guide to the rapidity at which merchandise is being moved and the effect on the flow of funds into the business. This ratio varies widely between lines of business and a company s figure is only meaningful when compared with industry norms. Individual figures that are outside either the upper or lower quartiles for a given industry should be examined with care. Although low figures are usually the biggest problem, as they indicate excessively high inventories, extremely high turnovers might reflect insufficient merchandise to meet customer demand and result in lost sales. Asset to Sales Total Assets Net Sales Assets to sales is calculated by dividing total assets by annual net sales. This ratio ties in sales and the total investment that is used to generate those sales. While figures vary greatly from industry to industry, by comparing a company s ratio with industry norms it can be determined 2C­ 3 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 whether a firm is overtrading ( handling an excessive volume of sales in relation to investment) or undertrading ( not generating sufficient sales to warrant the assets invested) . Abnormally low percentages ( above the upper quartile) can indicate overtrading which may lead to financial difficulties if not corrected. Extremely high percentages ( below the lower quartile) can be the result of overly conservative or poor sales management, indicating a more aggressive sales policy may need to be followed. Sales to Net Working Capital Sales Net Working Capital Net Sales are divided by net working capital ( net working capital is current assets minus current liabilities) . This relationship indicates whether a company is overtrading or conversely carrying more liquid assets than needed for its volume. Each industry can vary substantially and it is necessary to compare a company with its peers to see if it is either overtrading on its available funds or being overly conservative. Companies with substantial sales gains often reach a level where their working capital becomes strained. Even if they maintain an adequate total investment for the volume being generated ( Assets to Sales) , that investment may be so centered in fixed assets or other noncurrent items that it will be difficult to continue meeting all current obligations without additional investment or reducing sales. Accounts Payable to Sales Accounts Payable Annual Net Sales Computed by dividing accounts payable by annual net sales. This ratio measures how the company is paying its suppliers in relation to the volume being transacted. An increasing percentage, or one larger than the industry norm, indicates the firm may be using suppliers to help finance operations. This ratio is especially important to short­ term creditors since a high percentage could indicate potential problems in paying vendors. 2C­ 4 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 PROFITABILITY RATIOS Return on Sales ( Profit Margin) Net Profit After Taxes Annual Net Sales Obtained by dividing net profit after taxes by annual net sales. This reveals the profits earned per dollar of sales and therefore measures the efficiency of the operation. Return must be adequate for the firm to be able to achieve satisfactory profits for its owners. This ratio is an indicator of the firm s ability to withstand adverse conditions such as falling prices, rising costs and declining sales. Return on Assets Net Profit After Taxes Total Assets Net profit after taxes divided by total assets. This ratio is the key indicator of profitability for a firm. It matches operating profits with the assets available to earn a return. Companies efficiently using their assets will have a relatively high return while less well­ run businesses will be relatively low. Return on Net Worth ( Return on Equity) Net Profit After Taxes Net Worth Obtained by dividing net profit after tax by net worth. This ratio is used to analyze the ability of the firm s management to realize an adequate return on the capital invested by the owners of the firm. Tendency is to look increasingly to this ratio as a final criterion of profitability. Generally, a relationship of at least 10 percent is regarded as a desirable objective for providing dividends plus funds for future growth. 2C­ 5 APPENDIX 2D Summary Statistics for the C& D Industry, By NAICS Code Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 2D­ 1. Summary Statistics for the C& D Industry NAICS Description Number of Establishments Number of Employees Annual Payroll ( $ 1000) Number of Construction Workers Annual Payroll ­ Construction Workers ( $ 1000) Value of Construction Work ( $ 1000) Value of Construction Work Subcontracted In ( $ 1000) Net Value of Construction Work Value Added ( $ 1000) 23 Construction 656,448 5,664,853 174,184,608 4,332,737 119,676,792 845,543,552 237,691,136 612,209,024 383,845,728 233 Building, developing, and general contracting 199,289 1,342,953 42,546,112 885,939 23,135,832 381,641,600 15,724,829 198,826,896 120,322,720 2331 Land subdivision and land development 8,186 41,827 1,509,773 10,977 254,247 13,635,521 272,860 10,247,820 9,154,633 233110 Land subdivision and land development 8,186 41,827 1,509,773 10,977 254,247 13,635,521 272,860 10,247,820 9,154,633 2332 Residential housing construction 146,394 629,886 16,731,210 407,801 8,762,123 161,286,076 5,260,611 100,124,176 56,374,697 233210 Single­ family housing construction 138,850 570,990 14,964,583 367,719 7,739,858 146,798,768 4,985,452 92,802,168 52,585,924 233220 Multifamily housing construction 7,544 58,896 1,766,627 40,082 1,022,265 14,487,308 275,159 7,322,008 3,788,773 2333 Nonresidential building construction 44,709 671,238 24,305,128 467,161 14,119,463 206,720,022 10,191,358 88,454,894 54,793,388 233310 Manufacturing and industrial building construction 7,280 143,066 5,128,967 107,180 3,322,347 33,514,342 2479077 17202078 10429844 233320 Commercial and institutional building construction 37,430 528,173 19,176,160 359,981 10,797,116 173,205,680 7712281 71252816 44363544 234 Heavy construction 42,557 880,400 30,291,850 710,898 22,218,582 127,841,600 28,386,274 105,639,352 68,775,976 2D­ 1 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 NAICS Description Number of Establishments Number of Employees Annual Payroll ( $ 1000) Number of Construction Workers Annual Payroll ­ Construction Workers ( $ 1000) Value of Construction Work ( $ 1000) Value of Construction Work Subcontracted In ( $ 1000) Net Value of Construction Work Value Added ( $ 1000) 2341 Highway, street, bridge & tunnel construction 12,447 325,742 11,374,785 265,267 8,473,898 58,011,325 13,657,005 46,274,086 27,477,466 234110 Highway and street construction 11,270 277,979 9,527,626 227,066 7,095,139 48,472,284 12,246,944 39,102,084 22,983,910 234120 Bridge and tunnel construction 1,177 47,764 1,847,160 38,201 1,378,759 9,539,041 1,410,061 7,172,002 4,493,556 2349 Other heavy construction 30,107 554,655 18,917,062 445,630 13,744,685 69,830,272 14,729,269 59,365,265 41,298,511 234910 Water, sewer, and pipeline construction 8,042 162,566 5,522,281 134,023 4,087,007 22,204,058 5,233,440 19,126,738 12,280,098 234920 Power and communication transmission line construction 3,300 74,050 2,387,432 60,880 1,748,715 7,849,436 1,312,622 6,741,945 5,201,423 234930 Industrial nonbuilding structure construction 531 98,555 3,722,363 79,473 2,734,020 9,255,216 966,283 8,129,656 6288698 234990 All other heavy construction 18,236 219,486 7,284,989 171,254 5,174,943 30,521,562 7,216,924 25,366,926 17,528,292 235 Special trade contractors 414,602 3,441,500 101,346,648 2,735,901 2,940,440 336,060,352 193,580,032 307,742,752 194,747,056 235930 Excavation contractors 18,229 116,237 3,353,874 92,830 2,525,857 13,746,608 8,745,278 12,216,146 9,086,184 235940 Wrecking and demolition contractors 1,542 18,820 592,176 14,486 414,583 2,164,162 1,099,814 1,913,892 1,732,366 2D­ 2 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 a An establishment is a single physical location at which business is conducted. It is not necessarily identical with a company or enterprise, which may consist of one establishment or more. b Value of construction work includes all value of construction work done during 1992 for construction work performed by general contractors and special trades contractors. Included is new construction, additions and alterations or reconstruction, and maintenance and repair construction work. Also included is the value of any construction work done by the reporting establishments for themselves. This value is not available for SIC 655, instead estimates of annual revenue from the Census of Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate Industries is used. The measure includes ' reported revenues, which include revenues from all business activities, including amounts received for work subcontracted out to others. c Employment comprises all full­ time and part­ time employees on the payrolls of construction establishments, who worked or received pay for any part of the pay period including the 12 th of March, May, August, and November. Included are all persons on paid sick leave, paid holidays, and paid vacations during these pay periods. Officers of corporations are included, but proprietors and partners of unincorporated firms are not. All employees is the sum of all employees during the pay periods including the 12 th of March, May, August, and November, divided by 4. d Payroll includes the gross earnings paid in the calendar year 1992 to all employees on the payroll of construction establishments. It includes all forms of compensation such as salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses, vacation allowances, sick leave pay, prior to such deductions as employees' Social Security contribution, withholding taxes, group insurance, union dues, and savings bonds. e Construction workers include all workers up through the working supervisor level directly engaged in construction operations, such as painters, carpenters, plumbers, and electricians. Included are journeymen, mechanics, apprentices, laborers, truck drivers and helpers, equipment operators, and on­ site recordkeepers and security guards. f Construction worker payroll includes gross earnings paid in the calendar year 1992 to all construction workers only. g Net value of construction work is derived for each establishment by subtracting the costs for construction work subcontracted to others from the value of construction work done. h Value added, derived for each establishment, is equal to dollar value of business done less the costs of construction work subcontracted to others and costs for materials, components, supplies, and fuels. i Value of construction work subcontracted in from others includes the value of construction work during 1992 for work done by reporting establishments as subcontractors. j Covers establishments in SICs 1794 ( Excavation Work) and 1795 ( Wrecking and Demolition Work) only. k Covers establishments in SICs 6552 ( Land Subdividers and Developers, Except Cemeteries) and 6553 ( Cemetery Subdividers and Developers) only. S Withheld because estimate did not meet publication standards on the basis of either the response rate, associated relative standard error, or a consistency review. NA These values are not included in the Census of Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate Industries and therefore are unavailable for SIC 655. 2D­ 3

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.713588

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0030-0018

Supporting & Related Material

Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 CHAPTER THREE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED RULE AND REGULATORY OPTIONS Chapter One provides a summary of the Phase I and Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Storm Water Regulations and the Construction General Permit ( CGP) for the construction industry. This chapter describes the effluent limitation guidelines and standards program ( Section 3.1) , the technology alternatives for the proposed effluent limitation guidelines ( Section 3.2) , and the regulatory options that EPA is proposing for the C& D industry ( Section 3.3) . 3.1 EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, passed in 1972 ( CWA, 33 U. S. C. § 1251 et seq. ) , establishes a comprehensive program to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation' s waters ( ( § 101( a) ) , often referred to as fishable, swimmable status. . The statute was amended in 1987 to include requirements for a comprehensive program to address storm water discharges. Moreover, EPA is authorized under section 301, 304, 306, and 307 of the CWA to establish effluent limitation guidelines and pretreatment standards for industrial dischargers. EPA is authorized to publish the following standards: # Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available ( BPT) . Under section 304( b) ( 1) , these rules apply to direct dischargers. BPT limitations are generally based on the average of the best existing performances by plants of various sizes, ages, and unit processes within a point source category or subcategory. # Best Available Technology Economically Achievable ( BAT) . Under section 304( b) ( 2) , these rules apply to direct discharges of toxic and nonconventional 1 pollutants. 1 Toxic pollutants are listed in Table 1 of U. S. C 1317 Section 307( a) ( 1) and currently include 64 pollutants and their organic and inorganic compounds. This list includes arsenic, DDT, lead, and mercury. Nonconventional pollutants are any pollutants that are not statutorily listed ( not covered by the list of toxic or conventional pollutants) or which are poorly understood by the scientific community. 3­ 1 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 # Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology ( BCT) . Under section 304( b) ( 4) , these rules apply to direct discharges of conventional pollutants. 2 BCT limitations are generally established using a two­ part cost­ reasonableness test. BCT replaces BAT for control of conventional pollutants. # Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources ( PSES) . Under section 307. Analogous to BAT controls, these rules apply to existing indirect dischargers ( i. e. , dischargers to publicly owned treatment works ( POTWs) . # New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) . Under section 306( b) , these rules apply to discharges of toxic and nonconventional pollutants and apply to new direct dischargers. # Pretreatment Standards for New Sources ( PSNS) . Under section 307. Analogous to NSPS controls, these rules apply to new source indirect dischargers ( i. e. , dischargers to publicly owned treatment works ( POTWs) . Under the proposed effluent limitation guidelines ( ELG) , EPA is proposing BAT, BPT, BCT and NSPS guidelines and standards for erosion and sediment control ( ESC) during the active construction phase. 3.2 REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The CGP, published in 1992 and revised in 1998, directs NPDES permittees to prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan ( SWPPP) for certain construction activities. The CGP also calls for installation of temporary sediment basins for construction sites with disturbed area of 10 acres or more. The permit lists a variety of options and goals for other ESCs, but none are required. A description of ESCs, if any, is to be contained in the SWPPP. Options and goals for post­ construction storm water best management practices ( BMPs) are also contained in the CGP, but none are required. As with ESCs, selected BMPs, if any, are to be described in the SWPPP. The C& D industry ELG would build upon and complement the CGP by adding inspection and certification ( I& C) requirements for active construction ESCs. As described below, under one option 2 Conventional pollutants include biochemical oxygen demand ( BOD) , total suspended solids ( TSS) , fecal coliform, pH, and oil and grease. 3­ 2 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 EPA would add the I& C requirements for sites of one acre or more in size, while under another option the I& C requirements would apply to sites of 5 acres and above. This second option would also codify in the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) the requirements found in the CGP. These options are described more fully below. 3.3 SUMMARY OF REGULATORY OPTIONS/ TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES EPA is co­ proposing two regulatory alternatives, along with a no regulation option, , for a total of three regulatory options. EPA has defined the baseline for the proposed rule as full compliance with the current Phase I NPDES storm water regulations and the future Phase II regulations. If any additional costs are incurred by dischargers under the existing storm water regulations the costs will be added to the baseline assumption. Table 3­ 1 summarizes the regulatory options. Throughout the analysis presented in this report, EPA treats the baseline as Option 3. Table 3­ 1. Summary of Regulatory Options Being Co­ Proposed by EPA Option Description Regulatory Mechanism Applicability Option 1 Inspection and Certification of Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Controls Amendment to NPDES storm water permitting regulations Sites of 1 acre or more Option 2 Codification of the Construction General Permit ( CGP) plus Inspection and Certification Requirements Effluent limitation guidelines Sites of 5 acres or more Option 3 No Regulation ( Baseline) N/ A All sites 3­ 3 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 3.3.1 Option 1 Option 1 would amend 40 CFR Part 122, the section of the CFR covering NPDES permitting, adding a new paragraph ( t) section to § 122.44 entitled Inspection and Certification for Construction Site Storm Water Discharges . These requirement in this section would include: ( 1) Site log book. The permittee for a point source discharge under § 122.26( ( b) ( 14) ( x) or § 122.26( ( b) ( 15) shall maintain a record of site activities in a site log book. The site log book shall be maintained as follows: ( i) A copy of the site log book shall be maintained on site and be made available to the permitting authority upon request; ( ii) In the site log book, the permittee shall certify, prior to the commencement of construction activities, that any plans required by the permit meet all Federal, State, Tribal and local erosion and sediment control requirements and are available to the permitting authority; ( iii) The permittee shall have a qualified professional ( knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment controls, such as a licensed professional engineer, or other knowledgeable person) conduct an assessment of the site prior to groundbreaking and certify in the log book that the appropriate best management practices ( BMPs) described in plans required by the permit have been adequately designed, sized and installed to ensure overall preparedness of the site for initiation of groundbreaking activities. The permittee shall record the date of initial groundbreaking in the site log book. The permittee shall also certify that any inspection, stabilization and BMP maintenance requirements of the permit have been satisfied within 48 hours of actually meeting such requirements; and ( iv) The permittee shall post at the site, in a publicly­ accessible location, a summary of the site inspection activities on a monthly basis; ( 2) Site Inspections. The permittee or designated agent of the permittee ( such as a consultant, subcontractor, or third­ party inspection firm) shall conduct regular inspections of the site and record the results of such inspection in the site log book in accordance with paragraph ( t) ( 1) of this section. ( i) After initial groundbreaking, permittees shall conduct site inspections at least every 14 calendar days and within 24 hours of the end of a storm event of 0.5 inches or greater. These inspections shall be conducted by a qualified professional. During each inspection, the permittee or designated agent shall record the following information: 3­ 4 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 ( A) Indicate on a site map the extent of all disturbed site areas and drainage pathways. Indicate site areas that are expected to undergo initial disturbance or significant site work within the next 14 days; ( B) Indicate on a site map all areas of the site that have undergone temporary or permanent stabilization; ( C) Indicate all disturbed site areas that have not undergone active site work during the previous 14 days; ( D) Inspect all sediment control practices and note the approximate degree of sediment accumulation as a percentage of the sediment storage volume ( for example 10 percent, 20 percent, 50 percent, etc. ) . Note all sediment control practices in the site log book that have sediment accumulation of 50 percent or more; and ( E) Inspect all erosion and sediment control BMPs and note compliance with any maintenance requirements such as verifying the integrity of barrier or diversion systems ( e. g. , earthen berms or silt fencing) and containment systems ( e. g. , sediment basins and sediment traps) . Identify any evidence of rill or gully erosion occurring on slopes and any loss of stabilizing vegetation or seeding/ mulching. Document in the site log book any excessive deposition of sediment or ponding water along barrier or diversion systems. Note the depth of sediment within containment structures, any erosion near outlet and overflow structures, and verify the ability of rock filters around perforated riser pipes to pass water. ( ii) Prior to filing of the Notice of Termination or the end of permit term, a final site erosion and sediment control inspection shall be conducted by the permittee or designated agent. The inspector shall certify that the site has undergone final stabilization as required by the permit and that all temporary erosion and sediment controls ( such as silt fencing) not needed for long­ term erosion control have been removed. Option 1 would also amend § 122.44( i) ( 4) to exclude construction activities from requirements for monitoring of storm water discharges. Option 1 would apply to sites of one acre or more in size. 3.3.2 Option 2 Option 2 would add a new section to the effluent limitation guidelines section of the CFR, i. e. , Part 450 Construction and Development Point Source Category. This section would essentially codify 3­ 5 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 in the CFR the provisions of the CGP ( see Section 3.2) , and in addition would add the provisions for I& C introduced under Option 1 ( Section 3.3.1) . Option 2 would amend 40 CFR 122( i) ( 3) to specify that discharges from construction activity are instead governed by Part 450. 40 CFR Part 450, Subpart A describes applicability and provides definitions. Subpart B would establish the ESC requirements based on application of BPT, BAT, BCT, and NSPS. Part 450 would apply to construction and development activities subject to an NPDES permit under the definition of construction activity at 40 CFR 122.26( ( b) ( 14) ( x) . Section 450.11 establishes some general definitions for the following terms: BMPs, commencement of construction, final stabilization, groundbeaking, new source, operator, perimeter controls, qualified professional, runoff coefficient, and stabilization. Section 450.21 would establish effluent limitations reflecting best practicable technology currently available ( BPT) , as follows: 3 Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following effluent limitations representing the application of the best practicable control technology currently available ( BPT) . Permittees with operational control over construction plans and specification, including the ability to make modifications to those plans and specifications ( e. g. , developer or owner) , must ensure the project specifications that they develop meet the minimum requirements of a SWPPP required by § 450.21( ( d) . ( a) General Erosion and Sediment Controls. Each SWPPP shall include a description of appropriate controls designed to retain sediment on site to the extent practicable. These general erosion and sediment controls shall be included in the SWPPP developed pursuant to paragraph ( d) of this section. The SWPPP must include a description of interim and permanent stabilization practices for the site, including a schedule of when the practices will be implemented. Stabilization practices may include: ( 1) Establishment of temporary or permanent vegetation; 3 Parts 450.22, 450.23, and 450.24 would establish identical requirements for BAT, BCT, and NSPS, respectively. 3­ 6 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 ( 2) Mulching, geotextiles, or sod stabilization; ( 3) Vegetative buffer strips; ( 4) Protection of trees and preservation of mature vegetation. ( b) Sediment Controls. The SWPPP must include a description of structural practices to divert flows from exposed soils, store flows, or otherwise limit runoff and the discharge of pollutants from exposed areas of the site to the degree attainable. ( 1) For common drainage locations that serve an area with 10 or more acres disturbed at one time, a temporary ( or permanent) sediment basin that provides storage for a calculated volume of runoff from a 2 year, 24­ hour storm from each disturbed acre drained, or equivalent control measures, shall be provided where attainable until final stabilization of the site. Where no such calculation has been performed, a temporary ( or permanent) sediment basin providing 3,600 cubic feet of storage per acre drained, or equivalent control measures, shall be provided where attainable until final stabilization of the site. When computing the number of acres draining into a common location it is not necessary to include flows from off­ site areas and flows from on­ site areas that are either undisturbed or have undergone final stabilization where such flows are diverted around both the disturbed area and the sediment basin. ( 2) In determining whether a sediment basin is attainable, the operator may consider factors such as site soils, slope, available area on site, etc. In any event, the operator must consider public safety, especially as it relates to children, as a design factor for the sediment basin, and alternative sediment controls shall be used where site limitations would preclude a safe basin design. ( 3) For portions of the site that drain to a common location and have a total contributing drainage area of less than 10 disturbed acres, the operator should use smaller sediment basins and/ or sediment traps. ( 4) Where neither a sediment basin nor equivalent controls are attainable due to site limitations, silt fences, vegetative buffer strips or equivalent sediment controls are required for all down slope boundaries of the construction area and for those side slope boundaries deemed appropriate as dictated by individual site conditions. ( c) Pollution Prevention Measures. The SWPPP shall include the following pollution prevention measures: ( 1) Litter, construction chemicals, and construction debris exposed to storm water shall be prevented from becoming a pollutant source in storm water discharges ( e. g. , screening outfalls, picked up daily) ; and ( 2) A description of construction and waste materials expected to be stored on­ site with updates as appropriate, and a description of controls to reduce pollutants 3­ 7 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 from these materials including storage practices to minimize exposure of the materials to storm water, and spill prevention and response. ( d) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Operators subject to this Part shall compile Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans ( SWPPPs) prior to groundbreaking at any construction site. In areas where EPA is not the permit authority, operators may be required to prepare documents that may serve as the functional equivalent of a SWPPP. Such alternate documents will satisfy the requirements for a SWPPP so long as they contain the necessary elements of a SWPPP. A SWPPP shall incorporate the following information: ( 1) A narrative description of the construction activity, including a description of the intended sequence of major activities that disturb soils on the site ( major activities include grubbing, excavating, grading, and utilities and infrastructure installation, or any other activity that disturbs soils for major portions of the site) ; ( 2) A general location map ( e. g. , portion of a city or county map) and a site map. The site map shall include descriptions of the following: ( i) Drainage patterns and approximate slopes anticipated after major grading activities; ( ii) The total area of the site and areas of disturbance; ( iii) Areas that will not be disturbed; ( iv) Locations of major structural and nonstructural controls identified in the SWPPP; ( v) Locations where stabilization practices are expected to occur; ( vi) Locations of off­ site material, waste, borrow or equipment storage areas; ( vii) Surface waters ( including wetlands) ; and ( viii) Locations where storm water discharges to a surface water; ( 3) A description of available data on soils present at the site; ( 4) A description of BMPs to be used to control pollutants in storm water discharges during construction as described elsewhere in this section; ( 5) A description of the general timing ( or sequence) in relation to the construction schedule when each BMP is to be implemented; 3­ 8 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 ( 6) An estimate of the pre­ development and post­ construction runoff coefficients of the site; ( 7) The name( s) of the receiving water( s) ; ( 8) Delineation of SWPPP implementation responsibilities for each site owner or operator; ( 9) Any existing data that describe the storm water runoff characteristics at the site. ( e) Updating the SWPPP. The operator shall amend the SWPPP and corresponding erosion and sediment control BMPs whenever: ( 1) There is a change in design, construction, or maintenance that has a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States which has not been addressed in the SWPPP; or ( 2) Inspections or investigations by site operators, local, State, Tribal or Federal officials indicate that the SWPPP is proving ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutant discharges. ( f) Site Log Book/ Certification. The operator shall maintain a record of site activities in a site log book, as part of the SWPPP. The site log book shall be maintained as follows: ( 1) A copy of the site log book shall be maintained on site and be made available to the permitting authority upon request; ( 2) In the site log book, the operator shall certify, prior to the commencement of construction activities, that the SWPPP prepared in accordance with paragraph ( d) of this section meets all Federal, State and local erosion and sediment control requirements and is available to the permitting authority; ( 3) The operator shall have a qualified professional conduct an assessment of the site prior to groundbreaking and certify in the log book that the appropriate BMPs and erosion and sediment controls described in the SWPPP and required by paragraphs ( a) , ( b) , ( c) and ( d) of this section have been adequately designed, sized and installed to ensure overall preparedness of the site for initiation of groundbreaking activities. The operator shall record the date of initial groundbreaking in the site log book. The operator shall also certify that the requirements of paragraphs ( g) , ( h) and ( i) of this section have been satisfied within 48 hours of actually meeting such requirements; ( 4) The operator shall post at the site, in a publicly­ accessible location, a summary of the site inspection activities on a monthly basis. ( g) Site Inspections. The operator or designated agent of the operator ( such as a consultant, subcontractor, or third­ party inspection firm) shall conduct regular inspections of the site 3­ 9 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 and record the results of such inspection in the site log book in accordance with paragraph ( f) of this section. ( 1) After initial groundbreaking, operators shall conduct site inspections at least every 14 calendar days and within 24 hours of the end of a storm event of 0.5 inches or greater. These inspections shall be conducted by a qualified professional. During each inspection, the operator or designated agent shall record the following information: ( i) On a site map, indicate the extent of all disturbed site areas and drainage pathways. Indicate site areas that are expected to undergo initial disturbance or significant site work within the next 14­ day period; ( ii) Indicate on a site map all areas of the site that have undergone temporary or permanent stabilization; ( iii) Indicate all disturbed site areas that have not undergone active site work during the previous 14­ day period; ( iv) Inspect all sediment control practices and note the approximate degree of sediment accumulation as a percentage of the sediment storage volume ( for example 10 percent, 20 percent, 50 percent, etc. ) . Record all sediment control practices in the site log book that have sediment accumulation of 50 percent or more; and ( v) Inspect all erosion and sediment control BMPs and record all maintenance requirements such as verifying the integrity of barrier or diversion systems ( earthen berms or silt fencing) and containment systems ( sediment basins and sediment traps) . Identify any evidence of rill or gully erosion occurring on slopes and any loss of stabilizing vegetation or seeding/ mulching. Document in the site log book any excessive deposition of sediment or ponding water along barrier or diversion systems. Record the depth of sediment within containment structures, any erosion near outlet and overflow structures, and verify the ability of rock filters around perforated riser pipes to pass water. ( 2) Prior to filing of the Notice of Termination or the end of permit term, a final site erosion and sediment control inspection shall be conducted by the operator or designated agent. The inspector shall certify that the site has undergone final stabilization using either vegetative or structural stabilization methods and that all temporary erosion and sediment controls ( such as silt fencing) not needed for long­ term erosion control have been removed. ( h) Stabilization. The operator shall initiate stabilization measures as soon as practicable in portions of the site where construction activities have temporarily or permanently ceased, but in no case more than 14 days after the construction activity in that portion of the site has temporarily or permanently ceased. This requirement does not apply in the following instances: 3­ 10 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 ( 1) Where the initiation of stabilization measures by the 14th day after construction activity temporarily or permanently ceased is precluded by snow cover or frozen ground conditions, stabilization measures shall be initiated as soon as practicable; ( 2) Where construction activity on a portion of the site is temporarily ceased, and earth­ disturbing activities will be resumed within 21 days, temporary stabilization measures need not be initiated on that portion of the site. ( 3) In arid areas ( areas with an average annual rainfall of 0 to 10 inches) , semi­ arid areas ( areas with an average annual rainfall of 10 to 20 inches) , and areas experiencing droughts where the initiation of stabilization measures by the 14th day after construction activity has temporarily or permanently ceased is precluded by seasonably arid conditions, the operator shall initiate stabilization measures as soon as practicable. ( i) Maintenance. Sediment shall be removed from sediment traps or sediment ponds when design capacity has been reduced by 50 percent. Option 2 would apply to sites of five acres or more. 3.3.3 Option 3 Option 3 is the no regulation option. . Storm water runoff from construction and development activities would continue to be managed in accordance with the requirements of the CGP. There would be no incremental compliance requirements and consequently no incremental compliance costs or benefits. 3­ 11

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.718084

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0030-0019

Supporting & Related Material

Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 CHAPTER FOUR ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 4.1 OVERVIEW OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY This chapter presents EPA s methodology for analyzing the economic impacts of the proposed erosion and sediment control ( ESC) regulations for the construction and development ( C& D) industry. EPA has employed a number of different methods for assessing the economic impacts of the proposed rule. These include models that analyze impacts at the level of the individual construction project, the individual firm, national construction markets, and the national economy as a whole. The analysis considers impacts on the firms in the C& D industry who would be complying with the regulations, on those who purchase the output of the C& D industry, and on those who would be responsible for implementing the proposed rule. The analysis is based upon engineering cost estimates developed by EPA. The engineering costs reflect the costs to comply with requirements related to erosion and sediment controls ( ESCs) employed over a relatively short period ( generally less than one year) during which land is being converted from an undeveloped to a developed state. The engineering costs also include the costs associated with meeting any paperwork requirements triggered by the proposed rule, including any requirements related to the permitting of construction and development projects, and incremental inspection and certification requirements for ESCs. The outline of the chapter is as follows: Section 4.2 presents EPA s analysis of the impacts of the proposed rule on model C& D projects. Here EPA develops pro forma financial analyses for representative projects and analyzes the impact of the incremental regulatory costs on project viability. The section includes a description of the model projects, model project analysis methodology, data sources, and assumptions used in the model project analysis. The model project analysis results are presented in Chapter Five, Section 5.2. Section 4.3 presents EPA s analysis of the impacts of the proposed rule on model C& D firms. This section uses data on the financial condition of representative firms to examine the impact of the incremental compliance requirements on the model firm s financial 4­ 1 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 condition. This section also describes how the model firm analysis is used to evaluate economic achievability and barrier to entry considerations for the proposed rule, and to conduct the firm closure analysis and small entity impact analysis. This section includes a description of the model firms, model firm analysis methodology, data sources, and assumptions used in the model firm analysis. The model firm analysis results, including those from the economic achievability, barrier to entry, closure, and employment loss analyses, are presented in Chapter Five, Sections 5.4 through 5.6. Section 4.4 presents EPA s methodology for estimating the national compliance costs of the proposed rule. These costs are estimated starting with the per­ acre compliance costs estimated by EPA. The per­ acre costs are applied to national estimates of the amount of land converted to developed status annually. National compliance cost estimates are presented in Chapter Five, Section 5.3. Section 4.5 describes EPA s partial equilibrium market model analysis. This section considers the impact of the incremental compliance requirements on consumers of the construction industry s output, in particular the impacts on home buyers and on housing affordability. The section includes a description of the market model methodology, data sources, and assumptions used in the market models. The market modeling results are presented in Chapter Five, Section 5.6. Section 4.6 expands the analysis to consider the net impacts of the proposed rule on the national economy. While the compliance costs would reduce output in the construction industry there may be an offsetting increase in spending related to ESCs and inspection and certification. EPA uses input­ output analysis to trace the implications of these spending shifts on the national economy. The result is an overall estimate of the impact on macroeconomic variables such as output and national employment. The results of the national economic impact analysis are presented in Chapter Five, Section 5.7. Section 4.7 considers the impacts on governmental units associated with establishing or modifying permitting programs to reflect the requirements in the proposed rule as well as new or increased costs related to permit processing. The results of the government cost impact analyses are presented in Chapter Five, Section 5.8. 4. 1 . 1 Compliance and Baseline Assumptions In this analysis EPA assumes that the proposed rule would impact markets that have already fully implemented existing regulations related to storm water controls for C& D activities. EPA assumes that all states, tribal lands, and territories comply with the existing regulations or have equivalent programs. These programs are assumed to include all of the requirements affecting C& D activities that were part of the national storm water Phase I and Phase II NPDES storm water regulations. Since the Phase II regulations are not scheduled to be fully implemented until 2003, however, EPA acknowledges that 4­ 2 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 current market conditions may not fully reflect the baseline that would apply at the time the proposed rule comes into force. Specifically, EPA notes that the baseline market conditions assumed in this analysis ( including baseline financial conditions for affected firms) may not fully reflect the implementation of Phase II NPDES storm water requirements. For this reason, EPA has conducted a supplemental analysis that reflects less than 100 percent implementation of the Phase II NPDES storm water rule in the baseline. The supplemental baseline analysis is presented in Appendix 5C of this report. 4.1.2 Cost Pass Through Assumptions EPA has incorporated into each of the impact analyses described below specific assumptions about the incidence of the compliance costs. This section describes generally EPA s conclusions about cost incidence for the proposed regulation and then outlines the specific assumptions made for each impact analysis. In general, EPA believes that developers and builders faced with an increase in costs due to new ESC requirements would have an incentive to pass on all or some of the increased cost to the project owner. ( This is referred to as cost pass through, or CPT) . The extent to which the costs can be passed through in practice would depend on market conditions. The demand elasticity of the project owner ( i. e. , the sensitivity of the purchase decision to incremental changes in price) would be influenced by two main factors: The magnitude of the cost increase relative to the overall cost of the project. For example, on a large office project or even a high end single­ family home, the buyer may put up little resistance if the cost increase is small relative to the overall cost of the project. The availability and price of substitutes. If the cost increase affects all suppliers and all substitutes equally, then the project owner is less likely to resist an incremental price increase. Since the proposed rule would be national in scope and the compliance costs would be similar within a given geographic region ( assuming similar sites) , the compliance costs should affect the buyer s alternate suppliers roughly equally. This suggests that if the costs are small relative to the total cost of 4­ 3 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 the project, demand should be relatively inelastic and the builder would be able to pass all or most of the cost increase on to the buyer. Another factor facilitating cost pass through for builders is that project owners often plan for unexpected cost changes by building contingencies into their budgets. A common mechanism in new residential construction, for example, is for the home buyer to absorb an unexpected cost increase at one stage of construction by reducing costs on a later stage. This might be done, for example, by selecting less expensive flooring material, deferring finishing of a basement, or opting to build a garage at a later date. This line of reasoning, which suggests demand is generally inelastic, presumes that the good the buyer is purchasing is new construction. In most markets, however, the owner can also elect to buy from an inventory of existing homes, office or retail space, or industrial facilities available for sale, or to rent from a corresponding inventory of rental properties. To the extent that existing construction and rental property serves as a perfect or even partial substitute for new construction, the buyer s demand elasticity would also be influenced by conditions in the existing construction and rental markets. Existing homes and existing office, retail or industrial space would not be affected by the proposed regulation. Cost increases that differentially affect new construction may cause some buyers to choose existing construction over new, i. e. , they could elect to buy or rent rather than build. The strength of demand for new relative to existing construction depends on the relative availability, suitability, and price of each type of construction. Buyers choosing new over existing construction often do so for reasons related to location, the ability to match their specific needs, expected length of tenure, and greater certainty about a structure s condition and future maintenance requirements. Demand for new construction is also highly influenced by the availability, quality, and age of existing construction. In geographic areas or market segments where the existing inventory is weak or unsuitable, demand for new construction would be stronger. Evidence from the literature suggests that in residential construction, regulatory­ related costs are usually passed on to consumers ( e. g. , Luger and Temkin 2000) , and this general observation was echoed during EPA s focus group sessions with members of NAHB. Industry literature points out that in the recent past, a variety of market forces have shifted the new construction market towards larger, more 4­ 4 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 expensive homes ( NAHB 2001a) . Other things equal, demand in the higher end of the housing market tends to be more inelastic. Efforts to model the housing sector have shown that new construction is more affected by changes in household formation and income than marginal changes in price ( Hirsch 1994) . Given this evidence, EPA believes overall that demand in the single­ family housing sector is relatively inelastic. In the other sectors modeled ( multifamily housing, commercial, industrial) , EPA believes demand to be relatively inelastic as well. In the non­ residential sectors, interest rates, regional economic performance and outlook, and changing technological needs are important drivers of building demand. As shown in the subsequent chapter, the change in costs relative to total project costs in these markets are relatively small and unlikely to influence the purchase decision, given the greater significance of these other factors. EPA notes that under certain conditions developers might also attempt to pass regulatory costs back to land owners. In a depressed market, builders may argue successfully that a regulatory cost increase would make a particular project unprofitable unless the land costs can be reduced. For example, if the land owner is convinced that a residential subdivision project would not go ahead because home buyers would not absorb an unexpected increase in sales price, they may be willing to accept a lower price per acre for raw land. The ability of developers to pass such costs back would likely depend on the land owner s experience in land development projects, their knowledge of the local real estate market, and in particular their understanding of the regulation and its likely cost. While some evidence of cost pass­ back to land owners exists for fixed and readily identifiable regulatory costs, such as development impact fees ( Luger and Temkin 2000) , it is unclear whether a builder s claim that costs would be higher due to the types of requirements imposed by the proposed rule would induce land owners to make concessions. In the sections below, EPA has made differing assumptions concerning whether compliance costs are passed through to buyers, and to what extent. In the model project analyses in Section 4.2, for example, EPA analyzes results under the extreme conditions of zero and 100 percent CPT. This enables EPA to examine the impacts under worst­ case assumptions with respect to builders ( zero CPT) , as well as to owners ( 100 percent CPT) . 4­ 5 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 In other parts of the impact analysis EPA introduces more realistic assumptions about actual market conditions. For example, it is generally thought that the long run supply of new construction is almost perfectly elastic, as resources can shift easily into the industry. When empirical elasticity estimates are used to estimate actual cost pass through, the combination of inelastic demand and highly elastic supply results in relatively high cost pass through rates, on the order of 85 percent. In the model firm and closure analysis ( Section 4.3) , EPA analyzes the impacts under conditions of zero CPT ( worst­ case) as well as under the most realistic estimates of actual CPT. In the market models ( Sections 4.5 and 4.6) EPA uses only the estimates of actual CPT. 4.1.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs In order to remain effective all of the ESCs should be maintained. The engineering costs for ESCs include costs for operating and maintaining the controls. The controls used during the active phase of construction are assumed to be in place for one year and therefore should be maintained throughout the period. 4.1.4 Impacts Associated With NSPS Under Option 2, EPA is proposing to define a new source under Part 450 as: : any source of storm water discharge associated with construction activity that results in the disturbance of at least five acres total land area that itself will produce an industrial source from which there may be a discharge of pollutants regulated by some other new source performance standard elsewhere under subchapter N. 1 This definition would mean that the land­ disturbing activity associated with constructing a particular facility would not itself constitute a " new source" unless the results of that construction would yield a " new source" regulated by other new source performance standards. For example, construction activity that is intended to build a new pharmaceutical plant covered by 40 CFR 439.15 would be subject to new source performance standards under § 450.24. . At the same time, EPA is seeking comment on whether 1 All new source performance standards promulgated by EPA for categories of point sources are codified in subchapter N. 4­ 6 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 no sources regulated under Option 2 should be deemed new sources on the grounds that construction activity itself is outside the scope of those activities intended to be covered by Section 306 of the Clean Water Act ( CWA) . 2 Under the proposed definition, EPA believes that the NSPS standards could trigger a National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA) review process for those C& D activities permitted by EPA. To assess the potential impact of such a result, EPA examined NPDES construction permitting data for 19 states fully or partially administered by EPA. In 2000, the number of permits administered by EPA was 8,563. EPA believes, however, that by the time the proposed C& D rule is finalized the states of Florida, Maine, and Texas ( currently fully administered by EPA) will have assumed permitting authority for construction activities. In 2000, the number of permits administered by EPA excluding these three states was 1,454. The NPDES permitting data does not include sufficient detail to indicate the number of sources that could be new sources covered by CWA Section 306. EPA notes, however, that in a 1999 study of 14 jurisdictions, slightly under one percent of construction permits were for industrial facilities ( EPA, 1999; see Table 4­ 15) . Based on this, EPA believes that the number of construction permits for new sources ( regulated under Subchapter N) that would be administered by EPA is likely to be small. At this time, therefore, EPA has not estimated any potential costs for NEPA review as part of this economic analysis. 4.2 IMPACTS ON MODEL PROJECTS EPA has analyzed the impacts of the proposed rule by developing financial models of representative C& D projects. These models evaluate whether the additional costs of complying with the proposed regulation would make the model project unprofitable and vulnerable to abandonment or closure. In the absence of an industry survey, the economic models are based on EPA s best available data and assumptions concerning construction project characteristics, and are designed to depict as accurately as possible the change in cash flow resulting from compliance with the proposed rule for typical projects, representative of the type required to comply with the proposed rule. The models developed reflect the range of C& D projects typically undertaken by industry participants. 2 " The term ' new source' means any source, the construction of which is commenced . . . " 33 U. S. C. sec. 1316( a) ( 2) ( emphasis added) . 4­ 7 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 4.2.1 Description of Model Project Approach EPA selected the model project types by analyzing data on the output of the C& D industry. The industry output reflects both the diversity of the industry itself and the diversity of the U. S. economy overall. To illustrate this diversity, EPA notes that the Census of Construction assigns construction projects to one of 17 building and 32 nonbuilding construction categories ( see Appendix 2A, Table 2A­ 3) . In terms of economic value, building construction projects accounted for $ 371.4 billion ( 97.3 percent of total construction revenues) in 1997, while nonbuilding construction projects accounted for only $ 5.9 billion ( 1.5 percent) . 3 The largest single category of construction activity, accounting for $ 150.5 billion ( 39.4 percent of the total) , was single­ family home construction. This was followed by office buildings at $ 40.3 billion ( 10.6 percent of the total) , all other commercial buildings at $ 36.5 billion ( 9.6 percent of the total) , manufacturing and light industrial buildings at $ 26.2 billion ( 6.8 percent of the total) , educational buildings at $ 25.1 billion ( 6.6 percent of the total) , and multifamily housing at $ 19.6 billion ( 5.1 percent of the total) . Based on this review, EPA developed models for four types of development projects that reflect the range of projects undertaken by the industry and that would fall within the ambit of the proposed rule. These included: A residential development of single­ family homes A residential development of multifamily housing units A commercial development ( enclosed shopping center) An industrial development ( industrial park) Furthermore, for each class of project , EPA has developed models that correspond to a range of project sizes. In each case, there are versions of the model for projects of 1, 3, 7.5, 25, 70, and 200 acres. The combination of four project types and six project size classes results in a total of 24 model projects. EPA s models for these projects assess their vulnerability to shutdown or closure by predicting the cash flow changes that would result from the incremental costs that project developers would incur in 3 Another $ 4.2 billion ( 1.1 percent of the total) was not specified by kind. 4­ 8 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 complying with the proposed rule. The models establish the baseline financial conditions for each representative project and assess the significance of the change in cash flow that results from the incremental compliance costs. The model project characteristics are based on best available data and reasonable assumptions about development activities and project financing. 4.2.2 Treatment of Nonbuilding Construction Projects As noted above, an estimated $ 5.9 billion in nonbuilding construction is put in place each year. This total includes highways, roads and streets ( $ 1.6 billion) ; sewage and water treatment facilities ( $ 1.7 billion) ; bridges, tunnels, and elevated highways ( $ 587 million) ; sewers and water mains ( $ 211 million) ; power and communication lines and towers ( $ 160 million) ; and private driveways and parking areas ( $ 100 million) . While considerable in absolute value, such nonbuilding construction activity represents less than two percent of the total value of construction completed. Estimates of the land area disturbed as a result of nonbuilding construction activity are not available. EPA has not developed engineering costs applicable to nonbuilding construction projects, due to the diversity of the activities covered under this category and the relatively small share of overall construction activity it accounts for. 4 By way of analysis, EPA has developed a reduced form model project for highway construction and analyzed the likely magnitude of the costs and impacts using the highway model. This analysis is presented in Section 4.2.7. 4.2.3 Description of Model Projects To develop the model projects, EPA focused first on the single­ family residential model project. As noted above, single­ family residential construction represents the highest value category of construction, and information about the construction and development process for single­ family homes is 4 The national costs of the proposed rule, however, do account for the costs borne for these types of projects. See Section 4.4. 4­ 9 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 readily available. 5 EPA was able to develop a relatively detailed model for the single­ family development and then adjusted the model parameters as necessary to reflect differences in the other project categories. In general, EPA believes that projects in the other categories follow a roughly similar development path, and has thus used a similar general structure for all of the models. Since many of the data elements and modeling assumptions are based on the single­ family residential model, this model is discussed in detail below. Many of the assumptions and data elements defined for this model were applied directly or modified only slightly for use in the other models. The discussion of the other three project types focuses primarily on those assumptions or methods that differ from those employed in the single­ family residential model. 4.2.3.1 Residential Single­ family Development The model single­ family residential project or site is an undeveloped parcel zoned for single­ family residential housing. The number of housing units built would depend on the size of the model project. 6 The location of the site is unspecified, and for this reason EPA has used national­ level data wherever possible. In this case, the site is assumed to be controlled by a developer­ builder ( sometimes referred to in the industry as merchant builders or operative builders) . The developer­ builder is responsible for all aspects of the project, from land acquisition through permitting, subdivision of the parcel, installation of any ESCs, and construction and marketing of all completed housing units. EPA recognizes that there are many variations on how a particular site may be developed, but believes this model project to be representative of a large number of projects actually undertaken each year in the U. S. 7 5 For example, EPA was able to obtain input to the single­ family residential model from representatives of the National Association of Home Builders ( NAHB) , a prominent C& D industry association. Input from NAHB assisted EPA in identifying cost elements associated with each stage of project development. 6 Model projects were developed for sites of 1, 3, 7.5, 25, 70, and 200 acres. 7 Other common scenarios involve the developer selling all or some of the finished lots to builders. The developer may or may not retain lots in the development to complete and sell. See Figure 2­ 4, for example. 4­ 10 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 The starting point for the project is the acquisition of the parcel, which is assumed to be purchased or optioned from another land owner. 8 The development and construction process, as modeled, is assumed to proceed through three phases, characterized as follows: Land acquisition The developer­ builder puts together the necessary financing to purchase the parcel. When lenders are involved, they may require certain documentation, such as financial statements, tax returns, appraisals, proof of the developer s ability to obtain necessary zoning, evaluations of project location, assessments of the capacity of existing infrastructure, letters of intent from city/ town to install infrastructure, environmental approvals, etc. To satisfy these factors, the developer may incur costs associated with compiling this data. Land development The developer­ builder obtains all necessary site approvals and prepares the site for the construction phase of the project. Costs incurred during this stage are divided among soft costs for architectural and engineering services, legal work, permits, fees, and testing, and hard costs , such as land clearing, installing utilities and roads, and preparing foundations or pads. The result of this phase is a legally subdivided parcel with finished lots ready for construction. Construction The developer­ builder undertakes the actual construction of the housing units. A substantial portion of this work may be subcontracted out to specialty subcontractors ( foundation, framing, roofing, plumbing, electrical, painting, etc. ) . Marketing of the development generally begins prior to the start of this phase, hence the developer­ builder may also incur some marketing costs at this time. Housing units may come under sales agreement at any time prior to, during, or after completion of construction. While the length of each phase and the overall length of the project may vary considerably, EPA assumes, for modeling purposes, that the time elapsed from acquisition of the parcel through development and construction totals 36 months. Focus groups with NAHB in Dallas provided estimates that ranged from 13 to 63 months. While acknowledging there will be wide variation in the duration of each phase, EPA further assumes that each phase land acquisition, development, and construction takes 12 months. EPA presently lacks detailed data on the exact timing of ESC installation during project development. EPA assumes that ESCs installed to control runoff during the active phase of construction 8 Options involve payments from the developer to a land owner to secure the rights to develop the land for a specified period of time, usually while a more complete assessment of project viability is undertaken. 4­ 11 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 are put in place early in the development phase and are maintained throughout the construction phase. Thus, the capital costs for such ESCs would generally be incurred early in the project, and the structures would be maintained in place for the duration of the project. The costs for removing the ESCs would be incurred at project completion. 9 These general assumptions aside, in this analysis EPA has used the simplifying assumption that the costs for all ESCs are incurred at the beginning of the project. EPA acknowledges that capital costs would actually be incurred some time after the start of the project, and that as a result, the costs would be discounted back to their present value. In making this assumption, EPA is thus overstating the magnitude of the true costs incurred, since costs incurred in the future would have a lower present value. EPA understands that land development projects involve significant cash outflows early on to finance land acquisition, development, and construction, with revenues generally received only after completed houses are sold to buyers. For this reason, EPA assumes that the integrated developer­ builder assumed here would be motivated to have several projects underway at one time. Cash inflows from the sale of completed units in one development can offset cash outflows associated with the earlier stages of development on another project. For simplicity, EPA assumes that the developer­ builder involved in the model project has three projects underway so that in any given year the developer­ builder incurs all of the costs and earns all of the revenues associated with completing the land acquisition, development, and construction phases of a project, even though these may occur on different projects. Additional assumptions and sources for data used in the model project analysis are presented below. The model project is developed using assumptions about the types and magnitude of costs incurred during various phases of the project, the sources for these funds ( i. e. , the amounts borrowed versus the amounts provided from the developer­ builder s equity) , and the expected profit margins earned by the developer­ builder from each phase of the project. EPA is seeking comments on these assumptions as well as any additional data that may enable the Agency to more accurately model such impacts at the project level. 9 In practice, some ESCs installed to control runoff during the construction phase that are then converted to permanent BMPs to control post­ construction flows. These structures would not need to be removed. 4­ 12 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Assumptions regarding the various cost elements incurred during each phase of the residential single­ family development are described in detail in Section 4.2.5. 4.2.3.2 Residential Multifamily Development The model multifamily residential development is an apartment building or complex. The project is assumed to be developed in a similar fashion to the single­ family model development described above: a single developer­ builder is responsible for all site acquisition, site preparation, construction, and marketing of the project; the project timeline is similar, i. e. , three years from start to finish; and the project proceeds through the same project phases. Similarly, the developer­ builder is assumed to have several projects underway to help balance cash flows. This assumption makes it possible to examine the impacts of a three year project on a single year s cashflow for the affected business. Data sources and inputs specific to the model multifamily development are discussed in Section 4.2.5. 4.2.3.3 Commercial Development The commercial development is assumed to be an enclosed retail shopping or office area. Depending on the size of the model project, it could range from a small stand­ alone retail outlet to a large, enclosed mall or office complex. As with the residential projects, a single developer­ builder is assumed to be responsible for all site acquisition, site preparation, construction, and marketing of the project. The project timeline is assumed to be the same as for the residential projects, i. e. , three years from start to finish, and to proceed through the same project phases. Similarly, the developer­ builder is assumed to have several projects underway to help balance cash flows. This assumption makes it possible to examine the impacts of a three year project on a single year s cashflow for the affected business. Again, the particular data sources used and inputs to this model project are discussed further in Section 4.2.5. 4­ 13 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 4.2.3.4 Industrial Development The industrial development is assumed to be an industrial park or a stand­ alone manufacturing facility. As with the residential and commercial projects, a single developer­ builder is assumed to be responsible for all site acquisition, site preparation, construction, and marketing of the project. The project timeline is assumed to be the same as for the residential and commercial projects, i. e. , three years from start to finish, and to proceed through the same project phases. Similarly, the developer­ builder is assumed to have several projects underway to help balance cash flows. This assumption makes it possible to examine the impacts of a three year project on a single year s cashflow for the affected business. A detailed discussion of data sources and inputs, which are similar to those used for the model commercial development, follows in Section 4.2.5. 4.2.4 Cost Pass Through Assumptions For modeling purposes, EPA has analyzed the impacts of the regulatory options on each model development project under two extreme alternatives: 100 percent cost pass through ( CPT) and zero percent CPT. As explained in Section 4.2, this allows EPA to show the impacts under worst­ case conditions for builders ( zero percent CPT) and worst­ case conditions for owners ( 100 percent CPT) . Under the 100 percent CPT scenario, a fixed percentage is assumed for the developer­ builder s profit margin and the model calculates the final sales price that each buyer would be asked to pay after the compliance costs have been passed through. Under the zero CPT scenario, a fixed percentage is assumed for the developer­ builder s profit under baseline conditions and the change in profit is calculated under each regulatory option, with the sale price of each housing unit remaining the same. Section 4.2.5 contains further details on the assumed profit levels and other inputs. 4.2.5 Inputs to the Model Project Analysis As noted above, the representative projects take place in three phases: land acquisition, site development, and construction. The process of obtaining options on land to be developed ( a common but not universal step that occurs in the very early stages of development) , has been combined with the 4­ 14 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 land acquisition activities for simplicity. . Assumptions regarding the various costs that are incurred during each phase of the project are summarized in Table 4­ 1 below. Table 4­ 1. Costs Incurred at Various Stages of a Residential Construction Project Project Phase Cost Elements Land Acquisition Raw land ( purchase or option) Interest on land acquisition loan Opportunity cost of capital Development Engineering Due diligence Land development Storm water controls Contingency Impact fees Interest on development loan Opportunity cost of capital Overhead Building Construction Lot cost ( if sold to a builder; includes land acquisition and development costs plus profit to the developer) Construction cost Builder overhead Interest on construction loan Opportunity cost of capital Real estate and marketing fees Overall, EPA has used more than two dozen different modeling parameters, although not all project types encompass all of these parameters. Since the project location is not specified, national estimates are used where possible. Participants in the NAHB focus group meetings in Chicago assisted EPA with identifying ranges for a number of cost elements for the hypothetical residential construction project, developing estimates for raw land costs, engineering costs, and construction costs, among others. Some of the estimates proposed during the NAHB Chicago meetings are used in the model project, especially where actual national­ level data has not yet been identified, and may reflect market conditions in that part of the country. Table 4­ 2 presents the assumptions used in the single­ family residential model, along with the data source( s) used. Appendix 4A contains a similar table outlining the data parameters and sources for all four model project types. A more detailed discussion of selected parameters and data sources used for the project models is contained in Appendix 4B. 4­ 15 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4­ 2. Model Parameters and Data Sources Model Parameter Source 1, 3, 7.5, 25, 70, and 200 size of parcel, in acres EPA assumption $ 40,000 cost of raw land, per acre Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups, based on experience of the Chicago­ area participants. See Appendix 4B for further discussion. 0.33 size of lot, in acres Census Report C25 ( Characteristics of New Housing, 1999) reports a mean lot size for new single­ family homes sold of 12,910 square feet, which represents a density of close to 3 lots per acre ( evenly distributed with 1/ 3 acre lots) . ( The median lot size is 8,750 square feet, which implies a density of almost 5 lots per acre. ) 2.67 approximate density ( number of lots per acre) Calculated based on impervious surface ratios from Chesapeake Bay Watershed Impervious Cover Results by Land Use Polygons, to account for impervious surface area. Total number of lots ( density x site size) is rounded to nearest whole number. $ 2,500 due diligence costs, per acre Based on $ 100,000 in total due diligence costs for a hypothetical 40­ acre development discussed by the NAHB Chicago focus group participants. Participants considered the costs associated with all necessary environmental and engineering assessments, usually done prior to land acquisition. During these assessments the developer works to identify any potential future problems or liabilities. See Appendix 4B for further discussion. $ 25,000 land development costs, per lot Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. This figure includes any construction activities related to land development ( e. g. , infrastructure costs) . 6% engineering costs, as percent of land development costs Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. 10% overhead costs, as percent of development costs Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. 10% contingency, as percent of land development costs ( before impact fees) Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. $ 15,000 impact fees, per lot Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. See Appendix 4B for further discussion. 7% real estate and marketing fees, as percent of house sales price Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. 2,310 average square footage of new house From Census Report C25, the average size of new single­ family homes sold in 1999 and conventionally financed was 2,310 square feet $ 53.80 cost of house construction, per square foot From NAHB s website, construction costs for a generic single­ family house are $ 124,276. $ 124,276 ÷ 2,310 sq. . ft. = $ 53.80 per sq. ft. ( NAHB 2001b) . See Appendix 4B for further discussion. 65% percent of total land cost that a developer can finance for land acquisition Loan­ to­ value ratio as written in the Real Estate Lending Rules. See Appendix 4B for further discussion. 4­ 16 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4­ 2. Model Parameters and Data Sources Model Parameter Source 75% percent of total development costs that a developer can finance for this stage Loan­ to­ value ratio as written in the Real Estate Lending Rules. See Appendix 4B for further discussion. 80% percent of total building construction cost that a builder can finance Loan­ to­ value ratio as written in the Real Estate Lending Rules. See Appendix 4B for further discussion. 7.5% loan interest rate for builder/ developer EPA estimate. 3 term of land acquisition loan, years EPA assumption. Assumes that the land acquisition loan is paid off over the life of the project, which in this case is 3 years. 1 term of development loan, years EPA assumption. Assumes that the land development loan term is equal to the length of the development phase of the project, which in this case is 1 year. 1 term of construction loan, years EPA assumption. Assumes that the construction loan term is equal to the length of the construction phase of the project, which in this case is 1 year. 10% assumed baseline profit on land development NAHB Chicago focus group estimated 12­ 14 percent; 10 percent is an EPA assumption. See Appendix 4B for further discussion. 10% assumed baseline pre­ tax profit on construction NAHB Chicago focus groups estimated 8 to 12 percent pre­ tax at time of sale. R. S. Means also uses 10 percent as a profit assumption in their Cost Data series. 4.2.6 Model Project Analysis Approach The model project defines the baseline financial performance of the residential subdivision project prior to the promulgation of the proposed rule. The baseline case is assumed to incorporate the costs of full compliance with the existing Phase I and future Phase II NPDES storm water regulations. The model is set up to then assess the incremental impact of additional requirements imposed under the proposed effluent guidelines. 4.2.6.1 Baseline Model Project Performance Table 4­ 3 presents the model project analysis under baseline conditions, that is prior to adding in compliance costs associated with the proposed regulatory requirements. The model estimates the final 4­ 17 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 sales price per housing unit using the assumptions discussed above. The model incorporates built­ in targets for profit margins on both the development and construction portions of the project, as well as other assumptions that affect the target sales price for each unit. As seen, using the assumptions discussed here, the calculated sales price for each unit is $ 283,093. EPA notes that this is higher than the national mean sales price for conventionally­ financed new single­ family housing units, which was $ 234,900 in 2000 ( FHFB 2001) . EPA attributes the difference to assumptions in the model that may reflect higher­ priced housing markets. Despite this likely bias, EPA believes that the model is sufficiently well­ calibrated to allow comparison of the impacts of alternative storm water control costs on the model project financials. It is important to note that while the model recognizes that projects are developed over time, the model does not fully account for the time value of money. Assumptions have been made regarding the duration of each stage of development in order to determine the period for any loans taken on by the developer, i. e. , three years for land acquisition loan, one year for development loan, one year for construction loan. These assumptions influence the debt carrying costs incurred by the developer. What the model does not account for, however, is the fact that some costs are incurred in years two and three ( e. g. , construction costs are incurred three years out) and therefore should be discounted back to the base year, which is the year the project starts. The discount factors for costs incurred two and three years in the future are 0.873 and 0.816, respectively, assuming a seven percent discount rate. This means that any adjustments made to reflect the time value of money would reduce the overall project costs, but to a fairly limited degree. 10 4.2.6.2 Results of Model Project Analysis The model incorporates the costs of incremental regulatory costs via the shaded line item shown in Table 4­ 3. These engineering cost estimates are specific to both the type of project and project size. As these costs are added to the other costs incurred during development, the financing requirements in the development stage also increase. Table 4­ 4 shows the baseline project data and illustrates how the 10 These comments apply to the baseline costs incurred for project development, but do not apply to the incremental regulatory costs. EPA has discounted all regulatory costs that wold be incurred in the future back to the baseline year, in accordance with EPA and OMB guidance for conducting regulatory impact analysis. 4­ 18 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 project financials change in response to the regulatory costs associated with Option 1 under the proposed regulation. As seen, the incremental controls for the option shown in the example, $ 483, would raise the calculated sales price on each housing unit from $ 283,093 to $ 283,137, a difference of $ 44. This represents 0.02 percent of the baseline sales price. When the $ 44 per lot cost passed on to the buyer is compared with the contractor s per­ lot cost of controls ( i. e. , $ 483 ÷ 20 lots = = $ 24.15) , the calculated cost multiplier for this model project is in the range of 1.814. . The cost multiplier is determined by taking the calculated increase in house sales price ( over baseline) and dividing it by the actual per­ lot cost of storm water controls incurred by the builder. In this example, all costs are passed on to the buyer ( 100 percent CPT) . In Chapter Five, EPA presents the results for all combinations or regulatory options under both the 100 percent and zero CPT assumption. Under the zero CPT assumption, the builder would absorb the $ 24.15 in compliance costs on each lot. The impact would be reflected in a decrease in the builder profit, and the sales price of the housing unit would remain the same. 4­ 19 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4­ 3. Baseline Economic Model of Hypothetical 7.5 Acre Residential Development Project Cost Element Value Land Acquisition ( 7.5 acre parcel) Raw land Interest on land acquisition Opportunity cost of capital Land acquisition costs $ 300,000 $ 29,955 $ 16,129 $ 346,084 Land development ( 7.5 acre parcel) Engineering Due diligence Land development ESC engineering costs Contingency Impact fees Interest on development loan Opportunity cost of capital Overhead [ a ] Land development costs $ 30,000 $ 18,750 $ 500,000 $ 0 $ 50,000 $ 300,000 $ 50,555 $ 16,852 $ 78,079 $ 1,044,235 Land acquisition + land development costs Profit on land acquisition and development Total Land acquisition and development $ 1,390,319 $ 154,480 $ 1,544,799 Construction Costs ( per lot) Finished lot cost Construction cost Interest on construction loan Opportunity cost of capital Builder overhead [ a ] Total costs to builder Marketing fees Profit on construction costs House sales price ( calculated) $ 77,240 $ 124,276 $ 12,091 $ 3,023 $ 18,338 $ 234,968 $ 19,817 $ 28,309 $ 283,093 Incremental Regulatory Impacts Change in sales price per lot Costs as percent of sales price Multiplier $ 0 0.00% 0.00 [ a ] Overhead in both the development and construction stages is calculated as total overhead ( ( based on 10 percent of development or construction costs) less the opportunity cost of capital. This was done to avoid double­ counting the opportunity cost of capital. Source: EPA estimates. See also Table 4­ 2 for model parameters and data sources. 4­ 20 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4­ 4. Illustration of Impact of Incremental Storm Water Control Requirements on Model Project Under Proposed Rule Option 1 100 Percent Cost Pass Through Scenario Project Cost Element Baseline Option 1 Land Acquisition ( 7.5 acre parcel) Raw land Interest on land acquisition Opportunity cost of capital Land acquisition costs $ 300,000 $ 29,955 $ 16,129 $ 346,084 $ 300,000 $ 29,955 $ 16,129 $ 346,084 Land Development ( 7.5 acre parcel) Engineering Due diligence Land development ESC engineering costs Contingency Impact fees Interest on development loan Opportunity cost of capital Overhead [ a ] Land development costs $ 30,000 $ 18,750 $ 500,000 $ 0 $ 50,000 $ 300,000 $ 50,555 $ 16,852 $ 78,079 $ 1,044,235 $ 30,000 $ 18,750 $ 500,000 $ 483 $ 50,000 $ 300,000 $ 50,582 $ 16,861 $ 78,121 $ 1,044,796 Land acquisition + land development costs Profit on land acquisition and development Total Land acquisition and development $ 1,390,319 $ 154,480 $ 1,544,799 $ 1,390,880 $ 154,542 $ 1,545,422 Construction Costs ( per lot) Finished lot cost Construction cost Interest on construction loan Opportunity cost of capital Builder overhead [ a ] Total costs to builder Marketing fees Profit House sales price ( calculated) $ 77,240 $ 124,276 $ 12,091 $ 3,023 $ 18,338 $ 234,968 $ 19,817 $ 28,309 $ 283,093 $ 77,271 $ 124,276 $ 12,093 $ 3,023 $ 18,341 $ 235,004 $ 19,820 $ 28,314 $ 283,137 Incremental Regulatory Impacts Change in sales price per lot Costs per lot as % of baseline sales price Multiplier [ b ] $ 0 0.00% 0.000 $ 44 0.02% 1.814 [ a ] Overhead in both the development and construction stages is total overhead ( ( based on 10 percent of development or construction costs) minus the opportunity cost of capital. This was done to avoid double­ counting of the opportunity cost. [ b ] [ Incremental regulatory costs per lot x number of lots ] ÷ [ engineering costs ] Source: EPA estimates. See also Table 4­ 2 for model parameters and data sources. 4­ 21 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 4.2.7 Model Nonbuilding Project Analysis As noted in Section 4.2.2, nonbuilding construction such as roads, highways, bridges, etc. s a sizeable activity but overall represents less than two percent of the total value of construction completed each year. To assess the potential impacts of the proposed rule on such activities EPA has developed a model highway construction project and used this model to assess the proposed rule s costs and impacts. EPA believes the model captures and reflects the likely magnitude and significance of the impacts of the proposed rule on the nonbuilding construction sector overall. From the highway engineering literature, EPA assumed that the typical four­ lane interstate roadway is configured as follows: two travel lanes of 24 feet each, one 20­ foot median between the travel lanes, and 10 foot buffer on each side of the highway ( Wright, 1996) . EPA assumed that the combined width of the road surface, median, and buffers, 88 feet, represents the typical disturbed area for new highway construction. One mile of new highway would therefore represent 10.67 acres in disturbed area. 11 To develop representative baseline costs for the model highway project, EPA examined data from the Federal Highway Administration s ( FHWA s) Highway Statistics publication. Table FA­ 10 ( Obligation of Federal­ Aid Highway Funds for Highway Improvements ) of the Highway Statistics series shows the number of miles, federal funds obligated, and total cost for approved projects in a number of highway improvement categories and roadway functional classifications. Improvement categories include new construction, relocation, widening, and bridge work, among others. Roadway functional classifications include arterials, collectors, and local roads, both rural and urban. Arterials are further divided into interstate, other freeways and expressways, other principal arterials, and minor arterials. EPA aggregated the mileage and cost for the following improvement categories: new construction, relocation, reconstruction with added capacity, and major widening. EPA further used only data for urban interstates and other freeways and expressways, since other functional classifications may 11 The disturbed area is 88 feet or 0.0167 miles wide ( 88 ÷ 5,280 feet) ) . One mile of roadway therefore disturbs 0.0167 square miles, or 10.67 acres ( 0.0167 x 640 acres/ square mile) . 4­ 22 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 include projects that do not closely match the model project characteristics. Since highway and road funding can fluctuate from year to year, EPA estimated the average miles and average cost over the period 1995­ 2000. Table 4­ 5 shows these data, with all dollar values expressed in 1997 dollars. 12 Once all dollar amounts were expressed in constant year dollars, EPA summed the number of miles, federal funds, and total costs across the two functional classifications and four improvement types to generate an overall estimate of total cost and miles affected. The total cost was then divided by the miles affected to generate a weighted average cost per mile over all relevant improvement types and functional classifications. Table 4­ 5 shows the weighted average cost is $ 5.4 million per mile. Some caveats should be noted about the data from the Highway Statistics series, , and as used in EPA s impact model. First, the dollar amounts used represent obligated funds, rather than actual finished project cost. Therefore, the final project cost ( as well as the actual payment to private sector contractors carrying out the work) may be different than the costs reported here ( Benedict 2002) . 13 Second, the costs reported in Table FA­ 10 of Highway Statistics are for multi­ ­ year projects ( Benedict 2002) . This does not present a serious problem for the analysis because the costs provide consistent estimates of project­ level costs and affected miles with which to calculate a project­ level cost per mile. The fact that project completion may span multiple years is not particularly relevant for this analysis. These caveats aside, this is the most complete and well­ documented set of data available on the cost for highway construction projects nationwide. 14 The results of this analysis are presented in Sections 5.2 and 5.4. 12 Values were converted to 1997 equivalents using data from Table PT­ 1 of the Highway Statistics publication, Price Trends for Federal­ Aid Highway Construction ( ( FHWA, 2001a) . 13 Actual costs may be higher due to unforeseen construction problems. However, to the extent this occurs, it will lessen the impacts of the proposed rule as modeled. Higher costs per mile will decrease the average number of miles constructed per year. Fewer miles constructed results in fewer acres disturbed, and therefore lower compliance costs. 14 EPA previously has used an estimate of $ 24.61 million per mile as an estimate for highway project cost ( weighted rural and urban average; FHWA 2001b) . This figure, from the FHWA Office of Program Administration, may reflect many improvement types and other costs that EPA determined should not be included in this analysis. It also contains significant costs for land acquisition, engineering, design, and other work that would not be paid to the contractor for actual construction. 4­ 23 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4­ 5. Obligation of Federal­ Aid Highway Funds for Selected Highway Improvements and Functional Classifications ­ 1995 to 2000. ( Thousands of 1997 dollars) Type of Improvement Urban Total Interstate Other Freeways and Expressways New Construction Number Of Miles Federal Funds Total Cost Cost per Mile 175 $ 1,231,171 $ 1,393,799 $ 7,984 277 $ 1,226,600 $ 1,584,583 $ 5,714 452 2,457,771 2,978,382 $ 6,591 Relocation Number Of Miles Federal Funds Total Cost Cost per Mile 17 $ 243,936 $ 272,084 $ 16,062 46 $ 213,422 $ 270,509 $ 5,924 63 457,358 542,593 $ 8,668 Reconstruction­ Added Capacity Number Of Miles Federal Funds Total Cost Cost per Mile 536 $ 2,206,338 $ 2,680,896 $ 5,001 331 $ 1,330,439 $ 1,674,158 $ 5,062 867 3,536,778 4,355,055 $ 5,024 Major Widening Number Of Miles Federal Funds Total Cost Cost per Mile 307 $ 1,086,999 $ 1,273,760 $ 4,152 192 $ 800,507 $ 1,041,609 $ 5,429 499 1,887,507 2,315,369 $ 4,643 Total Number Of Miles Federal Funds Total Cost Cost per Mile 1,034 $ 4,768,445 $ 5,620,539 $ 5,434 846 $ 3,570,968 $ 4,570,860 $ 5,406 1,880 8,339,413 10,191,398 $ 5,421 Source: Based on FHWA 1996­ 2001, Highway Statistics 1995­ 2000 , Table FA­ 10. 4­ 24 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 4.3 IMPACTS ON MODEL ESTABLISHMENTS In this section EPA presents the methodology used to analyze the establishment­ level impacts of the proposed rule. Section 4.3.1 outlines the impact analysis for a model establishment undertaking a model project. Section 4.3.2 generalizes and extends this model establishment analysis to estimate the industry­ wide closure impacts and employment losses due to the proposed regulatory options. Finally, Section 4.3.3 analyzes whether the proposed rule could present a barrier preventing new firms from entering a market, thereby protecting existing firms from competition. 4.3.1 Model Establishment Analysis This section presents the inputs to the model establishment analysis, discusses the development of balance sheet and income statement information, and develops the methodology for assessing potential regulatory impacts in terms of changes in model establishment financial ratios. 4.3.1.1 Inputs to the Model Establishment Analysis EPA began by identifying data to characterize the typical financial conditions of model businesses in the construction and development industry. This data is used to develop a financial model of the firm, and to analyze the impacts of the regulatory options on firm financial conditions. The sections below present the methodology used to analyze financial impacts on a model firm, and then extend the methodology to project facility closures and employment losses. The Bureau of the Census recently published a profile of the residential homebuilding industry that allows analysts and others to examine data in ways that were not previously available ( Rappaport and Cole 2000) . In particular, the study presents data by size of builder, where the builder s size is defined in terms of the number of housing units completed ( previously such breakdowns were available only on the basis of employment size or revenue size) . EPA used this profile to develop financial snapshots of typical residential home builders. 4­ 25 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 From the profile, EPA determined the average value of construction work ( revenues) completed by builders of various sizes based on the number of housing units started in 1997. EPA combined the average construction revenue data for such builders with more detailed financial data on the homebuilding industry from Dun and Bradstreet ( 2000) ( D& B) . The D& B data was then scaled to the size of the builder in the Census profile, using the ratio of revenues to total assets. 4.3.1.2 Balance Sheet and Income Statement for Model Establishment Table 4­ 6 presents the balance sheet and income statement for a model firm in the single­ family residential construction sector. EPA constructed the model firm financial statement using D& B s 1999 ­ 2000 Industry Norms and Key Business Ratios, and the Census special report on the homebuilding industry. The basic approach was to calculate the ratio of key components of the balance sheet and income statement to net sales, and then scale the value of these components to the size of the model firm. The model firm financials shown in Table 4­ 6 are based on a firm with $ 1.99 million in revenues, which is the average for homebuilders in the 10 to 24 home per year size class ( one of the size classes defined in the Census report) . For the single­ family and multifamily residential construction sectors, EPA constructed a series of model facilities, one for each housing unit starts class. A financial statement for each model firm was generated from these revenue estimates using the method discussed above and illustrated in Table 4­ 6. The Census special study covers the single­ family and multifamily construction sectors, but does not cover the commercial and industrial building construction sectors. To construct model facilities for these sectors, EPA used 1997 Census of Construction data which is available by employment size class. First, EPA determined the employment class in each sector corresponding to the median sized firm in terms of revenues. This employment class became the basis for a single model facility for each sector. For both the commercial and industrial sectors, median revenues were in the 50 to 99 employee class. Within that employment class, EPA then calculated revenues, employment, and costs per establishment in order to further characterize the model facility. 4­ 26 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 For the four construction sectors analyzed, EPA used D& B s typical establishment balance sheet data from the following four­ digit SIC industries: 15 Single­ family residential construction: SIC 1531 Multifamily residential construction: SIC 1522 Manufacturing and industrial building construction: SIC 1541 Commercial and institutional building construction: SIC 1542 Highway and street construction: SIC 1611 For the model establishment presented in Table 4­ 6, revenues were determined from Census data. All other components are determined by the percentages taken from the D& B typical balance sheet for SIC 1531. The ratio of revenues ( net sales) to total assets is used to determine total assets ( and therefore total liabilities) ; the dollar value of the remaining components are derived using the percentages in the right hand column. 15 Although most of the data used in this economic analysis is reported on an NAICS basis, the most recent D& B report still uses the SIC system for reporting purposes. EPA believes the SIC­ based data from D& B can be applied to the corresponding NAICS industries, since there is a high degree of overlap in the industry definitions. 4­ 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ­ ­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4­ 6. Model Single­ Family Residential Construction Firm Financial Data Sources: D& B 2000; Census 2000c; CCH 1999. Line Item Dollars Percent Assets Cash $ 163,390 11.9% Accounts Receivable $ 122,199 8.9% Notes Receivable $ 9,611 0.7% Inventory $ 417,399 30.4% Other Current $ 303,438 22.1% Total Current Assets $ 1,016,037 74.0% Fixed Assets $ 216,938 15.8% Other Non­ current $ 140,049 10.2% Total Assets $ 1,373,023 100.0% Liabilities 10 Accounts Payable $ 112,588 8.2% 11 Bank Loans $ 23,341 1.7% 12 Notes Payable $ 201,834 14.7% 13 Other Current $ 391,312 28.5% 14 Total Current Liabilities $ 729,075 53.1% 15 Other Long Term $ 162,017 11.8% 16 Deferred Credits $ 10,984 0.8% 17 Net Worth $ 470,947 34.3% 18 Total Liabilities & Net Worth $ 1,373,023 100.0% Operating Income 19 Net Sales $ 1,987,009 100.0% 20 Gross Profit $ 453,038 22.8% 21 Net Profit After Tax $ 23,844 1.2% 22 Working Capital $ 286,962 4.3.1.3 Methodology for Analysis of Regulatory Impacts on Model Establishment For each model firm, EPA examined the economic impacts of each regulatory option on four different financial ratios: ( 1) Gross Profit, ( 2) Current, ( 3) Debt to Equity, and ( 4) Return on Net Worth. Industry publications cite these financial ratios as particularly relevant to the construction industry 4­ 28 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 ( Kone, 2000; Benshoof, 2001) . Two of the ratios examined are based on operating income ( gross profit, and return on net worth) , and two are based on the balance sheet statement ( current, and debt to equity) . Based on literature reviews, industry focus group input, and econometric evidence, EPA believes the level of CPT to customers to be high in the construction industry. Complete, or 100 percent CPT implies zero direct impacts on the construction industry. Complete CPT in the residential sector, for example, essentially results in all compliance costs being capitalized into the cost of the house, which is then assumed to be paid for over 30 years as part of the homebuyer s mortgage. In this analysis, EPA has taken a conservative approach that results in a worst­ case scenario, , and is based on the opposite extreme zero CPT. . That is, EPA assumed all compliance costs are borne by the developer­ builder. EPA also examined more realistic scenarios incorporating the effects of partial CPT on the builder. EPA used a market model approach to estimate CPT ( i. e. , the ratio of the increase in market price to incremental compliance costs) for each of the four construction sectors analyzed. EPA s estimates of CPT range from a low of 85 percent for the manufacturing and industrial building sector to a high of 92 percent for the multifamily residential housing sector. Assuming positive CPT, builders incur compliance costs multiplied by one minus the CPT percentage; the remaining costs are passed through to customers in the form of higher prices. 16 Thus, for each compliance cost estimate, EPA examines impacts two ways: first assuming zero CPT, second, assuming positive CPT. EPA assumes that compliance costs affect each model firm s balance sheet in the following manner. Construction costs are typically financed with a short term construction loan. The value of the loan tends to run about 80 percent of the value of the project, with the developer providing the remainder of the capital. The simplified balance sheet presented in Table 4­ 7 illustrates how a construction loan equal to $ Q affects the construction firm s balance sheet if the lending institution requires the builder to finance 20 percent of the cost of the loan. 16 Assume, for example, that the market analysis shows that housing prices increase by $ 0.80 of every dollar in increased construction costs per unit built, then CPT is 80 percent. If the proposed regulation adds $ 200 in construction costs per house, the builder incurs impacts from $ 40 in increased costs not offset by increased revenues [ ( 1 ­ 0.8) * $ 200 ] , while the house buyer pays an additional $ 160 ( 0.8* $ 200) for the house. 4­ 29 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 The loan reduces current assets by the amount of capital the builder is required to pay but increases noncurrent assets by the total value of the project; long term debt is increased by the amount of the loan ( 0.80Q) . The baseline balance sheet financial ratios for the model firm will be calculated on the basis of the center column, while the post­ regulatory financial ratios will be calculated on the basis of the right hand column. The value of Q was set equal to the incremental capital compliance costs of the proposed rule. EPA used the same framework for all four sectors analyzed. Table 4­ 7. Impact of Compliance Costs on Developer­ Builder s Balance Sheet Line item Baseline Post Loan Current Assets $ A $ A ­ . 20Q Noncurrent assets $ B $ B + Q Total Assets $ A + $ B $ A + $ B + . 80Q Current Liabilities $ D $ D Long Term Debt $ E $ E + . 80Q Net Worth $ F $ F Debt plus Equity $ D + $ E + $ F $ D + $ E + $ F + . 80Q Note: Q equals incremental compliance costs. 4.3.1.4 Analysis of Financial Ratios for Model Establishment Few financial ratios have clearly defined critical values that indicate whether a firm is performing well or poorly. Furthermore, analysts often find that a firm can perform well in one financial category ( debt management, for example) , yet poorly in another ( perhaps rate of return) . Lacking such hard and fast rules for interpreting financial ratios, analysts tend to emphasize trends over time, comparisons among competitors, or comparisons between industries, rather than a single critical value for any particular ratio. The sections below briefly describe the four ratios examined for this analysis. 4­ 30 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Gross Profit Ratio The gross profit ratio measures the ratio of pretax operating profit to revenues: gross profit ratio gross profit ( net sales & operating costs) net sales net sales Gross profits are line item 20 on the model firm balance sheet and income statement ( Table 4­ 6) while net sales are line item 19. This ratio measures the decline in pretax operating income relative to the firm s volume of business. Under the worst­ case scenario ( zero CPT) , the post compliance gross profit ratio for the model firm would be: gross profit ratio ( net sales & operating costs & pre & tax compliance costs) net sales An increase in compliance costs decreases the value of the gross profit ratio; the firm is relatively worse off. Return on Net Worth Return on net worth measures the rate of return from the firm relative to the owner s investment: return on net worth net profit after tax net worth Net profit after tax is line item 21 on the model firm balance sheet and income statement ( Table 4­ 6) while net worth is line item 17. Should the rate of return on this line of business fall too much, then investors have better opportunities for their capital; they would start investing their capital in other industries instead of construction, and the construction industry would contract. Compliance costs reduce net profit, and therefore reduce return on net worth: 4­ 31 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 return on net worth ( net profit after tax & post & tax compliance costs) net worth EPA multiplied compliance costs by one minus the effective tax rate to estimate post­ tax compliance costs. To determine the effective tax rate, EPA assumed taxable income was equal to gross profit ( line item 20 on Table 4­ 6) ; EPA used Federal corporate tax rates plus the average state corporate tax rate ( 6.6 percent) for the specified level of taxable income. Note that return on net worth is a much more sensitive ratio than the other ratios considered above because it is calculated on a post­ tax basis. As can be observed in line item 21, post­ tax profits are a much smaller percent of net sales than gross profit. Current Ratio The current ratio is defined as: current ratio current assets current liabilities Current assets are line item 6 on the model firm balance sheet and income statement ( Table 4­ 6) while current liabilities are line item 14. The current ratio is a liquidity ratio that measures the availability of cash and near cash assets to meet short­ term obligations. Clearly if current liabilities exceed current assets ( i. e. , the current ratio is less than one) , the firm cannot meet all its short­ term financial obligations. Although the current ratio has a well defined critical threshold, detrimental financial impacts can occur before the ratio falls below one. Again, using EPA s conservative worst­ case assumption to estimate the impact of the proposed rule on the model firms s finances, the post­ regulatory current ratio is: current ratio ( current assets & . 20 × pre & tax compliance costs) current liabilities An increase in compliance costs decreases the value of the current ratio; the firm is relatively worse off. 4­ 32 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Debt Management The debt to equity ratio is a ratio that measures how much a firm s financing has been borrowed from creditors: total debt debt to equity ratio owner equity Total debt is the sum of line items 14 ( current liabilities) , 15 ( other long term liabilities) , and 16 ( deferred credits) on the model firm balance sheet and income statement ( Table 4­ 6) , while owner equity is line item 17 ( net worth) . The debt to equity ratio presents amount of capital borrowed relative to that supplied by the owners. If, for example, the debt to equity ratio is 1.9, then $ 1.90 has been borrowed for every $ 1 of capital provided by the owners. If the debt to equity ratio becomes too high, creditors would be reluctant to lend further capital unless the owners provide more equity. Incremental compliance costs mean that the builder would increase long term debt by the amount of the loan ( 0.80 × capital cost) ) . Thus the post compliance debt to equity ratio is calculated as: debt to equity ratio ( total debt % 0. 80 × pre & tax compliance costs) net worth An increase in compliance costs increases the value of the debt to equity ratio and the firm is relatively worse off. 4.3.1.5 Compliance Cost Inputs into Financial Ratio Analysis EPA estimated engineering compliance costs based on project size, climatic, geographical, and other characteristics. To project economic impacts using these costs, EPA determined the costs incurred by each model establishment, then converted these compliance costs to costs per establishment based on the following formula: costs per establishment ( costs per acre) × ( acres per start) × ( starts per establishment) 4­ 33 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 EPA estimated average compliance costs per acre based on project size. These are a weighted average of engineering costs by environmental region ( see section 4.4.3 for details of the weighted average of compliance costs per acre calculation, and section 4.6.2. for discussion of regional characteristics and compliance costs) . For the single­ family residential, commercial, and manufacturing construction sectors, the estimated number of units started per establishment is essentially identical to the number of buildings started. For the multifamily residential construction sector, however, Census reports the number of units started, but each building contains a number of units. EPA therefore estimated the average number of units per building to convert units started to buildings started. Using data from 1999 and 2000, EPA examined the number of units built in various building classes ( e. g. , 35,500 units in buildings containing 2 to 4 units, 48,000 units in buildings containing 5 to 9 units) to construct a weighted average ( U. S. Census Bureau 2000b) . Assuming the midpoint of each building class interval represents the average number of units per building in each class ( e. g. , apartment buildings in the 2 to 4 units per building class contain an average of 3 apartments per building) , EPA divided total units per class by the midpoint of the class to estimate the number of multi­ unit buildings in each class. EPA then calculated a weighted average of units per building using the class midpoints weighted by the estimated number of buildings constructed in each class. Using this approach, EPA estimated an overall average of 10.8 units per multi­ family residential building nationwide. EPA used a variety of sources to estimate average acres per start. For single­ family residential construction, EPA based its estimate of acres per start on the median lot size from the Census report Characteristics of New Housing ( U. S. Census Bureau, 2000a) . For multifamily residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, EPA combined data on the typical building footprint from R. . S. Means ( 2000) with the ratio of building footprint to site size from the Center for Watershed Protection ( CWP, 2001) to estimate average acres per start. For the model highway and street construction contractor, EPA used data from Dun & Bradstreet, the 1997 Census of Construction , and the 1995­ 2000 editions of the Federal Highway Administration s ( FHWA s) Highway Statistics publication. EPA used 1997 Census data to construct a model highway and street construction establishment based on median revenues for establishments in 4­ 34 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 NAICS 234110. Using the same methodology EPA developed distributions of financial ratios for Dun & Bradstreet data for SIC 1611 ( highway and street construction) . To estimate the number of acres disturbed, and hence, total establishment compliance costs, ERG estimated miles of highway constructed per year by dividing model establishment revenues by the estimated cost per mile constructed, $ 5.4 million, which was derived in Table 4­ 5. 17 4.3.2 Extension of Model Facility Analysis to Project Industry Closures EPA extended the model facility framework described here to project closures and employment losses resulting from the proposed regulation. The primary analysis, based upon analysis of financial ratios, is presented in Section 4.3.2.1. EPA also conducted a sensitivity analysis, comparing the results of the primary analysis to an estimate of closures and employment losses using an alternative approach based on cashflow changes. This alternative approach is outlined in Section 4.3.2.2. The results of the primary analysis are in Section 5.5, while the sensitivity analysis is presented in Appendix 5B. Before explaining these methodologies, however, EPA first presents information on how the number of affected establishments and employees was determined for use in this analysis. 4.3.2.1 Estimation of Affected Establishments and Employment The proposed rule contains three regulatory options, each of which would apply to sites of varying sizes. Option 1 applies to sites of one acre or larger, Option 2 applies to sites of five acres or larger, and Option 3 ( no regulation option) applies to all sites. To accurately reflect the number of entities affected under each option, EPA has adjusted the closure and employment loss methodology to account for the number of establishments affected under each option. This section describes the process used to make these adjustments. EPA again used data from the Census special study of the home building industry ( Rappaport and Cole, 2000) to obtain the number of establishments by housing unit starts class. EPA concluded that 17 As described in Section 4.2.7, EPA estimated that one mile of highway will disturb 10.67 acres of land. 4­ 35 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 this data provided the best source for estimating the number of establishments and employees potentially affected under each option. Using the estimated density of 2.67 single­ family housing units per acre ( see Table 4­ 2) , establishments starting between one and four single­ family housing units per year were excluded under Option 1 because they are unlikely to disturb more than one acre on a given project. 18 Establishments in both the 1­ 4 and 5­ 9 housing unit starts per year categories were similarly excluded under Option 2, since the maximum number of housing units, nine, equates to only 3.3 acres. 19 This makes it unlikely many builders in these size classes disturb more than five acres on an individual project basis. The Census report estimates that 50,661 single­ family builders start between one and four housing units per year, while another 12,708 builders start between five and nine units per year. EPA further concluded that 1,904 multifamily builders starting between two and nine multifamily units per year are unlikely to disturb more than five acres on a given project, and excluded these from the universe of establishments potentially affected under Option 2. Affected employment is determined in the same manner as affected establishments. The Census study reports the number of employees in each housing unit start category, and this number is subtracted as above under each option. The adjustments above were made for the residential construction industries only. There are two reasons for this: ( 1) the Census special study only covers single­ family and multifamily residential construction establishments; and ( 2) EPA believes that commercial and industrial building establishments are overall more likely to disturb five acres or more during the course of each project. Therefore, no adjustments are made to the nonresidential building establishment and employment counts. Table 4­ 8 shows the establishment count adjustment for each option, while Table 4­ 9 shows the adjustment to employment. 18 Using the density of 2.67 units per acre, four housing units per year equates to a maximum of 1.5 acres. This makes it unlikely a large percentage of establishments in the 1­ 4 housing units per year category disturb more than one acre at a time on a regular basis. 19 Again, this would be the maximum land area disturbed in a year. The maximum disturbed on an individual project could be even less. 4­ 36 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4­ 8. Number of Establishments in the Construction and Development Industry Adjusted for Regulatory Option Coverage Industry Baseline [ a ] Option 1 Option 2 Adjustment for 1 acre exclusion Adjusted Number Adjustment for 5 acre exclusion Adjusted Number Single­ family 84,731 ( 50,661) 34,070 ( 12,708) 21,362 Multifamily 4,603 4,603 ( 1,904) 2,699 Commercial 39,810 39,810 39,810 Industrial 7,742 7,742 7,742 Potentially affected establishments 136,886 86,225 71,613 [ a ] Previously adjusted for remodeling establishments and land development establishments. . See Section 2.3.5 for discussion of this adjustment. Figures may not add to totals due to rounding. Source: Rappaport and Cole ( 2000) and EPA estimates. Table 4­ 9. Employment in the Construction and Development Industry Adjusted for Regulatory Option Coverage Industry Baseline [ a ] Option 1 Option 2 Adjustment for 1 acre exclusion Adjusted Number Adjustment for 5 acre exclusion Adjusted Number Single­ family 340,874 ( 128,940) 211,933 ( 41,940) 169,993 Multifamily 35,160 35,160 ( 6,064) 29,096 Commercial 549,567 549,567 549,567 Industrial 148,861 148,861 148,861 Potentially affected employees 1,074,462 945,521 897,517 [ a ] Previously adjusted for remodeling establishments and land development establishments. . See Section 2.3.5 for discussion of this adjustment. Figures may not add to totals due to rounding. Source: Rappaport and Cole ( 2000) and EPA estimates. 4­ 37 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 4.3.2.2 Closure and Employment Impacts Based on Financial Ratio Analysis To assess the impacts on firm closures, EPA first selected a criterion for determining when a facility is considered impacted by the proposed rule. . As discussed above, financial ratios rarely have well­ defined thresholds that correlate with financial health or distress. On previous effluent guidelines ( e. g. , MP& M) , EPA has defined the critical value for financial stress as that value of a financial ratio that defines the poorest performing 25 percent of firms ( i. e. , the lowest quartile) . EPA then assumes that a facility is financially stressed if its pre­ regulatory financial ratio lies above the lowest quartile for that ratio, but its post­ regulatory ratio falls in that lowest quartile range. 20 To estimate the number of establishments in each industry that would be financially distressed by the proposed regulation, EPA first approximated a cumulative distribution function for each financial ratio based on D& B data. Figure 4­ 1 illustrates the current ratio cumulative distribution function for SIC 1531, used to analyze single­ family residential construction. The baseline curve represents the pre­ regulatory cumulative distribution function. This curve indicates that 25 percent of establishments have a current ratio below 1.1 ( 1.1 thus becoming the critical value for determining financial distress) , 25 percent of establishments have a current ratio greater than 1.1 but less 1.4 ( the median) , 25 percent have a current ratio greater than 1.4 but less than 2.9, and 25 percent have a current ratio greater than 2.9. 21 20 For example, according to D& B, 25 percent of establishments in SIC 1531 have a current ratio less than 1.1, and 75 percent have a current ratio greater than 1.1. If an establishment s pre­ regulatory current ratio is greater than 1.1, but its post­ regulatory current ratio is less than 1.1, EPA would classify the firm as financially distressed. 21 The minimum and maximum values for the current ratio are not provided by D& B. For completeness EPA selected reasonable values to represent the end points of the curve. . This has no effect on the analysis because the lowest and highest ranges are not used in the analysis. 4­ 38 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 EPA then calculates the post­ regulatory current ratio for the quartile values. This shifts the cumulative distribution function for the current ratio to the left. Using the post­ regulatory curve in this example, approximately 40 percent of establishments now have current ratios less than or equal to the critical value of 1.1. Thus, about 15 percent of establishments in this sector incur incremental financial Figure 4­ 1 Pre ­ and Post­ regulatory Cumulative Distribution Function for Current Ratio SIC 1531: Ope rative Builde rs 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 Current Ratio Probability Baseline Postregulatory Critical Value distress due to compliance costs ( i. e. , 40 percent below 1.1 on the post regulatory curve minus 25 percent below 1.1 in the baseline) . 4­ 39 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 A firm that exhibits or experiences financial distress under a single measure of financial performance would not necessarily always shut down. Therefore, EPA constructed similar cumulative distribution functions for the debt to equity, and return on net worth ratios, then estimated the probability of incremental financial distress under each measure. 22 To assess the economic achievability of the proposed rule, EPA assumes that the probability of establishment closure due to incremental compliance costs is equal to the average probability of incremental financial distress under each of the three financial ratios: current, debt to equity, and return on net worth. Multiplying this probability by the number of establishments in the sector, EPA obtains an estimate of the number of establishments projected to close due to the proposed regulation. Intuitively, EPA is making an implicit assumption that establishments incurring financial distress under one ratio are also incurring distress under the other two ratios. If an establishment is distressed under multiple measures of financial health, it is highly likely the establishment will close. 23 Employment losses are estimated by multiplying the number of establishments projected to close by the average number of employees per establishment. Finally, to project sector­ wide impacts, EPA aggregated closure and employment impacts over all combinations of model establishments and project sizes examined. Thus, closures for a single sector are calculated as a weighted average where the weights are determined by: ( 1) the relative frequency of establishments represented by each model in the sector, and ( 2) the relative frequency of a particular project size among all projects performed by the sector. EPA also adjusted the universe of affected establishments to reflect the regulatory coverage of each option. Thus, for Option 1 ( which applies to sites of one acre or greater) EPA excluded establishments in the 1­ 4 housing starts category on the assumption that few of these small builders are likely to disturb more than one acre per project. Similarly, where Option 2 would apply to sites of five acres or more, EPA excluded establishments in both the 1­ 4 22 D& B does not provide quartile values for the gross profit ratio. 23 A strict interpretation of this implicit assumption would result in EPA always selecting the smallest probability of incremental financial distress from among the three measure. However, EPA determined this was not analytically desirable because the results would always be determined by the least sensitive measure of distress. Therefore, EPA selected an average of the three probabilities to measure closure rates. Note that in reality, establishments may incur distress under one ratio, but not under another, thus being less likely to close. It is possible that the set of establishments incurring distress under the current ratio, for example, is completely separate from the set of establishments incurring distress under the debt to equity ratio. However, EPA has no information on which to base an estimate of such joint probabilities. Assuming the sets of establishments incurring distress are identical results in a more conservative estimate of closures. 4­ 40 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 and 5­ 9 housing starts class. Assuming the national average of density of 2.67 houses per acre ( see Table 4­ 2) a five acre site would support an average of 13.3 housing units. 4.3.2.3 Closure and Employment Impacts Based on Cashflow Analysis As a check on the financial ratio­ based approach to projecting establishment closure impacts, EPA developed a cashflow model and constructed a statistical distribution of establishments around each representative model. This allowed EPA to estimate the probability that establishments would have insufficient cashflow to afford the estimated compliance costs. Modern financial theory states that an investment should not be undertaken if cashflow is expected to be negative after the investment is undertaken ( Brealy and Myers, 1996; Brigham and Gapenski, 1997) . In the context of this proposed rule, if compliance costs exceed cashflow, then post­ regulatory cashflow would be negative. Under these circumstances EPA projects that the establishment would close; EPA has used this standard for projecting establishment closures for a number of past effluent guidelines ( e. g. , Transportation Equipment Cleaning, Industrial Laundries, Iron and Steel) . Basing the cashflow analysis on the model facilities only means that all establishments represented by a particular model would be projected to remain open if the model establishment earns cashflow exceeding compliance costs, and all would close if the model establishment s cashflow is less than estimated compliance costs. In reality, the model establishment represents a family of establishments, some with greater cashflow than the model, some with less cashflow than the model. Thus, there is some probability that establishments would close due to compliance costs even if the model establishment s cashflow exceeds compliance costs. By developing a probability distribution for each model establishment s cashflow with known mean and variance, EPA can estimate this probability. Multiplying the probability that compliance costs exceed cashflow ( i. e. , that post­ regulatory cashflow is negative) by the number of establishments represented by the model, EPA obtains the projected number of closures for that option. To develop the cashflow distribution, EPA first estimated the mean and variance of cashflow associated with each model establishment. EPA based its estimate of mean cashflow on the 1997 Census of Construction. EPA calculated average revenues, payroll, material costs, and work subcontracted out to others within each model class ( starts class for single and multifamily residential, employment class for commercial and manufacturing sectors) by dividing each Census value 4­ 41 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 by the number of establishments in the class. EPA then estimated taxable income per model establishment as: revenues minus payroll, material costs, and work subcontracted out to others. Adjusting taxable income for taxes and interest payments results in estimated model establishment cashflow. EPA applied Federal corporate tax rates, plus the average state corporate tax rate to establishment income. EPA assumed interest payments comprise 25 percent of taxable income. EPA based its estimate of the variance of each model establishment s cashflow distribution on the U. S. Small Business Administration s births and deaths database, , a special tabulation prepared for SBA by Census ( SBA 1999) . EPA calculated the ratio of establishment closures to total establishments for the 1989 to 1998 time period at the four­ digit SIC level from this database. 24 Assuming these establishments were closing because their cashflow was less than zero, EPA used the model mean and the assumption of a normal distribution to estimate the variance for the distribution that would result in a probability of zero cashflow ( or less) equal to the closure rate estimated from the births and deaths database. With estimated mean, variance, and assumed distribution of cashflow for each model establishment, it is a straightforward exercise to estimate the probability of closure due to the proposed rule. Figure 4­ 2 illustrates how this analysis was conducted. The estimated normal curve represents the distribution of a model establishment with mean cashflow of $ 1 million, and a variance set so that the probability of cashflow less than zero is about 17 percent ( as determined from SBA s births and deaths database) ) . The critical value is equal to estimated compliance costs in this example set equal to $ 400,000. 25 Figure 4­ 2 shows that based on this distribution, about 27 percent of establishments earn cashflow less than estimated compliance costs. However, 17 percent of establishments had negative cashflow prior to incurring the compliance costs ( i. e. , the baseline closures ) . Therefore, about 10 percent of establishments in this example would be projected to close due to the regulation ( e. g. , 27 24 Note that the level of detail in the database was sufficient to allow EPA to estimate separately the closure rates for small and large business establishments. 25 This large estimated compliance cost was selected only for the purposes of making the figure clear and does not reflect actual anticipated compliance costs. 4­ 42 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Figure 4­ 2 Baseline Distribution Function with Bounds for Facility Cashflow 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 $ 0 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 4,000 Cashflow ( x $ 1,000) Probability Estimated Normal Lower Bound Upper Bound Critical Value percent with cashflow less than compliance costs minus the 17 percent with cashflow less than zero) . If 150 establishments are in this model class, and the average employment per establishment is 20 workers in this class, than EPA would project 15 establishments would close and 300 employees would lose their jobs due to the regulation. Because of the uncertainties inherent in estimating cashflow and variance for this analysis, EPA estimated a range of closure and employment impacts. EPA created upper and lower bounds to its 4­ 43 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 estimated cashflow distribution by multiplying the distribution s variance by plus/ minus 25 percent. This creates the bands observed around the estimated normal distribution in Figure 4­ 2. Therefore, although the methodology follows the logic outlined above, EPA reports an upper and lower bound for projected closures based on bands around the actual estimated variance of cashflow. The results of this analysis are presented in Appendix 5A. 4.3.3 Analysis of Barriers to Entry Barriers to entry are typically assumed to occur if the cost of complying with a regulation substantially increases the firm start­ up costs. For example, if a rulemaking required that all facilities invest substantially in a wastewater treatment system, then an entrepreneur might be discouraged from starting an enterprise. The increased capital cost serves as a barrier to new entry to the industry. The situation in the construction industry is somewhat different than that outlined above. In terms of the capital expense needed to start a firm, the proposed rule has little direct impact. The proposed rule does not require a firm to purchase and install any capital equipment, and thus the level of capital expenditures required to start up a firm are not directly affected by the proposed rule. Landis ( 1986; see section 2.4.1.4.2 for details) identifies two significant classes of barrier to entry specific to the construction industry that are not related to capital equipment: ( 1) entry costs to participate in a given market ( e. g. , local development fees or abnormally high land costs) , and ( 2) input cost differentials ( e. g. , the new entrant must pay a higher price for inputs than existing firms) . These barriers to entry, however, also appear unaffected by the proposed rule. To the extent that either of these barriers already exist in any given market, they would not be differentially impacted by the proposed rule. As the model establishment analysis shows, the proposed rule might increase borrowing to finance building projects. This could affect a potential industry entrant indirectly in that it may need marginally more start­ up capital in order to obtain the somewhat larger short­ term construction loan to undertake a project. Once again, however, the new entrant would still face essentially the same requirements that existing firms face to secure a loan. Thus, new entrants should not be differentially 4­ 44 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 affected by the proposed rule in such a way that they would be unable to compete effectively with existing firms. To examine the potential for barriers to entry, EPA calculated the ratio of estimated compliance costs to each model establishment s current assets and total assets. If these ratios are small, then EPA concludes that the proposed rule would have little effect on the ability of a new entrant to find financing for a project. Note that in this analysis EPA compares total compliance costs to assets. This step probably overestimates impacts. It is more likely that a new entrant would need to provide only 20 percent of the incremental compliance costs and would obtain the remaining 80 percent from conventional construction loan financing sources ( see Section 4.3.1.3) as would an existing firm. . 4.4 NATIONAL COMPLIANCE COSTS As noted above, EPA developed engineering costs for four categories of land use ( single­ family residential, multifamily residential, commercial, and industrial) and six project size categories ( 1, 3, 7.5, 25, 70, and 200 acres) . Estimates of the national costs of the effluent guidelines regulations are obtained by multiplying the per­ acre costs developed for each land use and size class combination by the number of acres of each type estimated to be developed each year; taking into account the applicability of each option in terms of site size. Estimates of the number of acres developed nationally per year are available from the U. S. Department of Agriculture s ( USDA s) National Resources Inventory ( NRI) . This source does not, however, identify the type of development or subsequent nature of the land use, nor the distribution of acreage by site size. The following sections describe the NRI estimates and EPA s approach to distributing the developed acreage by type of development and site size. 4.4.1 National Estimates of Disturbed Acreage The NRI, a program of the USDA s Natural Resources Conservation Service, is designed to track changes in land cover and land use over time. The inventory, conducted every five years, covers all non­ 4­ 45 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Federal land in the United States ( 75 percent of the U. S. total) . The program captures land use data from some 800,000 statistically selected locations. From 1992 to 1997, an average of 2.24 million acres per year was converted from nondeveloped to developed status ( USDA, 2000) . Table 4­ 10 shows the allocation of this converted land area by type of land or land cover. As seen, land previously classified as forest land accounted for 41.9 percent of the total, while land previously classified as cropland accounted for 25.6 percent and land previously classified as pastureland accounted for 17.4 percent. No further breakdown by type of converted land use is available. EPA assumes that some of the 2.24 million acres converted from an undeveloped to developed state each year would be exempt from the requirements of the proposed rule due to small­ site or low­ soil­ loss­ potential waivers. Based on the engineering analysis of sites likely to be eligible for such waivers, EPA has reduced the acreage subject to active construction controls to 2.18 million acres ( U. S. EPA, 2002) . In the following section EPA develops estimates of the distribution of this acreage by type of development and by project size. EPA also estimates the amount of acreage potentially excluded from coverage under the site size exclusions specified for Option 1 and Option 2 ( i. e. , below one and below 5 acres, respectively) . With the resulting estimates of acreage distributed by project type and size class, EPA can then apply the appropriate per­ acre engineering costs to obtain estimates of national costs. 4.4.2 Distribution of Acreage by Project Type To allocate the NRI acreage, EPA has estimated the distribution of acres developed by type of development in the following way. In the first step, EPA multiplied the number of building permits issued annually by estimates of the average site size. Thus for single­ family residential construction, EPA multiplied the number of new single­ family homes authorized by building permit by the average lot size for new single­ family construction. Estimates for other types of construction are based on extrapolations from the Census permit data and EPA estimates of average project size. In the second step, EPA adjusts the estimates of acres converted to reconcile any differences between the total number of acres accounted for using this approach and the total acres developed estimated by the NRI. Finally, 4­ 46 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 EPA allocates the total by type of construction, site size, and region and adjusts each regional value to an integer to ensure that only whole sites are considered. Table 4­ 10. Acres Converted from Undeveloped to Developed State a ( 1992­ 1997) Type of land Acres Converted to Development 1992­ 1997 ( 000) annual average Percent contribution by type of land Cropland 574.8 25.6% Conservation Reserve Program land 1.5 0.1% Pastureland 391.2 17.4% Rangeland 245.9 11.0% Forest land 939 41.9% Other rural land 89.1 4.0% Water areas and federal land 1.8 0.1% Total 2,243.4 100.0% a NRI defines developed land as a combination of the following land cover/ use categories large urban and built­ up areas , small built­ up areas , and rural transportation land . These are defined as follows: Large urban and built­ up areas . A land cover/ use category composed of developed tracts of at least 10 acres meeting the definition of urban and built­ up areas. b Small built­ up areas. A land cover/ use category consisting of developed land units of 0.25 to 10 acres, which meet the definition of urban and built­ up areas. b Rural transportation land. A land cover/ use category which consists of all highways, roads, railroads and associated right­ of­ ways outside urban and built­ up areas; also includes private roads to farmsteads or ranch headquarters, logging roads, and other private roads ( field lanes are not included) . b Urban and built up areas are in turn defined as: Urban and built­ up areas. A land cover/ use category consisting of residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional land; construction sites; public administrative sites; railroad yards; cemeteries; airports; golf courses; sanitary landfills; sewage treatment plants; water control structures and spillways; other land used for such purposes; small parks ( less than 10 acres) within urban and built­ up areas; and highways, railroads , and other transportation facilities if they are surrounded by urban areas. Also included are tracts of less than 10 acres that do not meet the above definition but are completely surrounded by Urban and built­ up land. Two size categories are recognized in the NRI: areas of 0.25 acre to 10 acres, and areas of at least 10 acres. Source: USDA, 2000. Single­ family residential Census data indicate that in recent years the number of new single­ family housing units authorized has averaged just over 1.0 million units per year ( see Table 4­ 11) . As seen in Table 4­ 12, the average lot size for new single­ family housing units is 13,553 square feet, or 0.31 acres ( 1 acre = 43,560 4­ 47 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 square feet) . Using the average lot size, however, would underestimate the total acreage converted for single­ family residential projects because this acreage does not include common areas of developments that are not counted as part of the owner s lot streets, sidewalks, parking areas, storm water management structures, and open spaces. To account for this, EPA examined data obtained from a survey of municipalities conducted in support of the Phase II NPDES storm water rule ( EPA, 1999) . This survey identified 14 communities that consistently collected project type and size data as part of their construction permitting programs. 26 EPA s review of permitting data from these communities covered 855 single­ family developments encompassing 18,134 housing units. The combined area of these developments was 11,460 acres. This means that each housing unit accounted for 0.63 acres ( 11,460 acres ÷ 18,134 units = = 0.63 acres per unit) . This estimate, essentially double the average lot size, appears to more than account for the common areas and undeveloped areas in a typical single­ family residential development. For this reason, EPA averaged the Census estimate of the national average lot size ( 0.31 acres) and the Phase II NPDES storm water estimate of 0.63 acres per unit to arrive at an estimate of 0.47 acres per unit. This number was multiplied by the average number of single­ family housing units authorized by building permit, 1.04 million, to arrive at an estimate of 490,231 acres ( see Table 4­ 15) . Table 4­ 11. New Single­ Family and Multifamily Housing Units Authorized, 1995­ 1997 Year All Housing Units Single­ Family Housing Units Multifamily Housing Units 1995 1,332,549 997,268 335,281 1996 1,425,616 1,069,472 356,144 1997 1,441,136 1,062,396 378,740 1995­ 1997 avg 1,399,767 1,043,045 356,722 Source: Census 2000b. Series C40 New Privately Owned Housing Units Authorized. 26 The communities were: Austin, TX; Baltimore County, MD; Cary, NC; Ft. Collins, CO; Lacey, WA; Loudoun County, VA; New Britain, CT; Olympia, WA; Prince George s County, MD; Raleigh, NC; South Bend, IN; Tallahassee, FL; Tuscon, AZ; and Waukesha, WI. 4­ 48 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4­ 12. Average and Median Lot Size for New Single­ Family Housing Units Sold, 1995­ 1997 Year Average Lot Size ( Square Feet) Median Lot Size ( Square Feet) 1995 13,290 9,000 1996 13,705 9,100 1997 13,665 9,375 1995­ 1997 avg 13,553 9,158 Source: Census 2000a. Series C25 Characteristics of New Housing: Multifamily Residential For residential construction other than single­ family housing, EPA divided the average number of units authorized over 1995­ 1997 ( 356,722, from Table 4­ 11) by the average number of units per new multifamily building. The average number of units per building was obtained by examining the distribution of units by unit size class in Census data ( U. S. Census Bureau, 2000b) . This report shows the number of units by building size class ( 2 to 4 units, 5 to 9 units, 10 to 19 units, 20 or more units) . 27 EPA estimated the number of buildings in each size class ( using data for 1999 and 2000) by dividing the number of units in each class by the average number of units. The total number of units were then divided into the estimated number of buildings to arrive at the average number of units across all building size classes. When this was done, the average number of units was estimated to be 10.8. EPA next examined data on the average site size for multifamily residential developments. The Center for Watershed Protection reports estimates from one survey in which the footprint for multifamily buildings occupied an average of 15.6 percent of the total site ( CWP, 2001) . EPA assumed that the average­ sized multifamily building ( 10.8 units) would have two floors and that each unit occupies the national average of 1,095 square feet ( NAHB, 2002) . The total square footage accounted for by living space is thus 11,826 square feet. Multiplying by a factor of 1.2 to account for common areas and other non­ living space ( utility rooms, hallways, stairways) , and dividing by 2 to reflect the assumption of a 2­ 27 The average number of units was derived using data for 1999 and 2000, since data for prior years was not available at this level of building size detail. 4­ 49 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 story structure, EPA obtained a typical building footprint of 7,096 square feet ( 11,826 x 1.2 ÷ 2 = = 7,096) . Combining this with the CWP estimate of the building footprint share of total site size ( 15.6 percent) , the average site size was estimated to be 42,485 square feet ( 7,096 ÷ 0.156 = = 45,487) , or just over one acre ( 1.04 acres) . EPA compared the average site size obtained using this approach with data from the 14 community study referenced above. That study s review of permitting data identified 286 multifamily developments covering a total of 3,476 acres. The average site size, 12.1 acres, is considerably higher than that obtained above. EPA has no indication that the permits reviewed in these communities are for projects of a larger than average size. For purposes of this analysis, EPA has taken the midpoint of the estimates, 6.5 acres, as the average size of multifamily projects. This number was multiplied by the average number of multifamily housing developments authorized by building permit, 35,672, to arrive at an estimate of 231,868 acres ( see Table 4­ 15) . Nonresidential construction EPA lacked current data on the number of nonresidential construction and development projects authorized annually because the Census Bureau ceased collecting data on the number of permits issued for such projects in 1995. EPA therefore used regression analysis to forecast the number of nonresidential building permits issued in 1997, based on the historical relationship between residential and nonresidential construction activity ( see Section 4.5.3) . Using this approach, EPA estimates that a total of 426,024 nonresidential permits were issued in 1997. These represent a variety of project types, including commercial and industrial, institutional, recreational, as well as nonresidential, nonbuilding projects such as parks and road and highway projects. EPA first combined a number of nonresidential project types into a larger commercial category, which included hotels and motels, retail and office projects, and religious, public works, and educational projects. 28 EPA s reasoning for including the latter categories under the commercial category 28 The commercial category included: hotels/ motels, amusement, religious, parking garages, service stations, hospitals, offices, public works, educational, stores, other nonresidential buildings. 4­ 50 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 is based on engineering judgment that storm water management practices would be similar across each project type. The total estimated number of commercial permits in 1997 was 254,566 ( 59.7 percent of the nonresidential total) . EPA retained the industrial category, which totaled 12,140 permits ( 2.8 percent) , separately. Storm water management practices for such sites generally differ from those for commercial or residential sites. The residual, 159,318 permits ( 37.4 percent) , are nonbuilding, nonresidential projects that include parks, bridges, roads, and highways. EPA accounts for these projects in the steps described further below. For the commercial and industrial categories, EPA reviewed the project size data collected from the 14­ community study referenced earlier ( EPA, 1999) . This study identified 817 commercial sites occupying 5,514 acres and 115 industrial sites occupying 689 acres. The average site size is 6.75 and 5.99 acres, respectively. EPA also reviewed estimates from CWP ( 2001) on the average percent of commercial and industrial sites taken up by the building footprint. These percentages, 19.1 and 19.6 respectively, were multiplied across the model project site sizes of 1, 3, 7.5, 25, 70, and 200 acres to estimate the size of building on each site, assuming single­ story buildings in each case. These estimates are shown in Table 4­ 13. Table 4­ 13. Average Building Square Footage Project Size ( Acres) Commercial Industrial 1 8,320 8,555 3 24,960 25,666 7.5 62,400 64,164 25 207,999 213,880 70 582,397 598,863 200 1,663,992 1,711,037 Estimates were obtained by multiplying the site size in square feet by the percentage of the site estimated to be occupied by the building footprint, based on data from CWP ( 2001) . Source: EPA estimates. 4­ 51 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 As seen in the table, the average building size corresponding to the 6­ to 7­ acre sites estimated from the 14­ community study are in the 60,000 square feet range. EPA next examined R. S. Means ( 2000) , which provides cost data for typical commercial and industrial buildings. . As part of the cost data, Means identifies the typical range of building sizes based on a database of actual projects. Table 4­ 13 shows the typical size and size range for a variety of building types that would fall into either the commercial or industrial categories. While some of the building types correspond with the estimated average of 60,000 square feet, these appear high for other categories, such as low­ rise office and supermarkets, warehouses, and elementary schools. EPA believes generally that there are more small projects than large ones. As a result, EPA inferred that this approach would suggest an average building size of 25,000 square feet, which implies an average site size of 3 acres, based on Table 4­ 14. Table 4­ 14. Typical Building Sizes and Size Ranges by Type of Building Building Category/ Type Typical Size ( Gross Square Feet) Typical Range ( Gross Square Feet) Low High Commercial ­ Supermarkets 20,000 12,000 30,000 Commercial ­ Department Store 90,000 44,000 122,000 Commercial ­ Low­ Rise Office 8,600 4,700 19,000 Commercial ­ Mid­ Rise Office 52,000 31,300 83,100 Commercial ­ Elementary a 41,000 24,500 55,000 Industrial ­ Warehouse 25,000 8,000 72,000 a For purposes of this analysis EPA combines a number of building types, including educational, under the commercial category. Source: R. S. Means ( 2000) . To reconcile the estimates obtained from the two approaches, EPA has taken the midpoint of the estimates. For commercial development, EPA assumes an average site size of 4.87 acres ( the average of 6.75 and 3.0 acres) and for industrial development EPA assumes an average site size of 4.50 acres ( the average of 5.99 and 3.0 acres) . The resulting average project sizes were then multiplied by the estimated number of commercial and industrial permits to obtain an estimate of the total acreage developed for these project categories. 4­ 52 ­ ­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4­ 15 shows the results of this bottom­ up approach to estimating the number of acres of land developed. The overall estimate of the amount of land developed is 2.01 million acres per year. Residential single­ family development accounts for 24.4 percent of the total, multifamily development for 11.5 percent of the total, commercial for 61.4 percent, and industrial for 2.7 percent. Table 4­ 15. National Estimates of Land Area Developed Per Year, Based on Building Permit Data Type of Construction Permits Average Site Size a Acres Disturbed Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of total Residential Single­ family 1,043,045 77.5% 0.47 490,231 24.4% Multifamily 35,672 2.7% 6.5 231,868 11.5% Nonresidential Commercial b 254,566 18.9% 4.9 1,234,645 61.4% Industrial 12,140 0.9% 4.5 54,630 2.7% Total 1,345,423 100.0% 2,011,374 100.0% a For single­ family residential, this is the average of the average lot size for new construction in 1999 ( Census 1999) and the average obtained in EPA ( 1999) . For all other categories, the site sizes are EPA assumptions based on representative project profiles contained in R. S. Means ( 2000) and the 14­ community survey conducted in support of the Phase II NPDES storm water rule ( EPA 1999) . See also Tables 4­ 7 and 4­ 8. b A number of project types were grouped together to form the commercial category, , including: hotels/ motels, amusement, religious, parking garages, service stations, hospitals, offices, public works, educational, stores, other nonresidential buildings. The estimate of total acreage developed, 2.01 million acres, can be compared with the estimate provided by the NRI. From Table 4­ 10, NRI estimates that a total of 2.24 million acres are converted from undeveloped to developed status each year. As noted above, some acreage would not be covered by the proposed rule or site size limitations due to waivers. The estimated acreage subject to the proposed rule 2.18 million acres. 29 EPA considers the estimate of 2.01 million acres ( Table 4­ 15) to be close to the estimates obtained from NRI. Areas not accounted for in EPA s estimates include those converted as a result of 29 This is technically the acreage covered under Option 1, which affects sites of one acre or more in size. Estimates of the acreage covered under Option 2, which affects sites of five acres or more, are made in Section 4.4.4. 4­ 53 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 road, highway, bridge, park, monument, and other nonbuilding construction projects. 30 EPA has not developed engineering costs applicable to these types of projects, but assumes that the builders and developers of these areas would face compliance costs, i. e. , the acres should not be excluded from the analysis. For the purpose of developing national compliance costs, therefore, EPA has allocated the entire NRI acreage, adjusted for waivers, according to the distribution shown in the final column of Table 4­ 16. 31 Table 4­ 16. National Estimates of Land Area Disturbed Based on National Resources Inventory Totals Type of Construction Acres Based on Permits Data Adjusted NRI Acreage b Number a Pct. of Total Residential Single­ family 490,231 24.4% 533,878 Multifamily 231,868 11.5% 252,182 Nonresidential Commercial c 1,234,645 61.4% 1,332,476 Industrial 54,630 2.7% 57,523 Total 2,011,374 100.0% 2,176,058 a From Table 4­ 15. b This column distributes the total acreage estimated in NRI to be converted on an annual basis ( adjusted for waivers) according to the distribution by type of development estimated through analysis of permits data. See also Tables 4­ 11 through 4­ 14. c A number of project types were grouped together to form the commercial category, , including: hotels/ motels, amusement, religious, parking garages, service stations, hospitals, offices, public works, educational, stores, other nonresidential buildings. 4.4.3 Distribution of Acreage by Project Size The next step in the national compliance cost analysis is to allocate the number of acres in each of the four land use categories according to project size. The project size distribution is based on the survey of municipalities conducted in support of the Phase II NPDES storm water rule ( EPA, 1999) . This survey identified 14 communities that consistently collect project type and size data as part of their 30 As noted above, EPA estimates there are approximately 159,000 such projects permitted each year. 31 This distribution implies that the acres not accounted for from the NRI ( see Table 4­ 10) will be costed at the weighted average cost across the single­ family residential, multifamily residential, commercial, and industrial categories. 4­ 54 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 construction permitting programs. Table 4­ 17 shows the distribution by project size for each land use category. Following allocation to project size class, EPA also allocated the acreage to one of 19 eco ­ regions, based on geographical information system ( GIS) modeling. Non­ linearity of installation costs made it inaccurate to consider partial sites. So, these totals were adjusted to ensure that only whole sites would be considered for each category of type, site size, and region. Further detail on this step in the analysis can be found in the Development Document ( U. S. EPA, 2002) . The final step in the national compliance cost analysis is to multiply the number of acres in each eco­ region, size class, and land use category by the applicable cost per acre. These costs are shown in Chapter Five. 4.4.4 Estimates of Acreage Covered by Option 2 Table 4­ 16 above shows the distribution of acreage affected under Option 1 of the proposed rule, which would apply to sites of one acre or larger. The additional acreage excluded under the site size limitations of Option 2 ( five acres) was obtained by estimating the acreage in sites above one acre and below five acres in size. The 3­ acre size class represents projects greater than 1 acre and less than 5 acres. This category was subtracted from the matrix of acreage by region, type, and size class as allocated by the GIS. As shown in Table 4­ 17, the 14­ community study ( EPA, 1999) found that 6.0 percent of acreage developed for single­ family housing was assigned to sites in the 3­ acre size class. EPA estimated that, after rounding, roughly 6.1 percent of acreage converted to single­ family housing units would be excluded under Option 2. EPA made similar estimates of the acreage converted to multi­ family, commercial, and industrial uses that would be excluded under Option 2. Table 4­ 18 shows the distribution of acreage affected under Option 2 of the proposed rule. 4­ 55 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4­ 17. Distribution of Permits by Site Size Site Size ( Acres) No. of Permits Acres by Size Pct. Acres by Size Single­ Family Residential 1 266 266 2.3% 3 228 684 6.0% 7.5 138 1,035 9.0% 25 175 4,375 38.2% 70 30 2,100 18.3% 200 15 3,000 26.2% Total 852 11,460 100.0% Multifamily Residential 1 43 43 1.2% 3 100 300 8.6% 7.5 61 458 13.2% 25 71 1,775 51.1% 70 10 700 20.1% 200 1 200 5.8% Total 286 3,476 100.0% Commercial 1 266 266 4.8% 3 356 1,068 19.4% 7.5 86 645 11.7% 25 91 2,275 41.3% 70 16 1,260 22.9% 200 0 0 0.0% Total 815 5,514 100.0% Industrial 1 39 39 5.7% 3 55 165 23.9% 7.5 10 75 10.9% 25 8 200 29.0% 70 3 210 30.5% 200 0 0 0.0% Total 115 689 100.0% 4­ 56 ­ ­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4­ 17. Distribution of Permits by Site Size Site Size ( Acres) No. of Permits Acres by Size Pct. Acres by Size Total 1 614 614 2.9% 3 739 2,217 10.5% 7.5 295 2,213 10.5% 25 345 8,625 40.8% 70 59 4,270 20.2% 200 16 3,200 15.1% Total 2,068 21,139 100.0% Based on permitting data from the following municipalities or counties: Austin, TX; Baltimore County, MD; Cary, NC; Ft. Collins, CO; Lacey, WA; Loudoun County, VA; New Britain, CT; Olympia, WA; Prince George s County, MD; Raleigh, NC; South Bend, IN; Tallahassee, FL; Tuscon, AZ; and Waukesha, WI ( EPA, 1999) . Source: EPA estimates. Table 4­ 18. Estimates of Acreage Affected Under Proposed Rule Option 2 Type of Construction Acreage Affected Under Option 1 a Percent Excluded Under Option 2 b Acreage Affected Under Option 2 Residential Single­ family 533,878 6.1% 501,100 Multifamily 252,182 8.8% 229,958 Nonresidential Commercial c 1,332,476 20.4% 1,061,108 Industrial 57,523 25.7% 42,733 Total 2,176,058 1,834,898 a From Table 4­ 15. b Based on analysis of site size distributions found in EPA ( 1999) . c A number of project types were grouped together to form the commercial category, , including: hotels/ motels, amusement, religious, parking garages, service stations, hospitals, offices, public works, educational, stores, other nonresidential buildings. Source: EPA estimates. 4­ 57 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 4.4.5 Operation and Maintenance Costs For any incremental ESC requirements triggered under Option 2, EPA estimated the percentage of capital costs of each technology that would be required annually to operate and maintain the facilities. Those facilities with a limited useful life were assigned percentages sufficient to replace them at the appropriate time. These were converted to costs per acre for each option. The O& M costs are assumed to be incurred for a one­ year period during the active phase of construction. 4.5 IMPACTS ON THE NATIONAL HOUSING MARKET 4.5.1 Description of National Housing Market Model EPA takes three complementary approaches to estimating the market impacts of the proposed rule. Two treat the nation as a single market; the third treats each city as a distinct housing market. The first approach assumes all of the costs of compliance with the regulation are passed through to the home buyer. If the home is more costly, fewer households would be able to qualify for a mortgage to purchase it. This change in market size is an indicator of the impact of the proposed regulation. In the second approach, the costs of compliance shift the national housing supply curve in a linear partial equilibrium model. A portion of the increased costs raises the price of new housing while the balance is absorbed by the builder. Higher prices and lower quantities change the welfare of participants in the housing market. The third approach estimates a linear partial equilibrium model, like the national model, for 215 metropolitan statistical areas ( MSAs) based on local measures of residential construction activity. This approach measures changes in affordability in terms of the Housing Opportunity Index ( HOI) , a well publicized measure of housing availability. The following sections explain each model in detail. 4.5.1.1 Complete Cost Pass Through and Housing Affordability Landis ( ( 1986) and Luger and Temkin s ( 2000) surveys suggest that all of the additional costs of compliance with new storm water regulations would be passed through to new home buyers in the form of higher prices for a unit of a given quality. The quantity of new housing built would not change 4­ 58 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 because demand is driven by demographics more than marginal price considerations, i. e. , demand is inelastic, and competition in supply is limited because of oligopolistic markets in many areas and infinitely elastic supply in others. An increase in the price of a home increases the income necessary to qualify for a home mortgage to purchase the home, and so reduces the number of households able to afford it. One measure of the impact of the regulation is the change in the number of households that can afford the new home. EPA developed its market model parameters from the previously described model projects, Census data, and the housing economics literature. Simple assumptions about expected proportionate profit margins, borrowing, and contingencies discussed in Section 4.2 indicate that added incremental compliance costs are multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to 1.8 in the final consumer price. Luger and Temkin ( 2000) report a compliance cost multiplier of 2 to 6 times actual compliance costs. The higher multiplier may reflect a tight housing market in high growth regions. The median house price, from the industry profile, is taken as the baseline price. The median price, P0 , with the additional compliance costs, C, multiplied by a factor for added time and borrowing, m, equals the new price, PN , which is the starting point for calculating the effect of the proposed regulation on affordability, welfare measures, and other market model results: P N P 0 % mC ( 1) where: P N New Price with ESC Compliance Costs P 0 Median New Home Price m Cost Multiplier C ESC Compliance Costs The monthly payment for principal, interest, taxes, and insurance ( PITI) for the new home is based on the new price: 4­ 59 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 FP N ( r PI 12 ) ( 2) 12 ) & 360 1 & ( 1 % r P N T t ( 3) 1, 000 P N I s ( 4) 1, 000 PITI PI % T % I ( 5) where: PI Monthly Principal and Interest F Proportion of New Home Cost that is financed r Annual Mortgage Interest Rate T Monthly Tax Payment t Monthly Tax Rate per Thousand Dollars Value I Monthly Insurance Premium s Monthly Insurance Rate per Thousand Dollars Value PITI Principal , Interest , Taxes , and Insurance Fannie Mae guidelines limit borrowers PITI payments to no more than 28 percent of their gross income. . The value for F, 0.774, and r, 0.0752, the mortgage terms, are national averages for the typical 30­ year fixed rate, private mortgage in the base period ( FHFB, 2001) . Values for t, $ 1/ $ 1,000 value, and s, $ 0.25/ $ 1,000 value, are from a recent study of housing affordability ( Savage, 1999) . The gross income necessary to qualify for the mortgage at the new price, under this criterion, Y, is given by: 4­ 60 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Y 12 PITI ( 6) 0. 28 Table 4­ 19 illustrates the calculations using Option 2 costs. In Chapter Five, EPA uses this approach to estimate the number of households priced out of the new housing market as a result of each regulatory option or combination of options. Table 4­ 19. Change in Housing Affordability Sample Calculation Source: EPA estimates. Data element Baseline Option 2 Average per lot cost difference from baseline Difference in cost per lot times multiplier $ 0 $ 0 $ 111 $ 201 Home price $ 288,397 $ 288,598 Principal and interest Real estate taxes Homeowner' s insurance Total principal, interest, taxes, and insurance $ 1,564 $ 288 $ 72 $ 1,924 $ 1,565 $ 289 $ 72 $ 1,926 Income necessary to qualify for mortgage Change in income necessary Number of households shifted ( thousands) Percent change in number of qualified households $ 82,472 $ 0 0 0.0% $ 82,529 $ 58 ­ 29 ­ 0.15% The change in the number of households who qualify for a mortgage to finance the baseline home price but cannot afford the home with the added compliance costs is imputed from Census Bureau statistics of household income. The Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, reports the money income of households in 21 income classes from zero to over $ 100,000 ( U. S. Census Bureau 2000d) . Table 4­ 20 shows the Census distribution. Each income class, except the top one, spans $ 5,000 in annual income. If households are evenly distributed within each class, then a change of $ 1,000 from the baseline income necessary to qualify to the new income necessary excludes one fifth of the members of the income class from qualifying for the new mortgage level. Since the incremental costs of compliance 4­ 61 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 are relatively small, the new price usually falls within the same income class as the baseline price and the number of households per $ 1,000 change in price is adequate to find the change in number of qualifying households. If the qualifying income for the baseline price is in a different income class than the qualifying income for the new price, the number of households per $ 1,000 change in price in each class is calculated and the number of households disqualified calculated in parts. Table 4­ 20. Household Information for Imputing Changes in Ownership Possibilities a Calculated from proportion of owner­ occupied to total housing units multiplied by number of households in income class. Source: Household Income: U. S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60­ 209, Money Income in the United States: 1999, U. S. GPO: Washington, 2000; Housing: U. S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey for the United States: 1999, Table 2­ 12 Income Characteristics of Occupied Units, http: / / www. census. gov/ hhes/ www/ housing/ ahs/ ahs99/ tab212. html Current Population Survey American Housing Survey Annual Household Income ( $ 1,000) Households ( 1,000) Households That Own Home a ( 1,000) Percent Owned for Income Class Total Housing Units ( 1,000) Owner­ Occupied Units ( 1,000) < 5 5­ 9 10­ 14 15­ 19 20­ 24 25­ 29 30­ 34 35­ 39 40­ 44 45­ 49 50­ 54 55­ 59 60­ 64 65­ 69 70­ 74 75­ 79 80­ 84 85­ 89 90­ 94 95­ 99 100> Total 3,010 6,646 7,661 7,482 7,238 6,890 6,381 6,016 5,565 4,958 4,789 4,064 4,112 3,380 2,927 2,903 2,526 2,023 1,736 1,568 12,832 104,707 1,456 3,051 3,906 3,935 3,946 4,000 3,891 3,794 3,875 3,452 3,674 3,118 3,360 2,762 2,392 2,372 2,227 1,784 1,531 1,383 11,674 70,071 48.4% 45.9% 51.0% 52.6% 54.5% 58.1% 61.0% 63.1% 69.6% 69.6% 76.7% 76.7% 81.7% 81.7% 81.7% 81.7% 88.2% 88.2% 88.2% 88.2% 91.0% 66.9% 5,839 6,728 7,780 7,037 7,369 6,867 7,469 5,951 9,778 8,184 11,985 6,548 11,267 102,802 2,824 3,089 3,967 3,701 4,017 3,987 4,555 3,753 6,808 6,278 9,793 5,774 10,250 68,796 The proportion of households in the marginal income class that already own their home indicates the size of the market possibly affected. According to the Census Bureau s American Housing Survey, in 4­ 62 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 1999, 48.4 percent of households with less than $ 5,000 income owned their own home while 91 percent of those with income over $ 100,000 annually own their home. Overall, 66.9 percent of households own their home. 32 The rate of home ownership for the larger income classes from the housing survey was applied to all of the income classes of the population survey within the same range ( indicated by the ditto marks in Table 4­ 20) . The total number of households with income greater than that required to qualify for the baseline home is the total number of households that could afford the baseline home. Since this is the group that may be in the market for a new home, substantial changes in the proportion of this group that can afford it may represent large changes in the size of the market for new homes attributable to the construction and development regulation. 4.5.1.2 National Partial Equilibrium Modeling Another approach to evaluating the impact of the proposed regulation on housing markets is based on a household production function partial equilibrium model. Empirical studies find a highly elastic supply and a somewhat inelastic demand for new housing ( DiPasquale, 1999) . These estimated elasticities and the assumption that compliance costs of new environmental regulations result in only marginal changes in prices and quantities allow the market to be modeled with a simple linear partial equilibrium market model similar to the ones used in other recent EPA regulations ( U. S. EPA, 2001b) . The modeling situation is similar to that used by Montgomery ( 1996) to forecast wood product demand. The linear partial equilibrium model can be viewed as a reduced form of a more complex structural model. We can assume, for example, that all of the instrumental variables are the same in both the baseline and alternatives, i. e. , the regulation does not change U. S. population growth, carpenters wages, wood product prices, and so forth. Montgomery s ( 1996) modeling equation ( equation 12 in the paper) is simply a linear supply curve and equations 6, 8, and 10 reduce to a linear demand curve. The simpler model will provide the same results as the more complex structural model given small marginal changes in costs and unchanging long run assumptions. 32 The American Housing Survey uses fewer income groups than the Current Population Survey. 4­ 63 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 National statistics of residential housing starts from the Census of Construction establish the baseline quantity for the model. The baseline price is the median new home price derived from the project cost model. This combination is the baseline market equilibrium where supply equals demand. To indicate highly elastic supply, EPA assumes a price elasticity of supply of 4.0. DiPasquale ( 1999) cites studies with estimates for new housing supply elasticity from 0.5 to infinity but the majority of the long run estimates are in the 3 to 13 range. Housing demand elasticity is equally controversial. EPA assumes a price elasticity of demand of ­ 0.7 to indicate a somewhat inelastic demand function. Sensitivity tests of these assumptions are shown in Appendix 5B. Given a baseline equilibrium point ( P0 , Q0 curve. ) and these elasticities, EPA identified a linear supply Q " % $ P ( 7) Where: Q Number of residential building permits issued P Price of new home " Intercept calibrated from baseline equilibrium Q 0 & $ P 0 $ Coefficient on price E s × Q 0 P 0 E s Supply elasticity of new homes > 0 A linear demand curve was derived similarly. 4­ 64 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Q F % ( P ( 8) Where: F Intercept calibrated from baseline equilibrium Q 0 & ( P 0 ( Coefficient on price E d × Q 0 P 0 E d Demand elasticity of new homes < 0 EPA assumes the baseline condition is in equilibrium so these two equations are equal. The increased costs of compliance raise builders costs and shift the supply curve upward to the left. . The change in prices and quantities depends on the relative slopes of the supply and demand curves. EPA chose to model the increased costs as a slope­ preserving change in the supply curve intercept, " , rather than an elasticity­ preserving change in slope. The new intercept is calculated as: " Shocked intercept s ( 9) Q 0 & $ ( P 0 % ESC) where ESC is the per unit costs of compliance with the proposed regulation. The new price is given by: " S & F P N ( & $ ( 10) Equilibrium prices and quantities are then recalculated using the new price and shocked intercept. Unlike the complete cost pass through method described above, some of the costs of compliance in the partial equilibrium model may be absorbed by the builder. The proportions flowing to consumers 4­ 65 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 and builders depends on the relative elasticities of supply and demand. The literature suggests cost pass through rates are very high in this industry ( DiPasquale, 1999) . With the supply and demand elasticities selected as representative of the literature, Es = 4 and Ed = ­ 0.7, the cost pass through is 85 percent. Thus, the industry absorbs 15 percent of the costs of compliance and passes the remainder on to home buyers as a price increase. The partial equilibrium model has a number of implications for the welfare of society. When the supply curve shifts following introduction of incremental compliance costs, consumers lose some of their benefits from the product in absorbing those compliance costs. This results in a loss of consumer surplus. How the consumer surplus is lost is irrelevant from a welfare economics perspective. Consumers may choose cheaper options in the construction of their new homes such as lower quality carpets or cabinets. They may accept less expensive, smaller homes. Or, they may just pay the higher price and forego other spending. In any case, the home would provide less utility than it might have without the ESC costs. Different choices would affect which industries feel the impact in the regional economy. Changes in housing options would impact builders and suppliers. Decreased overall spending would impact a wide range of consumer goods industries. For simplicity, EPA assumed that consumers would reduce other spending in response to the price change. The reduction in home sales volume and consumer spending in other sectors reduces employment in construction and all other parts of the economy. Indirect effects of the regulation on the whole economy are estimated using Regional Input­ Output Modeling System ( RIMS) multipliers published by the U. S. Department of Commerce. The multiplier analysis indicates the ultimate changes in gross domestic output and employment attributable to the new regulation. 4.5.1.3 Regional Partial Equilibrium Modeling and the Housing Opportunity Index Each of the approaches described above treats housing as a national market with the same demand elasticities applying across the country. In reality, however, market conditions can vary widely from region to region, state to state, and city to city. Markets vary both in the level of activity and the structure of the industry. Costs of compliance would undoubtedly be easier to pass through to consumers in a hot housing market than in a depressed market. EPA s third modeling approach captures such 4­ 66 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 regional variation by setting up a partial equilibrium model for each Metropolitan Statistical Area ( MSA) and using statistics of the level of activity in the MSA to select the parameters of the model. The Census Bureau collects information about housing starts as well as the size of the existing housing stock at the MSA level. EPA infers that where housing built during the 1990s represents a large proportion of the total current housing stock, the new housing market is active and demand would be expected to be less elastic than in areas with slower growth. As discussed above, the long run supply of new housing is assumed to be quite elastic overall. These facts provide the basis for selecting elasticities to represent housing markets at the MSA level. EPA developed separate partial equilibrium models for each MSA. Like the national models described above, EPA used building permit and median new home price data to establish the baseline equilibrium point for each MSA. Demand elasticities were estimated based on the ratio of new housing units authorized to housing stock over the period 1990 to 1996 ( Census, 1998) . EPA mapped regions where this ratio is lowest to the most elastic estimates of demand found in the literature and those where the ratio is highest to the least elastic demand elasticity estimates. EPA believes this approach captures the relative differences in demand elasticity between active and depressed housing markets around the country. Each MSA model is shocked with the estimated compliance costs for the median new home in the region. The model then estimates changes in prices, quantities, and welfare measures for each MSA. As there are more than 200 MSAs, it is not practical to report all of the individual results. Instead, all of the MSAs in a Census division are averaged together to give a sense of the effect of compliance costs on each region of the nation. Affordability is a significant concern for some stakeholders. The National Association of Home Builders ( NAHB) publishes the Housing Opportunity Index ( HOI) for 180 MSAs. HOI measures the proportion of the housing stock a family with the median income can afford. NAHB compares the median family income to the actual distribution of home prices in the MSA. EPA does not have access to such detailed price information. Instead, EPA assumes home prices are normally distributed about the median with standard deviation of 1. Thus, our rough HOI ( RHOI) is the cumulative probability of homes with prices less than the maximum PITI that the median income can afford. 4­ 67 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Algebraically: 30 ( Median Income × 0. 28) e rt dt RHOI Z ( 1, 1) ( m 0 ) ( 11) Median Sales Price The numerator represents the present value of the maximum PITI payment that the median income can afford at the prevailing mortgage rate, r, over a typical 30­ year fixed rate loan. The denominator is simply the median sales price. When this ratio is equal to one, the median income family can afford the median sales price home or, equivalently, half the families can afford the median sales price home. The normal cumulative density function with mean of one and variance of one, is represented by Z( 1,1) ( @ ) . Thus, if the median income family can afford more than the median sales price home, the ratio will be greater than one, and the Z( 1,1) ( @ ) function will indicate the proportion of homes the family can afford. For MSAs with HOIs reported by NAHB, EPA adjusts the variance of the normal curve so that RHOI yields the NAHB baseline HOI index ( NAHBHOI) . The variance scaling factor is: Z & 1 ( 0, 1) ( RHOI ) V * Z & 1 * ( 12) ( 0, 1) ( NAHBHOI ) where Z( 0,1) ­ 1 is the inverse of the standard normal cumulative distribution. Changing the variance of Z( 1,1) from one to V causes RHOI to equal NAHBHOI at the observed median family income. In those MSAs where NAHB does not calculate HOI, unadjusted RHOI is reported. 33 To assess the impact of the regulation, the adjusted HOI is calculated with the new sales price from the market model. The percent change in adjusted HOI is an indicator of the added stress of compliance costs on the housing market. Like the full pass through model discussed above, the MSA HOI model shows how changes in costs affect home buyers. This approach has the advantage of recognizing local market differences and 33 In 13 MSAs, the distribution of home prices is so different from normal that RHOI cannot approximate NAHBHOI with the variance adjustment. These MSAs were deleted from the results. 4­ 68 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 applying them within the model. Average HOI among MSAs in Census divisions before and after compliance costs are reported in Chapter Five. 4.5.2 Inputs to the National Housing Market Model The analysis uses the average price of the model home worked out in Section 4.2, $ 284,632, as a starting point. Buyers in 2000 financed an average of 77.4 percent of the home purchase price at an interest rate of 7.52 percent ( FHFB, 2001) . EPA assumes a 30­ year conventional fixed rate mortgage for ease of calculation. EPA also assumes a monthly real estate tax rate of $ 1 per $ 1,000 of home value and insurance payment of $ 0.25 per $ 1,000 of home value ( Savage 1999) . These assumptions are applied to the revised home price to derive an estimate of the monthly principal, interest, taxes, and insurance ( PITI) payment generally required to purchase a new home. In Chapter Five EPA uses this approach to estimate the number of households priced out of the new housing market as a result of each regulatory option. 4.5.3 Multifamily and Non­ Residential Construction Market Models EPA developed three market models of the multifamily and non­ residential construction industry. All three are similar to the residential regional partial equilibrium model. They treat each state as a separate market with adjusted demand elasticities. Each model produces estimates of changes in prices, quantities, and welfare measures. The commercial market is highly disaggregated into regional markets. Office rents for similar buildings ( Class A space) range from $ 17/ square foot/ year in Wichita to more than $ 60/ square foot/ year in San Francisco ( Grubb & Ellis 2001) . This disparity shows that arbitrage among markets is not possible and space in each area should be considered a different commodity. Many real estate companies maintain data on conditions in regional markets. Typically, activity in the market is measured in terms of the vacancy rate and asking rents. EPA developed a market model for office space similar to the regional partial equilibrium models developed for residential construction to indicate the effects on commercial construction. 4­ 69 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 The Census Bureau discontinued collection of non­ residential building permit information in 1994. To estimate non­ residential building permits issued in later years, EPA regressed non­ residential building permits on residential building permits, the value of non­ residential buildings put in place ( VPIP) , and a time trend. Since the relationship among these variables differs from state­ to­ state, regressions were estimated at the state level. Three different regressions were estimated. Several states showed a distinct shift in building permits data when the Census sample changed from 17,000 permit­ granting jurisdictions to 19,000 jurisdictions in 1983. In states where this difference was apparent, only observations after 1983 were used in the final projection. In addition some states had strong trends which were correlated with residential building permits. Since this multicollinearity reduced the influence of residential building permit data in later projection years, a regression was also estimated without the trend variable. The three regressions are: 1980­ 1994 data; 1983­ 1994 data; and 1980­ 1994 data estimated without the trend variable. Each regression was also estimated using only data through 1993 to test their ability to forecast the next year outside of the sample, i. e. , 1994. The regression which gave the best out of sample projection to 1994 and/ or had the highest correlation coefficient for the state was selected to be used for that state s projection. Thus, each state projection uses the model that best predicts its pattern of non­ residential development. EPA allocates the number of non­ residential building permits estimated for each state to commercial, industrial, and other projects based on the number of permits issued for each type of project in the 1994 building permit data. The commercial category is a catch­ all which includes public buildings, hotels, amusements, and educational buildings, in addition to office and retail buildings. EPA implicitly assumes that these projects would employ best management practices that are similar to those required for office or retail space. A separate category for industrial projects and a third category for non­ building permits are also allocated from the 1994 data. In the partial equilibrium model, the quantity of construction in each category is measured by the number of building permits issued. Rental rates, in dollars per square foot per year, are closely watched indicators of demand for commercial space and serve as our price. Rents and activity reports for 35 retail space markets around the country from a recent real estate marketing firm report ( Grubb and Ellis, 2001) 4­ 70 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 provide the baseline information for the market model. Like the ratio of new building permits to housing stock in the residential model, EPA used the activity reports to create a scale of demand intensity which was then used to map to each market an appropriate demand elasticity from a range of possible market elasticities. Demand for office and retail space is relatively insensitive to small changes in price. Since non­ residential construction activity tends to be driven by interest rates, job growth, and locational factors rather than building costs, cost pass through is very high. Huffman ( 1988) , for example, found that impact fees were largely passed on to end users in the long run. EPA therefore applies a range of elasticities from ­ 0.01 to ­ 0.80 to represent relatively inelastic demand for commercial space. In regions with many vacancies, lessees can be more sensitive to price so a more elastic demand curve is used. In regions with tight markets, lessees have fewer options and generally have little choice but to pay the asking price, so demand is less elastic. Builders can pass on a higher proportion of their costs in tight markets than in soft markets. Even in the softest market, however, 83 percent of costs are passed through to consumers with these assumptions. The number of non­ residential building permits was projected at the state level while the Grubb and Ellis commercial data is from 35 selected cities. Since there is insufficient building permit data to model each city, EPA models each state as a separate market with the average rent and activity rate for the cities within the state representing the state market. The assumption is reasonable where state office and retail markets are concentrated in one city, or one city is representative of general statewide market conditions. The assumption is less defensible in large states with many population centers, since market conditions may vary from city to city within such states. Almost half of the states were not represented by cities in the Grubb and Ellis data. For these states, the average rent and activity values for cities within the Census division containing the state were used to indicate state market conditions. The industrial space market model is similar to the commercial model. It uses the vacancy rate for industrial space as an indicator of market activity and the rental rate for warehouse space as the price. Industrial space users are considerably more mobile and price sensitive than commercial or residential space consumers so demand for industrial space is more elastic. The range used in this analysis is ­ 0.2 to ­ 1.5. 4­ 71 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 The multifamily housing market model uses the same format as the non­ residential models. The activity measure is the proportion of the housing stock built in the 1990 to 1996 time period. Separate price series or rental rates for multifamily housing are not reported so the single­ family housing prices were taken as a near substitute. EPA assumed that elasticities of demand are also similar to those for single­ family housing. The multifamily and non­ residential models apply equations 7 through 10 above to estimate supply and demand curves. Compliance costs are converted to the same units as the rental rates, given the model project. The increase in cost shifts the supply curve to the left and upward. Market results may be reported in terms of changes in rents and building permits, as well as changes in consumer and producer surplus, and can be converted to changes in indirect employment using the RIMS II multiplier. 4.6 NET ECONOMIC IMPACTS Environmental regulations, while imposing costs on the regulated industry, may also provide a stimulus to firms that make or install environmental controls, or provide other services related to reglatory compliance. The output and jobs created by new spending in the environmental industry offsets, to some extent, the loss of output in the affected industry. In the case of C& D, the same firms that now do much of the site preparation work would also be charged with implementing ESCs, and likely, conducting ESC certification and inspection. Contractors would be hired to build sedimentation ponds, improve grades, and construct any incremental ESCs triggered by the proposed regulation. Thus, while the regulation is costly in one sense, much of that cost flows directly back into the industry, stimulating more activity, output, and employment. 4.6.1 Welfare Effects In terms of the welfare effects discussed in Section 4.5.1, both the consumer and producer surpluses are converted to costs of production. Consumer surplus represents income that would have been used by consumers to purchase other products or for enjoyment. Producer surplus would have flowed to the owners of the firm and probably to consumption or investment in other industries. Both 4­ 72 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 quantities thus flow out of the construction sector. Only to the extent that the compliance costs that would be absorbed are greater than the sum of production loss plus the consumer surplus lost would the regulation result in a net increase in activity in the construction sector. Both the loss and the gain in employment are estimated by applying RIMS II multipliers to the changes in output derived from the market models. Construction activity generates approximately 37.8 jobs per million dollars of output while general consumer spending generates only 27.3 jobs per million dollars of spending. Shifting spending from consumers to construction would increase overall employment. As some readers may be interested in both the losses and gains in construction employment, both aspects are shown in Chapter Five, as well as the loss in employment from lost consumer spending. 4.6.2 Regional Impacts For this analysis, EPA examines the potential impacts to specific regions by assessing whether the proposed C& D regulations could have community or regional level impacts. Such impacts could alter the competitive position of the C& D industry across the nation or lead to growth or reductions in C& D activity ( in­ or out­ migration) in different regions and communities. Traditionally, the distribution of C& D establishments has echoed the general regional distribution of U. S. population, with some parts of the industry responding to short or long term shifts in population distribution. EPA does not expect that the proposed C& D regulations would have a significant impact on where construction and development takes place, or the regional distribution of construction and development activity. On the one hand, regulatory costs would be lower in regions with lower rainfall and reduced soil erodibility. This would tend to favor projects being developed in such regions. At the same time, however, a project located in a low rainfall region would rarely be a perfect substitute for the same project in a high rainfall region. So many factors go into a locational decision that few homeowners, companies, or industrial firms are likely to make their decision on where to build based solely upon the relative costs of storm water controls. Thus, EPA does not expect the proposed C& D regulations to significantly influence the prevailing pattern of construction and development activity. 4­ 73 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 EPA s market model accounts for regional market influences by creating state and MSA level partial equilibrium models for each sector. These models are used to quantify the regional impacts in terms of output and employment. Like the national employment effects, state employment changes are calculated using RIMS II multipliers. Regional multipliers were not available for this analysis so the national multipliers were used. The results, therefore, overstate the employment impacts within the region but indicate the effect of changes within the region on the nation as a whole. Tables summarizing state impacts are included in Chapter Five. 4.6.3 International Trade As part of its economic analysis, EPA has evaluated the potential for changes in U. S. trade ( imports, exports) of construction and development related goods and services. A significant component of the U. S. construction and development industry operates internationally, and in addition numerous foreign firms operate in the U. S. EPA judged, however, that the potential for U. S. construction and development firms to be differentially affected by the proposed rule is negligible. The proposed rule would be implemented at the project level, not the firm level, and would affect only projects within the U. S. All firms undertaking such projects, domestic or foreign, would be subject to the proposed rules. U. S. firms doing business outside the U. S. would not be differentially impacted compared to foreign firms, nor would foreign firms doing business in the U. S. The proposed rule may stimulate or depress demand for some construction­ related goods. To the extent that the proposed rule acts to depress the overall construction market, demand for conventional construction­ related products may decline. This decline may be offset by purchase of goods and services related to storm water management. Overall, EPA does not anticipate that any shifts in demand for such goods and services resulting from the proposed regulation would have significant implications for U. S. and foreign trade. 4­ 74 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 4.7 GOVERNMENT IMPACTS 4.7.1 Administrative Costs EPA has analyzed the administrative costs to governments associated with the proposed rule. EPA assumes that the majority of construction­ related regulatory costs would be associated with processing general permits. As noted previously, EPA assumes that the majority of NPDES Phase I and Phase II NPDES storm water permit programs are fully implemented, and that any new regulatory requirements would be superimposed upon these programs. Under Option 1, EPA assumes that no incremental costs would be imposed on governmental units. Under Option 2, EPA estimates that each state would incur costs to revise existing regulations to reflect the shift of regulatory coverage from Part 122 to Part 450. Based on the assumption that all states would change their storm water programs to include certification of sedimentation basins and other aspects of the proposed rule, EPA estimated the costs of establishing such a program. The costs are based on assumptions about the number of labor hours states would allocate to amending such programs, and the applicable labor rate. Further details on these assumptions and costs can be found in the Development Document ( EPA, 2002) . 4.7.2 Compliance Costs EPA estimates that government entities ( federal, state, and local) commission as much as one quarter of the total value of construction work completed in the U. S. each year. As final owner of a substantial amount of the industry output, governments would bear some of the compliance costs associated with the proposed rule, assuming these costs are passed on from developers and builders. In Chapter Five, Section 5.8, EPA allocates the government share of compliance costs based on the government share of industry output. Further details about government costs can also be found in Chapter Ten. 4­ 75 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 4.8 REFERENCES Benshoof, M. 2001. An Inside Look at Builders Books. . Housing Economics. National Association of Home Builders, May. Brealy, Richard A. , and Stewart C. Myers. 1996. Principles of Corporate Finance ( 5 th ed. ) . New York: The McGraw­ Hill Companies, Inc. Brigham, Eugene F. , and Louis C. Gapenski. 1997. Financial Management: Theory and Practice ( 8 th ed. ) . Fort Worth: The Dryden Press. pp. 428­ 431. Brown, Dirk S. G. 2002. User Fee­ Based Financing in the 2000s. Stormwater. 3( 1) : 50­ 54. Busco, Dana, and Greg Lindsey. 2001. Designing Stormwater User Fees: Issues & Options. Stormwater. 2( 7) : 42­ 44 CCH. 1999. 2000 U. S. Master Tax Guide. Chicago: CCH Incorporated. CWP. 2001. Impervious Cover and Land Use in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection, January. Additional data table, Chesapeake Bay Watershed Impervious Cover Results by Land Use Polygon, received via a facsimile from Tetra Tech, , Inc. , September 20, 2001. Dun & Bradstreet. 2000. 1999­ 2000 Industry Norms and Key Business Ratios. ERG. 2001. Distribution of Acreage Disturbed Estimates. Memo from ERG, Inc. to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 25, 2001. ERG. 1999. Real Estate Development Financing. Memo from ERG, Inc. to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 28, 1999. Fannie Mae. 2001. Glossary: Qualifying Guidelines. Available at: http: / / www. homepath. com/ cgi­ bin/ WebObjects­ 4/ HomePathWOF. woa/ 8/ wa/ Glossary? topic= Glo ssary& title= Qualifying% 20Guidelines& wosid= IL1000D5300pz500E& oid= 3684. Accessed on: July 18, 2001. FASU. 1997. Florida Association of Stormwater Utilities: 1997 Stormwater Utilities Survey. Available at: http: / / www. fasu. org/ publications/ surveys/ . Accessed on January 31, 2002. FHFB ( Federal Housing Finance Board) . 2001. Monthly Interest Rate Survey ( MIRS) Periodic Summary Tables. Available at: http: / / www. fhfb. gov/ MIRS/ mirs. htm. Accessed on: FHWA. 2001. Federal Highway Administration. Typical Interstate System Cost per Mile. Fax from C. Duran, FHWA Office of Program Administration, to D. Metivier, ERG, Inc. September 19, 2001. 4­ 76 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Grubb & Ellis. 2001. Office Market Trends: A Survey of the Nation s Office Markets. Summer. Available at: www. grubb­ ellis. com. Accessed on September 11, 2001. Hirsch, Albert A. 1994. Residential Construction from a Long­ Run Perspective. Survey of Current Business. June: 30­ 41. Keller, Brant D. 2001. Buddy, Can You Spare a Dime? Stormwater. 2( 2) : 38­ 42. Kone, D. L. 2000. Land Development 9 th ed. Home Builder Press of the National Association of Home Builders. Washington, DC. Luger, M. I. and K. Temkin. 2000. Red Tape and Housing Costs. New Brunswick, New Jersey: CUPR Press. NAHB ( National Association of Home Builders) . 2002. Characteristics of New Multifamily Buildings 1987­ 1999. Available at: http: / / www. nahb. com/ multifamily/ characteristics. htm. Accessed on May 29, 2001. NAHB 2001a. Housing at the Millennium: Facts, Figures, and Trends. Washington, D. C. : The National Association of Home Builders. Available at: http: / / www. nahb. com/ housing_ issues/ facts. htm. NAHB. 2001b. Building a Balance: Cost Breakdown of A Single family Home. Available at: http: / / www. nahb. com/ housing_ issues/ balance_ 2. htm. Rappaport, B. A. , and T. A. Cole. 2000. 1997 Economic Census Construction Sector Special Study: Housing Starts Statistics A Profile of the Homebuilding Industry. U. S. Census Bureau, July. Ross, D. and S. Thorpe. 1992. Impact Fees: Practical Guide for Calculation and Implementation. Available at: http: / / www. revenuecost. com/ imp_ fees. html. Accessed on July 11, 2001. R. S. Means. 2001. Heavy Construction Cost Data 15 th Annual Edition. Kingston, Massachusetts: R. S. Means Co. R. S. Means. 2000. Building Construction Cost Data 58 th Annual Edition. Kingston, Massachusetts: R. S. Means Co. Savage, H. A. 1999. Who Could Afford to Buy a House in 1995? Washington: U. S. Census Bureau. Supplemental material is available at: http: / / www. census. gov/ hhes/ www/ housing/ hsgaffrd/ afford95/ aff95src. html. Sierra Club. 2000. Sprawl Costs Us All: How Your Taxes Fuel Suburban Sprawl. Available at: http: / / www. sierraclub. org. Accessed on September 20, 2000. Tetra Tech, Inc. 2001. SWV2. xls. Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet. Received October 9, 2001. ULI. 2000. Urban Land Institute. Market Profiles 2000: North America. 4­ 77 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 U. S. Census Bureau. 2000a. Current Construction Report C25: Characteristics of New Housing, 1999. Issued July 2000. U. S. Census Bureau. 2000b. Current Construction Report C40: New Privately Owned Housing Units Authorized, 1999. Issued July 2000. U. S. Census Bureau. 2000c. 1997 Economic Census: Construction: Subject Series. January. 2000. U. S. Census Bureau. 2000d. Current Population Reports, P60­ 209, Money Income in the United States: 1999. Washington, D. C. : U. S. GPO. U. S. Census Bureau. 1999. American Housing Survey for the United States: 1999. Available at: http: / / www. census. gov/ hhes/ www/ housing/ ahs/ ahs99/ tab212. html. U. S. Census Bureau. 1998. State and Metropolitan Area Data Book 1997­ 98 ( 5 th Edition) . Washington, D. C. : U. S. GPO. U. S. Department of Agriculture. 2000. 1997 Natural Resources Inventory Summary Report. Table 8. Changes in land cover/ use between 1992 and 1997. http: / / www. nhq. nrcs. usda. gov/ NRI/ 1997/ summary_ report/ original/ table8. html U. S. EPA. 2002. Development Document for the Effluent Guidelines for the Construction and Development Point Source Category. EPA­ 821­ R­ 02­ 007. U. S. EPA. 2001a. Estimation of Capital Costs for Technology Options. Draft dated July 12, 2001. U. S. EPA. 2001b. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulation and the Effluent Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. EPA­ 821­ R­ 01­ 001. January. U. S. EPA 2001c. Summary of Focus Group Meetings with the National Association of Home Builders. Chicago, IL. March 13. U. S. EPA 2001d. Summary of Focus Group Meetings with the National Association of Home Builders. Dallas, TX. March 20. U. S. EPA. 1999. Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule. Office of Wastewater Management. U. S. Small Business Administration, 1999. Employer Firm Births and Deaths by Employment Size of Firm, 1989­ 1998. Available at: http: / / www. sba. gov/ advo/ stats/ dyn_ b_ d8998. pdf. Wright, 1996. Paul H. Wright. Highway Engineering, 6 th edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1996. 4­ 78

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.725585

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0030-0020

Supporting & Related Material

APPENDIX 4A Data and Modeling Assumptions for Model Project Analysis Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4A­ 1. Model Parameters and Data Sources Parameters Single­ family Residential Multifamily Residential Small Commercial ( Shopping Center) Industrial Building Value Data Source Value Data Source Value Data Source Value Data Source Size of parcel 1, 3, 7.5, 25, 70, and 200 acres EPA assumption 1, 3, 7.5, 25, 70, and 200 acres EPA assumption 1, 3, 7.5, 25, 70, and 200 acres EPA assumption 1, 3, 7.5, 25, 70, and 200 acres EPA assumption Cost of raw land $ 40,000 per acre NAHB Chicago focus groups, based on experience of the Chicago­ area participants. See Appendix B for further discussion. $ 40,000 per acre NAHB Chicago focus groups, based on experience of the Chicago­ area participants. See Appendix A for further discussion. $ 297,545 per acre Urban Land Institute ( ULI) Market Profiles 2000: North America. Median land cost for nonregional shopping centers ( cost ranges for individual MSAs were averaged before taking the median) $ 137,500 per acre Urban Land Institute ( ULI) Market Profiles 2000: North America. Median land cost for industrial parks ( cost ranges for individual MSAs were averaged before taking the median) . Average Lot Size 0.33 acres Census Report C25 ( Characteristics of New Housing, 1999) reports an average lot size for new single­ family homes sold of 12,910 square feet, which represents a density of close to 3 lots per acre. ( The median lot size is 8,750 square feet, which implies a density of almost 5 lots per acre) . N/ A N/ A N/ A Approximate Density ( number of lots per acre) 2.67 Calculated based on impervious surface ratios from Chesapeake Bay Watershed Impervious Cover Results by Land Use Polygons, to account for impervious surfaces not associated with individual lots. Total number of lots is rounded to nearest whole number. N/ A N/ A N/ A 4A­ 1 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4A­ 1. Model Parameters and Data Sources Parameters Single­ family Residential Multifamily Residential Small Commercial ( Shopping Center) Industrial Building Value Data Source Value Data Source Value Data Source Value Data Source Due diligence $ 2,500 per acre Based on $ 100,000 for a hypothetical 40­ acre development discussed by the NAHB Chicago focus group participants. See Appendix B for further discussion. $ 2,500 per acre See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. $ 2,500 per acre See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. $ 2,500 per acre See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. Land development costs $ 25,000 per lot Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. This figure includes any construction activities related to land development ( e. g. infrastructure costs) . $ 75,000 per acre Scaled estimate based on $ 25,000 per lot from NAHB Chicago focus groups. This figure includes any construction activities related to land development ( e. g. infrastructure costs) . $ 75,000 per acre Scaled estimate based on $ 25,000 per lot from NAHB Chicago focus groups. This figure includes any construction activities related to land development ( e. g. infrastructure costs) . $ 75,000 per acre See Small Commercial Data Source for details. Engineering costs, as percent of land development costs 6% Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. 6% Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. 6% Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. 6% Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. Overhead costs, as percent of development costs 10% Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. 10% Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. 10% Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. 10% Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. Contingency, as percent of land development costs prior to impact fees 10% Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. 10% Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. 10% Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. 10% Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. Impact fees $ 15,000 per lot Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. See Appendix B for further discussion. $ 45,000 per acre Scaled estimate based on $ 15,000 per residential lot from NAHB Chicago focus groups. See Appendix A for further discussion. $ 45,000 per acre See Multifamily Data Source for details. $ 45,000 per acre See Multifamily Data Source for details. 4A­ 2 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4A­ 1. Model Parameters and Data Sources Parameters Single­ family Residential Multifamily Residential Small Commercial ( Shopping Center) Industrial Building Value Data Source Value Data Source Value Data Source Value Data Source Real estate and marketing fees, as percent of sales price of building 7% Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. 7% Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. 7% Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. 7% Estimate from NAHB Chicago focus groups. Average size of building 2,310 square feet From Census Report C25, the average size of new single­ family homes sold in 1999 and conventionally financed was 2,310 square feet. Varies Scaled to site size based on impervious surface ratios from Chesapeake Bay Watershed Impervious Cover Results by Land Use Polygon. Varies Scaled to site size based on impervious surface ratios from Chesapeake Bay Watershed Impervious Cover Results by Land Use Polygon. Varies Scaled to site size based on impervious surface ratios from Chesapeake Bay Watershed Impervious Cover Results by Land Use Polygon. Cost of building construction $ 53.80 per sq. ft. From NAHB s website, construction costs for a generic single­ family house are $ 124,276. $ 124,276 ÷ 2,310 = = $ 53.80. See Appendix B for further discussion. $ 54.05 per sq. ft. R. S. Means Building Construction Cost Data median construction cost per square foot for a typical low­ ­ rise ( 1­ 3 stories) apartment building. $ 53.85 per sq. ft. R. S. Means Building Construction Cost Data median construction cost per square foot for a typical supermarket $ $ 36.15 R. S. Means Building Construction Cost Data median construction cost per square foot for a typical industrial warehouse. Total Paved Surface Area ( Parking, Driveways, and Roads) N/ A Varies Scaled to site size based on impervious surface ratios from Chesapeake Bay Watershed Impervious Cover Results by Land Use Polygon. Varies Scaled to site size based on impervious surface ratios from Chesapeake Bay Watershed Impervious Cover Results by Land Use Polygon. Varies Scaled to site size based on impervious surface ratios from Chesapeake Bay Watershed Impervious Cover Results by Land Use Polygon. Paving Cost ( Parking, Driveways, and Roads) N/ A $ 1.44 per sq. ft. R. S. Means Heavy Construction Cost Data $ 1.44 per sq. ft. R. S. Means Heavy Construction Cost Data $ 1.44 per sq. ft. R. S. Means Heavy Construction Cost Data Total Sidewalk Area N/ A Varies Scaled to site size based on impervious surface ratios from Chesapeake Bay Watershed Impervious Cover Results by Land Use Polygon. Varies Scaled to site size based on impervious surface ratios from Chesapeake Bay Watershed Impervious Cover Results by Land Use Polygon. Varies Scaled to site size based on impervious surface ratios from Chesapeake Bay Watershed Impervious Cover Results by Land Use Polygon. 4A­ 3 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4A­ 1. Model Parameters and Data Sources Parameters Single­ family Residential Multifamily Residential Small Commercial ( Shopping Center) Industrial Building Value Data Source Value Data Source Value Data Source Value Data Source Sidewalk Construction Cost N/ A $ 4.66 per sq. ft. R. S. Means Heavy Construction Cost Data $ 4.66 per sq. ft. R. S. Means Heavy Construction Cost Data $ 4.66 per sq. ft. R. S. Means Heavy Construction Cost Data Percent of total land cost that a developer can finance for land acquisition 65% Loan­ to­ value ratio as written in the Real Estate Lending Rules. See Appendix B for further discussion. 65% See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. 65% See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. 65% See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. Percent of total land cost that a developer can finance for land development 70% Loan­ to­ value ratio as written in the Real Estate Lending Rules. See Appendix B for further discussion. 70% See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. 70% See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. 70% See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. Percent of total building construction cost that a builder can finance 80% Loan­ to­ value ratio as written in the Real Estate Lending Rules. See Appendix B for further discussion. 80% See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. 80% See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. 80% See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. Loan interest rate for builder/ developer 7.5% EPA estimate. 7.5% EPA estimate. 7.5% EPA estimate. 7.5% EPA estimate. Term of land acquisition loan, years 3 EPA assumption. Assumes that the land acquisition loan is paid off over the life of the project, which in this case is 3 years. 3 See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. 3 See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. 3 See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. Term of land development loan, years 1 EPA assumption. Assumes that the land development loan term is equal to the length of the development phase of the project, which in this case is 1 year. 1 See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. 1 See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. 1 See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. 4A­ 4 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4A­ 1. Model Parameters and Data Sources Parameters Single­ family Residential Multifamily Residential Small Commercial ( Shopping Center) Industrial Building Value Data Source Value Data Source Value Data Source Value Data Source Term of building construction loan, years 1 EPA assumption. Assumes that the construction loan term is equal to the length of the construction phase of the project, which in this case is 1 year. 1 See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. 1 See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. 1 See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. Assumed pre­ tax profit on land development 10% NAHB Chicago focus group estimated 12­ 14 percent; 10 percent is an EPA assumption. See Appendix B for further discussion. 10% See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. 10% See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. 10% See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. Assumed pre­ tax profit on construction 10% NAHB Chicago focus groups estimated 8 to 12 percent pre­ tax at time of sale. R. S. Means uses 10 percent as a profit assumption in their Cost Data book series. 10% See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. 10% See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. 10% See Single­ family Residential Data Source for details. 4A­ 5 APPENDIX 4B Detailed Description of Model Parameters and Assumptions Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Cost of Raw Land Land prices tend to vary by region of the country, and even within particular regions, depending on the exact location of the parcel ( e. g. , urban proximity) . For this generic single­ family project cost model, a value of $ 40,000 per acre is used based on the estimate provided by participants in the Chicago NAHB focus group morning session. The participants in the NAHB Dallas focus group meetings confirmed that even within one state lot prices can range dramatically. Prices per lot were reported to range from near $ 10,000 in El Paso, TX, to nearly $ 1 million in Austin ( for lake­ front property) . ( Note, these costs cited were per lot, not per acre) . The single­ family development land cost estimate was also used in the multifamily residential project model due to lack of other data. Land prices for the commercial and industrial models were taken from the Urban Land Institute s ( ULI) Market Profiles 2000: North America, which lists average land costs for shopping centers and industrial parks for selected Metropolitan Statistical Areas ( MSAs) depending on data availability. The median land cost for each project type was calculated from a list of MSA average land costs and used in the models as a national estimate proxy. Due Diligence As described previously, due diligence refers to the work done by the developer prior to taking ownership of a parcel. During this time the developer conducts a variety of environmental and engineering assessments to identify any potential obstacles to the successful completion of the proposed development. At this time the only estimates for due diligence costs are based on a $ 100,000 estimate provided by the Chicago NAHB focus group participants for a 40­ acre project. This figure was converted to $ 2,500 per acre on the assumption that these costs would fluctuate depending on the size of the project. Impact Fees The NAHB s Chicago focus group estimated the impact fees on new residential construction to average $ 15,000 per lot. This figure was converted to $ 45,000 per acre for use in the multifamily, commercial, and industrial project models. 4B­ 1 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 This is one of many estimates that may be found in the literature. In their book Red Tape and Housing Costs , Michael Luger and Kenneth Temkin interviewed numerous builders and developers in New Jersey and North Carolina, and received several estimates for impact fees in North Carolina. Estimates ranged from approximately $ 2,800 to $ 6,547 per unit in Cary, NC, and from $ 1,300 to $ 2,765 in Durham, NC. Even the highest estimate in these ranges is significantly lower than the estimate from the focus group meeting. These fees represent approximately 1 to 2 percent of the final sale price of a house in the area. In a cost breakdown of a single­ family home provided by NAHB on their website, 34 impact fees were estimated at $ 1,182 per unit ( approximately 1 percent of total construction cost) . A study by the Sierra Club ( Sierra Club 2000) estimates that impact fees range from under $ 1,000 per unit to approximately $ 6,140 per single­ family unit. These figures are based on local observations. Finally, Ross and Thorpe ( 1992) report that a survey conducted in 1990 in Orange County, California ( one of the most expensive housing markets in the country) , found at least three cities in that county with impact fees exceeding $ 20,000 per unit. This estimate is closest to the assumption currently in the models. At this time, EPA is unaware of any single national estimate for the average impact fee imposed on developers and builders and has chosen to use the NAHB estimate for this analysis. Building Construction Costs The approach used in the model project for estimating average building construction costs for the single­ family project is to take total construction costs for a new single­ family house, provided by NAHB on their website ( $ 124,276) ( NAHB 2001b) , and divide that figure by the average square footage of a new, conventionally financed, house as reported by Census ( 2,310 square feet; Characteristics of New Housing) . This calculation yields an average construction cost of $ 53.80 per square foot. NAHB focus group participants estimated that building construction costs ranged from $ 50 to $ 75 per square foot, at least in the Chicago area. The national estimate is within the range provided by NAHB members at the focus group meeting. 34 http: / / www. nahb. com/ housing_ issues/ balance_ 2. htm 4B­ 2 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Building construction costs for the remaining projects multifamily, , commercial, and industrial were taken from R. . S. Means Building Construction Cost Data . The costs used were median costs for the typical sized building for each project type, , based on the projects detailed in the R. S. Means project database. While the building costs may fluctuate some with overall building size, the median cost was used as a proxy for national­ level building costs and was used regardless of site or building size. Building size for these three project types was assumed to fluctuate with site size. Size estimates for each site size were determined using the building to site area ratio from the Center for Watershed Protection. Multiplying this ratio by each site size ( 1, 3, 7.5, etc. acres) gave EPA an estimate of building footprint. Since multifamily building construction costs were based on low­ rise apartment buildings 1 to 3 stories in height, an average of 2 stories per apartment building was used to calculate total building square footage from the footprint. Commercial and industrial buildings were assumed to be 1 story; therefore the building footprint equaled total building area. Impervious Surface Estimates Estimates for impervious surface area and construction costs were calculated for the multifamily, commercial, and industrial model projects. The impervious surface area for roads, driveways, parking, and sidewalks was calculated by multiplying the impervious surface area to site size ratio ( CWP 2001) by the site size. R. S. Means cost estimates for paving and sidewalk construction were used to estimate impervious surface construction costs. The paving cost estimate ( $ 1.44 per square foot) was multiplied by the combined surface area for roads, driveways, and parking while the sidewalk cost estimate ( $ 4.66 per square foot) could be directly multiplied to the sidewalk surface area estimate. Financing Requirements A December 28, 1999, memo from ERG to EPA ( Real Estate Development Financing ) cites the typical land acquisition loan duration is 2 years, whereas the models currently use a duration of 3 years. It is not clear if the 2 year loan term includes the same activities as assumed for the model projects. Similarly, the duration for the land development loan is cited as approximately 2 years ( comparable to that for the land acquisition loan) . The average duration of the construction loan is not cited in the memo, although it may be assumed that the duration of the loan would vary with project size. 4B­ 3 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Loan­ to­ value ratios under the Real Estate Lending Rules declined from approximately 80 percent for all phases of project development to the following breakdown after the Savings and Loan Crisis: 65 percent for land acquisition 75 percent for land development 80 percent for construction The memo also states that the typical land acquisition loan rate is 1­ 4 points above the prime rate. No further detail for the remaining project stages is given, but they are assumed to be within the same range. The models currently use a loan rate of 7.5 percent. Profit Assumptions Profit on both land development and building construction are assumed to be 10 percent, based on conversations with NAHB and reality­ checked against the assumptions used in the R. S. Means Cost Data series. Note that there would not be a separate profit for the land development phase of the project because the developer­ builder would retain ownership of the project through building construction ( land development profit is only realized when a developer sells finished lots to individual builders) . The profit rate with 100 percent CPT is based on the assumption that any additional costs incurred by the developer­ builder ( i. e. , additional storm water control costs) would be passed through to the consumer, and that none of the additional costs would be borne by the developer­ builder as decreased profit. The profit rate with zero CPT depends on the level of costs. Overhead Assumptions EPA assumes that developers apply an overhead charge to all costs incurred during the land development phase, and that a further overhead charge is levied by the builder on all costs incurred during the building phase, including the cost of lot acquisition. These overhead charges represent, in part, payment to the owner for capital tied up to secure development and construction loans as well as compensation for managing and overseeing the work of subcontractors and other professionals ( engineers, architects, designers) . 4B­ 4 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 The estimated overhead rate of 10 percent at the development stage and 10 percent at the building phase was based on input from NAHB. EPA has separately calculated the opportunity cost of capital based on actual financing needs, loan conditions, and loan terms. In the model projects, therefore, the actual percentage applied as an overhead factor has been adjusted downwards. 4B­ 5 APPENDIX 4C Characteristics of Model Establishments Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4C­ 1. Model Establishment Characteristics Based on Census Data [ 1 ] Class Number of Establishments Average Starts Average Revenue Average Employment Cashflow 1­ 4 17,107 2. 3 $ 492. 2 2. 5 $ 46.3 Single 5­ 9 7,589 6. 4 $ 1,088. 6 3. 3 $ 104.9 Family 10­ 24 6,262 14. 6 $ 1,987. 0 4. 3 $ 177.3 25­ 99 3,018 41. 9 $ 4,923. 5 8. 6 $ 4,229.0 100­ 499 833 191. 7 $ 24,030. 7 32. 1 $ 2,187.6 500+ 122 864. 5 $ 109,032. 6 160. 0 $ 9,192.5 2­ 9 486 4. 3 $ 644. 8 3. 2 $ 29.4 Multifamily 10­ 24 398 16. 5 $ 1,381. 6 5. 1 $ 99.6 25­ 99 383 55. 1 $ 3,499. 7 8. 0 $ 320.1 100­ 499 593 191. 7 $ 7,410. 0 13. 5 $ 566.6 500+ 39 959. 0 $ 43,844. 4 64. 7 $ 938.8 Commercial 50­ 99 41,356 13.2 $ 23,799 67. 5 $ 927.5 Industrial 50­ 99 8,042 9.5 $ 18,470 67. 7 $ 627.3 [ 1 ] Dollar values in thousands 4C­ 1 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4C­ 2 Model Establishment Characteristics Based on Dun And Bradstreet Data Single Family ( SIC 1531) Multifamily ( SIC 1522) Commercial ( SIC 1542) Industrial ( SIC 1541) Line Item S caled Value [ 1 ] Percent S caled Value [ 1 ] Percent S caled Value [ 1 ] Percent S caled Value [ 1 ] Percent Cash $ 82,22 9 11.9 % $ 55,75 2 18.4 % $ 61,70 5 21.5 % $ 57,68 2 19.1% A cco unts Receiv a ble $ 61,49 9 8.9 % $ 81,20 4 26.8 % $ 101,59 8 35.4 % $ 108,11 6 35.8% Notes Receiv a ble $ 4,83 7 0 .7 % $ 3,93 9 1 .3 % $ 2,00 9 0 .7 % $ 2,71 8 0.9% Inventory $ 210,06 4 30.4 % $ 12,72 6 4.2 % $ 5,74 0 2.0 % $ 4,53 0 1.5% Other Current $ 152,71 1 22.1 % $ 67,56 9 22.3 % $ 60,27 0 21.0 % $ 58,58 8 19.4% Total Current Assets $ 511,34 0 7 4 . 0 % $ 221,19 0 7 3 . 0 % $ 231,32 2 8 0 . 6 % $ 231,63 4 7 6 . 7% Fix ed A ssets $ 109,17 8 15.8 % $ 58,17 6 19.2 % $ 41,04 1 14.3 % $ 52,24 6 17.3% Other Non­ current $ 70,48 2 10.2 % $ 23,63 4 7.8 % $ 14,63 7 5.1 % $ 18,12 0 6.0% Total Asset s $ 691,00 0 1 0 0 .0 % $ 303,00 0 1 0 0 .0 % $ 287,00 0 1 0 0 .0 % $ 3 0 2 ,0 0 0 100.0% A cco unts Paya ble $ 56,66 2 8.2 % $ 73,02 3 24.1 % $ 87,24 8 30.4 % $ 79,12 4 26.2% Bank Loans $ 11,74 7 1.7 % $ 2,42 4 0.8 % $ 1,43 5 0.5 % $ 6 0 4 0.2% Notes Paya ble $ 101,57 7 14.7 % $ 18,48 3 6.1 % $ 6,88 8 2.4 % $ 7,24 8 2.4% Other Current $ 196,93 5 28.5 % $ 102,41 4 33.8 % $ 52,52 1 18.3 % $ 57,98 4 19.2% Total Current Liabilities $ 366,92 1 5 3 . 1 % $ 196,34 4 6 4 . 8 % $ 148,09 2 5 1 . 6 % $ 144,96 0 4 8 . 0% Other Long Term $ 81,53 8 11.8 % $ 29,99 7 9.9 % $ 15,49 8 5.4 % $ 22,34 8 7.4% Deferred Credit s $ 5,52 8 0 .8 % $ 1,21 2 0 .4 % $ 57 4 0 .2 % $ 30 2 0.1% Net W orth $ 237,01 3 34.3 % $ 75,44 7 24.9 % $ 122,83 6 42.8 % $ 134,39 0 44.5% Total Liabilities & Net W orth $ 691,00 0 1 0 0 .0 % $ 303,00 0 1 0 0 .0 % $ 287,00 0 1 0 0 .0 % $ 3 0 2 ,0 0 0 100.0% Ne t Sales $ 1,000,000 100.0% $ 1,000,000 100.0% $ 1,000,000 100.0% $ 1,000,000 100.0% Gross Profit $ 228,00 0 22.8 % $ 190,00 0 19.0 % $ 159,00 0 15.9 % $ 184,00 0 18.4% Net Profit A fter Tax $ 12,00 0 1.2 % $ 35,00 0 3.5 % $ 30,00 0 3.0 % $ 34,00 0 3.4% W orking Capital $ 144,419 $ 24,846 $ 83,230 $ 86,674 Gross P rofit Ratio 0.22 8 0.19 0 0.15 9 0.184 Ret urn on Net W orth Ratio 0.05 1 0.46 4 0.24 4 0.253 Current Ratio 1.39 4 1.12 7 1.56 2 1.598 Debt t o E quit y Ratio 1.91 5 3.01 6 1.33 6 1.247 [ 1 ] Values scaled according to $ $ 1, 000,000 net sales for comparative purposes 4C­ 2 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 4C­ 3 Financial Ratio Data by Quartile Uppe r Low e r S e ctor Ra ti o Q u a r t i l e Me dia n Q u a r t i l e Current 2 . 9 0 0 1 . 4 0 0 1 . 1 0 0 S i n g l e Family De bt t o E quit y 0 . 7 2 4 1 . 7 9 6 4 . 9 2 8 Ret urn on Ne t W o rth 0 . 3 3 5 0 . 1 6 8 0 . 0 6 6 Current 2 . 5 0 0 1 . 5 0 0 1 . 1 0 0 Mul tifamily De bt t o E quit y 0 . 5 9 5 1 . 2 8 0 3 . 1 7 9 Ret urn on Ne t W o rth 0 . 5 8 9 0 . 2 2 7 0 . 0 6 1 Current 2 . 2 0 0 1 . 5 0 0 1 . 2 0 0 Commer ci a l De bt t o E quit y 0 . 6 6 0 1 . 4 5 6 2 . 8 2 3 Ret urn on Ne t W o rth 0 . 3 6 9 0 . 1 6 4 0 . 0 5 5 Current 2 . 5 0 0 1 . 6 0 0 1 . 2 0 0 Industrial De bt t o E quit y 0 . 5 2 7 1 . 3 0 0 2 . 7 2 3 Ret urn on Ne t W o rth 0 . 3 8 6 0 . 1 5 1 0 . 0 5 5 4C­ 3

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.755496

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0030-0021

Supporting & Related Material

Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 CHAPTER FIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS 5.1 OVERVIEW OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the projected economic impacts of the regulatory options discussed in Chapter Three on the construction and development ( C& D) industry. In this chapter, EPA evaluates the impacts of these costs using the methodology, models, data, and approaches described in Chapter Four. The economic impact methodology uses several methods to assess economic impacts on the industry. These include models that analyze impacts at the level of the individual construction project, individual firm, national construction market, and the economy as a whole. The analysis considers impacts on C& D firms that would be complying with the regulations. It also considers the impacts on those who purchase the output of the C& D industry, including prospective new home buyers; owners of new multifamily, commercial, and industrial properties; and public entities responsible for building roads, schools, and other public facilities. The chapter is organized as follows: Section 5.2 presents EPA s analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed rule on model C& D projects. These results are based on the financial analyses developed for representative projects in Chapter Four. Section 5.3 presents EPA s estimates of the national costs of the proposed rule. EPA determined those costs by multiplying the per­ acre compliance costs by estimates of the number of acres subject to the proposed effluent guidelines annually. Section 5.4 presents the results of EPA s analysis of the impacts of the proposed rule on model C& D establishments. This section examines the impact of the incremental compliance requirements on the financial condition of representative establishments, using data on their present financial condition as a starting point. Section 5.5 presents EPA s analysis of closures and employment losses. These impacts are based on the model establishment described in Section 5.4. 5­ 1 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Section 5.6 presents EPA s analysis of the proposed rule s impacts on barriers to entry that is, how the incremental costs of the proposed rule could affect the ability of new businesses to enter the market. Section 5.7 presents EPA s market model analysis. This section considers the impact of the incremental compliance requirements on national construction markets and the economy as a whole. Section 5.8 presents EPA s analysis of potential impacts on government units. This section considers the various costs to government associated with the proposed rule. Section 5.9 presents EPA s analysis of additional impacts of the proposed rule. This section discusses regional impacts, social costs, and unfunded mandates. 5. 2 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ON MODEL PROJECTS Chapter Four defines a series of model projects. In this section, EPA uses those models to analyze the impact of the proposed rule on two alternative targets: the developer­ builder ( assuming that they absorb the incremental costs) and the consumer ( assuming that the same costs are passed on to the buyer) . EPA has developed model projects for each of the following: A residential development of single­ family homes A residential development of multifamily housing units A commercial development ( enclosed shopping center) An industrial development ( industrial park) For each type of model project, EPA has analyzed costs and impacts for a range of project sizes: 1, 3, 7.5, 25, 70, and 200 acres. The model projects incorporate all of the baseline costs associated with developing a site and completing construction of all housing units or buildings on the site. Accordingly, it is assumed that the baseline costs include the costs of complying with existing Phase I and Phase II NPDES storm water regulations as they would apply to the site. The model then allows EPA to assess the incremental impact of additional requirements imposed under the proposed rule. Chapter Four 5­ 2 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 provides a detailed description of the model project characteristics, assumptions, and data sources, including an itemized listing of project cost elements. 5.2.1 Cost Pass Through Considerations The model projects are calibrated to allow analysis under varying assumptions about the degree of cost pass through ( CPT) from the builder­ developer to the buyer. 1 Costs for the models have been estimated under two extreme assumptions, 100 percent CPT and zero CPT. Under 100 percent CPT, all incremental regulatory costs resulting from the proposed rule are passed through to end consumers. Under this approach, the costs are also assumed to be marked up to the same degree as any other project costs. 2 Consumers feel the impact of the regulations in the form of a higher price for each new building or housing unit. With zero CPT, the incremental regulatory costs are assumed to accrue entirely to the builder­ developer, and appear as a reduction in profits. EPA determines this reduction by fixing the final sales price of the housing units and calculating the builder s profit once the regulatory costs are absorbed. Existing literature and industry information suggests that, in the important single­ family home market, at least, pass through of regulatory costs in the new housing market is close to 100 percent ( e. g. , Luger and Temkin, 2000) , but the actual incidence of regulatory costs would depend closely on local market conditions. To illustrate the range of possible impacts, EPA has calculated its models under the extreme conditions of 100 percent and zero percent CPT. Accordingly, for each sector modeled there are two sets of results reported below. 5.2.2 Model Project Baseline Performance Under the baseline assumptions and conditions, the sales price for each housing unit ( or model commercial or industrial building) is calculated, and the baseline builder­ developer profit level is 1 Cost pass­ back to the landowner is possible, but it occurs infrequently. See Section 4.1.2. Since EPA lacks data on the actual incidence and extent of cost pass­ back, it is not analyzed in detail. 2 The cost markup assumptions are built into the model and are explained in Chapter Four. 5­ 3 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 determined based on the sales price. Builder­ developer pre­ tax profit is assumed to be approximately 10 percent of the building sales price. Table 5­ 1 shows the baseline sales price and profit for each model project type and each project size. Data and assumptions underlying these estimates are derived in Chapter Four. The model results presented later in this section show changes from these baseline values under each regulatory option. Table 5­ 1. Baseline Sales Price and Profit Conditions for the Model Projects Project Type and Size ( acres) Calculated Building Sales Price Builder­ Developer Pre­ tax Profit Single­ Family Residential 1 acre $ 279,903 $ 27,990 3 acres $ 283,093 $ 24,251 7.5 acres $ 283,093 $ 28,309 25 acres $ 282,951 $ 28,295 70 acres $ 283,042 $ 28,304 200 acres $ 283,058 $ 28,306 Multifamily Residential 1 acre $ 1,375,074 $ 137,507 3 acres $ 4,125,374 $ 412,537 7.5 acres $ 10,313,438 $ 1,031,344 25 acres $ 34,378,235 $ 3,437,823 70 acres $ 96,259,030 $ 9,625,903 200 acres $ 275,025,887 $ 27,502,589 Commercial 1 acre $ 1,498,800 $ 149,880 3 acres $ 4,496,399 $ 449,640 7.5 acres $ 11,240,999 $ 1,124,100 25 acres $ 37,469,920 $ 3,746,992 70 acres $ 104,915,760 $ 10,491,576 200 acres $ 299,759,358 $ 29,975,936 Industrial 1 acre $ 950,949 $ 95,095 3 acres $ 2,852,899 $ 285,290 7.5 acres $ 7,132,197 $ 713,220 25 acres $ 23,773,989 $ 2,377,399 70 acres $ 66,567,119 $ 6,656,712 200 acres $ 190,191,761 $ 19,019,176 Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5­ 4 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 5.2.3 Results of Model Project Analyses Table 5­ 2a contains the results under the 100 percent CPT assumption, while Table 5­ 2b contains identical results under the assumption of zero CPT. In Table 5­ 2a ( 100 percent CPT) , the impacts of the regulatory options are shown as the percentage increase in the sales price of each model project unit. In Table 5­ 2b ( zero CPT) , the impacts of the regulatory options are shown as the percentage decrease in builder profits. 100 Percent Cost Pass­ Through Under the 100 percent CPT assumption, the impacts range from a minimum of 0.00 percent ( i. e. , there is no incremental impact on sales price) for all project types to a range of maximum impact values ( where the percent listed indicates an increase in sales price of that amount) : 0.09 percent for single­ family residential, 0.05 percent for multifamily residential, 0.05 percent for commercial, and 0.07 percent for industrial. All of the maximum impacts occur under Option 2. Zero Cost Pass­ Through Under the zero CPT assumption, the impacts range from a minimum of 0.00 percent for all project types under various option combinations ( indicating no impact to builder profit) to a range of maximum impact values, all under one percent. Maximum impacts all occur with Option 2 as shown below: Single­ family residential: ­ 0.80 percent Multifamily residential: ­ 0.45 percent Commercial: ­ 0.41 percent Industrial: ­ 0.64 percent 5­ 5 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 2a. Impact of Regulatory Options on Model Project Financials 100 Percent Cost Pass Through, All Project Sizes Option Percent Change in Project Price to Buyer Single­ Family Multifamily Commercial Industrial Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max 1 0.00% 0.04% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.03% 2 0.00% 0.09% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.07% 3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. Table 5­ 2b. Impact of Regulatory Options on Model Project Financials Zero Percent Cost Pass Through, All Project Sizes Option Percent Change in Builder­ Developer Profit Single­ Family Multifamily Commercial Industrial Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max 1 0.00% ­ 0.37% 0.00% ­ 0.19% 0.00% ­ 0.17% 0.00% ­ 0.27% 2 0.00% ­ 0.80% 0.00% ­ 0.45% 0.00% ­ 0.41% 0.00% ­ 0.64% 3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5.2.4 Nonbuilding Project Analysis Results This section presents the results of the model nonbuilding project analysis described in Section 4.2.7. As indicated in that section, EPA has not developed actual engineering costs for projects such as roads and highways. As a result, EPA has simulated the impact of the proposed rule on such projects using worst­ case ( i. e. , highest) estimates of the per­ acre engineering costs estimated for building projects. Due to the lack of engineering costs for this project type, EPA used a worst­ case assumption of $ 378 per acre in compliance costs. This figure is based on the highest per­ acre compliance cost 5­ 6 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 estimated for a 7.5­ acre building project. EPA elected to use the compliance costs for a 7.5­ acre project because the model one­ mile new highway construction project encompasses 10.67 acres. EPA estimates that the baseline costs of construction for one mile of typical road or highway is $ 5.4 million ( see Section 4.2.7) . Using $ 378 per acre, the worst­ case estimate of compliance costs associated with one mile of new road or highway construction ( 10.67 acres) is $ 4,033. This equates to less than 0.1 percent of baseline costs, indicating even under worst­ case assumptions regarding compliance costs, the proposed rule is unlikely to have a significant impact on representative nonbuilding construction projects. 5.3 ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL COMPLIANCE COSTS EPA has calculated the national compliance costs associated with the proposed rule by multiplying the compliance costs per acre ( by project type and size) by estimates of the number of acres developed per year. EPA used data from the USDA National Resources Inventory ( NRI) to estimate the number of acres developed per year. According to this source, approximately 2.2 million acres of undeveloped land are converted to a developed state every year. EPA has adjusted this total to account for waivers and differences in regulatory coverage between Option 1 and Option 2. 3 As described in Chapter Four, both the 14­ Community Study ( conducted in support of the Phase II NPDES storm water rule development) and building permits data from Census were used to allocate the developed acreage by project type and size. Table 5­ 3 contains EPA s estimates of the national costs of the regulatory options. The national costs of the proposed rule range from $ 0.00 for each project type ( Option 3) to a maximum of $ 121.5 million for single­ family residential construction, $ 59.4 million for multifamily residential construction, $ 277.3 million for commercial construction, and $ 11.0 million for industrial construction ( all Option 2) . The combined national compliance costs across all sectors are shown in the final rows of Table 5­ 3a. The national compliance costs under Option 1 are $ 118.1 million while the national compliance costs under Option 2 are $ 469.2 million. 3 Option 1 applies to sites of one acre or more in size while Option 2 applies to sites of five acres or more in size. 5­ 7 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 3a. Estimated National Cost of Storm Water Control Options ( All Dollar Amounts in Constant, Pre­ tax, 1997 Dollars) Option Compliance Costs per Acre( $ ) Estimated National Costs ( $ Millions) Single­ Family Residential Option 1 $ 57.0 $ 24.1 Option 2 $ 305.0 $ 121.5 Option 3 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 Multifamily Residential Option 1 $ 59.0 $ 11.9 Option 2 $ 319.0 $ 59.4 Option 3 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 Commercial Option 1 $ 74.0 $ 78.4 Option 2 $ 312.0 $ 277.3 Option 3 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 Industrial Option 1 $ 81.0 $ 3.7 Option 2 $ 303.0 $ 11.0 Option 3 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 Total Option 1 $ 118.1 Option 2 $ 469.2 Option 3 $ 0.0 NOTE: Compliance costs per acre are weighted national averages for each option over all site size classes. Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5­ 8 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 3b. Calculation of Total Cost per Unit ( All Dollar Amounts Are in Constant, Pre­ tax, 1997 Dollars) Single Multi­ Family Commercial Industrial Total Option 1 Total Costs $ 24,099,340 $ 11,892,936 $ 78,415,033 $ 3,733,824 $ 118,141,133 Total Acres 533,878 252,182 1,332,476 57,523 2,176,058 Cost per Acre $ 45.14 $ 47.16 $ 58.85 $ 64.91 Units per Acre 2.67 13,591 8,320 8,555 Cost per Unit $ 16.91/ house $ 0.003/ sq ft $ 0.007/ sq ft $ 0.008/ sq ft Option 2 Total Costs $ 121,470,785 $ 59,391,699 $ 277,280,636 $ 11,016,368 $ 469,159,488 Total Acres 501,100 229,958 1,061,108 42,733 1,834,898 Cost per Acre $ 242.41 $ 258.27 $ 261.31 $ 257.80 Units per Acre 2.67 13,591 8,320 8,555 Cost per Unit $ 90.79/ house $ 0.019/ sq ft $ 0.031/ sq ft $ 0.030/ sq ft Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. Table 5­ 3b shows the calculation of cost per unit for Options 1 and 2. Units are dollars per house for single­ ­ family residential construction and dollars per square foot for all other categories. . Total costs are the estimated national costs as shown in Table 5­ 3a. Option 2 applies only to sites disturbing 5 acres or more, so this option encompasses less acreage than Option 1. In addition, several states have enacted regulations equivalent to the proposed standards and so would not incur incremental costs from the proposed rule. These equivalent states are included in the storm water control costs per acre in Table 5­ 3a but removed in the estimated national costs in the same table. Table 5­ 3b recalculates the cost per acre with the costs attributable to states with equivalent programs removed. With this adjustment, the cost per unit is calculated by dividing by the number of houses per acre, or number of rentable square feet per acre, which is derived from Census and R. S. Means data. The cost to build a new single­ family home increases by $ 17 under Option 1 and $ 91 under Option 2. Costs per square foot increase by less than 1 cent for Option 1 and 2 to 3 cents for Option 2. The impacts of these cost increases on the markets for new construction are explored in Section 5.7. 5­ 9 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 5.4 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ON MODEL ESTABLISHMENTS As described in Chapter Four, EPA developed a set of representative model projects as one basis for analyzing the impacts of the proposed rule on the construction industry. EPA has examined the impacts of the compliance costs associated with these model projects on a series of model establishments that characterize the financial conditions of typical businesses in each of the four major industry sectors ( single­ family residential, multifamily residential, commercial, and industrial; see Section 4.3) . The model firm analysis simulates the impact of the incremental compliance costs on the balance sheet and cash flow of the model establishments, and expresses the impacts in terms of changes in meaningful business financial ratios. The ratios used in the analysis include: Gross profit ratio Return on net worth Current ratio Debt to equity ratio These ratios are reviewed in Chapter Four, which also presents a discussion of their significance as indicators of financial performance. 5. 4 . 1 Building Construction This section presents the results of simulations of firm performance under the regulatory options being considered by EPA. As indicated in Chapter Four, the simulations have been run under two CPT scenarios: ( 1) zero CPT from the developer­ builder to the consumer and ( 2) an estimated actual CPT, where a realistic share of the compliance costs are passed though to consumers in the form of higher prices. EPA has estimated a separate CPT factor for each market sector individually. The zero CPT results presented in this section represents the worst case scenario; ; impacts under the more realistic CPT assumption are much smaller than those shown below. 5­ 10 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 4 shows sample results for a firm in the single­ family residential construction industry ( SIC 1531) completing between 10 and 24 housing starts per year, based on costs for 7.5­ acre projects. Impacts are most severe on the return on net worth ratio, a recurring outcome throughout EPA s model firm analysis. Return on net worth is the most sensitive ratio because it is based on net profit after taxes, which makes up 1.2 percent of revenues for the typical establishment in SIC 1531 according to D& & B data. Impacts are much less severe under the other financial ratio measures. Table 5­ 5a provides a summary of the results for each sector by regulatory option, over all project sizes and under the zero CPT scenario. The results are broadly similar to the detailed example presented in Table 5­ 4 for the single­ family residential sector. Table 5­ 5b provides the same summary of financial ratios under the estimated actual cost pass through scenario. In both scenarios the most severe impacts are observed when measured by impact on return on net worth, followed by the gross profit, debt to equity, and current ratios. The largest impact over both scenarios is a 5.85 percent decline in the return on net worth ratio for the single­ family residential sector under Option 2 with zero CPT. With the exception of return on net worth, the remainder of the results under zero CPT are at or below 1.0 percent for all project types. The results under the estimated actual CPT scenario indicate impacts of less than 1.0 percent for all financial ratios and all four project types, with most of the impacts being less than 0.10 percent ( with the exception of return on net worth) . 5­ 11 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 4 Impact of Regulatory Options on Financial Performance for Model Firm Single­ family Residential Construction, 10­ 24 Housing Units Starts Class Impact Regulatory Option Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Cost Impact Incremental Costs per Acre Per Year $ 64 $ 371 $ 0 Incremental Costs per Establishment Per Year $ 354 $ 2,034 $ 0 Impact on Financial Performance Gross Profit Ratio Percent change from baseline 0.2278% ­ 0.0780% 0.2270% ­ 0.4490% 0.2280% Return on Net Worth Percent change from baseline 0.0502% ­ 0.8810% 0.0481% ­ 5.0680% 0.0506% Current Ratio Percent change from baseline 1.3935% ­ 0.0070% 1.3930% ­ 0.0400% 1.3936% Debt to Equity Ratio Percent change from baseline 1.9161% 0.0310% 1.9189% 0.1800% 1.9155% Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5­ 12 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 5a. Impact of Regulatory Options on Model Firm Financial Performance Zero Cost Pass Through Construction Industry and Regulatory Option Percent Change in Financial Ratios, From Baseline a Gross Profit Return on Net Worth Current Ratio Debt to Equity Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Single­ family residential Option 1 0.000% ­ 0.230% 0.000% ­ 2.540% 0.000% ­ 0.020% 0.000% 0.900% Option 2 0.000% ­ 0.520% 0.000% ­ 5.850% 0.000% ­ 0.050% 0.000% 0.210% Option 3 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Multifamily residential Option 1 0.000% ­ 0.310% 0.000% ­ 0.990% 0.000% ­ 0.050% 0.000% 0.200% Option 2 0.000% ­ 0.950% 0.000% ­ 3.070% 0.000% ­ 0.160% 0.000% 0.640% Option 3 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Commercial Option 1 0.000% ­ 0.170% 0.000% ­ 0.530% 0.000% ­ 0.020% 0.000% 0.130% Option 2 0.000% ­ 0.400% 0.000% ­ 1.250% 0.000% ­ 0.050% 0.000% 0.310% Option 3 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Industrial Option 1 0.000% ­ 0.140% 0.000% ­ 0.430% 0.000% ­ 0.020% 0.000% 0.120% Option 2 0.000% ­ 0.320% 0.000% ­ 1.020% 0.000% ­ 0.050% 0.000% 0.280% Option 3 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% a Ranges ( minimum and maximum) reflect results across model firms of varying sizes. Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5­ 13 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 5b. Impact of Regulatory Options on Model Firm Financial Performance Estimated Actual Cost Pass Through Construction Industry and Regulatory Option Percent Change in Financial Ratios, From Baseline a Gross Profit Return on Net Worth Current Ratio Debt to Equity Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Single­ family residential Option 1 0.000% ­ 0.034% 0.000% ­ 0.379% 0.000% ­ 0.003% 0.000% 0.013% Option 2 0.000% ­ 0.077% 0.000% ­ 0.872% 0.000% ­ 0.007% 0.000% 0.031% Option 3 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Multifamily residential Option 1 0.000% ­ 0.026% 0.000% ­ 0.083% 0.000% ­ 0.004% 0.000% 0.017% Option 2 0.000% ­ 0.080% 0.000% ­ 0.259% 0.000% ­ 0.014% 0.000% 0.054% Option 3 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Commercial Option 1 0.000% ­ 0.017% 0.000% ­ 0.054% 0.000% ­ 0.002% 0.000% 0.013% Option 2 0.000% ­ 0.040% 0.000% ­ 0.126% 0.000% ­ 0.006% 0.000% 0.031% Option 3 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Industrial Option 1 0.000% ­ 0.021% 0.000% ­ 0.066% 0.000% ­ 0.003% 0.000% 0.018% Option 2 0.000% ­ 0.048% 0.000% ­ 0.155% 0.000% ­ 0.008% 0.000% 0.042% Option 3 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% a EPA applied the following estimated cost pass through factors: Single­ family residential, 85.10% ; Multifamily residential, 91.55% ; Commercial, 89.87% ; Industrial, 84.75% . b Ranges ( minimum and maximum) reflect results across model firms of varying sizes. Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5.4.2 Nonbuilding Construction EPA has analyzed the potential impacts of the proposed rule on nonbuilding construction establishments based on Census data and the cost data presented in Section 5.2.4. As previously discussed, this analysis focuses on highway and street construction contractors ( NAICS 23411) due to the lack of financial data for other segments of the heavy construction industry group ( NAICS 234) . 5­ 14 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 The model establishment analysis for heavy construction, although somewhat simplified, follows the basic methodology outlined in Section 4.3 for establishments in the commercial and industrial construction industries. EPA has determined that the median highway construction establishment ( NAICS 23411) , based on revenues, is in the 50 to 99 employee size classification category as defined by Census ( U. S. Census 2000) . Within this employment size class, EPA calculated average establishment revenues, employment, and costs as discussed in Section 4.3.1.2. For the model establishment, EPA examined the economic impacts of the worst­ case compliance cost impacts on the same four financial ratios analyzed above for the residential, commercial, and industrial construction industries. Due to the lack of actual engineering cost estimates for highway construction, the compliance costs used in this analysis do not correspond to a particular regulatory option or combination of options. Compliance costs for 7.5­ acre projects were chosen for this analysis because they are closest in size to the model highway construction project assumed to be undertaken by the model establishment, which encompasses 10.67 acres. Table 5­ 6 shows the results of this analysis for the model highway construction firm ( 50­ 99 employment size class) . Overall, the impacts are not large, with only one estimate above one­ quarter of one percent. As with the model establishments in the building construction industries, the impacts are largest for the return on net worth ratio. 5­ 15 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 6. Impact of Proposed Rule on Model Firm Financials ­ Highway Construction Cost Pass Through Assumption Gross Profit Return on Net Worth Current Debt to Equity Ratio Percent Change from Baseline Ratio Percent Change from Baseline Ratio Percent Change from Baseline Ratio Percent Change from Baseline Zero Cost Pass Through Baseline 0.223000 0.198344 1.629629 1.061856 Worst­ Case 0.222256 ­ 0.33% 0.196307 ­ 1.03% 1.628681 ­ 0.06% 1.064601 0.26% 90 Percent Cost Pass Through Baseline 0.223000 0.198344 1.629629 1.061856 Worst­ Case 0.222926 ­ 0.03% 0.198141 ­ 0.10% 1.629534 ­ 0.01% 1.062131 0.03% Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. Under a zero cost pass through ( CPT) assumption, the largest impact is on return on net worth, which declines by just over 1.0 percent. Impacts under an estimated CPT value of 90 percent are all at or below 0.10 percent. 5.5 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ON CLOSURES AND EMPLOYMENT LOSSES As discussed in Chapter Four, EPA used two approaches to estimate potential facility closures and employment losses resulting from the proposed rule. The primary approach was to analyze changes in key financial ratios that occur as firms costs increase in response to the proposed rule. . To estimate closures, EPA examined a weighted average of changes in the current ratio, debt to equity ratio, and return on net worth ratios. EPA then constructed a cumulative distribution function for each ratio to estimate the percent of establishments that would likely fall below critical values after incurring compliance costs. That percent falling below this critical value, multiplied by the number of facilities represented by the model under evaluation, resulted in a projected number of closures. Employment losses were calculated by multiplying the number of establishments projected to close by employment estimates for the model facility representing those closures. 5­ 16 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 EPA s alternative approach, which analyzed estimated model facility cash flow, was used as a check on the financial ratio analysis described above. Results from this analysis are contained in Appendix 5­ A. 5.5.1 Facility Closures Table 5­ 7a shows closure analysis results using the financial ratio method under a zero CPT assumption the worst case scenario. . Results under a calculated CPT assumption are presented in Table 5­ 7b. The largest number of establishment closures is projected to occur in the commercial sector ( 43 projected closures) , followed by the single­ family residential sector ( 13 closures) . Facility closures as a percent of total facilities are less than one percent under all proposed options and for all industry sectors. As seen in Table 5­ 7b, closure impacts are even smaller when CPT is accounted for. Table 5­ 7a. Estimated Facility Closures Zero Cost Pass Through Option Single­ Family Multifamily Commercial Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total 1 4 0.005% 1 0.022% 11 0.028% 2 13 0.015% 3 0.065% 43 0.108% 3 0 0.000% 0 0.000% 0 0.000% Option Industrial Heavy TOTAL Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total 1 2 0.026% 0 0.000% 18 0.012% 2 7 0.090% 26 0.230% 92 0.063% 3 0 0.000% 0 0.000% 0 0.000% Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5­ 17 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 7b. Estimated Facility Closures Estimated Cost Pass Through Option Single­ Family Multifamily Commercial Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total 1 1 0.001% 0 0.000% 1 0.003% 2 2 0.002% 0 0.000% 4 0.010% 3 0 0.000% 0 0.000% 0 0.000% Option Industrial Heavy TOTAL Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total 1 0 0.000% 0 0.000% 2 0.001% 2 1 0.013% 3 0.027% 10 0.007% 3 0 0.000% 0 0.000% 0 0.000% Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5.5.2 Employment Losses Table 5­ 8a presents employment loss analysis results for the financial ratio method under a zero CPT assumption to show the worst case scenario. Results under a calculated CPT assumption are presented in Table 5­ 8b. Employment impacts as a percent of each sector s total employment are roughly the same as closure impacts. This is to be expected, because EPA estimated employment impacts by multiplying projected closures by the number of employees per establishment. Note that in the multifamily sector, the percentage of employment losses is slightly larger than the percentage of closures. This is because the model establishments most affected by the proposed rule account for a disproportionately high percentage of sector employment. 5­ 18 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 8a. Estimated Employment Losses Zero Cost Pass Through Option Single­ Family Multifamily Commercial Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total 1 34 0.016% 12 0.034% 162 0.029% 2 145 0.067% 61 0.173% 603 0.110% 3 0 0.000% 0 0.000% 0 0.000% Option Industrial Heavy TOTAL Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total 1 43 0.029% 0 0.000% 251 0.021% 2 133 0.089% 647 0.233% 1,589 0.130% 3 0 0.000% 0 0.000% 0 0.000% Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. Table 5­ 8b. Estimated Employment Losses Estimated Cost Pass Through Option Single­ Family Multifamily Commercial Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total 1 5 0.001% 1 0.003% 16 0.003% 2 22 0.006% 5 0.014% 61 0.011% 3 0 0.000% 0 0.000% 0 0.000% Option Industrial Heavy TOTAL Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total 1 7 0.005% 0 0.000% 29 2 20 0.013% 65 0.023% 173 3 0 0.000% 0 0.000% 0 Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5­ 19 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 5.6 ANALYSIS OF BARRIER TO ENTRY This section presents the results of EPA s barrier to entry analysis. As discussed in Section 4.3.3, EPA examined the ratio of compliance costs to current and total assets to determine if new market entrants would find it more difficult to obtain construction loans to start a project than would existing firms. As discussed in more detail in that section, this methodology is conservative by design because it does not account for the fact that a firm would typically be expected to finance 20 percent of the incremental compliance costs to obtain the loan not the full amount as assumed here. . 5.6.1 Building Construction As shown in Table 5­ 9a, compliance costs represent a maximum of 0.82 percent of a model establishment s current assets ( 0.60 percent of total assets) across all options and project types. These maximum projected impacts occur in the multifamily sector. For the industrial and commercial sectors, compliance costs are less than 0.30 percent of current assets, while in the single­ family sector, costs are less than 0.25 percent of current assets. Table 5­ 9b shows the barrier to entry analysis results under an estimated CPT scenario. As shown, the impacts are smaller than under the zero CPT scenario, with the maximum impact on both current assets and total assets at less than 0.10 percent. 5­ 20 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 9a. Barrier to Entry Analysis Zero Cost Pass Through Option Compliance Costs Divided by: Current Assets Total Assets Min Max Min Max Single­ Family Residential 1 0.000% 0.100% 0.000% 0.070% 2 0.000% 0.230% 0.000% 0.170% 3 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Multifamily Residential 1 0.000% 0.260% 0.000% 0.190% 2 0.000% 0.820% 0.000% 0.600% 3 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Commercial 1 0.000% 0.120% 0.000% 0.090% 2 0.000% 0.270% 0.000% 0.220% 3 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Industrial 1 0.000% 0.110% 0.000% 0.080% 2 0.000% 0.250% 0.000% 0.190% 3 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5­ 21 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 9b. Barrier to Entry Analysis Cost Pass Through Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. Option Compliance Costs Divided by: Current Assets Total Assets Min Max Min Max Single­ Family Residential 1 0.000% 0.015% 0.000% 0.011% 2 0.000% 0.034% 0.000% 0.025% 3 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Multifamily Residential 1 0.000% 0.022% 0.000% 0.016% 2 0.000% 0.069% 0.000% 0.050% 3 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Commercial 1 0.000% 0.012% 0.000% 0.009% 2 0.000% 0.028% 0.000% 0.022% 3 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Industrial 1 0.000% 0.016% 0.000% 0.013% 2 0.000% 0.038% 0.000% 0.029% 3 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 5.6.2 Nonbuilding Construction The barrier to entry analysis also produced results in line with the results previously reported for the other four industries. Table 5­ 10 shows the results of this analysis. Under a zero CPT assumption, compliance costs are less than one percent of both current and total assets using the best estimate compliance cost. Using the worst­ case estimate, compliance costs are slightly above 2.5 percent of current assets and nearly 1.5 percent of total assets. With cost pass through, these impacts are significantly lower. 5­ 22 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 10. Barrier to Entry Analysis ­ Highway Construction Compliance Cost Assumption Compliance Costs Divided By: Current Assets Total Assets Zero Cost Pass Through Baseline 0.00% 0.00% Worst­ Case 0.29% 0.17% With 90 Percent Cost Pass Through Baseline 0.00% 0.00% Worst­ Case 0.03% 0.02% Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5.7 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ON NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION MARKETS EPA used three approaches to estimate the potential impacts of the regulatory options on the national single­ family housing construction market. This section presents the results of these analyses. In the first approach, EPA analyzed the impacts of the proposed rule on consumers under the assumption that developers and builders pass on 100 percent of the costs to the new single­ family home buyer. To assess these impacts, EPA developed a model that estimates the change in income needed to qualify for financing to purchase the ( higher priced) housing unit, and then estimates the change in the number of households that would meet the higher income criteria. In theory, this provides an estimate of the change in new housing demand that could arise as a result of the proposed regulations. EPA s second approach applies a partial equilibrium model to 220 metropolitan housing markets to estimate how compliance costs change the proportion of homes in the market that the median income household can afford, termed the Housing Opportunity Index ( HOI) . HOI is published quarterly by the NAHB. This index offers a similar estimate of the change in housing demand that may arise from the effluent guideline in terms of a familiar, widely publicized, indicator. 5­ 23 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 The third approach is a single national partial equilibrium model. Changes in prices and quantities from this model are used to derive the impacts on employment and social welfare. EPA s methodology for these models is discussed more fully in Section 4.5. 5.7.1 Residential Construction Markets 5.7.1.1 Housing Affordability Table 5­ 11 shows that the incremental costs of the proposed rule add a maximum of $ 58 to the $ 82,472 in income that is required to purchase the baseline model home. After this income change, between 5,200 and 29,000 households ( 0.03 percent to 0.15 percent of total qualifying households) would fail to qualify for a mortgage. Table 5­ 11. Impact of Erosion and Sediment Control Costs on Housing Affordability ( All Dollar Amounts are in Constant, Pre­ tax, 1997 Dollars) Option ESC Costs ( $ / Unit) Total Change in Costs ( $ / Unit) Income Needed To Qualify ( $ ) Change in Income Needed ( $ ) Number of Households Shifted ( Thousands) Percent of Households Shifted That Could Afford Baseline ( Percent) 1 $ 20 $ 36 $ 82,482 $ 10 ­ 5.2 ­ 0.03% 2 $ 111 $ 201 $ 82,529 $ 58 ­ 29.1 ­ 0.15% 3 $ 0 $ 0 $ 82,472 Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5.7.1.2 Housing Opportunity Index The HOI is an alternative measure of housing affordability. EPA estimated the change in HOI from its baseline value for 220 regional housing markets. Table 5­ 12 summarizes these results in terms 5­ 24 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 of the average change calculated across each Census Bureau division. Since the HOI encompasses both existing and new housing, the results show the net effect for the entire housing market. The value of the HOI varies considerably by region. In the Pacific region, high real estate prices result in only one third of households having sufficient income to purchase the median­ priced home. In the central regions, however, three­ quarters of households can afford the median­ priced home. The proposed regulation has little effect on regional HOI. Table 5­ 13 shows the percentage change in HOI by Census division. Option 1 changes HOI by less than two­ hundredths of one percent in all regions. Option 2 changes HOI by less than 0.2 percent. The largest changes occur in the South Atlantic region. These changes are much smaller in scale than annual changes that result from normal shifts in real estate market conditions and demography of the market areas. Table 5­ 12. Single­ Family Residential Average HOI by Census Division Option Census Division 1 New England 2 Middle Atlantic 3 East North Central 4 West North Central 5 South Atlantic 6 East South Central 7 West South Central 8 Mountain 9 Pacific 1 54.24 62.36 72.66 78.81 70.30 69.69 64.73 44.57 32.62 2 54.23 62.31 72.59 78.74 70.24 69.65 64.69 44.55 32.61 3 54.24 62.37 72.67 78.82 70.31 69.70 64.73 44.58 32.63 HOI indicates the percent of households in each region that can afford the median­ priced house. Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. Table 5­ 13. Single­ Family Residential Percentage Change in HOI by Census Division Option Census Division 1 New England 2 Middle Atlantic 3 East North Central 4 West North Central 5 South Atlantic 6 East South Central 7 West South Central 8 Mountain 9 Pacific 1 0.00% ­ 0.02% ­ 0.02% ­ 0.02% ­ 0.02% ­ 0.01% ­ 0.01% ­ 0.01% ­ 0.01% 2 ­ 0.02% ­ 0.10% ­ 0.10% ­ 0.10% ­ 0.11% ­ 0.08% ­ 0.07% ­ 0.07% ­ 0.04% 3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% HOI indicates the percent of households in each region that can afford the median­ priced house. Source EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5­ 25 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 5.7.1.3 Single­ Family Housing Prices and Quantities Table 5­ 14 shows the results of EPA s analysis using the market model approach. The table shows the estimated changes in median single­ family home prices from all combinations of the proposed options. The changes in costs range from $ 0 to $ 111. The market model recognizes that market conditions control how much of these costs can be passed through to consumers. Thus, the price increase is somewhat smaller than the related cost increase, reflecting the fact some costs would be borne by the builder­ developer. The largest increase in price reduces the quantity that can be sold by about two­ hundredths of one percent. The total loss in output to the construction industry ranges from $ 0 to $ 72 million. Table 5­ 14. Single­ Family Residential Changes in Price and Quantity From the Baseline ( All Dollar Values Are in Constant, Pre­ tax, 1997 Dollars) Option Change in Cost ( $ / Unit) New Price ( $ / Unit) Price Change ( $ / Unit) Quantity Change ( Units) Quantity Change ( Percent) Loss of Output ( $ Million) 1 $ 20 $ 288,414 $ 17 ( 44) ­ 0.00% ­ $ 12.8 2 $ 111 $ 288,492 $ 95 ( 248) ­ 0.02% ­ $ 71.6 3 $ 0 $ 288,397 $ 0 0 ­ 0.00% 0 Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5.7.1.4 Multifamily Housing Prices and Quantities Table 5­ 15 shows the estimated changes in median price of a unit in a multifamily building from the proposed options. The changes in costs range from $ 0 to $ 40 per unit. Multifamily housing disturbs a smaller area per unit, so any ESC­ related costs are spread over more units. The market model suggests a higher share of compliance costs in multifamily housing would be passed through to consumers, compared to single­ family homes, so price changes are closer to the actual change in builder costs. The price changes passed through to consumers range from $ 0 to $ 40 per unit. 5­ 26 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 15. Multifamily Residential Changes in Price and Quantity From the Baseline ( All Dollar Values Are in Constant, Pre­ tax, 1997 Dollars) Option Change in Cost ( $ / Unit) New Price ( $ 1,000/ Unit) Price Change ( $ / Unit) Quantity Change ( Units) Quantity Change ( Percent) Loss of Output ( $ Million) 1 $ 7 $ 132.53 $ 7 ­ 7 0.00% ­ $ 0.9 2 $ 40 $ 132.57 $ 40 ­ 41 0.01% ­ $ 5.2 3 $ 0 $ 132.53 $ 0 0 0.00% ­ $ 0.0 Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5.7.2 Non­ Residential Construction Markets 5.7.2.1 Commercial Space Rental prices for commercial space are typically quoted in dollars per square foot per year. Table 5­ 16 shows the estimated changes in median rental rate of a square foot of commercial space from the proposed options. The changes in costs range from $ 0 to $ 0.02 per square foot. Tenants of commercial space are considerably more price sensitive than residential buyers, so less of the change in costs can be passed through to tenants. The change in average price per square foot reflects this absorption of compliance costs by builders and building owners. Price changes range from $ 0 to $ 0.02 per square foot. Quantity reductions are estimated to reach seven­ hundredths of one percent for the most costly option. The total loss in output to the construction industry ranges from $ 0 to $ 67.1 million. 5­ 27 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 16. Commercial Changes in Price and Quantity From the Baseline ( All Dollar Values Are in Constant, Pre­ tax, 1997 Dollars) Option Change in Cost ( $ / Sq. Ft. ) New Price ( $ / Sq. Ft. ) Price Change ( $ / Sq. Ft. ) Quantity Change ( Units) Quantity Change ( Percent) Loss of Output ( $ Million) 1 $ 0.01 $ 14.67 $ 0.00 ­ 36 ­ 0.01% ­ $ 14.7 2 $ 0.02 $ 14.69 $ 0.02 ­ 163 ­ 0.07% ­ $ 67.1 3 $ 0.00 $ 14.66 $ 0.00 0 ­ 0.00% $ 0.0 Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5.7.2.2 Industrial Space Only 12,100 industrial projects are estimated to start in the base year. Rental prices for industrial space are typically quoted in dollars per square foot per year. Table 5­ 17 shows the estimated changes in median rental rate of a square foot of industrial/ warehouse space from the proposed options. The changes in costs range from $ 0 to $ 0.02 per square foot. Buyers of industrial space are considerably more price sensitive than homeowners, so less of the change in costs can be passed through to the end­ users. The change in average price per square foot reflects this absorption of compliance costs by builders and developers. Price changes range from $ 0 to $ 0.02 per square foot. Quantity reductions are estimated to reach 0.3 percent for the most costly option, albeit on a small number of projects in the baseline. The total loss in output to the construction industry ranges from $ 0 to $ 17.8 million. Table 5­ 17. Industrial Changes in Price and Quantity From the Baseline ( All Dollar Values Are in Constant, Pre­ tax, 1997 Dollars) Option Change in Cost ( $ / Sq. Ft. ) New Price ( $ / Sq. Ft. ) Price Change ( $ / Sq. Ft. ) Quantity Change ( Units) Quantity Change ( Percent) Loss of Output ( $ Million) 1 $ 0.01 $ 5.17 $ 0.00 ­ 11 ­ 0.08% ­ $ 4.4 2 $ 0.02 $ 5.18 $ 0.02 ­ 46 ­ 0.32% ­ $ 17.8 3 $ 0.00 $ 5.16 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 0.0 Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5­ 28 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 5.7.3 Output and Employment As discussed in Section 4.5, additional compliance costs reduce the output of the construction industry as the increased price reduces sales. The estimate of this effect is shown in the Loss of Output column of Table 5­ 18. Most of the losses are in the large single­ family residential and catch­ all commercial construction sectors. These losses are offset, however, by increases in output and employment in those industries associated with compliance, i. e. , design, installation, and inspection of ESCs. The estimate of the amount of new work generated in these activities is shown in the Stimulus from Added Work column. . The next two columns show the changes in jobs related to the loss in construction spending and ( offsetting) increase in regulatory compliance spending. Under both options, the stimulus adds more jobs than the loss of output takes away, with the result that net employment change from construction impacts is a positive number. In the single­ family sector, for example, under Option 1 there is a loss $ 12.8 million of output but an offsetting stimulus of $ 21.5 million. The loss represents 475 jobs, but the stimulus generates 797 jobs; the net result is that 322 more jobs are generated. Note that these job estimates apply to the entire economy, not just the construction sectors. They represent all of the impacts that result as changes in the construction industry ripple through other sectors. The stimulus to the construction industry comes at the expense of consumer spending, as home buyers and other consumers devote more of their income to housing. EPA assumes that this loss of consumer surplus takes the form of reduced spending for other products, though it might also take the form of reduced amenities in housing construction. Removing this spending from the national economy reduces the employment that arises in response to consumer spending. The Change in Employment From Consumer Spending column shows this reduction in jobs, , which offsets the stimulus to construction. When this effect is factored in, the net change in total employment is negative. Total employment losses range from 0 to 1,400 jobs. These estimates do not consider how long individuals may be out of work, nor do they consider individuals alternative opportunities. . Because of this, such input­ output analysis results are usually considered an over­ estimate of the hardship initiated by the change to the economy. 5­ 29 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 18. Changes in Output and Total Employment From the Baseline ( All dollar Values Are in Constant, Pre­ tax, 1997 Dollars) Option Loss of Output ( $ Million) Stimulus From Added Work ( $ Million) Change in Employment From Lost Output ( Jobs) Change in Employment From Stimulus ( Jobs) Net Change in Employment From Construction Impacts ( Jobs) Change in Employment From Consumer Spending ( Jobs) Net Change in Total Employment ( Jobs) Single­ Family Residential 1 ( $ 12.8) $ 21.5 ( 475) 797 322 ( 498) ( 176) 2 ( $ 71.6) $ 120.2 ( 2,662) 4,467 1,805 ( 2,792) ( 986) 3 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 Multifamily Residential 1 ( $ 0.9) $ 2.5 ( 34) 91 57 ( 67) ( 10) 2 ( $ 5.2) $ 13.7 ( 192) 509 317 ( 374) ( 56) 3 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 0 0 0 0 Commercial 1 ( $ 14.7) $ 42.6 ( 546) 1,583 1,037 ( 1,062) ( 25) 2 ( $ 67.1) $ 194.7 ( 2,494) 7,234 4,740 ( 4,857) ( 116) 3 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 1 ( $ 4.4) $ 6.7 ( 164) 248 84 ( 152) ( 68) 2 ( $ 17.8) $ 26.9 ( 662) 1,001 338 ( 616) ( 277) 3 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 ( $ 32.8) $ 73.2 ( 1,219) 2,719 1,501 ( 1,780) ( 279) 2 ( $ 161.7) $ 355.5 ( 6,010) 13,212 7,201 ( 8,638) ( 1,436) 3 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5.7.4 Changes in Welfare Measures As discussed in Section 4.6, the proposed regulation shifts the supply curves for new construction in each sector. This shift alters the balance between consumers and producers. Each group contributes to the costs of complying with the regulation. As Table 5­ 19 indicates, consumers may lose 5­ 30 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 from $ 0 to $ 316.6 million, depending on the option selected. Producers lose from $ 0 to $ 40.4 million. Almost all of this loss is shifted from consumers and construction firm owners to construction firms to pay the costs of complying with the regulation. As shown in the last section, the net effect on construction may be a stimulus. However, a small portion is utterly lost to society. This portion, termed the deadweight loss, ranges from $ $ 0 to $ 200,000. Table 5­ 19. Changes in Social Welfare Measures All Sectors Combined ( All Dollar Values Are in Constant, Pre­ tax, 1997 Dollars) Option Total Deadweight Loss ( $ Million) Total Consumer Surplus Loss ( $ Million) Total Producer Surplus Loss ( $ Million) 1 $ 0.0 $ 65.2 $ 8.2 2 $ 0.2 $ 316.6 $ 40.4 3 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5.7.5 Regional Effects The multifamily housing and non­ residential market models estimate impacts at the state level based on information about local real estate markets. The single­ family housing market model estimates market effects at the MSA level, which can then be aggregated to the state level. Table 5­ 20 shows the loss in output to the construction industry, by state, from compliance with the more expensive Option 2. Loss of output largely follows the expected pattern of population and growth. Several states show zero loss for some categories because there is so little activity in that state that the effect could not be measured. For example, multifamily housing in Vermont. California, Pennsylvania, and several other states ( indicated with an e) show no effect as current State regulations were deemed equivalent to the proposed regulations and so there was no incremental impact on firms operating in those states. Although the totals would be lower for Option 1, the pattern of losses would be similar. Table 5­ 21 provides a similar state­ by­ state breakdown of the net change in employment as a result of compliance with the proposed regulation. In several states, multifamily housing, commercial, 5­ 31 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 and industrial stimulus effects are greater than the losses, and the regulation causes a small net positive change in employment within those categories. Table 5­ 20. Loss of Output to the Construction Industry by State and Use Category ( $ Millions) ( All Dollar Values Are in Constant, Pre­ tax, 1997 Dollars) , Option 2 State Single­ Family Multifamily Commercial Industrial Total Alabama ( 1.2) 0.0 ( 0.9) ( 0.4) ( 2.5) Alaska ( 0.2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 ( 0.2) Arizona e e e e e Arkansas ( 0.4) 0.0 ( 0.7) ( 0.2) ( 1.3) California e e e e e Colorado ( 3.6) ( 0.3) ( 1.2) ( 0.5) ( 5.6) Connecticut e e e e e Delaware ( 0.3) 0.0 ( 0.5) 0.0 ( 0.8) District of Columbia ( 4.8) ( 0.2) 0.0 0.0 ( 5.1) Florida ( 7.4) ( 1.0) ( 15.3) ( 0.9) ( 24.6) Georgia ( 0.9) ( 0.5) ( 4.1) ( 1.6) ( 7.1) Hawaii ( 0.4) 0.0 0.0 0.0 ( 0.4) Idaho e e e e e Illinois e e e e e Indiana ( 3.6) ( 0.1) ( 1.6) ( 1.5) ( 6.9) Iowa ( 0.7) 0.0 ( 0.7) ( 1.0) ( 2.5) Kansas ( 0.5) 0.0 ( 0.9) ( 0.5) ( 1.8) Kentucky ( 1.1) 0.0 ( 1.3) ( 0.8) ( 3.3) Louisiana ( 1.8) 0.0 ( 1.8) ( 0.2) ( 3.8) Maine 0.0 0.0 ( 2.4) ( 0.1) ( 2.5) Maryland ( 2.1) 0.0 ( 2.1) ( 0.3) ( 4.4) Massachusetts e e e e e Michigan ( 5.9) ( 0.1) ( 2.9) ( 1.1) ( 10.0) Minnesota ( 3.5) ( 0.1) ( 2.4) ( 1.0) ( 7.0) Mississippi ( 0.7) 0.0 ( 0.7) ( 0.2) ( 1.7) Missouri ( 3.1) ( 0.1) ( 2.0) ( 0.6) ( 5.9) Montana 0.0 0.0 ( 0.3) ( 0.1) ( 0.3) Nebraska ( 0.6) ( 0.1) ( 0.8) ( 0.2) ( 1.7) Nevada 4.0 ( 0.3) ( 2.8) ( 0.3) 0.7 New Hampshire e e e e e New Jersey ( 3.9) ( 0.1) 0.0 ( 0.1) ( 4.1) New Mexico e e e e e New York ( 13.4) ( 0.7) ( 6.9) ( 0.6) ( 21.5) North Carolina ( 3.2) ( 0.4) ( 3.3) ( 1.5) ( 8.4) 5­ 32 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 20. Loss of Output to the Construction Industry by State and Use Category ( $ Millions) ( All Dollar Values Are in Constant, Pre­ tax, 1997 Dollars) , Option 2 State Single­ Family Multifamily Commercial Industrial Total North Dakota ( 0.1) 0.0 ( 0.3) ( 0.3) ( 0.6) Ohio ( 6.8) ( 0.2) ( 1.1) ( 1.2) ( 9.3) Oklahoma e e e e e Oregon ( 1.0) ( 0.1) ( 2.2) ( 0.8) ( 4.1) Pennsylvania e e e e e Rhode Island ( 0.7) 0.0 ( 1.2) 0.0 ( 1.9) South Carolina e e e e e South Dakota e e e e e Tennessee e e e e e Texas e e e e e Utah e e e e e Vermont ( 0.1) 0.0 ( 1.2) ( 0.1) ( 1.4) Virginia e e e e e Washington ( 1.9) ( 0.3) ( 4.1) ( 0.5) ( 6.8) West Virginia e e e e e Wisconsin ( 1.8) ( 0.2) ( 1.2) ( 1.3) ( 4.4) Wyoming 0.0 0.0 ( 0.2) 0.0 ( 0.3) United States Total ( 71.6) ( 5.2) ( 67.1) ( 17.8) ( 161.7) Note: e indicates state has regulations equivalent to the proposed options. Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5­ 33 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 21. Net Change in Total Employment by State and Use Category ( Jobs) Under Proposed Rule Option 2 State Single­ Family Multifamily Commercial Industrial Total Alabama ( 17) 0 ( 3) ( 5) ( 26) Alaska ( 3) 0 0 0 ( 3) Arizona e e e e e Arkansas ( 5) 0 ( 8) ( 3) ( 17) California e e e e e Colorado ( 50) ( 3) ( 4) ( 4) ( 62) Connecticut e e e e e Delaware ( 4) 0 ( 2) 0 ( 7) District of Columbia ( 66) ( 3) 0 0 ( 69) Florida ( 102) ( 16) ( 15) ( 15) ( 187) Georgia ( 12) ( 9) ( 28) ( 28) ( 64) Hawaii ( 5) 0 0 0 ( 5) Idaho e e e e e Illinois e e e e e Indiana ( 50) ( 1) 49 ( 30) ( 32) Iowa ( 10) 0 ( ­ 3) ( 23) ( 35) Kansas ( 7) 0 ( 3) ( 8) ( 18) Kentucky ( 16) ( 1) ( 5) ( 13) ( 34) Louisiana ( 24) 0 ( 21) ( 3) ( 48) Maine 0 0 ( 37) 0 ( 37) Maryland ( 28) 0 ( 7) ( 4) ( 41) Massachusetts e e e e e Michigan ( 81) 0 57 ( 9) ( 33) Minnesota ( 49) ( 1) ( 8) ( 17) ( 74) Mississippi ( 10) 0 ( 3) ( 3) ( 16) Missouri ( 43) ( 1) ( 7) ( 9) ( 61) Montana 0 0 ( 3) ( 1) ( 3) Nebraska ( 8) ( 1) ( 3) ( 3) ( 15) Nevada 55 ( 7) ( 44) ( 4) 0 New Hampshire e e e e e New Jersey ( 54) 0 24 1 ( 29) New Mexico e e e e e New York ( 184) 5 56 ( 2) ( 125) North Carolina ( 44) ( 7) ( 12) ( 29) ( 92) North Dakota ( 1) 0 ( 1) ( 5) ( 7) Ohio ( 93) ( 1) 34 ( 21) ( 81) Oklahoma e e e e e Oregon ( 14) ( 2) ( 28) ( 11) ( 55) 5­ 34 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5­ 21. Net Change in Total Employment by State and Use Category ( Jobs) Under Proposed Rule Option 2 Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. State Single­ Family Multifamily Commercial Industrial Total Pennsylvania e e e e e Rhode Island ( 9) 0 ( 19) 0 ( 28) South Carolina e e e e e South Dakota e e e e e Tennessee e e e e e Texas e e e e e Utah e e e e e Vermont ( 2) 0 ( 18) 0 ( 21) Virginia e e e e e Washington ( 26) ( 4) ( 64) ( 5) ( 99) West Virginia e e e e e Wisconsin ( 25) ( 3) 37 ( 20) ( 10) Wyoming 0 0 ( 3) ( 1) ( 3) United States Total ( 986) ( 56) ( 116) ( 277) ( 1,436) 5.8 IMPACTS ON GOVERNMENTAL UNITS As Section 4.8 discusses, EPA estimates that the proposed rule would impose some costs on governmental units involved in codifying the construction general permit. . This section examines the costs imposed on governmental units associated with the proposed Option 2. 5.8.1 Construction Program Administration EPA has analyzed the costs to governments under the assumption that the majority of construction­ related regulatory costs would be associated with processing general permits. As noted previously, EPA assumes that the majority of NPDES Phase I and Phase II NPDES storm water permit programs are fully implemented, and that any new regulatory requirements would be superimposed upon these programs. 5­ 35 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Based on the assumption that all states would change their storm water programs to include certification of sedimentation basins and other aspects of the proposed rule, EPA estimated the annual costs of establishing such a program. These costs are presented in Table 5­ 22. EPA estimates that states would experience $ 0.26 million in costs staying current with federal guidance, state guidance, and evolving industry practice ( U. S. EPA 2002) . Table 5­ 22. Costs To Establish Construction Programs ( $ 1997) Element Value Units Labor hours to review EPA regulation and modify state practices 200 Hours/ Year Labor cost $ 26.02 $ / Hour/ State State Cost per year $ 5,203 $ / Year/ State Number of States 50 States Totals $ 260,150 $ / Year Source: U. S. EPA. 2002. In evaluating the annual costs, EPA assumed that the current trend states taking the lead in implementing the regulation of construction activities will continue in the future. EPA elected not to evaluate how to distribute its total estimated implementation cost between state and municipal agencies, and instead has attributed all costs to states. 5.8.2 Government Construction Costs Government entities commission nearly a quarter of the value of construction put in place ( Census, 2000) . Government projects would need to comply with the proposed regulation so their costs would increase, just as private projects would. . Roughly one­ half of government projects are maintenance or reconstruction of existing structures which does not entail new ground disturbance. EPA estimates that approximately 25 percent of total impacts would fall on government projects resulting in a $ 29.2 million additional cost to government entities under proposed Option 1 or a $ 115.9 million 5­ 36 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 additional cost under proposed Option 2. 4 This effect is discussed in detail in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ( UMRA) analysis in Chapter Ten. 5.9 OTHER IMPACTS This section addresses Executive Order ( EO) 12866, which directs federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of each significant rule they propose or promulgate, as well as issues of environmental justice and children s health. Chapter Ten addresses the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ( UMRA) . Section 5.9.1 describes the administrative requirements of EO 12866. Sections 5.9.2 and 5.9.3 describe EPA s analysis of environmental justice and children s health issues for the proposed rule. Another piece of legislation the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, or UMRA also has requirements relevant to EPA s plans. Chapter Ten addresses UMRA. Much of the information provided in this section is summarized from other documents that support this proposed rulemaking, as well as other sections of this report. 5.9.1 Requirements of Executive Order 12866 Under EO 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) , the Agency is to determine whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to OMB review and the directives of the EO. . The Order defines a significant regulatory action as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: : ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; ( 2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; 4 Additional cost to government entities under the proposed ESC options includes costs potentially incurred by Federal, State, and local government entities. 5­ 37 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 ( 3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. EPA has determined that the proposed C& D rulemaking is a significant regulatory action under the terms of EO 12866, because the total costs of the proposed rule are estimated to exceed $ 100 million annually. As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record. In addition to submission of the action to OMB, the principal directives of the EO are that the Agency perform an analysis comparing the benefits of the regulation to the costs that the regulation imposes, that the Agency analyze alternative approaches to the proposed rule, and that the reason for the proposed rule be identified. Wherever possible, the costs and benefits of the proposed rule are to be expressed in monetary terms. To address these directives, the following section describes the reasons why EPA is revising the existing regulations, and Chapters Eight and Nine present the estimated social costs, pollutant reductions, and monetary benefits of the proposed C& D regulations. Section 5.8 addresses the impacts of the proposed regulations on governmental units. An in­ depth profile of the potentially affected industry sectors is presented in Chapter Two of this report. Reason for the Regulation Executive Order 12866 directs the Agency to identify the reason for the regulations being proposed. The reasons for proposing the C& D regulations are stated throughout this report ( Chapters One and Six) and are presented in the preamble of the proposed rulemaking. These reasons are summarized briefly below: In spite of existing regulatory controls, there is continued runoff of sediment from construction sites and newly developed areas. Sediment entering public waterways imposes costs on water users in the form of additional demand for pre­ treatment of water withdrawn and diminished value for in­ stream uses. Users cannot identify and seek compensation from the construction sites causing the problem. So there is a market failure in terms of the environmental externality of sediment emissions. The proposed 5­ 38 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 regulations are expected to address the impairment of many U. S. waterways and the associated human health and ecological risks. The existing regulation appears to be insufficient to protect or restore water quality. There exists an information asymmetry between builders and enforcement officials in which builders know their level of care with regard to erosion and sediment controls while officials may or may not know. The certification and inspection provisions of the proposed rule increase the level of information available to officials. The revisions would make the regulations apply more uniformly throughout the country and raise the bar for storm water control, in general. Both UMRA and EO 12866 require the statutory authority for the rule to be cited. A detailed discussion of the objectives and legal basis for the proposed C& D regulations is presented in the preamble. A discussion of the UMRA is presented in Chapter Ten of this report. 5.9.2 Environmental Justice According to EO 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low­ Income Populations , federal agencies are to address potential environmental justice issues that may be triggered by proposed actions. Based on guidance in EPA s Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses , the potential effects of the proposed regulation on minority and low­ income populations have been considered ( U. S. EPA 2000) . EPA has determined that the proposed rule would not have a disproportionately large effect on minority or low­ income populations, nor would it have disproportionately high human health or environmental effects. Thus no further analysis on environmental justice issues has been conducted for this proposal. 5.9.3 Children s Health Pursuant to EO 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks , EPA has considered whether this proposed rule would have any significant effects on children s health or safety ( U. S. EPA 2000) . EPA has determined, based on the information provided throughout 5­ 39 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 this report, that the proposed rule would not have any significant effects on children s health or safety, and no further analysis has been conducted for this proposal. 5­ 40 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 5.10 REFERENCES Tetra Tech. 2002. Personal Communication from J. Swanson, Tetra Tech, Inc. , to J. Cantin, ERG, Inc. January 29. U. S. Census Bureau 2000.1997 Economic Census: Construction: Subject Series. January. U. S. EPA 2002. Development Document for the Effluent Guidelines for the Construction and Development Point Source Category. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. U. S. EPA 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report EPA 240­ R­ 00­ 003, September. 5­ 41

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.761391

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0030-0022

Supporting & Related Material

APPENDIX 5A Closure and Employment Loss Analysis Results Cash Flow Method Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5A­ 1. Estimated Closures as Percent of Total Establishments Zero Cost Pass Through Cash Flow Method Option Single­ Family Multifamily Commercial Industrial 1 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 2 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.1% ­ 0.2% 0.1% ­ 0.1% 3 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% Table 5A­ 2. Estimated Closures as Percent of Total Establishments Cost Pass Through Cash Flow Method Option Single­ Family Multifamily Commercial Industrial 1 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 2 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 3 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% Single family cost pass through: 85.10% Multifamily cost pass through: 91.55% Commercial cost pass through: 89.87% Industrial cost pass through: 84.75% Cost Pass Through Values Calculated by EPA. 5A­ 1 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5A­ 3. Estimated Employment Losses as Percent of Total Employment Zero Cost Pass Through Cash Flow Method Option Single­ Family Multifamily Commercial Industrial 1 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 2 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.2% ­ 0.2% 0.1% ­ 0.2% 0.1% ­ 0.1% 3 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% Table 5A­ 4. Estimated Employment Losses as Percent of Total Employment Cost Pass Through Cash Flow Method Option Single­ Family Multifamily Commercial Industrial 1 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 2 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 3 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% 0.0% ­ 0.0% Single family cost pass through: 85.10% Multifamily cost pass through: 91.55% Commercial cost pass through: 89.87% Industrial cost pass through: 84.75% Cost Pass Through Values Calculated by EPA. 5A­ 2 APPENDIX 5B Sensitivity Analysis for the National Partial Equilibrium Model Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 5B. 1 Introduction to Sensitivity Analysis Elasticities of supply and demand are key parameters of the partial equilibrium market models which generate many of the results shown in Chapter 5. Values for these parameters are derived from a consensus of elasticity estimates appearing in the literature. Often differing databases and estimation methods generate different estimates, so the literature contains a wide range of elasticities. Table 5B­ 1 shows the impact on the results of selecting different sets of elasticities. The first line in each use category section is the cost pass through ( CPT) and impact reported in Table 5­ 16a, Changes in Output and Total Employment from the Baseline, for the proposed Option 2. The succeeding lines show how the results change with the different combinations of supply and demand elasticities shown in the first two columns. ( As the stimulus is virtually the same in all cases, the Stimulus from Added Work and Change in Employment from Stimulus columns in Table 5­ ­ 16a are not shown here. ) Except for single family housing, all of the categories were modeled at the state level so that local market conditions would drive the model. Thus, a range of demand elasticities is chosen as a parameter of the model but the actual elasticity used in each state model is calculated based on an indicator of state market activity. The sensitivity analysis for these categories was conducted by adjusting the range of possible demand elasticities. As discussed in Section 4.5, housing supply is highly elastic which implies high CPT rates. The sensitivity analysis shows that when the elasticity of supply for single family housing is reduced from 4 to 0.5, the CPT falls from 85 percent to 42 percent. This reduces the change in the quantity of homes sold and the impact on consumers so much that the net effect of the proposed regulation is a creation of 1,800 jobs. Similar changes occur in other use categories. Reducing the elasticity of demand also reduces the impact of the regulation. 5B. 2 Sensitivity Analysis Results Overall, the sensitivity analysis shows that while the results can be changed by manipulation of the assumptions, the assumptions used yield reasonable estimates near the middle of the range of probable outcomes. 5B­ 1 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5B­ 1. Sensitivity Tests with Alternative Elasticities Supply Elasticity Demand Elasticity CPT ( % ) Loss of Output ( $ Million) Change in Employment from Lost Output Net Change in Employment from Construction Impacts Change in Employment from Consumer Spending Net Change in Total Employment Single Family Housing 4 0.7 85.11 ­ 71.6 ­ 2,662 1,805 ­ 2,792 ­ 986 10 0.7 93.46 ­ 78.7 ­ 2,923 1,544 ­ 3,066 ­ 1,522 1 0.7 58.82 ­ 49.5 ­ 1,840 2,628 ­ 1,930 698 0.5 0.7 41.67 ­ 35.1 ­ 1,303 3,165 ­ 1,367 1,798 4 1.0 80.00 ­ 96.2 ­ 3,575 892 ­ 2,624 ­ 1,732 4 0.5 88.89 ­ 53.4 ­ 1,986 2,482 ­ 2,916 ­ 434 Multifamily Housing 4 ­ 0.8 ­ ­ 0.2 91.54 ­ 5.2 ­ 192 317 ­ 374 ­ 56 10 ­ 0.8 ­ ­ 0.2 96.42 ­ 5.5 ­ 203 333 ­ 394 ­ 61 1 ­ 0.8 ­ ­ 0.2 73.35 ­ 4.0 ­ 150 257 ­ 299 ­ 42 4 ­ 1.0 ­ ­ 0.2 90.40 ­ 5.9 ­ 218 284 ­ 369 ­ 84 4 ­ 0.5 ­ ­ 0.2 93.34 ­ 4.0 ­ 150 369 ­ 381 ­ 12 4 ­ 0.8 ­ ­ 0.1 93.08 ­ 4.2 ­ 158 360 ­ 380 ­ 20 Commercial 4 ­ 0.8 ­ ­ 0.01 89.87 ­ 67.1 ­ 2,494 4,740 ­ 4,857 ­ 116 10 ­ 0.8 ­ ­ 0.01 95.62 ­ 71.5 ­ 2,656 4,578 ­ 5,119 ­ 541 1 ­ 0.8 ­ ­ 0.01 70.17 ­ 51.9 ­ 1,930 5,306 ­ 3,898 1,408 4 ­ 1.0 ­ ­ 0.01 87.73 ­ 81.6 ­ 3,034 4,199 ­ 4,757 ­ 558 4 ­ 0.5 ­ ­ 0.01 93.32 ­ 44.0 ­ 1,633 5,604 ­ 5,015 588 4 ­ 0.8 ­ ­ 0.2 88.16 ­ 83.5 ­ 3,103 4,130 ­ 4,744 ­ 615 Industrial 4 ­ 1.5 ­ ­ 0.2 84.75 ­ 17.8 ­ 662 338 ­ 616 ­ 277 10 ­ 1.5 ­ ­ 0.2 93.21 ­ 20.0 ­ 742 258 ­ 682 ­ 424 1 ­ 1.5 ­ ­ 0.2 59.11 ­ 11.7 ­ 436 567 ­ 418 149 4 ­ 2.0 ­ ­ 0.2 81.43 ­ 21.8 ­ 810 190 ­ 588 ­ 399 4 ­ 1.0 ­ ­ 0.2 88.43 ­ 13.4 ­ 498 504 ­ 646 ­ 142 4 ­ 1.5 ­ ­ 0.01 86.91 ­ 15.8 ­ 585 416 ­ 630 ­ 214 5B­ 2 APPENDIX 5C Baseline Analysis Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 APPENDIX 5C BASELINE ANALYSIS 5C. 1 INTRODUCTION The main portion of this economic analysis assumes that, in the baseline, the construction and development ( C& D) industry is in full compliance with the existing Storm Water Phase I and Phase II regulations as they apply to construction activities. Since the final deadline for implementation of Phase II is not until March 10, 2003, some affected entities may not yet have adjusted to the Phase II requirements. Because of the overlap between the proposal of the effluent limitation guideline ( ELG) and the implementation of the Phase II regulations, EPA has completed this alternate baseline analysis. The analysis presents the following: Combined national compliance costs and social costs of Phase II and the C& D Effluent Limitation Guideline ( ELG) This analysis simply adds together the compliance and government costs of the rules. Impact of the combined Phase II and ELG costs on representative model projects This analysis would apply to projects that take place in jurisdictions not yet in compliance with Phase II. Impact of the combined Phase II and ELG costs on representative model firms This analysis would apply to firms for whom 100 percent of operations take place in jurisdictions not yet in compliance with Phase II. Impact of the combined Phase II and ELG costs on facility closures and employment levels. This part of the analysis is the most speculative because we have no way of identifying how many firms and what share of their operations would be subject to both rules. To derive these estimates we have assumed that ( 1) firms within a certain size class are most likely to be affected ( because Phase II applies only to sites of 1 to 5 acres in size) , and ( 2) within this group we have estimated only those firms located in non Phase II compliant states would be affected. This second assumption ignores the fact that it is site location, not firm location, that would determine coverage under Phase II, and that many construction firms operate outside their home state. Note that EPA has not assessed the potential combined benefits of the Phase II and effluent guidelines requirements. The Phase II rule EA indicated benefits from the construction part of the rule of $ 540 to $ 686 million per year ( U. S. EPA 1999, Table 6­ 20) . 5C­ 1 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 5C. 2 BASELINE ANALYSIS Throughout the economic analysis of the proposed C& D effluent guidelines, EPA has assumed the industry is in full compliance with all applicable existing laws and regulations related to storm water management ( see U. S. EPA 2002, Section 4.11) . This includes the final storm water Phase II regulations, which were published on December 8, 1999 ( 64 FR 235; page 68794) . The Phase II rules apply to sites between one and five acres in size. While many permitting authorities have already begun implementing the Phase II requirements, the deadline for obtaining permit coverage is not until March 10, 2003. As a result, it is likely that the C& D industry is not uniformly compliant with these requirements at this time. One implication is that the economic baseline used to assess the impacts of the proposed effluent guideline may not reflect industry conditions once the Phase II regulations have been fully implemented. To account for this, EPA has conducted a supplemental analysis that includes the combined costs and impacts of meeting the Phase II requirements and the proposed effluent guidelines. This section describes the methodology used to conduct this analysis and presents the results. 5C. 2.1 National Compliance Costs The economic analysis for the construction component of the final Phase II storm water rule was based on engineering costs developed for three site size classes: 1­ , 3­ , and 5­ acres. Within each site size class EPA developed costs for erosion and sediment control ( ESC) specific to sites in low, medium, and high rainfall regions and with low, medium, and high slope conditions. Since EPA did not have a distribution of sites by rainfall region or slope condition, a simple average of the costs across all site types was used within each size class. Table 5C­ 1 shows the costs and costs per acre for the three site size classes, with costs updated to 1997 dollars. 5C­ 2 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5C­ 1. Costs of Phase II Erosion and Sediment Control, by Site Size ( $ 1997) Site Size ( Acres) ESC Costs ESC Costs per Acre 1 $ 1,187 $ 1,187 3 $ 4,524 $ 1,508 5 $ 8,569 $ 1,714 Source: Economic Analysis of the Final Storm Water Phase II Rules. U. S. EPA ( 1999) ; ENR ( 2001) . In addition to the ESC costs, EPA estimated the industry would incur $ 937.46 in administrative costs ( $ 922.42 in $ 1997) for each permitted construction project. These include costs associated with the following elements: notification of intent, municipal notification, storm water pollution prevention plan, record retention, and notification of termination. Thus, the total costs to industry of compliance with the construction portion of the Phase II rules include the costs of ESC controls and the administrative costs. The Phase II compliance costs were applied to EPA s estimate of the number of projects falling within the one to five acre size class. Projects in areas with equivalent programs were excluded, including 14 states covered by equivalent existing state programs and two states and parts of four other states covered by requirements equivalent to those implemented under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments ( CZARA) ( which covers nonpoint sources of pollution, including construction activities, in coastal regions) . The national compliance costs of the Phase II rules were estimated in 1998 dollars to be $ 545 ­ $ 679 million. 1 EPA added the Phase II compliance cost estimates to the compliance costs of the proposed ELG to obtain an alternate estimate of the compliance costs ( and social costs) of the proposed rule under the alternative baseline. Table 5C­ 2 shows the national costs under the alternative baseline scenario, obtained by adding the national ESC and administrative costs from the Phase II analysis to the national compliance costs associated with the proposed effluent guidelines. The combined industry compliance costs are $ 539.3 million under Option 1 and $ 890.3 million under Option 2. Table 5C­ 3 indicates the combined social costs are $ 891.1 million for Option 2 ( 1997 dollars) . 1 Source: Phase II final EA, Table 4­ 18, p. 4­ 25. 5C­ 3 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5C­ 2. Estimated National Costs of Erosion and Sediment Controls Alternative Baseline Scenario ( No Phase II Compliance) ( $ 1997 millions, pre­ tax) Option National Costs by Type of Construction ( $ millions) Total Single­ Family Multifamily Commercial Industrial 1 $ 64.6 $ 39.3 $ 413.4 $ 22.0 $ 539.3 2 $ 161.9 $ 86.8 $ 612.3 $ 29.3 $ 890.3 3 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. Table 5C­ 3. Social Costs and Benefits Erosion and Sediment Controls Alternative Baseline Scenario ( No Phase II Compliance) ( $ 1997 millions, pre­ tax) Option Installation, Design and Permitting Operation and Maintenance Government Costs Deadweight Loss Total Social Costs Total Benefits a 1 $ 539.3 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.1 $ 539.4 $ 9.7 2 $ 842.4 $ 48.0 $ 0.3 $ 0.4 $ 891.1 $ 20.6 3 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 a Benefits do not include benefits of Phase II rule. Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5C. 2.2 Economic Impacts EPA assessed the economic impacts under the alternative baseline using a similar approach to that described in Chapter Four of the draft Economic Analysis ( EA) . The impacts on key financial ratios were assessed for model projects and model firms. The model firm impact analysis was then extended to estimate the number of firm closures and the associated employment losses. 5C. 2.2.1 Analysis of Impacts on Model Projects EPA assessed the impacts of the combined costs of the Phase II and proposed effluent guidelines requirements on model projects using the same approach described in Section 4.2. EPA developed a series of model C& D projects and flowed the incremental costs through these models to assess the impacts on project viability. The model project scenarios were analyzed under the alternative assumptions of 100 5C­ 4 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 percent cost pass through ( the end consumer bears all of the cost) and zero cost pass through ( the developer­ builder bears all of the cost) . In the former case the impacts are reflected in a higher price for the finished product ( home, apartment, commercial or industrial building) while in the latter case the impacts are reflected in reduced profits to the builder­ developer. Table 5C­ 4a shows the combined impact of the Phase II and proposed effluent guidelines costs on model project financials under the 100 percent cost pass through scenario. Table 5C­ 4b shows the same impacts under the zero percent cost pass through scenario. Table 5C­ 4a. Impact of Combined Phase II and Proposed Effluent Guidelines Costs on Model Project Financials 100 Percent Cost Pass­ Through and All Project Sizes Option Percent Change in Project Price to Buyer Single­ Family Multifamily Commercial Industrial Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max 1 0.00% 0.47% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 0.37% 2 0.00% 0.44% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 0.22% 0.00% 0.34% 3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. Table 5C­ 4b. Impact of Combined Phase II and Proposed Effluent Guidelines Costs on Model Project Financials Zero Cost Pass­ Through and All Project Sizes Option Percent Change in Builder­ Developer Profit Single­ Family Multifamily Commercial Industrial Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max 1 0.00% ­ 4.60% 0.00% ­ 2.35% 0.00% ­ 2.13% 0.00% ­ 3.36% 2 0.00% ­ 4.23% 0.00% ­ 2.15% 0.00% ­ 1.96% 0.00% ­ 3.09% 3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5C­ 5 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 For Option 1, under the alternate baseline, the maximum percent change in project cost to the buyer ranges from 0.24 percent ( commercial project) to 0.47 percent ( single­ family project) . This is higher than the range of maximum impact given in Table 5­ 2a of the draft EA, Chapter 5 ( 0.02 percent for a commercial project to 0.04 percent for a single­ family project) . Impacts on builder profits are also greater under the alternate baseline assumption. As shown in Table 5C­ 4b, the maximum impacts range from ­ 4.60 percent for a single­ family project under Option 1, up to ­ 1.96 percent for a commercial project under Option 2. This is 2 to 3 percent higher than the impacts shown in Chapter 5 of this EA, Table 5­ 2b, where the maximum impact ranges from ­ 0.17 percent for a commercial project up to ­ 0.80 percent for a single­ family project. 5C. 2.2.2 Analysis of Impacts on Model Establishments In Section 4.3 EPA developed a series of model firms based on composite industry financial data collected by Dun & Bradstreet ( D& B 2000) . For single­ family and multifamily housing EPA constructed one model for each starts size class while for commercial and industrial construction there is a single model firm. EPA examined the impact of the regulatory costs on model firm financial performance by analyzing changes in key financial ratios as the annual regulatory costs are absorbed into the model firm s financial statement. Complete details on the methodology can be found in Chapter Four, Section 4.3 of this economic analysis. Under this baseline scenario some firms will be impacted to a greater extent than others because they operate on sites subject to the Phase II storm water requirements and in jurisdictions that have not yet fully implemented the Phase II requirements. As a result, the baseline financial conditions for these firms used in the economic analysis may not fully reflect adjustments necessary to meet the Phase II requirements. To address this, EPA has analyzed the impacts associated with meeting the combined requirements of Phase II and the C& D effluent guidelines. As noted above, the Phase II rules apply to construction sites greater than one acre and less than five acres in size. EPA currently lacks information on how frequently firms operate on sites that fall within this size range. As a result, EPA cannot present reliable data on the extent to which firms might 5C­ 6 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 be subject to both the Phase II requirements and the proposed effluent guidelines requirements. At one extreme there may be firms that operate only on sites greater than five acres. Such firms are likely be already compliant with the existing Phase I requirements and thus would face only the incremental requirements associated with the proposed effluent guidelines. On the other extreme are firms that may operate exclusively on sites between one and five acres in size and in jurisdictions that have not fully implemented the Phase II requirements. These firms would incur the combined costs of the Phase II and proposed effluent guidelines Option 1 requirements on 100 percent of their projects. In between there will be firms who operate only part of the time on sites subject to the combined Phase II and proposed effluent guidelines requirements. Insufficient data is available to allow EPA to develop a distribution of firms by the extent of exposure to both the Phase II requirements and the proposed effluent guidelines requirements. As a result, EPA has modeled this baseline scenario only for firms with 100 percent exposure to both sets of requirements. This represents an absolute worst­ case scenario in terms of potential impacts. EPA expects that only a small proportion of the industry would actually be represented by this model firm scenario. Table 5C­ 5 shows the impact of the combined Phase II and proposed effluent guidelines compliance costs on model firm financial ratios under the zero cost pass through assumption ( i. e. , the firm absorbs 100 percent of the compliance costs) . Table 5C­ 5. Impact of Combined Phase II and Proposed Effluent Guidelines Costs on Model Firm Financials Zero Cost Pass Through Option Percent Change in Financial Ratios From Baseline Gross Profit Return on Net Worth Current Ratio Debt to Assets Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Single­ family Residential 1 0.00% ­ 2.40% 0.00% ­ 27.04% 0.00% ­ 0.21% 0.00% 0.96% 2 0.00% ­ 2.20% 0.00% ­ 24.83% 0.00% ­ 0.20% 0.00% 0.88% 3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Multifamily Residential 1 0.00% ­ 1.73% 0.00% ­ 5.57% 0.00% ­ 0.30% 0.00% 1.15% 2 0.00% ­ 1.59% 0.00% ­ 5.11% 0.00% ­ 0.27% 0.00% 1.06% 3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5C­ 7 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 For Option 1, the largest impacts generally occur in the multifamily sector. Percent change in gross profit for the single­ family sector ranges from ­ 2.20 percent to ­ 2.40 percent. Under the initial baseline, the range was from ­ 0.23 percent to ­ 0.52 percent. For the multifamily residential sector, the change in gross profit ranges from ­ 1.59 percent to ­ 1.73 percent. The change in gross profit for the multifamily sector is also higher under the alternate baseline than under the initial baseline assumption. Change in gross profit from the initial baseline was from ­ 0.31 percent to ­ 0.95 percent. The current ratio shows the least change from baseline of all four financial ratios in both sectors. The maximum percent change in current ratio for the single­ family sector ranges from ­ 0.20 percent to ­ 0.21 percent. Under the initial baseline, these impacts were lower, ranging from ­ 0.02 percent to ­ 0.05 percent. For the multifamily sector the change ranges from ­ 0.27 percent to ­ 0.30 percent. Again, impacts were less severe under the initial baseline assumption, where change in current ratio for the multifamily sector ranged from ­ 0.05 percent to ­ 0.16 percent. As with the analysis in the EA, the largest impacts over all model firm financials under the alternate baseline is on the return on net worth. Here, the percent change from baseline ranges from ­ 24.83 percent to ­ 27.04 percent in the single­ family sector and from ­ 5.11 percent to ­ 5.57 percent in the multifamily sector ( both under zero cost pass through) . Under the initial baseline, change in return on net worth ranges from ­ 2.54 percent to ­ 5.85 percent for single­ family and from ­ 0.99 percent to ­ 3.07 percent for multifamily. Incremental impacts on debt­ to­ assets ratios ( also called the debt­ to­ equity ratio) for the single­ family sector range from 0.88 percent to 0.96 percent. Under the initial baseline, change in the debt­ to­ assets ratio in this sector range from 0.21 percent to 0.90 percent. For the multifamily sector, the percent change in debt­ to­ assets ratio over baseline ranges from 1.06 percent to 1.15 percent. The impacts under the initial baseline for this sector range from 0.20 percent to 0.64 percent. 5C­ 8 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 5C. 2.2.3 Analysis of Impacts on Closures and Employment Losses EPA examined the potential impact of the combined Phase II and proposed effluent guidelines requirements on closures and employment losses using the general approach developed in Section 4.3.2. The approach is based on the model firm analysis presented in the section above. EPA estimated the change in the number of firms considered financially stressed ( ( and their employment) as a result of the regulatory action by examining key financial ratios with and without the compliance cost impacts. The financial stress indicators were used to identify firms that could potentially shut down and close as a result of the regulatory action. As explained above, EPA lacks reliable data on the distribution of firms by extent of exposure to the Phase II requirements. Although key information on the exposure of firms to the combined effect of Phase II and the proposed effluent guidelines was not available, EPA developed closure estimates for the single­ family and multifamily homebuilding sector only by making a number of assumptions. 2 First, EPA assumed that the firms most likely to operate on sites subject to the Phase II requirements ( i. e. , sites between one and five acres in size) are those in the 5­ 9 and 10­ 24 starts per year class. 3 At the national average lot size of 0.31 acres this translates to disturbance of between 1.55 and 7.44 acres. EPA further assumed that all of the activities of firms in these size classes takes place on sites between 1 and 5 acres in size. 4 2 EPA has a distribution of establishments by starts size class for the single­ family and multifamily sectors only and therefore could not conduct the same analysis for the commercial and industrial sector. 3 These establishments represent 35 percent of all establishments and account for 21 percent of new single­ family homes. See Table 2­ 20. Builders in the 1­ 4 starts class ( accounting for 43 percent of establishments and 7 percent of starts) were already assumed to build predominantly on sites under 1 acre in size and thus will not be impacted by the proposed rule requirements. See Sections 2.34 and 2.35. 4 The next largest starts class is between 25 and 99 units. This translates to between 7.5 and 33 acres disturbed. EPA judged that at this size class and above it was unlikely that firms would operate solely or predominantly on sites between 1 and 5 acres in size. 5C­ 9 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 The closure analysis is thus based on the following: The combined Phase II and effluent guidelines costs are applied to establishments in the 5­ 9 and 10­ 24 starts class located in states without equivalent Phase II programs at the time of promulgation of the Phase II rules. The analysis assumes all activities of firms in these starts classes in affected states are subject to the combined compliance costs of Phase II and the effluent guideline. The costs per acre for the effluent guidelines only are applied to remaining establishments ( i. e. , those in the 25+ starts size classes) in these states and to all establishments in all other states. Closures and employment losses are calculated under the zero cost pass through assumption. Tables 5C­ 6 and 5C­ 7 present the results of the closure analysis. Table 5C­ 6 shows the estimated closures for the single­ family and multifamily sectors under the alternate baseline. Table 5C­ 7 shows the estimated employment losses for the single­ family and multifamily sectors under the alternate baseline. As shown in the tables below, EPA has estimated that approximately 16 single­ family businesses ( 0.02 percent of all potentially affected single­ family businesses) , and 4 multifamily businesses ( 0.09 percent of potentially affected multifamily businesses) , will be subject to possible closure due to the proposed rule. Under the initial baseline, EPA estimated that 13 single­ family businesses and 3 multifamily businesses would be subject to closure. EPA has estimated employment losses with the alternative baseline to be approximately 230 for the single­ family and multifamily sectors ( less than one­ half of one percent of potentially affected employees in these two sectors) . Under the initial baseline, EPA estimated employment losses of approximately 206 for both sectors. 5C­ 10 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5C­ 6. Estimated Facility Closures Alternate Baseline Zero Cost Pass Through Option Single­ Family Multifamily TOTAL Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total 1 12 0.014% 2 0.043% 14 0.057% 2 16 0.019% 4 0.087% 20 0.106% 3 0 0.000% 0 0.000% 0 0.000% Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. Table 5C­ 7. Estimated Employment Losses Alternate Baseline Financial Ratio Method Zero Cost Pass Through Option Single­ Family Multifamily TOTAL Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total Number Pct. of Total 1 64 0.019% 18 0.051% 82 0.070% 2 162 0.048% 65 0.185% 227 0.233% 3 0 0.000% 0 0.000% 0 0.000% Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5C. 2.2.4 Analysis of Impacts on the National Construction Market The Phase II baseline scenario adds the same costs per acre to each type of construction. The impact on each type of construction is a weighted average of the number of acres subject to the Phase II regulation. The incremental costs to bridge the gap between the Phase II baseline and the initial baseline are also the same across policy options. Thus, assessing this baseline scenario is unlikely to change the rank order of costs among policy options but merely demonstrate larger impacts by including all recent EPA C& D regulation rather than showing only the effects of the proposed effluent guidelines. 5C­ 11 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5C­ 8 repeats the affordability assessment from the initial baseline analysis. It shows the worst case scenario in which the Phase II alternative baseline applies to all regulated construction sites. The impacts are considerably larger than under the standard baseline. The most costly option decreases the number of families that could have afforded the model home by 0.21 percent. This is slightly more than the 0.15 percent cut estimated under the standard baseline. Table 5C­ 8. Impact of Erosion and Sediment Control Costs on Housing Affordability Alternative Baseline Scenario ( No Phase II Compliance) ( $ 1997 millions, pre­ tax) . Option Storm Water Control Costs Per Lot Change in Costs per Unit Income Needed to Qualify Change in Income Needed Number of Households Shifted ( thousands) Percent of Households Shifted That Could Afford Baseline 1 $ 62 $ 112 $ 82,503 $ 32 ­ 16 ­ 0.08% 2 $ 153 $ 277 $ 82,551 $ 79 ­ 40 ­ 0.21% 3 $ 0 $ 0 $ 82,472 Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. The changes in output and employment are considerably greater under the alternative baseline. Table 5C­ 9 shows that under the more costly Option 2, construction­ related impacts decrease employment by 7,800 jobs. The stimulus effect of the regulation increases employment by a more than offsetting 19,410 jobs. The change in consumer spending, however, causes a job loss of 12,900 jobs in all industries nationwide. This is half again as large as the job losses from consumer spending estimated under the original baseline for Option 2 ( 8,640 jobs) . Table 5C­ 9 shows a net employment loss of 1,300 under Option 2. This is about the same as the net employment effect under the initial baseline ( 1,440 jobs) Clearly, the estimated impact of the proposed rule depends on which baseline is considered more appropriate. 5C­ 12 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 5C­ 9 Changes in Output and Total Employment from the Alternate Baseline ( $ 1997) Option Comb. Loss of Output ( $ Million) Stimulus from Added Work ( $ Million) Change in Employment from Lost Output ( Jobs) Change in Employment from Stimulus ( Jobs) Net Change in Employment from Construction Impacts ( Jobs) Change in Employment from Consumer Spending ( Jobs) Net Change in Total Employment ( Jobs) Single­ family 1 ( 30) 67 ( 1,101) 2,477 1,376 ( 1,616) ( 241) 2 ( 74) 165 ( 2,732) 6,147 3,414 ( 4,012) ( 598) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multifamily 1 ( 4) 10 ( 136) 354 218 ( 260) ( 41) 2 ( 8) 21 ( 293) 772 479 ( 567) ( 88) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial 1 ( 50) 143 ( 1,840) 5,319 3,478 ( 3,569) ( 90) 2 ( 102) 295 ( 3,789) 10,965 7,176 ( 7,361) ( 185) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 1 ( 14) 21 ( 520) 779 259 ( 478) ( 219) 2 ( 27) ( 41) ( 1,019) 1,527 508 ( 940) ( 432) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 ( 97) 240 ( 3,597) 8,928 5,332 ( 5,923) ( 591) 2 ( 211) 522 ( 7,833) 19,410 11,577 ( 12,880) ( 1,303) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four. 5C­ 13 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 5C. 3 REFERENCES Dun & Bradstreet. 2000. 1999­ 2000 Industry Norms and Key Business Ratios. ENR. 2001. ENR Construction Cost Index. Engineering News Record. Available at: http: / / www. enr. com/ cost/ costcci. asp. Accessed on December 17, 2001. U. S. EPA. 1999. Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 5C­ 14

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.772043

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0030-0023

Supporting & Related Material

Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 CHAPTER SIX INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS 6.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS This section considers the effects that the proposed C& D regulations would have on small entities in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA, 5 U. S. C et seq. , Public Law 96­ 354) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA) . The purpose of the RFA is to establish as a principle of regulation that agencies should tailor regulatory and informational requirements to the size of entities, consistent with the objectives of a particular regulation and applicable statutes. The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis ( IRFA) of any rule subject to notice­ and­ comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 1 Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and governmental jurisdictions. For this proposed rulemaking, EPA conducted outreach to small businesses, convened a Small Business Advocacy Review ( SBAR) panel, and prepared an IRFA. 2 The IRFA is detailed in this section and represents EPA s assessment of the impacts of the proposed regulations on small businesses in the C& D industries. The analysis is presented as follows: C Section 6.2 outlines EPA s initial assessment of small businesses in the industries affected by the proposed regulations. C Section 6.3 presents EPA s analysis ( i. e. , IRFA) and summarizes the steps taken by EPA to comply with the RFA. 1 The preparation of an IRFA for a proposed rule does not legally foreclose certifying no significant impact for the final rule ( USEPA, 1999) . 2 This analysis or a summary of the analysis must be published in the Federal Register at the time of publication of a proposal. 6­ 1 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 C Section 6.4 presents the data, methodology, and results of EPA s analysis of impacts to small businesses for this rulemaking. 6.2 INITIAL ASSESSMENT EPA has determined that the proposed C& D regulations are subject to notice­ and­ comment rulemaking requirements. EPA has developed a profile of the C& D industry that includes all potentially affected operations as well as small businesses. This information is provided in Chapter Two and also in Chapters Four and Five of this EA. Much of the profile information covered in these sections applies to small businesses. Additional information on small businesses in the C& D industry is provided in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of this chapter. EPA s assessment concludes that the proposed rule may affect small entities and the proposed rule would have an adverse economic impact on small entities. Section 6.2.1 reviews the SBA definitions of small entities in the C& D industry. Section 6.2.2 then uses the definitions of small entities laid out in Section 6.2.1 to estimate the number of operations that meet this small business definition. 6.2.1 Definition of Affected Small Entities The RFA defines a small entity as a small not­ ­ for­ profit organization, small governmental jurisdiction, or small business. EPA expects that the principal impact of the C& D regulations on small entities will fall on ( 1) small businesses that undertake C& D activities and ( 2) small governmental units involved in permitting C& D activities. With respect to the first of these categories, the majority of C& D activity in the United States is undertaken by private businesses, hence the small entity analysis will focus on small businesses engaged in C& D activities. 3 With respect to the second category of impact, permitting activity is undertaken exclusively by governmental units ( at various levels of government) , hence this part of the analysis will focus on the impacts on small government units. 3 While some governmental and nonprofit entities may engage directly in C& D activities ( i. e. , undertake C& D work of their own accord) , complete information is not available to warrant inclusion of governmental or nonprofit entities in this analysis. For this reason, this analysis focuses only on small businesses. 6­ 2 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 The RFA requires ( with some exception) that EPA define small businesses according to the size standards established by the Small Business Administration ( SBA) . SBA establishes criteria for identifying small businesses based on either the number of employees or annual revenues ( 13 CFR 121) . 4 These size standards vary by NAICS ( North American Industrial Classification System) code, and previously by Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes. Qualifying revenue levels differ among NAICS industries, and within the C& D industries there is a range of qualifying revenue levels, from $ 5.0 million for NAICS 23311 ( Land subdivision and development) to $ 27.5 million for the majority of industries within NAICS 233 and 234. For businesses in the special trades industries, the small business size threshold is $ 11.5 million in revenues. Table 6­ 1 summarizes the SBA revenue thresholds for small businesses in each of the C& D industries. 4 Employees counted in determining size includes all individuals employed on a full­ time, part­ time, temporary or other basis. Employment is measured as the average number of employees for each pay period over the previous 12 months. For standards based on revenues, SBA uses the average revenues over the last three completed fiscal years. 6­ 3 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 6­ 1. SBA Small Business Definitions for the Construction and Development Industry NAICS Code Description SBA Revenue Size Cutoff ( Millions) 233110 Land subdivision and land development $ 5.0 233210 Single­ family housing construction $ 27.5 233220 Multifamily housing construction $ 27.5 233310 Manufacturing and industrial building construction $ 27.5 233320 Commercial and institutional building construction $ 27.5 234110 Highway and street construction $ 27.5 234120 Bridge and tunnel construction $ 27.5 234910 Water, sewer, and pipeline construction $ 27.5 234920 Power and communication transmission line construction $ 27.5 234930 Industrial nonbuilding structure construction $ 27.5 234990 All other heavy construction $ 27.5 235930 Excavation contractors $ 11.5 235940 Wrecking and demolition contractors $ 11.5 Source( s) : 13 CFR 121 ( Small Business Size Regulations; Size Standards and the North American Industry Classification System; Correction) ; Small Business Administration 1998: Firm Size Data ( see http: / / www. sba. gov/ advo/ stats/ data. html) 6.2.2 Number of Small Businesses Affected The number of small businesses affected by the proposed rule was estimated through a series of steps. First, EPA estimated the number of establishments in the affected industries. From the number of establishments, EPA then estimated the number of businesses ( or firms) affected. Finally, EPA estimated the number of small businesses affected. 6­ 4 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 6.2.2.1 Number of Establishments Affected The first step in the small entity analysis is to determine the number of establishments affected. EPA developed estimates of the number of potentially affected establishments in Chapter Two ( see Table 2­ 14. ) The estimate of 148,553 potentially affected businesses was obtained after subtracting 62,400 establishments judged to be primarily engaged in remodeling activities, and 50,661 homebuilding establishments that construct fewer than four homes per year and who were judged unlikely to disturb more than one acre of land on a regular basis. Table 2­ 14 also reflects the fact that EPA distributed establishments in the land development industry ( NAICS 2331) among the four building construction industries ( NAICS 23321, 23322, 23331, and 23332) due to data limitations for the land development industry. For the small entity analysis, EPA was unable to include all of the establishments potentially affected as shown in Table 2­ 14. In particular, EPA has not included special trades ( NAICS 235) in its small entity analysis because the financial data upon which the small entity analysis is based is not available for these industries. EPA does not believe, however, that a substantial number of entities in these industries are NPDES storm water permittees or co­ permittees and would therefore not be subject to the proposed rule requirements. The final distribution of potentially affected establishments used in the small entity analysis is shown in Table 6­ 2. The total number of establishments potentially affected by the proposed rule is 128,782 under Option 1. This is the figure upon which the small business analysis is based. 6­ 5 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 6­ 2. Number of Affected Establishments in the Construction and Development Industry NAICS Industry Option 1 Option 2 Number Percent of Total Number Percent of Total 23321 Single­ family residential building construction 34,070 26.5% 21,362 18.7% 23322 Multi­ family residential building construction 4,603 3.6% 2,699 2.4% 23331 Manufacturing and industrial building construction 7,742 6.0% 7,742 6.8% 23332 Commercial and institutional building construction 39,810 30.9% 39,810 34.9% 23411 Heavy construction 42,557 33.0% 42,557 37.3% Potentially affected establishments 128,782 67.0% 114,170 100.0% Totals may not add due to rounding. Source: U. S. Census Bureau ( 2000a) and EPA estimates. See also Chapter Two, Table 2­ 14. 6.2.2.2 Number of Businesses Affected In order to estimate the number of businesses affected by the proposed rule, EPA first examined the ratio of businesses to establishments from SBA ( 1998) data. 5 Table 6­ 3 shows these ratios. 5 For clarification, an establishment is defined as a relatively permanent office or other place of business where the usual business activities related to construction are conducted ( ( Census 2000) . A business ( or firm) refers to the aggregation of all establishments owned by one company; therefore one business may consist of several establishments. 6­ 6 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 6­ 3. Ratio of Businesses to Establishments by Employment Size Class Employment Class 23321 Single­ Family Housing Construction 23322 Multifamily Housing Construction 23331 Manufacturing and Industrial Building Construction 23332 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction 23411 Heavy Construction 1 to 4 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 5 to 9 1.000 0.999 1.000 1.000 0.999 10 to 19 0.999 1.000 0.999 0.998 0.997 20 to 99 0.993 0.994 0.997 0.991 0.991 100 to 499 0.661 0.884 0.973 0.821 0.860 500+ 0.203 0.540 0.558 0.327 0.215 Source: SBA ( 1998) . As seen, the ratio of businesses to establishments is almost one­ to­ one for all establishments with fewer than 100 employees. With the exception of NAICS 23331 ( manufacturing and industrial construction) , the ratio of businesses to establishments is significantly lower for establishments employing 100 or more workers. Table 6­ 4 applies these percentages to the total number of establishments in the four industries to estimate the number of businesses. 6 The overall ratio of businesses to establishments for each industry was then applied to the number of potentially affected establishments within each industry. To illustrate, for the single­ family residential construction industry, the estimate of potentially affected businesses is based on the following calculation: ( adjusted no. of affected establishments) * ( total businesses/ total establishments) = affected businesses ( 34,070) * ( 138,732/ 138,850) = 34,041 potentially affected businesses The number of potentially affected businesses was calculated in the same manner for the remaining industries. 6 The table also shows average revenues per establishment. These results are used in the next step to determine the number of small businesses affected. 6­ 7 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 6­ 4. Estimated Number of Businesses by Employment Class, and Revenues per Establishment Employment Class Number of Establishments Ratio of Businesses to Establishments Estimated Number of Businesses Estimated Number of Establishments Owned by Multifacility Businesses Revenues per Establishment ( x $ 1,000) Single­ Family Housing Construction ( NAICS 23321) 1 to 4 106,985 1.000 106,985 0 $ 412 5 to 9 21,377 1.000 21,372 5 $ 1,299 10 to 19 7,234 0.999 7,227 7 $ 2,991 20 to 99 1 3,022 0.993 2,999 23 $ 12,073 100 to 499 2 222 0.661 147 75 $ 75,923 500+ 3 10 0.203 2 8 $ 174,764 Subtotal 138,850 0.999 138,732 118 $ 1,760 Multifamily Housing Construction ( NAICS 23322) 1 to 4 4,725 1.000 4,725 0 $ 383 5 to 9 1,456 0.999 1,455 1 $ 1,474 10 to 19 782 1.000 782 0 $ 3,612 20 to 99 1 532 0.994 529 3 $ 10,692 100 to 499 2 46 0.884 41 5 $ 40,855 500+ 3 3 0.540 2 1 $ 122,949 Subtotal 7,544 0.999 7,534 10 $ 1,070 Manufacturing and Industrial Building Construction ( NAICS 23331) 1 to 4 3,136 1.000 3,136 0 $ 459 5 to 9 1,666 1.000 1,666 0 $ 1,529 10 to 19 1,261 0.999 1,260 1 $ 2,926 20 to 99 1 991 0.997 988 3 $ 10,891 100 to 499 2 195 0.973 190 5 $ 46,414 500+ 3 30 0.558 17 13 $ 217,247 Subtotal 7,279 0.997 7,257 22 $ 4,682 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction ( NAICS 23332) 1 to 4 17,722 1.000 17,718 4 $ 467 5 to 9 7,644 1.000 7,643 1 $ 1,490 10 to 19 5,861 0.998 5,850 11 $ 3,434 20 to 99 1 5,518 0.991 5,470 48 $ 12,663 100 to 499 2 637 0.821 523 114 $ 77,162 500+ 3 48 0.327 16 32 $ 342,102 Subtotal 37,430 0.994 37,220 210 $ 437,317 Heavy Construction ( NAICS 23411) 1 to 4 4,154 0.9997 4,153 1 $ 281 5 to 9 1,987 0. . 9995 1,986 1 $ 939 10 to 19 1,876 0.9966 1,870 6 $ 1,998 20 to 99 1 2,683 0.9907 2,658 25 $ 7,124 100 to 499 2 544 0.8601 468 76 $ 35,823 500+ 3 26 0.2153 6 20 $ 118,810 Subtotal 11,270 0.9886 11,141 129 $ 4,301 Source: Census ( 2000) ; SBA ( 1998) . 1 Combined data from Census 20 to 49 and 50 to 99 employment classes. 2 Combined data from Census 100 to 249 and 250 to 499 employment classes. 3 Combined data from all Census employment classes of more than 500 employees. 6­ 8 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 6.2.2.3 Number of Small Businesses Affected To determine the number of potentially affected small businesses, the number of potentially affected businesses was multiplied by the ratio of small businesses to total businesses. To estimate the number of small businesses, EPA examined the distribution of revenues per establishment by size of establishment ( see last column of Table 6­ 4) . This review concluded that average revenues for establishments below 100 employees in size are consistently below the SBA small business size threshold ( $ 27.5 million per year) while average revenues for establishments above 100 employees consistently exceed the SBA threshold. 7 EPA thus concluded that the number of businesses with 100 or fewer employees would be a good proxy for the number of businesses that fall below the SBA revenue size threshold. Table 6­ 5 shows the results of this review. EPA estimates there are 95,753 potentially affected businesses ( representing 98.6 percent of all potentially affected businesses) that fall below the SBA­ defined revenue threshold and that therefore may be considered small businesses. . 7 EPA notes that while the SBA threshold applies to businesses not establishments, there are very few multi­ establishment businesses in the below 100­ employee size classes, therefore the use of average establishment revenues is appropriate. 6­ 9 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 6­ 5. Estimated Number of Small Businesses Potentially Affected by the Proposed Rule. NAICS Potentially Affected Establishments Potentially Affected Businesses Potentially Affected Small Businesses Small Businesses as a Percent of Total for Individual Industry Number Percent of total 233210: Single­ family housing construction 34,070 34,041 34,004 35.5% 99.9% 233220: Multifamily housing construction 4,603 4,597 4,571 4.8% 99.4% 233310: Manufacturing and industrial building construction 7,742 7,719 7,498 7.8% 97.1% 233320: Commercial and institutional building construction 39,810 39,587 39,013 40.7% 98.6% 23411 Heavy construction 11,270 11,141 10,667 11.1% 95.7% Total 97,495 97,085 95,753 100.0% 98.6% Source: EPA estimates based on methodologies presented in this chapter and in Chapter Four. 6.3 EPA COMPLIANCE WITH RFA REQUIREMENTS 6.3.1 Outreach and Small Business Advocacy Review In accordance with section 609( b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review ( SBAR) Panel for the proposed rule. The Panel was convened on July 16, 2001. Panel participants included representatives from EPA, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) , and the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration ( SBA) . Small Entity Representatives ( ( SERs) , who advised the Panel, included small homebuilders and commercial builders. Throughout the development of these regulations, EPA conducted outreach to small businesses in the C& D industries. EPA held several informational public meetings in 1999 and again in 2001 to provide the public and those in potentially affected C& D industries to learn more about the proposed rule and to voice their questions and concerns. 6­ 10 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 In addition, several half­ day focus group sessions were conducted with members of the National Association of Home Builders ( NAHB) in early 2001. Consistent with the RFA/ SBREFA, the Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small entity comments on issues related to the elements of the IRFA. The Panel s activities and recommendations are summarized in the Final Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA s Planned Proposed Rule on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) and Effluent Limitations Guideline ( ELG) Regulations for Construction and Development Activities ( USEPA, 2001) , or Panel Report. This document is included in the public record. 6.3.2 EPA s Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis As required by Section 603 of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA has conducted an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The IRFA includes a discussion of the problems the proposed rule will solve, as well as the objectives and legal basis for the proposal. The IRFA also includes a description and estimate of the following: C Number of small businesses that will be affected; C The reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule; C Any Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; C Any significant regulatory alternatives to the rule that would accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statutes and minimize impacts to small businesses. This section addresses each of these requirements of the IRFA that EPA has prepared to support the proposed C& D regulations. Section 607 of the RFA further notes that the Agency is to provide either a quantifiable or numerical description of the effects of a proposed rule or alternatives to the proposed rule, or more general descriptive statements if quantification is not practicable or reliable. For this rulemaking, EPA has prepared an economic analysis of the impacts to small C& D businesses. This analysis is provided in 6­ 11 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Section 6.4. Additional information and the detailed results of this analysis are presented in Section 6.4.2. 6.3.2.1 Reasons EPA is Considering the Proposed Rule EPA is proposing effluent limitation guidelines ( ELG) for the C& D industry under a settlement agreement with the Natural Resources Defense Council ( NRDC) . The ELG is an effort to establish performance standards for construction and development projects during active and post­ construction phases. This rulemaking is being proposed under Title III of the Clean Water Act ( CWA) , and was outlined in the Phase II NPDES storm water Final Rule ( 64 FR 68741) as the next step in the development of the framework of the storm water program. While construction activities disturbing five acres or more land are already subject to NPDES permits and the requirements set forth in EPA s construction general permit ( CGP) , these permits do not generally contain technology­ based requirements for design, inspection, or maintenance of erosion and sediment control ( ESC) best management practices ( BMPs) . The current regulations require permittees to develop a storm water pollution prevention plan ( SWPPP) and in that plan to describe any ESCs they will use. The existing regulations do not require that permittees use particular ESCs; actual ESC selection and design is the responsibility of the permittee in conformance with any existing state and local requirements. State and local requirements for ESC design, inspection, and maintenance criteria, if present, vary widely. The purpose of this rule is to establish nation­ wide criteria to support builders and local jurisdictions in appropriate BMP selection ( 64 FR 68741) . 6.3.2.2 Objectives and Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule Construction and development ( C& D) activity affecting water quality typically involves site selection and planning, and land­ disturbing tasks during construction such as clearing, excavating and grading. Disturbed soil, if not managed properly, can be easily washed off­ site during storm events. Storm water discharges generated during construction activities can cause an array of physical, chemical and biological impacts. Water quality impairment may result, in part, because a number of pollutants are 6­ 12 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 preferentially absorbed onto mineral or organic particles found in fine sediment. The interconnected process of erosion ( detachment of the soil particles) , sediment transport, and delivery is the primary pathway for introducing pollutants from construction sites into aquatic systems. A primary concern at most construction sites is the erosion and transport process related to fine sediment because rain splash, rills ( small channels typically less than one foot deep) and sheetwash ( thin sheets of water flowing across a surface) encourage the detachment and transport of this material to water bodies. Although streams and rivers naturally carry sediment loads, erosion from construction sites and runoff from developed areas can elevate these loads to levels above those in undisturbed watersheds. Existing national storm water regulations require construction site operators to outline controls to manage construction site runoff, but do not require any specific level of control. One of the options being proposed ( Option 2) would establish effluent limitation guidelines in the form of minimum standards for design and implementation of erosion and sediment controls used during the active phase of construction. This approach would cover sites with five or more acres of disturbed land, and would establish minimum requirements for conducting site inspections and providing certification as to the design and completion of various aspects of those controls. EPA acknowledges that many State and local governments have existing standards for temporary controls. The proposed rule is intended to work in concert with existing requirements where equivalent, and would not supercede more stringent requirements. In addition, EPA is proposing two alternatives that would not set national standards for control of storm water discharges from construction sites subject to permit requirements under section 402 of the CWA. Both of these approaches would rely instead on a combination of existing State and local requirements and additional requirements based on the best professional judgement ( BPJ) of the permitting authority. Under one of these alternatives ( Option 1) , the proposal would establish minimum requirements for conducting site inspections and providing certification as to design and completion of controls required by the permit authority in its NPDES permit. These requirements are similar to the inspection and certification requirements in Option 2. Existing compliance determination practices for construction site storm water controls rely principally on site inspections by local governments, however, enforcement efforts are reported to be uneven nationwide, largely due to limited enforcement resources at the Federal, State and local levels. The 6­ 13 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 inspection and certification requirements in today' s proposed rule could strengthen the current permit program. Under another alternative ( Option 3) , no new requirements would be established under this option. Both the control requirements and the certification requirements would be left to the best professional judgement of the permitting authority in order to allow them to be better tailored to local conditions. These proposed options are discussed in more detail in sections IX and X of today' s notice. At this time, EPA is co­ proposing all three options because it sees advantages to each. This rulemaking is being proposed under Title III of the Clean Water Act ( CWA) , specifically under the authorities of sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402 and 501 of the Clean Water Act. Further legal basis for this proposed rule may be found in 33 U. S. C. sections 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and 1361 and under authority of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U. S. C. 13101 et seq. , Pub L. 101­ 508, November 5, 1990. Chapter One of this report and the preamble to the proposed rule contain more detailed information on the objectives and basis for this proposed rule. 6.3.2.3 Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities Affected As presented in Table 6­ 5, EPA estimates that there are about 97,085 potentially affected C& D businesses nationwide in the four industries discussed in this chapter, of which 95,753 ( 98.6 percent) are small businesses. 8 Approximately 40 percent of the small businesses are in the commercial and institutional building construction industry and 35 percent are in the single­ family residential construction industry. Heavy construction accounts for 11 percent of small C& D businesses, manufacturing and industrial building construction accounts for 8 percent, and multifamily residential construction accounts for 5 percent. 8 The businesses shown in Table 6­ 5 excludes those representing 19,771 establishments in Special Trades Contracting ( NAICS 235) that are potentially affected by the proposed rule ( see Table 2­ 14) , but were not analyzed in this chapter because the financial data upon which the small entity analysis is based is not available for these industries. EPA does not believe, however, that a substantial number of entities in these industries are NPDES storm water permittees or co­ permittees, and would therefore generally not be subject to the proposed rule requirements. 6­ 14 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 6.3.2.4 Description of Proposed Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Requirements The proposed C& D regulations contain recordkeeping and reporting requirements for entities in the C& D industry. In Chapter Five, EPA estimated the costs associated with the additional requirements imposed on C& D establishments as a result of the proposed rule. This section focuses specifically on the costs and burden associated with recordkeeping, reporting and related requirements. For the purpose of this analysis, burden means the total time, , effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust existing procedures to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information request; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. EPA estimated that states would incur some costs related to implementation of the proposed rule. Specifically, general permit development and implementation of the inspection and certification provisions are estimated to require approximately 200 labor hours per state during the first three years of program implementation. See Chapter Five, Section 5.8 for full details. EPA analyzed costs to government units under the assumption that the majority of Phase I and Phase II storm water NPDES permit programs are fully implemented. Any new regulatory requirements will be incremental to the costs of these programs. The analysis in Chapter Five concluded that once Phase I and Phase II are fully implemented by communities, the proposed rule will not add any additional burden to government units. The current NPDES storm water permitting authority defaults to the state level except where places are large enough to qualify as Phase I ( medium and large MS4) or Phase II ( small MS4) communities. Since permitting authority, and thus permitting costs, will affect only Phase II or larger 6­ 15 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 communities, and since EPA s analysis indicates no incremental impacts to Phase II or larger communities, EPA does not expect smaller government units to be adversely impacted by the proposed rule. Therefore no additional analysis was conducted to assess the impacts of the proposed rule on small government entities. A significant new requirement for construction firms contained in both Option 1 and Option 2 would be maintenance of a site log book. The site log will record the date of initial groundbreaking and any inspection or maintenance activities related to erosion and sediment control. The availability of the log must be posted on the site and the log must be made available to government inspectors and the public. This is a record­ keeping requirement only and no information will be collected. EPA estimates that site log will require 8.7 hours per year for each construction firm respondent. EPA further assumes that all recordkeeping tasks will be performed by an engineering assistant. The fully loaded hourly wage for the engineering assistant labor category in the construction industry, based on data from the U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $ 38.47 per hour. Thus, the 8.7 hours per year burden implies an average annual cost of $ 335 for each firm. Since there are an estimated 95,753 small firms subject to Option 1, the annual cost of the site log requirement is $ 32.07 million. This is the largest portion of the inspection costs discussed in Chapter Five. Since Option 2 excludes firms disturbing less than five acres each year from the site log requirement, the total costs of this requirement to small business will be reduced. 6.3.2.5 Identification of Relevant Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Regulations EPA has analyzed the potential impacts of the proposed rule under the baseline assumption that all C& D activities are in compliance with existing federal and state regulations affecting C& D operations, including Phase I and future Phase II NPDES storm water regulations. Neither EPA nor the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel identified any federal rules that duplicate or interfere with the requirements of the proposed rule ( USEPA, 2001) . 6­ 16 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 6.3.2.6 Significant Regulatory Alternatives The proposed rule retains the coverage of the Phase II NPDES storm water permitting program, which excludes construction activities that disturb less than one acre of land. EPA believes that this exclusion alleviates the potential compliance burden for small­ scale builders who operate independently and who work on very few ( and relatively small) projects in a given year. 9 EPA believes that larger plans of development and individual construction projects that disturb a total of more than one acre are more likely to contribute to increased storm water runoff and erosion problems than activities disturbing less than one acre. In addition, activities disturbing less than one acre are more likely to be dispersed, thus decreasing the concentration of adverse effects. Additionally, under Option 2 of the proposed rule construction sites disturbing less than 5 acres would be excluded. EPA believes that a substantial share of activity on sites between one and five acres in size may also be undertaken by small­ scale builders. This broader exclusion, therefore, would potentially reduce compliance burdens for more small­ scale builders by exempting them from additional requirements. EPA considered additional options that would, for example, exempt construction activities taking place on sites of ten acres or less. EPA was unable, however, to identify data to suggest that exempting sites under ten acres from the requirements of the proposed rule would produce substantial additional relief to small entities. In fact, EPA found evidence that even the largest home builders operate on sites in this size range ( Otsuji, 2001) . Waivers for construction activities occurring in areas with low erosion potential remain in place from the Phase II NPDES storm water Final Rule. Under Phase II such waivers may be granted where little or no rainfall is expected during the period of construction. Qualification for this waiver may be determined using the tables of rainfall­ runoff erosivity ( R) factors published for each region of the U. S. by the Department of Agriculture ( 64 FR 68774) . In addition, EPA has taken regional climate factors into account throughout the development of this proposed regulation and has built a sizeable amount of 9 Note that as in the Phase II NPDES storm water rule, this exclusion does not apply to development activities disturbing less than one acre that are part of a larger development plan ( 64 FR 68772­ 68773) . 6­ 17 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 flexibility into the rule to allow permittees to choose appropriate controls based on their particular site characteristics. 6.4 EPA S ANALYSIS OF SMALL BUSINESS IMPACTS The following sections describe the methodologies and results for the economic impact analysis of the proposed rule on small businesses in the C& D industry. 6.4.1 Classification of Model Facilities for Impact Analysis For its economic impact analysis, EPA used model facilities based on Census data, however, these facilities are not identical to the 1997 Census of Construction data. This section describes how EPA applied its analysis of small business­ owned establishments to the model facilities used in the impact analysis. In the single­ family and multifamily housing construction industries, ( NAICS 233210 and 233220, respectively) , EPA used multiple model facilities based on the number of housing starts performed by the establishment per year for its economic impact estimates. EPA compared the model facility data by starts class with both the 1997 Census of Construction data by employment class and the SBA size standard for small business status. Table 6­ 6 presents key model facility data by starts class. 6­ 18 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 6­ 6. Key Model Facility Data by Housing Starts Classification Category Number of Units Started Average Number of Employees Average Value of Construction Work ( $ 1,000) NAICS 233210 Single­ Family Housing Construction 1 to 4 2.5 $ 492 5 to 9 3.3 $ 1,089 10 to 24 4.3 $ 1,987 25 to 99 8.6 $ 4,923 100 to 499 32.1 $ 24,031 500+ 160.0 $ 109,033 NAICS 233220 Multifamily Housing Construction 2 to 9 3.2 $ 645 10 to 24 5.1 $ 1,382 25 to 99 8.0 $ 3,500 100 to 499 13.5 $ 7,410 500+ 64.7 $ 43,844 Source: EPA estimates based on Rappaport and Cole ( 2000) . Single­ family housing construction establishments with 100 to 499 starts per year employ, on average, 32 workers per establishment and earn $ 24 million in revenues. Establishments with fewer starts tend to employ fewer workers and have lower average revenues. Conversely, establishments with more than 500 starts per year employ on average 160 workers and earn revenues in excess of $ 109 million per establishment. Multifamily housing construction establishments with 100 to 499 starts per year employ, on average, 13.5 workers per establishment and earn $ 7.4 million in revenues. Establishments with more than 500 starts per year employ on average 65 workers and earn revenues of $ 44 million per establishment. Although average employment per establishment in the 500+ start class does not exceed 100 workers, employment per establishment in that class is almost five times larger than the 100 to 499 starts class. 6­ 19 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 The natural break points in the employment and revenue per establishment data by housing start class match reasonably well with those from the 1997 Census of Construction data described in Section 6.2.2. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that model facilities with fewer than 500 housing starts per year in both the 233210 and 233220 NAICS codes are small business­ owned establishments, and model facilities in the 500+ starts class represent large business­ owned establishments. Note that based on 1997 Census of Construction figures by employment class, EPA estimated 99.8 percent of establishments in NAICS 233210 and 99.4 percent of establishments in NAICS 233220 overall are small business­ owned. Based on the Census Housing Starts Statistics special study, EPA estimated that 99.7 percent of establishments in NAICS 233210 and 98.4 percent of establishments in NAICS 233220 overall are small business­ owned. 10 To estimate the number of small business­ owned facilities affected by the proposed C& D effluent guideline, EPA first projected impacts for each model facility and extrapolated those to the establishments represented by the model. If the model facility has fewer than 500 starts per year, then all impacts to establishments represented by that facility are incurred by small businesses; impacts to establishments represented by the model facility for the 500+ starts class are incurred by large business­ owned establishments. In the manufacturing and industrial, commercial and institutional, and heavy construction industries, ( NAICS codes 233310, 233320, and 23411, respectively) , a single model facility was used for the economic impact analysis. Selection of the model facility for each industry was based on median revenue by employment class. Because EPA used a single model facility in each of these industries, it is not appropriate to designate the model facility as owned by a small or large business. Therefore, EPA calculated the percent of establishments that are small business­ owned, as estimated from the 1997 Census of Construction , and applied that percentage to all impacts to estimate small business impacts. For example, approximately 97 percent of establishments in NAICS 233310 are small business­ owned. 10 Small differences arise in estimating the percentages of total establishments in the industry that are small business­ owned because of differences in how the data is arranged. SBA sets its definition of small by firm revenues. However, the Census data available to EPA is arranged by employment class, not revenues, while data in the Census special study used to develop model establishments is arranged by starts class, not revenues or employment. Thus minor discrepancies in percentages that are insignificant to the analysis will occur. 6­ 20 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 If 100 establishments in that NAICS code are projected to incur compliance costs exceeding one percent of revenues, EPA assumes that 97 of those establishments are small businesses. 6.4.2 Revenue Test Methodology EPA assessed the impacts to small businesses by examining the ratio of estimated compliance costs to business revenues. Impacts are determined by the number and percentage of businesses incurring costs that exceed one percent and three percent of revenues. EPA s primary tool for projecting revenue test impacts is the model facility. For each model facility, it is straightforward to divide estimated business­ level compliance costs by model facility revenues. However, that answers only part of the question concerning the impact of the proposed regulation on small business entities. To determine the number and percentage of businesses exceeding the revenue test thresholds, EPA must consider not only the model facility, but the businesses represented by that model as well. The model facility actually represents a set of approximately similar businesses ( e. g. , similar levels of employment within some bounded range) with revenues that form a statistical distribution around the model facility s revenue figure. Some businesses in this statistical distribution will have revenues below those of the model business while others will have revenues above those of the model business. Therefore, simply examining the ratio of compliance costs to revenues for the model business is insufficient. If, for example, the model facility incurs compliance costs that are less than one percent of revenues, a conclusion that no businesses are affected by the regulation is unwarranted. It is highly likely that other businesses represented by the model have lower revenues and therefore may well incur costs exceeding one percent of revenues. To address this issue, EPA developed estimates of the statistical revenue distribution of establishments represented by each model facility. 11 EPA then used those distributions to estimate the number and percentage of small business­ owned establishments in each industry that incur compliance costs exceeding one and three percent of revenues. EPA used model facility revenues for the mean of 11 As described in Section 6.2.2 above, EPA determined that in the construction industry, the small business is essentially identical to the small business­ owned establishment. 6­ 21 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 each distribution, but had no direct information concerning the dispersion of establishment income around each model facility. EPA therefore developed the distributions by making reasonable assumptions about the variance and shape of the distribution. In order to deal with the uncertainty caused by the lack of direct evidence about the shape of the distribution, EPA used two different assumptions about the distribution of revenues to generate a range of impacts. 6.4.2.1 Development of Revenue Distributions The two curves in Figure 6­ 1 represent the cumulative distribution functions for two different sets of assumptions concerning the distribution of establishment income around a hypothetical model facility mean of $ 1.0 million in annual revenues. The cumulative distribution function is used to determine the probability y that a random variable x is less than or equal to some specified value. It is appropriate to use the cumulative distribution function for this application because EPA is concerned with the probability that an establishment earns less than some specified level of revenues. For example, suppose estimated establishment compliance costs for this model facility class are equal to $ 15,000. Any establishment in this model facility class that earns revenues less than $ 1.5 million will incur compliance costs that exceed one percent of revenues. Thus, EPA would use the cumulative distribution function to estimate the probability that a facility earns revenues of $ 1.5 million or less. 6­ 22 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Figure 6­ 1 Baseline Distribution Functions for Facility Revenues 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 $ 0 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 4,000 Revenues ( x $ 1,000) Probability Unit Normal Lognormal Critical Value As a starting point for its analysis, EPA examined the implications of assuming that income is normally distributed and has a standard deviation equal to the mean. That is, the coefficient of variation ( standard deviation divided by mean) for this distribution is equal to one. In Figure 6­ 1, this is represented by the curve labeled unit normal. An implication of the unit normal distribution for this analysis is that some establishments are projected to earn negative revenues. This can be observed by examining the y axis; the unit normal distribution assumption results in about a 15 percent probability of an establishment earning negative revenues. While negative income ( e. g. , net income, cash flow) is both possible and plausible for a business establishment, negative revenue is not. 12 12 EPA examined an alternative assumption that income is normally distributed, but with standard deviation such that there was zero probability of an establishment earning negative revenues. This adjustment results in a coefficient of variation equal to about 0.29. EPA determined that this was probably not a reasonable distribution for use in this analysis because the probability of an establishment earning low revenues is quite small. For example, using the hypothetical mean revenues of $ 1 million, the probability of an establishment earning revenues less than $ 500,000 is only about 5 percent; the probability of an establishment earning revenues between $ 500,000 and $ 1.0 million is about 45 percent. 6­ 23 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 EPA then examined the implications of using a lognormal distribution. EPA estimated the mean and standard deviation for the lognormal distribution through a standard transformation of the mean and standard deviation of the unit normal distribution. Using this transformation, the lognormal distribution can be interpreted as having the same mean and standard deviation as the equivalent unit normal distribution, but a skewed distribution ( unlike the normal distribution, which is symmetric) . In Figure 6­ 1, for example, the probability of establishment revenues less than or equal to $ 1.0 million is 50 percent under the unit normal distribution assumption, as is the probability of revenues greater than $ 1.0 million. Under the lognormal distribution assumption, about 66 percent of establishments have income less than or equal to $ 1.0 million, and about 34 percent have income greater than $ 1.0 million. The distribution of establishment revenues may be skewed because it is probable but infrequent that some establishments in any model class will perform extremely well and earn very high revenues relative to other establishments; there is no inherent limit to the revenues such an establishment might earn. Conversely, there is a limit to the minimum revenues even the poorest performing establishments will earn; poor performers cannot earn less than zero revenues. Such a distribution would tend to be skewed as is the lognormal distribution in Figure 6­ 1. 6.4.2.2 Application of Revenue Distributions to Estimating Small Business Impacts Given the revenue distributions developed in the preceding section, EPA applied the distributions to the problem of estimating revenue test impacts as follows. First, EPA used revenues for each model facility from the four major construction industries ( single­ family, multifamily, manufacturing and industrial, commercial and institutional) as the mean of the distribution for each model class. EPA then set the standard deviation for each model class distribution equal to its mean. . With mean, standard deviation, and two alternative assumptions concerning the shape of the distribution 6­ 24 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 ( normal or lognormal) , EPA calculated the probability that revenues are less than or equal to any given value for each model class. 13 After estimating the compliance costs per establishment for each option, EPA calculated the level of revenues at which the estimated compliance costs would exactly equal one percent and three percent of revenues. EPA then used its two distributions to calculate the probability that establishments have revenues less than or equal to these specified levels. These probabilities provide the range for the percentage of establishments projected to incur compliance costs exceeding the one percent and three percent thresholds. Multiplying these probabilities by the number of establishments in the model class provides the range for the number of establishments projected to incur compliance costs exceeding the one percent and three percent thresholds. Note that EPA chose to truncate the unit normal distribution at zero revenues; EPA calculated the probability that establishments earn revenues equal to the specified one or three percent threshold for incurring impacts. This is because analytically the region of the distribution showing some probability of negative revenues cannot be appropriately evaluated. This process is illustrated in Figure 6­ 1. The hypothetical model establishment earns $ 1 million, the mean for each distribution. If EPA estimates annual compliance costs of $ 7,500 will be incurred by this business, then any business in this model class earning less than $ 750,000 will incur compliance costs exceeding one percent of revenues, and any business earning less than $ 22,500 will incur compliance costs exceeding three percent of revenues. The critical value in Figure 6­ ­ 1 represents the one percent threshold ( i. e. , revenues of $ 750,000) . Based on the normal distribution, EPA would project that 22 percent of establishments incur costs exceeding the one percent threshold ( i. e. , the probability of revenues less than $ 750,000 is equal to 0.38, while the probability of revenues less than $ 0 is equal to 0.16, thus, the net probability equals 0.22) . Based on the lognormal distribution, EPA would project that 54 percent of establishments incur costs exceeding the same threshold. These provide the lower and upper bounds for EPA s impacts estimates. 13 For calculation purposes, EPA used the @ NORMAL and @ LOGNORMDIST functions in the Lotus spreadsheet program. 6­ 25 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 6.4.3 Small Business Impact Analysis Results Tables 6­ 7a and 6­ 7b present the range of establishments projected to incur compliance costs exceeding one percent and three percent of revenues, respectively, for each proposed ESC option under a zero percent cost pass through assumption. Tables 6­ 7c and 6­ 7d present the same results under an estimated cost pass through assumption. In each table, the A denotes the results obtained assuming a normal distribution and the B indicates the results obtained using the lognormal distribution, , as discussed in Section 6.4.2. The number of small business­ owned establishments incurring compliance costs exceeding the revenue threshold is less than one percent for all options and project types under the zero CPT assumption. Impacts under the estimated CPT assumption are even smaller. Under the zero CPT scenario, the number of small businesses with costs exceeding one percent of revenues ranges from a low of 0 to 126 under Option 1 and from a low of 104 to a high of 627 under Option 2 ( Table 6­ 7a) . The number of businesses with costs exceeding three percent of revenues ranges from a low of 0 to a high of 42 under Option 1 and from a low of 0 to a high of 205 under Option 2 ( Table 6­ 7b) . Under the estimated CPT scenario, the number of small businesses with costs exceeding one percent of revenues ranges from a low of 0 to 15 under Option 1 and from a low of 0 to a high of 70 under Option 2 ( Table 6­ 7c) . The number of businesses with costs exceeding three percent of revenues ranges from a low of 0 to a high of 5 under Option 1 and from a low of 0 to a high of 24 under Option 2 ( Table 6­ 7d) . 6­ 26 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 6­ 7a. Estimated Number of Small Business­ Owned Establishments With Compliance Costs Exceeding 1 Percent of Revenues Zero Percent Cost Pass Through Option Single­ family Multifamily Commercial Number Pct. of Small Businesses Number Pct. of Small Businesses Number Pct. of Small Businesses Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High 1 0 47 0.000% 0.138% 0 5 0.000% 0.110% 0 62 0.000% 0.159% 2 40 140 0.118% 0.412% 8 18 0.175% 0.395% 18 234 0.046% 0.599% 3 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% Option Industrial Heavy TOTAL Number Pct. of Small Businesses Number Pct. of Small Businesses Number Pct. of Small Businesses Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High 1 0 12 0.000% 0.160% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 126 0.000% 0.000% 2 2 36 0.270% 0.480% 36 199 1.863% 0.337% 104 627 0.109% 0.109% 3 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% Source: EPA estimates based on methodologies presented in this chapter and in Chapter Four. 6­ 27 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 6­ 7b. Estimated Number of Small Business­ Owned Establishments With Compliance Costs Exceeding 3 Percent of Revenues Zero Percent Cost Pass Through Option Single­ family Multifamily Commercial Number Pct. of Small Businesses Number Pct. of Small Businesses Number Pct. of Small Businesses Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High 1 0 15 0.000% 0.044% 0 2 0.000% 0.044% 0 21 0.000% 0.054% 2 0 45 0.000% 0.133% 0 6 0.000% 0.132% 0 77 0.000% 0.197% 3 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% Option Industrial Heavy TOTAL Number Pct. of Small Businesses Number Pct. of Small Businesses Number Pct. of Small Businesses Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High 1 0 4 0.000% 0.053% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 42 0.000% 0.044% 2 0 12 0.000% 0.160% 0 65 0.000% 0.607% 0 205 0.000% 0.214% 3 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% Source: EPA estimates based on methodologies presented in this chapter and in Chapter Four. 6­ 28 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 6­ 7c. Estimated Number of Small Business­ Owned Establishments With Compliance Costs Exceeding 1 Percent of Revenues Estimated Cost Pass Through Option Single­ family Multifamily Commercial Number Pct. of Small Businesses Number Pct. of Small Businesses Number Pct. of Small Businesses Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High 1 0 7 0.000% 0.021% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 6 0.000% 0.015% 2 0 20 0.000% 0.059% 0 1 0.000% 0.022% 0 24 0.000% 0.061% 3 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% Option Industrial Heavy TOTAL Number Pct. of Small Businesses Number Pct. of Small Businesses Number Pct. of Small Businesses Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High 1 0 2 0.000% 0.027% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 15 0.000% 0.016% 2 0 6 0.000% 0.080% 0 19 0.000% 0.178% 0 70 0.000% 0.073% 3 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% Source: EPA estimates based on methodologies presented in this chapter and in Chapter Four. 6­ 29 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 6­ 7d. Estimated Number of Small Business­ Owned Establishments With Compliance Costs Exceeding 3 Percent of Revenues Estimated Cost Pass Through Option Single­ family Multifamily Commercial Number Pct. of Small Businesses Number Pct. of Small Businesses Number Pct. of Small Businesses Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High 1 0 2 0.000% 0.006% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 2 0.000% 0.005% 2 0 7 0.000% 0.021% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 8 0.000% 0.020% 3 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% Option Industrial Heavy TOTAL Number Pct. of Small Businesses Number Pct. of Small Businesses Number Pct. of Small Businesses Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High 1 0 1 0.000% 0.013% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 5 0.000% 0.005% 2 0 2 0.000% 0.027% 0 7 0.000% 0.065% 0 24 0.000% 0.025% 3 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% Source: EPA estimates . 6­ 30 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 6.5 REFERENCES Otsuji, 2001. Personal communication between Patrick Otsuji, California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality, Storm Water Section, and Dina Metivier of Eastern Research Group, Lexington, MA. April 2001. Rappaport B. A. , T. A. Cole. ( U. S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division) . 2000. Construction Sector Special Study: Housing Starts Statistics­ ­ A Profile of the Homebuilding Industry. SBA. 1998. Statistics of U. S. Businesses: Firm Size Data. U. S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy. Available at: http: / / www. sba. gov/ advo/ stats/ data. html. U. S. Census Bureau. 2000. 1997 Economic Census: Construction, United States. Various Reports. Available at: http: / / www. census. gov/ epcd/ ec97/ us/ US000_ 23. HTM. U. S. EPA. 2001. Final Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA s Planned Proposed Rule on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) and Effluent Limitations Guideline ( ELG) Regulations for Construction and Development Activities. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. U. S. EPA. 1999. Revised Interim Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. March 29. http: / / www. epa/ gov/ sbrefa/ documents/ igui99. pdf. U. S. GPO ( U. S. Government Printing Office) . 2000. Small Business Size Regulations; Size Standards and the North American Industry Classification System; Correction. 13 CFR Part 121. Washington, DC: Small Business Administration. Federal Register. 65( 172) : 53533­ 53558. September 5. http: / / www. sba. gov/ library/ lawroom. html 6­ 31 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 CHAPTER SEVEN BENEFITS METHODOLOGY Previous chapters have considered the costs of implementing the proposed regulations and their effect on the industry, markets, and economy. Those chapters discussed the negative impact of the regulation on the national economy but the purpose of the regulation is to benefit the nation by improving water quality and the environment. These benefits can be measured in economic terms and balanced against the costs of implementing the proposed rule. This chapter reviews previous benefits assessments for similar regulations to develop a methodology for measuring the benefits of the proposed construction and development regulation. 7.1 PREVIOUS APPROACHES TO BENEFITS ASSESSMENT Two basic approaches are used to measure the economic benefits of a policy change. In the top­ down approach, , the analyst defines the total benefits of an improvement ( or avoidance of degradation) brought about by some policy action or combination of actions, and posits a means of scaling the benefit to the size and scope of the action. The overall benefits of the proposed action can then be calculated. The alternative, bottom­ up approach enumerates the pathways through which society derives value from the environmental consequences of the proposed action and estimates that value. Reducing sediment runoff, for example, reduces the potential need to dredge navigation channels. A bottom­ up approach makes the connections from changes at the sediment source to deposition in the harbor to the savings to society from reduced dredging costs. The following sections establish a framework for development of bottom­ up methods to estimate benefits of the proposed construction and development rule. A prominent study of the benefits of reducing sediment in waterways is Ribaudo s Water Quality Benefits from the Conservation Reserve Program ( Ribaudo, 1989) . For benefit categories where there is sufficient information, Ribaudo carefully links soil loss to water quality measures and benefit values. For other categories, where he has estimates of total damage costs, he assumes that reductions in sediment discharge will lead linearly to similar reductions in damage costs. Fox, et al. ( 1995) suggest that the relationship between sediment loading and water quality is not linear but S­ shaped. At high sediment 7­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 loadings, incremental reductions in sediment discharge may have essentially no effect on water quality. At very low loadings, incremental reductions may actually be harmful for some purposes. Some fish, for example, prefer some sediment in the water column. The linearity assumption presumes that starting sediment loads are in the middle section of the S­ curve. This may or may not be valid for a particular location and benefit category but is probably a reasonable working assumption. In maintaining the connection from physical effects of the policy to changes in welfare, bottom­ up approaches offer the opportunity to assess different policy options, if they can be well­ described and have discernible effects. The connections, however, are only as good as the research upon which they are based. Poor connections may be bridged with reasonable assumptions. However, weakness at any level compromises the credibility of the results. 7.2 BENEFITS CATEGORIES CONSIDERED The Environmental Assessment for the proposed rule ( EPA 2002b) accomplishes the first two or three steps of Ribaudo s process. The assessment estimates the sediment loads avoided by implementation of the proposed regulation. Sediment load can be linked to services society values and therefore to benefit categories. EPA used a model watershed approach to estimate the impacts of development on water quality. Several studies in Maryland and Pennsylvania provided the basic reference information for what occurs in a watershed as the landscape is developed. Attention focused on increased sediment loads from construction sites. These case studies were then generalized using appropriate adaptations to different weather, slope, and soil conditions in different regions of the country. Table 7­ 1 summarizes the categories of information developed in the baseline environmental assessment and the categories of benefits which they were used to estimate. 7­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 7­ 1. Environmental Measures from the Baseline Environmental Assessment Environmental Effect Units Benefit Category Settleable Solids Total tons per Year Dredging Turbidity Producing Solids Total tons per Year Treatment/ Dredging The theoretically correct benefit measure is the change in producer and consumer surplus ensuing from a change in environmental quality. As most environmental changes entail non­ market goods, such as clean air and water, demand functions cannot be readily estimated. Economists instead use the fact that environmental externalities impose costs on the public to estimate benefits. Most benefit assessments in the soil conservation context use the costs of avoiding the consequences of the environmental harm as a proxy for the correct benefit measures. It can be shown that averting costs are a lower bound on the correct welfare measures ( Laughland, et al. , 1996) . Whether averting costs are a near or distant lower bound depends on how closely the product of the averting process substitutes for the actual environmental good. Most of the studies cited below rely on avoided cost measures which should be considered a lower bound benefit estimate. Although benefits are measured in terms of avoided costs, whether those costs are actually incurred or not is largely irrelevant. The measures indicate society s willingness to pay for the environmental change or the utility lost due to the change. If a reservoir fills with sediment, for example, the community has lost water storage capacity. Whether or not it chooses to replace the lost capacity depends on budget constraints and other priorities. Nevertheless, the community has lost some of the utility of the resource. If it is not replaced, the loss of utility may be exacted from the community in other ways such as increased flood damage or water shortages. Thus, the avoided costs should be viewed as the opportunity cost of failing to control sedimentation rather than as a budgetary saving for the responsible agency. The following sections review benefit categories suggested for this analysis and used in other assessments. For each category we discuss the methods, units, and results of prior studies and EPA assessments. We also describe the methods used to assess the benefits of the proposed ESC controls for each category. 7­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 7.2.1 Decreased Erosion and Sediment Generation Faster run off from construction sites and impervious surfaces has ill effects on stream sediment and structure both upstream and downstream in the watershed. Upstream, faster run off cuts into streambanks and adds to the sediment load. Downstream, additional sediment settles out when flows slow or reach larger water bodies. Some of the sediment is suspended degrading water quality. The benefits of reducing suspended sediment are discussed in Section 7.2.2. In this section we discuss the benefits of reducing larger sediment particles which contribute to sedimentation of water bodies. 7.2.1.1 Water Storage Capacity People impound water for many reasons. Reservoirs supply municipal water systems and mitigate the rising waters of floods. Flow control structures on large rivers enhance navigation. When any of these impoundments fill with sediment, they are less capable of fulfilling their purpose. Ribaudo ( 1989) cited an estimate by Crowder ( 1987) that 820,000 acre­ feet of water storage capacity are lost to anthropogenic sources annually. Thus, there is a benefit in reducing the amount of sediment that flows into these impoundments. Ribaudo estimated the benefits as the costs of constructing replacement reservoirs and assumed that a one percent reduction in sediment discharge would result in one percent lower replacement costs. An alternative approach would estimate the connection from stream bank and overland erosion to sediment movement to reservoirs to the need to maintain water storage capacity. The Environmental Assessment estimates the total tons of sediment moved from stream bank and overland erosion. This total volume affects both water storage capacity in reservoirs and the need for dredging of navigational channels. The estimate of total sediment volume can be allocated to these two categories as well as to other fates, such as redeposition along watercourses. For example, the regional capacity of reservoirs compared to the total capacity of water bodies indicates the proportion of sediments settling in lakes that would be subject to dredging. Similarly, the number or area of navigational channels maintained in the region compared to natural outlets could indicate the proportion of sediment that would need to be removed from channels. Given the animus against new water projects in the current policy climate, 7­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 construction of replacement water storage capacity is unlikely so all benefits from sediment reduction in this category are valued at the average cost of dredging. Table 7­ 2 illustrates such an application using the stream bank erosion figures from the Environmental Assessment. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ( ( USACE) National Inventory of Dams indicates that the surface area of reservoirs behind dams represent 35.2 percent of the water area of the nation ( USACE 2001) . EPA adopted this percentage as an estimate of the proportion of sediment generated from construction sites that would reach constructed water bodies. The tonnage deposited is converted to cubic yards based on 1.82 cubic yards per ton ( Sohngren and Rausch, 1998a) . Sohngren and Rausch ( 1998a) estimate the variable costs of dredging as $ 2.10 per cubic yard which is in the same range as USACE estimates. As discussed in Section 7.2, the avoided costs should be viewed as the opportunity cost of failing to control sedimentation rather than as a cost saved by reducing the volume to be dredged. Whether the dam owner chooses to remove the sediment or not is irrelevant. Sedimentation reduces the social utility of the resource. Multiplying these factors together yields an estimate of the benefits of reduced sedimentation. Table 7­ 2. Sample Calculation of Avoided Loss of Water Storage Capacity Row: Formula Effect of regulation on sediment load ( tons per year) 11,000,000 1 Allocation to Water Storage Facilities Tons Amount of sediment reaching reservoirs 35.2% 3,872,000 2: 1 × 0.352 Tonnage expressed in cubic yards 7,047,000 3: 2 × 1.82 Cost of restoration dredging per cubic yard $ 2.10 4 Total cost of re­ dredging avoided annually $ 14,799,000 5: 3 × 4 Sources: U. S. EPA, 2002a 7­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 7.2.1.2 Navigational Dredging River channels and harbors are dredged periodically to maintain a mandated depth. Much of the sediment removed can be traced to human activities. According to the USACE, more than 400 ports and 25,000 miles of navigation channels ( USACE 2002a) are maintained in the U. S. There are two kinds of dredging operations performed, construction, or new, dredging and maintenance dredging. Construction dredging involves the removal of sediments not previously disturbed in order to create a new channel, or to enlarge an existing channel. Maintenance dredging is the removal of extra sediment in an existing waterway ( USACE 2002a) . Both the USACE and members of industry participate in dredging activities under the USACE Dredging Program. Under this program, industry and the Corps combined spent $ 494 million on maintenance dredging work and $ 127 million on new dredging work, for a total of $ 622 million in 1997. This activity removed 253 million cubic yards of material for maintenance and 32 million cubic yards for new work, combining for a total of 285 million cubic yards dredged ( USACE 2002b) . Based on this data, the average cost per cubic yard is $ 1.95 for maintenance dredging, $ 3.97 for new work, and $ 2.18 for both new and maintenance dredging work. Relatively little of the sediment dredged from navigation channels comes from urban development. The totals above represent material deposited by all forms of sedimentation. EPA has estimated that the proposed rule would keep 0.6 to 2.6 million cubic yards from reaching navigational channels. This is less than one percent of the annual amount dredged under the USACE Dredging Program and an even smaller proportion of the total amount dredged in the U. S. annually. Dredging costs have been used to estimate the benefits of sediment reduction in several other studies. Ribaudo ( 1989) assumed directly proportional reductions between erosion and dredging costs and used an estimate from Clark et al. ( 1985) for total dredging costs attributable to eroding soils. Sohngren and Rausch ( 1998b) looked specifically at the Maumee River watershed in Ohio. The marginal cost of dredging contaminated sediment there were quite high as an existing confined disposal facility for contaminated dredge spoil was near its capacity. This necessitated construction of a new facility. Sohngren and Rausch ( 1998a) make the connections from farm field to harbor and estimate that 12.7 percent of soil eroded off fields in the watershed ends up in the navigation channel. 7­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 As discussed in the water storage capacity section, the sediment load deposited in navigation channels can be estimated and average costs per ton dredged applied to estimate avoided costs from policy alternatives. The starting value is the change in sediment delivered to waterways. This value is taken from the Environmental Assessment. Table 7­ 3 shows an allocation of this sediment to navigation channels using Sohngren and Rausch s ( 1998a) estimate of the proportion of sediment reaching navigation channels, 12.7 percent. The Sohngren and Rausch estimate is probably relatively high, as the Maumee River which they studied flows into Toledo harbor. Many rivers do not flow to developed, commercial harbors. Variable cost avoided is the appropriate metric for this application as the regulation is unlikely to prevent dredging operations entirely since other sources of sediment will continue to flow. Sohngren and Rausch ( 1998a) estimate the variable costs as $ 2.10 per cubic yard. This agrees well with the $ 2.18 per cubic yard estimated from USACE data above. Table 7­ 3. Sample Calculation of Avoided Navigational Dredging Row: Formula Effect of regulation on total erosion ( tons per yr) 11,000,000 1 Allocation to Navigational Channels Assume 12.7 percent reaches maintained channel ( tons per yr) 1,397,000 2: 1 × 0.127 Amount of sediment to be dredged annually in cubic yards 2,543,000 3: 2 × 1.82 Variable cost per cubic yard $ 2.10 4 Total avoided cost of navigational dredging $ 5,339,000 5: 3 × 4 Sources: Sohngren and Rausch, 1998a, and U. S. EPA, 2002a. 7.2.2 Reduced In­ Stream TSS and Sediment Concentration Sediment and other components of storm water runoff contribute to low water quality in receiving waterways. If these waterways are used for public water supplies or industrial processes, the water may need treatment before it is used. Excessive sediment in the water causes turbidity which impedes the action of disinfectants and results in harmful disinfectant by­ products. Conventional filtration and flocculation removes the turbidity before further treatment processes. The worse the intake 7­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 water s quality the more intense and expensive the treatment required. Three studies in the late 1980' s and one in 1998 estimated the elasticity of water treatment costs with respect to the turbidity of the intake water. The studies used a hedonic method. Dearmont, et al. ( 1998) , for example, regressed the costs of chemicals for treatment on turbidity of intake water and other variables for a sample of Texas water treatment facilities. They found that a one percent reduction in nephelometric turbidity units ( NTUs) in the intake water resulted in 0.27 percent reduction in treatment chemical costs. Similar elasticities from other studies ranged from 0.07 percent ( Holmes, 1988) to 0.333 percent ( Moore and McCarl, 1987) . Ribaudo ( 1989) used Holmes ( ( 1988) results to link total suspended solids ( TSS) to turbidity to treatment costs per gallon for watersheds nationwide. Different studies express their results in various units corresponding to different points in the water use process. Sohngren and Rausch ( 1998b) do not describe their methods but estimate that water treatment costs are $ 0.05 for each ton of gross soil erosion. Fox and Dickson ( 1990) express their results in terms of sediment in waterways, i. e. tons of suspended sediment, and find a cost of $ 13.44 ( Canadian) per ton. The two plus orders of magnitude difference between these estimates makes sense if only 1 out of 250 tons of soil eroded became suspended sediment. Fox and Dickson ( 1990) adjust their cost estimate based on the probability of the suspended sediment from their three sample watersheds reaching water treatment plants given the geography of the region. The EPA assessment of the benefits and costs of President Clinton s Clean Water Initiative ( U. S. EPA, 1994) estimated that improved water quality would reduce nationwide treatment costs by 1 to 5 percent; storm water was a source of 6.6 percent of the impairment. The nationwide avoided costs from improved storm water quality were estimated as $ 3.2 to $ 17.0 million per year. The Environmental Assessment estimates the TSS loadings reductions from ESC management. EPA estimates water treatment benefits from reducing TSS loadings by taking a derivative from Holmes ( 1988) equation which shows the change in NTU from changes in sediment loads, given stream flow, and water storage capacity. Values for assumptions about stream flow, storage capacity and costs of processing intake water are taken from Holmes ( 1988) . The literature contains a range of NTU­ to­ cost elasticities from 0.07 to 0.333. Using this range of elasticities generates the range of benefit estimates from $ 22.49 to $ 106.97 per 1,000 tons of sediment introduced into waters. Holmes costs were reported in 1984 values. Updating these values to 1997 price levels using the CPI for urban consumers ( CPI­ U in 1984= 103.9, CPI­ U in 1997= 160.5) yields values of $ 34.74 and $ 165.24 per 1,000 tons in 1997 dollars. 7­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 7­ 4. Sample Calculation of Avoided Water Treatment Costs Row: Formula Change in annual TSS after development from pre­ development levels 2,000 1 Low High Calculated range of treatment costs per 1,000 tons/ yr $ 34.74 $ 165.24 2 Range of changes in costs b/ $ 69,480 $ 330,480 3: 1 × 2 Sources: Holmes, 1988, and U. S. EPA, 2002a. ( 1,000 tons/ yr) 7.2.3 Non­ Quantified Benefits Several categories of benefits discussed in other studies were considered for this benefit assessment. For the most part, the benefits expected to be derived from these categories are relatively small and difficult to quantify. Rather than expend inordinate resources to quantify small benefits, EPA focused on the more promising, larger categories. 7.2.3.1 Water Contact Recreation One of the salutary effects of improved water quality is wider opportunities for water contact recreation. Ribaudo and Young ( 1989) used a criteria­ based approach to estimate the benefits of improved water quality on recreation. They established levels of suspended sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorous which would show whether or not the water body was safe for swimming. They then estimated the changes in runoff and ensuing change in water quality indicator levels to assess whether the program being considered would bring the water body within the criteria for swimmable waters. Ribaudo and Young found that the changes in erosion they assessed were too small to result in any water quality changes that would upgrade the receiving waters status. . So there were no water­ based recreation benefits attributable to the program. Feather and Hellerstein ( 1997) took a different approach. They used information from the National Resource Inventory and National Survey of Recreation and the Environment to estimate a direct 7­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 relationship between soil loss and consumer welfare from water­ based recreation. They were able to estimate improvements in recreation consumer surplus from erosion reductions from alternative agricultural practices. While the ESC regulations would reduce TSS loadings, they are not expected to affect many of the other water quality indicators that preclude water contact recreation. Like the Ribaudo and Young study, estimation of recreation benefits could consume a great deal of analytical resources and not generate any measurable benefits. 7.2.3.2 Biodiversity Effects Excess sediment can play havoc with natural stream ecosystems. Salmon and trout lay their eggs in scrapes on sand or gravel substrates. Flowing sediment can bury the eggs and prevent their hatching. Similarly, mussel beds can be buried by excessive sediment movement, smothering the mussels. Even relatively small sediment loads may become harmful during storm events when bed loads shift rapidly. More than half of the freshwater mussel species in the U. S. are imperiled or already extinct ( Stein and Flack 1997) . It is difficult to quantify either the value society places on preservation of endangered species or the contribution the proposed regulation may make to species preservation. 7.2.3.3 Other Sources of Benefits Roads and irrigation ditches provide transportation services to people. When sediment and vegetation clog ditches these services are impeded. Ribaudo ( 1989) and Fox and Dickson ( 1990) both use government highway ditch maintenance costs as the starting point for valuing decreased roadside sedimentation. Ribaudo estimates state removal costs as a function of rural road mileage, gross erosion, and the reported costs to remove one cubic yard of material. This process yields an average cost of $ 79 per thousand tons of gross erosion. Fox and Dickson divide provincial expenses for ditch maintenance by the cropland area to arrive at a cost of $ 3.41 per hectare. Both studies then estimate the benefits of different practices by assuming directly proportional reductions in costs with reductions in gross erosion. 7­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 While maintenance of roadside swales is among the BMPs suggested under this regulation, major reductions in offsite road maintenance are not anticipated in the Environmental Assessment. Ribaudo ( 1989) also estimates the benefits for irrigation ditch maintenance. He accepts Clark, et al. s ( 1985) estimate of overall damage to irrigation systems from cropland erosion and assumes reductions in erosion would result in proportional reductions in damage. Sohngren and Rausch ( 1998b) estimate that drainage ditch maintenance costs are $ 0.15 per ton of gross soil erosion without explaining their methodology. Agricultural water management is probably not relevant to this proposed regulation. 7.3 CONCLUSION These methods form a coherent assessment of the benefits of the proposed regulations. There are several opportunities for reality and sensitivity testing of benefit values to ensure that they are within the realm of possibility. Information on total navigational and reservoir dredging costs in the region can be compared to the final results to determine if the benefits estimates are in a reasonable range. 7­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 7.4 REFERENCES Clark, E. H. II, J. A. Haverkamp, and W. A. Chapman. 1985. Eroding Soils: The off­ farm impacts. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation. Cited in Ribaudo, 1989. Crowder, B. M. 1987. Economic Costs of Reservoir Sedimentation: A regional approach to estimating erosion damage. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 42( 3) : 194­ 197. Cited in Ribaudo, 1989. Dearmont, David, Bruce McCarl, and Deborah A. Tolman. 1998. Cost of Water Treatment Due to Diminished Water Quality: A case study in Texas. Water Resources Research, 34( 4) : 849­ 855. Feather, Peter and Daniel Hellerstein. 1997. Calibrating Benefit Function Transfer to Assess the Conservation Reserve Program. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79( 1) : 151­ 162. Fox, Glenn, and Ed J. Dickson. 1990. The Economics of Erosion and Sediment Control in Southwestern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 38: 23­ 44. Fox, Glenn, Gloria Umali, and Trevor Dickinson. 1995. An Economic Analysis of Targeting Soil Conservation Measures with Respect to Off­ site Water Quality. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 43: 105­ 118. Holmes, Thomas P. 1988. The Offsite Impact of Soil Erosion on the Water Treatment Industry. Land Economics 64( 4) : 356­ 366. Laughland, Andrew S. , Wesley N. Musser, James S. Shortle, and Lynn M. Musser. 1996. Construct Validity of Averting Cost Measures of Environmental Benefits. Land Economics 72( 1) : 100­ 112. Moore, W. B. and B. A. McCarl. 1987. Off­ site Costs of Soil Erosion: A case study in the Wilamette Valley. Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, 12: 42­ 49. Cited in Dearmont, et al. , 1998. Ribaudo, Marc O. 1989. Water Quality Benefits from the Conservation Reserve Program. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agriculture Economic Report No. 606. February. Ribaudo, Marc O. , and C. Edwin Young. 1989. Estimating Water Quality Benefits from Soil Erosion Control. Water Resources Bulletin, 25( 1) : 71­ 78. Sohngren, Brent and Jonathan Rausch. 1998a. Soil Erosion in the Maumee River Basin: A case study using market methods to value environmental externalities. Ohio State University Working Paper. Dated June 5, 1998. Sohngren, Brent and Jonathan Rausch, 1998b. Benefits of Controlling Soil Erosion in the Maumee River Basin. Ohio State University, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Natural Resource and Environmental Economics Research News. November, 1998. 7­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Stein, Bruce A. and Stephanie R. Flack. 1997. 1997 Species Report Card: The State of U. S. Plants and Animals. Arlington, Va: The Nature Conservancy. Available at: http: / / www. natureserve. org/ publications/ 97reportcard/ title. html Accessed on February 20, 2002. USACE 2002a. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District ­ Navigation. Available at: http: / / www. nap. usace. army. mil/ sb/ nav. htm. Accessed on February 12, 2002. USACE 2002b. Actual Dredging Cost Data for 1963­ 2000: Summary of Corps and Industry Activities. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Navigation Data Center. Available at: http: / / www. wrsc. usace. army. mil/ ndc/ ddhisbth. htm. Accessed on February 14, 2002. USACE 2001. National Inventory of Dams Database. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Topographical Engineering Center. Available at: http: / / crunch. tec. army. mil/ nid/ webpages/ niddownloaddamsdata. html Accessed on November 12, 2001. U. S. EPA. 2002a. Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Guidelines for the Construction and Development Point Source Category. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA­ 821­ R­ 02­ 007. Available at: http: / / www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ guide/ construction/ . U. S. EPA. 2002b. Environmental Assessment of Effluent Guidelines for the Construction and Development Point Source Category. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA­ 821­ R­ 02­ 009. Available at: http: / / www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ guide/ construction/ . U. S. EPA. 1999. Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA­ 833­ R­ 99­ 002. Available from National Environmental Publications Information at: http: / / www. epa. gov/ clariton/ . U. S. EPA. 1995. Economic Benefits of Runoff Controls. EPA 841­ S­ 95­ 002. Available at: http: / / www. epa. gov/ nps/ runoff. html. Accessed on May 23, 2001. U. S. EPA. 1994. President Clinton s Clean Water Initiative: Analysis of Benefits and Costs. Cited in U. S. EPA, 1999. 7­

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.778821

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0030-0024

Supporting & Related Material

Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 CHAPTER EIGHT BENEFITS ASSESSMENT RESULTS The purpose of the proposed regulation is to benefit the nation by improving water quality and the environment. These benefits can be measured in economic terms and balanced against the costs of implementing the proposed rule. The preceding chapter described the methodology EPA developed to measure the benefits of the ESC regulation. This chapter summarizes the results of that analysis. The first section draws on the Environmental Assessment to show the changes in sediment loads and other factors that indicate the environmental effects of the regulation. The second section describes the results of applying these environmental changes to the benefit estimation model described in Chapter Seven. 8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS The Environmental Assessment used a model watershed approach to estimate several indicators of water quality in the baseline condition and under the alternative options. The primary environmental indicator selected was sediment entering waterways which was divided into turbidity producing solids and settleable solids, i. e. particle size 20 microns or less and greater than 20 microns. Sediment is a good indicator of the regulation s effectiveness as metals and organic compounds enter the environment attached to sediment particles. Table 8­ 1 shows the estimated difference between sediment tonnage released under the baseline and that released with each regulatory option. 8.2 BENEFITS ASSESSMENT RESULTS As discussed in Chapter Seven, the sediment loadings drive benefit analyses for several categories of benefits. Table 8­ 2 shows the low and high values for the range of annual benefit estimates. The point estimate represents EPA s best judgment of the most probable benefit value after weighing the accuracy and distribution of the information used to develop the benefit range. Most of the benefits arise from the avoided costs of lost water storage capacity. 8­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 8­ 1. Total Suspended Sediment ( TSS) ­ Differences from Baseline Source: U. S. EPA, 2002. Decrease from Baseline in: Option 1 ­ Inspection and Certification Option 2 ­ Codify CGP, Inspection and Certification Turbidity Producing Load ( Tons/ Year) Settleable Solids Load ( Tons/ Year) Turbidity Producing Load ( Tons/ Year) Settleable Solids Load ( Tons/ Year) High Estimate 1,582,541 7,912,707 2,225,328 11,126,639 Low Estimate 527,514 2,637,569 2,225,328 11,126,639 Table 8­ 2. Benefits Estimates Benefit Category Type of Estimate Option 1 Inspection and Certification Option 2 Codify CGP + Inspectn & Certn Water Treatment Point 0.1 0.2 Low 0.0 0.1 High 0.3 0.4 Water Storage Point 7.1 15.0 Low 3.5 15.0 High 10.6 15.0 Navigational Dredging Point 2.6 5.4 Low 1.3 5.4 High 3.8 5.4 Total Point 9.7 20.6 Low 4.8 20.5 High 14.4 20.8 Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Seven. 8­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 8.3 REFERENCES U. S. EPA. 2002. Development Document for the Effluent Guidelines for the Construction and Development Point Source Category. 8­ Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 CHAPTER NINE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE 9.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter addresses the net social costs of the proposed rule. It brings together the results described in Chapters 5 and 8 to directly compare the estimated costs and benefits of the proposed regulation in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and other administrative regulations. The economic analysis describes a typical year s impacts subsequent to implementation of the proposed rule. When flows of costs and benefits vary through time, it is common practice to calculate the net present value of each series of flows and then compare the annual payments that would be necessary to amortize that value. For example, when new regulation requires investment in capital equipment there may be a large cost to retrofit plants and smaller maintenance costs in later years while benefits do not begin to accrue for several years. To compare the two, their net present values are placed on an annual basis, i. e. annualized. When flows are constant, and the same discount rate is used to calculate the net present value as well as the amortization, the annualized value is the same as the annual value. The impacts in this report represent typical annual values for costs and benefits and so are constant throughout the evaluation period. Thus, all years are considered the same and annualization is unnecessary. Section 9.2 describes the direct social costs of the proposed rule, while Section 9.3 describes the proposed rule s indirect effects. Section 9.4 compares these costs with the benefits estimated in Chapter 8. 9.2 SOCIAL COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE 9.2.1 Direct Social Costs Direct social costs are the real resource opportunity costs to the private sector, and to the government, of implementing the regulation. The largest component of social cost is the cost to firms to comply with the CGP provisions. Installation of improved ESC management is a direct cost to 9­ 1 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 construction firms. In addition, firms would also bear increased design, certification, and inspection costs. Operation and maintenance ( O& M) of improved ESCs also adds to costs. Governments at the Federal, State, and Municipal level would have roles in implementing this regulation. These public resources spent by government entities might have been used for other purposes and so represent a direct social cost. Each of these direct cost categories was quantified in Chapter 5 and is briefly discussed below. 9.2.1.1 Compliance Costs Implementation of the proposed rule requires the firm to devote real resources, which might have been used for other purposes, to compliance. EPA estimated design, installation, certification, and inspection costs per acre for the baseline and each regulatory option in Chapter 5. These figures are adjusted to constant 1997 dollars using the Engineering News­ Record Construction Cost Index ( ENR CCI) to represent the real private opportunity cost. These costs were shown in Table 5­ 4. The ESCs in the proposed rule do not depart significantly from current practices. The basic operations of construction would change little from existing practices. Potential changes in the inputs or production processes are minimal. No radically new technology is proposed that would require a substantial learning period to operate or essentially change the production process. Nor would the proposed regulation generate new waste products which might raise issues for disposal, sale, or reuse. 9.2.1.2 Government Regulatory Costs Codification of the CGP would require only a few hours of activity at the Federal, State, and local levels of government. Administration would, in most instances, be conducted at the State or local levels, though some oversight would remain with EPA. These activities impose opportunity costs as they draw resources from other government functions. EPA estimates that each state would require approximately 200 labor hours to codify the CGP. To a large extent the proposed regulation utilizes administrative and enforcement institutions established by prior zoning, building code, and storm water regulation. EPA 9­ 2 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 estimates that this one­ time activity would cost $ 260,000 per year for five years as states revise their permitting language and programs. In addition, government entities conduct many projects that would be subject to the proposed regulations. Approximately 24.7 percent of the value of construction put in place would be incurred by government entities. The breakdown is 10.1 percent Federal, 8.5 percent State, and 6.1 percent local. Much of this expenditure is for maintenance of existing structures and so does not entail new ground disturbance. 9.2.2 Social Welfare Losses Social welfare losses occur when compliance costs result in higher prices for the goods in question. Individuals gain utility from products when the market price is lower than the value they derive from the product. This difference between value and price is termed consumer surplus. Producers also gain a surplus, or profit, when they can sell a product for more than the cost of production. The proposed regulations are likely to affect new construction prices and so shift the market supply function. Market models for each sector estimate the transfer of surplus from consumers to producers as buyers pay more to builders for the added storm water facilities. In addition, the higher price would discourage some buyers so the number of homes or buildings that will be sold would fall slightly. Such reductions in sales result in losses of both consumer and producer surplus without any offsetting gain, and so are termed deadweight loss. The market models estimate these surplus changes based on linear supply and demand curves with elasticities taken from the literature. Consumer and producer surplus losses were reported in Table 5­ 19 as the gross loss attributable to the proposed rule and include the deadweight loss. Although lost as profits, much of the producer surplus figure is spent in the industry to comply with the new regulations. Similarly, most of the consumer surplus loss is spent in the construction industry absorbing the passed on costs of compliance with the regulations. The loss in consumers utility becomes spending for improved storm water management. . Only the deadweight loss, estimated at $ 10,000 for Option 1 and $ 185,000 for Option 2, is completely lost to society. 9­ 3 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 9.2.3 Transitional Effects Traditional environmental regulations may have resulted in some plant closings and unemployment. The local impact of such effects is generally not considered a social impact issue since, in general, the effects are transitory. The employees shift to other jobs and the capital invested in the plant shifts to other uses. There is a small social loss in job search costs and unemployment time. However, when workers are specialized or unable to adapt to new labor market conditions, they may be permanently unemployed which would result in a loss of social welfare. Construction is a highly flexible industry. It is normal practice for employees and firms to move from job to job applying their individual skills to the task at hand. Job search costs and shifting investments are standard elements of the industry. EPA does not foresee any major disruptions in the industry as a result of the proposed rule. 9.3 INDIRECT EFFECTS Beyond shifting the market supply for the regulated commodity, the regulation could affect the structure of the industry, change labor or capital productivity or discourage innovation. These effects would have wider impacts on society as they ripple through related markets and industries. EPA determined that the proposed rule has relatively little possibility of causing indirect social welfare effects. No substantial changes in market structure are anticipated from this proposed rule. While some forms of regulation may result in advantages to large firms or encourage vertical integration, this regulation builds on existing practices of design and certification already common in the industry. The proposed regulation is expected to have little effect on labor or capital productivity. It may require firms to employ more workers without increasing output, e. g. , to maintain silt fencing, but this opportunity cost is captured in the installation, operating, and maintenance cost. No substantial changes in productivity are anticipated. Nor is the proposed regulation expected to have substantial affects on research, innovation, or investment toward future technological development of the industry. EPA 9­ 4 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 expects that other costs to society not specifically addressed by the analyses presented in this report would be modest. 9.4 COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED COSTS AND BENEFITS Chapter 8 described the results of the environmental assessment and benefit monetization. All of the benefits estimated represent incremental social benefits from the baseline case. Table 9­ 1 compares the sum of social costs discussed above with the benefits estimated in Table 8­ 5. Anticipated social costs are greater than the monetized benefits. The social benefit estimate includes only those benefits that could be monetized. Section 7.2.6 discusses several other classes of benefits that could not be quantified yet provide real social benefits. These included increased utility from water­ based recreation and biodiversity preservation. Table 9­ 1. Social Costs and Benefits ( 1997 $ Million per year) Option Installation, Design and Permitting Operation and Maintenance Government Costs Deadweight Loss Total Social Costs Total Benefits 1 $ 118.1 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.1 $ 118.2 $ 9.7 2 $ 421.2 $ 48.0 $ 0.3 $ 0.2 $ 469.6 $ 20.6 3 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four and Chapter Seven. 9­ 5

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.792117

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0030-0025

Supporting & Related Material

Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 CHAPTER TEN UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT 10.1 INTRODUCTION Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA) , P. L. 104­ 4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally prepares a written statement, including a cost­ benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally directs EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost­ effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost­ effective or least burdensome alternative, if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it is to develop, under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government agency plan. The plan is to provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, thus enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. 10­ 1 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 10.2 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS EPA has determined that the proposed C& D regulations may contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $ 100 million or more by State, local or Tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared the written statement in accordance with section 202 of the UMRA. This and previous sections of the EA constitute this statement: Chapter Five of the EA identifies costs and impacts ( burdens) on construction firms that would be subject to the proposed regulations, as well as other market affects. Chapter Eight presents estimated monetary benefits that may accrue under the proposed regulations, in accordance with UMRA when costs of a federal mandate exceed $ 100 million in any one year. EPA determined that the smallest unit of government potentially affected by the proposed rule would be on the sub­ county ( i. e. , municipal or township) government level. Census data was used to determine financial and other information ( e. g. , population) for local government entities ( Census 2000a, Census 1999) . This information was combined with data from several other sources to assess the impacts of the proposed rule on small ( serving populations of less than 50,000) government entities. The estimated total cost of the proposed rule under ESC option 1 is approximately $ 118 million. 1 Based on the value of construction work done, approximately 24.7 percent of this cost, or $ 29 million, would be borne by public entities. Under ESC option 2, the estimated total cost of the proposed rule is $ 469 million, with public entities incurring approximately $ 116 million of this total. Approximately 83 percent of the total U. S. population in 1996 ( 219 million out of 265 million) lived in areas governed by a municipality or town/ township. Of those served by these sub­ county governments, approximately 43 percent ( 114 million) lived in areas served by municipal or town/ township governments with populations of less than 50,000. The remaining portion of the total U. S. population ( i. e. , those not served by municipal or town/ township governments) may be served only by a county government, a 1 Total compliance cost equals the installation, design, and permitting costs plus operation and maintenance costs. 10­ 2 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 special district government, or some other form of local government not covered by the Census report ( Census 1999) . The value of construction work done by government agencies ( federal, state, and local) is approximately 24.7 percent of the total value of construction work done, with the remainder performed by private entities. EPA applied the 24.7 percent factor to the total national compliance costs for each option to determine the portion of costs accruing to government entities. EPA then used data on the funding of capital outlay for highway projects to determine the portion of compliance costs accruing to each level of government ( i. e. , to federal, state, and local entities) . Based on this data, approximately 41 percent of government compliance costs would be borne by the Federal government, 34 percent would be borne by state governments, and the remaining 25 percent would be borne by local governments. EPA compared the local government share of compliance costs against several financial indicators to determine the extent of the impacts on small governmental units. The indicators used were total revenues, capital outlay, and capital outlay for construction only. In all cases, compliance costs were less than 0.2 percent of the financial measure, indicating no significant impact on small governmental units. The calculations are shown in Table 10­ 1 below. 10­ 3 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 10­ 1. Impacts of Proposed Rule Compliance Costs on Government Units Government Component Option 1 Option 2 Costs As Percent of Total Costs Costs As Percent of Total Costs Total Compliance Costs $ 118,100,000 100.00% $ 469,200,000 100.00% Private Compliance Costs ( 75.3% ) [ a ] $ 88,929,300 75.30% $ 353,307,600 75.30% Public Compliance Costs ( 24.7% ) [ a ] $ 29,170,700 24.70% $ 115,892,400 24.70% Federal ( 41.07% ) [ b ] $ 11,980,406 10.14% $ 47,597,009 10.14% State ( 34.29% ) [ b ] $ 10,002,633 8.47% $ 39,739,504 8.47% Local ( 24.64% ) [ b ] $ 7,187,660 6.09% $ 28,555,887 6.09% Small Government Entities ( < 50,000) [ c ] $ 3,098,600 2.62% $ 12,310,443 2.62% Total Revenues: Small Government $ 103,640,793,000 $ 103,640,793,000 Compliance Costs as % of Total Revenues 0.00% 0.01% Capital Outlay: Small Government $ 11,262,360,000 $ 11,262,360,000 Compliance Costs as % of Total Capital Outlay 0.03% 0.11% Construction Outlay Only: Small Government $ 6,901,826,000 $ 6,901,826,000 Compliance Costs as % of Construction Outlay 0.04% 0.18% [ a ] Based on value of construction work done by government entity. . 1997 Census of Construction. [ b ] Based on the percent of capital outlay for highways funded by governmental unit. . 1999 FHWA Conditions and Performance Report to Congress. [ c ] Based on the percent of U. . S. population living in municipalities or towns/ townships serving < 50,000 ( 43.11% of the population in 1996) . Note: Approximately 83% of the U. S. population ( or 219,004,000) lives in an area governed by a municipality or a town/ township. The remaining population may be served only by a county government, a special district government, or other governmental organization not covered here. Of the 219 million served by these subcounty governments, approximately 114,347,000 ( or 43 percent) are served by municipal or town/ township governments with populations of < 50,000. Sources: 1997 Census of Governments: Compendium of Government Finances; 1997 Census of Governments: Government Organization; 1999 Status of the Nation' s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance, Report to Congress; 1997 Census of Construction. 10­ 4 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 10.3 REFERENCES Census 2000a. 1997 Census of Governments: Compendium of Government Finances. Volume 4. U. S. Census Bureau. December. Census 2000b. 1997 Economic Census: Construction ­ Industry Summary Census 1999. 1997 Census of Governments: Government Organization. Volume 1. U. S. Census Bureau. August. FHWA 2000. Status of the Nation s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance. Report to Congress. Federal Highway Administration. May. 10­ 5 Index Page( s) accounts payable to sales ratio ..................................................................... 2­ 74, 2­ 75 active construction .................................................... ES­ 74, 3­ 2, 1­ 4, 4­ 6, 4­ 11, 4­ 46, 4­ 58, 6­ 13 affordability .................................................... ES­ 58, ES­ 87, 2­ 1, 2­ 52, 4­ 2, 4­ 58­ 60, 4­ 67, 5­ 24 assets to sales ratio .................................................................................. 2­ 74 barrier to entry .............................................. ES­ 83, ES­ 84, 2­ 31, 2­ 44­ 46, 4­ 2, 4­ 44, 4­ 45, 5­ 20­ 23 benefits ........................................ ES­ 91­ 95, 1­ 6, 1­ 8, 2­ 9, 2­ 17­ 19, 2­ 47, 2­ 49, 3­ 11, 4­ 66, 5­ 37, 5­ 38, 5­ 42, 7­ 1­ 6, 7­ 8­ 14, 8­ 70, 8­ 71, 8­ 73, 9­ 1, 9­ 3, 9­ 4, 10­ 2 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) ..................................... ES­ 74, 3­ 1, 3­ 2, 3­ 6 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) ......................................... ES­ 74, 3­ 1, 3­ 2, 3­ 6 best management practices (BMPs) ...................... ES­ 74, 1­ 3, 2­ 48, 3­ 2, 3­ 4, 3­ 6, 3­ 8, 3­ 10, 4­ 12, 4­ 70, 6­ 12, 7­ 10 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) .................................. ES­ 74, 3­ 1, 3­ 2, 3­ 6 building permit( s) ................................ ES­ 57, ES­ 70, 1­ 6, 2­ 31­ 35, 2­ 38, 2­ 76, 2­ 77, 2­ 78, 2­ 80, 4­ 46, 4­ 48, 4­ 50, 4­ 53, 4­ 67, 4­ 69­ 72, 5­ 7 Census Bureau ................ ES­ 57, ES­ 60, ES­ 61, ES­ 63, ES­ 65, ES­ 67, ES­ 68, ES­ 73, ES­ 97, 1­ 5­ 7, 2­ 3, 2­ 4, 2­ 5, 2­ 7, 2­ 8, 2­ 11­ 14, 2­ 16, 2­ 18­ 22, 2­ 28, 2­ 30, 2­ 31, 2­ 33, 2­ 34, 2­ 36, 2­ 38, 2­ 45, 2­ 53, 2­ 55, 2­ 57, 2­ 61­ 63, 2­ 65, 2­ 66, 2­ 68­ 70, 2­ 78, 2­ 78, 2­ 80, 2­ 81, 4­ 25, 4­ 34, 4­ 49, 4­ 50, 4­ 61, 4­ 62, 4­ 66, 4­ 69, 4­ 77, 4­ 78, 5­ 24, 5­ 41, 6­ 6, 10­ 5 C& P Report ..................................................................................... 2­ 39­ 41 capital costs .......................................................................... 2­ 67, 4­ 12, 4­ 58, 4­ 78 cashflow .......................................................................... 4­ 13, 4­ 14, 4­ 35, 4­ 41­ 44 Clean Water Act (CWA) .......................................................... 1­ 2, 1­ 5, 3­ 1, 4­ 7, 6­ 12, 6­ 14 collection period ................................................................................ 2­ 74, 2­ 75 commercial construction ................ ES­ 60, ES­ 69, ES­ 70, ES­ 75­ 84, ES­ 86, ES­ 87, ES­ 90, ES­ 91, ES­ 93, ES­ 94, 1­ 5, 2­ 7, 2­ 19, 2­ 22, 2­ 24, 2­ 25, 2­ 28, 2­ 30, 2­ 47, 2­ 48, 2­ 54, 2­ 79, 4­ 5, 4­ 8, 4­ 13, 4­ 14, 4­ 26, 4­ 27, 4­ 34, 4­ 36, 4­ 37, 4­ 41, 4­ 45, 4­ 47, 4­ 50­ 57, 4­ 69­ 71, 4A­ 1, 4A­ 2, 4B­ 1­ 3, 5­ 1­ 10, 5­ 13­ 15, 5­ 17­ 22, 5­ 27, 5­ 29­ 32, 5­ 34, 6­ 4, 6­ 6, 6­ 10, 6­ 14, 6­ 20, 7­ 7 Construction General Permit (CGP) .................. ES­ 73, ES­ 74, 1­ 2­ 5, 2­ 5, 3­ 1­ 3, 3­ 5, 3­ 11, 5­ 35, 6­ 12, 8­ 71, 9­ 1, 9­ 2 consumer ............................ ES­ 58, ES­ 76, 2­ 1, 2­ 50­ 52, 4­ 59, 4­ 66, 4­ 72, 4­ 73, 4B­ 4, 5­ 2, 5­ 10, 5­ 29­ 31, 7­ 3, 7­ 10, 9­ 2 consumer surplus .......................................................... 4­ 66, 4­ 72, 5­ 29, 5­ 31, 7­ 3, 7­ 10, 9­ 2 cost pass through (CPT) ............. ES­ 58, ES­ 76­ 78, ES­ 80, ES­ 81­ 84, ES­ 90, ES­ 91, 2­ 1, 4­ 3, 4­ 4, 4­ 5, 4­ 6, 4­ 14, 4­ 19, 4­ 21, 4­ 29, 4­ 31, 4­ 58, 4­ 65, 4­ 71, 5­ 3, 5­ 5, 5­ 6, 5­ 10, 5­ 11, 5­ 13, 5­ 14, 5­ 16­ 19, 5­ 20, 5­ 21­ 23 current ratio ......................................... ES­ 79­ 81, 2­ 70, 2­ 71, 2­ 73, 4­ 32, 4­ 38­ 40, 5­ 10, 5­ 12­ 14, 5­ 16 deadweight loss ................................................................. ES­ 87, ES­ 95, 5­ 31, 9­ 2, 9­ 4 debt to equity ................................................. ES­ 79, ES­ 81, 4­ 28, 4­ 29, 4­ 33, 4­ 40, 5­ 10­ 14, 5­ 16 demand .......................... ES­ 73, ES­ 86, ES­ 87, 2­ 4, 2­ 30, 2­ 50­ 52, 2­ 54, 2­ 55, 2­ 79, 3­ 2­ 6, 4­ 59, 4­ 63­ 67, 4­ 69­ 72, 4­ 74, 5­ 23, 5­ 38, 7­ 3, 9­ 2 developer­ builder .......................................................... 2­ 44, 4­ 10­ 14, 4­ 29, 4B­ 4, 5­ 2, 5­ 10 Dun & Bradstreet (D& B) .......................... ES­ 78, ES­ 81, 2­ 70, 2­ 75, 4­ 26­ 28, 4­ 34, 4­ 35, 4­ 38, 4­ 40, 4­ 76, 5­ 11 employment ........................... ES­ 56, ES­ 57, ES­ 63, ES­ 69, ES­ 75, ES­ 81, ES­ 82, ES­ 87­ 89, 1­ 1, 1­ 6, 2­ 8, 2­ 9, 2­ 11, 2­ 15­ 17, 2­ 21, 2­ 22, 4­ 2, 4­ 25, 4­ 26, 4­ 35­ 38, 4­ 40, 4­ 41, 4­ 43, 4­ 66, 4­ 72­ 74, 4­ 78, 5­ 75, 5­ 1, 5­ 15, 5­ 16, 5­ 18, 5­ 19, 5­ 24, 5­ 29­ 32, 5­ 34, 6­ 3, 6­ 7, 6­ 8, 6­ 18 entry costs ..................................................................................... 2­ 46, 4­ 44 equipment ...................................... ES­ 60, 2­ 5, 2­ 7, 2­ 17, 2­ 19, 2­ 58, 2­ 61, 2­ 63­ 68, 3­ 8, 4­ 41, 4­ 44, 9­ 1 erosion ....................... ES­ 73, ES­ 74, 1­ 3­ 5, 2­ 28, 3­ 2­ 6, 3­ 9, 3­ 10, 4­ 1, 5­ 24, 5­ 39, 6­ 12, 6­ 13, 6­ 16, 6­ 17, 7­ 4­ 12 erosion and sediment .......................... ES­ 73, ES­ 74, 1­ 3, 1­ 4, 2­ 28, 3­ 2­ 6, 3­ 9, 3­ 10, 4­ 1, 5­ 24, 5­ 39, 7­ 4, 7­ 12 erosion and sediment controls (ESCs) ........................ ES­ 73, ES­ 74, 1­ 3, 1­ 4, 3­ 2, 3­ 3­ 6, 3­ 9, 3­ 10, 4­ 1, 4­ 2, 4­ 6, 4­ 10, 4­ 11, 4­ 12, 4­ 72, 5­ 29, 5­ 39, 9­ 1 Executive Order 12866 .......................................................... ES­ 56, 1­ 1, 1­ 8, 5­ 37, 5­ 38, 9­ 1 Federal government ........................................................................ 2­ 55, 2­ 57, 10­ 3 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ................. 2­ 39, 2­ 40, 2­ 41, 2­ 42, 2­ 43, 2­ 79, 4­ 23, 4­ 24, 4­ 76, 10­ 4, 10­ 5 Federal Water Pollution Control Act .................................................................. 1­ 2, 3­ 1 fixed assets to net worth ratio ................................................................. 2­ 70, 2­ 71, 2­ 74 geographic distribution ........................................................................ 2­ 8, 2­ 9, 2­ 15 11­ 1 Index ( cont. ) Page( s) gross profit ratio ..................................... ES­ 79, ES­ 81, 2­ 73, 4­ 28, 4­ 29, 4­ 31, 4­ 32, 4­ 40, 5­ 10­ 14, 5­ 16 heavy construction ........................... ES­ 58­ 61, ES­ 63, ES­ 65, ES­ 66, ES­ 68, ES­ 70, ES­ 79, ES­ 84, 1­ 5, 2­ 1­ 3, 2­ 6­ 12, 2­ 14, 2­ 16, 2­ 19, 2­ 21, 2­ 22, 2­ 24, 2­ 25, 2­ 27, 2­ 29­ 31, 2­ 39, 2­ 46, 2­ 50, 2­ 54­ 62, 2­ 64­ 70, 2­ 80, 4­ 77, 4A­ 3, 4A­ 4, 5­ 14, 5­ 15, 6­ 4, 6­ 6, 6­ 8, 6­ 10, 6­ 14, 6­ 20 hedonic values ...................................................................................... 7­ 8 homebuilding ........................................ ES­ 58, ES­ 67, ES­ 97, 2­ 1, 2­ 44­ 46, 2­ 80, 4­ 25, 4­ 26, 4­ 77, 6­ 5 homebuyers ......................................................................... ES­ 58, 2­ 1, 2­ 47, 2­ 52 Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) ..................................... ES­ 87, 4­ 58, 4­ 66, 4­ 67, 4­ 68, 5­ 23, 5­ 24, 5­ 25 industrial construction ............... ES­ 60, ES­ 69, ES­ 70, ES­ 75, ES­ 76, ES­ 78, ES­ 79, ES­ 81­ 84, ES­ 86, ES­ 87, ES­ 90­ 92, ES­ 94, 1­ 2, 1­ 5, 2­ 2, 2­ 5, 2­ 7, 2­ 8, 2­ 19, 2­ 22, 2­ 24, 2­ 25, 2­ 28, 2­ 30, 2­ 54, 2­ 55, 2­ 63, 2­ 65, 2­ 72, 2­ 79, 3­ 1, 4­ 4­ 8, 4­ 14, 4­ 26, 4­ 27, 4­ 29, 4­ 34, 4­ 36, 4­ 37, 4­ 41, 4­ 45, 4­ 47, 4­ 50­ 57, 4­ 70, 4­ 71, 4­ 73, 4A­ 1, 4A­ 3, 4B­ 1­ 3, 5­ 1­ 10, 5­ 13­ 15, 5­ 17­ 22, 5­ 28, 5­ 30, 5­ 32, 5­ 34, 6­ 3, 6­ 4, 6­ 6, 6­ 10, 6­ 14, 6­ 20, 7­ 7 infrastructure savings ................................................................................ 2­ 48 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) .......................................... ES­ 88, ES­ 89, 1­ 8, 6­ 1, 6­ 11 institutional construction ......................... ES­ 60, ES­ 70, 1­ 5, 2­ 7, 2­ 19, 2­ 22, 2­ 24, 2­ 25, 2­ 30, 2­ 47, 4­ 27, 4­ 47, 4­ 50, 6­ 4, 6­ 6, 6­ 10, 6­ 14, 6­ 20 inventory ......................................... 1­ 6, 2­ 45, 2­ 68­ 75, 4­ 4, 4­ 28, 4­ 45, 4­ 54, 4­ 78, 5­ 7, 7­ 5, 7­ 9, 7­ 13 Joint Center for Housing Studies .............................. ES­ 57, ES­ 66, ES­ 68, ES­ 97, 2­ 8, 2­ 12, 2­ 26, 2­ 27, 2­ 80 land developer ..................................................................................... 2­ 44 land development .......................... ES­ 58, ES­ 61, ES­ 63, ES­ 65, ES­ 68, ES­ 69, 2­ 1­ 3, 2­ 8­ 12, 2­ 15, 2­ 16, 2­ 19, 2­ 22, 2­ 25, 2­ 28, 2­ 61, 2­ 66, 2­ 68, 2­ 69, 2­ 80, 4­ 5, 4­ 12, 4­ 15­ 17, 4­ 20, 4­ 21, 4­ 37, 4­ 77, 4A­ 2, 4A­ 4, 4A­ 5, 4B­ 4, 6­ 4, 6­ 5 lane­ mile( s) .................................................................................... 2­ 39, 2­ 40 low impact development (LID) ............................................. 2­ 47, 2­ 47, 2­ 48, 2­ 49, 2­ 50, 2­ 79, 2­ 80 machinery ....................................................................................... 2­ 63­ 68 manufacturing construction .................. ES­ 60, ES­ 70, ES­ 97, 1­ 5, 2­ 7, 2­ 19, 2­ 24, 2­ 25, 2­ 30, 2­ 58, 2­ 61, 2­ 80, 4­ 8, 4­ 14, 4­ 27, 4­ 29, 4­ 34, 4­ 41, 6­ 4, 6­ 6, 6­ 10, 6­ 14, 6­ 20 market model ...................................... ES­ 87, 4­ 2, 4­ 29, 4­ 58, 4­ 59, 4­ 63, 4­ 68­ 71, 4­ 73, 5­ 2, 5­ 26, 5­ 31 metropolitan statistical area (MSA) ......................................... 2­ 32, 4­ 58, 4­ 66, 4­ 67, 4­ 68, 4B­ 1, 5­ 31 model project( s) .......................... ES­ 75, ES­ 76, 1­ 7, 3­ 90, 4­ 1, 4­ 5, 4­ 7­ 10, 4­ 12­ 15, 4­ 17­ 19, 4­ 21, 4­ 23, 4­ 25, 4­ 51, 4­ 72, 4A­ 79, 5­ 2­ 6 multifamily construction ................... ES­ 60, ES­ 69, ES­ 70, ES­ 73, ES­ 75, ES­ 76, ES­ 78­ 84, ES­ 86, ES­ 87, ES­ 90, ES­ 91, 1­ 5, 2­ 7, 2­ 19, 2­ 22, 2­ 24, 2­ 25, 2­ 28, 2­ 29, 2­ 50, 4­ 5, 4­ 8, 4­ 13, 4­ 26, 4­ 27, 4­ 29, 4­ 34, 4­ 36, 4­ 37, 4­ 41, 4­ 45, 4­ 48­ 50, 4­ 53, 4­ 54, 4­ 56, 4­ 57, 4­ 69, 4­ 71, 4­ 72, 4­ 77, 4A­ 1, 4A­ 2, 4B­ 1­ 3, 5­ 1, 5­ 2, 5­ 4­ 8, 5­ 10, 5­ 13, 5­ 14, 5­ 17­ 22, 5­ 26, 5­ 27, 5­ 30­ 32, 5­ 34, 6­ 4, 6­ 7, 6­ 8, 6­ 10, 6­ 14, 6­ 18, 6­ 19 municipal ............................................................... ES­ 92, 1­ 2, 5­ 36, 7­ 4, 9­ 1, 10­ 2, 10­ 4 NAICS 23 ................................................................. ES­ 59, ES­ 61, ES­ 63, 2­ 5, 2­ 6, 6­ 3 NAICS 233 ............................. ES­ 59, ES­ 61, ES­ 63, ES­ 65, ES­ 68, ES­ 89, 2­ 2, 2­ 6, 2­ 8­ 12, 2­ 15, 2­ 25, 2­ 55, 2­ 58, 2­ 59, 2­ 63, 2­ 67, 2­ 70, 6­ 3 NAICS 2331 ............................. ES­ 61, ES­ 63, 2­ 2, 2­ 8, 2­ 9, 2­ 11­ 13, 2­ 15, 2­ 28, 2­ 29, 2­ 58, 2­ 59, 2­ 63, 2­ 67, 2­ 70, 6­ 5 NAICS 234 .............................. ES­ 59, ES­ 63, ES­ 65, ES­ 66, ES­ 68, 2­ 6, 2­ 8­ 10, 2­ 12, 2­ 16, 2­ 25, 2­ 27, 2­ 29, 2­ 39, 2­ 55, 2­ 58, 2­ 59, 2­ 64, 2­ 67, 2­ 70, 5­ 14 NAICS 235 ........................ ES­ 59, ES­ 61, ES­ 69, 2­ 3, 2­ 6, 2­ 8, 2­ 9, 2­ 11, 2­ 13, 2­ 29, 2­ 55, 2­ 67, 2­ 70, 6­ 5, 6­ 14 NAICS 23593 ........................... ES­ 59, ES­ 61, ES­ 63, ES­ 65­ 68, 2­ 3, 2­ 6, 2­ 8­ 12, 2­ 14, 2­ 16, 2­ 19, 2­ 26, 2­ 27, 2­ 30, 2­ 58, 2­ 59, 2­ 61­ 63, 2­ 65, 2­ 66, 2­ 68, 2­ 69 NAICS 23594 .............................................................................. 2­ 8, 2­ 10, 2­ 66 National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) ........... ES­ 57, ES­ 66, ES­ 71, ES­ 73, ES­ 97, 1­ 7, 2­ 8, 2­ 26, 2­ 27, 2­ 79, 2­ 80, 4­ 4, 4­ 5, 4­ 10, 4­ 11, 4­ 15­ 17, 4­ 49, 4­ 67, 4­ 68, 4­ 76, 4­ 77, 4A­ 1­ 3, 4A­ 5, 4B­ 1­ 5, 5­ 23, 6­ 11 National Governors Association (NGA) .............................................................. 2­ 46, 2­ 80 11­ 2 Index ( cont. ) Page( s) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) ........ ES­ 56, ES­ 57, ES­ 59, ES­ 67, ES­ 73­ 75, 1­ 1­ 4, 1­ 6, 2­ 5, 2­ 6, 2­ 26, 2­ 27, 2­ 29, 3­ 1­ 4, 3­ 6, 4­ 2, 4­ 3, 4­ 7, 4­ 17, 4­ 48, 4­ 53, 4­ 54, 4­ 75, 4­ 78, 5­ 2, 5­ 7, 5­ 35, 6­ 5, 6­ 11, 6­ 17 National Resources Inventory (NRI) ............................................. 1­ 6, 4­ 45­ 47, 4­ 53, 4­ 54, 4­ 78, 5­ 7 New Community Design (NCD) ..................................................... 2­ 46, 2­ 47, 2­ 48, 2­ 50, 2­ 79 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) .................................................. ES­ 74, 3­ 2, 4­ 6, 4­ 7 nonemployer establishments ....................................................................... 2­ 11, 2­ 12 non­ residential construction .................................................................. 4­ 69, 4­ 71, 5­ 27 North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) ............................................. 2­ 2, 2­ 5, 6­ 3 Notice of Intent (NOI) ................................................................................ 1­ 6 Notice of Termination (NOT) ....................................................................... 3­ 5, 3­ 10 operation and maintenance (O& M) .......................................... ES­ 94, ES­ 95, 4­ 6, 4­ 58, 9­ 1, 9­ 4, 10­ 2 payroll .............................................................. ES­ 61, ES­ 63, ES­ 68, 2­ 2, 2­ 9, 4­ 41, 4­ 42 permittee( s) ................................ ES­ 59, ES­ 67, 1­ 3, 2­ 6, 2­ 27, 2­ 29, 3­ 2, 3­ 4, 3­ 5, 3­ 6, 6­ 5, 6­ 12, 6­ 14, 6­ 18 Phase I ............................................. ES­ 75, 1­ 2, 2­ 5, 3­ 1, 3­ 3, 4­ 2, 4­ 17, 4­ 75, 5­ 2, 5­ 35, 6­ 15, 6­ 16 Phase II .................................... ES­ 57, ES­ 75, 1­ 2, 1­ 3, 1­ 7, 2­ 5, 2­ 81, 3­ 1, 3­ 3, 4­ 2, 4­ 3, 4­ 17, 4­ 48, 4­ 53, 4­ 54, 4­ 75, 4­ 78, 5­ 2, 5­ 7, 5­ 35, 6­ 12, 6­ 15, 6­ 17, 7­ 13 post­ construction .............................................................. ES­ 74, 1­ 3, 3­ 2, 3­ 8, 4­ 12, 6­ 12 potentially affected entities .............................. ES­ 57, ES­ 67, ES­ 68, ES­ 70, ES­ 89, 1­ 1, 1­ 4­ 7, 2­ 4, 2­ 9, 2­ 25, 2­ 27­ 30, 4­ 36­ 38, 6­ 2, 6­ 5, 6­ 9, 6­ 10, 6­ 14, 10­ 1, 10­ 2 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) ......................................................... 3­ 2 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) ........................................................... 3­ 2 principal, interest, taxes, and insurance (PITI) .................................. 2­ 52, 4­ 59, 4­ 60, 4­ 61, 4­ 67, 4­ 68, 4­ 69 producer surplus ............................................................................ 4­ 72, 5­ 31, 9­ 2 profit margin ................................................................................... 2­ 75, 4­ 14 quick ratio .................................................................................... 2­ 70, 2­ 73 rainfall ............................................................................... 1­ 3, 3­ 11, 4­ 73, 6­ 17 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) ......................... ES­ 56, ES­ 58, ES­ 88, ES­ 97, 1­ 1, 1­ 8, 2­ 1, 6­ 1, 6­ 5, 6­ 10, 6­ 11 remodelers ................................................................... ES­ 66, ES­ 67, 2­ 12, 2­ 26, 2­ 27 remodeling .................................. ES­ 57, ES­ 58, ES­ 66­ 68, ES­ 97, 2­ 2, 2­ 8, 2­ 12, 2­ 26­ 28, 2­ 80, 4­ 37, 6­ 5 residential construction ........................... 2­ 2, 2­ 31, 2­ 32, 2­ 54, 2­ 55, 2­ 79, 4­ 4, 4­ 9, 4­ 15, 4­ 26­ 28, 4­ 34, 4­ 36, 4­ 38, 4­ 46, 4­ 49, 4­ 58, 4­ 69, 4­ 71, 4­ 77, 4B­ 2, 5­ 7, 5­ 9, 5­ 10, 5­ 12, 5­ 24, 5­ 27, 6­ 7, 6­ 14 return on assets ................................................................................. 2­ 74, 2­ 75 return on equity .................................................................................... 2­ 75 return on net worth ................................... ES­ 79, ES­ 81, 2­ 74, 2­ 75, 4­ 28, 4­ 29, 4­ 31, 4­ 32, 4­ 40, 5­ 10­ 16 return on sales ................................................................................. 2­ 74, 2­ 75 runoff ......................................... ES­ 56, ES­ 93, 1­ 3, 1­ 4, 1­ 8, 2­ 1, 2­ 48, 2­ 50, 3­ 6­ 9, 4­ 12, 5­ 38, 6­ 13, 6­ 17, 7­ 1, 7­ 7, 7­ 9, 7­ 13 sales to inventory ratio ........................................................................... 2­ 74, 2­ 75 sales to net working capital ratio ................................................................... 2­ 74, 2­ 75 sediment .............................. ES­ 56, ES­ 73, ES­ 74, ES­ 91­ 93, 1­ 1, 1­ 3­ 5, 2­ 28, 2­ 48, 3­ 2­ 7, 3­ 9­ 11, 4­ 1, 5­ 24, 5­ 38, 5­ 39, 6­ 12, 6­ 13, 6­ 16, 7­ 1­ 10, 7­ 12, 8­ 70, 8­ 71 single­ family construction ................ ES­ 60, ES­ 68­ 71, ES­ 73, ES­ 75, ES­ 76, ES­ 78­ 84, ES­ 86, ES­ 87, ES­ 90, ES­ 91, 1­ 5, 2­ 7, 2­ 9, 2­ 10, 2­ 18­ 20, 2­ 22, 2­ 24, 2­ 25, 2­ 28­ 30, 2­ 32, 2­ 35, 2­ 44, 2­ 45, 2­ 50, 2­ 60, 2­ 72, 2­ 79, 4­ 3, 4­ 5, 4­ 8­ 10, 4­ 13, 4­ 15, 4­ 16, 4­ 18, 4­ 26­ 28, 4­ 34, 4­ 36­ 38, 4­ 45­ 49, 4­ 53­ 57, 4­ 72, 4­ 77, 4A­ 1­ 5, 4B­ 1­ 14, 5­ 17­ 23, 5­ 25, 5­ 26, 5­ 29­ 32, 5­ 34, 6­ 4, 6­ 6, 6­ 8, 6­ 10, 6­ 14, 6­ 18, 6­ 19 small business ........................ ES­ 56, ES­ 58, ES­ 68, ES­ 70, ES­ 88­ 91, ES­ 97, 1­ 1, 1­ 8, 2­ 1, 2­ 3, 2­ 11, 2­ 22, 2­ 25, 2­ 81, 4­ 42, 4­ 78, 6­ 1, 6­ 2, 6­ 3, 6­ 4, 6­ 5, 6­ 7, 6­ 9, 6­ 10, 6­ 11, 6­ 16, 6­ 18, 6­ 20, 6­ 21 Small Business Administration (SBA) .................. ES­ 68, ES­ 88, ES­ 97, 2­ 3, 2­ 4, 2­ 10, 2­ 21, 2­ 22, 2­ 24, 2­ 25, 2­ 81, 4­ 42, 4­ 78, 6­ 2, 6­ 3, 6­ 4, 6­ 6, 6­ 10, 6­ 18, 6­ 20 Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) ............................................. ES­ 88, 6­ 1, 6­ 10, 6­ 11, 6­ 16 11­ 3 Index ( cont. ) Page( s) Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) .................. ES­ 56, ES­ 58, ES­ 88, ES­ 97, 1­ 1, 1­ 8, 2­ 1, 6­ 1, 6­ 10, 6­ 11 6­ 10, 6­ 11, 6­ 16, 6­ 18, 6­ 20, 6­ 21 small entities ................................................... ES­ 68, ES­ 69, ES­ 88, ES­ 89, 2­ 3, 2­ 9, 2­ 10, 2­ 11, 2­ 21, 2­ 25, 4­ 2, 6­ 1, 6­ 2, 6­ 5, 6­ 11, 6­ 14, 6­ 17 specialization ratio .......................................................................... 2­ 9, 2­ 18, 2­ 20 storm water .............................. ES­ 56­ 58, ES­ 67, ES­ 73­ 75, ES­ 87, ES­ 93, 1­ 1­ 4, 1­ 7, 1­ 8, 2­ 1, 2­ 5, 2­ 47­ 49, 2­ 79, 2­ 81, 3­ 1­ 5, 3­ 7­ 9, 3­ 11, 4­ 2, 4­ 3, 4­ 6, 4­ 15, 4­ 17­ 19, 4­ 21, 4­ 48, 4­ 51, 4­ 53, 4­ 54, 4­ 58, 4­ 73­ 75, 4­ 76, 4­ 77, 4­ 78, 4B­ 4, 5­ 2, 5­ 7­ 9, 5­ 35, 5­ 39, 6­ 5, 6­ 12, 6­ 13, 6­ 15, 7­ 7, 7­ 8, 7­ 13, 9­ 2 storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) .......................... ES­ 73, ES­ 74, 1­ 3, 3­ 2, 3­ 6, 3­ 7, 3­ 8, 3­ 9, 6­ 12 subdevelopment ..................................................... ES­ 61, 2­ 3, 2­ 9, 2­ 11, 2­ 12, 2­ 66, 2­ 68, 2­ 69 subdivision ........................... ES­ 58, ES­ 60, ES­ 63, ES­ 65, ES­ 68, ES­ 89, 1­ 5, 2­ 1, 2­ 2, 2­ 7, 2­ 8, 2­ 10, 2­ 13­ 16, 2­ 19, 2­ 22, 2­ 24, 2­ 25, 2­ 46, 2­ 48, 2­ 61, 2­ 65, 2­ 66, 2­ 68, 2­ 69, 4­ 5, 4­ 10, 4­ 17, 6­ 3, 6­ 4 supply ............................. ES­ 73, ES­ 86, ES­ 87, 2­ 4, 2­ 30, 2­ 31, 2­ 44, 2­ 46, 2­ 48, 2­ 54, 2­ 69, 2­ 79, 4­ 6, 4­ 58, 4­ 59, 4­ 63­ 67, 4­ 72, 5­ 30, 7­ 4, 9­ 2, 9­ 3 surplus .................................................................. 4­ 66, 4­ 72, 5­ 29, 5­ 31, 7­ 3, 7­ 10, 9­ 2 Survey of Construction ............................................................................... 2­ 31 system enhancement ............................................................................... 2­ 41­ 43 system expansion ................................................................................. 2­ 41­ 43 system preservation ............................................................................... 2­ 41­ 43 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) .................................................................... 1­ 3 total suspended solids (TSS) ................................................. ES­ 91, 3­ 2, 7­ 7, 7­ 8, 7­ 9, 7­ 10, 8­ 71 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) ........................... ES­ 56, ES­ 95, 1­ 1, 1­ 8, 5­ 37, 5­ 39, 9­ 5, 10­ 1, 10­ 2 value of business done ...................................................................... 2­ 12, 2­ 58, 2­ 61 value of construction work .......................... ES­ 65, lxii, 2­ 18, 2­ 20, 2­ 32, 2­ 39, 2­ 55, 2­ 57­ 62, 2­ 69, 4­ 26, 4­ 75, 10­ 2­ 4 value put in place ............................................................ ES­ 57, 1­ 6, 2­ 32, 2­ 37, 2­ 38, 2­ 80 watershed( s) ............................................. 4­ 16, 4­ 34, 4­ 49, 4­ 76, 4A­ 1, 6­ 13, 7­ 2, 7­ 4, 7­ 6, 7­ 8, 8­ 70 welfare .......................... ES­ 94, 2­ 18, 2­ 19, 4­ 58, 4­ 59, 4­ 66, 4­ 67, 4­ 69, 4­ 72, 5­ 24, 5­ 30, 5­ 31, 7­ 2, 7­ 3, 7­ 10, 9­ 2, 9­ 3 willingness to pay .................................................................................... 7­ 3 11­ 4 2002 $ 300 Official Office EPA­ 821­ R­ 02­ 008 Penalty Business of May, Water for Private Use

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.798171

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0030-0026

Supporting & Related Material

Environmental Assessment for Proposed Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category June 2002 Environmental Assessment for Proposed Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category June 2002 United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (4303T) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ guide/ [EPA­ 821­ R­ 02­ 009] Acknowledgments and Disclaimer The Construction and Development Effluent Guidelines proposed rule and support documents were prepared by the C& D Project Team: Eric Strassler, Project Manager; Jesse Pritts, P. E., Engineer; George Denning, Economist; Karen Maher, Environmental Assessor; and Michael G. Lee, Attorney. Technical support for this Environmental Assessment was provided by Tetra Tech, Inc. Neither the United States government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors or other employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use of, or the results of such use of, any information, apparatus, product or process discussed in this report, or represents that its use by such a third party would not infringe on privately owned rights. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement by EPA or recommendation for use. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 i Contents Section 1 Introduction and Background 1.1 Introduction .......................................................... 1­ 1 1.2 Organization of Environmental Assessment ................................. 1­ 2 1.3 Review of Regulatory History Related to C& D Industries ...................... 1­ 3 1.3.1 Clean Water Act ................................................. 1­ 3 1.3.1.1 NPDES Storm Water Permit Program .......................... 1­ 3 1.3.2 Other State and Local Government Storm Water Requirements ............ 1­ 4 Section 2 Categories of Reported Impacts and Pollutants 2.1 Introduction .......................................................... 2­ 1 2.2 Pollutants Associated with Construction and Land Development Storm Water Runoff .................................................... 2­ 2 2.2.1 Sediment ...................................................... 2­ 2 2.2.1.1 Sources of Sediment ....................................... 2­ 2 2.2.1.2 Receiving Waters Impacts ................................... 2­ 5 2.2.2 Metals ........................................................ 2­ 7 2.2.2.1 Sources of Metal Runoff .................................... 2­ 8 2.2.2.2 Metals Impacts on Receiving Waters .......................... 2­ 10 2.2.3 PAHs, and Oil and Grease ........................................ 2­ 11 2.2.3.1 Sources of PAHs, and Oil and Grease ........................ 2­ 11 2.2.3.2 Receiving Water Impacts ................................... 2­ 12 2.2.4 Pathogens .................................................... 2­ 13 2.2.4.1 Sources of Pathogens ...................................... 2­ 13 2.2.4.2 Receiving Water Impacts .................................. 2­ 15 2.3 Physical Impacts of Construction and Land Development Activities ............. 2­ 16 2.3.1 Hydrologic Impacts ............................................. 2­ 18 2.3.1.1 Increased Runoff Volume .................................. 2­ 19 2.3.1.2 Increased Flood Peaks ..................................... 2­ 22 2.3.1.3 Increased Frequency and Volume of Bankfull Flows ............. 2­ 22 2.3.1.4 Changes in Baseflow ...................................... 2­ 22 2.3.2 Impacts on Geomorphology/ Sediment Transport ...................... 2­ 23 2.3.2.1 Increased Transport of Sediment ............................. 2­ 23 2.3.2.2 Decreased Sediment Transport .............................. 2­ 25 2.3.2.3 Increase in Size of Channel ................................. 2­ 26 2.3.3 Changes in Habitat Structure ...................................... 2­ 27 2.3.3.1 Embeddedness ........................................... 2­ 27 2.3.3.2 Large Woody Debris (LWD) ................................ 2­ 28 Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 ii 2.3.3.3 Changes in Stream Features ................................. 2­ 29 2.3.4 Thermal Impacts ............................................... 2­ 29 2.3.5 Direct Channel Impacts .......................................... 2­ 30 2.3.5.1 Channel Straightening and Hardening/ Reduction in First Order Streams ............................................. 2­ 30 2.3.5.2 Fish Blockages ........................................... 2­ 30 2.3.6 Site Differences in Physical Impacts ................................ 2­ 30 Section 3 Description of Assessment Methodology 3.1 Introduction .......................................................... 3­ 1 3.2 Methodology to Estimate Pollutant Loadings from Construction Runoff Water Discharges ...................................................... 3­ 1 3.3 Characterizing the Nation's Stream Network ................................ 3­ 4 3.3.1 Characterizing the Stream Network within Developing Acreage ........... 3­ 9 3.3.2 Characterizing the Flow Conditions in Stream Network ................. 3­ 12 3.3.3 Converting Stream Miles into Impact Estimates ....................... 3­ 14 Section 4 Environmental Benefits Assessment of Evaluated Regulatory Options 4.1 Total Suspended Solids Loadings ......................................... 4­ 1 4.2 Total Suspended Solid In­ Stream Concentrations ............................. 4­ 3 4.3 Miscellaneous Impacts .................................................. 4­ 4 Section 5 References ....................................................... 5­ 1 Appendices A. Evaluating Pollutant Loadings from Construction Activities that Potentially Impact the Environment ...................................................... A­ 1 B. Inventorying of Streams Potentially Impacted by Construction Activities .......... B­ 1 C. Impacts of Construction Activity on Hydrology .............................. C­ 1 Tables Table 1­ 1. Regulatory Options Evaluated for Controlling Discharges from Construction Activities ........................................... 1­ 2 Table 2­ 1. Studies of Soil Erosion as TSS From Construction Sites ................. 2­ 3 Table 2­ 2. Sources of Sediment in Urban Areas ................................. 2­ 4 Table 2­ 3. Source Area Concentrations for TSS in Urban Areas .................... 2­ 4 Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 iii Table 2­ 4. Sediment Impacts on Receiving Waters .............................. 2­ 6 Table 2­ 5. Metal Sources and Hot Spots in Urban Areas .......................... 2­ 9 Table 2­ 6. Metal Source Area Concentrations in Urban Areas .................... 2­ 10 Table 2­ 7. Metals Impacts on Receiving Waters ................................ 2­ 11 Table 2­ 8. Effects of PAHs and Oil and Grease on Receiving Waters ............... 2­ 13 Table 2­ 9. Percentage Detection of Giardia Cysts and Cryptosporidium Oocysts in Subwatersheds and Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent in the New York City Water Supply Watersheds ........................... 2­ 15 Table 2­ 10. Effects of Bacteria on Receiving Waters ............................. 2­ 16 Table 2­ 11. Physical Impacts on Streams ...................................... 2­ 17 Table 2­ 12. Hydrologic Differences Between a Parking Lot and a Meadow ........... 2­ 20 Table 2­ 13. Comparison of Bulk Density for Undisturbed Soils and Common Urban Conditions .............................................. 2­ 21 Table 3­ 1. Common Construction Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs ............. 3­ 2 Table 3­ 2. Site BMPs Evaluated by EPA for Effluent Guidelines Development ........ 3­ 3 Table 3­ 3. Results of the National Stream Survey ............................... 3­ 6 Table 3­ 4. Land Development Annually in Ecoregions ......................... 3­ 11 Table 3­ 5. Characterization of Stream Orders for Ecoregions ..................... 3­ 13 Table 3­ 6. Characterization of Stream Length by Flow Type for Ecoregions ......... 3­ 14 Table 3­ 7. Estimated Miles of Streams Potentially Affected by One Year's Construction ................................................... 3­ 16 Table 3­ 8. Active Construction Site Runoff Scenarios for Option 1 and Option 2 ..... 3­ 18 Table 3­ 9. Runoff Coefficients for Land Uses ................................. 3­ 18 Table 3­ 10. Runoff EMCs for Acres Within a Watershed ......................... 3­ 20 Table 4­ 1. Regulatory Options Evaluated for Controlling Discharges from Construction Activities ........................................... 4­ 1 Table 4­ 2. Estimated TSS Loadings Reductions for Proposed Regulatory Options ...... 4­ 2 Table 4­ 3. Development Scenarios Used to Estimate Impacts of Regulatory Options .... 4­ 3 Table 4­ 4. Estimated Average In­ Stream TSS Concentrations Reduction ............. 4­ 4 Figures Figure 2­ 1. Ultimate Channel Enlargement .................................... 2­ 18 Figure 2­ 2. Altered Hydrograph in Response to Urbanization ..................... 2­ 19 Figure 2­ 3. Runoff Coefficient Versus Impervious Cover ........................ 2­ 20 Figure 2­ 4. Baseflow in Response to Urbanization: Nassau County, NY ............. 2­ 23 Figure 2­ 5. Increased Shear Stress from an Urban Hydrograph .................... 2­ 24 Figure 2­ 6. Sediment Production from Construction Sites ........................ 2­ 25 Figure 2­ 7. Drainage Network of Rock Creek, Maryland, Before and After Urbanization. ............................................. 2­ 26 Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 iv Figure 2­ 8. Channel Enlargement in Watts Branch, Maryland ..................... 2­ 27 Figure 2­ 9. Large Woody Debris as a Function of Watershed Imperviousness ........ 2­ 28 Figure 2­ 10. Stream Temperature Increase in Response to Urbanization .............. 2­ 29 Figure 3­ 1. Ecoregions for Stream Inventorying ................................. 3­ 5 Figure 3­ 2. Land Use Distribution of a Watershed ............................... 3­ 15

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.807574

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0030-0027

Supporting & Related Material

Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines 1. The term impact is used to denote negative conditions related to elevated concentrations of pollutants, physical destruction or alteration of habitat by excessive flows, elevation of water temperature, and loss of fish spawning access due to new road crossings June 2002 1­ 1 Section 1 Introduction and Background 1.1 Introduction The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing national effluent limitation guidelines for the construction and development (C& D) category. By establishing national standards, EPA intends to reduce the environmental impacts of construction site storm water discharges. This environmental assessment has been prepared to support the proposed rule by identifying and estimating the environmental benefits of implementing the proposal. For purposes of the environmental assessment, construction is defined as the process by which land is converted from one land use to another. Hence, construction impacts are a result of how the land is converted, not a result of what the land becomes. 1 Land development is defined in this document as the conversion of land from a pre­ development condition such as rural land use to a post­ development condition such as urban land use. The impacts from the land development industry originate from the post­ development condition (what the land use becomes), which causes adverse environmental effects that were not present in the pre­ development condition. Adverse environmental impacts attributable to the C& D industries have been well documented and include (but are not limited to) alteration of stream flow patterns, change in river channels, and reduction in the water quality of receiving waters as a result of increased generation and transport of sediment. Aquatic habitats also can be damaged as a result of reduced water quality and altered hydrology. These environmental impacts can in turn cause additional environmental and economic damage by increasing the frequency and magnitude of flooding events in vulnerable areas. The purpose of this document is to describe the methods used to evaluate and quantify such impacts as they occur under the current regulatory framework and might occur under the proposed effluent guidelines. This report also presents estimates of the environmental benefits that would accrue from implementation of the proposed technology controls. As discussed later in the document, however, the environmental assessment and the associated Economic Analysis of the proposed rule (EPA, 2002) only partially capture the full range of potential benefits that would derive from implementing the proposed regulations. Not all categories of environmental impacts from C& D activities can be quantified and therefore some are not amenable to monetization procedures. These additional categories of environmental benefits are evaluated in only a qualitative manner. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 1­ 2 The environmental assessment evaluates construction impacts for each of the three regulatory options considered in the proposal. As shown in Table 1­ 1, these options range from no new regulatory requirements (Option 3) to requirements for inspections and certifications of erosion and sediment controls and implementation of new storm water pollution prevention plans for certain sized sites. Table 1­ 1. Regulatory Options Evaluated for Controlling Discharges from Construction Activities Option Description Option 1 ° Applicable to construction sites with one acre or more of disturbed land ° Operators required to: ­ Inspect site throughout land disturbance period ­ Certify that the controls meet the regulatory design criteria as applicable ° Amend NPDES regulations at 40 CFR Part 122 (no new effluent guideline regulations) Option 2 ° Applicable to construction sites with five acres or more of disturbed land ° Operators required to: ­ Prepare storm water pollution prevention plan ­ Design, install, and maintain erosion and sediment controls ­ Inspect site throughout land disturbance period ­ Certify that the controls meet the regulatory design criteria as applicable ° Creates a new effluent guidelines category at 40 CFR Part 450 and amends Part 122 regulations Option 3 ° No new regulatory requirements The assessment, where appropriate, estimates reductions in environmental impacts attributable to EPA's proposed rule. To help the reader understand the estimated changes under the regulatory proposal, the document also summarizes the regulatory framework currently in place. 1.2 Organization of Environmental Assessment This document first provides background information on the current regulatory framework and summarizes how the proposed regulation would alter this framework. Section 2 provides additional background information on how the C& D industries affect the environment through generation of pollutants in storm water runoff and alteration of hydrology. A detailed discussion of the methodology used to estimate environmental impacts from the C& D industries is provided in Section 3. Section 4 presents EPA's estimates of environmental impacts of construction Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 1­ 3 activities under baseline conditions and under the various regulatory options evaluated for the proposed rule. Section 5 provides the references used in the analysis. The appendices are provided primarily for readers who seek further detail about how the methodology was developed. 1.3 Review of Regulatory History Related to C& D Category This subsection describes the federal and state regulations designed to control storm water discharges from the C& D industries. It describes the regulatory framework that is currently in place. 1.3.1 Clean Water Act Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters" (Section 101( a), 33 U. S. C. 1251( a)). To achieve this goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters except in compliance with the statute. CWA section 402 requires "point source" discharges to obtain a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). These permits are issued by EPA regional offices or authorized State agencies. Following enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92­ 500, October 18, 1972), EPA and the States issued NPDES permits to thousands of dischargers, both industrial (e. g. manufacturing, energy and mining facilities) and municipal (sewage treatment plants). In accordance with the Act, EPA promulgated effluent limitation guidelines and standards for many industrial categories, and these requirements are incorporated into the permits. The Water Quality Act of 1987 (Public Law 100­ 4, February 4, 1987) amended the CWA. The NPDES program was expanded by defining municipal and industrial storm water discharges as point sources. Industrial storm water dischargers, municipal separate storm sewer systems and other storm water dischargers designated by EPA must obtain NPDES permits pursuant to section 402( p) (33 U. S. C. 1342( p)). 1.3.1.1 NPDES Storm Water Permit Program EPA's initial storm water regulations, promulgated in 1990, identified construction as one of several types of industrial activity requiring an NPDES permit. These "Phase I" storm water regulations require operators of large construction sites to apply for permits (40 CFR 122.26( b)( 14)( x)). A large­ site construction activity is one that: ° will disturb five acres or greater; or Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 1­ 4 ° will disturb less than five acres but is part of a larger common plan of development or sale whose total land disturbing activities total five acres or greater (or is designated by the NPDES permitting authority); and ° will discharge storm water runoff from the construction site through a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) or otherwise to waters of the United States. The Phase II storm water rule, promulgated in 1999, generally extends permit coverage to sites one acre or greater (40 CFR 122.26( b)( 15)). In addition to requiring permits for construction site discharges, the NPDES regulations require permits for certain MS4s. The local governments responsible for the MS4s must operate a storm water management program. The local programs regulate a variety of business activities that affect storm water runoff, including construction. 1.3.2 Other State and Local Government Storm Water Requirements States and municipalities may have other requirements for flood control, erosion and sediment (E& S) control, and in many cases, storm water quality. Many of these provisions were enacted before the promulgation of the EPA Phase I storm water rule. All states have laws for E& S control, and these are often implemented by MS4s. A summary of existing state and local requirements is provided in the Development Document (EPA, 2002a). Key control measures used by states and municipal/ regional authorities in these programs include: ° Storm water controls designed for peak discharge control ° Storm water controls designed for water quality control ° Storm water controls designed for flood control ° Specified depths of runoff for water quality control ° Percent reduction of loadings for water quality control (primarily solids and sediments) ° Numeric effluent limits for water quality control (primarily total suspended sediments, settleable solids, or turbidity) ° Control measures for biological or habitat protection ° Control measures for physical in­ stream condition controls (primarily streambed and stream bank erosion). Control measures used to reduce pollutants entering water bodies are commonly required during the construction (land disturbance) phase. Post­ construction requirements for pollutant reductions are generally broader and more stringent. Typically, water quantity control measures for peak discharges and runoff volume controls that apply to post­ development conditions are not required during the construction phase. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 1 Section 2 Categories of Reported Impacts and Pollutants 2.1 Introduction Construction and land development activities can generate a broad range of environmental impacts by introducing new sources of contamination and by altering the physical characteristics of the affected land area. In particular, these activities can result in both short­ and long­ term adverse impacts on surface water quality in streams, rivers, and lakes in the affected watershed by increasing the loads of various pollutants in receiving water bodies, including sediments, metals, organic compounds, pathogens, and nutrients. Groundwater also can be adversely affected through diminished recharge capacity. Other potential impacts include the physical alteration of existing streams and rivers due to the excessive flow and velocity of storm water runoff. Construction activities typically involve excavating and clearing existing vegetation. During the construction period, the affected land is usually denuded and the soil compacted, leading to increased storm water runoff and high rates of erosion. If the denuded and exposed areas contain hazardous contaminants, they can be carried at increased rates to surrounding water bodies by storm water runoff. Although the denuded construction site is only a temporary state (usually lasting less than 6 months), the landscape is permanently altered even after the land has been restored by replanting vegetation. For example, a completed construction site typically has a greater proportion of impervious surface than the predevelopment site, leading to changes in the volume and velocity of storm water runoff. Changes in land use might also lead to new sources of pollution, such as oils and metals from motor vehicles, nutrients and pesticides from landscape maintenance, and pathogens from improperly installed or failing septic tanks. Increased pollutant loads are particularly evident when land development takes place in previously undeveloped environments. Together the short­ term impacts from construction activities and the long­ term impacts of development can profoundly change the environment. The following subsections describe how pollutants associated with construction activities and land development storm water discharges can adversely affect the environment. Potential effects include impairment of water quality, destruction of aquatic life habitats, and enlargement of flood plains. To the extent possible, this analysis distinguishes between environmental impacts generated during construction and environmental impacts from post­ development activities. Although in most cases the differences are in magnitude and duration (e. g., sediment runoff), environmental impairment from such contaminants as pathogens are more likely to be associated with the overall urbanization of a watershed than with the types of activities that take place during construction. The discussion of environmental impacts first evaluates the impacts of contaminated runoff and then focuses on the physical impacts of construction and land development. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 2 2.2 Pollutants Associated With Construction and Land Development Storm Water Runoff This subsection describes pollutants associated with construction and land development storm water runoff. The description does not represent the complete suite of contaminants that can be found in the runoff but focuses instead on those that are the most prevalent and of greatest concern to the environment. These pollutants include sediment, metals, poly­ aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), oil, grease, and pathogens. 2.2.1 Sediment Sediment is an important and ubiquitous constituent in urban storm water runoff. Surface runoff and raindrops detach soil from the land surface, resulting in sediment transport into streams. Sediment can be divided into three distinct subgroups: suspended solids, turbidity, and dissolved solids. Total suspended solids (TSS) are a measure of the suspended material in water. The measurement of TSS in urban storm water allows for estimation of sediment transport, which can have significant effects locally and in downstream receiving waters. Turbidity is a function of the suspended solids and is a measure of the ability of light to penetrate the water. Turbidity can exhibit control over biological functions, such as the ability of submerged aquatic vegetation to receive light and the ability of fish to breathe dissolved oxygen through their gills. Total dissolved solids are a measure of the dissolved constituents in water and are a primary indication of the purity of drinking water. 2.2.1.1 Sources of Sediment Construction Sites Erosion from construction sites can be a significant source of sediment pollution to nearby streams. A number of studies have shown high concentrations of TSS in runoff from construction sites, and results from these studies are summarized in Table 2­ 1. One study, conducted in 1986, calculated that construction sites are responsible for an estimated export of 80 million tons of sediment into receiving waters each year (Goldman, 1986, cited in CWP, 2000). On a unit area basis, construction sites export sediment at 20 to 1,000 times the rate of other land uses (CWP, 2000). Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 3 Table 2­ 1. Studies of Soil Erosion as TSS From Construction Sites Site Mean Inflow TSS Concentration (mg/ L) Source Seattle, Washington 17,500 Horner, Guerdy, and Kortenhoff, 1990 SR 204 3,502 Horner, Guerdy, and Kortenhoff, 1990 Mercer Island 1,087 Horner, Guerdy, and Kortenhoff, 1990 RT1 359 Schueler and Lugbill, 1990 RT2 4,623 Schueler and Lugbill, 1990 SB1 625 Schueler and Lugbill, 1990 SB2 415 Schueler and Lugbill, 1990 SB4 2,670 Schueler and Lugbill, 1990 Pennsylvania Test Basin 9,700 Jarrett, 1996 Georgia Model 1,500 – 4,500 Sturm and Kirby, 1991 Maryland Model 1,000 – 5,000 Barfield and Clar, 1985 Uncontrolled Construction Site Runoff (MD) 4,200 York and Herb, 1978 Austin, Texas 600 Dartiguenave, EC Lille, and Maidment, 1997 Hamilton County, Ohio 2,950 Islam, Taphorn, and Utrata­ Halcomb, 1998 Mean TSS (mg/ L) 3,681 NA Post­ Development Conditions as a Source of Sediment Sediment sources in urban environments include bank erosion, overland flow, runoff from exposed soils, atmospheric deposition, and dust (Table 2­ 2). Streets and parking lots accumulate dirt and grime from the wearing of the street surface, exhaust particulates, "blown­ on" soil and organic matter, and atmospheric deposition. Lawn runoff primarily contains soil and organic matter. Source area monitoring data from Bannerman (1993), Waschbusch (2000), and Steuer (1997) are shown in Table 2­ 3. Hot spots were identified for the transport of sediment from the urban land surface, and they include streets, parking lots, and lawns. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 4 Table 2­ 2. Sources of Sediment in Urban Areas Source Area Loading Bank erosion ° Up to 75 percent in California and Texas studies Overland flow ° Lawns ­ average value of geometric means from 4 studies: 201 mg/ L Runoff from areas with exposed soils ° Average value: 3,640 mg/ L Blown­ on material and organic matter ° May account for as much as 35 to 50 percent in urban areas Bannerman et al., 1993; Dartinguenave et al., 1997; Schueler, 1987; Steuer et al., 1997; Trimble, 1997; Waschbusch et al., 2000; Table 2­ 3. Source Area Concentrations for TSS in Urban Areas Source Area TSS (mg/ L) a TSS (mg/ L) b TSS (mg/ L) c Monroe Basin Harper Basin Commercial parking lot 110 58 51 High­ traffic street 226 232 65 Medium­ traffic street 305 326 51 Low­ traffic street 175 662 68 69 Commercial rooftop 24 15 18 Residential rooftop 36 27 15 17 Residential driveway 157 173 34 Residential lawn 262 397 59 122 a Steuer et al., 1997. b Bannerman et al., 1993. c Waschbusch et al., 2000. Parking lots and streets are responsible not only for high concentrations of sediment but also for high runoff volumes. Normally about 90 percent of the water that falls on pavement is converted to surface runoff, whereas roughly 5 to15 percent of the water that falls on lawns is converted to surface runoff (Schueler, 1987). The source load and management model (SLAMM; Pitt and Voorhes, 1989) evaluates runoff volume and concentrations of pollutants from different urban Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 5 land uses and predicts loads to the stream. When used in the Wisconsin and Michigan subwatersheds, the model estimated that parking lots and streets were responsible for more than 70 percent of the TSS delivered to the stream (Steuer, 1997; Waschbusch et al., 2000). Because basin water quality measurements were taken at pipe outfalls, bank erosion was not accounted for in the studies. Sediment load is due to erosion caused by an increased magnitude and frequency of flows brought on by urbanization (Allen and Narramore, 1985; Booth, 1990; Hammer, 1972; Leopold, 1968). Stream bank studies by Dartinguenave et al. (1997) and Trimble (1997) determined that stream banks are large contributors of sediment in urban streams. Trimble (1997) used direct measurements of stream cross sections, sediment aggradation, and suspended sediment to determine that roughly 66.7 percent of the sediment load in San Diego Creek was a result of bank erosion. Dartiguenave et al. (1997) used a GIS­ based model developed in Austin, Texas, to determine the effects of stream channel erosion on sediment loads. By effectively modeling the pollutant loads on the land surface and by monitoring the actual in­ stream loads at U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauging stations, they were able to determine that over 75 percent of the sediment load came from the stream banks. 2.2.1.2 Receiving Waters Impacts Sediment transport and turbidity can affect habitat, water quality, temperature, and pollutant transport, and can cause sedimentation in downstream receiving waters (Table 2­ 4). Suspended sediment and its resulting turbidity can reduce light for submerged aquatic vegetation. In addition, deposited sediment can cover and suffocate benthic organisms like clams and mussels, cover habitat for substrate­ oriented species in urban streams, and reduce storage in reservoirs. Pollutants such as hydrocarbons and metals tend to bind to sediment and are transported with storm flow (Crunkilton et al., 1996; Novotny and Chesters, 1989). Increased turbidity also can cause stream warming by reflecting radiant energy (Kundell and Rasmussen, 1995). Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 6 Table 2­ 4. Sediment Impacts on Receiving Waters Resource Affected Impacts of Sediment Indicator Source Streams Loss of sensitive species and a decrease in fish and macroinvertebrate diversity communities GA loss of sensitive species at 25 NTU Kundell and Rasmussen, 1995 Clogging of gills and loss of habitat Leopold, 1973 Decreased flow capacity in streams Maryland decreased flow capacity. Increased overbank flows Barrett and Molina, 1998 Interference with water quality processes. Affects transport of contaminants MacRae and Marsalek, 1992 Wetlands Deposition of sediment High accretion rates in a tidal wetland as a result of sediment transport in an urbanized watershed Pasternack, 1998 Loss of sensitive species: amphibians, plants Loss of amphibian species Horner, 1996 Loss of seven wetland/ SAV plant species since European development Hilgartner, 1986 Reservoirs Turbidity results in increased costs of treatment for drinking water more abatement costs at >5 NTU McCutcheon et al., 1993 Sedimentation results in decreased storage Beaches Turbidity reduces aesthetic value Kundell and Rasmussen, 1995 Sedimentation can result in increased accretion rates in wetlands and change plant community structure Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines Table 2­ 4. Sediment Impacts on Receiving Waters Resource Affected Impacts of Sediment Indicator Source June 2002 2­ 7 Estuaries Sedimentation Pasternack, 1998 Turbidity Livingston, 1996 Reduced light attenuation can lead to a loss of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) Schiff, 1996 Mackiernan et al., 1996 SAV losses due to sediments and eutrophication Short and WyllieEcheverria 1996 SAV losses in NE Orth and Moore, 1983 Essential habitat requirements for SAV include light attenuation, dissolved inorganic nitrogen, phosphorus and chlorophyl­ a Stevenson et al., 1993 Loss of seven wetland/ SAV plant species since European settlement Hilgartner, 1986 2.2.2 Metals Many toxic metals can be found in urban storm water, although only metals such as zinc, copper, lead, cadmium, and chromium are of concern because of their prevalence and potential for environmental harm. These metals are generated by motor vehicle exhaust, the weathering of buildings, the burning of fossil fuels, atmospheric deposition, and other common urban activities. Metals can bioaccumulate in stream environments, resulting in plant growth inhibition and adverse health effects on bottom­ dwelling organisms (Masterson and Bannerman, 1995). Generally the concentrations found in urban storm water are not high enough for acute toxicity (Field and Pitt, 1990). Rather, it is the cumulative effect of the concentration of these metals over time and the buildup in the sediment and animal tissue that are of greater concern. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 8 2.2.2.1 Sources of Metal Runoff Construction Sites Construction sites are not thought to be important sources of metal contamination. Runoff from such sites could have high metals contents if the soil is already contaminated. Construction activities alone do not result in metal contamination. Post­ Development Conditions as a Source of Metals Post­ development conditions create significant sources of metal runoff in the urban environment, including streets, parking lots, and rooftops. Table 2­ 5 summarizes the major sources of metal runoff by metal type. Copper can be found in high concentrations on urban streets as a result of the wear of brake pads that contain copper. A study in Santa Clara, California, estimated that 50 percent of the copper released is from brake pads (Woodward­ Clyde, 1992). Sources of lead include atmospheric deposition and diesel fuel, which are found consistently on streets and rooftops. Zinc in urban environments is a result of the wear of automobile tires (an estimated 60 percent of the total zinc in the Santa Clara study), paints, and the weathering of galvanized gutters and downspouts. Source area concentrations estimated by researchers in Wisconsin and Michigan are presented in Table 2­ 6. Actual concentrations vary considerably, and highconcentration source areas vary from study to study. A study using SLAMM for an urban watershed in Michigan estimated that most of the zinc, copper, and cadmium was a result of runoff from urban parking lots, driveways, and residential streets (Steuer, 1997). Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 9 Table 2­ 5. Metal Sources and Hot Spots in Urban Areas Metal Sources Hot Spots Zinc Tires, fuel combustion, galvanized pipes and gutters, road salts Estimate of 60% from tires a Parking lots, rooftops, and streets Copper Auto brake linings, pipes and fittings, algacides, and electroplating Estimate of 50% from brake pads a Parking lots, commercial roofs, and streets Lead Diesel fuel, paints, and stains Parking lots, rooftops, and streets Cadmium Component of motor oil; corrodes from alloys and plated surfaces Parking lots, rooftops, and streets Chromium Found in exterior paints; corrodes from alloys and plated surfaces More frequently found in industrial and commercial runoff a Woodward­ Clyde, 1992 (Santa Clara, CA, study) Sources: Barr, 1997; Bannerman et al., 1993; Steuer, 1997 Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 10 Table 2­ 6. Metal Source Area Concentrations in Urban Areas (in ug/ L) Source Area Diss. Zinc Total Zinc Diss. Copper Diss. Copper Total Copper Diss. Lead Diss. Lead Total Lead Total Lead Total Lead Citation (a) (b) (a) (b) (b) (a) (c) (a) (c) (b) Commercial parking lot 64 178 10.7 9 15 40 22 High­ traffic street 73 508 11.2 18 46 2.1 1.7 37 25 50 Mediumtraffic street 44 339 7.3 24 56 1.5 1.9 29 46 55 Low­ traffic street 24 220 7.5 9 24 1.5 0.5 21 10 33 Commercial rooftop 263 330 17.8 6 9 20 48 9 Residential rooftop 188 149 6.6 10 15 4.4 25 21 Residential driveway 27 107 11.8 9 17 2.3 52 17 Residential lawn na 59 na 13 13 na na na Basin outlet 23 203 7.0 5 16 2.4 49 32 na : not available Sources: (a) Steuer 1997; (b) Bannerman 1993; (c) Waschbusch, 1996, cited in Steuer, 1997 2.2.2.2 Metals Impacts on Receiving Waters Downstream effects of metal transported to receiving waters, such as lakes and estuaries, have been studied extensively. Selected studies on metal impacts on receiving waters are summarized in Table 2­ 7. Although evidence exists for the buildup of metals in deposited sediments in receiving waters and for bioaccumulation in aquatic species (Bay et al., 2000; Livingston, 1996), specific effects of these concentrations on submerged aquatic vegetation and other biota are not well understood. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 11 Table 2­ 7. Metals Impacts on Receiving Waters Resource Affected Impacts of Metals Evidence Streams ° Chronic toxicity due to in­ stream concentrations and accumulation in sediment ° Bioaccumulation in aquatic species ° Acute toxicity at certain concentrations Chronic toxicity increased during longerduration studies, i. e., 7/ 14/ 21­ day studies (Crunkilton, 1996); Delayed toxicity (Ellis, 1986/ 1987); Baseflow toxicity (Mederios, 1983); Resuspension of metals during storms accounting for some toxicological effects (Heaney and Huber, 1978); Bioaccumulation in crayfish (Masterson & Bannerman, 1994) Reservoirs/ Lakes ° Accumulation of metals in sediment Bioaccumulation levels in bottom­ feeding fish were found to be influenced by the metal levels of the bottom sediments of storm water ponds (Campbell, 1995). Estuaries ° Accumulation of metals in sediment ° Loss of SAV Tampa Bay (Livingston, 1996); San Diego (Schiff 1996); SAV losses in northeast San Francisco Bay (Orth and Moore, 1983) 2.2.3 PAHs, and Oil and Grease Petroleum­ based substances such as oil and grease and poly­ aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are found frequently in urban storm water. Many constituents of PAHs and oil and grease, such as pyrene and benzo[ b] fluoranthene, are carcinogens and toxic to downstream biota (Menzie­ Cura and Assoc., 1995). Oil and grease and PAHs normally travel attached to sediment and organic carbon. Downstream accumulation of these pollutants in the sediments of receiving waters such as streams, lakes, and estuaries is of concern. 2.2.3.1 Sources of PAHs, and Oil and Grease Construction Sites Construction activities during site development are not believed to be major contributors of these contaminants to storm water runoff. Improper operation and maintenance of construction equipment at construction sites, as well as poor housekeeping practices (e. g., improper storage of oil and gasoline products), could lead to leakage or spillage of products that contain hydrocarbons, but these incidents would likely be small in magnitude and managed before offsite contamination could occur. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 12 Post­ Development Conditions as a Source of PAHs, and Oil and Grease In most storm water runoff, concentrations of PAHs and oil and grease are typically below 5 mg/ L but concentrations tend to increase in commercial and industrial areas. Hot spots for these pollutants in the urban environment include gas stations, commuter parking lots, convenience stores, residential parking areas, and streets (Schueler, 1994). Schueler and Shepp (1993) found concentrations of pollutants in oil/ grit separators in the Washington Metropolitan area and determined that gas stations had significantly higher concentrations of hydrocarbons and a greater presence of toxic compounds than streets and residential parking lots. A study of source areas in an urban watershed in Michigan (which excluded gas stations) showed that high concentrations from commercial parking lots contributed 64 percent of the estimated hydrocarbon loads (Steuer et al., 1997). 2.2.3.2 Receiving Water Impacts Toxicological effects from PAHs and oil and grease are assumed to be reduced by their attachment to sediment (lessened availability) and by photodegradation (Schueler, 1994). Evidence of possible impacts on the metabolic health of organisms exposed to PAHs and of bioaccumulation in streams and other receiving waters does not exist (Masterson and Bannerman, 1994; MacCoy and Black, 1998); however, crayfish from Lincoln Creek, analyzed in the Masterson and Bannerman study, had a PAH concentration of 360 micrograms per kilogram— much higher than the concentration known to be carcinogenic. The crayfish in the control stream did not have detectable levels of PAHs. Known effects of PAHs on receiving waters are summarized in Table 2­ 8. Long­ term effects of PAHs in sediments of receiving waters call for additional study. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 13 Table 2­ 8. Effects of PAHs and Oil and Grease on Receiving Waters Resource Affected Impacts of PAHs and Oil and Grease Citations Streams ° Possible chronic toxicity due to in­ stream concentrations and accumulation in sediment ° Bioaccumulation in aquatic species ° Acute toxicity at certain concentrations Bioaccumulation in crayfish tissue studies (Masterson and Bannerman, 1994); Potential metabolic costs to organisms (Crunkilton et al., 1996); delayed toxicity (Ellis, 1986/ 1987); Baseflow toxicity (Mederios, 1983) Reservoirs ° Accumulation of PAHs in sediment Sediment contamination may result in a decrease in benthic diversity and transfer of PAHs to fish tissue (Schueler, 2000­ CWP); Elevated levels of PAHs found in pond muck layer (Gavens et al., 1982) Estuaries ° Accumulation of PAHs in sediment ° Potential loss of SAV ° Accumulation of PAHs in fish and shellfish tissue Tampa Bay (Livingston, 1996); San Diego, San Francisco Bay (Schiff, 1996) 2.2.4 Pathogens Microbes, or living organisms undetectable by the naked eye, are commonly found in urban storm water. Although not all microbes are harmful, several species such as the pathogens Cryptosporidium and Giardia can directly cause diseases in humans (pathogens). The presence of bacteria such as fecal coliform bacteria, fecal streptococci, and Escherichia coli indicates a potential health risk (indicators). High levels of these bacteria may result in beach closings, restrictions on shellfish harvest, and increased treatment for drinking water to decrease the risk of human health problems. 2.2.4.1 Sources of Pathogens Construction Sites Construction site activities are not believed to be major contributors to pathogen contamination of surface waters. The only potential known source of pathogens from construction sites are portable septic tanks used by construction workers. These systems, however, are typically selfcontained and are not connected to the land surface. Any leaks from them would likely be identified and addressed quickly. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 14 Post­ Development Conditions as a Source of Pathogen Runoff Coliform sources include pets, humans, and wild animals. Source areas in the urban environment for direct runoff include lawns, driveways, and streets. Dogs have high concentrations of coliform bacteria in their feces and have a tendency to defecate in close proximity to impervious surfaces (Schueler, 1999). Many wildlife species also have been found to contribute to high fecal concentrations. Essentially, any species that is present in significant numbers in a watershed is a potential pathogen source. Source identification studies, using methods such as DNA fingerprinting, have attributed high coliform levels to such species as rats in urban areas, ducks and geese in storm water ponds, dogs, and even raccoons (Blankenship, 1996; Lim and Oliveri, 1982; Pitt et al., 1988; Samadapour and Checkowitz, 1998). Indirect surface storm water runoff sources include leaking septic systems, illicit discharges, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and combined sewer overflows (CSOs). These sources have the potential to deliver high concentrations of coliforms to receiving waters. Illicit connections from businesses and homes to the storm drainage system can discharge sewage or washwater into receiving waters. Leaking septic systems are estimated to constitute 10 to 40 percent of all systems. Inspection is the best way to determine whether a system is failing (Schueler, 1999). There is also evidence that these bacteria can survive and reproduce in stream sediments and in storm sewers. During a storm event, they are resuspended and add to the in­ stream bacteria load. Source area studies reported that end­ of­ pipe concentrations were an order of magnitude higher than any source area on the land surface; therefore, it is likely that the storm sewer system itself acts as a source (Bannerman, 1993; Steuer et al., 1997). Resuspension of fecal coliform bacteria from fine stream sediments during storm events has been reported in New Mexico (NMSWQB, 1999). The sediments in the storm sewer system and in streams may be significant contributors to the fecal coliform load. This area of research certainly warrants more attention to determine whether these sources can be quantified and remediated. Giardia and Cryptosporidium in urban storm water are also a concern. There is evidence that urban watersheds and storm events might have higher concentrations of Giardia and Cryptosporidium than other surface waters (Stern, 1996). (See Table 2­ 9.) The primary sources of these pathogens are humans and wildlife. Although Cryptosporidium is found in less than 50 percent of storm water samples, data suggest that high Cryptosporidium values may be a concern for drinking water supplies. Both pathogens can cause serious gastrointestinal problems in humans (Bagley et al., 1998). Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 15 Table 2­ 9. Percentage Detection of Giardia Cysts and Cryptosporidium Oocysts in Subwatersheds and Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent in the New York City Water Supply Watersheds Source Water Sampled (No. of sources/ No. of samples) Percent Detection Total Giardia Confirmed Giardia Total Cryptosporidium Confirmed Cryptosporidium Wastewater effluent (8/ 147) 41.5 12.9 15.7 5.4 Urban subwatershed (5/ 78) 41.0 6.4 37.2 3.9 Agricultural subwatershed (5/ 56) 30.4 3.6 32.1 3.6 Undisturbed subwatershed (5/ 73) 26.0 0.0 9.6 1.4 Source: Stern et al., 1996. 2.2.4.2 Receiving Water Impacts Fecal coliform bacteria, fecal streptococci, and E. coli are consistently found in urban storm water runoff. Their presence indicates that human or other animal waste is also present in the water and that other harmful bacteria, viruses, or protozoans might be present as well. Concentrations of these indicator organisms in urban storm water are highly variable even within a given monitoring site. Data for fecal coliform bacteria illustrate this variability: site concentrations range from 10 to 500,000 most probable number per 100 milliliters (MPN/ 100mL) (Schueler, 1999). Concentrations in urban storm water typically far exceed the 200 MPN/ 100 mL threshold set for human contact recreation. The mean concentration of fecal coliform bacteria in urban storm water for 34 studies across the United States was 15,038 MPN/ 100mL (Schueler, 1999). Another national database of 1,600 samples (mostly Nationwide Urban Runoff Program data collected in the 1980s), estimates the mean concentration at 20,000 MPN/ 100 mL (Pitt, 1998). Fecal streptococci concentrations for 17 urban sites had a mean of 35,351 MPN/ 100 mL (Schueler, 1999). Transport occurs primarily as a result of direct surface runoff, failing septic systems, SSOs, CSOs, and illicit discharges. Human health can be affected by bacterial impacts on receiving waters when bacteria standards for water contact recreation, shellfish consumption, or drinking water are violated. Epidemiological studies from Santa Monica Bay have documented frequent sickness in people who swim near outfalls (SMBRP, 1996). Documented illnesses include fever, ear infections, gastroenteritis, nausea, and flu­ like symptoms. Table 2­ 10 describes the effects of bacteria and protozoan problems on different receiving waters. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 16 Table 2­ 10. Effects of Bacteria on Receiving Waters Resource Affected Impacts of Bacteria Citations Streams ° Human health issues More than 80,000 miles of streams and rivers in non­ attainment because of high fecal coliform levels (USEPA, 1998a) Reservoirs ° Contamination of water supply Increased treatment cost of drinking water due to bacteria contamination (USEPA, 1996) Beaches ° Human health issues More than 4,000 beach closings or advisories (USEPA, 1998b) Estuaries ° Closing of shellfish beds ° Beach closings Nearly 4% of all shellfish beds restricted or conditional harvest due to high bacteria levels (NOAA 1992); More than 4,000 beach closings or advisories (USEPA, 1998b) 2.3 Physical Impacts of Construction and Land Development Activities This subsection describes the physical impacts of construction activities and development conditions, which include hydrologic, geomorphic, habitat structure, thermal, and direct channel impacts. These impacts are most visible on the urban stream. Construction and land development impacts on stream systems are described for each of these impact categories (Table 2­ 11). Site differences of these impacts are also noted. Because it is very difficult to differentiate between physical impacts that occur during construction and impacts that result from post­ development conditions, the discussion addresses physical impacts from a broader perspective. It does not differentiate between short­ term effects arising and site construction activities from long­ term impacts of post­ development conditions. Physical changes are often precipitated by changes in hydrology that result when permeable rural and forest land is converted to impervious surfaces like pavement and rooftops and relatively impermeable urban soils. The conversion causes a fundamental change in the hydrologic cycle because a greater fraction of rainfall is converted to surface runoff. This change in the basic hydrologic cycle causes a series of other impacts (Table 2­ 11). The stream immediately begins to adjust its size, through channel erosion, to accommodate larger flows. Streams normally increase their cross­ sectional area by incising, widening, or often both. This process of channel response to increases in impervious surfaces accelerates sediment transport and destroys habitat. In addition, urbanization frequently leads to alteration of natural stream channels, such as Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 17 straightening or lining with concrete or rock to transport water away from developed areas more quickly. Finally, impervious surfaces also absorb heat, thereby increasing stream temperatures during runoff events. Table 2­ 11. Physical Impacts on Streams Impact Class Specific Impacts Cause( s) Hydrologic ° Increased runoff volume ° Increased peak flood flow ° Increased frequency of "bankfull" event ° Decreased baseflow ° Paving over natural surfaces ° Compaction of urban soils Geomorphic ° Sediment transport modified ° Channel area increase to accommodate larger flows ° Modified flows ° Channel modification ° Construction Habitat structure ° Stream embeddedness ° Loss of large woody debris ° Changes in pool/ riffle structure ° Modified flows ° Stream channel erosion ° Loss of riparian area Thermal ° Increased summer temperatures ° Heated pavement ° Storm water ponds ° Loss of riparian area Channel modification ° Channel hardening ° Fish blockages ° Loss of first and second order streams through storm drain enclosure ° Direct modifications to the stream system. Figure 2­ 1 depicts the impacts of land development on the stream channel. At low levels of imperviousness, the stream has a stable channel, contains large woody debris, and has a complex habitat structure. As urbanization increases, the stream becomes increasingly unstable, increases its cross­ sectional area to accommodate increased flows, and loses habitat structure. In highly urbanized areas, stream channels are often modified through channelization or channel hardening. These physical changes are often accompanied by decreased water quality. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 18 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10. 00 12. 00 14. 00 0.0 10. 0 20. 0 30. 0 40. 0 50. 0 60. 0 70. 0 80. 0 Impervi ousness (%) Enlargement Ratio Figure 2­ 1. Ultimate Channel Enlargement (Claytor and Brown, 2000; MacRae and DeAndrea, 1999) 2.3.1 Hydrologic Impacts The increased runoff volume that results from land development alters the hydrograph, from its predeveloped condition (Figure 2­ 2). The resulting hydrograph accommodates larger flows with higher peak­ flow rates. Because storm drain conveyance systems (e. g., curbs, gutters) improve the efficiency with which water is delivered to the stream, the hydrograph is also characterized by a more rapid time of concentration and peak discharge. Finally, the flow in the stream between events can actually decrease because less rainfall percolates into the soil surface to feed the stream as baseflow. The resulting hydrologic impacts include increased runoff volume, increased flood peaks, increased frequency and magnitude of bankfull storms, and decreased baseflow volumes. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 19 Figure 2­ 2. Altered Hydrograph in Response to Urbanization (Schueler, 1987) 2.3.1.1 Increased Runoff Volume Impervious surfaces and urban land use changes alter infiltration rates and increase runoff volumes. Table 2­ 12 shows the difference in runoff volume between a meadow and a parking lot. The parking lot produces approximately 15 times more runoff than a meadow for the same storm event. Schueler (1987) demonstrated that runoff values increase significantly with the impervious surfaces in a watershed (Figure 2­ 3). The increased volume of water from urban areas is the greatest single cause of the negative impacts of urban storm water on receiving waters. The volume causes channel erosion and loss of habitat stability, as well as an increase in the total load of many pollutants such as sediment and nutrients. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 20 Table 2­ 12. Hydrologic Differences Between a Parking Lot and a Meadow Hydrologic or Water Quality Parameter Parking Lot Meadow Runoff coefficient 0.95 0.06 Time of concentration (minutes) 4.8 14.4 Peak discharge, 2­ yr, 24­ h storm (ft 3 /s) 4.3 0.4 Peak discharge rate, 100­ yr storm (ft 3 /s) 12.6 3.1 Runoff volume from 1­ in. storm (ft 3 ) 3,450 218 Runoff velocity @ 2­ yr storm (ft/ sec) 8 1.8 Key Assumptions: 2­ yr, 24­ hr storm = 3.1 in.; 100­ yr storm = 8.9 in. Parking Lot: 100% imperviousness; 3% slope; 200­ ft flow length; hydraulic radius = 0.03; concrete channel; suburban Washington `C' values Meadow: 1% impervious; 3% slope; 200­ ft flow length; good vegetative condition; B soils; earthen channel Source: Schueler, 1987. Figure 2­ 3. Runoff Coefficient Versus Impervious Cover (Schueler, 1987). Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 21 Construction activities also cause fundamental modifications in native soils. The compaction of urban soils and the removal of topsoil during construction decreases the infiltration capacity of the soil, resulting in a corresponding increase in runoff (Schueler, 2000). The bulk density is a measure of soil compaction, and Table 2­ 13 shows the values for different aspects of urbanization. Table 2­ 13. Comparison of Bulk Density for Undisturbed Soils and Common Urban Conditions Undisturbed Soil Type or Urban Condition Surface Bulk Density (grams/ cubic centimeter) Peat 0.2 to 0.3 Compost 1.0 Sandy Soils 1.1 to 1.3 Silty Sands 1.4 Silt 1.3 to 1.4 Silt Loams 1.2 to 1.5 Organic Silts/ Clays 1.0 to 1.2 Glacial Till 1.6 to 2.0 Urban Lawns 1.5 to 1.9 Crushed Rock Parking Lot 1.5 to 1.9 Urban Fill Soils 1.8 to 2.0 Athletic Fields 1.8 to 2.0 Rights of Way and Building Pads (85%) 1.5 to 1.8 Rights of Way and Building Pads (95%) 1.6 to 2.1 Concrete Pavement 2.2 Note: Shading indicates "urban" conditions. Source: Schueler, 2000. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 22 2.3.1.2 Increased Flood Peaks Increased flow volume increases peak flows. Data from Sauer et al. (1983) suggest that peak flow from large flood events (10­ year to 100­ year storm events) increases substantially with urbanization. The paper presents results of a survey of urban watersheds throughout the United States and predicts flood peaks based on watershed impervious cover and a "basin development factor" that reflects watershed characteristics such as the amount of curb and gutter, and channel modification. These data suggest that at 50 percent impervious cover, the peak flow for the 100­ year event can be as much as twice that in an equivalent rural watershed. Data from Seneca Creek in Montgomery County, Maryland, suggest a similar trend. The watershed experienced significant growth during the 1950s and 1960s. Comparison of gauge records from 1961 to 1990 to those from 1931 to 1960 suggests that the peak 10­ year flow event increased from 7,300 to 16,000 cfs, an increase of more than 100 percent (Leopold, 1994). 2.3.1.3 Increased Frequency and Volume of Bankfull Flows Stream channel morphology is more influenced by frequent (1­ to 2­ year) storm events, or "bankfull" flows, than by large flood events. Hollis (1975) demonstrated that urbanization increased the frequency and magnitude of these smaller­ sized runoff events much more than the larger events. Data from this study suggest that streams increase their 2­ year bankfull discharge by two to five times after development takes place. Many other studies have documented the increase in flow associated with impervious cover. A study by Guay (1995) compared the 2­ year flows events before and after development in an urban watershed in Parris Valley, California, in the 1970s and in the 1990s. The impervious level of 9 percent in the 1970s increased to 22.5 percent by the 1990s. The 2­ year discharge more than doubled from 646 cfs to 1,348 cfs. A 13 percent change in impervious cover resulted in a doubling of the 2­ year peak flow. A significant impact of land development is the frequency with which the bankfull event occurs. Leopold (1994) observed a dramatic increase in the frequency of the bankfull event in Watts Branch, an urban subwatershed in Rockville, Maryland. This watershed also experienced significant development between the 1950s and 1960s. A comparison of gauge records indicated that the bankfull storm event frequency increased from two to seven times per year from 1958 to 1987. 2.3.1.4 Changes in Baseflow Land development results in a smaller recharge to groundwater and a corresponding decrease in stream flow during dry periods (baseflow). Only a small amount of evidence, however, documents this decrease in baseflow. Spinello and Simmons (1992) demonstrated that baseflow in two urban Long Island streams went dry seasonally as a result of urbanization (Figure 2­ 4). Another study in North Carolina could not conclusively determine that urbanization reduced baseflow in some streams in that area (Evett et al., 1994). It is important to note, however, that Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 23 groundwater flow paths are often complex. Water supplying baseflow feeding the stream can be from deeper aquifers or can originate in areas outside the surface watershed boundary. In arid and semiarid areas, watershed managers have reported that baseflow actually increases in urban areas. Increased infiltration from people watering their lawns and return flow from sewage treatment plants are two possible sources (Caraco, 2000). Recharge of clean groundwater is important in these communities, and managers would rather see clean water infiltrated than transported as surface water during storm events. Figure 2­ 4. Baseflow in Response to Urbanization: Nassau County, NY (Spinello and Simmons, 1992) 2.3.2 Impacts on Geomorphology/ Sediment Transport Changes in hydrology, combined with additional sediment sources from construction and modifications to the stream channel, result in changes to the geomorphology of stream systems. These impacts include increased, and sometimes decreased, sediment transport and channel enlargement to accommodate larger flows. 2.3.2.1 Increased Transport of Sediment The increased frequency of bankfull (1­ to 2­ year) storms causes more "effective work" (as defined by Leopold), causing greater sediment transport and bank erosion to take place within the channel. For the same storm event, the increased volume results in a greater amount of total stress above the critical shear stress required to move bank sediment (Figure 2­ 5). This effect is Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 24 compounded by the fact that smaller, more frequent storm events also cause flows in excess of the stress required to move sediment. Figure 2­ 5. Increased Shear Stress from an Urban Hydrograph (Schueler, 1987) The result of this change in effective work on stream banks is increased channel erosion. Studies in California (Trimble, 1997) and Austin, Texas (Dartinguenave et al., 1997) suggest that 60 to 75 percent of the sediment transport in urban watersheds is from channel erosion as compared to estimates of between 5 percent and 20 percent for rural streams (Collins et al., 1997; Walling and Woodward, 1995). If the sediment is not deposited in the channel at obstructions, it is transported downstream to receiving waters such as lakes, estuaries, or rivers. The result can be reduced storage and habitat due to the filling of these water bodies. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 25 The clearing and grading of land for new construction at the outset of urbanization is another source of sediment in urban streams. Figure 2­ 6 (from Leopold, 1968) illustrates the difference in sediment from uncontrolled and controlled construction sites. Figure 2­ 6. Sediment Production from Construction Sites (Leopold, 1968) 2.3.2.2 Decreased Sediment Transport Decreased sediment transport off the land surface itself can result after urbanization as natural drainage and first­ order channels are replaced by storm drains and pipes (Figure 2­ 7). Channel erosion downstream might result when any export of sediment is not replaced by diminished upstream sediment supply. Ultimately, after significant erosion has taken place, the downstream channel will have adjusted to its post­ development flow regime and sediment transport will be reduced. Hence, the stability of the land surface and the piping of drainage channels limit storm water's exposure to sediment and reduce the sediment supply. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 26 Figure 2­ 7. Drainage Network of Rock Creek, Maryland Before and After Urbanization (Dunne and Leopold, 1978) 2.3.2.3 Increase in Size of Channel Channels increase their cross­ sectional area to respond to higher and more frequent urban flows. In post­ development urban watersheds, the increase in frequency of this channel­ forming event normally causes sediment transport to be greater than sediment supply. The channel widens (and/ or downcuts) in response to this change in sediment equilibrium (Allen and Narramore, 1985; Booth, 1990 Hammer, 1977; Morisawa and LaFlure, 1979;). Some research suggests that over time channels will reach an "ultimate enlargement," relative to a predeveloped condition, and that impervious cover can predict this enlargement ratio (MacRae and DeAndrea, 1999). This was shown in Figure 2­ 3, which depicted the relationship between ultimate stream channel enlargement and impervious cover for alluvial streams, based on data from Texas, Vermont, and Maryland. Figure 2­ 8 shows the channel expansion that has taken place and is projected to occur in Watts Branch near Rockville, Maryland, in response to urbanization. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 27 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Cross Section Stations (ft) ­ Looking Downstream Elevation (ft­ msl) Historic Section Curr ent Section Bankfull Depth Ultimate Section ? Historic c ross­ section Current cross­ section Ultimate c ross­ section ? Figure 2­ 8. Channel Enlargement in Watts Branch, Maryland (Schueler, 1987) Note: Cross sections have been overlaid for illustration purposes only. Actual sections do not share the same datum. Stream channels expand by incision, widening, or both. Incision occurs when the stream downcuts and the channel expands in the vertical direction. Widening occurs when the sides of the channel erode and the channel expands horizontally. Either method results in increased transport of sediment downstream and degradation of habitat. Channel incision is often limited by grade control from bedrock, large substrate, bridges, or culverts. These structures impede the downward erosion of the stream channel and limit incision. In substrates such as sand, gravel, and clay, however, stream incision can be of greater concern (Booth, 1990). Channel widening more frequently occurs when streams have grade control and the stream cuts into its banks to expand its cross­ sectional area. Urban channels frequently have artificial grade control due to the frequent culverts and road crossings. These are often areas where sediment can accumulate as a result of undersized culverts and bridge crossings. 2.3.3 Changes in Habitat Structure Land development results in many changes in habitat structure, including embeddedness, decreased riffle/ pool quality, and loss of large woody debris (LWD). Increased sedimentation due to clearing and grading during construction resulting from bank erosion can significantly reduce the amount of habitat for substrate­ oriented species. 2.3.3.1 Embeddedness Increased sediment transport from construction and land development can fill the interstitial spaces between rocks and riffles, which are important habitat for macroinvertebrates and fish Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 28 species, such as darters and sculpins. The stream bottom substratum is a critical habitat for trout and salmon egg incubation and embryo development (May et al., 1997). 2.3.3.2 Large Woody Debris (LWD) The presence and stability of LWD is a fundamental habitat parameter. LWD can form dams and pools, trap sediment and detritus, provide stabilization to stream channels, dissipate flow energy, and promote habitat complexity (Booth et al., 1996). For example, depending on the size of the woody debris and the stream, the debris can create plunge, lateral, scour, and backwater pools, short riffles, undercut banks, side channels, and backwaters, and create different water depths (Spence et al., 1996). The runoff generated in urban watersheds from small storms can be enough to transport LWD. Maxted et al. (1994) found that woody debris were typically buried under sand and silt in urban streams. In addition, the clearing of riparian vegetation limits an important source of large woody debris. Horner et al. (1996) present evidence from the Pacific Northwest (Figure 2­ 9) that LWD in urban streams decreases with increased imperviousness. Figure 2­ 9. Large Woody Debris as a Function of Watershed Imperviousness (Horner et al., 1996) Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 29 2.3.3.3 Changes in Stream Features Habitat diversity is a key factor in maintaining a diverse and well­ functioning aquatic community. The complexity of the habitat results in increased niches for aquatic species. Sediment and increases in flow can reduce the residual depths in pools and decrease the diversity of habitat features such as pools, riffles, and runs. Richey (1982) and Scott et al. (1986) reported an increase in the prevalence of glides and a corresponding altered pool/ riffle sequence due to urbanization. 2.3.4 Thermal Impacts Summer in­ stream temperatures have been shown to increase significantly (5 to 12 degrees) in urban streams because of direct solar radiation, runoff from heat­ absorbing pavement, and discharges from storm water ponds (Galli, 1991). Increased water temperatures can prevent temperature­ sensitive species from surviving in urban streams. Figure 2­ 10 shows the increase in water temperature resulting from urbanization. Figure 2­ 10. Stream Temperature Increase in Response to Urbanization (Galli, 1991) Water temperature in headwater streams is strongly influenced by local air temperatures. Galli (1991) reported that stream temperatures throughout the summer are higher in urban watersheds, and the degree of warming appears to be directly related to the imperviousness of the contributing watershed. Over a 6­ month period, five headwater streams in the Maryland Piedmont that have different levels of impervious cover were monitored. Each urban stream had Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 30 mean temperatures that were consistently warmer than that of a forested reference stream, and the size of the increase appeared to be a direct function of watershed imperviousness. Other factors, such as a lack of riparian cover and ponds, were also shown to amplify stream warming, but the primary contributing factor appeared to be watershed impervious cover. 2.3.5 Direct Channel Impacts 2.3.5.1 Channel Straightening and Hardening/ Reduction in First­ Order Streams Channel straightening and hardening includes the addition of riprap or concrete to the channel, the straightening of natural channels, and the piping of first­ order and ephemeral streams. Although this conversion process often becomes necessary to control runoff from urbanized areas, adverse impacts often occur downstream. In a national study of urban watersheds in 269 gauged basins, Sauer et al. (1983) determined that channel straightening and channel lining (hardening)— along with the percentage of curbs and gutters, streets, and storm sewers— were the dominant land use variables affecting storm flow. These variables all affect the efficiency with which water is transported to the stream channel. Maintaining this efficiency increases the velocities needed for storm water to exceed critical shear stress velocities, eroding the channel. These factors also considerably degrade any natural habitat for stream biota. 2.3.5.2 Fish Blockages Infrastructure associated with urbanization— such as bridges, dams, and culverts— can have a considerable effect on the ability of fish to move freely upstream and downstream in the watershed. This in turn can have localized effects on small streams, where nonmigratory fish species can be inhibited by the blockage from recolonizing areas after acutely toxic events. Anadromous fish species such as shad, herring, salmon, and steel head also can be blocked from making the upstream passage that is critical for their reproduction. 2.3.6 Site Differences in Physical Impacts Site differences that can affect physical impacts include location of the impervious surfaces, presence of vegetation, and soil type within the watershed. Location of the impervious development can be instrumental in the timing of runoff in a watershed. If the development is at the bottom of the watershed, peak flow from the urbanized area will likely have passed downstream before the flow peaks from the upper watersheds reach the urbanized area (Sauer et al., 1983). Vegetation can reduce channel erosion from storm flows. A study in British Columbia showed that meander bends with vegetation were five times less likely to experience significant erosion from a major flood than similar non­ vegetated meander bends (Beeson and Doyle, 1995). The types and porosity of soils are also important in determining runoff characteristics from the land surface and erosion potential of the channels. Allen and Narramore Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 2­ 31 (1985) showed that channel enlargement in chalk channels was from 12 to 67 percent greater than in shale channels near Dallas, Texas. They attributed the differences to greater velocities and shear stress in the chalk channels. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 3­ 1 Section 3 Description of Assessment Methodology 3.1 Introduction This section describes EPA's methodology to assess the environmental impacts of the construction and development category. The methodology was used by EPA to quantify the potential environmental and economic benefits that would result from implementation of the proposed regulatory options. These quantified benefits are enumerated in Section 4 of this document. The methodology described in this section focuses on impacts related to pollutant loadings discharged from construction sites. EPA used total suspended solids (TSS) to indicate pollutantrelated benefits for proposed options. 3.2 Methodology to Estimate Pollutant Loadings from Construction Runoff Water Discharges EPA's methodology for estimating construction site pollutant loadings builds upon the methodology used in the Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule (USEPA, 1999). This report (referred to herein as the Phase II EA): ° Estimated the annual number of construction sites or starts covered under Phase I and Phase II programs ° Developed detailed "model construction sites" to represent a range of construction site types, sizes and locations to estimate national construction site TSS loadings (3 site sizes, 5 slopes, and 15 climatic regions) ° Estimated suspended solids loadings with and without a suite of BMPs. The Phase II EA estimated that in the absence of any controls, construction sites on average generate approximately 40 tons of TSS per acre per year. In addition, the Phase II EA estimated that properly designed, installed and maintained erosion and sediment (E& S) control BMPs, in combination, can potentially achieve a 90 to 95 percent reduction in sediment runoff. The suite of E& S BMPs evaluated in EPA's Phase II EA is shown in Table 3­ 1. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 3­ 2 Table 3­ 1. Common Construction Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs BMP Description Erosion Control a Sediment Control b Silt Fence Yes Runoff Diversion Yes Mulch Yes Seed and Mulch Yes Construction Entrance Yes Stone Check Dam Yes Sediment Trap Yes Sediment Pond Yes a. Erosion controls are those distributed throughout the site to help retain soil in place. b. Sediment controls are intended to intercept eroded soils preventing runoff from the construction site. The analysis conducted by EPA indicates that environmental benefits would be achieved by implementing procedures that ensure good E& S practices and that establish design criteria and installation for construction site BMPs. The suite of BMPs considered by EPA in its effluent guidelines development is presented in Table 3­ 2. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 3­ 3 Table 3­ 2. Site BMPs Evaluated by EPA For Effluent Guidelines Development BMP Description Application Rationale Design/ Installation Criteria Sediment Basins Standardization to 3,600 cubic feet of storage per watershed acre for sites 10 acres. Sediment Traps Applicable to sites 10 acres. Mulch Mulching of any denuded surface would be required within 2 weeks of final grade. PAM a PAM would be used as a temporary stabilization method until final cover can be installed. EPA assumed that PAM is appropriate for 20 percent of construction sites. Site Administration BMPs E& S Site Inspections and Certification (a) Certify completion of SWPPP, (b) Certify installation of BMPs, (c) Conduct inspections every 14 days, (d) Remove sediment from basins and traps periodically, and (e) Certify that the site has been stabilized prior to filing NOT. a PAM: Polyacrylamide Implementing these BMPs as part of the proposed Option 1 is expected to achieve benefits due to: ° Higher installation rates because certification would be required; ° Certification of BMP implementation that creates a verifiable record of site E& S controls; ° Higher BMP maintenance frequency due to proposed inspection requirements. In addition, Option 2 is expected to achieve additional benefits due to: ° Shorter no­ control periods due to more timely application of erosion BMPs; ° Standardization of design/ sizing criteria (Codification of BMP designs under Option 2 would result in higher removal efficiencies). Under the proposed options EPA estimates increased efficiency, as measured by the pounds of eroded material retained on construction sites, to range from 5 to 15 percent for Option 1 and 20 percent for Option 2. The lower and upper percentages of net performance for Option 1 yield upper and lower bounds of reductions in construction site loadings discharged to the environment, respectively. These ranges indicate potential additional reductions in suspended Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 3­ 4 solid discharges as a result of regulatory implementation, and do not account for states with equivalent construction programs and for acres not covered by the proposed guidelines. To account for these two factors, EPA developed additional steps to lower its estimates of TSS loadings reductions. For Option 2, EPA also reduced the estimated loadings to discount sites between 1 and 5 acres in size. These sites would not be regulated under proposed Option 2 effluent guidelines, and constitute approximately 15 percent of annually developed acreage. EPA discounted TSS loadings reductions estimates by 15 percent to account for the fact that these sites would not be affected by Option 2. As detailed in Appendix A, EPA performed an evaluation of state construction general permits and regulations to estimate the percentage of national acreage developed annually that is currently covered under regulation that is equivalent to or exceeds the proposed option levels. EPA evaluated states, focusing on those with annual developed acreage greater than 50,000 acres. Overall, EPA estimated that approximately 41 percent of developing acreage is currently subject to regulatory requirements equivalent to or exceeding those under Options 1 and 2. EPA surveyed the following four proposed requirements: 1. 3,600 cubic feet per acre storage requirement for sediment basins on sites
10 acres 2. Certification of BMPs at installation 3. 14­ day or more frequent inspection 4. 14­ day cover for erosion and dust control. To account for states currently performing at or above the levels designated under Option 1and 2, EPA reduced estimated TSS loading estimates by 41 percent to remove states with equivalent programs. The results of EPA's loadings assessment are provided in Section 4. 3.3 Characterizing the Nation's Stream Network To evaluate environmental impacts related to stream size and length, EPA characterized stream densities in 19 "ecoregions" for the contiguous United States (Figure 3­ 1). Detailed methodologies are explained in Appendix B. The 19 ecoregions were developed based on the stream density of large river systems, a relatively coarse assessment. Next, EPA performed a characterization or inventory to estimate a typical stream density within each region, and to define a statistically "standard" watershed for each ecoregion. EPA first determined the stream Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines 1 Stream Order is a hierarchal ordering of streams based on the degree of branching. A first order stream is an unbranched or unforked stream. Two first­ order streams flow together to make a second­ order stream; two second­ order streams combine to make a third­ order stream. First­ order watersheds in EPA's ecoregion­ specific standard watersheds occupy between 20 and 50 acres. June 2002 3­ 5 network based on stream orders 1 , assessing approximately 100,000 acres in each ecoregion. The analysis estimated the average number, acreage, slope, and length of streams, as well as the ratio of stream orders and their drainage area. EPA used those data to estimate the total stream miles in each ecoregion's standard watershed. Because EPA focused on land development, regional stream densities were established through spatial and statistical averaging of actual stream networks at the developing fringe of existing metropolitan areas. 
        
 
  
Figure 3­ 1. Ecoregions for Stream Inventorying Only one metropolitan area was analyzed for each ecoregion because of the extensive amount of data processed to define stream networks based on 30 meter digital elevation data for 100,000 acres. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 3­ 6 EPA's stream inventory focused on relatively small watersheds that terminate in a small perennial stream (e. g., a fourth­ order stream in the mid­ Atlantic area). Intermittent and small perennial streams are expected to be the water bodies most adversely affected by the activities of the construction and land development industry. Less emphasis was placed on the inventory and evaluation of larger perennial rivers (i. e., greater than fifth­ order in the mid­ Atlantic area) because they potentially have more pollutant sources and isolating the benefits of the proposed effluent guidelines in these water bodies could potentially be difficult. The results of EPA's assessment of stream information in each of the 19 ecoregion standard watersheds are presented in Table 3­ 3. In general, whenever EPA determined it should to estimate impacts related to the total mileage of streams located within a defined acreage, EPA used these values to convert the acreage to stream miles on the basis of stream order. Information in the table (i. e., number and stream length) was also used to scale­ up the impacts on a stream order basis. Table 3­ 3. Results of the National Stream Survey EcoRegion Reach Order Number of Segments Analyzed General Ratio of Stream Orders* Average Segment Length, ft Average Slope of River, ft/ ft Average Watershed Acreage per Segment Drainage Area Ratio of Upstream Channels to the Downstream Channel** 1 1 608 87 428 3.06% 53.07 0 2 104 15 1,078 1.75% 273.35 5.15 3 22 3 3,323 1.07% 1,597.67 5.84 4 7 1 6,914 0.81% 6,425.88 4.02 2 1 742 82 499 11.25% 45.78 0 2 166 18 1,185 7.37% 228.24 4.99 3 34 4 2,801 5.25% 1,194.55 5.23 4 9 1 4,297 4.51% 4,434.78 3.71 3 1 829 92 423 3.11% 53.08 0 2 179 20 1,017 2.00% 266.69 5.02 3 35 4 2,307 1.29% 1,316.02 4.93 4 9 1 9,367 0.62% 8,283.03 6.29 Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines Table 3­ 3. Results of the National Stream Survey EcoRegion Reach Order Number of Segments Analyzed General Ratio of Stream Orders* Average Segment Length, ft Average Slope of River, ft/ ft Average Watershed Acreage per Segment Drainage Area Ratio of Upstream Channels to the Downstream Channel** June 2002 3­ 7 4 1 961 120 309 2.81% 29.55 0 2 209 26 591 1.62% 129.62 4.39 3 45 6 1,259 1.03% 556.92 4.3 4 8 1 6,411 0.50% 4,417.34 7.93 5 1 862 86 434 0.52% 57.35 0 2 201 20 825 0.40% 398.05 6.94 3 47 5 1,751 0.28% 2,119.32 5.32 4 10 1 3,835 0.17% 6,114.79 2.89 6 1 961 120 371 4.37% 29.55 0 2 209 26 779 3.20% 138.31 4.68 3 45 6 1,372 2.45% 554.87 4.01 4 8 1 4,724 1.13% 3,369.25 6.07 7 1 862 86 351 6.22% 42.56 0 2 201 20 954 3.21% 229.2 5.39 3 47 5 2,028 1.81% 1,096.47 4.78 4 10 1 5,850 0.84% 5,447.43 4.97 8 1 638 80 302 1.08% 27.43 0 2 141 18 612 0.72% 123.19 4.49 3 35 4 1,340 0.52% 580.24 4.71 4 8 1 3,058 0.31% 2,112.57 3.64 9 1 645 81 356 0.43% 27.31 0 2 123 15 631 0.50% 127.26 4.66 3 28 4 2,170 0.34% 845.78 6.65 4 8 1 7,322 0.14% 5,134.48 6.07 Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines Table 3­ 3. Results of the National Stream Survey EcoRegion Reach Order Number of Segments Analyzed General Ratio of Stream Orders* Average Segment Length, ft Average Slope of River, ft/ ft Average Watershed Acreage per Segment Drainage Area Ratio of Upstream Channels to the Downstream Channel** June 2002 3­ 8 10 1 1,238 88 306 3.35% 30.89 0 2 275 20 742 2.05% 158.44 5.13 3 59 4 1,421 1.27% 691.2 4.36 4 14 1 4,392 0.70% 4,339.58 6.28 11 1 1,050 105 353 3.71% 30.89 0 2 198 20 859 2.04% 158.44 5.13 3 41 4 1,595 1.29% 691.2 4.36 4 10 1 3,241 0.81% 4,339.58 6.28 12 1 960 80 376 14.71% 34.1 0 2 215 18 801 9.29% 155.93 4.57 3 50 4 2,162 5.95% 867.6 5.56 4 12 1 3,054 4.15% 3,082.49 3.55 13 1 753 63 272 22.47% 21.96 0 2 161 13 587 14.88% 107.42 4.89 3 43 4 1,311 9.97% 497.52 4.63 4 12 1 6,152 3.77% 3,738.79 7.51 14 1 933 72 427 5.78% 37.21 0 2 194 15 865 3.50% 171.65 4.61 3 44 3 1,635 2.38% 720.88 4.2 4 13 1 2,073 1.35% 2,563.73 3.56 15 1 1,424 129 381 3.86% 31.84 0 2 290 26 697 2.29% 143.06 4.49 3 58 5 1,469 2.05% 545.11 3.81 4 11 1 3,315 1.07% 2,680.10 4.92 Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines Table 3­ 3. Results of the National Stream Survey EcoRegion Reach Order Number of Segments Analyzed General Ratio of Stream Orders* Average Segment Length, ft Average Slope of River, ft/ ft Average Watershed Acreage per Segment Drainage Area Ratio of Upstream Channels to the Downstream Channel** June 2002 3­ 9 16 1 1,009 72 463 8.12% 39.77 0 2 224 16 1,064 5.09% 191.81 4.82 3 53 4 2,170 3.92% 888.83 4.63 4 14 1 4,309 2.56% 4,293.71 4.83 17 1 464 77 464 20.60% 57.02 0 2 79 13 1,605 14.51% 395.06 6.93 3 21 4 3,018 9.47% 1,823.06 4.61 4 6 1 5,392 4.27% 6,881.95 3.77 18 1 251 84 381 3.86% 31.84 0 2 50 17 697 2.29% 143.06 4.49 3 13 4 1,469 2.05% 545.11 3.81 4 3 1 3,315 1.07% 2,680.10 4.92 19 1 457 65 463 8.12% 39.77 0 2 102 15 1,064 5.09% 191.81 4.82 3 27 4 2,170 3.92% 888.83 4.63 4 7 1 4,309 2.56% 4,293.71 4.83 Notes: A stream "segment" is a single stream reach between upstream and downstream confluence points. * The "General Ratio of Stream Orders" value indicates the number of streams of "X" order found in a single fourth order watershed. ** The "Drainage Area Ratio of Upstream Channels to the Downstream Channel" indicates the ratio of drainage areas based on full watershed area of each stream order. 3.3.1 Characterizing the Stream Network within Developing Acreage Although the information contained in the table can be used to convert acreage into estimated stream miles for the 19 ecoregions it is not sufficient to estimate the number of stream miles Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 3­ 10 contained within the land area developed each year. To calculate that estimate, EPA first estimates the number of acres developed and the geographic region in which the developing acres are located. EPA used geographically linked annual development rates in the U. S. from the National Resources Inventory (NRI) (USDA, 2000). The NRI captures data on land cover and use, soil erosion, prime farmland soils, wetlands, habitat diversity, selected conservation practices, and related resource attributes at more than 800,000 scientifically selected sample sites. NRI estimated the development rate for hundreds of individual watersheds that cover the contiguous states. To estimate the annual development rate for each of the 19 ecoregions, EPA summed the development rates of all watersheds within the boundary of each ecoregion. The NRI was used for assessing the impacts of the construction and land development industry because it provides a consistent and periodic national assessment of land development trends and employs a standard methodology for the entire nation. In addition, the NRI also provides information on land use prior to development (e. g., the acres of farm land converted into residential use). EPA's analysis of the most current NRI information available (rates of land development from 1992 to 1997) is shown in Table 3­ 4, which shows that the current rate of land development is approximately 2 million acres per year. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 3­ 11 Table 3­ 4. Land Development Annually in Ecoregions (Adapted from USDA, 2000) Ecoregion Acres Developed Annually Percent of National Total Miles of Streams Within Developed Acres 1 64,236 2.9% 134 2 91,015 4.1% 303 3 34,424 1.6% 61 4 338,378 15.2% 957 5 67,107 3.0% 137 6 127,511 5.7% 387 7 42,321 1.9% 82 8 252,790 11.4% 1,075 9 330,635 14.9% 805 10 326,850 14.7% 686 11 97,386 4.4% 181 12 249,748 11.3% 757 13 35,090 1.6% 113 14 38,822 1.7% 152 15 11,093 0.5% 42 16 57,947 2.6% 149 17 28,799 1.3% 58 18 12,592 0.6% 47 19 12,607 0.6% 32 Totals 2,219,352 6,160 Values provided indicate total acres developed. Approximately, sites 1 acres constitute 2 percent of acres developed, and sites between 1 and 5 acres constitute 15% of the acres developed. Table 3­ 4 also provides EPA's estimate of the miles of stream contained within the acres developed annually. When estimating the total miles of stream per ecoregion by stream order, EPA first estimated the number of fourth­ order watersheds developed. For example, in Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 3­ 12 ecoregion 19, the number of acres developed annually (12,607) was divided by the number of acres in a fourth­ order watershed (4,293) to yield the number of developed watersheds (2.9). This number was then multiplied by the average number of feet per fourth­ order stream (4,309) and by the stream order ratio (1) to yield the number of feet of fourth­ order streams in developed areas (12,496). In order to find the total number of stream feet for the ecoregion, these steps are repeated for third, second and first order streams and the sum taken of each order of stream feet. 3.3.2 Characterizing the Flow Conditions in Stream Network Table 3­ 5 shows the estimated division of perennial and intermittent streams by stream order for each ecoregion. The designations provided in Table 3­ 5 are based on best professional judgment. EPA notes that third­ and fourth­ order streams in relatively arid areas of the nation could be perennial due to small dams and lakes; however, the analysis assumes they are intermittent in nature. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 3­ 13 Table 3­ 5. Characterization of Stream Orders for Ecoregions Ecoregion 1st Order 2nd Order 3rd Order 4th Order 1 I I I I 2 I I I I 3 I I I P 4 I I P P 5 I I P P 6 I I P P 7 I I P P 8 I I P P 9 I I P P 10 I I P P 11 I I P P 12 I I P P 13 I I I I 14 I I I I 15 I I P P 16 I I P P 17 I I P P 18 I I I I 19 I I P P 20 I I P P P = Perennial; I = Intermittent EPA estimated the total miles of intermittent and perennial streams based on a cross­ product of information on Tables 3­ 3, 3­ 4 and 3­ 5 (total stream lengths by order, ecoregion development rates, and perennial/ intermittent assumptions, respectively). The results of this calculation are shown in Table 3­ 6. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 3­ 14 Table 3­ 6. Characterization of Stream Length by Flow Type for Ecoregions Ecoregion Geographic Name Baseline Conditions Perennial Stream Miles Intermittent Stream Miles 1 Midwest 0 134 2 Southwest Arid 0 303 3 Southwest 7 54 4 Coastal Atlantic 196 762 5 Atlantic Shoreline 25 112 6 North Florida 77 310 7 South Florida 19 63 8 New England 197 878 9 Appalachia 198 608 10 Great Lakes Region 147 539 11 Mississippi Outlet 38 143 12 Mississippi West 159 598 13 Upper Midwest & Dakotas 0 113 14 Midwest Central 0 152 15 Pacific Coastal Region 8 34 16 Southern California 32 117 17 Willamette Valley 13 45 18 Eastern Washington 0 47 19 Sierras 7 25 Total 1,123 5,036 3.3.3 Converting Stream Miles into Impact Estimates Inventorying stream information for each of the ecoregions and estimating the miles of stream contained within urbanizing acreage provides a basis for estimating impacts that are proportional Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 3­ 15 to stream length. EPA developed data sets which indicate stream type (perennial or intermittent), stream order, and location (ecoregion). The data, however, are not sufficiently customized at the local/ regional level to permit detailed environmental modeling of stream impacts on an ecoregion basis. Hence, EPA estimated environmental changes at the national level. Table 3­ 6 shows national and ecoregion­ specific estimates of the river miles contained within the acres developed annually, if all acres developed were within a single watershed. Additional adjustment is necessary to account for the fact that development is not consolidated in a single land mass but rather is dispersed among areas not currently under construction. See Figure 3­ 2. To estimate the miles of streams potentially impacted under baseline conditions, EPA considered a range of assumptions about the ratio of construction to non­ construction area within watersheds. As shown in Figure 3­ 2, EPA assumed that an area of 10 times larger than the total area under construction is also impacted from runoff from construction in addition to runoff from urban areas, forests and agriculture. Land Use Type Distribution Across Watershed Existing Urban Area (25% Under Scenario 1) Farm/ Pasture Area (32.5% Under Scenario 1) Forested Area (32.5% Under Scenario 1) Construction This Year (10% Under Scenario 1) Stream Channels Figure 3­ 2. Land Use Distribution of a Watershed. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 3­ 16 Given this assumption, a construction rate of 2.2 million constructed acres per year means that streams dispersed in 22 million acres of land area are potentially impacted by construction site runoff in combination with runoff from urban, forested and farm land. Based on EPA's assessment of stream lengths contained in the 19 ecoregions and the rates of development in each ecoregion, EPA estimates that roughly 10,000 perennial stream miles and 36,000 intermittent stream miles are potentially affected by construction site runoff annually (Table 3­ 7). Table 3­ 7. Estimated Miles of Streams Potentially Affected by One Year's Construction Ecoregion Geographic Name 2. 2 Million Acres (Acreage Constructed Annually ) 22 Million Acres (Assumed Land Area Containing Acreage Constructed Annually ) Perennial Stream Miles Intermittent Stream Miles Perennial Stream Miles Intermittent Stream Miles 1 Midwest ­ 107 0 1,070 2 Southwest Arid ­ 242 0 2,420 3 Southwest 7 43 70 430 4 Coastal Atlantic 196 609 1,960 6,090 5 Atlantic Shoreline 25 90 250 900 6 North Florida 7 South Florida 8 New England 197 702 1,970 7,020 9 Appalachia 198 486 1,980 4,860 10 Great Lakes Region 147 431 1,470 4,310 11 Mississippi Outlet 12 Mississippi West 159 478 1,590 4,780 13 Upper Midwest & Dakotas ­ 91 0 910 14 Midwest Central ­ 121 0 1,210 15 Pacific Coastal Region 8 27 80 270 16 Southern California 32 93 320 930 17 Willamette Valley 13 36 130 360 Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines Table 3­ 7. Estimated Miles of Streams Potentially Affected by One Year's Construction Ecoregion Geographic Name 2. 2 Million Acres (Acreage Constructed Annually ) 22 Million Acres (Assumed Land Area Containing Acreage Constructed Annually ) Perennial Stream Miles Intermittent Stream Miles Perennial Stream Miles Intermittent Stream Miles June 2002 3­ 17 18 Eastern Washington ­ 38 0 380 19 Sierras 7 20 70 200 Total 989 3,614 9,890 36,140 Notes: ° EPA assumed that all streams within fourth­ order watersheds are intermittent in regions 1, 2, 13, 14, and 18. ° Total values reflect a 20 percent reduction in intermittent stream miles to account for streams that are expected to be converted into below grade pipe systems. Values also discount stream miles in Ecoregions 6, 7, and 11 because these systems are greatly influenced by man­ made channel networks and natural wetland systems (i. e., are less hierarchal in nature). EPA then developed a simple stream model to assess potential changes in TSS concentrations during wet­ weather periods for the estimated 61 thousand miles of streams receiving discharges from construction sites annually. EPA evaluated three development scenarios to estimate the range of potential TSS reductions in streams within watersheds experiencing construction runoff, as shown in Table 3­ 8. The three development scenarios are intended to represent low, moderate, and high levels of urbanization, over which construction activities are superimposed. EPA used a simple mass balance approach to estimate in stream TSS concentrations, as follows: 1. Estimate the average annual runoff from each land use condition, from construction acreage affected, and not affected by proposed guideline options. 2. Estimate the average annual TSS loading from each land use condition, based on EPA estimated or literature reported event mean concentration (EMC) for TSS. 3. Estimate national average change in the in­ stream concentration of TSS using land use fractions given in each of the three scenarios in Table 3­ 8. This assessment is performed for all 2.2 million acres developed annually, based on the total estimated runoff volume in a single (typical) rainfall year. Table 3­ 8, also shows the allocation of regulated construction sites for Options 1 and 2. Under Option 1, approximately 0.2 percent of the watershed is assumed to be covered by construction sites less than 1 acres in size. The runoff from these acres is not affected by Option 1 proposed Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 3­ 18 requirements. Under Option 2, approximately 1.7 percent of the watershed is assumed to be covered by construction sites less than 5 acres in size. The runoff from these acres are not affected by Option 2 proposed requirements. Runoff coefficients (Table 3­ 9) indicate the portion of rainfall that leaves the area as runoff. The remainder is assumed to infiltrate into the ground or evaporate. Values were selected based on EPA estimates of percent imperviousness, values reported in literature, and best professional judgement. Table 3­ 8. Active Construction Site Runoff Scenarios for Option 1 and Option 2 Land Use Conditions Land Use Coverage Scenarios Low Urbanization Moderate Urbanization High Urbanization Existing Urban Area 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% Forested 32.6% 20.1% 7.6% Farm 32.6% 20.1% 7.6% Sites Regulated Under Option 1 9.80% 9.80% 9.80% Sites Not Affected by Option 1 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% Sites Regulated Under Option 2 8.27% 8.27% 8.27% Sites Not Affected by Option 2 1.73% 1.73% 1.73% Table 3­ 9. Runoff Coefficients for Land Uses Land Use Conditions Runoff Coefficients Existing Urban Area 0.46 Forested 0.05 Farm 0.15 Construction a 0.80 a. Includes sites regulated under Option 1, not affected by Option 1, regulated under Option 2, and not affected by Option 2. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines 2 EPA defined a "typical rainfall year" as having a total rainfall depth within 10 percent of the average for the ecoregion, and not containing a single rainfall event with greater than a 2­ year storm. June 2002 3­ 19 EPA's simple in­ stream model estimates the potential reduction in TSS concentration during wet­ weather periods. EPA's approach does not taken into account the contributions of base flow and base flow loads (i. e., that entering streams due to groundwater) during wet­ weather periods. Excluding this base flow results in an overestimation of actual TSS concentrations. Because rainfall conditions affect the results of EPA's assessment, an evaluation of approximately 30 years of rainfall records for 1,200 rainfall gauges was performed to identify a typical rainfall year for each of the 19 ecoregions. 2 Based on this evaluation, EPA estimated that the national average rainfall depth falling on construction sites is approximately 34.8 inches per year. This estimate is a weighted average, based on the acres developed in each ecoregion. Table 3­ 10 presents the event mean concentrations (EMCs) used by EPA to estimate the range of TSS loadings. In selecting EMC values, EPA used values from the literature that would help create reasonable upper and lower bound estimates. High and low effectiveness estimates for construction site effluent concentrations were matched with lower bound and upper bound EMCs, respectively, for other land uses. For example, lower bound and upper bound EMC values for urban runoff (141 and 224 mg/ L) were assumed to bracket urban concentrations, and to indicate TSS annual loadings. Only forested area EMCs were held constant for both lower and upper bound estimates. In terms of annual TSS yield, EPA's assumed EMCs for urban areas correspond to 0.26 and 0.41 tons per acre per year. Annual TSS yield for farm/ pasture, equates to 0.15 and 3.0 tons per acre per year (Corsi et al., 1997; Novotny and Chesters, 1981; Horner et al., 1986; Horner, 1992; and Sonzogni et al., 1980). EPA assumed that construction sites not affected by the proposed effluent guidelines would discharge TSS in concentrations similar to those estimated under baseline conditions. This assumption may overestimate TSS loadings estimates associated with Option 2 for sites between 1 and 5 acres. The results of EPA's simple national in stream model, based on the data and assumptions described above, are provided in Section 4. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 3­ 20 Table 3­ 10. Runoff EMCs for Acres Within a Watershed (TSS in mg/ L) Land Use Condition Lower Bound Upper Bound Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2 Urban Area 141 141 224 224 Forested/ Pasture 152 152 152 152 Farm 254 254 5,071 5,071 Regulated Construction Sites 2,613 1,843 6,529 5,081 Construction Sites Not Affected by Regulations 3,765 3,765 6,914 6,914 Notes: ° Urban TSS Concentrations are from USEPA, 1993 ° Option 1 high and low effectiveness assumes construction BMPs are installed/ operated so resulting capture of TSS generation is 80 and 50% of TSS generation, respectively. ° Option 2 high and low effectiveness assumes construction BMPs are installed/ operated so resulting capture of TSS generation is 90 and 70% of TSS generation, respectively. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 4­ 1 Section 4 Environmental Benefits Assessment of Evaluated Regulatory Options This section presents the Agency's estimates of the environmental benefits that would result from implementation of erosion and sediment controls during construction activities. EPA evaluated 3 regulatory options for controlling discharges from active construction sites. Table 4­ 1 describes each of the options. Table 4­ 1. Regulatory Options Evaluated for Controlling Discharges from Construction Activities Option Description Option 1 ° Applicable to construction sites with one acre or more of disturbed land ° Operators required to: ­ Inspect site throughout land disturbance period ­ Certify that the controls meet the regulatory design criteria as applicable ° Amend NPDES regulations at 40 CFR Part 122 (no new effluent guideline regulations) Option 2 ° Applicable to construction sites with five acres or more of disturbed land ° Operators required to: ­ Prepare storm water pollution prevention plan ­ Design, install, and maintain erosion and sediment controls ­ Inspect site throughout land disturbance period ­ Certify that the controls meet the regulatory design criteria as applicable ° Creates a new effluent guidelines category at 40 CFR Part 450 and amends Part 122 regulations Option 3 ° No new regulatory requirements The following subsections present Agency estimates of regulatory conditions for suspended solids loadings and resulting improvements to the environment, including stream habitat. 4.1 Total Suspended Solids Loadings Construction projects involve a series of temporary activities (e. g., land clearing, grubbing, building), and, with the exception of large­ scale facilities, these projects generally have a duration of less than a year. During the construction period, erosion and sediment control (ESC) BMPs are employed to minimize pollutant discharges. EPA used three criteria as a basis for selecting which pollutants to use as indicators of construction site pollutant loadings: (1) pollutants that correlate strongly with the construction Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 4­ 2 activities, (2) toxic pollutants should be considered only if dissolved concentrations are high, and (3) proposed effluent guidelines would significantly reduce loadings from current levels. Based on these criteria, EPA selected eroded soils/ sediment loadings (e. g., measured by TSS and14 turbidity) as the indicator of construction site pollutant loadings. Other runoff constituents are either present in low concentrations or account for such a small proportion of the total discharge that conventional treatment would not prove effective in removing additional levels beyond that attained in treating the suspended solid component. Table 4­ 2 presents EPA's estimates of construction site loadings reductions under Options 1, 2 and 3 in terms of tons of TSS per year. Table 4­ 2. Estimated TSS Loadings Reductions for Proposed Regulatory Options Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Lower bound estimates Incremental Percent TSS captured by BMPs 5% 25% 0 Annual reductions (tons) 2,637,569 11,126,639 a 0 Upper bound estimates Incremental Percent TSS captured by BMPs 15% 25% 0 Annual reductions (tons) 7,912,707 11,126,639 a 0 a. Option 2 reductions were reduced by approximately 15 percent to account for sites between 1 and 5 acres in size not covered by this option. As shown in the table, EPA estimates that under Option 1, construction sites would increase the removal rate of TSS by approximately 5 to 15 percent. The projected increase in net performance of construction site BMPs under Option 2 is about 25 percent. These estimates were developed using the Agency's engineering judgement, but are based on the following assumptions: ° Regulatory options would require that sediment ponds are certified at the time of installation to ensure they are built as designed ° Implementation of the proposal would result in more effective selection, installation and O& M of ESC BMPs due to inspection and certification of site activities. ° Option 2 would result in shorter duration of exposure for un­ managed denuded areas The regulatory options loadings were generated using three factors: total annual number of acres developed, tons per year of suspended solids per acre of land undergoing development, and Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 4­ 3 incremental improvement in BMP performance under the regulatory options. As described in Section 3, NRI data were used to estimate that approximately 2.2 million acres are developed annually and the estimate of 40 tons per acre generation of TSS at construction sites was based on the Phase II Storm Water Economic Assessment (EPA, 1999). Estimated annual sediment loadings reductions from implementation of EPA's proposed alternatives range from 0 tons (Option 3: no new regulations) to approximately 11 million tons per year for Option 2. 4.2 Total Suspended Solid In­ Stream Concentrations Although the Agency did not attempt to quantify aquatic losses (e. g., fish kills, habitat loss), it did estimate how construction loadings impact in­ stream concentration levels of TSS in receiving water bodies. Because in­ stream concentrations of TSS result from mixtures of point and nonpoint sources that cannot cannot be readily separated, EPA estimated in­ stream TSS concentrations for three different land use scenarios that assumed 10 percent of the land area was under construction and 90 percent was distributed among three types of land uses: forest, farm and urban. As shown in Table 4­ 3, the land use scenarios were developed to characterize different levels of urbanization, ranging from 25 percent urban in scenario 1 to 75 percent urban in scenario 3. EPA's analysis does not assess in­ stream settling and resuspension. In addition, there are other sources of TSS that have not been included in the analysis, such as loads resulting from commercial point source discharges and loads resulting from increased stream bank erosion related to higher stream flow rates and velocities in urbanizing water bodies. TSS loadings (section 4.1) were used in conjunction with different event mean concentration (EMC) values, runoff coefficients, and ESC BMP efficiency rates to generate TSS in­ stream concentrations, as described in section 3.3.3. Table 4­ 3. Development Scenarios Used to Estimate Impacts of Regulatory Options Development Scenario Land Use Proportions 1. Low Urbanization 25% Urban, 10% Construction, 32.5% Farm, 32.5% Forest 2. Moderate Urbanization 50% Urban, 10% Construction, 20% Farm, 20% Forest 3. High Urbanization 75% Urban, 10% Construction, 7.5% Farm, 7.5% Forest Different land use scenarios were evaluated because of the differences in TSS characteristics that result as land becomes developed from rural to urban conditions. The high urban conditions contribute the lowest levels of TSS while the low urbanization contribute the highest levels of Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 4­ 4 TSS. This can be explained by the fact that forest and farm practices generate higher levels of sediment runoff and urbanized areas create more storm water runoff, diluting TSS concentrations. Table 4­ 4 shows the estimated concentration reductions in TSS from the regulatory options. Reductions in TSS concentrations under Option 1 are estimated to range from 68 to 348 mg/ L. TSS concentrations under Option 2 would decrease from 276 to 489 mg/ L. The larger reductions from regulatory Option 2 reflect the more stringent proposed requirements resulting in higher ESC BMP effectiveness. Reductions from the lower bound comparisons are higher than reductions in the upper bound comparisons. Table 4­ 4. Estimated Average In­ Stream TSS Concentrations Reduction, mg/ L Development Scenario High Effectiveness Estimates Low Effectiveness Estimates Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2 1. Low Urbanization 348 489 116 466 2. Moderate Urbanization 258 363 86 346 3. High Urbanization 205 289 68 276 Note: The results provided in this table could overestimate the differences between the effects of high and low urbanization because the study did not include discharges from commercial point sources or from increased stream bank erosion resulting from increased stream flow rates and velocities in urbanized areas. If these factors had been included, the concentrations under high urbanization would likely have been significantly higher. 4.3 Miscellaneous Impacts Sites under construction have hydrologic responses that differ from those under pre­ development conditions; both the peak discharge and duration of high discharges increase dramatically. (Appendix C describes hydrologic changes caused by construction and the effects of commonly employed sedimentation ponds on site discharge.) As a result, EPA believes that construction sites increase the potential for flooding of downstream areas above the levels found in the predevelopment condition. Both Options 1 and 2 are expected to reduce flooding potential by ensuring the installation and maintenance of sedimentation ponds (if already present) that retain site runoff and help minimize flooding potential. Poor ESC BMP implementation has an adverse impact on aesthetics of affected water bodies lowering the visual quality of streams and lakes by creating high turbidity levels. Sediment Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 4­ 5 enriched runoff from failing construction site ESC BMPs convey sediment to adjacent land creating a visual nuisance and sometimes requiring clean up. Although EPA did not estimate the environmental or economic benefits associated with improvements in these conditions, EPA believes that both Option 1 and 2 would reduce these impacts significantly by requiring closer tracking of ESC BMP operation, problem identification, and problem resolution. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 5­ 1 Section 5 References Allen, P. and R. Narramore. 1985. Bedrock Controls on Stream Channel Enlargement with Urbanization, North Central Texas. Water Resources Bulletin. 21( 6): 1037­ 1048. Bagley et al. 1998. Sources and Fate of Giardia Cysts and Cryptosporidium Oocysts in Surface Waters. Journal of Lake and Reservoir Management. 14( 2­ 3): 379­ 392. Bannerman, R.; D. Owens; R. Dodds; and N. Hornewer. 1993. Sources of Pollutants in Wisconsin Stormwater. Water Science and Technology. 28( 3­ 5): 241­ 259. Barfield, B. J. and M. J. Clar. 1985. Development of New Design Criteria for Sediment Traps and Basins. Prepared for Maryland Department of the Environment, Water Resources Administration, Sediment and Stormwater Division. Annapolis, MD. 33pp. Barr, R. 1997. Maryland NPDES Phase I Monitoring Data. Maryland Department of the Environment. Baltimore, MD. Barrett, M. and J. Molina. 1998. Comparison of Filtration Systems and Vegetated Controls for Stormwater Treatment. 3 rd International Conference on Diffuse Pollution. August 31 September 4, 1998. Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Edinburgh, Scotland. Bay S. and J. Brown. 2000. Assessment of MTBE Discharge Impacts on California Marine Water Quality. Prepared for State Water Resources Control Board. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. Westminster, California. Beeson, C. and P. Doyle. 1995. Comparison of Bank Erosion at Vegetated and Non­ vegetated Bends. Water Resources Bulletin. 31( 6). Blankenship, K. 1996. Masked Bandit Uncovered in Water Quality Theft. Bay Journal. Vol 6. No. 6. Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Baltimore, MD. Booth, D. 1990. Stream Channel Incision Following Drainage Basin Urbanization. Water Resources Bulletin. 26( 3): 407­ 417. Booth, D. , D. Montgomery, and J. Bethel. 1996. Large Woody Debris in the Urban Streams of the Pacific Northwest. In Effects of Watershed development and Management on Aquatic Systems . L. Roesner (ed.) Engineering Foundation Conference. Proceedings. Snowbird, UT. August 4­ 9, 1996. Pp. 178­ 197. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 5­ 2 Brown, E. and R. Claytor. 2000. Draft Watershed Assessment Study for Watts Branch. Watts Branch Watershed Plan. City of Rockville, MD. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. Campbell, K. R. 1995. "Concentrations of "Heavy Metals Associated with Urban Runoff in Fish Living in Stormwater Ponds." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 27: 352­ 356. Caraco D. S. 2000. "The Dynamics of Urban Stream Channel Enlargement." Article No. 19 in The Practice of Watershed Protection. 2000. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. http:// www. stormwatercenter. net Center for Watershed Protection. 2000. The Practice of Watershed Protection: Techniques for Protecting Our Nation's Streams, Lakes, Rivers and Estuaries. Ellicott City, MD. Collins, A., D. Wallings, and G. Leeks. 1997. Source Type Ascription for Fluvial Suspended Sediment Based on a Quantitative Composite Fingerprinting Technique. Catena 29: 1­ 27. Corsi, S. R., D. J. Graczyk, D. W. Owens, and R. T. Bannerman. 1997. Unit­ Area Loads of Suspended Solids and Total Phophorus from Small Watersheds in Wisconsin. USGS Fact Sheet FS­ 195­ 97. Crunkilton, R. et al. 1996. Assessment of the Response of Aquatic Organisms to Long­ term Insitu Exposures of Urban Runoff. In: Effects of Watershed Development and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems: Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference. Snowbird, UT. Dartiguenave, C. M., I. ECLille and D. R. Maidment. 1997. Water Quality Master Planning for Austin. CRWR Online Report 97­ 6. Dunne, T., and L. B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W. H.. Freeman and Co., New York. 818 pp. Ellis, J. 1986. "Pollutional Aspects of Urban Runoff." In: Urban Runoff Pollution. eds., H. C. Torno, J. Marsalek and M. Desbordes. Springer­ Verlag, Berlin. Evett, et al. 1994. Effects of Urbanization and Land Use Changes on Low Stream Flow. North Carolina Water Resources Research Institute, Report No. 284. 66 pp. Field R. and R. Pitt 1990. Urban Storm­ induced Discharge Impacts: US Environmental Protection Agency Research Program Review. Water Science and Technology. Vol. (22) 10­ 11. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 5­ 3 Gavens, A., D. Revitt and J. Ellis. 1982. "Hydrocarbon Accumulation in Freshwater Sediments of an Urban Catchment." Hydrobiologia. (91): 285­ 292. Galli, J. 1991. "Thermal Impacts Associated with Urbanization and Stormwater Management Best Management Practices." Publication No. 91701. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, D. C. 188 pp. http:// www. mwcog. org Guay, J. 1996. Effects of Increased Urbanization from 1970's to 1990's on Storm Runoff Characteristics in Perris Valley, CA. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report. 95­ 4273. Hammer, T. 1972. "Stream Channel Enlargement Due to Urbanization." Water Resources Research 8( 6): 1530­ 1540. Heany, J. and W. Huber. 1978. Nationwide Assessment of Receiving Water Impacts from Urban Storm Water Pollution. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. Hilgartner, W. 1986. Human Actions in the Watershed Reflected in Historical Estuarine Changes. Coastlines. Issue 6.2. Hollis, F. 1975. The Effects of Urbanization on Floods of Different Recurrence Intervals. Water Resources Research, 11: 431­ 435. Horner, et al. 1996. Watershed Determinates of Ecosystem Functioning. In: Effects of Watershed Development and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems. Roesner, L. A. (editor). Snowbird Utah. August 4­ 9, 1996. Engineering Foundation. Horner, R. R., J. J. Skupien, E. H. Livingston and H. E. Shover. 1992. Water Quality Impacts of Urban Land Use. In: Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management: Technical and Institutional Issues. Terrene Institute, Washington, DC. Horner, R. R., J Geurdy, and M. J. Kortenhoff. 1990. Improving the Cost Effectiveness of Highway Construction Site Erosion and Pollution Control. Washington State Transportation Center and the Federal Highway Administration. Seattle, WA, 79pp. Islam, Taphorn and Utrata­ Halcomb, 1998. Current Performance of Sediment Basins & Sediment Yield Measurement of Construction Sites in Unincorporated Hamilton County, Ohio. Prepared for Hamilton County Soil and Water Conservation District. Jarrett, A. 1996. Sediment Basin Evaluation and Design Improvements. Pennsylvania State University. Prepared for Orange County Board of Commissioners, 11pp. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 5­ 4 Kundell, J. and T. Rasmussen. 1995. Recommendations of the Georgia Board of Regent's Scientific Panel on Evaluating the Erosion Measurement Standard Defined by the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act. In Proceedings of the 1995 Georgia Water Resources Conference. Athens, Georgia. Leopold, L. 1968. Hydrology for Urban Land Use Planning – A Guidebook on the Hydrologic Effects of Urban Land Use. U. S. Geological Survey. Circular No. 554. Leopold, L. 1973. "River Change with Time: An Example." Geological Society of America Bulletin. 84: 1845­ 1860. Leopold, L. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Lim, S. and V. Olivieri. 1982. Sources of Microorganisms in Urban Runoff. Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and Hygiene. Jones Falls Urban Runoff Project. Baltimore, MD 140 pp. Livingston, E. "Florida's Evolving Stormwater/ Watershed Management Program" In Effects of Watershed development and Management on Aquatic Systems. L. Roesner (ed.) Engineering Foundation Conference. Proceedings. 1996. Snowbird, UT. (August 4­ 9): 567­ 590. MacCoy, D. and R. Black. 1998. Organic Compounds and Trace Elements in Freshwater Streambed Sediment and Fish from the Puget Sound Basin. U. S. Geological Survey. USGS Fact Sheet 105­ 98. McCutcheon, S. C., Martin, J. L. and Barnwell, T. O., Jr., Water Quality, Chapter 11, Handbook of Hydrology, David Maidment, Ed., McGraw­ Hill, New York, 1993. Mackiernan, G., M. Leffler and T. Malone. 1996. Scientific Consensus and Public Policy: Dissolved Oxygen in the Chesapeake Bay. Watershed `96 Conference Proceedings. Baltimore, Maryland. MacRae, C. and J. Marsalek. 1992. The Role of Stormwater in Sustainable Urban Development. Proceedings Canadian Hydrology Sympposium: 1992­ Hydrology and its Contribution to Sustainable Development, June 1992. Winnipeg, Canada. MacRae and DeAndrea, 1999. Assessing the Impact of Urbanization on Channel Morphology. 2 nd Internaitonal Conference on Natural Channel Systems. Niagra Falls, OT. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 5­ 5 Masterson, J. and R. Bannerman 1994. Impacts of Stormwater Runoff on Urban Streams in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. National Symposium on Water Quality. American Water Resources Association. May, C. R. Horner, J. Karr, B. Mar, and E. Welch. 1997. Effects of Urbanization on Small Streams In the Puget Sound Lowland Ecoregion. Article No. 18 in The Practice of Watershed Protection. 2000. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. http:// www. stormwatercenter. net Maxted, J. R., E. L. Dickey, and G. M. Mitchell. 1994. Habitat Quality of Delaware Nontidal Streams. Delaware Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources Report. Mederios, C., R. LeBlanc, and R. A. Coler. 1983. An In situ Assessment of the Acute toxicity of Urban Runoff to Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Environmental Toxicity and Chemistry (2): 119­ 126. Menzie­ Cura and Associates. 1995. Measurements and Loadings of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in Stormwater, Combined Sewer Overflows, Rivers, and Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) Discharging into Massachusets Bay. Morisawa, Marie and Ernest LaFlure. 1979. Hydraulic Geometry, Stream Equalization and Urbanization. In the Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Geomorphology Symposia Series entitled "Adjustments of the Fluvial System" held at Binghamton, New York September 21­ 22, 1979. Kendall/ Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, IA. NOAA. 1992. 1990 Shellfish Register If Classified Estuarine Waters: Data Supplement. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, National Ocean Service, Rockville, MD. New Mexico Surface Water Quality Bureau, 1999. Six Mile, Cieneguilla and Moreno Creeks Draft Fecal Coliform TMDL Document. Novotny, V. and G. Chesters. 1981. Handbook of Nonpoint Pollution: Sources and Management. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company NY. 555 pp. Orth, R. and K. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: An Unprecedented Decline in Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. Science 22: 51­ 52. Pasternack, G. 1998. Physical Dynamics of Tidal Freshwater Delta Evolution. PhD Dissertation. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 5­ 6 Pitt, R. 1998. Epidemiology and Stormwater Managment. In Stormwater Quality Management. CRC /Lewis publishers. New York, NY. Pitt, R. and J. Voorhees. 1989. Source Load and Management Model – An Urban Nonpoint Source Water Quality Model: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, v. I­ III, PUBL­ WR Richey, J. S. 1982. Effects of Urbanization on a Lowland Stream in Urban Washington. PhD Dissertation. University of Washington. Samadpour, M. and N. Checkowitz. 1998. Little Soos Creek microbial source tracking. Washington Water RESOURCE, Spring, 1998. University of Washington Urban Water Resources Center. Sauer V. et al. 1983. Flood Characteristics of Urban Watersheds in the United States. US Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2207. Schiff, K. 1996. Review of Existing Stormwater Monitoring Programs for Estimating Bight­ Wide Mass Emissions from Urban Runoff. SCCWRP Annual Report 1996. Schueler, T. R. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban Best Management Practices. Publication No. 87703. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, DC. 272 pp. http:// www. mwcog. org Schueler, T. R. 1994. The Importance of Imperviousness. Article No. 1 in The Practice of Watershed Protection. 2000. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. http:// www. stormwatercenter. net Schueler, T. R. 1999. Microbes and Urban Watersheds. Article No. 31 in The Practice of Watershed Protection. 2000. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. http:// www. stormwatercenter. net Schueler, T. R. and J. Lugbill, 1990. "Performance of Current Sediment Control Measures at Maryland Construction Sites." Publication No. 89705. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC. 89 pp. http:// www. mwcog. org Schueler, T. R. and D. Shepp. 1993. "The Quantity of Trapped Sediments in Pool Water Within Oil Grit Separators in Suburban Maryland." Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC. Scott, J., C. Steward and Q. Stober. 1986. Effects of Urban Development on Fish Population Dynamics in Kelsey Creek, Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 5­ 7 Short, F. T. and S. Wyllie­ Echeverria. 1996. A Review of Natural and Human­ induced Disturbance of Seagrasses. Environmental Conservation 23( 1): 17­ 27. SMBRP. 1996. An Epidemiological Study of Possible Adverse Health Effects of Swimming in Santa Monica Bay. R. Haile, J. Alamillo, K. Barrett, R. Cressey, J. Dermond, C. Ervin, A. Glasser, N. Harawa, P. Harmon, J. Harper, C. McGee, R. Millikan, M. Nides, J. White. Monterey Park, CA. Sonzogni, W., C. Chesters, D. R. Coote, D. N. Jeffs, J. C. Konrad, R. C. Ushy, and J. B. Robinson. 1980. Pollution from Land Runoff. Environmental Science and Technology. Vol 14( 2): 148­ 153. Spence, B., G. Lomnicky, R. Hughes, and R. Novitzki. 1996. An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. TR­ 401­ 96­ 6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corporation, Corvallis, OR. (Available on the NMFS­ NWR website: http:// www. nwr. noaa. gov) Spinello, A. G., and D. L. Simmons. 1992. "Base Flow of 10 South­ Shore Streams, Long Island, New York, 1976­ 85, and the Effects of Urbanization on Base Flow and Flow Duration." USGS. Water Resour. Invest. Report 90­ 4205. Stern, D. 1996. Initial Investigation of the Sources and Sinks of Cryptosporidium and Giardia Within the Watersheds of the New York City Water Supply System. In Proceedings of a Symposium on New York City Water Supply Studies. Eds. McDonnel et al. TPS­ 96­ 2 184pp. American Water Resources Association. Herndon, VA. Steuer, Jeffrey, William Selbig, Nancy Hornewer, and Jeffrey Prey. 1997. Sources of Contamination in an Urban Basin in Marquette, Michigan and an Analysis of Concentrations, Loads, and Data Quality. U. S. Geological Survey, Water­ Resources Investigations Report 97­ 4242. Stevenson, J., L. Staver and K. Staver. 1993. Water Quality Associated with Submersed Aquatic Vegetation along an Estuarine Gradient. Estuaries 16( 2): 346­ 361. Sturm, Terry W. and Ronald E. Kirby, Jr. 1991. Sediment Reduction in Urban Stormwater Runoff from Construction Sites. Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta, GA, 104 pp. Trimble, S. 1997. Contribution of Stream Channel Erosion to Sediment Yield from an Urbanizing Watershed. Science. 278: 1442­ 1444. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 5­ 8 USDA. 2002. Technical Release No. 20: Computer Program for Project Formulation Hydrology (TR­ 20). Technical Release No. 55: Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (TR­ 55). U. S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Water and Climate Center. Portland, OR. http:// www. wcc. nrcs. usda. gov/ water/ quality/ hydro/ USDA, 2000. 1997 National Resources Inventory. (Revised December 2000). U. S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Washington, DC. http:// www. nrcs. usda. gov/ technical/ NRI/ USEPA. 2002. Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Construction and Development Category; May 2002. EPA 821­ R­ 02­ 008. http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ guide/ construction/ USEPA. 2002a. Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Construction and Development Category; May 2002. EPA 821­ R­ 02­ 007. http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ guide/ construction/ USEPA. 1999. Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1998a. "The Quality of Our Nation's Water: 1996 Report to Congress." EPA­ 841­ S97 001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ 305b/ USEPA. 1998b. EPA Beach Watch web site. http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ beaches . U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. USEPA. 1996. Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996: General guide to provisions. PB810 S­ 96­ 001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. USEPA. 1993. Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention and Control Planning. EPA­ 625­ R­ 93­ 004. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. USGS. 2000. National Hydrography Dataset. U. S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC. http:// nhd. usgs. gov Walling, D. and J Woodward. 1995. "Tracing Sources of Suspended Sediment in River Basins: A Case Study of the River Culm, Devon, UK" Marine and Freshwater Research. 46: 324­ 226. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 5­ 9 Waschbusch et al. 2000. "Sources of Phosphorus in Stormwater and Street Dirt from Two Urban Residential Basins in Madison, Wisconsin, 1994­ 1995." In: National Conference on Tools for Urban Water Resource Management and Protection. US EPA February 2000: pp. 15­ 55. Woodward­ Clyde Consultants. 1992. Source Identification and Control Report. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Control Program. Oakland, California. York J. H. and W. J. Herb. 1978. Effects of Urbanization and Streamflow Sediment Transport in Rock Creek and Anacostia River Basins. Montgomery County, MD, 1972­ 1974. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 1003. 72 pp.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.813221

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0030-0028

Supporting & Related Material

Appendix A Evaluating Pollutant Loadings from Construction Activities that Potentially Impact the Environment Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 A­ 1 Appendix A Evaluating Pollutant Loadings from Construction Activities that Potentially Impact the Environment This appendix details aspects of the methodologies described in Section 3 to pollutant discharges that result from construction activities under two options. Specifically, it expands on the discussion presented in Section 3, providing additional information on the assumptions used by EPA in its assessment. Estimates of Affected Area The Phase II NPDES storm water rule economic analysis (USEPA, 1999) presented information on the size and nature of construction activities under the Phase I and II storm water programs. In addition, the Phase II economic analysis (EA) detailed an extensive analysis of pollutant loadings for a range of site sizes, soil types, land slopes, and locations. EPA's current evaluation uses the results presented in the Phase II report to update its overall estimate of national construction site loadings. EPA expects that new regulation of the construction and development (C& D) category will augment the existing state and Phase I NPDES storm water programs. In addition, new regulations will shape future development of construction programs expected under the Phase II NPDES storm water program. EPA identified the array of potentially affected construction sites in the nation. EPA's assessment of construction site loadings is based on regulation of approximately 2.17 million acres per year. This regulated acreage estimate was calculated based on estimated national development rates from the 1997 National Resources Inventory (USDA, 2000), less the estimated acreage either occupied by sites less than 1 acre in size (not regulated) or sites which receive Phase II "R" waivers. "R" waivers are those applied for and granted under the construction general permit for sites with very low erosivity. The Phase II EA estimated the total acreage granted "R" waivers to be approximately 33 thousand acres (approximately 1.8 percent of the total constructed acreage). Based on its assessment of probable construction site size distribution, EPA estimates that another 1.7 percent of the annual constructed acreage will be on sites less than 1 acre. In addition, under Option 1, EPA is considering removing sites smaller than 5 acres. EPA estimates that approximately 18 percent of construction occurs on sites less than 5 acres in area. EPA's Analysis of State Programs Table A­ 1 presents the results of EPA's analysis of state construction programs. EPA focused on the states with the largest annual construction footprint to estimate the level of current control (i. e., not all state regulations were reviewed). As a result, the absence of a "Yes" value in Table A­ 1 may indicate that a construction program was not evaluated by EPA. Overall, the results in Table A­ 1 were converted into a ecoregion "score" or the percent of developed acreage that Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 A­ 2 would gain greater management under EPA's options. Table A­ 2 indicates the resulting percentage of construction acreage affected by the potential effluent guidelines in each ecoregion. As expected, new BMPs required under the options (e. g., certification of sediment basins) were not found in existing state regulations, and overall, existing state requirements require optionlevel BMPs for approximately 30­ 35 percent of the acreage developed annually. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 A­ 3 Table A­ 1. Assessment of State Construction Control Programs State/ Territory Minimum of 3600 Cubic Feet per Acre Storage Requirement for Larger Sites 14­ Day or More Inspection Frequency 14­ Day Cover Required States with Less than 20 Inches of Precipitation Per Year Alabama Alaska Yes Yes Yes Arizona Yes Yes Yes Yes Arkansas California Yes Yes Yes Colorado Yes Connecticut Yes Yes Yes Delaware Yes Yes Yes District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Yes Illinois Yes Indiana Iowa Yes Yes Yes Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Yes Yes Yes Michigan Minnesota Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines State/ Territory Minimum of 3600 Cubic Feet per Acre Storage Requirement for Larger Sites 14­ Day or More Inspection Frequency 14­ Day Cover Required States with Less than 20 Inches of Precipitation Per Year June 2002 A­ 4 Mississippi Missouri Montana Yes Yes Nebraska Nevada Yes New Hampshire Yes Yes Yes New Jersey New Mexico Yes Yes Yes Yes New York North Carolina North Dakota Yes Ohio Yes Yes Oklahoma Yes Oregon Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes Rhode Island South Carolina Yes Yes Yes South Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes Tennessee Yes Yes Yes Texas Yes Yes Yes Utah Yes Yes Yes Yes Vermont Virginia Yes Yes Yes Washington West Virginia Yes Yes Wisconsin Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines State/ Territory Minimum of 3600 Cubic Feet per Acre Storage Requirement for Larger Sites 14­ Day or More Inspection Frequency 14­ Day Cover Required States with Less than 20 Inches of Precipitation Per Year June 2002 A­ 5 Wyoming Yes Yes Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 A­ 6 Table A­ 2. Percentage of Acreage Developed Without Option Equivalent Requirements Ecoregion 3600 Cubic Feet per Acre Storage in Sedimentation Basins for Larger Sites (Criterion 1) Certification of Sediment Basins (Criterion 2) 14­ Day or more frequent inspection (Criterion 3) 14­ Day Cover For Wet­ States, or none required for dry states (Criterion 4) Overall Weighted Percentage of Acres Without Coverage ER 1 28.96% 0.00% 28.25% 30.72% 24.7% ER 2 39.16% 0.00% 57.61% 57.61% 47.1% ER 3 0.00% 0.00% 10.66% 10.66% 8.0% ER 4 77.06% 0.00% 77.06% 77.06% 65.5% ER 5 65.74% 0.00% 65.74% 65.74% 55.9% ER 6 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 85.0% ER 7 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 85.0% ER 8 64.45% 0.00% 68.16% 64.45% 56.6% ER 9 50.16% 0.00% 55.30% 42.80% 43.4% ER 10 74.51% 0.00% 81.79% 81.79% 68.8% ER 11 71.53% 0.00% 71.70% 71.70% 60.9% ER 12 51.80% 0.00% 65.17% 65.17% 54.1% ER 13 89.38% 0.00% 32.32% 89.38% 47.4% ER 14 67.34% 0.00% 53.83% 71.01% 51.4% ER 15 62.15% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 81.2% ER 16 5.65% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 75.6% ER 17 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 85.0% ER 18 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 85.0% ER 19 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 85.0% National Average Weighted by Land Developed 64% 0% 70% 69% 58.9% Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 A­ 7 Information in Table A­ 2 was converted into an overall national "score," to discount estimated TSS loadings reductions by accounting for acres covered by equivalent programs. To combine the four analyzed criteria, EPA assumed that the individual contributions to reductions were 10, 15, 50, 25 percent, respectively. For example, sedimentation basins based on 3,600 cubic feet contribute 10 percent of the estimated reduction between baseline and option loadings. On a national basis, EPA estimated that approximately 41 percent of land is served by equivalent programs, and would not be affected by Option 1 or 2 requirements. Appendix B Inventorying of Streams Potentially Impacted By Construction Activities Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B­ 1 Appendix B Inventorying of Streams Potentially Impacted By Construction Activities Overview This appendix describes EPA's effort to inventory and assess environmental impacts of construction activities. Specifically, the appendix describes, in detail, the analytical steps performed to inventory the nation's stream system and provides general background information on the rationale used to develop the inventory approach. Delineation of impacted stream environments forms the basis for assessing the future benefits of regulatory controls on construction and activities. The objectives of this appendix are as follows: ° To describe a method to characterize streams by their hydrologic function based on regional differences ° To establish the appropriate map scale for inventorying streams based on their size and geometry (e. g., length, slope, dimensions). Stream Characterization Many of the impacts on streams are a function of drainage area and hydrologic regime. Producing a national summary of potentially impacted stream networks is challenging because the nature and size of streams vary significantly throughout the country. For example, watersheds that produce a minimum base flow of 1 cubic foot per second (cfs) occupy 1 square mile in the eastern United States but require 100 square miles in the arid southwest. To account for this variation, EPA divided the country into 19 large hydrologic regions and then further inventoried the streams in each region separately, based on approximate stream size categories (i. e., stream orders). Representative watersheds in each of the 19 large ecoregions in the contiguous U. S. (see Figure B­ 1) were inventoried to determine the average stream density for the stream orders that are the most likely impacted in each ecoregion. EPA developed the boundaries for the 19 ecoregions based on a stream density assessment that used EPA's Reach File 1 (RF1) stream network and the 76 ecoregions developed by Omernik (1987). Figure B­ 2 shows the RF1 densities in terms of acres per stream mile for each of the 76 ecoregions. Combining the 76 ecoregions into the 19 ecoregions shown in Figure B­ 1 helps simplify the analysis while still capturing a reasonable number of regions with similar stream densities and accounts for gross changes in hydrology, land forms, soil types, and potential natural vegetation. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B­ 2 In general, the literature indicates that environmental sensitivity (e. g., geomorphologic changes, pollutant toxicity) is greater on smaller stream orders, from the intermittent headwater streams to small perennial streams. For most environmental impacts (except perhaps nutrient loadings), the impacts of the construction and land development industry tend to decrease with increased stream size, and the impacts tend to become confounded with other influences (e. g., other point and nonpoint source pollutant loads). For this reason, the inventory focused on relatively small watersheds (between 2 and 7 square miles) to better assess the impacts of hydrologic changes on small streams. 
        
 
  
Figure B­ 1. Regions for Stream Inventorying Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B­ 3                        

    

                      
    
  
  

        
       Region 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Ecoregion Boundary Figure B­ 2. Stream Densities for Omernik Ecoregions (in units of acres per stream mile) Because EPA focused on small streams, it was necessary to select a method by which to characterize streams by size. Historically, various schemes have been created to characterize and count streams within a drainage network, including the following: ° Stream order is determined by counting stream segments starting with the smallest stream channels found on a selected map scale. ° Stream level is determined by counting stream segments starting from the most downstream discharge point (ocean or estuary) on a selected map scale. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B­ 4 ° Streams are characterized by physical descriptions including flow frequency (perennial or intermittent streams), size (large, medium, or small), and/ or terms such as swales, creeks, and rivers. ° Watershed size is based on the scale of the map on which the watersheds are just visible. EPA selected the first method, stream order characterization, for use in this assessment. Map Scale Selection Because any network of "streams" identified at the outset of a hydrologic inventory is highly dependent on the scale of the map used, selecting the appropriate scale is a critical step. Rills and swales that are obvious and identifiable on a 1: 2,400­ scale map are completely absent on a 1: 250,000­ scale map. Figure B­ 3 shows the streams visible on the following three scales of maps for a typical watershed (10 square miles) in northeastern Maryland: ° U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1: 250,000­ scale map or streams found in EPA's RF1 stream network ° USGS 1: 100,000­ scale map or streams found in EPA's Reach File V. 3 (RF3) and National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (USGS, 2000) stream networks ° USGS 1: 24,000­ scale map. The three map scales, respectively, permit successively finer viewing of stream sizes: (1) large perennial streams, (2) medium perennial to intermittent streams, and (3) larger swales and intermittent streams. Although not shown in Figure B­ 3, an even finer detail stream network— one based on 1: 2,400­ scale maps (a scale commonly used by local governments) that includes the smallest swales— can be visualized by increasing the number of 1: 24,000­ scale streams threefold (i. e., delineation of watersheds as small as 2 acres). Figure B­ 3 illustrates the importance of map scale selection: ° Inventorying stream networks based on 1: 24,000­ scale will include many more streams than a 1: 250,000­ scale inventory; ° The stream order assigned to any stream will be different based on the map scale; and ° Direct evaluation using only EPA's RF1 and RF3 hydrologic stream coverages would grossly undercount the number of streams potentially impacted. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B­ 5 0. 9 0 0. 9 1. 8 2. 7 Miles S N E W Swal e = 1: 24, 0 00 EPA R F3 = 1: 100, 000 Stream Network Scale EPA R F1 = 1: 250, 000 Figure B­ 3. Stream Networks for 1: 250,000­, 1: 100,000­, and 1: 24,000­ Scale Maps Note: The 1: 24,000­ stream network shown contains more streams than the USGS identified on its 7.5­ minute quadrangle maps using typical blue or dashed blue lines. This figure includes all swales that can be drawn based on contour lines given on the 1: 24,000 map, resulting in an enhancement that shows two to three times more "streams" than are shown on the original map (down to watersheds approximately 10 acres in size). Interpretation of contour lines defines a stream network based on land forms as the contours are present because streams/ swales have created them. This contour­ based enhancement defines a "stream" based on topography, regardless of whether or not the stream is actually drawn on the map. Because using an increased detail of stream network (smaller map scale) requires increased effort levels, EPA developed a method that was both practical and depicted the appropriate stream level for this assessment. The amount of stream data available is extensive; the national coverage for RF1 contains 100 megabytes of data, while RF3 contains 7,400 megabytes. All of RF1 (data on just the largest rivers in the nation) can reside and be analyzed on a single microcomputer. However, the RF3 network and the similar, newer NHD are so large they can be analyzed in a Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B­ 6 microcomputer environment only when divided into 20 separate parts. Therefore, EPA assumed that a national dataset containing all streams and swales identifiable from 1: 2,400­ scale maps would be unworkable within the current limits of any microcomputer. To maintain a relatively small map scale, EPA performed an inventory of streams and swales identifiable based on 1: 24,000­ scale maps (where swales are added manually) by first sampling representative watersheds or areas. (An actual inventory of individual swales and streams on a 1: 24,000­ scale for specific acreage developed in any given state in any given year is beyond current computational capabilities and the limits of available data, requiring some type of approximation or sampling technique). EPA used digital elevation maps (DEMs), which allowed EPA to process contour data, enhancing the original stream network to provide data on the larger intermittent streams (typically streams draining less than 30 acres). Because EPA's assessment of the construction industry indicates that a medium­ sized construction start is approximately 20 acres, this approach is refined enough to inventory the number and size of streams potentially impacted by construction and land development activities. The number and length of streams in a larger area were then estimated by using the stream density found in the sampled watershed/ area. Appendix C Impacts of Construction Activities on Hydrology Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines 1 The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) is the former name of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). June 2002 C­ 1 Appendix C Impacts of Construction Activities on Hydrology Overview This appendix describes hydrologic changes that result from construction and post­ development activities, and focuses primarily on changes in runoff rates and soil infiltration. The general hydrologic changes caused by these industries have environmental and economic impacts. The objectives of this appendix are: ° To demonstrate the variation in runoff rate for a 10­ acre site as it changes from a forested condition into a construction condition. ° To describe the environmental benefits of current BMPs primarily designed to limit discharge from construction sites. Methodology A simple hydrologic model was developed to depict the hydrologic changes that result from construction and land development activities on a (10­ acre) site. The size of 10­ acres was chosen because it represents the typical size for a construction site. In addition, the hydrologic changes are believed to be similar to changes that result on larger sites such as 100­ acre sites and 1000­ acre sites. Investigation of hydrologic changes was performed by using two hydrologic models: TR­ 55 and TR­ 20. These models use data developed over many years by USDA/ Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and are among the most often employed models for the hydrologic design of hydraulic structures, such as storm drainage systems (USDA, 2002). The 10­ acre watershed was assumed to have a 50/ 50 mix of soils in the type B and C hydrologic soil classification, with an average ground slope of 7 percent. Time of concentration was derived based on standard TR­ 55 worksheets that analyze sheet flow, shallow concentrated flow, and pipe flow. For the analysis, the 2­ year 24­ hour SCS 1 type II rainfall event, totaling 3.2 inches of rainfall, was used to conservatively estimate the runoff hydrographs. Multiple land use conditions (Table C­ 1) were evaluated to help assess the hydrologic impacts for the small 10­ acre site. EPA notes that most construction sites occupying 10 acres are Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 C­ 2 equipped with a sedimentation pond, intended to minimize sediment discharge from the site. Although sediment ponds are not designed specifically shave the peak runoff rate (i. e., limit the construction site peak discharge rate to be equal to or less than the peak runoff from the forested site), these structures inherently have some capability of peak­ shaving depending on the site conditions. In addition, sedimentation ponds can be built to increase its peak­ shaving capability. For the purposes of this assessment, EPA assumed that a sedimentation pond (Condition 3) shaves the peak completely, as shown in Figure C­ 1. Table C­ 1. Evaluated Hydrologic Conditions for a Typical 10­ Acre Site Land Use Condition Description 1 Pre­ development: a forested land use 2 Construction: cleared and grubbed soil surface with no vegetation and without construction runoff BMPs (No sedimentation ponds) 3 Construction: cleared and grubbed soil surface with no vegetation with storm water BMPs (a sedimentation pond that also shaves the peak runoff to match the predevelopment peak flow) The results of the analysis are presented below for each of these land use conditions. Discussion of Runoff Results for Modeled Land Use Conditions Figure C­ 1 compares the predicted runoff hydrographs for Land Use Conditions 1 through 3. The hydrographs in the figure show the large increase in runoff volume and peak runoff rate that occurs for construction sites with or without storm water BMPs that limit the peak runoff rates. This increase is caused by the removal of existing vegetation and compaction of site soils with earth moving equipment, which greatly diminishes the site's ability to absorb rainfall and limit discharge. In fact, NRCS data strongly suggest that a fully­ constructed site (e. g., a residential neighborhood) produces less runoff than a denuded site under construction, even though impervious surfaces (e. g., driveways, roofs) have not yet been installed. Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 C­ 3 Comparison of Various Construction Conditions for A Ten Acre Construction Site 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time In Hours Flow Discharged (cubic feet per second) Forested Construction Site Without BMPs Construction Site With BMPs Figure C­ 1. Runoff Hydrographs for a 10­ Acre Construction Site Although the implementation of peak­ shaving BMPs minimizes some of the flooding downstream of a construction site due to high peak flows, it does not eliminate the potential for enhanced flooding that is caused by longer durations of high­ flow discharges. Table C­ 2 indicates that the construction site produces high flows for a much greater duration than flows originally released from the forested site. In fact, the 10­ acre site that once produced a flow rate equal to or greater than 3 cubic feet per second (cfs) for only 0.2 hours will produce more than 3 Environmental Assessment of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 C­ 4 cfs for 3.2 hours when peak­ shaving BMPs are employed during construction. Should a 2­ year storm occur during the construction period, the longer flow duration increases the chances that the discharge will be combined with downstream peak flows from other developing/ developed locations to produce a flooding condition. Table C­ 2. Comparison of Durations of High Flow Rates for Different Land Use Conditions Land Use Condition Hours of flow equal to or greater than: 3 cfs 2 cfs 1 cfs Forested 0.2 0.3 0.8 Construction site without peak shaving BMPs 0.9 1.4 3.3 Construction site with peak shaving BMPs 3.2 4 5.7 cfs = cubic feet per second

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.831614

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0030-0029

Proposed Rule

Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Construction and Development Category; Proposed Rule

63867 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules (c) General requirements. (1) The required marks prescribed in this section must be legible. (2) Licensed manufacturers, licensed importers, and permittees importing explosive materials must place the required marks on each cartridge, bag, or other immediate container of explosive materials that they manufacture or import, as well as on any outside container used for the packaging of such explosive materials. (3) Licensed manufacturers, licensed importers, and permittees importing explosive materials may use any method, or combination of methods, to affix the required marks to the immediate container of explosive materials, or outside containers used for the packaging thereof, provided the identifying marks are legible, show all the required information, and are not rendered unreadable by extended periods of storage. (4) If licensed manufacturers, licensed importers or permittees importing explosive materials desire to use a coding system and omit printed markings on the container, they must file with ATF a letterhead application displaying the coding that they plan to use and explaining the manner of its application. The Director must approve the application before the proposed coding can be used. (d) Exceptions. (1) Blasting caps. Licensed manufacturers, licensed importers, or permittees importing blasting caps, are only required to place the identification marks prescribed in this section on the containers used for the packaging of blasting caps. (2) Alternate means of identification. The Director may authorize other means of identifying explosive materials, including fireworks, upon receipt of a letter application from the licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or permittee, showing that such other identification is reasonable and will not hinder the effective administration of this part. Signed: August 14, 2002. Bradley A. Buckles, Director. Approved: September 16, 2002. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Regulatory, Tariff and Trade Enforcement). [FR Doc. 02Ð 26253 Filed 10Ð 15Ð 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 4810– 31– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 122 and 450 [FRL– 7394– 2] RIN 2040– AD42 Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Construction and Development Category; Proposed Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period and addition to docket. SUMMARY: EPA is extending the comment period for the proposed rule and adding two documents to the rulemaking docket. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule will be accepted through December 23, 2002. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Comment Clerk, Water Docket (4101T), U. S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. Please refer to Docket No. WÐ 02Ð 06. EPA requests an original and three copies of your comments and enclosures (including references). Commenters who want EPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments should enclose a selfaddressed stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For hand deliveries or e­ mail comments, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. paragraph below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Eric Strassler at (202) 566Ð 1026. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 24, 2002 (67 FR 42644), EPA proposed effluent guidelines and standards for storm water discharges from construction sites. The original comment deadline was October 22, 2002. EPA received requests to extend the comment period and the Agency has decided to do so due to the complexity of the issues involved with the proposed rule and its implementation. The comment period will now end on December 23, 2002. EPA identified two documents which it considered during the development of the proposed rule but inadvertently omitted from the rulemaking docket. These documents are now available for public review. 1. National Association of Home Builders, ''Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices Research Project. '' Washington, DC, 2000. 2. EPA, `` Final Report of the SBREFA Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA's Planned Proposed Rule for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Industry. '' October 12, 2001. EPA established the public record for the proposed rule under docket number WÐ 02Ð 06. The record is available for inspection at the EPA Docket Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. Please call the Water Docket office at (202) 566Ð 2426 to schedule an appointment. Please bring any hand­ delivered comments to the Public Reading Room address. Comments may also be sent via e­ mail to ow­ docket@ epa. gov. Electronic comments must be identified by the docket number WÐ 02Ð 06 and must be submitted as a WordPerfect, MS Word or ASCII text file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. EPA requests that any graphics included in electronic comments also be provided in hardcopy form. EPA also will accept comments and data on disks in the aforementioned file formats. Electronic comments received on this document may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. No confidential business information (CBI) should be sent by e­ mail. Additional information on the proposed rule is available on EPA's Web site at http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ guide/ construction/. Dated: October 9, 2002. G. Tracy Mehan III, Assistant Administrator for Water. [FR Doc. 02Ð 26302 Filed 10Ð 15Ð 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA– B– 7430] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt VerDate 0ct< 02> 2002 20: 12 Oct 15, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16OCP1. SGM 16OCP1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.837222

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0049-0002

Proposed Rule

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Proposed Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II ExistingFacilities; Proposed Rule. Part 1.

Tuesday, April 9, 2002 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 9, et al. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Proposed Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; Proposed Rule VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17122 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 9, 122, 123, 124, and 125 [ FRL 7154 7] RIN 2040 AD62 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Proposed Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Today's proposed rule would implement section 316( b) of the Clean Water Act ( CWA) for certain existing power producing facilities that employ a cooling water intake structure and that withdraw 50 million gallons per day ( MGD) or more of water from rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, oceans, or other waters of the U. S. for cooling purposes. The proposed rule constitutes Phase II in EPA's development of section 316( b) regulations and would establish national requirements applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at these facilities. The proposed national requirements, which would be implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permits, would minimize the adverse environmental impact associated with the use of these structures. Today's proposed rule would establish location, design, construction, and capacity requirements that reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact from the cooling water intake structure based on water body type, and the amount of water withdrawn by a facility. The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) proposes to group surface water into five categories freshwater rivers and streams, lakes and reservoirs, Great Lakes, estuaries and tidal rivers, and oceans and establish requirements for cooling water intake structures located in distinct water body types. In general, the more sensitive or biologically productive the waterbody, the more stringent the requirements proposed as reflecting the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. Proposed requirements also vary according to the percentage of the source waterbody withdrawn, and facility utilization rate. A facility may choose one of three options for meeting best technology available requirements under this proposed rule. These options include demonstrating that the facility subject to the proposed rule currently meet specified performance standards; selecting and implementing design and construction technologies, operational measures, or restoration measures that meet specified performance standards; or demonstrating that the facility qualifies for a site­ specific determination of best technology available because its costs of compliance are either significantly greater than those considered by the Agency during the development of this proposed rule, or the facility's costs of compliance would be significantly greater than the environmental benefits of compliance with the proposed performance standards. The proposed rule also provides that facilities may use restoration measures in addition to or in lieu of technology measures to meet performance standards or in establishing best technology available on a site­ specific basis. EPA expects that this proposed regulation would minimize adverse environmental impact, including substantially reducing the harmful effects of impingement and entrainment, at existing facilities over the next 20 years. As a result, the Agency anticipates that this proposed rule would help protect ecosystems in proximity to cooling water intake structures. Today's proposal would help preserve aquatic organisms, including threatened and endangered species, and the ecosystems they inhabit in waters used by cooling water intake structures at existing facilities. EPA has considered the potential benefits of the proposed rule and in the preamble discusses these benefits in both quantitative and nonquantitative terms. Benefits, among other factors, are based on a decrease in expected mortality or injury to aquatic organisms that would otherwise be subject to entrainment into cooling water systems or impingement against screens or other devices at the entrance of cooling water intake structures. Benefits may also accrue at population, community, or ecosystem levels of ecological structures. DATES: Comments on this proposed rule and Information Collection Request ( ICR) must be received or postmarked on or before midnight July 8, 2002. ADDRESSES: Public comments regarding this proposed rule should be submitted by mail to: Cooling Water Intake Structure ( Existing Facilities: Phase II) Proposed Rule Comment Clerk W 00 32, Water Docket, Mail Code 4101, EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments delivered in person ( including overnight mail) should be submitted to the Cooling Water Intake Structure ( Existing Facilities: Phase II) Proposed Rule Comment Clerk W 00 32, Water Docket, Room EB 57, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. You also may submit comments electronically to ow­ docket@ epa. gov. Please submit any references cited in your comments. Please submit an original and three copies of your written comments and enclosures. For additional information on how to submit comments, see `` SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, How May I Submit Comments?'' EPA has prepared an Information Collection Request ( ICR) under the Paperwork Reduction Act for this proposed rule ( EPA ICR number 2060.01). For further information or a copy of the ICR contact Susan Auby by phone at ( 202) 260 4901, e­ mail at auby. susan@ epamail. epa. gov or download off the internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden ( including the use of automated collection techniques) to the following addresses. Please refer to EPA ICR Number 2060.01 in any correspondence. Ms. Susan Auby, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OP Regulatory Information Division ( 2137), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information contact Deborah G. Nagle at ( 202) 566 1063. For additional economic information contact Lynne Tudor, Ph. D. at ( 202) 566 1043. For additional biological information contact Dana A. Thomas, Ph. D. at ( 202) 566 1046. The e­ mail address for the above contacts is `` rule. 316b@ epa. gov.'' SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: What Entities Are Potentially Regulated by This Action? This proposed rule would apply to `` Phase II existing facilities,'' i. e., existing facilities that both generate and transmit electric power or that generate electric power for sale to another entity for transmission; use one or more cooling water intake structures to withdraw water from waters of the U. S.; VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17123 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 Proposed § 125.93 defines `` existing facility'' as any facility that commenced construction before January 17, 2002 and certain modifications and additions to such facilities. have or require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit issued under section 402 of the CWA; and meet proposed flow thresholds. 1 Existing electric power generating facilities subject to this proposal would include those that use cooling water intake structures to withdraw fifty ( 50) million gallons per day ( MGD) or more and that use at least twenty­ five ( 25) percent of water withdrawn solely for cooling purposes. If a facility that otherwise would be subject to the proposed rule does not meet the fifty ( 50) MGD design intake flow or twenty­ five ( 25) percent cooling water threshold, the permit authority would implement section 316( b) on a case­ by­ case basis, using best professional judgment. EPA intends to address such facilities in a future rulemaking effort. This proposal defines the term `` cooling water intake structure'' to mean the total physical structure and any associated constructed waterways used to withdraw water from waters of the U. S. The cooling water intake structure extends from the point at which water is withdrawn from the surface water source up to, and including, the intake pumps. The category of facilities that would meet the proposed cooling water intake structure criteria for existing facilities are electric power generation utilities and nonutility power producers. The following exhibit lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware potentially could be subject to this proposed rule. This exhibit is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. Types of entities not listed in the exhibit could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria proposed at § 125.91 of the proposed rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult one of the persons listed for technical information in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Category Examples of regulated entitles Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) codes Federal, State, and Local Government Operators of steam electric generating point source dischargers that employ cooling water intake structures 4911 and 493 ........... 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122. Industry ......................................... Steam electric generating ( this includes utilities and nonutilities). 4911 and 493 ........... 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122. Supporting Documentation The proposed Phase II regulation is supported by three major documents: 1. Economic and Benefits Analysis for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule ( EPA 821 R 02 001), hereafter referred to as the EBA. This document presents the analysis of compliance costs, closures, energy supply effects and benefits associated with the proposed rule. 2. Case Study Analysis for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule ( EPA 821 R 02 002), hereafter referred to as the Case Study Document. This document presents the information gathered from the watershed and facility level case studies and methodology used to determine baseline impingement and entrainment losses. 3. Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule ( EPA 821 R 02 003), hereafter referred to as the Technical Development Document. This document presents detailed information on the methods used to develop unit costs and describes the set of technologies that may be used to meet the proposed rule's requirements. How May I Review the Public Record? The record ( including supporting documentation) for this proposed rule is filed under docket number W 00 32 ( Phase II Existing Facility proposed rule). The record is available for inspection from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m. on Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, at the Water Docket, Room EB 57, USEPA Headquarters, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. For access to docket materials, please call ( 202) 260 3027 to schedule an appointment during the hours of operation stated above. How May I Submit Comments? To ensure that EPA can read, understand, and therefore properly respond to comments, the Agency requests that you cite, where possible, the paragraph( s) or sections in the preamble, rule, or supporting documents to which each comment refers. You should use a separate paragraph for each issue you discuss. If you want EPA to acknowledge receipt of your comments, enclose a self­ addressed, stamped envelope. No faxes will be accepted. Electronic comments must be submitted as a WordPerfect 5.1, 6.1, 8, or 9 format, or an ASCII file or file avoiding the use of special characters and forms of encryption. Electronic comments must be identified by the docket number W 00 32. EPA will accept comments and data on disks in WordPerfect 5.1, 6.1, 8 or 9 format or in ASCII file format. Electronic comments on this notice may be filed on­ line at many Federal depository libraries. Organization of This Document I. Legal Authority, Purpose of Today's Proposal, and Background A. Legal Authority B. Purpose of Today's Proposal C. Background II. Scope and Applicability of the Proposed Rule A. What Is an `` Existing Facility'' for Purposes of the Section 316( b) Proposed Phase II Rule? B. What Is a `` Cooling Water Intake Structure''? C. Is My Facility Covered If It Withdraws From Waters of the U. S.? D. Is My Facility Covered If It Is a Point Source Discharger Subject to an NPDES Permit? E. Who Is Covered Under the Thresholds Included in This Proposed Rule? F. When Must a Phase II Existing Facility Comply With the Proposed Requirements? G. What Special Definitions Apply to This Proposal III. Summary of Data Collection Activities A. Existing Data Sources B. Survey Questionnaires C. Site Visits D. Data Provided to EPA by Industrial, Trade, Consulting, Scientific or Environmental Organizations or by the General Public VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17124 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules IV. Overview of Facility Characteristics ( Cooling Water Systems & Intakes) for Industries Potentially Subject to Proposed Rule V. Environmental Impacts Associated With Cooling Water Intake Structures VI. Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact at Phase II Existing Facilities A. What Is the Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact at Phase II Existing Facilities? B. Other Technology Based Options Under Consideration C. Site­ Specific Based Options Under Consideration D. Why EPA Is Not Considering Dry Cooling Anywhere? E. What is the Role of Restoration and Trading? VII. Implementation A. When Does the Proposed Rule Become Effective? B. What Information Must I Submit to the Director When I Apply for My Reissued NPDES Permit? C. How Would the Director Determine the Appropriate Cooling Water Intake Structure Requirements? D. What Would I Be Required To Monitor? E. How Would Compliance Be Determined? F. What Are the Respective Federal, State, and Tribal Roles? G. Are Permits for Existing Facilities Subject to Requirements Under Other Federal Statutes? H. Alternative Site­ Specific Requirements VIII. Economic Analysis A. Proposed Rule B. Alternative Regulatory Options IX. Benefit Analysis A. Overview of Benefits Discussion B. The Physical Impacts of Impingement and Entrainment C. Impingement and Entrainment Impacts and Regulatory Benefits Are Site­ Specific D. Data and Methods Used to Estimate Benefits E. Summary of Benefits Findings: Case Studies F. Estimates of National Benefits X. Administrative Requirements A. E. O. 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act D. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by SBREFA ( 1996) E. E. O. 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low­ Income Populations F. E. O. 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks G. E. O. 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments H. E. O. 13158: Marine Protected Areas I. E. O. 13211: Energy Effects J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act K. Plain Language Directive I. Legal Authority, Purpose of Today's Proposal, and Background A. Legal Authority Today's proposed rule is issued under the authority of sections 101, 301, 304, 306, 308, 316, 401, 402, 501, and 510 of the Clean Water Act ( CWA), 33 U. S. C. 1251, 1311, 1314, 1316, 1318, 1326, 1341, 1342, 1361, and 1370. This proposal partially fulfills the obligations of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) under a consent decree in Riverkeeper Inc., et al. v. Whitman, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 93 Civ. 0314 ( AGS). B. Purpose of Today's Proposal Section 316( b) of the CWA provides that any standard established pursuant to section 301 or 306 of the CWA and applicable to a point source must require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available ( BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact. Today's proposed rule would establish requirements, reflecting the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact, applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at Phase II existing power generating facilities that withdraw at least fifty ( 50) MGD of cooling water from waters of the U. S. Today's proposal would define a cooling water intake structure as the total physical structure, including the pumps, and any associated constructed waterways used to withdraw water from waters of the U. S. Cooling water absorbs waste heat rejected from processes employed or from auxiliary operations on a facility's premises. Single cooling water intake structures might have multiple intake bays. In 1977 EPA issued draft guidance for determining the best technology available to minimize adverse environmental impact from cooling water intake structures. In the absence of section 316( b) regulations or final guidance, the 1977 draft guidance has served as applicable guidance for section 316( b) determinations. See Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Adverse Impact of Cooling Water Intake Structures on the Aquatic Environment: Section 316( b) Pub. L. 92 500 ( U. S. EPA, 1977). Administrative determinations in several permit proceedings also have served as de facto guidance. Today, EPA proposes a national framework that would establish certain minimum requirements for the location, design, capacity, and construction of cooling water intake structures for large cooling water intake structures at Phase II existing facilities. In doing so, the Agency is proposing to revise the approach adopted in the 1977 draft guidance which was based on the judgment that ``[ t] he decision as to best technology available for intake design location, construction, and capacity must be made on a case­ by­ case basis.'' Other important differences from the 1977 draft guidance include today's proposed definition of a `` cooling water intake structure.'' Today's proposal also would establish a cost­ benefit test that is different from the `` wholly disproportionate'' cost­ benefit test that has been in use since the 1970s. Although EPA's judgment is that the requirements proposed today would best implement section 316( b) at Phase II existing facilities, the Agency is also inviting comment on a broad array of other alternatives, including, for example, more stringent technologybased requirements and a framework under which Directors would continue to evaluate adverse environmental impact and determine the best technology available for minimizing such impact on a wholly site­ specific basis. Because the Agency is inviting comment on a broad range of alternatives for potential promulgation, today's proposal is not intended as guidance for determining the best technology available to minimize the adverse environmental impact of cooling water intake structures at potentially regulated Phase II existing facilities. Until the Agency promulgates final regulations based on today's proposal, Directors should continue to make section 316( b) determinations with respect to existing facilities, which may be more or less stringent than today's proposal, on a case­ by­ case basis applying best professional judgment. Today's proposal would not apply to existing manufacturing facilities or to power generating facilities that withdraw less than fifty ( 50) MGD of cooling water. These facilities will be addressed in a separate rulemaking, referred to as the Phase III rule ( see section I. C. 2., below). In the interim, these facilities are subject to section 316( b) requirements established by permitting authorities on a case­ by­ case basis, using best professional judgment. Upon promulgation of final regulations based on today's proposal, the Agency will address the extent to which the final regulations and preamble should serve as guidance for developing section 316( b) requirements for Phase III facilities prior to the promulgation of the Phase III regulations. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17125 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules EPA and State permitting authorities should use existing guidance and information to form their best professional judgment in issuing permits to existing facilities. EPA's draft Guidance for Evaluating the Adverse Impact of Cooling Water Intake Structures on the Aquatic Environment: Section 316( b) ( May 1, 1977), continues to be applicable for existing facilities pending EPA's issuance of final regulations under section 316( b). Two background papers that EPA prepared in 1994 and 1996 to describe cooling water intake technologies being used or tested for minimizing adverse environmental impact also contain information that could be useful to permit writers. ( Preliminary Regulatory Development, Section 316( b) of the Clean Water Act, Background Paper Number 3: Cooling Water Intake Technologies ( 1994) and Draft Supplement to Background Paper Number 3: Cooling Water Intake Technologies.) Fact sheets from recent 316( b) State and Regional permits are another source of potentially relevant information. The evaluations of the costs and efficacies of technologies presented in the Technical Development Document for the Final Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities, EPA 821 R 01 036, November 2001 may also be relevant on some cases, although costs for some technologies will differ between new and existing facilities. EPA and State decision­ makers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case­ by­ case basis that differ from applicable guidance where appropriate. Any decisions on a particular facility should be based on the requirements of section 316( b). C. Background 1. The Clean Water Act The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act ( CWA), 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq., seeks to `` restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.'' 33 U. S. C. 1251( a). The CWA establishes a comprehensive regulatory program, key elements of which are ( 1) a prohibition on the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the U. S., except as authorized by the statute; ( 2) authority for EPA or authorized States or Tribes to issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permits that regulate the discharge of pollutants; and ( 3) requirements for EPA to develop effluent limitations guidelines and standards and for States to develop water quality standards that are the basis for the limitations required in NPDES permits. Today's proposed rule would implement section 316( b) of the CWA as it applies to `` Phase II existing facilities'' as defined in this proposal. Section 316( b) addresses the adverse environmental impact caused by the intake of cooling water, not discharges into water. Despite this special focus, the requirements of section 316( b) are closely linked to several of the core elements of the NPDES permit program established under section 402 of the CWA to control discharges of pollutants into navigable waters. For example, section 316( b) applies to facilities that withdraw water from the waters of the United States for cooling through a cooling water intake structure and are point sources subject to an NPDES permit. Conditions implementing section 316( b) are included in NPDES permits and would continue to be included in such permits under this proposed rule. Section 301 of the CWA prohibits the discharge of any pollutant by any person, except in compliance with specified statutory requirements. These requirements include compliance with technology­ based effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards, water quality standards, NPDES permit requirements, and certain other requirements. Section 402 of the CWA provides authority for EPA or an authorized State or Tribe to issue an NPDES permit to any person discharging any pollutant or combination of pollutants from a point source into waters of the U. S. Forty­ four States and one U. S. territory are authorized under section 402( b) to administer the NPDES permitting program. NPDES permits restrict the types and amounts of pollutants, including heat, that may be discharged from various industrial, commercial, and other sources of wastewater. These permits control the discharge of pollutants primarily by requiring dischargers to meet effluent limitations and other permit conditions. Effluent limitations may be based on promulgated federal effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, or the best professional judgment of the permit writer. Limitations based on these guidelines, standards, or best professional judgment are known as technology­ based effluent limits. Where technology­ based effluent limits are inadequate to ensure compliance with water quality standards applicable to the receiving water, more stringent effluent limits based on applicable water quality standards are required. NPDES permits also routinely include monitoring and reporting requirements, standard conditions, and special conditions. Sections 301, 304, and 306 of the CWA require that EPA develop technology­ based effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards that are used as the basis for technology­ based minimum discharge requirements in wastewater discharge permits. EPA issues these effluent limitations guidelines and standards for categories of industrial dischargers based on the pollutants of concern discharged by the industry, the degree of control that can be attained using various levels of pollution control technology, consideration of various economic tests appropriate to each level of control, and other factors identified in sections 304 and 306 of the CWA ( such as non­ water quality environmental impacts including energy impacts). EPA has promulgated regulations setting effluent limitations guidelines and standards under sections 301, 304, and 306 of the CWA for more than 50 industries. See 40 CFR parts 405 through 471. Among these, EPA has established effluent limitations guidelines that apply to most of the industry categories that use cooling water intake structures ( e. g., steam electric power generation, iron and steel manufacturing, pulp and paper manufacturing, petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing). Section 306 of the CWA requires that EPA establish discharge standards for new sources. For purposes of section 306, new sources include any source that commenced construction after the promulgation of applicable new source performance standards, or after proposal of applicable standards of performance if the standards are promulgated in accordance with section 306 within 120 days of proposal. CWA section 306; 40 CFR 122.2. New source performance standards are similar to the technologybased limitations established for Phase II existing sources, except that new source performance standards are based on the best available demonstrated technology instead of the best available technology economically achievable. New facilities have the opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies. Therefore, Congress directed EPA to consider the best demonstrated process changes, inplant controls, and end­ of­ process control and treatment technologies that reduce pollution to the maximum extent feasible. In addition, in establishing new source performance standards, EPA is required to take into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17126 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 2 Under the Amended Consent Decree, EPA is to propose reuglations in Phase II that are `` applicable to, at a minimum: ( i) Existing utilities ( i. e., facilities that both generate and transmit electric power) that employ a cooling water intake structure, and whose intake flow levels exceed a minimum threshold to be determined by EPA during the Phase II rulemaking process; and ( ii) existing non­ utility power producers ( i. e., facilities that generate electric power but sell it to another entity for transmission) that employa cooling water intake structure, and whose intakeflow levels exceed a minimum threshold to be determined by EPA during the Phase II rulemaking process.'' and any non­ water quality environmental impacts and energy requirements. 2. Consent Decree Today's proposed rule partially fulfills EPA's obligation to comply with an Amended Consent Decree. The Amended Consent Decree was filed on November 22, 2000, in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, in Riverkeeper Inc., et al. v. Whitman, No. 93 Civ 0314 ( AGS), a case brought against EPA by a coalition of individuals and environmental groups. The original Consent Decree, filed on October 10, 1995, provided that EPA was to propose regulations implementing section 316( b) by July 2, 1999, and take final action with respect to those regulations by August 13, 2001. Under subsequent interim orders and the Amended Consent Decree, EPA has divided the rulemaking into three phases and is working under new deadlines. As required by the Amended Consent Decree, on November 9, 2001, EPA took final action on a rule governing cooling water intake structures used by new facilities ( Phase I). 66 FR 65255 ( December 18, 2001). The Amended Consent Decree also requires that EPA issue this proposal by February 28, 2002, and take final action by August 28, 2003 ( Phase II). 2 The decree requires further that EPA propose regulations governing cooling water intake structures used, at a minimum, by smaller­ flow power plants and factories in four industrial sectors ( pulp and paper making, petroleum and coal products manufacturing, chemical and allied manufacturing, and primary metal manufacturing) by June 15, 2003, and take final action by December 15, 2004 ( Phase III). 3. What Other EPA Rulemakings and Guidance Have Addressed Cooling Water Intake Structures? In April 1976 EPA published a rule under section 316( b) that addressed cooling water intake structures. 41 FR 17387 ( April 26, 1976), proposed at 38 FR 34410 ( December 13, 1973). The rule added a new § 401.14 to 40 CFR Chapter I that reiterated the requirements of CWA section 316( b). It also added a new part 402, which included three sections: ( 1) § 402.10 ( Applicability), ( 2) § 402.11 ( Specialized definitions), and ( 3) § 402.12 ( Best technology available for cooling water intake structures). Section 402.10 stated that the provisions of part 402 applied to `` cooling water intake structures for point sources for which effluent limitations are established pursuant to section 301 or standards of performance are established pursuant to section 306 of the Act.'' Section 402.11 defined the terms `` cooling water intake structure,'' `` location,'' `` design,'' `` construction,'' `` capacity,'' and `` Development Document.'' Section 402.12 included the following language: The information contained in the Development Document shall be considered in determining whether the location, design, construction, and capacity of a cooling water intake structure of a point source subject to standards established under section 301 or 306 reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. In 1977, fifty­ eight electric utility companies challenged these regulations, arguing that EPA had failed to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act ( APA) in promulgating the rule. Specifically, the utilities argued that EPA had neither published the Development Document in the Federal Register nor properly incorporated the document into the rule by reference. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed and, without reaching the merits of the regulations themselves, remanded the rule. Appalachian Power Co. v. Train, 566 F. 2d 451 ( 4th Cir. 1977). EPA later withdrew part 402. 44 FR 32956 ( June 7, 1979). 40 CFR 401.14 remains in effect. Since the Fourth Circuit remanded EPA's section 316( b) regulations in 1977, NPDES permit authorities have made decisions implementing section 316( b) on a case­ by­ case, site­ specific basis. EPA published draft guidance addressing section 316( b) implementation in 1977. See Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Adverse Impact of Cooling Water Intake Structures on the Aquatic Environment: Section 316( b) P. L. 92 500 ( U. S. EPA, 1977). This draft guidance describes the studies recommended for evaluating the impact of cooling water intake structures on the aquatic environment and recommends a basis for determining the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. The 1977 section 316( b) draft guidance states, `` The environmentalintake interactions in question are highly site­ specific and the decision as to best technology available for intake design, location, construction, and capacity must be made on a case­ by­ case basis.'' ( Section 316( b) Draft Guidance, U. S. EPA, 1977, p. 4). This case­ by­ case approach also is consistent with the approach described in the 1976 Development Document referenced in the remanded regulation. The 1977 section 316( b) draft guidance suggests a general process for developing information needed to support section 316( b) decisions and presenting that information to the permitting authority. The process involves the development of a sitespecific study of the environmental effects associated with each facility that uses one or more cooling water intake structures, as well as consideration of that study by the permitting authority in determining whether the facility must make any changes for minimizing adverse environmental impact. Where adverse environmental impact is present, the 1977 draft guidance suggests a stepwise approach that considers screening systems, size, location, capacity, and other factors. Although the draft guidance describes the information that should be developed, key factors that should be considered, and a process for supporting section 316( b) determinations, it does not establish uniform technology­ based national standards for best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. Rather, the guidance leaves the decisions on the appropriate location, design, capacity, and construction of cooling water intake structures to the permitting authority. Under this framework, the Director determines whether appropriate studies have been performed and whether a given facility has minimized adverse environmental impact. 4. New Facility Rule On November 9, 2001, EPA took final action on regulations governing cooling water intake structures at new facilities. 66 FR 65255 ( December 18, 2001). The final new facility rule ( Phase I) established requirements applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at new facilities that withdraw at least two ( 2) million gallons per day ( MGD) and use at least twentyfive ( 25) percent of the water they withdraw solely for cooling purposes. EPA adopted a two­ track approach. Under Track I, for facilities with a design intake flow more than 10 MGD, the capacity of the cooling water intake structure is restricted, at a minimum, to a level commensurate with that which could be attained by use of a closedcycle recirculating system. For facilities VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17127 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 3 U. S. EPA, Information Collection Request, Detailed Industry Questionnaires: Phase II Cooling Water Intake Structures & Watershed Case Study Short Questionnaires, Section 3, 1999. with a design intake flow more than 2 MGD, the design through­ screen intake velocity is restricted to 0.5 ft/ s and the total quantity of intake is restricted to a proportion of the mean annual flow of a freshwater river or stream, or to maintain the natural thermal stratification or turnover patterns ( where present) of a lake or reservoir except in cases where the disruption is determined to be beneficial to the management of fisheries for fish and shellfish by any fishery management agency( ies), or to a percentage of the tidal excursions of a tidal river or estuary. In addition, an applicant with intake capacity greater than 10 MGD must select and implement an appropriate design and construction technology for minimizing impingement mortality and entrainment if certain environmental conditions exist. ( Applicants with 2 10 MGD flows are not required to reduce capacity but must install technologies for reducing entrainment at all locations.) Under Track II, the applicant has the opportunity to demonstrate that impacts to fish and shellfish, including important forage and predator species, within the watershed will be comparable to these which it would achieve were it to implement the Track I requirements for capacity and design velocity. This demonstration can include the use of restoration measures such as habitat enhancement or fish restocking programs. Proportional flow requirements also apply under Track II. With the new facility rule, EPA promulgated a national framework that establishes minimum requirements for the design, capacity, and construction of cooling water intake structures for new facilities. EPA believes that the final new facility rule establishes a reasonable framework that creates certainty for permitting of new facilities, while providing some flexibility to take site­ specific factors into account. 5. Public Participation EPA has worked extensively with stakeholders from the industry, public interest groups, state agencies, and other federal agencies in the development of this proposed rule. These public participation activities have focused on various section 316( b) issues, including general issues, as well as issues relevant to development of the Phase I rule and issues relevant to the proposed Phase II rule. In addition to outreach to industry groups, environmental groups, and other government entities in the development, testing, refinement, and completion of the 316( b) survey, 3 which has been used as a source of data for the Phase II proposal, EPA conducted two public meetings on 316( b) issues. In June 1998, in Arlington, Virginia ( 63 FR 27958) EPA conducted a public meeting focused on a draft regulatory framework for assessing potential adverse environmental impacts from impingement and entrainment. In September, 1998, in Alexandria, Virginia ( 63 FR 40683) EPA conducted a public meeting focused on technology, cost, and mitigation issues. In addition, in September 1998 and April 1999, EPA staff participated in technical workshops sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute on issues relating to the definition and assessment of adverse environmental impact. EPA staff have participated in other industry conferences, met upon request on numerous occasions with industry representatives, and met on a number of occasions with representatives of environmental groups. In the months leading up to publication of the proposed Phase I rule, EPA conducted a series of stakeholder meetings to review the draft regulatory framework for the proposed rule and invited stakeholders to provide their recommendations for the Agency's consideration. EPA managers have met with the Utility Water Act Group, Edison Electric Institute, representatives from an individual utility, and with representatives from the petroleum refining, pulp and paper, and iron and steel industries. EPA conducted several meetings with environmental groups attended by representatives from 15 organizations. EPA also met with the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators ( ASIWPCA) and, with the assistance of ASIWPCA, conducted a conference call in which representatives from 17 states or interstate organizations participated. After publication of the proposed Phase I rule, EPA continued to meet with stakeholders at their request. These meetings are summarized in the record. EPA received many comments from industry stakeholders, government agencies and private citizens on the Phase I proposed rule 65 FR 49059 ( August 10, 2000). EPA received additional comments on the Notice of Data Availability ( NODA) 66 FR 28853 ( May 25, 2001). These comments have informed the development of the Phase II proposal. In January, 2001, EPA also attended technical workshops organized by the Electric Power Research Institute and the Utilities Water Act Group. These workshops focused on the presentation of key issues associated with different regulatory approaches considered under the Phase I proposed rule and alternatives for addressing 316( b) requirements. On May 23, 2001, EPA held a daylong forum to discuss specific issues associated with the development of regulations under section 316( b) of the Clean Water Act. 66 FR 20658. At the meeting, 17 experts from industry, public interest groups, States, and academia reviewed and discussed the Agency's preliminary data on cooling water intake structure technologies that are in place at existing facilities and the costs associated with the use of available technologies for reducing impingement and entrainment. Over 120 people attended the meeting. In August 21, 2001, EPA staff participated in a technical symposium sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute in association with the American Fisheries Society on issues relating to the definition and assessment of adverse environmental impact under section 316( b) of the CWA. Finally, EPA has coordinated with the staff from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( NRC) in the development of this proposed rule to ensure that the proposal does not conflict with NRC safety requirements. NRC staff have reviewed the proposed 316( b) rule and did not identify any apparent conflict with nuclear plant safety. NRC licensees would continue to be obligated to meet NRC requirements for design and reliable operation of cooling systems. NRC staff recommended that EPA consider adding language which states that in cases of conflict between an EPA requirement under this proposed rule and an NRC safety requirement, the NRC safety requirement take precedence. EPA has added language to address this concern to the proposed rule. These coordination efforts and all of the meetings described above are documented or summarized in the record. II. Scope and Applicability of the Proposed Rule This proposed rule would apply to existing facilities as defined below, that use a cooling water intake structure to withdraw water for cooling purposes from waters of the U. S. and that have or are required to have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit issued under section 402 of the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17128 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules CWA. Specifically, the rule applies to you if you are the owner or operator of an existing facility that meets all of the following criteria: Your facility both generates and transmits electric power or generates electric power but sells it to another entity for transmission; Your facility is a point source and uses or proposes to use a cooling water intake structure or structures, or your facility obtains cooling water by any sort of contract or arrangement with an independent supplier who has a cooling water intake structure; Your facility's cooling water intake structure( s) withdraw( s) cooling water from waters of the U. S. and at least twenty­ five ( 25) percent of the water withdrawn is used solely for contact or non­ contact cooling purposes; Your facility has an NPDES permit or is required to obtain one; and Your facility has a design intake flow of 50 million gallons per day ( MGD) or greater; In the case of a cogeneration facility that shares a cooling water intake structure with another facility, only that portion of the cooling water flow that is used in the cogeneration process shall be considered when determining whether the 50 MGD and 25 percent criteria are met. Facilities subject to the proposed rule are referred to as `` Phase II existing facilities.'' Existing facilities with design flows below the 50 MGD threshold, as well as certain existing manufacturing facilities, and offshore and coastal oil and gas extraction facilities, would not be subject to this proposed rule, but will be addressed in Phase III. If an existing facility that would otherwise be a Phase II existing facility has or requires an NPDES permit but does not meet the twenty­ five percent cooling water use threshold, it would not be subject to permit conditions based on today's proposed rule; rather, it would be subject to permit conditions implementing section 316( b) of the CWA set by the permit director on a case­ by­ case basis, using best professional judgment. A. What Is an `` Existing Facility'' for Purposes of the Section 316( b) Proposed Phase II Rule? EPA is proposing to define the term `` existing facility'' as any facility that commenced construction before January 17, 2002 and ( 1) any modification of such a facility; ( 2) any addition of a unit at such a facility for purposes of the same industrial operation; ( 3) any addition of a unit at such a facility for purposes of a different industrial operation, if the additional unit uses an existing cooling water intake structure and the design capacity of intake structure is not increased; or ( 4) any facility constructed in place of such a facility if the newly constructed facility uses an existing cooling water intake structure whose design intake flow is not increased to accommodate the intake of additional cooling water. The term commence construction is defined in 40 CFR 122.29( b)( 4) and January 17, 2002 is the effective date of the new facility rule. EPA has specified that any modification of a facility that commenced construction before January 17, 2002 remains an existing facility for purposes of this rule to clarify that significant changes to such a facility would not, absent other conditions, cause the facility to be a `` new facility'' subject to the Phase I rule. In addition, the proposed definition specifies that any addition of a unit at a facility that commenced construction before January 17, 2002 for purposes of the same industrial operation as the existing facility would continue to be defined as an existing facility. Further, any addition of a unit at a facility that commenced construction before January 17, 2002 for purposes of a different industrial operation would remain an existing facility provided the additional unit uses an existing cooling water intake structure and the design capacity of intake structure is not increased. Finally, under the proposed definition, any facility constructed in place of a facility that commenced construction before January 17, 2002, would remain defined as an existing facility if the newly constructed facility uses an existing cooling water intake structure whose design intake flow is not increased to accommodate the intake of additional cooling water. Under this proposed rule certain forms of repowering could be undertaken by an existing power generating facility that uses a cooling water intake structure and it would remain subject to regulation as a Phase II existing facility. For example, the following scenarios would be existing facilities under the proposed rule: An existing power generating facility undergoes a modification of its process short of total replacement of the process and concurrently increases the design capacity of its existing cooling water intake structures; An existing power generating facility builds a new process for purposes of the same industrial operation and concurrently increases the design capacity of its existing cooling water intake structures; An existing power generating facility completely rebuilds its process but uses the existing cooling water intake structure with no increase in design capacity. Thus, in most situations, repowering an existing power generating facility would be addressed under this proposed rule. The proposed definition of `` existing facility'' is sufficiently broad that it covers facilities that will be addressed under the Phase III rule ( e. g., existing power generating facilities with design flows below the 50 MGD threshold, certain existing manufacturing facilities, and offshore and coastal oil and gas extraction facilities). These facilities are not covered under this proposal because they do not meet the requirements of proposed § 125.91. B. What Is a `` Cooling Water Intake Structure?'' Today's proposal would adopt for Phase II existing facilities the same definition of a `` cooling water intake structure'' that is part of the new facility rule, i. e., 40 CFR 125.83, the total physical structure and any associated constructed waterways used to withdraw cooling water from waters of the U. S. The cooling water intake structure extends from the point at which water is withdrawn from the surface water source up to, and including, the intake pumps. Today's proposal also would adopt the new facility rule's definition of `` cooling water,'' i. e., water used for contact or noncontact cooling, including water used for equipment cooling, evaporative cooling tower makeup, and dilution of effluent heat content. The definition specifies that the intended use of cooling water is to absorb waste heat from production processes or auxiliary operations. The definition also specifies that water used for both cooling and non­ cooling purposes would not be considered cooling water for purposes of determining whether 25% or more of the flow is cooling water. This definition differs from the definition of `` cooling water intake structure'' that is included in the 1977 Draft Guidance. The proposed definition clarifies that the cooling water intake structure includes the physical structure and technologies that extend up to and include the intake pumps. Inclusion of the term `` associated constructed waterways'' is intended to clarify that the definition includes those canals, channels, connecting waterways, and similar structures that may be built or modified to facilitate the withdrawal of cooling water. The explicit inclusion of the intake pumps in the definition reflects the key role pumps play in determining the capacity ( i. e., dynamic capacity) of the intake. These pumps, VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17129 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules which bring in water, are an essential component of the cooling water intake structure since without them the intake could not work as designed. In addition, the definition would apply to structures that bring water in for both contact and noncontact cooling purposes. This clarification is necessary because cooling water intake structures typically bring water into a facility for numerous purposes, including industrial processes; use as circulating water, service water, or evaporative cooling tower makeup water; dilution of effluent heat content; equipment cooling; and air conditioning. Finally, at § 125.91( b), consistent with the new facility rule, this proposed rule provides that use of a cooling water intake structure includes obtaining cooling water by any sort of contract or arrangement with an independent supplier ( or multiple suppliers) of cooling water if the supplier or suppliers withdraw( s) water from waters of the United States. This provision is intended to prevent circumvention of these requirements by creating arrangements to receive cooling water from an entity that is not itself a point source. It also provides that use of cooling water does not include obtaining cooling water from a public water system or the use of treated effluent that otherwise would be discharged to a water of the U. S. C. Is My Facility Covered If It Withdraws From Waters of the U. S.? The requirements proposed today would apply to cooling water intake structures that withdraw amounts of water greater than the proposed flow threshold from `` waters of the U. S.'' Waters of the U. S. include the broad range of surface waters that meet the regulatory definition at 40 CFR 122.2, which includes lakes, ponds, reservoirs, nontidal rivers or streams, tidal rivers, estuaries, fjords, oceans, bays, and coves. These potential sources of cooling water may be adversely affected by impingement and entrainment. Some facilities discharge heated water to cooling ponds, then withdraw water from the ponds for cooling purposes. EPA does not intend this proposal to change the regulatory status of cooling ponds. Cooling ponds are neither categorically included nor categorically excluded from the definition of `` waters of the United States'' at 40 CFR 122.2. EPA interprets 40 CFR 122.2 to give permit writers discretion to regulate cooling ponds as `` waters of the United States'' where cooling ponds meet the definition of `` waters of the United States.'' The determination whether a particular cooling pond is or is not `` waters of the United States'' is to be made by the permit writer on a case­ bycase basis, informed by the principles enunciated in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. US Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U. S. 159 ( 2001). Therefore, facilities that withdraw cooling water from cooling ponds that are `` waters of the U. S.'' and that meet today's other proposed criteria for coverage ( including the requirement that the facility have or be required to obtain an NPDES permit) would be subject to today's proposed rule. D. Is My Facility Covered If It Is a Point Source Discharger Subject to an NPDES Permit? Today's proposed rule would apply only to facilities that have an NPDES permit or are required to obtain one because they discharge or might discharge pollutants, including storm water, from a point source to waters of the U. S. This is the same requirement EPA included in the new facility rule. 40 CFR 125.81( a)( 1). Requirements for minimizing the adverse environmental impact of cooling water intake structures would continue to be applied through NPDES permits. Based on the Agency's review of potential Phase II existing facilities that employ cooling water intake structures, the Agency anticipates that most existing power generating facilities that would be subject to this rule will control the intake structure that supplies them with cooling water, and discharge some combination of their cooling water, wastewater, and storm water to a water of the U. S. through a point source regulated by an NPDES permit. In this scenario, the requirements for the cooling water intake structure would be specified in the facility's NPDES permit. In the event that a Phase II existing facility's only NPDES permit is a general permit for storm water discharges, the Agency anticipates that the Director would write an individual NPDES permit containing requirements for the facility's cooling water intake structure. The Agency invites comment on this approach for applying cooling water intake structure requirements to the facility. Alternatively, requirements applicable to cooling water intake structures could be incorporated into general permits. The Agency also invites comment on this approach. The Agency also recognizes that some facilities that have or are required to have an NPDES permit might not directly control the intake structure that supplies their facility with cooling water. For example, facilities operated by separate entities might be located on the same, adjacent, or nearby property; one of these facilities might take in cooling water and then transfer it to other facilities prior to discharge of the cooling water to a water of the U. S. Proposed § 125.91( c) addresses such a situation. It provides that use of a cooling water intake structure includes obtaining cooling water by any sort of contract or arrangement with an independent supplier ( or multiple suppliers) of cooling water if the supplier or suppliers withdraw( s) water from waters of the United States. This provision is intended to prevent circumvention of the proposed requirements by creating arrangements to receive cooling water from an entity that is not itself a point source discharger. It is the same as in the final new facility rule. 40 CFR 125.81( b). Proposed § 125.91( c) also provides, as in the new facility rule, that facilities that obtain cooling water from a public water system or use treated effluent that otherwise would be discharged to a water of the U. S. would not be subject to this proposed rule. In addition, as EPA stated in the preamble to the final new facility rule, the Agency would encourage the Director to closely examine scenarios in which a potential Phase II existing facility withdraws significant amounts of cooling water but does not have an NPDES permit. As appropriate, the Director should apply other legal requirements, such as section 404 or 401 of the Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, or similar State authorities to address adverse environmental impact caused by cooling water intake structures at those existing facilities. E. Who Is Covered Under the Thresholds Included in This Proposed Rule? This proposed rule applies to facilities that ( 1) withdraw cooling water from water of the U. S. and use at least twenty­ five ( 25) percent of the water withdrawn for cooling purposes and ( 2) have at least one cooling water intake structure with a design intake capacity of 50 MGD or more. Proposed § 125.91. EPA is proposing to include a provision, like that specified in the new facility rule, that facilities that use less than twenty­ five ( 25) percent of the water withdrawn for cooling purposes are not subject to this rule. This threshold ensures that nearly all cooling water and the most significant facilities using cooling water intake structures are addressed by these requirements to minimize adverse environmental impact ( see 66 FR 65338). Phase II existing VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17130 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 4 Source: Initial SBREFA Analysis, 6/ 01. facilities typically use far more than 25 percent of the water they withdraw for cooling. As in the new facility rule, water used for both cooling and noncooling purposes would not count towards the 25 percent threshold. In addition, at § 125.91, EPA is proposing that this rule would apply to facilities that have a cooling water intake structure with a design intake capacity of 50 million gallons per day ( MGD) or greater of source water. EPA chose the 50 MGD threshold to focus the proposed rule on the largest existing power generating facilities. Existing power generating facilities with design flows below this threshold, as well as certain existing manufacturing facilities, and offshore and coastal oil and gas extraction facilities, would not be subject to this proposed rule but will be addressed under the Phase III rule. To clarify that manufacturing and commercial facilities are not subject to the Phase II rule as a result of their relationship as a host plant to a cogeneration facility, only that portion of the cooling water intake flow that is used in the cogeneration process would be considered in determining whether the 50 MGD and 25 percent criteria are met. EPA estimates that the 50 MGD threshold would subject approximately 539 of 942 ( 57 percent) of existing power generating facilities to the proposal and would address 99.04 percent of the total flow withdrawn by existing steam electric power generating facilities. 4 EPA believes the regulation of existing facilities with flows of 50 MGD or greater in Phase II will address those existing power generating facilities with the greatest potential to cause or contribute to adverse environmental impact. In addition, EPA has limited data on impacts at facilities withdrawing less than 50 MGD. Deferring regulation of such facilities to Phase III provides additional opportunity for the Agency to collect impingement and entrainment data for these smaller facilities. EPA requests comment on both the 50 MGD and 25 percent cooling water thresholds. F. When Must a Phase II Existing Facility Comply With the Proposed Requirements? If your facility is subject to the rule, proposed § 125.92 would require that you must comply when an NPDES permit containing requirements consistent with this subpart is issued to you. G. What Special Definitions Apply to This Proposal? Definitions specific to this proposal are set forth in proposed § 125.93. Except for the definitions of `` cooling water'' and `` existing facility,'' which are separately defined for Phase II facilities in proposed § 125.93, the definitions in the new facility rule, 40 CFR 125.83, also apply to this proposed rule. The definitions in the new facility rule that would apply to Phase II existing facilities are as follows: Annual mean flow means the average of daily flows over a calendar year. Historical data ( up to 10 years) must be used where available. Closed­ cycle recirculating system means a system designed, using minimized makeup and blowdown flows, to withdraw water from a natural or other water source to support contact and/ or noncontact cooling uses within a facility. The water is usually sent to a cooling canal or channel, lake, pond, or tower to allow waste heat to be dissipated to the atmosphere and then is returned to the system. ( Some facilities divert the waste heat to other process operations.) New source water ( make­ up water) is added to the system to replenish losses that have occurred due to blowdown, drift, and evaporation. Cooling water intake structure means the total physical structure and any associated constructed waterways used to withdraw cooling water from waters of the U. S. The cooling water intake structure extends from the point at which water is withdrawn from the surface water source up to, and including, the intake pumps. Design intake flow means the value assigned ( during the facility's design) to the total volume of water withdrawn from a source waterbody over a specific time period. Design intake velocity means the value assigned ( during the design of a cooling water intake structure) to the average speed at which intake water passes through the open area of the intake screen ( or other device) against which organisms might be impinged or through which they might be entrained. Entrainment means the incorporation of all life stages of fish and shellfish with intake water flow entering and passing through a cooling water intake structure and into a cooling water system. Estuary means a semi­ enclosed body of water that has a free connection with open seas and within which the seawater is measurably diluted with fresh water derived from land drainage. The salinity of an estuary exceeds 0.5 parts per thousand ( by mass) but is typically less than 30 parts per thousand ( by mass). Freshwater river or stream means a lotic ( free­ flowing) system that does not receive significant inflows of water from oceans or bays due to tidal action. For the purposes of this rule, a flow­ through reservoir with a retention time of 7 days or less will be considered a freshwater river or stream. Hydraulic zone of influence means that portion of the source waterbody hydraulically affected by the cooling water intake structure withdrawal of water. Impingement means the entrapment of all life stages of fish and shellfish on the outer part of an intake structure or against a screening device during periods of intake water withdrawal. Lake or reservoir means any inland body of open water with some minimum surface area free of rooted vegetation and with an average hydraulic retention time of more than 7 days. Lakes or reservoirs might be natural water bodies or impounded streams, usually fresh, surrounded by land or by land and a man­ made retainer ( e. g., a dam). Lakes or reservoirs might be fed by rivers, streams, springs, and/ or local precipitation. Flow­ through reservoirs with an average hydraulic retention time of 7 days or less should be considered a freshwater river or stream. Maximize means to increase to the greatest amount, extent, or degree reasonably possible. Minimum ambient source water surface elevation means the elevation of the 7Q10 flow for freshwater streams or rivers; the conservation pool level for lakes or reservoirs; or the mean low tidal water level for estuaries or oceans. The 7Q10 flow is the lowest average 7 consecutive day low flow with an average frequency of one in 10 years determined hydrologically. The conservation pool is the minimum depth of water needed in a reservoir to ensure proper performance of the system relying upon the reservoir. The mean low tidal water level is the average height of the low water over at least 19 years. Minimize means to reduce to the smallest amount, extent, or degree reasonably possible. Natural thermal stratification means the naturally­ occurring division of a waterbody into horizontal layers of differing densities as a result of variations in temperature at different depths. New facility means any building, structure, facility, or installation that meets the definition of a `` new source'' or `` new discharger'' in 40 CFR 122.2 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17131 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules and 122.29( b)( 1), ( 2), and ( 4) and is a greenfield or stand­ alone facility; commences construction after January 17, 2002; and uses either a newly constructed cooling water intake structure, or an existing cooling water intake structure whose design capacity is increased to accommodate the intake of additional cooling water. New facilities include only `` greenfield'' and `` stand­ alone'' facilities. A greenfield facility is a facility that is constructed at a site at which no other source is located, or that totally replaces the process or production equipment at an existing facility ( see 40 CFR 122.29( b)( 1)( i) and ( ii)). A stand­ alone facility is a new, separate facility that is constructed on property where an existing facility is located and whose processes are substantially independent of the existing facility at the same site ( see 40 CFR 122.29( b)( 1)( iii)). New facility does not include new units that are added to a facility for purposes of the same general industrial operation ( for example, a new peaking unit at an electrical generating station). ( 1) Examples of `` new facilities'' include, but are not limited to the following scenarios: ( i) A new facility is constructed on a site that has never been used for industrial or commercial activity. It has a new cooling water intake structure for its own use. ( ii) A facility is demolished and another facility is constructed in its place. The newly­ constructed facility uses the original facility's cooling water intake structure, but modifies it to increase the design capacity to accommodate the intake of additional cooling water. ( iii) A facility is constructed on the same property as an existing facility, but is a separate and independent industrial operation. The cooling water intake structure used by the original facility is modified by constructing a new intake bay for the use of the newly constructed facility or is otherwise modified to increase the intake capacity for the new facility. ( 2) Examples of facilities that would NOT be considered a `` new facility'' include, but are not limited to, the following scenarios: ( i) A facility in commercial or industrial operation is modified and either continues to use its original cooling water intake structure or uses a new or modified cooling water intake structure. ( ii) A facility has an existing intake structure. Another facility ( a separate and independent industrial operation), is constructed on the same property and connects to the facility's cooling water intake structure behind the intake pumps, and the design capacity of the cooling water intake structure has not been increased. This facility would not be considered a `` new facility'' even if routine maintenance or repairs that do not increase the design capacity were performed on the intake structure. Ocean means marine open coastal waters with a salinity greater than or equal to 30 parts per thousand ( by mass). Source water means the waterbody ( waters of the U. S.) from which the cooling water is withdrawn. Thermocline means the middle layer of a thermally stratified lake or reservoir. In this layer, there is a rapid decrease in temperatures. Tidal excursion means the horizontal distance along the estuary or tidal river that a particle moves during one tidal cycle of ebb and flow. Tidal river means the most seaward reach of a river or stream where the salinity is typically less than or equal to 0.5 parts per thousand ( by mass) at a time of annual low flow and whose surface elevation responds to the effects of coastal lunar tides. III Summary of Data Collection Activities EPA focused its data collection activities on traditional utilities and nonutility power producers. Based on the 1982 Census of Manufacturers, these industries account for more than 90 percent of cooling water use in the United States. Traditional utilities and nonutility power producers that use cooling water were further limited to those plants that generate electricity by means of steam as the thermodynamic medium ( steam electric) because they are associated with large cooling water needs. Other power producers generate electricity by means other than steam ( e. g., gas turbines) and typically require only small amounts of cooling water, if any. Facilities in the traditional steam electric utility category are classified under Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes 4911 and 493, while nonutility power producers are classified under the major code that corresponds to the primary purpose of the facility. Nonutility facilities are classified under SIC codes 4911 and 493 if the primary purpose of the facility is to generate electricity, and it is these nonutility facilities that are potentially subject to this rule. A. Existing Data Sources EPA collected data from multiple sources, both public and proprietary, in order to compile an accurate profile of the potentially regulated community. EPA reviewed information collected by other Federal agencies, as well as data compiled by private companies. In those instances where databases are considered confidential, or where raw data was unavailable for review, EPA did not consider the information. Summaries of the reviewed data sources are listed below. 1. Traditional Steam Electric Utilities Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Data Sources. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC) is an independent agency that oversees America's natural gas industry, electric utilities, nonfederal hydroelectric projects, and oil pipeline transportation system. FERC requires that utilities, companies, or individuals subject to its regulations periodically file data or information relating to such matters as financial operations, energy production or supply, and compliance with applicable regulations. Following are brief descriptions of the relevant FERC data collection forms associated with traditional steam electric utilities: FERC Form 1, the Annual Report for Major Electric Utilities, Licensees and Others, collects extensive accounting, financial, and operating data from major privately­ owned electric utilities. A privately­ owned electric utility is considered `` major'' if its sales and transmission services, in each of the three previous calendar years, exceeded one of the following: ( 1) One million megawatt hours of total annual sales; ( 2) 100 megawatt hours of annual sales for resale; ( 3) 500 megawatt hours of annual power exchanges delivered; or ( 4) 500 megawatt hours of annual wheeling for others. Utility­ level information ( e. g., number of employees, detailed revenue and expense information, balance sheet information, and electricity generation information) and plant­ level information ( e. g., production expenses, balance sheet information, and electricity generation information) was used in the economic analysis of the proposed regulation. EPA used FERC Form 1 data as compiled and distributed by other organizations than FERC ( see below). ( Note that FERC Form 1 applies only to privately­ owned utilities. Publicly­ owned utilities and rural electric cooperatives are discussed below.) FERC Form 1 F, the Annual Report of Nonmajor Public Utilities and Licensees, collects accounting, financial, and operating data from nonmajor privately­ owned electric utilities. A privately­ owned electric utility is considered `` nonmajor'' if it had total annual sales of 10,000 megawatt hours or more in the previous calendar year but is not classified as `` major'' under the FERC Form 1 definition. FERC Form VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17132 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 7 Note that this data collection form only applies to rural electric cooperatives. Corresponding data collection forms for privately­ owned and publiclyowned utilities are discussed in other parts of this section. 1 F collects utility­ and plant­ level data similar to that on FERC Form 1, albeit less detailed. Energy Information Administration Data Sources. The Energy Information Administration ( EIA) is an independent statistical and analytical agency within the U. S. Department of Energy ( DOE). In support of its analytic activities, the EIA administers a series of data collection efforts including extensive surveys of electric utilities' financial operations, and their production and disposition of electricity. Following are brief descriptions of the EIA data collection forms associated with traditional steam electric utilities that EPA has used as data sources: Form EIA 412, the Annual Report of Public Electric Utilities, collects accounting, financial, and operating data from publicly­ owned electric utilities. The information collected in Form EIA 412 is similar to, but less detailed than data collected from major privately­ owned electric utilities in FERC Form 1. EPA use of Form EIA 412 data included both utility­ level information ( e. g., number of employees, detailed revenue and expense information, balance sheet information, and electricity generation information) and plant­ level information ( e. g., production expenses, balance sheet information, and electricity generation information). Form EIA 767, the Steam­ Electric Plant Operation and Design Report, collects data on air and water quality from steam­ electric power plants with generating capacity of 100 megawatts or greater. A subset of these data are provided for steam­ electric power plants with generating capacity between 10 and 100 megawatts. EPA use of Form EIA 767 data included unit­ level information on net electricity generation, hours in operation, and the quantity of fuel burned. Form EIA 860, the Annual Electric Generator Report, collects data on the status of electric generating plants and associated equipment in operation and those scheduled to be in operation within the next 10 years of filing the report. Each utility that operates or plans to operate a power plant in the United States is required to file Form EIA 860. EPA use of Form EIA 860 data included unit­ level information on operating status, nameplate capacity, and ownership percentage. Form EIA 861, the Annual Electric Utility Report, collects data on generation, wholesale purchases, and sales and revenue by class of consumer and State. Respondents include each electric utility that is engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution, or sale of electric energy primarily for use by the public. Data used from Form EIA 861 included sales and revenue by consumer class, the utility's NERC region, and address information. In addition, EPA used data on utility ownership to classify each utility as either a privately­ owned utility, a publicly­ owned utility, or a rural electric cooperative. In addition to data from the EIA data collection forms outlined above, EPA used EIA's database of FERC Form 1 data, containing the majority of utilitylevel financial and operating data submitted on the FERC Form 1. While these data are directly available from FERC, the EIA database is published in an electronic format that is more convenient to use than the FERC data. Because EIA conducts basic quality assurance activities, EPA expects that the EIA data is more reliable than the FERC data. Rural Utility Service Data Sources. The Rural Utility Service ( RUS) is a Federal agency that provides rural infrastructure assistance in electricity, water and telecommunications. As a Federal credit agency in the U. S. Department of Agriculture, RUS plays a leadership role in financial lending and technical guidance for the rural utilities industries. Rural utilities that borrow from RUS are subject to annual reporting requirements administered by RUS. Following are brief descriptions of the relevant RUS data collection forms associated with traditional steam electric utilities: RUS Form 12, the Electric Operating Report, collects accounting, financial, and operating data from rural electric cooperatives 7. The information collected in RUS Form 12 is similar to data collected from major privatelyowned electric utilities in FERC Form 1. EPA use of RUS Form 12 data included utility­ level information ( e. g., number of employees, detailed revenue and expense information, balance sheet information, and electricity generation information), plant­ level information ( e. g., production expenses, balance sheet information, and electricity generation information), as well as unitlevel information ( e. g., fuel consumption, operating hours, and electricity generation). U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Data Sources. The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( NRC) is an independent agency established to ensure the protection of the public health and safety, the common defense and security, and the environment in the use of nuclear materials in the United States. In carrying out its responsibilities of regulating commercial nuclear power reactors, the NRC compiles and publishes data and reports regarding the operation and maintenance of commercial nuclear power plants around the country. EPA collected information from the NRC regarding the configuration of cooling water intake structures to assist in estimating the capacities of condenser flows. Opri Data Sources. Opri is a private firm located in Boulder, Colorado, that has compiled extensive databases related to the traditional steam electric utility industry. Opri's Electric Generating Plant Database includes plant­ level data for privately­ owned utilities, publicly­ owned utilities, and cooperatives for 1988 1997. While these data are available from FERC, EIA, and RUS, these agencies do not make the information available in an easily accessible electronic format. As a consequence, EPA purchased plantlevel data from Opri to support its economic analyses. Because the compilation of data in the Electric Generating Plant Database is proprietary, EPA has included a summary of the data utilized in its analyses in the public record. 2. Steam Electric Nonutility Power Producers Energy Information Administration Data Sources. Form EIA 867, the Annual Nonutility Power Producer Report, collects data on electricity generation, installed capacity, and energy consumption from nonutility power producers that own or plan on installing electric generation equipment with a total capacity of one megawatt or more. The form does not collect any economic or financial data. EPA did not utilize company­ level data from the Form EIA 867 because the confidential nature of this data prevented EIA from releasing it. EPA did use Form EIA 867 to assess the population of potentially affected facilities and to identify survey recipients. Utility Data Institute Data Sources. The UDI Directory of U. S. Cogeneration, Small Power, and Industrial Power Plants contains data for more than 4,300 nonutility power producer plants. The database, however, is not exclusive to facilities that have steam electric generators. The database also contains nonutility power producers with turbines that do not use cooling water such as gas turbines, geothermal units, wind and solar installations, and a VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17133 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules variety of other plant types. The primary focus of the UDI nonutility database is on facilities that provide at least some electricity for sale to utilities. EPA used the UDI database to compare the names and addresses of steam electric plants with those in the Form EIA 867 database to ensure comprehensive coverage of nonutility power producers. Edison Electric Institute Data Sources. EEI conducts an annual survey and presents statistics on nonutility power producers in a document entitled, Capacity and Generation of Nonutility Sources of Energy. However, the data are considered confidential and EEI will only disseminate data in an aggregated form. Because EPA must have the raw data on a facility­ specific basis for this rulemaking, EPA was unable to use this database. 3. Repowering of Steam Electric Power Generating Facilities ( Utility and Nonutility) As discussed in part B of this Section, the section 316( b) Survey acquired technological and economic information from facilities for the years 1998 and 1999. With this information, the Agency established a subset of facilities potentially subject to this rule. Since 1999, some existing facilities have proposed and/ or enacted changes to their facilities in the form of repowering that could potentially affect the applicability of today's proposal or a facility's compliance costs. The Agency therefore conducted research into repowering facilities for the section 316( b) existing facility rule and any information available on proposed changes to their cooling water intake structures. The Agency defines repowering as existing facilities either undertaking replacement of existing generating capacity or making additions to existing capacity. The Agency used two separate databases to assemble available information for the repowering facilities: RDI's NEWGen Database, November 2001 version and the Section 316( b) Survey. In January 2000, EPA conducted a survey of the technological and economic characteristics of 961 steamelectric generating plants. Only the detailed questionnaire, filled out by 283 utility plants and 50 nonutility plants, contains information on planned changes to the facilities' cooling systems ( Part 2, Section E). Of the respondents to the detailed questionnaire, only six facilities ( three utility plants and three nonutility plants) indicated that their future plans would lead to changes in the operation of their cooling water intake structures. The NEWGen database is a compilation of detailed information on new electric generating capacity proposed over the next several years. The database differentiates between proposed capacity at new ( greenfield) facilities and additions/ modifications to existing facilities. To identify repowering facilities of interest, the Agency screened the 1,530 facilities in the NEWGen database with respect to the following criteria: Facility status, country, and steam electric additions. The Agency then identified 124 NEWGen facilities as potential repowering facilities. Because the NEWGen database provides more information on repowering than the section 316( b) survey, the Agency used it as the starting point for the analysis of repowering facilities. Of the 124 NEWGen facilities identified as repowering facilities, 85 responded to the section 316( b) survey. Of these 85 facilities, 65 are in­ scope and 20 are out of scope of this proposal. For each of the 65 in scope facilities, the NEWGen database provided an estimation of the type and extent of the capacity additions. The Agency found that 36 of the 65 facilities would be combinedcycle facilities after the repowering changes. Of these, 34 facilities are projected to decrease their cooling water intake after repowering ( through the conversion from a simple steam cycle to a combined­ cycle plant). The other 31 facilities within the scope of the rule would increase their cooling water intake. The Agency examined the characteristics of these facilities projected to undergo repowering and determined the waterbody type from which they withdraw cooling water. The results of this analysis are presented in Exhibit 1. EXHIBIT 1. IN­ SCOPE EXISTING FACILITIES PROJECTED TO ENACT REPOWERING CHANGES Waterbody type Number of plants projected to increase cooling water withdrawal Number of plants projected to decrease or maintain cooling water withdrawal Ocean ............... N/ A N/ A Estuary/ Tidal River .............. 3 17 Freshwater River/ Stream 14 10 Freshwater Lake/ Reservoir ............. 10 1 Great Lake ........ 0 1 Of the 65 in­ scope facilities identified as repowering facilities in the NEWGen database, 24 received the detailed questionnaire, which requested information about planned cooling water intake structures and changes to capacity. Nineteen of these 24 facilities are utilities and the remaining five are nonutilities. The Agency analyzed the section 316( b) detailed questionnaire data for these 24 facilities to identify facilities that indicated planned modifications to their cooling systems which will change the capacity of intake water collected for the plant and the estimated cost to comply with today's proposal. Four such facilities were identified, two utilities and two nonutilities. Both utilities responded that the planned modifications will decrease their cooling water intake capacity and that they do not have any planned cooling water intake structures that will directly withdraw cooling water from surface water. The two nonutilities, on the other hand, indicated that the planned modifications will increase their cooling water intake capacity and that they do have planned cooling water intake structures that will directly withdraw cooling water from surface water. Using the NEWGen and section 316( b) detailed questionnaire information on repowering facilities, the Agency examined the extent to which planned and/ or enacted repowering changes would effect cooling water withdrawals and, therefore, the potential costs of compliance with this proposal. Because the Agency developed a cost estimating methodology that primarily utilizes design intake flow as the independent variable, the Agency examined the extent to which compliance costs would change if the repowering data summarized above were incorporated into the cost analysis of this rule. The Agency determined that projected compliance costs for facilities withdrawing from estuaries could be lower after incorporating the repowering changes. The primary reason for this is the fact that the majority of estuary repowering facilities would change from a full­ steam cycle to a combined­ cycle, thereby maintaining or decreasing their cooling water withdrawals ( note that a combined­ cycle facility generally will withdraw one­ third of the cooling water of a comparably sized full­ steam facility). Therefore, the portion of compliance costs for regulatory options that included flow reduction requirements or technologies would significantly decrease if the Agency incorporated repowering changes into the analysis. As shown in Exhibit 1 the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17134 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules majority of facilities projected to increase cooling water withdrawals due to the repowering changes use freshwater sources. In turn, the compliance costs for these facilities would increase if the Agency incorporated repowering for this proposal. For the final rule, the Agency intends to continue its research into repowering at existing facilities. The Agency will consider the results of its repowering research and any comments provided on this subject for the final rule. The Agency therefore requests comment on planned and enacted repowering activities and the above summary of its repowering research to date. The Agency is especially interested in information from facilities that have enacted repowering changes and the degree to which these changes have changed their design intake flow. B. Survey Questionnaires EPA's industry survey effort consists of a two­ phase process. EPA administered a screener questionnaire focused on nonutility and manufacturing facilities as the first phase of this data collection process. The screener questionnaire provides information on cooling­ water intake capacity, sources of the water, intake structure types, and technologies used to minimize adverse environmental impacts. It also provides data on facility and parent­ firm employee numbers and revenues. This information was used to design a sampling plan for the subsequent detailed questionnaire. Following the screener survey, the Agency sent out and collected either a short technical or a detailed questionnaire to utility, nonutility, and manufacturing facilities, as described below. The two­ phase survey was designed to collect representative data from a sample group of those categories of facilities potentially subject to section 316( b) regulation for use in rule development. In 1997, EPA estimated that over 400,000 facilities could potentially be subject to a cooling water intake regulation. Given the large number of facilities potentially subject to regulation, EPA decided to focus its data collection efforts on six industrial categories that, as a whole, are estimated to account for over 99 percent of all cooling water withdrawals. These six sectors are: Utility Steam Electric, Nonutility Steam Electric, Chemicals & Allied Products, Primary Metals Industries, Petroleum & Coal Products, and Paper & Allied Products. There are about 48,500 facilities in these six categories. EPA believes that this approach provides a sound basis for assessing best technologies available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. The screener survey focused on nonutility and manufacturing facilities. EPA developed the sample frame ( list of facilities) for the screener questionnaire using public data sources as described in the Information Collection Request ( DCN 3 3084 R2 in Docket W 00 03). Facilities chosen for the screener questionnaire represented a statistical sample of the entire universe of nonutility and manufacturing facilities potentially subject to cooling water intake regulations. EPA did not conduct a census of all facilities ( i. e. send a survey to all facilities) for the screener questionnaire because of the burden associated with surveying a large number of facilities. Rather, EPA refined the industry data using industry­ specific sources to develop sample frames and mailing lists. EPA believes the sample frame was sufficient to characterize the operations of each industrial category. EPA sent the screener questionnaire to 2600 facilities identified in the sample frame as follows: ( 1) All identified steam electric nonutility power producers, both industrial selfgenerators and nonindustrial generators ( 1050 facilities, of which 853 responded); ( 2) and a sample of manufacturers that fell under four other industrial categories: Paper and allied products, chemical and allied products, petroleum and coal products, and primary metals ( 1550 facilities, of which 1217 responded). EPA adjusted the sample frame for the screener questionnaire to account for several categories of non­ respondents, including facilities with incorrect address information, facilities no longer in operation, and duplicate mailings. Through follow­ up phone calls and mailings, EPA increased the response rate for the screener questionnaire to 95 percent. The screener questionnaire was not sent to utilities, all of which were believed to be identified accurately using the publically­ available data described above. A sample of manufacturing and nonutility facilities identified as inscope ( subject to regulation) with the screener questionnaire, and all utilities then were sent either a short technical or a detailed questionnaire. A total of 878 utility facilities, 343 nonutility facilities and 191 manufacturing facilities received one of the two questionnaires ( short technical or detailed) during the second phase of the survey. For utilities, nonutilities, and other manufacturing facilities, EPA selected a random sample of these eligible facilities to receive a detailed questionnaire. The sample included 282 utility facilities and 181 nonutility facilities. All 191 manufacturing facilities received a detailed questionnaire. For nonutilities and utilities, those facilities not selected to receive a detailed questionnaire were sent a Short Technical Questionnaire. EPA's approach in selecting a sample involved the identification of population strata, the calculation of sample sizes based on desired levels of precision, and the random selection of sites given the sample size calculations within each stratum. More detail is provided in a report, Statistical Summary for Cooling Water Intakes Structures Surveys ( See DCN 3 3077 in Docket W 00 03). Five questionnaires were distributed to different industrial groups. They were: ( 1) Detailed Industry Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water Intake Structures Traditional Steam Electric Utilities, ( 2) Short Technical Industry Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water Intake Structures Traditional Steam Electric Utilities, ( 3) Detailed Industry Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water Intake Structures Steam Electric Nonutility Power Producers, ( 4) Detailed Industry Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water Intake Structures Manufacturers, ( 5) Watershed Case Study Short Questionnaire. The questionnaires provided EPA with technical and financial data necessary for developing this proposed regulation. Specific details about the questions may be found in EPA's Information Collection Request ( DCN 3 3084­ R2 in Docket W 00 03) and in the questionnaires ( see DCN 3 0030 and 3 0031 in Docket W 00 03 and Docket for today's proposal); these documents are also available on EPA's web site ( http:/ / www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ 316b/ question/). C. Site Visits From 1993 to the present, EPA has conducted site visits to numerous power generating stations around the country to observe cooling water intake structure design and operations and document examples of different cooling water intake structure configurations. EPA has visited the plants ( each with either a once­ through or closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling system, except as noted) listed below: California: Moss Landing Power Plant and Pittsburg Power Plant Florida: Big Bend Power Station, St. Lucie Plant, Martin Plant, and Riviera Beach Power Plant Illinois: Will County Station and Zion Nuclear Power Station VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17135 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules Indiana: Clifty Creek Station and Tanners Creek Plant Maryland: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant and Chalk Point Generating Station Massachusetts: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Nevada: El Dorado Energy Power Plant ( dry cooling) New York: Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant and Lovett Generating Station New Jersey: Salem Generating Station Ohio: Cardinal Plant, W. H. Zimmer Plant, and W. C. Beckjord Station Wisconsin: Valley Power Plant and Pleasant Prairie Power Plant D. Data Provided to EPA by Industrial, Trade, Consulting, Scientific or Environmental Organizations or by the General Public 1. Public Participation EPA has worked extensively with stakeholders from industry, public interest groups, state agencies, and other Federal agencies in the development of this proposed rule. These public participation activities have focused on various section 316( b) issues, including general issues, as well as issues relevant to development of the Phase I rule and issues relevant to the proposed Phase II rule. See section I. C. 5 of this preamble for a discussion of key public participation activities. 2. Data and Documents Collected by EPA Since 1993, EPA has developed cooling water regulations as part of a collaborative effort with industry and environmental stakeholders, other Federal agencies, the academic and scientific communities as well as the general public. As such, EPA has reviewed and considered the many documents, demonstration studies, scientific analyses and historical perspectives offered in support of each phase of the regulatory process. For example, during the early stages of data gathering EPA created an internal library of reference documents addressing cooling water intake structure issues. This library currently holds over 2,800 documents, many of which were referenced in the rulemaking process and are contained in the record ( see below for further information on the record). The library contains a thorough collection of a wide variety of documents, including over 80 316( b) demonstration documents, over 300 impingement and entrainment studies, over 100 population modeling studies, over 500 fish biology and stock assessment documents, over 350 biological studies commissioned by power generators, over 80 NPDES decisions and NPDES or SPDES­ related documents, over 120 intake technology reports, over 10 databases on the electric power industry, and documents from interagency committees such as the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission ( ORSANCO). The record for the new facility rule contains nearly 1,000 documents ( research articles, databases, legal references, memorandums, meeting notes, and other documents), consisting of approximately 47,000 pages of supporting material available for public review. The record for this proposed rule contains over 40 additional documents. For a more complete list of reference and technical documents, see the record for this proposed rule. IV. Overview of Facility Characteristics ( Cooling Water Systems & Intakes) for Industries Potentially Subject to Proposed Rule As discussed above, today's proposed rule would apply to Phase II existing facilities, which include any existing facility that both generates and transmits electric power, or generates electric power but sells it to another entity existing for transmission and that meets the other applicability criteria in § 125.91: ( 1) They are a point source that uses or proposes to use a cooling water intake structure; ( 2) they have at least one cooling water intake structure that uses at least 25 percent of the water it withdraws for cooling purposes; ( 3) they have a design intake flow of 50 million gallons per day ( MGD) or greater; and ( 4) they have an NPDES permit or are required to obtain one. Today's rule does not apply to facilities whose primary business activity is not power generation, such as manufacturing facilities that produce electricity by cogeneration Based on data collected from the Short Technical Industry Questionnaire and Detailed Questionnaire, and compliance requirements in today's proposed rule, EPA has identified 539 facilities to which today's rule will apply, and estimates that the total number could be 549. The Agency has identified 420 plants owned by utilities that are potentially subject to proposed rule. The Agency estimates that 129 nonutilities may potentially be subject to the proposed rule. This number, however, is subject to some uncertainty. The Agency has identified 119 plants owned by nonutilities that are potentially subject to the proposed rule, and after taking into account a small non­ response rate to the survey among nonutilities, the Agency's best estimate of the total number is 129. Sources of Surface Water. The source of surface water withdrawn for cooling is an important factor in determining potential environmental impacts. An estimated 8 nonutility facilities and 15 utility facilities withdraw all cooling water from an ocean. An estimated 55 nonutility facilities and 50 utility facilities withdraw all cooling water from an estuary or tidal river. An estimated 50 nonutility facilities and 203 utility facilities withdraw all cooling water from a freshwater stream or river. An estimated 12 or 13 nonutility facilities and 136 utility facilities withdraw all cooling water from a lake or reservoir, including 15 utilities on the Great Lakes. Fewer than 20 plants withdraw cooling water from a combination of these sources. Average Daily Cooling Water Intake in 1998. Of the estimated 129 nonutility plants that are potentially subject to this proposed rule, EPA estimates that in 1998, 4 plants had an average intake of not more than 10 million gallons per day ( MGD), 12 had an average intake more than 10 MGD and not over 50 MGD, 20 had an average intake more than 50 MGD but not over 100 MGD, and 90 had an average intake over 100 MGD ( three had zero or unreported intake). Note that coverage under the rule is based on design intake, not average intake flow. Of the 420 utility plants that are potentially subject to this proposed rule, EPA found that in 1998, 8 plants had an average intake of not more than 10 million gallons per day ( MGD), 59 had an average intake more than 10 MGD and not over 50 MGD, 58 had an average intake more than 50 MGD but not over 100 MGD, and 288 had an average intake over 100 MGD ( seven had zero or unreported intake). Cooling Water Systems. Facilities may have more than one cooling water system. Therefore, in providing the information on cooling water systems, a plant may be counted multiple times ( as many times as it has distinct cooling water systems). Thus, of the plants that are potentially subject to this proposed rule, the 129 nonutility plants are counted 165 times; the 420 utility plants are counted 599 times. As a consequence, the percentages reported sum to more than 100 percent. Among nonutility plants, 110 plants ( 85 percent) use once­ through cooling systems, 16 plants ( 12 percent) use closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling systems, and an estimated 6 plants ( 5 percent) use another type of system. Of the estimated 599 utility plants, 314 plants ( 75 percent) use once­ through cooling systems, 65 plants ( 15 percent) VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17136 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 8 EPA 2000. Detailed Industry Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water Intake Structures. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, DC. OMB Control No. 2040 0213. 9 Refers to bottom dwellers that are generally small and sessile ( attached) such as mussels and anemones, but can include certain large motile ( able to move) species such as crabs and shrimp. These species can be important members of the food chain. 10 Refers to free­ floating microscopic plants and animals, including the egg and larval stages of fish and invertebrates that have limited swimming abilities. Plankton are also an important source of food for other aquatic organisms and an essential component of the food chain in aquatic ecosystems. 11 Refers to free­ swimming organisms ( e. g., fish, turtles, marine mammals) that move actively through the water column and against currents. 12 Mayhew, D. A., L. D. Jensen, D. F. Hanson, and P. H. Muessig. 2000. A comparative review of entrainment survival studies at power plants in estuarine environments. Environmental Science and Policy 3: S295 S301. 13 EPRI. 2000. Review of entrainment survival studies: 1970 2000. Prepared by EA Engineering Science and Technology for the Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. 14 Ibid. 15 Mayhew, D. A., L. D. Jensen, D. F. Hanson, and P. H. Muessig. 2000. A comparative review of entrainment survival studies at power plants in estuarine environments. Environmental Science and Policy 3: S295 S301. 16 EPRI. 2000. Review of entrainment survival studies: 1970 2000. Prepared by EA Engineering Science and Technology for the Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. use closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling systems, and 49 plants ( 12 percent) use another type of system. Cooling Water Intake Structure Configurations. Facilities may have more than one cooling water intake structure configuration. Therefore, in providing the information on cooling water systems, a plant may be counted multiple times ( as many times as it has distinct cooling water intake structure configurations). Thus, of the plants that are potentially subject to this proposed rule, the 129 nonutility plants are counted 194 times and the 420 utility plants are counted 690 times. As a consequence, the percentages reported sum to more than 100 percent. Of the estimated 129 nonutility plants that are potentially subject to this proposed rule, 30 ( 23 percent) withdraw cooling water through a canal or channel, 13 ( 10 percent) have an intake structure situated in a natural or constructed bay or cove, 96 ( 74 percent) have an intake structure ( surface or submerged) that is flush with the shoreline, and 16 ( 12 percent) have a submerged offshore intake structure. Of the 420 utility plants that are potentially subject to this proposed rule, 142 ( 34 percent) withdraw cooling water through a canal or channel, 41 ( 10 percent) have an intake situated in a bay or cove, 251 ( 60 percent) have a shoreline intake, 59 ( 14 percent) have a submerged offshore intake, and 6 ( 1 percent) have another type of configuration or reported no information. V. Environmental Impacts Associated With Cooling Water Intake Structures The majority of environmental impacts associated with intake structures are caused by water withdrawals that ultimately result in aquatic organism losses. This section describes the general nature of these biological impacts; discusses specific types of impacts that are of concern to the Agency; and presents examples of documented impacts from a broad range of facilities. EPA believes that in light of the national scope of today's proposed rule, it is important to present the variety of impacts observed for facilities located on different waterbody types, under high and low flow withdrawal regimes, and operating with and without technologies designed to reduce environmental impacts. Based on preliminary estimates from the questionnaire sent to more than 1,200 existing power plants and factories, industrial facilities in the United States withdraw more than 279 billion gallons of cooling water a day from waters of the U. S. 8 The withdrawal of such large quantities of cooling water affects large quantities of aquatic organisms annually, including phytoplankton ( tiny, free­ floating photosynthetic organisms suspended in the water column), zooplankton ( small aquatic animals, including fish eggs and larvae, that consume phytoplankton and other zooplankton), fish, crustaceans, shellfish, and many other forms of aquatic life. Aquatic organisms drawn into cooling water intake structures are either impinged on components of the cooling water intake structure or entrained in the cooling water system itself. Impingement takes place when organisms are trapped against intake screens by the force of the water passing through the cooling water intake structure. Impingement can result in starvation and exhaustion ( organisms are trapped against an intake screen or other barrier at the entrance to the cooling water intake structure), asphyxiation ( organisms are pressed against an intake screen or other barrier at the entrance to the cooling water intake structure by velocity forces that prevent proper gill movement, or organisms are removed from the water for prolonged periods of time), and descaling ( fish lose scales when removed from an intake screen by a wash system) as well as other physical harms. Entrainment occurs when organisms are drawn through the cooling water intake structure into the cooling system. Organisms that become entrained are normally relatively small benthic, 9 planktonic, 10 and nektonic 11 organisms, including early life stages of fish and shellfish. Many of these small organisms serve as prey for larger organisms that are found higher on the food chain. As entrained organisms pass through a plant's cooling system they are subject to mechanical, thermal, and/ or toxic stress. Sources of such stress include physical impacts in the pumps and condenser tubing, pressure changes caused by diversion of the cooling water into the plant or by the hydraulic effects of the condensers, sheer stress, thermal shock in the condenser and discharge tunnel, and chemical toxemia induced by antifouling agents such as chlorine. The mortality rate of entrained organisms varies by species; mortality rates for fish can vary from 2 to 97 percent depending on the species and life stage entrained. 12, 13 Naked goby larvae demonstrated mortality rates as low as 2 percent whereas bay anchovy larvae mortality rates were as high as 97 percent. 14 Macroinvertebrate mortality ranged from 0 to 84 percent for several species evaluated, but rates were usually less than 29 percent. 15, 16 In addition to impingement and entrainment losses associated with the operation of the cooling water intake structure, EPA is concerned about the cumulative overall degradation of the aquatic environment as a consequence of ( 1) multiple intake structures operating in the same watershed or in the same or nearby reaches and ( 2) intakes located within or adjacent to an impaired waterbody. Historically, impacts related to cooling water intake structures have been evaluated on a facility­ by­ facility basis. The potential cumulative effects of multiple intakes located within a specific waterbody or along a coastal segment were not typically assessed and thus are largely unknown. ( One relevant example is provided for the Hudson River; see discussion below. Also see recently completed case studies for the Delaware Estuary and Ohio River in the Case Study Document). There is concern, however, about the effects of multiple intakes on fishery stocks. As an example, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has been requested by its member States to investigate the cumulative impacts on commercial fishery stocks, particularly overutilized stocks, attributable to VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17137 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 17 Personal communication, D. Hart ( EPA) and L. Kline ( ASMFC), 2001. 18 Food webs are modified by cooling water intake structure impacts because ( 1) some species within the ecosystem suffer heavier mortality impacts than others, and ( 2) cooling water intake structures convert living organisms to various forms of organic matter, thereby removing food resources from consumers of living organisms, and increasing food resources for scavengers and decomposers. 19 Cooling water intake structures can transfer large amounts of nutrients, carbon, and energy from living organisms ( in some cases highly mobile or migratory organisms) to the physical environment. Nutrients, carbon, and energy may re­ enter the biological compartment, but they will do so via different pathways than those used prior to cooling water intake structures operation ( see alteration of food webs). 20 In addition to altering the physical nature of aquatic habitat directly ( e. g., current modification and water withdrawal), cooling water intake structure may modify habitat by reducing numbers of habitat­ modifying organisms ( e. g., Pacific salmon). 21 Species may disappear from a site in response to cooling water intake structure impacts. Threatened and endangered or otherwise rare or sensitive species may be at greater risk. New species ( including invasive species), may establish themselves within the disrupted area if they are able to withstand cooling water intake structure impacts. 22 Florida Power and Light Company. 1995. Assessment of the impacts at the St. Lucie Nuclear Generating Plant on sea turtle species found in the inshore waters of Florida. 23 Ibid. cooling water intakes located in coastal regions of the Atlantic. 17 Specifically, the study will focus on revising existing fishery management models so that they accurately consider and account for fish losses from multiple intake structures. Further, the Agency believes that cooling water intakes potentially contribute additional stress to waters already showing aquatic life impairment from other sources such as industrial discharges and urban stormwater. EPA notes that the top four leading causes of waterbody impairment ( siltation, nutrients, bacteria, and metals) affect the aquatic life uses of a waterbody. Thus, the Agency is concerned that many of the aquatic organisms subject to the effects of cooling water withdrawals reside in impaired waterbodies and are therefore potentially more vulnerable to cumulative impacts from an array of physical and chemical anthropogenic stressors. When enough individual aquatic organisms are subject to lethal or function­ impairing stressors, whether from cooling water intake structures or water pollutants, the structure of their ecosystem can change significantly in response. Changes in ecosystem structure can then affect all organisms within the ecosystem, including those organisms a cooling water intake structure does not directly impact. Decreased numbers of aquatic organisms can have any or several of the following ecosystem­ level effects: ( 1) Disruption of food webs, 18 ( 2) disruption of nutrient, carbon, and energy transfers among the physical and biological ecosystem compartments, 19 ( 3) alteration of overall aquatic habitat, 20 and ( 4) alteration of species composition and overall levels of biodiversity. 21 The nature and extent of the ecosystem­ level effect depends on the characteristics of the aquatic organism and its interactions with other members of the ecosystem. Some species, known as `` keystone species,'' have a larger impact on ecosystem structure and function than other species. Examples of keystone species from cooling water intake structure­ impacted water bodies include menhaden, Pacific salmon, and Eastern oysters. As discussed above, structural changes at the ecosystem level are influenced by a large number of forces at work within the ecosystem. Because of the large number of these forces and the complexity of their interactions, ecologists can find it difficult to determine the contribution of any one stressor to a structural change in an ecosystem. Much work remains to be done to determine the extent to which cooling water intake structures induce structural change in their host ecosystems through impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms. Nevertheless, EPA believes that many cooling water intake structures clearly have a significant negative impact on aquatic organisms at the individual level. The studies discussed below suggest that these individual­ level impacts can lead to negative impacts at higher organizational levels. In addition to ecosystem­ level impacts, EPA is concerned about the potential impacts of cooling water intake structures located in or near habitat areas that support threatened, endangered, or other protected species. Although limited information is available on locations of threatened or endangered species that are vulnerable to impingement or entrainment, such impacts do occur. For example, EPA is aware that from 1976 to 1994, approximately 3,200 threatened or endangered sea turtles entered enclosed cooling water intake canals at the St. Lucie Nuclear Generating Plant in Florida. 22 The plant developed a capture­ and­ release program in response to these events. Most of the entrapped turtles were captured and released alive; however, approximately 160 turtles did not survive. More recently, the number of sea turtles being drawn into the intake canal increased to approximately 600 per year. Elevated numbers of sea turtles found within nearshore waters are thought to be part of the reason for the rising numbers of turtles entering facility waters. In response to this increase, Florida Power and Light Co. proposed installation of nets with smaller size mesh ( 5­ inch square mesh rather than 8­ inch square mesh) at the St. Lucie facility to minimize entrapment. 23 Finally, EPA is concerned about environmental impacts associated with re­ siting or modification of existing cooling water intake structures. Three main factors contribute to the environmental impacts: Displacement of biota and habitat resulting from the physical siting or modification of a cooling water intake structure in an aquatic environment, increased levels of turbidity in the aquatic environment, and effects on biota and habitat associated with aquatic disposal of materials excavated during re­ siting or modification activities. Existing programs, such as the CWA section 404 program, National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA) program, and programs under State/ Tribal law, include requirements that address many of the environmental impact concerns associated with the intake modifications ( see Section X for applicable Federal statutes). A. Facility Examples The following discussion provides a number of examples of impingement and entrainment impacts that can be associated with existing facilities. It is important to note that these examples are meant to illustrate the range of impacts that can occur nationally at facilities sited at diverse geographic locations, differing waterbody types, and with a variety of control technologies in place. In some cases, the number of organisms impinged and entrained by a facility can be substantial and in other examples impingement and entrainment may be minimal due to historical impacts from anthropogenic activities such as stream or river channelization. EPA notes that these examples are not representative of all sites whose facilities use cooling water intake structures and that these examples may not always reflect subsequent action that may have been taken to address these impacts on a sitespecific basis. ( Facility reports documenting the efficacy of more recently installed control technologies are not always available to the Agency.) With this background, EPA provides the following examples, illustrating that the impacts attributable to impingement VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17138 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 24 EPA Region IV. 1979. Brunswick Nuclear Steam Electric Generating Plant of Carolina Power and Light Company, historical summary and review of section 316( b) issues. 25 EPA Region IV. 1986. Findings and determination under 33 U. S. C. 1326, In the Matter of Florida Power Corporation Crystal River Power Plant Units 1, 2, and 3, NPDES permit no. FL0000159. 26 Thurber, N. J. and D. J. Jude. 1985. Impingement losses at the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant during 1975 1982 with a discussion of factors responsible and possible impact on local populations. Special report no. 115 of the Great Lakes Research Division, Great Lakes and Marine Waters Center, University of Michigan. 27 EPA Region IV. 1979. Brunswick Nuclear Steam Electric Generating Plant of Carolina Power and Light Company, historical summary and review of section 316( b) issues. 28 Watson, R. and D. Pauly. 2001. Systematic distortions in world fisheries catch trends. Nature 414 534 536. 29 Jackson J. B. C., M. X. Kirby, W. H. Berger, K. A. Bjorndal, L. W. Botsford, B. J. Bourque, R. H. Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J. A. Estes, T. P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C. B. Lange, H. S. Lenihan, J. M. Pandolfi, C. H. Peterson, R. S. Steneck, M. J. Tegner, and R. R. Warner, 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293( 5530): 629 638. 30 Boreman J. and P. Goodyear. 1988. Estimates of entrainment mortality for striped bass and other fish species inhabiting the Hudson River Estuary. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4: 152 160. 31 Consolidated Edison Company of New York. 2000. Draft environmental impact statement for the state pollutant discharge elimination system permits for Bowline Point, Indian Point 2 & 3, and Roseton steam electric generating stations. 32 New York Department of Environmental Conservation ( NYDEC). 2000. Internal memorandum provided to the USEPA on NYDEC's position on SPDES permit renewals for Roseton, Bowline Point 1 & 2, and Indian Point 2 & 3 generating stations. 33 Morningside College. 1982. Missouri River aquatic ecology studies. Prepared for Iowa Public Service Company, Sioux City, Iowa. 34 Metcalf & Eddy. 1992. Brayton Point station monitoring program technical review. Prepared for USEPA. 35 Gibson, M. 1995 ( revised 1996). Comparison of trends in the finfish assemblages of Mt. Hope Bay and Narragansett Bay in relation to operations of the New England Power Brayton Point station. Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, Marine Fisheries Office. 36 Southern California Edison. 1988. Report on 1987 data: marine environmental analysis and interpretation, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. 37 Ibid. and entrainment at individual facilities may result in appreciable losses of early life stages of fish and shellfish ( e. g., three to four billion individuals annually 24), serious reductions in forage species and recreational and commercial landings ( e. g., 23 tons lost per year 25), and extensive losses over relatively short intervals of time ( e. g., one million fish lost during a threeweek study period). 26 In addition, some studies estimating the impact of impingement and entrainment on populations of key commercial or recreational fish have predicted substantial declines in population size. This has led to concerns that some populations may be altered beyond recovery. For example, a modeling effort evaluating the impact of entrainment mortality on a representative fish species in the Cape Fear estuarine system predicted a 15 to 35 percent reduction in the species population. 27 More recent modeling studies of Mount Hope Bay, Massachusetts, predicted 87 percent reductions in overall finfish abundance ( see Brayton Point Generating Station discussion below for additional detail.) EPA acknowledges that existing fishery resource baselines may be inaccurate. 28 Further, according to one article, ``[ e] ven seemingly gloomy estimates of the global percentage of fish stocks that are overfished are almost certainly far too low.'' 29 Thus, EPA is concerned that historical overfishing may have increased the sensitivity of aquatic ecosystems to subsequent disturbance, making them more vulnerable to human impact and potential collapse. Further, studies of entrainment at five Hudson River power plants during the 1980s predicted year­ class reductions ranging from six percent to 79 percent, depending on the fish species. 30 An updated analysis completed in 2000 of entrainment at three of these power plants predicted year­ class reductions of up to 20 percent for striped bass, 25 percent for bay anchovy, and 43 percent for Atlantic tom cod, even without assuming 100 percent mortality of entrained organisms. 31 The New York Department of Environmental Conservation concluded that these reductions in year­ class strength were `` wholly unacceptable'' and that any `` compensatory responses to this level of power plant mortality could seriously deplete any resilience or compensatory capacity of the species needed to survive unfavorable environmental conditions.'' 32 In contrast, facilities sited on waterbodies previously impaired by anthropogenic activities such as channelization may demonstrate limited entrainment and impingement losses. The Neal Generating Complex facility, located near Sioux City, Iowa, on the Missouri River is coal­ fired and utilizes once­ through cooling systems. According to a ten­ year study conducted from 1972 82, the Missouri River aquatic environment near the Neal complex was previously heavily impacted by channelization and very high flow rates meant to enhance barge traffic and navigation. 33 These anthropogenic changes to the natural river system resulted in significant losses of habitat necessary for spawning, nursery, and feeding. At this facility, fish impingement and entrainment by cooling water intakes were found to be minimal. The following are summaries of other, documented examples of impacts occurring at existing facilities sited on a range of waterbody types. Also, see the Case Study Document and the benefits discussion in Section IX of this notice. Brayton Point Generating Station. The Brayton Point Generating Station is located on Mt. Hope Bay, in Somerset, Massachusetts, within the northeastern reach of Narragansett Bay. Because of problems with electric arcing caused by salt drift from an open spray pod design located near transmission wires, and lack of fresh water to replace the salt water used for the closed­ cycle recirculating spray pod cooling water system, the company converted Unit 4 from a closed­ cycle, recirculating system to a once­ through cooling water system in July 1984. The modification of Unit 4 resulted in a 41 percent increase in coolant flow, amounting to a maximum average intake flow of approximately 1.3 billion gallons per day and increased thermal discharge to the bay. 34 An analysis of fisheries data by the Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife using a time seriesintervention model showed an 87 percent reduction in finfish abundance in Mt. Hope Bay coincident with the Unit 4 modification. 35 The analysis also indicated that, in contrast, finfish abundance trends have been relatively stable in adjacent coastal areas and portions of Narragansett Bay that are not influenced by the operation of Brayton Point station. Thus, overall finfish biomass and finfish species diversity declined in Mount Hope Bay but not in Narragansett Bay. There appear to be multiple, interacting factors that influence these declines including overfishing and climate change as well as temperature increases from thermal discharges and impingement and entrainment losses associated with the Brayton Point facility. San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station ( SONGS) is located on the coastline of the Southern California Bight, approximately 2.5 miles southeast of San Clemente, California. 36 The marine portions of Units 2 and 3, which are once­ through, open­ cycle cooling systems, began commercial operation in August 1983 and April 1984, respectively. 37 Since VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17139 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 38 Swarbrick, S. and R. F. Ambrose. 1989. Technical report C: entrapment of juvenile and adult fish at SONGS. Prepared for Marine Review Committee. 39 Kastendiek, J. and K. Parker. 1988. Interim technical report: midwater and benthic fish. Prepared for Marine Review Committee. 40 Swarbrick, S. and R. F. Ambrose. 1989. Technical report C: entrapment of juvenile and adult fish at SONGS. Prepared for Marine Review Committee. 41 Kastendiek, J. and K. Parker. 1988. Interim technical report: midwater and benthic fish. Prepared for Marine Review Committee. 42 Impingement and entrainment data were obtained from the 2000 Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities. Please see EPA's Case Study Document for detailed information on EPA's evaluation of impingement and entrainment at these facilities. 43 Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1998. Lovett Generating Station Gunderboom system evaluation program 1998. 44 Please see EPA's Case Study Document for more detailed information on these facilities and the data and methods used by EPA to calculate age 1 equivalent losses. 45 Ibid. 46 U. S. Department of Energy. 1999. Form EIA 767 ( 1999). Steam­ electric plant operation and design report. Edison Electric Institute. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. 49 Consumers Power Company. 1984, 1988, and 1992 reports of deterrent net performance, J. R. Whiting Plant. Prepared for the Michigan Water Resources Commission. then, many studies evaluated the impact of the SONGS facility on the marine environment. In a normal ( non­ El Nin ~ o) year, an estimated 121 tons of midwater fish ( primarily northern anchovy, queenfish, and white croaker) may be entrained at SONGS. 38 The fish lost include approximately 350,000 juveniles of white croaker, a popular sport fish; this number represents 33,000 adult individuals or 3.5 tons of adult fish. Within 3 kilometers of SONGS, the density of queenfish and white croaker in shallow­ water samples decreased by 34 and 36 percent, respectively. Queenfish declined by 50 to 70 percent in deepwater samples. 39 In contrast, relative abundances of bottom­ dwelling adult queenfish and white croaker increased in the vicinity of SONGS. 40 Increased numbers of these and other bottom­ dwelling species were believed to be related to the enriching nature of SONGS discharges, which in turn support elevated numbers of prey items for bottom fish. 41 Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants. The Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants are located in the San Francisco Bay­ Delta Estuary, California. Several local fish species ( e. g., Delta smelt, Sacramento splittail, chinook salmon, and steelhead) found in the vicinity of the facilities are now considered threatened or endangered by Sate and/ or Federal authorities. EPA evaluated facility data on impingement and entrainment rates for these species and estimated that potential losses of special status fish species at the two facilities may reach 145,003 age 1 equivalents per year resulting from impingement and 269,334 age 1 equivalents per year due to entrainment 42 Based on restoration costs for these species, EPA estimates that the value of the potential impingement losses of these species is $ 12.8 to 43.2 million per year and the value of potential entrainment is $ 25.6 million to $ 83.2 million per year ( all in $ 2001). Lovett Generating Station. The Lovett Generating Station is located in Tompkins Cove, New York, on the western shore of the Hudson River. As a method of reducing ichthyoplankton ( free floating fish eggs and larvae) entrainment at the Lovett station, the Gunderboom Marine Life Exclusion System was installed in 1995 at the Unit 3 intake structure. Gunderboom is a woven mesh material initially designed to prevent waterborne pollutants from entering shoreline environments during construction or dredging activities. Since its initial installation, the Gunderboom system has undergone a series of tests and modifications to resolve problems with fabric clogging, anchoring, and the boom system. Data from testing in 1998 demonstrated that with the Gunderboom system in place, entrainment of eggs, larvae, and juveniles was reduced by 80 percent. 43 Ohio River. EPA evaluated entrainment and impingement impacts at nine in­ scope facilities along a 500­ mile stretch of the Ohio River as one of its case studies. Results from these nine facilities were extrapolated to 20 additional in­ scope facilities. All inscope facilities spanned a stretch of the Ohio River that extended from the western portion of Pennsylvania, along the southern border of Ohio, and into eastern Indiana. Impingement losses for all in­ scope facilities were approximately 11.3 million fish ( age 1 equivalents) annually; entrainment losses totaled approximately 23.0 million fish ( age 1 equivalents) annually. 44 EPA believes that the results from this case study may not be representative of entrainment and impingement losses along major U. S. rivers because they are based on limited data collected nearly 25 years ago. In addition, due to improvements in water quality and implementation of fishery management plans, fish populations near these facilities may have increased and therefore these results may underestimate current entrainment and impingement at Ohio River facilities. Power Plants with Flows Less Than 500 MGD. The following results from the case studies conducted by EPA under this rulemaking effort provide an indication of impingement and entrainment rates for facilities with lower flows than the previous examples. Impingement and entrainment rates are expressed as numbers of age 1 equivalents, calculated by EPA from the impingement and entrainment data provided in facility monitoring reports. 45 The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, located on Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts, has an intake flow of 446 MGD. 46 The average annual number of age 1 equivalents impinged at Pilgrim from 1974 1999 was 52,800 fish. The average annual number entrained was 14.4 million fish. The Miami Fort Power Plant, located on the Ohio River about 20 miles downstream of Cincinnati, has an intake flow of about 98.7 MGD 47 and combined average impingement and entrainment of about 1.8 million age 1 equivalent fish per year ( 298,027 impinged and 1,519,679 entrained). The JR Whiting Plant, located in Michigan on Lake Erie has an intake flow of 308 MGD. 48 The average annual number of age 1 equivalent fish entrained was 1.8 million. Before installation of a deterrent net in 1980 to reduce impingement, some 21.5 million age 1 equivalents were lost to impingement at the facility each year. These losses were reduced by nearly 90 percent with application of the deterrent net. 49 Studies like those described in this section may provide only a partial picture of the severity of environmental impact associated with cooling water intake structures. Most important, the methods for evaluating adverse environmental impact used in the 1970s and 1980s, when most section 316( b) evaluations were performed, were often inconsistent and incomplete, making detection and consideration of all impacts difficult in some cases, and making cross­ facility comparison difficult for developing a national rule. For example, some studies reported only gross fish losses; others reported fish losses on the basis of species and life stage; still others reported percent losses of the associated population or subpopulation ( e. g., young­ of­ year fish). Recent advances in environmental assessment techniques provide new and in some cases better tools for monitoring impingement and entrainment and detecting impacts associated with the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17140 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 50 Schmitt, R. J. and C. W. Osenberg. 1996. Detecting ecological impacts. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 51 EPRI. 1999. Catalog of assessment methods for evaluating the effects of power plant operations on aquatic communities. TR 112013, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. operation of cooling water intake structures. 50 51 VI. Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact at Phase II Existing Facilities A. What Is the Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact at Phase II Existing Facilities? 1. How Will Requirements Reflecting Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact Be Established for My Phase II Existing Facility? Today's proposed rule would establish national minimum performance requirements for the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at Phase II existing facilities. These requirements would represent best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact based on the type of waterbody in which the intake structure is located, the volume of water withdrawn by a facility, and the facility's capacity utilization rate. Under this proposal, EPA would set technology­ based performance requirements, but the Agency would not mandate the use of any specific technology. A facility may use one of three different methods for establishing the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. Under the first method, a facility would demonstrate to the Director issuing the permit that the facility's existing design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures already meet the national minimum performance requirements that EPA is proposing. Under the second method, a facility would select design and construction technology, operational measures, restoration measures or some combination thereof. The facility would then demonstrate to the Director that its selected approach would meet the performance requirements EPA is proposing. Under the third method, a facility would calculate its cost of complying with the presumptive performance requirements and compare those costs either to the compliance costs EPA estimated in the analysis for this proposed rule or to a site­ specific determination of the benefits of meeting the presumptive performance requirements. If the facility's costs are significantly greater than EPA's estimated costs or site­ specific benefits, the facility would qualify for a sitespecific determination of best technology available. The Agency discusses each of these three methods for compliance and the proposed presumptive minimum performance requirements in greater detail below. EPA invites comments on all aspects of this proposed regulatory framework as well as the alternative regulatory approaches discussed later in this section. a. What Are the Performance Standards for the Location, Design, Construction, and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures To Reflect Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact? EPA is proposing four performance standards at § 125.94( b), all of which reflect best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact from cooling water intake structures. Under proposed § 125.94( b)( 1), any owner or operator able to demonstrate that a facility employs technology that reduces intake capacity to a level commensurate with the use of a closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling system would meet the performance requirements proposed in today's rule. Use of this type of technology satisfies both impingement and entrainment performance requirements for all waterbodies. The performance standards at proposed § 125.94( b)( 2),( 3), and ( 4) are based on the type of waterbody in which the intake structure is located, the volume of water withdrawn by a facility, the facility capacity utilization rate, and the location of a facility's intake structure in relation to fishery resources of concern to permit authorities or fishery managers. Under the proposed rule, EPA would group waterbodies into five categories: ( 1) Freshwater rivers or streams, ( 2) lakes or reservoirs, ( 3) Great Lakes, ( 4) tidal rivers and estuaries, and ( 5) oceans. The Agency considers location to be an important factor in addressing adverse environmental impact caused by cooling water intake structures. Because different waterbody types have different potential for adverse environmental impact, the requirements proposed to minimize adverse environmental impact would vary by waterbody type. For example, estuaries and tidal rivers have a higher potential for adverse impact because they contain essential habitat and nursery areas for the vast majority of commercial and recreational important species of shell and fin fish, including many species that are subject to intensive fishing pressures. Therefore, these areas require a higher level of control that includes both impingement and entrainment controls. Organisms entrained may include small species of fish and immature life stages ( eggs and larvae) of many species that lack sufficient mobility to move away from the area of the intake structure. The reproductive strategies of many estuarine species include pelagic or planktonic larvae, which are very susceptible to entrainment. EPA discussed these concepts in a Notice of Data Availability ( NODA) for the new facility rule ( 66 FR 28853, May 25, 2001) and invited comment on a number of documents which may support a judgment that the reproductive strategies of tidal river and estuarine species, together with other physical and biological characteristics of those waters, which make them more susceptible than other waterbodies to impacts from cooling water intake structures. In addition to these documents, the NODA presented information regarding the low entrainment susceptibility of non­ tidal freshwater rivers and streams to cooling water intake structure impacts. This information also may be relevant in determining whether tidal rivers and estuaries are more sensitive to cooling water intake structures than some parts of other waterbodies. In general, commenters on the NODA agreed that location is an important factor in assessing the impacts of cooling water intake structure, but that creating a regulatory framework to specifically address locational issues would be extremely difficult. In the end, EPA elected not to vary requirements for new facilities on the basis of whether a cooling water intake structure is located in one or another broad category of waterbody type. Instead, EPA promulgated the same technology­ based performance requirements for all new facilities, regardless of the waterbody type after finding this approach to be economically practicable. For the Phase II existing facility rule, which would establish the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact in all waterbody types, EPA is again proposing an approach that it believes is economically practicable, but is proposing to require the most control in areas where such controls would yield the greatest reduction in impingement and entrainment. EPA believes that section 316( b) affords EPA such VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17141 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules discretion because unlike the sections authorizing technology­ based effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for the discharge of pollutants, section 316( b) expressly states that its objective is to require best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. EPA believes this language affords the Agency discretion to consider the environmental effects of various technology options. Therefore, EPA is proposing to vary technology­ based performance requirements by waterbody type, requiring more effective controls in waterbodies with higher overall productivity or greater sensitivity to impingement and entrainment. ( Appendix 1 to the preamble presents the proposed regulatory framework in a flow chart). Under this approach, facilities that operate at less than 15 percent capacity utilization would be required to have only impingement control technology. This level of control was found to be the most economically practicable given these facilities' reduced operating levels. In addition, these facilities tend to operate most often in mid­ winter or late summer, times of peak energy demand but periods of generally low abundance of entrainable life stages of fish and shellfish. The flow or capacity of a cooling water intake structure is also a primary factor affecting the entrainment of organisms. The lower the intake flow at a site, the lesser the potential for entrained organisms. As in the Phase I ( new facility) rule, EPA is proposing to set performance standards for minimizing adverse environmental impact based on a relatively easy to measure and certain metric­ reduction of impingement mortality and entrainment. EPA is choosing this approach to provide certainty about permitting requirements and to streamline and speed the issuance of permits. Facilities with cooling water intake structures located in a freshwater river or stream would have different requirements depending on the proportion of the source waterbody that is withdrawn. If the intake flow is 5 percent or less of the source water annual mean flow, then the facility would be required to reduce fish and shellfish impingement mortality by 80 to 95 percent. If the intake flow is 5 percent or more of the source water annual mean flow, then the facility would be required to reduce fish and shellfish impingement mortality by 80 to 95 percent and reduce entrainment by 60 to 90 percent. As described in the new facility proposed rule ( 65 FR 49060) and NODA ( 66 FR 28853), EPA believes that, absent entrainment control technologies entrainment, at a particular site is proportional to intake flow at that site. As we discuss above, EPA believes it is reasonable to vary the suite of technologies by the potential for adverse environmental impact in a waterbody type. EPA is therefore proposing to limit the requirement for entrainment control in fresh waters to those facilities that withdraw the largest proportion of water from freshwater rivers or streams. Facilities with cooling water intake structures located in a lake or reservoir would have to implement impingement control technology to reduce impingement mortality by 80 to 95 percent for fish and shellfish, and, if they expand their design intake capacity, the increase in intake flow must not disrupt the natural thermal stratification or turnover pattern of the source water. Cooling water intake structures withdrawing from the Great Lakes would be required to reduce fish and shellfish impingement mortality by 80 to 95 percent and to reduce entrainment by 60 to 90 percent. As described in the new facility proposed rule ( 65 FR 49060) and NODA ( 66 FR 28853), EPA believes that the Great Lakes are a unique system that should be protected to a greater extent than other lakes and reservoirs. The Agency is therefore proposing to specify entrainment controls as well as impingement controls for the Great Lakes. Facilities with cooling water intake structures located in a tidal river or estuary would need to implement impingement control technology to reduce impingement mortality by 80 to 95 percent and entrainment by 60 to 90 percent for fish and shellfish. As discussed above, estuaries and tidal rivers are more susceptible than other water bodies to adverse impacts from impingement and entrainment. Facilities with cooling water intake structures located in an ocean would have to implement impingement control technology to reduce impingement mortality by 80 to 95 percent and entrainment by 60 to 90 percent for fish and shellfish. EPA is establishing requirements for facilities withdrawing from oceans that are similar to those proposed for tidal rivers and estuaries because the coastal zone of oceans ( where cooling water intakes withdraw) are highly productive areas. ( See the new facility proposed rule ( 65 FR 45060) and documents in the record ( Docket # W 00 03) such as 2 013A through O, 2 019A R11, 2 019A R12, 2 019A R33, 2 019A R44, 2 020A, 3 0059.) EPA is also concerned about the extent to which fishery stocks that rely upon tidal rivers, estuaries and oceans for habitat are overutilized and seeks to minimize the impact that cooling water intake structures may have on these species or forage species on which these fishery stocks may depend. ( See documents 2 019A R11, 2 019A R12, 2 019A R33, 2 019A R44, 2 020A, 2 024A through O, and 3 0059 through 3 0063 in the record of the Final New Facility Rule ( 66 FR 65256), Docket # W 00 03). EPA is proposing a range of impingement mortality and entrainment reduction in its requirements for facilities that are required to select and implement design and construction technologies or operational or restoration measures to minimize potential impact from their cooling water intake structures. The calculation baseline against which compliance with the performance standards should be assessed is a shoreline intake with the capacity to support once­ through cooling and no impingement mortality or entrainment controls. In many cases existing technologies at the site achieve some reduction in impingement and entrainment when compared to this baseline. In such cases, impingement mortality and entrainment reductions ( relative to the calculated baseline) achieved by these existing technologies should be counted toward compliance with the performance standards. EPA is proposing performance ranges rather than a single performance benchmark because of the uncertainty inherent in predicting the efficacy of a technology on a site­ specific basis. The lower end of the range is being proposed as the percent reduction that EPA, based on the available efficacy data, has determined that all facilities could achieve if they were to implement available technologies and operational measures on which the performance standards are based. ( See Chapter 5, `` Efficacy of Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies,'' of the Technical Development Document for the Final Rule for New Facilities, EPA 821 R 01 036, November 2001). The baseline for assessing performance is a Phase II existing facility with a shoreline intake with the capacity to support once­ through cooling and no impingement or entrainment controls. The lower end of the range would take into account sites where there may be more fragile species that may not have a high survival rate after coming in contact with fish protection technologies at the cooling water intake structure ( i. e., fine mesh screens). The higher end of the range is being proposed as a percent reduction that VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17142 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules available data show many facilities can and have achieved with the available technologies on which the performance standards are based. Some facilities may be able to exceed the high end of the performance range, though they would not be required to do so by today's proposed rule. In specifying a range, EPA anticipates that facilities will select technologies or operational measures to achieve the greatest cost­ effective reduction possible ( within today's proposed performance range) based on conditions found at their site, and that Directors will review the facility's application to ensure that appropriate alternatives were considered. EPA also expects that some facilities may be able to meet these performance requirements by selecting and implementing a suite ( i. e., more than one) of technologies and operational measures and/ or, as discussed below, by undertaking restoration measures. EPA invites comment on whether the Agency should establish regulatory requirements to ensure that facilities achieve the greatest possible reduction ( within the proposed ranges) that can be achieved at their site using the technologies on which the performance standards are based. EPA also invites comment on whether EPA should leave decisions about appropriate performance levels for a facility to the Director, provided that the facility will achieve performance that is no lower than the bottom of the performance ranges in today's proposal. EPA based the presumptive performance standards specified at 125.94( b), ( c), and ( d) for impingement mortality reduction, compared with conventional once­ through systems, on the following technologies: ( 1) Design and construction technologies such as fine and wide­ mesh wedgewire screens, as well as aquatic filter barrier systems, that can reduce mortality from impingement by up to 99 percent or greater compared with conventional once­ through systems; ( 2) barrier nets that may achieve reductions of 80 to 90 percent; and ( 3) modified screens and fish return systems, fish diversion systems, and fine mesh traveling screens and fish return systems that have achieved reductions in impingement mortality ranging from 60 to 90 percent as compared to conventional oncethrough systems. ( See Chapter 5 of the Technical Development Document for the Final Rule for New Facilities.) Less full­ scale performance data are available for entrainment reduction. Aquatic filter barrier systems, fine mesh wedgewire screens, and fine mesh traveling screens with fish return systems achieve 80 to 90 percent greater reduction in entrainment compared with conventional once­ through systems. EPA notes that screening to prevent organism entrainment may cause impingement of those organisms instead. Questions regarding impingement survival of relatively delicate fish, larvae, and eggs would need to be considered by the Director and the facility in evaluating the efficacy of the technology. In addition, all of these screening­ and­ return technologies would need to be evaluated on a case­ by­ case basis to determine if they are capable of screening and protecting the specific species of fish, larvae and eggs that are of concern at a particular facility. Several additional factors suggest that the performance levels discussed above and described in more detail in Chapter 5 of the Technical Development Document for the Final New Facility Rule can be improved. First, some of the performance data reviewed is from the 1970' s and 1980' s and does not reflect recent developments and innovations ( e. g., aquatic filter barrier systems, sound barriers). Second, these conventional barrier and return system technologies have not been optimized on a widespread level to date, as would be encouraged by this rule. Third, EPA believes that many facilities could achieve further reductions ( estimated at 15 30 percent) in impingement mortality and entrainment by providing for seasonal flow restrictions, variable speed pumps, and other operational measures and innovative flow reduction alternatives. For additional discussion, see section 5.5.11 in the Technical Development Document for the new facility rule. EPA notes that available data described in Chapter 5 of the Technical Development Document for the Final Rule for New Facilities suggest that closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling systems ( e. g., cooling towers or ponds) can reduce mortality from impingement by up to 98 percent and entrainment by up to 98 percent when compared with conventional once­ through systems. Therefore, although closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling is not one of the technologies on which the presumptive standards are base, use of a closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling system would achieve the presumptive standards. The proposed rule, at § 124.94( b)( 1) would thus establish the use of a closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling system as one method for meeting the presumptive standards. Based on an analysis of data collected through the detailed industry questionnaire and the short technical questionnaire, EPA believes that today's proposed rule would apply to 539 existing steam electric power generating facilities. Of these, 53 facilities that operate at less than 15 percent capacity utilization would potentially require only impingement controls, with 34 of these estimated to actually require such controls. ( The remaining 19 facilities have existing impingement controls). Of the remaining 486 facilities, the proposed rule would not require any changes at approximately 69 large existing facilities with recirculating wet cooling systems ( e. g., wet cooling towers or ponds). Of the remaining 417 steam electric power generating facilities ( i. e., those that exceed 15 percent capacity utilization and have non­ recirculating systems), EPA estimates that 94 are located on freshwater lakes or reservoirs, 13 are located on the Great Lakes, 109 are located on oceans, estuaries, or tidal rivers, and 201 are located on freshwater rivers or streams. Of the 94 Phase II existing facilities located on freshwater lakes or reservoirs, EPA estimates that 67 of these facilities would have to install impingement controls and that 27 facilities already have impingement controls that meet the proposed rule requirements. As for existing steam electric power generating facilities located on the Great Lakes, EPA estimates that the proposed rule would require all 13 such facilities to install impingement and entrainment controls. Of the 109 facilities located on estuaries, tidal rivers, or oceans, EPA estimates that 15 facilities would already meet today's proposed impingement and entrainment controls. The remaining 94 facilities would need to install additional technologies to reduce impingement, entrainment, or both. For Phase II existing facilities located on freshwater river or streams, the proposed rule would establish an intake flow threshold of five ( 5) percent of the mean annual flow. Facilities withdrawing more than this threshold would have to meet performance standards for reducing both impingement mortality and entrainment. Facilities withdrawing less than the threshold would only have to meet performance standards for reducing impingement mortality. EPA estimates that of 201 facilities located on freshwater river or streams, 94 are at or below the flow threshold, and that only 53 of these facilities would have to install additional impingement controls ( the remaining facilities have controls in place to meet the proposed rule requirements). EPA estimates that 107 facilities exceed the flow threshold. Twenty one ( 21) of these facilities have VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17143 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules sufficient controls in place; 86 would require entrainment or impingement and entrainment controls. b. How Could a Phase II Existing Facility Use Existing Design and Construction Technologies, Operational Measures, and/ or Restoration Measures To Establish Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact? Under the first option for determination of best technology available, as specified in proposed § 125.94( a)( 1), an owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility may demonstrate to the permit­ issuing Director that it already employs design and construction technologies, operational measures, or restoration measures that meet the performance requirements proposed today. To do this the owner or operator would calculate impingement mortality and entrainment reductions of existing technologies and measures relative to the calculation baseline and compare these reductions to those specified in the applicable performance standards. EPA expects that owners and operators of some facilities may be able to demonstrate compliance through a suite of ( i. e., multiple) existing technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures. To adequately demonstrate the efficacy of existing technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures, a facility owner or operator must conduct and submit for the Director's review a Comprehensive Demonstration Study as specified in proposed § 125.95( b) and described in section VII of today's preamble. In this Study, the owner or operator would characterize the impingement mortality and entrainment due to the cooling water intake structure, describe the nature and operation of the intake structure, and describe the nature and performance levels of the existing technologies, operational measures, and restoration measures for mitigating impingement and entrainment impacts. Owners and operators may use existing data for the Study as long as it adequately reflects current conditions at the facility and in the waterbody from which the facility withdraws cooling water. c. How Could a Phase II Existing Facility Use Newly Selected Design and Construction Technologies, Operational Measures, and/ or Restoration Measures To Establish Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact? Under the second option for determination of best technology available specified in proposed § 125.94( a)( 2), an owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility that does not already employ sufficient design and construction technologies, operational measures, or restoration measures to meet the proposed performance standards must select additional technologies and operational or restoration measures. The owner or operator must demonstrate to the permit­ issuing Director that these additions will, in conjunction with any existing technologies and measures at the site, meet today's proposed performance standards. EPA expects that some facilities may be able to meet their performance requirements by selecting and implementing a suite ( i. e., more than one) of technologies, operational, or restoration measures. To adequately demonstrate the efficacy of the selected technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures, a facility must conduct and submit for the Director's review a Comprehensive Demonstration Study as specified in proposed § 125.95( b) and described in section VII of today's preamble. In this Study, the owner or operator would characterize the impingement mortality and entrainment due to the cooling water intake structure, describe the nature and operation of the intake structure, and describe the nature and performance levels of both the existing and proposed technologies, operational measures, and restoration measures for mitigating impingement and entrainment impacts. Owners and operators may use existing data for the Study as long as it adequately reflects current conditions at the facility and in the waterbody from which the facility withdraws cooling water. If compliance monitoring determines that the design and construction, operating measures, or restoration measures prescribed by the permit have been properly installed and were properly operated and maintained, but were not achieving compliance with the applicable performance standards, the Director could modify permit requirements consistent with existing NPDES program regulations ( e. g., 40 CFR 122.62, 122.63, and 122.41) and the provisions of this proposal. In the meantime, the facility would be considered in compliance with its permit as long as it was satisfying all permit conditions. EPA solicits comment on whether the proposed regulation should specify that proper design, installation, operation and maintenance would satisfy the terms of the permit until the permit is reissued pursuant to a revised Design and Construction Technology Plan. If EPA were to adopt this approach, EPA would specify in the regulations that the Director should require as a permit condition the proper design, installation, operation and maintenance of design and construction technologies and operational measures rather than compliance with performance standards. d. How Could a Phase II Existing Facility Qualify for a Site­ Specific Determination of Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact? Under the third option for determination of best technology available, specified in proposed § 125.94( a)( 3), the owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility may demonstrate to the Director that a sitespecific determination of best technology available is appropriate for the cooling water intake structure( s) at that facility if the owner or operator can meet one of the two cost tests specified in proposed § 125.94( c)( 1). To be eligible to pursue this approach, the facility must first demonstrate to the Director either: ( 1) that its costs of compliance with the applicable performance standards specified in § 125.94( b) would be significantly greater than the costs considered by the Administrator in establishing such performance standards; or ( 2) that the facility's costs would be significantly greater than the benefits of complying with the performance standards at the facility's site. A discussion of applying the cost test is provided in section VI. A. 12 of this proposed rule. A discussion of applying the test in which costs are compared to benefits is provided in Section VI. A. 8. To adequately demonstrate the efficacy of the selected technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures considered in the site­ specific cost tests, a facility must conduct and submit for the Director's review a Comprehensive Demonstration Study as specified in proposed § 125.95( b) and described in section VII of today's preamble. In this Study, the owner or operator would characterize the impingement mortality and entrainment due to the cooling water intake VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17144 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules structure, describe the nature and operation of the intake structure, and describe the nature and performance levels of the existing technologies, operational measures, and restoration measures for mitigating impingement and entrainment impacts. Owners or operators would also need to document the costs to the facility of any additional technologies or measures that would be needed to meet the performance standards and in the case of the sitespecific cost to benefits test, the monetized benefits of meeting the standards. Owners and operators may use existing data for the Study as long as it adequately reflects current conditions at the facility and in the waterbody from which the facility withdraws cooling water. Where a Phase II existing facility demonstrates that it meets either of the cost tests, the Director is to make a sitespecific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. This determination would be based on less costly design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures proposed by the facility and approved by the Director. The Director would approve less costly technologies to the extent justified by the significantly greater cost. Phase II Existing facilities that pursue this option would have to assess the nature and degree of adverse environmental impact associated with their cooling water intake structures, and then identify the best technology available to minimize such impact. Owners and operators would be required to submit to the Director for approval a Site­ Specific Technology Plan. This plan would be based on a Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study and a Valuation of Monetized Benefits of Reducing Impingement and Entrainment, as required by proposed § 125.95( b)( 6)( i) and ( ii). ( See section VII). The Plan would describe the design and operation of all design and construction technologies, operational measures, and restoration measures selected, and provide information that demonstrates the effectiveness of the selected technologies or measures for reducing the impacts on the species of concern. To document that its site­ specific costs would be significantly greater than those EPA considered, the facility would need to develop engineering cost estimates as part of its Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study. The facility would then consider the model plants presented in EPA's Technical Development Document, determine which model plant most closely matches its fuel source, mode of electricity generation, existing intake technologies, waterbody type, geographic location, and intake flow and compare its engineering estimates to EPA's estimated cost for this model plant . 2. What Available Technologies Are Proposed as Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact? Currently, 14 percent of Phase II existing facilities potentially subject to this proposal already have a closedcycle recirculating cooling water system ( 69 facilities operating at 15 percent capacity utilization or more and 4 facilities operating at less than 15 percent capacity utilization). In addition, 50 percent of the remaining potentially regulated facilities have some other technology in place that reduces impingement or entrainment. Thirty­ three percent of these facilities have fish handling or return systems that reduce the mortality of impinged organisms. EPA finds that the design and construction technologies necessary to meet the proposed requirements are commercially available and economically practicable, because facilities can and have installed many of these technologies years after a facility began operation. Typically, additional design and construction technologies such as fine mesh screens, wedgewire screens, fish handling and return systems, and aquatic fabric barrier systems can be installed during a scheduled outage ( operational shutdown). Referenced below are examples of facilities that installed these technologies after they initially started operating. Lovett Generating Station. A 495 MW facility ( nameplate, gas­ fired steam), Lovett is located in Tomkins Cove, New York, along the Hudson River. The facility first began operations in 1949 and has 3 generating units with oncethrough cooling systems. In 1994, Lovett began the testing of an aquatic filter fabric barrier system to reduce entrainment, with a permanent system being installed the following year. Improvements and additions were made to the system in 1997, 1998, and 1999, with some adjustments being accepted as universal improvements for all subsequent installations of this vendor's technology at other locations. Big Bend Power Station. Situated on Tampa Bay, Big Bend is a 1998 MW ( nameplate, coal­ fired steam) facility with 4 generating units. The facility first began operations in 1970 and added generating units in 1973, 1976, and 1985. Big Bend supplies cooling water to its once­ through cooling water systems via two intake structures. When the facility added Unit 4 in 1985, regulators required the facility to install additional intake technologies. A fish handling and return system, as well as a fine­ mesh traveling screen ( used only during months with potentially high entrainment rates), were installed on the intake structure serving both the new Unit 4 and the existing Unit 3. Salem Generating Station. A 2381 MW facility ( nameplate, nuclear), Salem is located on the Delaware River in Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. The facility has two generating units, both of which use once­ through cooling and began operations in 1977. In 1995, the facility installed modified Ristroph screens and a low­ pressure spray wash with a fish return system. The facility also redesigned the fish return troughs to reduce fish trauma. Chalk Point Generating Station. Located on the Patuxent River in Price George's County, Maryland, Chalk Point has a nameplate capacity of 2647 MW ( oil­ fired steam). The facility has 4 generating units and uses a combination of once­ through and closed cycle cooling ( two once­ through systems serving two generating units and one recirculating system with a tower serving the other two generating units). In 1983, the facility installed a barrier net, followed by a second set of netting in 1985, giving the facility a coarse mesh ( 1.25 ) outer net and a fine mesh (. 75 ) inner net. The barrier nets are anchored to a series of pilings at the mouth of the intake canal that supplies the cooling water to the facility and serve to reduce both entrainment and the volume of trash taken in at the facility. EPA believes that the technologies used as the basis for today's proposal are commercially available and economically practicable ( see discussion below) for the industries affected as a whole, and have negligible non­ water quality environmental impacts, including energy impacts. The proposed option would meet the requirement of section 316( b) of the CWA that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. 3. Economic Practicability EPA believes that the requirements of this proposal are economically practicable. EPA examined the annualized post­ tax compliance costs of the proposed rule as a percentage of annual revenues to determine whether VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17145 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 52EPA's 2000 Section 316( b) Industry Survey identified 539 facilities that are subject to this proposed rule. EPA applied sample weights to the 539 facilities to account for non­ sampled facilities and facilities that did not respond to the survey. The 539 analyzed facilities represent 550 facilities in the industry. 53 IPM revenues for 2008 were not available for 11 facilities estimated to be baseline closures, 10 facilities not modeled by the IPM, and 9 facilities projected to have zero baseline revenues. EPA used facility­ specific electricity generation and firmspecific wholesale prices as reported to the Energy Information Administration ( EIA) to calculate the cost­ to­ revenue ratio for the 19 non­ baseline closure facilities with missing information. The revenues for one of these facilities remained unknown. 54 Two entities only own Phase II facilities that are projected to be baseline closures. EPA estimated that for both entities, the compliance costs incurred would have been less than 0.5 percent of revenues. the options are economically practicable. This analysis was conducted both at the facility and firm levels. a. Facility Level EPA examined the annualized posttax compliance costs of the proposed rule as a percentage of annual revenues, for each of the 550 facilities subject to this proposed rule. 52 The revenue estimates are facility­ specific baseline projections from the Integrated Planning Model ( IPM) for 2008 ( see Section VIII. Economic Analysis of this document for a discussion of EPA's analyses using the IPM). The results of this analysis show that the vast majority of facilities subject to the proposed rule, 409 out of 550, or approximately 74 percent, would incur annualized costs of less than 1 percent of revenues. Of these, 331 facilities would incur compliance costs of less than 0.5 percent of revenues. Eighty­ two facilities, or 15 percent, would incur costs of between 1 and 3 percent of revenues, and 46 facilities, or 8 percent, would incur costs of greater than 3 percent. Eleven facilities are estimated to be baseline closures, and for one facility, revenues are unknown. 53 Exhibit 2 below summarizes these findings. EXHIBIT 2. PROPOSED RULE ( FACILITY LEVEL) Annualized cost­ torevenue ratio All phase II Percent of total phase II < 0.5% ....................... 331 60 0.5 1.0% ................... 78 14 1.0 3.0% ................... 82 15 > 3.0% ....................... 46 8 Baseline Closure ...... 11 2 n/ a ............................. 1 0 Total ...................... 550 100 b. Firm Level Facility­ leval compliance costs are low compared to facility­ level revenues. However, the firms owning the facilities subject to the proposed rule may experience greater impacts if they own more than one facility with compliance costs. EPA therefore also analyzed the economic practicability of this proposed rule at the firm level. EPA identified the domestic parent entity of each in­ scope facility and obtained their sales revenue from publicly available data sources ( the 1999 Forms EIA 860A, EIA 860B, and EIA 861; and the Dun and Bradstreet database) as well as EPA's 2000 Section 316( b) Industry Survey. This analysis showed that 131 unique domestic parent entities own the facilities subject to this proposed rule. EPA compared the aggregated annualized post­ tax compliance costs for each facility owned by the 131 parent entities to the firms' total sales revenue. Based on the results from this analysis, EPA concludes that the proposed rule will be economically practicable at the firm level. EPA estimates that the compliance costs will comprise a very low percentage of firm­ level revenues. Of the 131 unique entities, 3 would incur compliance costs of greater than 3 percent of revenues; 10 entities would incur compliance costs of between 1 and 3 percent of revenues; 12 entities would incur compliance costs of between 0.5 and 1 percent of revenues; and the remaining 104 entities would incur compliance costs of less than 0.5 percent of revenues. 54 The estimated annualized compliance costs represent between 0.002 and 5.3 percent of the entities' annual sales revenue. Exhibit 3 below summarizes these findings. EXHIBIT 3. PROPOSED RULE ( FACILITY LEVEL) Annualized cost­ torevenue ratio Number of phase II entities Percentage of total phase II < 0.5% ....................... 104 79 0.5 1.0% ................... 12 9 1.0% 3.0 ................... 10 8 > 3.0% ....................... 3 2 Baseline Closures ..... 2 2 Total ...................... 131 100 c. Additional Impacts As described in Sections VIII and X. J below, EPA also considered the potential effects of the proposed rule on installed electric generation capacity, electrical production, production costs, and electricity prices. EPA determined that the proposed rule would not lead to the early retirement of any existing generating capacity, and would have very small or no energy effects. After considering all of these factors, EPA concludes that the costs of the proposed rule are economically practicable. d. Benefits As described in Section IX., EPA estimates the annualized benefits of the proposed rule would be $ 70.3 million for impingement reductions and $ 632.4 million for reduced entrainment. For a more detailed discussion, also see the Economic and Benefits Analysis for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule. 4. Site­ Specific Determination of Best Technology Available Under today's proposed rule, the owner or operator of an Phase II existing facility may demonstrate to the Director that a site­ specific determination of best technology available is appropriate for the cooling water intake structures at that facility if the owner or operator can meet one of the two cost tests specified under § 125.94( c)( 1). To be eligible to pursue this approach, the facility must first demonstrate to the Director either ( 1) that its costs of compliance with the applicable performance standards specified in § 125.94( b) would be significantly greater than the costs considered by the Administrator in establishing such performance standards, or ( 2) that its costs of complying with such standards would be significantly greater than the environmental benefits at the site. The proposed factors that may justify a site­ specific determination of the best technology available requirements for Phase II existing facilities differ in two major ways from those in EPA's recently promulgated rule for new facilities. First, the new facility rule required costs to be `` wholly disproportionate'' to the costs EPA considered when establishing the requirement at issue rather than `` significantly greater'' as proposed today. EPA's record for the Phase I rule shows that those facilities could technically achieve and economically afford the requirements of the Phase I rule. New facilities have greater flexibility than existing facilities in selecting the location of their intakes and technologies for minimizing adverse environmental impact so as to avoid potentially high costs. Therefore, EPA believes it appropriate to push new facilities to a more stringent economic standard. Additionally, looking at the question in terms of its national effects on the economy, EPA notes that in contrast to the Phase I rule, this rule would affect facilities responsible for a VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17146 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules significant portion ( about 55 percent) of existing electric generating capacity, whereas the new facility rule only affects a small portion of electric generating capacity projected to be available in the future ( about 5 percent). EPA believes it is appropriate to set a lower cost threshold in this rule to avoid economically impracticable impacts on energy prices, production costs, and energy production that could occur if large numbers of Phase II existing facilities incurred costs that are more than significantly greater than but not wholly disproportionate to the costs in EPA's record. EPA invites comment on whether a `` significantly greater'' cost test is appropriate for evaluating requests for alternative requirements by Phase II existing facilities. Second, today's proposal includes an opportunity for a facility to demonstrate significantly greater costs as compared to environmental benefits at a specific site. As stated above, EPA's record for the Phase I rule shows that new facilities could technically achieve and economically afford the requirements of the Phase I rule. At the same time, EPA was interested in expeditious permitting for these new facilities, due to increased energy demand, and particular energy issues facing large portions of the country. For this reason, EPA chose not to engage in a site­ specific analysis of costs and benefits, because to do this properly would take time. Balancing the desire for expeditious permitting with a record that supported the achievability of the Phase I requirements, EPA believes it was reasonable not to adopt a cost benefit alternative for the Phase I rule. By contrast, Phase II existing facilities will be able to continue operating under their existing permits pending receipt of a permit implementing the Phase II regulations, even where their existing permit has expired ( Permits may be administratively continued under section 558( c) of the Administrative Procedure Act if the facility has filed a timely application for a new permit). Therefore, delay in permitting, which could affect the ability of a new facility to begin operations while such a sitespecific analysis is conducted, is not an issue for existing facilities. Also, EPA recognizes that Phase II existing facilities have already been subject to requirements under section 316( b). EPA is not certain that it is necessary to overturn the work done in making those determinations by necessarily requiring retrofit of the existing system without allowing facilities and permit authorities to examine what the associated costs and benefits. Once again, because today's proposal would affect so many facilities that are responsible for such a significant portion of the country's electric generating capacity, EPA is interested in reducing costs where it can do so without significantly impacting aquatic communities ( recognizing this could increase permitting work loads for the State and Federal permit writers). EPA invites comment on whether the standards proposed today might allow for backsliding by facilities that have technologies or operational measures in place that are more effective than in today's proposal. EPA invites comment on approaches EPA might adopt to ensure that backsliding from more effective technologies does not occur. If a facility satisfies one of the two cost tests in the proposed § 125.94( c)( 1), it must propose less costly design and construction technologies, operational measures, and restoration measures to the extent justified by the significantly greater costs. In some cases the significantly greater costs may justify a determination that no additional technologies or measures are appropriate. This would be most likely in cases where either ( 1) the monetized benefits at the site were very small ( e. g., a facility with little impingement mortality and entrainment, even in the calculated baseline), or ( 2) the costs of implementing any additional technologies or measures at the site were unusually high. 5. What Is the Role of Restoration Under Today's Preferred Option? Under today's preferred option, restoration measures can be implemented by a facility in lieu of or in combination with reductions in impingement mortality and entrainment. Thus, should a facility choose to employ restoration measures rather than reduce impingement mortality or entrainment, the facility could demonstrate to the Director that the restoration efforts will maintain the fish and shellfish in the waterbody, including the community structure and function, at a level comparable to that which would be achieved through § 125.94 ( b) and ( c). In those cases where it is not possible to quantify restoration measures, the facility may demonstrate that such restoration measures will maintain fish and shellfish in the waterbody at a level substantially similar to that which would be achieved under § 125.94 ( b) and ( c). Similarly, should a facility choose to implement restoration measures in conjunction with reducing impingement mortality and entrainment through use of design and construction technologies or operational measures, the facility would demonstrate to the Director that the control technologies combined with restoration efforts will maintain the fish and shellfish, including the community structure and function, in the waterbody at a comparable or substantially similar level to that which would be achieved through § 125.94 ( b) and ( c). EPA invites comment on all aspects of this approach. EPA specifically invites comment on whether restoration measures should be allowed only as a supplement to technologies or operational measures. EPA also seeks comment on the most appropriate spatial scale under which restoration efforts should be allowed `` should restoration measures be limited to the waterbody at which a facility's intakes are sited, or should they be implemented on a broader scale, such as at the watershed or State boundary level. Under today's preferred option, any restoration demonstration must address species of concern identified by the permit director in consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife management agencies that have responsibility for aquatic species potentially affected by a facility's cooling water intake structure( s). EPA invites comment on the nature and extent of consultations with Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife management agencies that would be appropriate in order to achieve the objectives of section 316( b) of the CWA. In general, EPA believes that consultations should seek to identify the current status of species of concern located within the subject waterbody and provide general life history information for those species, including preferred habitats for all life stages. Consultations also should include discussion of potential threats to species of concern found within the waterbody other than cooling water intake structures ( i. e., identify all additional stressors for the species of concern), appropriate restoration methods, and monitoring requirements to assess the overall effectiveness of proposed restoration projects. EPA believes that it is important that the consultation occur because natural resource management agencies typically have the most accurate information available and thus are the most knowledgeable about the status of the aquatic resources they manage. EPA seeks comment on the type of information that would be appropriate to include in a written request for consultation submitted to the State, Tribal, and Federal agencies VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17147 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 55 For a discussion of the extensive range of experience with wetland restoration efforts, see Wetlands, Third Edition, William J. Mitsch and James G. Gosselink, pp. 653 686. 56 For a general discussion on different assessment procedures see The Process of Selecting a Wetland Assessment Procedure: Steps and Considerations, by Candy C. Bartoldus, Wetland Journal, Vol. 12, No. 4, Fall 2000. responsible for management of aquatic resources within the waterbody at which the cooling water intake is sited. A copy of the request and any agency responses would be included in the permit application. Under the preferred option, an applicant who wishes to include restoration measures as part of its demonstration of comparable performance would submit the following information to the Director for review and approval: A list and narrative description of the proposed restoration measures; A summary of the combined benefits resulting from implementation of technology and operational controls and/ or restoration measures and the proportion of the benefits that can be attributed to these; A plan for implementing and maintaining the efficacy of selected restoration measures and supporting documentation that shows that restoration measures or restoration measures in combination with control technologies and operational measures will maintain the fish and shellfish, including community structure, at substantially similar levels to those specified at § 125.94 ( b) and ( c); A summary of any past or voluntary consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife management agencies related to proposed restoration measures and a copy of any written comments received as a result of consultations; and Design and engineering calculations, drawings, and maps documenting that proposed restoration measures will meet the performance standard at § 125.94 ( d). EPA believes this information is necessary and sufficient for the proper evaluation of a restoration plan designed to achieve comparable performance for species of concern identified by the Director in consultation with fish and wildlife management agencies. EPA invites comment on whether this information is appropriate and adequate or if it should be augmented or streamlined. EPA invites comment on what specific, additional information should be included in a facility's restoration plan and/ or which of the proposed information requirements are unnecessary. For restoration measures such as fish restocking programs, EPA expects that applicants will be able to quantitatively demonstrate increases in fish and shellfish that are comparable to the performance that would be achieved by meeting the performance standards for reducing impingement and entrainment. However, as it did in the preamble to the final new facility rule, EPA recognizes that, due to data and modeling limitations as well as the uncertainty associated with restoration measures such as creation of new habitats to serve as spawning or nursery areas, it may be difficult to establish quantitatively that some restoration measures adequately compensate for entrainment and impingement losses from cooling water withdrawals. The success of many approaches to restoration depends on the functions, behavior, and dynamics of complex biological systems that are often not scientifically understood as well as engineered technologies. There are, however, several steps that can be taken to increase the certainty of attainment of performance levels by restoration measures. Most of these steps require detailed planning prior to initiation of restoration efforts. Under today's preferred option, restoration planners would take care to incorporate allowances in their plans for the uncertainties stemming from incomplete knowledge of the dynamics underlying aquatic organism survival and habitat creation. Plans would include provisions for monitoring and evaluating the performance of restoration measures over the lifetime of the measures. Provisions would also be made for mid­ course corrections as necessary. Unexpected natural forces can alter the direction of a restoration project. 55 If uncertainty regarding levels of performance is high enough, restoration planners would consider restoration measures in addition to those otherwise calculated as sufficient in order to ensure adequate levels of performance. EPA invites comment on how to measure `` substantially similar performance'' of restoration measures and methods that can be used to reduce the uncertainty of restoration activities undertaken as part of today's preferred option. EPA recognizes that substantial information exists regarding wetlands mitigation and restoration. For example, tools and procedures exist to assess wetlands in the context of section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 56 However, restoration of other aquatic systems such as estuaries is complex and continues to evolve. EPA seeks comment on how it may measure the success or failure of restoration activities given the high degree of uncertainty associated with many areas of this developing science and that many of these activities do not produce measurable results for many months or years after they are implemented. For these reasons, EPA requests comment on whether to require that a facility using restoration measures restore more fish and shellfish than the number subjected to impingement mortality or entrainment. EPA believes that restoring or mitigating above the level that reflects best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact ( e. g., restocking higher numbers of fish than those impinged or entrained by facility intakes or restoring aquatic system acreages at ratios greater than one­ to­ one) would help build a margin of safety, particularly when the uncertainties associated with a particular restoration activity are known to be high. The concept of compensatory mitigation ratios being greater than oneto one is found in other programs. For example, under the CWA section 404 program no set mitigation ratio exists, however, current policies require no net loss of aquatic resources on a programmatic basis. The permitting authority often requires permit applicants to provide more than one­ toone mitigation on an acreage basis to address the time lapse between when the permitted destruction of wetlands takes place and when the newly restored or created wetlands are in place and ecologically functioning. The permit may also require more than oneto one replacement to reflect the fact that mitigation is often only partially successful. Alternatively, in circumstances where there is a high confidence that the mitigation will be ecologically successful, the restoration/ creation has already been completed prior to permitted impacts, or when the replacement wetlands will be of greater ecological value than those they are replacing, the permitting authority may require less than one­ to­ one replacement. In the case of section 316( b), restocking numbers and restoration ratios could be established either by the Director on a permit­ by­ permit basis or by EPA in the final rule. EPA requests comment on establishing margins of safety for restoration measures ( particularly for activities associated with outcomes having a high degree of uncertainty) and identifying the appropriate authority for establishing safety measures. EPA also seeks comment on an appropriate basis for VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17148 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules establishing safety margins ( e. g., based exclusively on project uncertainty, relative functional value or rareness of the system being restored, or a combination of these) to ensure that restoration measures achieve performance comparable to intake technologies. EPA also recognizes that restoration measures may in some cases provide additional environmental benefits that design and construction technologies and operational measures focused solely on reducing impingement and entrainment would not provide. For example, fish restocking facilities may be able to respond, on relatively short notice, to species­ specific needs or threats, as identified by fish and wildlife management agencies. Habitat restoration measures may provide important benefits beyond direct effects on fish and shellfish numbers, such as flood control, habitat for other wildlife species, pollution reduction, and recreation. EPA requests comment on whether and how additional environmental benefits should also be considered in determining appropriate fish and shellfish rates for restoration projects. Assessing the full range of requirements necessary for the survival of aquatic organisms requires understanding and use of knowledge from multiple scientific disciplines ( aquatic biology, hydrology, landscape ecology) that together address the biological and physical requirements of particular species. Under today's preferred option, restoration planners would utilize the full range of disciplines available when designing restoration measures for a facility. Plans utilizing an insufficient range of knowledge are more likely to fail to account for all aquatic organism survival requirements. For some aquatic organisms, or for certain life stages of some aquatic organisms, there may not be sufficient knowledge of the factors required for that organism's survival and thus restoration planners would be unable to address those factors directly in a restoration plan. In such cases, it may be necessary for restoration planners to plan to create habitat that replicates as closely as possible those habitats in which the aquatic organisms are found to thrive naturally. Suitable habitat can be created or restored, or existing habitats can be enhanced in order to provide suitable habitat for the organisms of concern. In this manner, appropriate conditions can be created even without full understanding of an organism's requirements. Habitat approaches also have the benefit, when properly designed, of simultaneously providing suitable survival conditions for multiple species. In contrast, measures such as stocking and fish ladders provide benefits for much more limited number of species and life stages. In some cases, conservation of existing, functional habitats particularly conservation of habitats that are vulnerable to human encroachment and other anthropogenic impacts may be desirable as part of a facility's restoration effort. In the case of conservation, the functionality of the habitat would not be compromised, therefore eliminating much of the uncertainty associated with measuring the success of other restoration efforts such as habitat enhancement or creation. However, because conserved habitat is already contributing to the relative productivity and diversity of an aquatic system, conservation measures would not necessarily ensure a net benefit to the waterbody or watershed of concern. EPA seeks comment on whether habitat conservation would be an appropriate component of a facility's restoration efforts. Restoration projects should not unduly compromise the health of already­ existing aquatic organisms in order to restore aquatic organisms for purposes of section 316( b). Such alterations could negate or detract from accomplishments under a restoration plan and produce an insufficient net benefit. For example, fish stocking programs might introduce disease or weaken the genetic diversity of an ecosystem. Habitat creation programs should not alter well­ functioning habitats to better support species of concern identified in the restoration plan, but rather should focus on restoring degraded habitats that historically supported the types of aquatic organisms currently impacted by a facility's cooling water intake. Another issue to consider when relying on restoration projects that involve habitat creation is that many such projects can take months or years to reach their full level of performance. The performance of these projects often relies heavily on establishment and growth of higher vegetation and of the natural communities that rely on such vegetation. Establishment and growth of both vegetation and natural communities can take months to years depending on the type of habitat under development. Restoration planners need to ensure that performance levels are met at all points in a mitigation process. Where facilities are depending in part on habitat creation, this may entail supplementing habitat creation measures with other restoration measures during the early stages of habitat creation in order to ensure all facility impacts are properly mitigated. Under the preferred option, restoration plans should be developed in sufficient detail to address the issues above before significant resources are committed or other actions taken that are difficult to reverse. EPA invites comment on the role of restoration in addressing the impact of cooling water intake structures. EPA invites commenters to suggest alternative approaches to ensuring that restoration efforts are successful. 6. Impingement and Entrainment Assessments a. What Are the Minimum Elements of an Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study? Today's proposal requires the permit applicant to conduct an Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study § 125.95( b)( 3) to support many important analyses and decisions. The data from this Study supports development of the calculation baseline for evaluating reductions in impingement mortality and entrainment, documents current impingement mortality and entrainment, and provides the basis for evaluating the performance of potential technologies, operational measures and/ or restoration measures. Should a facility request a site­ specific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact, the Study would provide the critical biological data for estimating monetized benefits. EPA invites comment on whether the narrative criteria at § 125.95( b)( 1) are sufficiently comprehensive and specific to ensure that scientifically valid, representative data are used to support the various approaches for determining best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact in today's proposal. EPA recognizes the difficulties in obtaining accurate and precise samples of aquatic organisms potentially subject to impingement and entrainment. EPA also recognizes that biological activity in the vicinity of a cooling water intake structure can vary to great degree, both within and between years, seasons and intervals including time­ of­ day. EPA invites comment on whether it should set specific, minimum monitoring frequencies and/ or whether it should specify requirements for ensuring appropriate consideration of uncertainty in the impingement mortality and entrainment estimates. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17149 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 57 Fisher, A. and R. Raucher. 1984. Intrinsic benefits of improved water quality: Conceptual and empirical perspectives. Advances in Applied Micro­ Economics. 3: 37 66. b. What Should Be the Minimum Frequencies for Impingement and Entrainment Compliance Monitoring? Today's proposal requires compliance monitoring as specified by the Director in § 125.96, but does not specify minimum sampling frequencies or durations. EPA is considering specifying minimum frequencies for impingement and entrainment sampling for determining compliance. EPA invites comment on including minimum sampling frequencies and durations as follows: for at least two years following the initial permit issuance, impingement samples must be collected at least once per month over a 24 hour period and entrainment samples must be collected at least biweekly over a 24 hour period during the primary period of reproduction, larval recruitment and peak abundance. These samples would need to be collected when the cooling water intake structure is in operation. Impingement and entrainment samples would be sufficient in number to give an accurate representation of the annual and seasonal impingement and entrainment losses for all commercial, recreational and forage based fish and shellfish species and their life stages at the Phase II existing facility as identified in the Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study required under § 125.95( b)( 3). Sample sets would be of sufficient size to adequately address inter­ annual variation of impingement and entrainment losses. Sampling would be planned to eliminate variation in data due to changes in sampling methods. Data would also be collected using appropriate quality assurance/ quality control procedures. EPA invites comment on whether more frequent sampling would be appropriate to accurately assess diel, seasonal, and annual variation in impingement and entrainment losses. EPA also invites comment on whether less frequent compliance biological monitoring would be appropriate ( perhaps depending on the technologies selected and implemented by a facility). 7. How Is Entrainment Mortality and Survival Considered in Determining Compliance With the Proposed Rule? Today's proposed rule sets a performance standard for reducing entrainment rather than reducing entrainment mortality. EPA choose this approach because EPA does not have sufficient data to establish performance standards based on entrainment mortality for the technologies used as the basis for today's proposal. Entrainment mortality studies can be very difficult to conduct and interpret for use in decisionmaking ( see section VI. A. 8. b. below). EPA invites comment on regulatory approaches that would allow Phase II existing facilities to incorporate estimates of entrainment mortality and survival when determining compliance with the applicable performance standards proposed in § 125.94( b) of today's proposed rule. EPA invites commenters to submit any studies that document entrainment survival rates for the technologies used as the basis for today's performance standards and for other technologies. 8. What Should Be Included in a Demonstration To Compare Benefits to Costs? As part of a Site­ Specific Determination of Best Technology Available specified proposed in § 125.94( c) of today's proposed rule, a Phase II existing facility can attempt to demonstrate to the Director that the costs of compliance with the applicable performance standards proposed in § 125.94( b) would be significantly greater than the benefits of complying with such performance standards at the site. EPA is considering whether it should develop regulatory requirements or guidance to outline appropriate methodologies to ensure that a reliable and objective valuation of benefits is derived from the best available information. The elements in the benefit assessment guidance would, at a minimum, include standards for data quality, acceptable methodologies, technical peer review, and public comment. a. What Should Be the Appropriate Methodology for Benefits Assessment? EPA believes that a rigorous environmental and economic analysis should be performed when a facility seeks a site­ specific determination of best technology available due to significantly greater cost as compared to the benefits of compliance with the applicable performance standards. EPA invites comment on which of these methodologies, or any other, is the most appropriate for determining a fair estimate of the benefits that would occur should the Phase II existing facility implement technology to comply with the applicable performance standards. In addition, EPA invites comment on whether narrative benefits assessments should supplement these methodologies to properly account for those benefits which cannot be quantified and monetized. ( 1) Quantified and Monetized Baseline Impingement and Entrainment Losses To evaluate the total economic impact to fisheries with regard to impingement and entrainment losses at an existing facility, the impacts on commercial, recreational, and forage species must be evaluated. Commercial fishery impacts are relatively easy to value because commercially caught fish are a commodity with a market price for the individual species. Recreation fishery impacts are based on benefits transfer methods, applying the results from nonmarket valuation studies. Valuing recreational impacts involves the use of willingness­ to­ pay values for increases in recreational catch rates. The analysis of the economic impact of forage species losses can be determined by estimating the replacement costs of these fish if they were to be restocked with hatchery fish, or by considering the foregone biomass production of forage fish resulting from impingement and entrainment losses and the consequential foregone production of commercial and recreation species that prey on the forage species. Trophic transfer efficiency is used to estimate the value of forage fish in terms of the foregone biomass production and the consequential foregone production of commercial and recreational species that prey upon them. This methodology can also incorporate nonuse or passive values. Nonuse or passive use values include the concepts of existence ( stewardship) and bequest ( intergenerational equity) motives to value environmental changes. In Regulatory Impact Analyses, EPA values nonuse impacts at 50% of value of the recreational use impact. 57 EPA invites comment on the inclusion of this approach for estimating nonuse or passive values. Examples of the use of this method for evaluating benefits are provided in the Case Study Document. EPA notes that in locations where fisheries have been depleted by cumulative and long term impingement and entrainment losses from cooling water intake structures, this methodology may not be the most appropriate as it may have a tendency to underestimate the long term benefits associated with technology implementation. ( 2) Random Utility Model The Random Utility Model ( RUM) estimates the effect of improved fishing opportunities to determine recreational VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17150 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules fishing benefits due to reduced impingement and entrainment. The main assumption of this model is that anglers will get greater satisfaction, and thus greater economic value, from sites where the catch rate is higher. When anglers enjoy fishing trips with higher catch rates, they may take more fishing trips resulting in a greater overall value for fishing in the region. This method requires information on the socioeconomic characteristics of anglers and their fishing preference in terms of location and target species, information on site characteristics that are important determinants of anglers' behavior, and the estimated price of visiting the sites. Two models are used for estimating the total economic value of recreational fish to anglers, the discrete choice model which focuses on the choice of fishing site by individual anglers and the trip participation model which estimates the number of trips that an angler will take annually. A more thorough description of the RUM can be found in Chapter A10 of the Case Study Document. Examples of its use are provided in Chapter 5 of the case studies for Delaware Bay ( Part B), Ohio River ( Part C) and Tampa Bay ( Part F). The greatest strength of this model is that it is able to estimate a theoretically defensible monetary value for recreational fishing benefits. The weakness in the model is its dependence on the availability of survey data on angler preferences, and the bias associated with conducting a survey. This approach is also limited to estimating recreational benefits only, and should be used in conjunction with another methodology that values commercial and forage species impacts and other benefit categories where these are significant. ( 3) Contingent Valuation Approach Stated preference methods attempt to measure willingness­ to­ pay values directly. Unlike the revealed preference methods, such as the RUM described above, that determine values for environmental goods and services from observed behavior, stated preference methods rely on data from surveys that directly question respondents about their preferences to measure the value of environmental goods and services. Contingent valuation is one of the most well developed of the stated preference methods. Contingent valuation surveys either ask respondents if they would pay a specified amount for a described commodity ( usually a change in environmental quality) or ask their highest willingness­ to­ pay for that commodity. For example, in the case of section 316( b), a contingent valuation survey might ask how much individuals would be willing to have their electricity bill increase from their utility's power plants to avoid the impacts of impingement and entrainment on fish and shellfish, as well as impacts on threatened and endangered species. One strength of contingent valuation estimates is that they include the nonuse values such as option, existence, and bequest values, so adjustments to the estimates to cover these values are not needed. A weakness of this approach is that respondents are asked to value a hypothetical good and they do not have to back up their stated willingness­ to­ pay with actual expenditures. However, this concern can be minimized by placing the valuation questions in the context of familiar economic transactions ( e. g., increases in electricity bills). b. Should Estimates of Entrainment Mortality and Survival Be Included in Benefits Assessments? The proposed rule language for Phase II existing facilities does not preclude the use of estimates of entrainment mortality and survival when presenting a fair estimation of the monetary benefits achieved through the installation of the best technology available, instead of assuming 100 percent entrainment mortality. In EPA's view, estimates of entrainment mortality and survival used for this purpose should be based on sound scientific studies. EPA believes such studies should address times of both full facility capacity and peak abundance of entrained organisms. EPA requests comment on whether it is appropriate to allow consideration of entrainment mortality and survival in benefit estimates, and if so, should EPA set minimum data quality objectives and standards for a study of entrainment mortality and survival used to support a site­ specific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. EPA may decide to specify such data quality objectives and standards either in the final rule language or through guidance. A more thorough discussion of entrainment survival is provided in Chapter D7 of the EBA. In this chapter, EPA has reviewed a number of entrainment survival studies ( see DCN 2 017A R7 in Docket W 00 03). EPA's preliminary review of these studies has raised a number of concerns regarding the quality of data used to develop some estimates of entrainment survival. Specifically, the majority of studies reviewed collected samples at times of low organismal abundance, at times when the facility was not operating at full capacity, at times when biocides were not in use, and at times which may not reflect current entrainment rates at the facility. These sampling conditions may lead to overestimation of entrainment survival. In addition, the majority of studies reviewed had very low sample sizes and calculated survival for only a few of all species entrained. EPA is also concerned that entrainment survival estimates were based on mortal effects only and did not address sub­ lethal entrainment effects, which can include changes to organismal growth, development, and reproduction. EPA invites comment on its preliminary review of the data quality of entrainment survival studies provided in Chapter D7. EPA also requests that commenters submit additional entrainment survival or mortality studies for review. 9. When Could the Director Impose More Stringent Requirements? Proposed § 125.94( e) provides that the Director could establish more stringent requirements relating to the location, design, construction, or capacity of a cooling water intake structure at a Phase II existing facility than those that would be required based on the proposed performance standards in the rule ( § 125.94( b)), or based on the proposed site­ specific determination of best technology allowed under the rule ( § 125.94( c)), where compliance with the proposed requirements of § 125.94( b) or ( c) would not meet the requirements of applicable Tribal, State or other Federal law. The relevant State law may include, but is not necessarily limited to, State or Tribal water quality standards, including designated uses, criteria, and antidegradation provisions; endangered or threatened species or habitat protection provisions; and other resource protection requirements. The term `` other Federal law'' is intended to denote Federal laws others than section 316( b), and could include, but not be limited to, the Endangered Species Act, 16 U. S. C. 1531 et seq., the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U. S. C. 1451 et seq., the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U. S. C. 661 et seq., the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U. S. C. 1273 et seq., and potentially the Magnuson­ Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U. S. C. 1801 et seq. See 40 CFR 122.49 for a brief description of these and certain other laws. Note that these laws may apply to federally issued NPDES permits independent of this proposed rule. EPA expects that Federal, State, and Tribal resource protection agencies will work with Federal and State Directors and permittees to identify and assess VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17151 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules situations where Federal, State, or Tribal law might be violated, particularly where such violations involve impacts to species of concern. For example, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service implement the Endangered Species Act. Where a NPDES permit for a cooling water intake structure would comply with the performance requirements of § 125.94( b) or ( c) but may harm endangered species or critical habitat, EPA expects the resource agencies to contribute their expertise to the evaluation and decisionmaking process. EPA is considering whether to establish additional criteria for when the Director could establish more stringent requirements. EPA requests comment on specifying that more stringent requirements would be appropriate when compliance with the applicable requirements in § 125.94( b) and ( c) would ( 1) result in unacceptable effects on migratory and/ or sport or commercial species of concern to the Director; and ( 2) not adequately address cumulative impacts caused by multiple intakes or multiple stressors within the waterbody of concern. Unacceptable effects on sport or commercial species of concern might include a significant reduction in one or more such species due to direct or indirect effects of one or more cooling water intake structures. Examples of unacceptable effects on migratory species of concern might include the interference with or disruption of migratory pathways, patterns, or behavior. Multiple stressors within the waterbody of concern might include toxics, nutrients, low dissolved oxygen, habitat loss, non­ point source runoff, and pathogen introductions. EPA is also concerned about the potential stress from multiple intakes because demonstration studies are typically conducted on an individual facility basis and do not consider the effects of multiple intakes on local aquatic organisms. EPA notes that under section 510 of the CWA, States already have the authority to establish more stringent conditions in any permit in accordance with State law. However, this provision does not apply in cases where EPA is the permitting authority. EPA requests comment on whether any explicit regulatory provision for more stringent requirements is needed in light of section 510. EPA also notes that States have designated many waterbodies for the propagation of fish and shellfish that are not attaining such uses due to pollution, and that, in these waters, aquatic communities may be significantly stressed or under­ populated. EPA also believes that in some waterbodies, heavy fishing pressures have greatly altered and reduced aquatic communities. EPA anticipates that studies valuing the monetized benefits of reducing impingement and entrainment may not identify significant site­ specific benefits in such areas and, should one or more permit applicants request site­ specific determinations of less­ costly best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact, a State may not have authority to deny such requests. EPA requests comment on whether recovery of aquatic communities in such waterbodies might be delayed by use of the significantly greater cost­ to­ benefit test proposed today. EPA requests comment on an regulatory alternative that would explicitly allow the Director to require more stringent technologies or measures where not doing so would delay recovery of an aquatic species or community that fish and wildlife agencies are taking active measures to restore, such as imposing significant harvesting restrictions. 10. Discussion of the 5% Flow Threshold in Freshwater Rivers The withdrawal threshold is based on the concept that, absent any other controls, withdrawal of a unit volume of water from a waterbody will result in the entrainment of an equivalent unit of aquatic life ( such as eggs and larval organisms) suspended in that volume of the water column. This, in turn, is related to the idea that, absent any controls, the density of aquatic organisms withdrawn by a cooling water intake structure is equivalent to the density of organisms in the water column. Thus, if 5% of the mean annual flow is withdrawn, it would generally result in the entrainment of 5% of the aquatic life within the area of hydraulic influence of the intake. EPA believes that it is unacceptable to impact more than 5% of the organisms within the area of an intake structure. Hence, if the facility withdraws more than 5% of the mean annual flow of a freshwater river or stream, the facility would be required to reduce entrainment by 60 90%. EPA discussed these concepts in more detail and invited comment on the use of this threshold and supporting documents in its NODA for the New Facility Rule ( 66 FR 28863). In today's proposed rule, EPA again invites comment on use of this threshold for Phase II existing facilities and on the supporting documents for this threshold that were referenced in the NODA. EPA also requests comment on the following alternative withdrawal thresholds for triggering the requirement for entrainment controls: ( 1) 5% of the mean flow measured during the spawning season ( to be determined by the average of flows during the spawning season, but remaining applicable to non­ spawning time periods); ( 2) 10% or 15% of the mean annual or spawning season flow; ( 3) 25% of the 7Q10; and ( 4) a speciesspecific flow threshold that would use minimum flow requirements of a representative species to determine allowable withdrawals from the waterbody. 11. State or Tribal Alternative Requirements That Achieve Comparable Environmental Performance to the Regulatory Standards Within a Watershed In § 125.90, today's proposal includes an alternative where an authorized State or Tribe may choose to demonstrate to the Administrator that it has adopted alternative regulatory requirements that will result in environmental performance within a watershed that is comparable to the reductions in impingement mortality and entrainment that would otherwise be achieved under § 125.94. If a State or Tribe can successfully make this demonstration, the Administrator is to approve the State or Tribe's alternative regulatory requirements. EPA is proposing that such alternative requirements achieve comparable performance at the watershed level, rather than at larger geographic scales or at the individual facility­ level, to allow States and Tribes greater flexibility and, potentially, greater efficiency in efforts to prevent or compensate for impingement mortality and entrainment losses, while still coordinating those efforts within defined ecological boundaries where the increased impacts are directly offset by controls or restoration efforts. Requiring performance level assessment to take place at the watershed level ensures that facility mitigation efforts take the overall health of the waterbody in the target watershed into account. The Agency requests comment on all aspects of this approach, including the appropriate definition of watershed. A watershed is generally a hydrologicallydelineated geographic area, typically the area that drains to a surface waterbody or that recharges or overlays ground waters or a combination of both. Watersheds can be defined at a variety of geographic scales. The United States Geological Survey ( USGS) defines watersheds ( hydrologic units) in the United States at scales ranging from the drainage areas of major rivers, such as VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17152 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules the Missouri, to small surface drainage basins, combinations of drainage basins, or distinct hydrologic features. The USGS is currently defining additional, more detailed subdivisions of currently existing hydrologic units. ( See http:// water. usgs. gov/ GIS/ huc. html.) Watersheds have been defined for other natural resource programs as well ( e. g., the Total Maximum Daily Load program, actions under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act). In general, the appropriate scale at which to define a watershed depends on a program's goals. EPA believes that the watershed scale selected for the purposes of determining comparability of a State or Tribal alternative requirements should allow confident accounting of impingement and entrainment levels at facilities within the watershed and of the results of the actions taken to prevent or compensate for impingement and entrainment losses. EPA invites comment on use of the USGS eight­ digit hydrologic unit ( generally about the size of a county) as the maximum geographic scale at which an authorized State or Tribe could establish alternative regulatory requirements. A State or Tribe could seek to establish the comparability of alternative regulatory requirements for as many eight­ digit hydrologic units as it saw fit, but would need to demonstrate that its alternative requirements achieve environmental performance comparable to the performance standards proposed in today's rule within each such unit. EPA believes that defining watersheds at too small a scale might not allow sufficient flexibility. However, EPA is concerned that defining watersheds at a very large scale increases the potential that there will be no direct ecological connection between increased impacts in one area and compensatory efforts in another. EPA also recognizes that States sometimes assign higher priority to protecting some waters over others. This may be due to the exceptional environmental, historic, or cultural value of some waters, or conversely to a concern with multiple stresses already occurring in a watershed. It could also be based on the presence of individual species of particular commercial, recreational, or ecological importance. For these reasons, States with alternative requirements might choose to provide more protection that would be achieved under § 125.94 in some watersheds and less protection in others. Under current language in proposed § 125.90, States could not use such an approach because they would not be able to demonstrate comparable environmental performance within each watershed. EPA requests comment on whether it should instead allow States to demonstrate comparable environmental performance at the State level, thus allowing States the flexibility to focus protection on priority watersheds. The standard provided in proposed § 125.90 for evaluating alternate State requirements is `` environmental performance that is comparable to the reductions that would otherwise be achieved under § 125.94.'' EPA recognizes that it may not always be possible to determine precisely the reductions in impingement and entrainment associated with either § 125.94 or the alternate State requirements, particularly at the watershed level or State­ wide. Furthermore, alternate State requirements may provide additional environmental benefits, beyond impingement and entrainment reductions, that the State may wish to factor into its comparability demonstration. However, in making this demonstration, the State should make a reasonable effort to estimate impingement and entrainment reductions that would occur under § 125.94 and under its alternate requirements, and should clearly identify any other environmental benefits it is taking into account and explain how their comparability to impingement and entrainment reduction under § 125.94 is being evaluated. EPA invites comment on the most appropriate scale at which to define a watershed to reflect the variability of the nature of the ecosystems impacted by cooling water intake structures within a State or Tribal area and on methods for ensuring ecological comparability within watershed­ level assessments. EPA also invites comment on whether defined watershed boundaries for the purpose of section 316( b) programs should lie entirely within the political boundaries of a Tribe or State unless adjoining States and/ or Tribes jointly propose to establish alternative regulatory requirements for shared watersheds. 12. Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study Section 125.94 of today's proposal allows a facility to request a site­ specific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact based on costs significantly greater than in EPA's record, or significantly greater than sitespecific benefits. Section 125.95( b)( 6)( i) requires a facility seeking such a determination to conduct a Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study. To adequately demonstrate sitespecific compliance costs, EPA believes that a facility would need to provide engineering cost estimates that are sufficiently detailed to allow review by a third party. The preferred cost estimating methodology, in the Agency's view, is the adaption of empirical costs from similar projects tailored to the facility's characteristics. The submission of generic costs relying on engineering judgment should be verified with empirical data wherever possible. In the cases where empirical demonstration costs are not available, the level of detail should allow the costs to be reproduced using standard construction engineering unit cost databases. These costs should be supported by estimates from architectural and engineering firms. Further, the engineering assumptions forming the basis of the cost estimates should be clearly documented for the key cost items. The Agency and other regulatory entities have reviewed recent cost estimates submitted by permittees for several section 316( b) and 316( a) demonstrations. As discussed in Chapter X of the Technical Development Document, in several cases where the level of detail provided by the permittee was sufficient to afford a detailed review, EPA has some concerns about the magnitude of these cost estimates. In other cases, the engineering assumptions that formed the basis of the cost submissions were insufficiently documented to afford a critical review. Based in part on these examples, the Agency emphasizes the importance of empirically verified and well documented engineering cost submissions. The Agency anticipates that the inclusion of a site­ specific cost to benefit test will continue to be of concern to local regulatory entities and the regulated community in light of the associated burden on permit writers. In two recent cases, significant burden was associated with engineering cost reviews. In one case, a regional authority utilized a significant portion of its annual permitting budget ( over $ 80,000) and significant man­ hours ( approximately 500 hours) to review the engineering cost estimates submitted in a single permit demonstration. In another case, EPA conducted approximately 200 hours of senior­ level review of a single engineering estimate that had already undergone significant, and costly, local regulatory review. In each of these cases, the reviewers identified areas where they believed the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17153 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 58 State Water Quality Management Resource Model, ver. 3.16 ( 9/ 00). ( See Docket for today's proposal.) This is an on­ going joint effort between states and EPA to develop information on the resource `` gap'' facing State water quality management programs. The information included in the model reflects the consensus of the participating states and is intended to reflect averages. 59 Communication from Mr. Mark Stein, Office of Regional Counsel, US EPA Region I, Boston, MA, dated January 24, 2002. ( See Docket for today's proposal.) permit applicant had significantly overestimated costs of a potential compliance option. The level of effort was sufficient to identify the areas of concern, but not to develop counter proposals for cost estimates. However, EPA believes it is important to have a site­ specific option in the rule to cover cases of exceptionally high costs and/ or minimal benefits. By EPA's estimates, the costs for some of the technologies on which the presumptive performance standards are based may be several million dollars. In cases where, due to the site­ specific factors, an individual facility's costs are significantly higher, or the benefits are minimal, the additional permitting burden hours ( upwards of several hundred hours) associated with the sitespecific estimate may be appropriate. EPA anticipates that many, if not most, facilities will choose to comply with the presumptive standards, but believes that for those facilities with exceptionally high costs or exceptionally low benefits, the site­ specific provisions provide an important `` safety valve.'' EPA invites comment on whether the Agency should establish minimum standards for a Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study and on whether such standards should be established by regulation or as guidance only. EPA also invites comment on the above discussion of the burden that reviewing site­ specific cost studies poses for permitting authorities and on its belief that site­ specific provisions to address cases of unusually high costs or unusually low benefits are necessary. 13. Cost­ Benefit Test EPA requests comment on the costbenefit provision in § 124.95. EPA placed several documents in the docket for the new facilities final rule ( see docket items 2 034A and 2 034B) that summarized information from several States on the burdens of site­ specific decisionmaking. To make section 316( b) determinations for large power plants in the Southeast in the late 1970s and early 1980s, EPA estimates a workload of as much as 650 person hours per permit and $ 25,000 contract dollars, with an additional ( and potentially larger) resource investment by State permitting authorities. To reissue a permit to the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, the New Jersey Department of Environment Protection recently reviewed and considered a 36­ volume permit application supported by 137 volumes of technical and reference materials. The facility filed its application in 1994; NJDEP made its decision in 2001. EPA invites comments on these burden estimates. As noted above, however, while concerned about the burden of sitespecific section 316( b) determinations, EPA also recognizes the much larger costs of complying with the presumptive performance standards and believes that some provision for situations where costs are significantly greater than benefits is appropriate. EPA notes that at some sites, impingement and entrainment losses are minimal. In such cases it may not make sense to require a facility to spend a lot of dollars to comply with presumptive performance requirements. EPA is also concerned about the potential for members of the public who object to the authority's site­ specific determinations to raise challenges that must be resolved in administrative appeals that can be very lengthy and burdensome, followed in some cases by judicial challenges. An ongoing State study of permitting workloads estimates that appeals of NPDES permits issued to major facilities require 40 hours to resolve in a simple case and up to 240 hours for a very complex permit. 58 EPA Region 1 estimates that one year is required to resolve a complex administrative appeal, involving significant amounts of technical and legal resources. Should the permit appeal be followed by a judicial challenge, EPA Region 1 estimates an additional two years or more of significant investment of technical and legal resources in one decision, with additional time and resources needed if the initial judicial decision is appealed. 59 Again, however, EPA notes that these burdens may be small compared to the potential costs of complying with presumptive performance standards. EPA invites comments on ways to incorporate sitespecific consideration of costs and benefits without undue burden on the Director. In particular, EPA invites comment on decision factors and criteria for weighing and balancing these factors that could be included in a regulation or guidance that would streamline the workload for evaluating site­ specific applications and minimize the potential for legal challenges. 14. Capacity Utilization In § 125.94 ( b)( 2), the Agency proposes standards for reducing impingement mortality but not entrainment when a facility operates less than 15 percent of the available operating time over the course of several years. Fifteen percent capacity utilization corresponds to facility operation for roughly 55 days in a year ( that is, less than two months). The Agency refers to this differentiation between facilities based on their operating time as a capacity utilization cut­ off. The Agency's record demonstrates that facilities operating at capacity utilization factors of less than 15 percent are generally facilities of significant age, including the oldest facilities within the scope of the rule. Frequently, entities will refer to these facilities as peaker plants, though the definition extends to a broader range of facilities. These peaker plants are less efficient and more costly to operate than other facilities. Therefore, operating companies generally utilize them only when demand is highest and, therefore, economic conditions are favorable. Because these facilities operate only a fraction of the time compared to other facilities, such as base­ load plants, the peaking plants achieve sizable flow reductions over their maximum design annual intake flows. Therefore, the concept of an entrainment reduction requirement for such facilities does not appear necessary. Additionally, the plants typically operate during two specific periods: the extreme winter and the extreme summer demand periods. Each of these periods can, in some cases, coincide with periods of abundant aquatic concentrations and/ or sensitive spawning events. However, it is generally accepted that peak winter and summer periods will not be the most crucial for aquatic organism communities on a national basis. Of the facilities exceeding the capacity utilization cut­ off, the median and average capacity utilization is 50 percent. As a general rule, steam plants operate cyclically between 100 percent load and standby. In turn, the intake flow rate of a typical steam plant cycles between full design intake flow and standby. Facilities operating with an average capacity utilization of 50 percent would generally withdraw more than three times as much water over the course of time than a facility with a capacity utilization of less than 15. Therefore, the capacity utilization cutoff coincides with an approximate flow reduction, and hence entrainment reduction, of roughly 70 percent as compared to the average facility above VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17154 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 60 The lower range would be appropriate where State water quality standards limit chloride to a maximum increase of 10 percent over background and therefore require a 1.1 cycle of concentraction. The higher range may be attained where cycles of concentration up to 2.0 are used for the design. the cut­ off, which is within the range of the performance standard for entrainment reduction. Of the 539 facilities for which the Agency has detailed intake flow information, 53 would fall under the capacity utilization cut­ off. Were the Agency to establish the cut­ off at less than 20 percent capacity utilization, an additional 18 facilities would be subject to the reduced requirements and the comparable flow reduction would be roughly 60 percent. However, the operating period would extend to approximately 75 days ( that is, 2.5 months). Were the Agency to establish the cut­ off at less than 25 percent capacity, 108 of the 539 facilities would be subject to the reduced standards, and the comparable entrainment reduction would be roughly 54 percent. For a hypothetical 25 percent capacity utilization cut­ off, the operating period would extend to approximately three months. EPA invites comment on its proposed approach to regulating Phase II existing facilities with limited capacity utilization. EPA specifically invites comment on the above alternative thresholds for using capacity utilization to establish performance standard that address impingement mortality but not entrainment. B. Other Technology­ Based Options Under Consideration EPA also considered a number of other technology­ based options for regulating Phase II existing facilities. As in the proposed option, any technologybased options considered below would allow for voluntary implementation of restoration measures by facilities that choose to reduce their intake flow to a level commensurate with performance requirements. Thus, under these options, facilities would be able to implement restoration measures that would result in increases in fish and shellfish if a demonstration of comparable performance is made for species of concern identified by the Director in consultation with national, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife management agencies with responsibility for aquatic resources potentially affected by the cooling water intake structure. Similarly, any technology­ based options considered also would allow facilities to request alternative requirements that are less stringent than those specified, but only if the Director determines that data specific to the facility indicate that compliance with the relevant requirement would result in compliance costs significantly greater than those EPA considered in establishing the requirement at issue, or would result in significant adverse impacts on local air quality or local energy markets. The alternative requirement could be no less stringent than justified by the significantly greater cost or the significant adverse impacts on local air quality or local energy markets. EPA invites comment on these provisions and on other factors that might form the basis for alternative regulations. The example regulatory language presented in section VI. B. 3 below does not include a provision similar to the 40 CFR 125.85 in the new facility final rule for alternative requirements based on significant adverse impact on local water resources other than impingement and entrainment. In EPA's judgement, this provision would primarily be used to address water allocation and quantity issues which do not arise in tidal rivers, estuaries and oceans, where salinity limits competing water uses. 1. Intake Capacity Commensurate with Closed­ Cycle, Recirculating Cooling System for All Facilities EPA considered a regulatory option that would require Phase II existing facilities having a design intake flow 50 MGD or more to reduce the total design intake flow to a level, at a minimum, commensurate with that which can be attained by a closed­ cycle recirculating cooling system using minimized makeup and blowdown flows. In addition, facilities in specified circumstances ( e. g., located where additional protection is needed due to concerns regarding threatened, endangered, or protected species or habitat; migratory, sport or commercial species of concern) would have to select and implement design and construction technologies to minimize impingement mortality and entrainment. This option does not distinguish between facilities on the basis of the waterbody from which they withdraw cooling water. Rather, it would ensure that the same stringent controls are the nationally applicable minimum for all waterbody types. This is the regulatory approach EPA adopted for new facilities. Reducing the cooling water intake structure's capacity is one of the most effective means of reducing entrainment ( and impingement). For the traditional steam electric utility industry, facilities located in freshwater areas that have closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling water systems can, depending on the quality of the make­ up water, reduce water use by 96 to 98 percent from the amount they would use if they had once­ through cooling water systems, though many of these areas generally contain species that are less susceptible to entrainment. Steam electric generating facilities that have closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling systems using salt water can reduce water usage by 70 to 96 percent when make­ up and blowdown flows are minimized. 60 Of the 539 existing steam electric power generating facilities that EPA believes would potentially be subject to the Phase II existing facility proposed rule, 73 of these facilities already have a recirculating wet cooling system ( e. g., wet cooling towers or ponds). These facilities would meet the requirements under this option unless they are located in areas where the director or fisheries managers determine that fisheries need additional protection. Therefore, under this option, 466 steam electric power generating facilities would be required to meet performance standards for reducing impingement mortality and entrainment based on a reduction in intake flow to a level commensurate with that which can be attained by a closed­ cycle recirculating system. A closed­ cycle recirculating cooling system is an available technology for facilities that currently have oncethrough cooling water systems. There are a few examples of existing facilities converting from one type of cooling system to another ( e. g., from oncethrough to closed­ cycle recirculating cooling system). Converting to a different type of cooling water system, however, is significantly more expensive than the technologies on which the proposed performance standards are based ( generally by a factor of 10 or greater) and significantly more expensive that designing new facilities to run on recirculating systems. EPA has identified four power plants that would be regulated by today's proposal that have converted from once­ through to closed­ cycle recirculating cooling systems. Three of these facilities Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan, Jefferies Coal in South Carolina, and Canadys Steam in South Carolina converted from once­ through to closed­ cycle recirculating cooling systems after significant periods of operation utilizing the once­ through system. The fourth facility Pittsburg Unit 7 is not a full conversion in that it never operated with its once­ through system. In this case, the `` conversion'' occurred just prior to construction, after initial design of the once­ through system design and power plant had VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17155 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules occurred. A brief description of these conversions follows. The Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule provides additional detail. The Palisades Nuclear Plant. Located in Covert, Michigan, the Palisades Nuclear Plant is a 812 MW ( nameplate, steam capacity) facility with a pressurized water reactor, utilizing a mechanical draft wood cooling tower to condense the steam load of the plant. The reactor began operation in 1972 utilizing a once­ through cooling system and subsequently converted to a closedcycle recirculating system at the beginning of 1974. Canadys Steam Plant. This 490 MW ( nameplate, steam capacity) coal­ fired facility with three generating units is located in Colleton County, South Carolina. The first unit initially came online in 1962, the second in 1964, and the third in 1967. All three units operated with a once­ through cooling water system for many years. The Canadys Steam plant was converted from a once­ through to a closed­ cycle recirculating cooling system in two separate projects. Unit 3 ( 218 MW) was first converted in 1972. Units 1 and 2, both with nameplate capacities of 136 MW, were converted from a oncethrough to a closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling system in 1992. Jefferies Coal Units 3 & 4. Located in Moncks Corner, South Carolina, this facility has a combined, coal­ fired capacity of 346 MW ( nameplate, steam). The coal units came online in 1970 and operated for approximately 15 years utilizing once­ through cooling. After the Army Corps of Engineers re­ diverted the Santee Cooper River, thereby limiting the plant's available water supply, the cooling system was converted from once­ through to recirculating towers. The plant conducted an empirical energy­ penalty study over several years to determine the economic impact of the cooling system conversion. Pittsburg Power Plant, Unit 7. Located in Contra Costa County, California, this 750 MW ( nameplate, gas­ fired steam) unit was designed and planned with a once­ through cooling water system. However, late in the construction process, the plant switched to a closedcycle recirculating cooling system with a mechanical draft cooling tower. The system utilizes the condenser, conduit system, and circulating pumps originally designed for the once­ through cooling water system. EPA did not select closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling systems as the best technology available for existing facilities because of the generally high costs of such conversions. According to EPA's cost estimates, capital costs for individual high­ flow plants to convert to wet towers generally ranged from 130 to 200 million dollars, with annual operating costs in the range of 4 to 20 million dollars. EPA estimates that the total annualized post­ tax cost of compliance for this option is approximately $ 2.26 billion. Not included in this estimate are 9 facilities that are projected to be baseline closures. Including compliance costs for these 9 facilities would increase the total cost of compliance with this option to approximately $ 2.32 billion. EPA also has serious concerns about the short term energy implications of a massive concurrent conversion and the potential for supply disruptions that it would entail. EPA requests comment on its decision not to base best technology available for all Phase II existing facilities on closed­ cycle, recirculating technology. The estimated annual benefits ( in $ 2001) for requiring all Phase II existing facilities to reduce intake capacity commensurate with the use of closedcycle recirculating cooling systems are $ 83.9 million per year and $ 1.08 billion for entrainment reductions. 2. Intake Capacity Commensurate with Closed­ Cycle, Recirculating Cooling Systems Based on Waterbody Type EPA also considered an alternate technology­ based option in which closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling systems would be required for all facilities on certain waterbody types. Under this option, EPA would group waterbodies into the same five categories as in today's proposal: ( 1) Freshwater rivers or streams, ( 2) lakes or reservoirs, ( 3) Great Lakes, ( 4) tidal rivers or estuaries; and ( 5) oceans. Because oceans, estuaries and tidal rivers contain essential habitat and nursery areas for the vast majority of commercial and recreational important species of shell and fin fish, including many species that are subject to intensive fishing pressures, these waterbody types would require more stringent controls based on the performance of closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling systems. EPA discussed the susceptibility of these waters in a Notice of Data Availability ( NODA) for the new facility rule ( 66 FR 28853, May 25, 2001) and invited comment on documents that may support its judgment that these waters are particularly susceptible to adverse impacts from cooling water intake structures. In addition, the NODA presented information regarding the low susceptibility of non­ tidal freshwater rivers and streams to impacts from entrainment from cooling water intake structures. Under this alternative option, facilities that operate at less than 15 percent capacity utilization would, as in the proposed option, only be required to have impingement control technology. Facilities that have a closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling system would require additional design and construction technologies to increase the survival rate of impinged biota or to further reduce the amount of entrained biota if the intake structure was located within an ocean, tidal river, or estuary where there are fishery resources of concern to permitting authorities or fishery managers. Facilities with cooling water intake structures located in a freshwater ( including rivers and streams, the Great Lakes and other lakes) would have the same requirements as under the proposed rule. If a facility chose to comply with Track II, then the facility would have to demonstrate that alternative technologies would reduce impingement and entrainment to levels comparable to those that would be achieved with a closed­ loop recirculating system ( 90% reduction). If such a facility chose to supplement its alternative technologies with restoration measures, it would have to demonstrate the same or substantially similar level of protection. ( For additional discussion see the new facility final rule 66 FR 65256, at 65315 columns 1 and 2.) EPA has estimated that there are 109 facilities located on oceans, estuaries, or tidal rivers that do not have a closed cycle recirculating system and would be required to meet performance standards for reducing impingement mortality and entrainment based on a reduction in intake flow to a level commensurate with that which can be attained by a closed­ cycle recirculating system. The other 430 facilities would be required to meet the same performance standards in today's proposal. The potential environmental benefits of this option have been estimated at $ 87.8 million and $ 1.24 billion for entrainment reductions annually. Although this option is estimated ( a full cost analysis was not done for this option) to be less expensive at a national level than requiring closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling systems for all Phase II existing facilities, EPA is not proposing this option. Facilities located on oceans, estuaries, and tidal rivers would incur high capital and operating and maintenance costs for conversions of their cooling water systems. Furthermore, since impacted facilities would be concentrated in coastal VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17156 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules regions, there is the potential for short term energy impacts and supply disruptions in these areas. EPA also invites comment on this option. 3. Intake Capacity Commensurate With Closed­ Cycle, Recirculating Cooling System Based on Waterbody Type and Proportion of Waterbody Flow EPA is also considering a variation on the above approach that would require only facilities withdrawing very large amounts of water from an estuary, tidal river, or ocean to reduce their intake capacity to a level commensurate with that which can be attained by a closedcycle recirculating cooling system. For example, for facilities with cooling water intake structures located in a tidal river or estuary, if the intake flow is greater than 1 percent of the source water tidal excursion, then the facility would have to meet standards for reducing impingement mortality and entrainment based on the performance of wet cooling towers. These facilities would have the choice of complying with Track I or Track II requirements. If a facility on a tidal river or estuary has intake flow equal to or less than 1 percent of the source water tidal excursion, the facility would only be required to meet the performance standards in the proposed rule. These standards are based on the performance of technologies such as fine mesh screens and traveling screens with welldesigned and operating fish return systems. The more stringent, closedcycle recirculating cooling system based requirements would also apply to a facility that has a cooling water intake structure located in an ocean with an intake flow greater than 500 MGD. Regulatory language implementing the Waterbody Type and Intake Capacity Based Option could read as follows: ( a)( 1) The owner or operator of an existing steam electric power generating facility must comply with: ( i) The requirements of ( b)( 1) if your cooling water intake structure has a utilization rate less than 15 percent; ( i) The requirements of ( b)( 2) if your cooling water intake structure withdraws water for use in a closed­ cycle, recirculating system; ( ii) The requirements of ( b)( 3) if your cooling water intake structure is located in a freshwater river or stream; ( iii) The requirements of ( b)( 4) if your cooling water intake structure is located in a lake ( other than one of the Great Lakes) or reservoir; ( iv) The requirements of ( b)( 5) or ( c) if your cooling water intake structure is located in an estuary or tidal river; ( v) The requirements of ( b)( 6) if your cooling water intake structure is located in one of the Great Lakes; ( vi) The requirements of ( b)( 7) or ( c) if your cooling water intake structure is located in an ocean. ( 2) In addition to meeting the requirements of ( b) or ( c), the owner or operator of an existing steam electric power generating facility must meet any more stringent requirements imposed under ( d). ( b) Track I Requirements. Based on the design characteristics of your facility and cooling water intake structure( s) you must meet the requirements of paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 10). ( 1) Requirements for Facilities With a Capacity Utilization Rates Less Than 15 Percent. If you own or operate an existing facility with a cooling water intake structure that has a capacity utilization rate less than 15 percent, you must select and implement design and construction technologies or operational measures to reduce impingement mortality by 80 to 95% for fish and shellfish. ( 2) Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures that Withdraw Water for Closed­ Cycle, Recirculating Systems Only. If you own or operate a cooling water intake structure that withdraws water from an estuary, tidal river, or ocean for a closedcycle recirculating system only, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs ( b)( 2)( i) and ( ii) as follows: ( i) Impingement Design and Construction Technologies or Operational Measures. You must select and implement design and construction technologies or operational measures to minimize impingement mortality for fish and shellfish if: ( A) There are threatened or endangered or otherwise protected Federal, State, or Tribal species, or critical habitat for these species, within the hydraulic zone of influence of the cooling water intake structure; or ( B) There are migratory and/ or sport or commercial species of impingement concern to the Director or any fishery management agency( ies), which pass through the hydraulic zone of influence of the cooling water intake structure; or ( C) It is determined by the Director or any fishery management agency( ies) that the facility contributes unacceptable stress to the protected species, critical habitat of those species, or species of concern. ( ii) Entrainment Design and Construction Technologies or Operational Measures. You must select and implement design and construction technologies or operational measures to minimize entrainment for entrainable life stages of fish and shellfish if: ( A) There are threatened or endangered or otherwise protected Federal, State, or Tribal species, or critical habitat for these species, within the hydraulic zone of influence of the cooling water intake structure; or ( B) There are or would be undesirable cumulative stressors affecting entrainable life stages of species of concern to the Director or any fishery management agency( ies), and it is determined by the Director or any fishery management agency( ies) that the facility contributes unacceptable stress to these species of concern. ( 3) Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures Located in Freshwater Rivers or Streams. If you own or operate an existing facility with a cooling water intake structure located in a freshwater river or stream, you must comply with paragraphs ( b)( 3)( i) or ( ii) as follows: ( i) If your total design intake flow is equal to or less than 5 percent of the source water annual mean flow, you must select and implement design and construction technologies or operational measures to reduce impingement mortality by 80 to 95% for all life stages of fish and shellfish; or ( ii) If your total design intake flow is greater than 5 percent of the source water annual mean flow, you must select and implement design and construction technologies or operational measures to reduce impingement mortality by 80 to 95% and entrainment by 60 to 90% for all life stages of fish and shellfish. ( 4) Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures Located in Lakes ( Other Than one of the Great Lakes) or Reservoirs. If you own or operate an existing facility with a cooling water intake structure located in a lake ( other than one of the Great Lakes) or reservoir, you must comply with paragraphs ( b)( 4)( i) and ( ii) as follows: ( i) Your total design intake flow must not disrupt the natural thermal stratification or turnover pattern ( where present) of the source water except in cases where the disruption is determined to be beneficial to the management of fisheries for fish and shellfish by any fisheries management agency( ies); and ( ii) You must select and implement design and construction technologies or operational measures to reduce impingement mortality by 80 to 95% for fish and shellfish. ( 5) Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures Located in Estuaries or Tidal Rivers. If you own or operate an existing facility with a cooling water intake structure located in an estuary or tidal river you must comply with paragraphs ( b)( 5)( i) or ( ii) as follows: ( i) If your total design intake flow over one tidal cycle of ebb and flow is equal to or less than one ( 1) percent of the volume of the water column within the area centered about the opening of the intake with a diameter defined by the distance of one tidal excursion at the mean low water level, you must select and implement design and construction technologies or operational measures to reduce impingement mortality by 80 to 95% and entrainment by 60 to 90% for all life stages of fish and shellfish; or ( ii) If your total design intake flow over one tidal cycle of ebb and flow is greater than one ( 1) percent of the volume of the water column within the area centered about the opening of the intake with a diameter defined by the distance of one tidal excursion at the mean low water level, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( b)( 5)( ii)( A) or ( B): ( A) Reduce your intake flow to a level commensurate with that which can be attained by a closed­ cycle recirculating system and select and implement design and construction technologies or operational measures as follows: ( 1) Impingement Design and Construction Technologies or Operational Measures. You must select and implement design and construction technologies or operational VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17157 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules measures to minimize impingement mortality for fish and shellfish if: ( i) There are threatened or endangered or otherwise protected Federal, State, or Tribal species, or critical habitat for these species, within the hydraulic zone of influence of the cooling water intake structure; or ( ii) There are migratory and/ or sport or commercial species of impingement concern to the Director or any fishery management agency( ies), which pass through the hydraulic zone of influence of the cooling water intake structure; or ( iii) It is determined by the Director or any fishery management agency( ies) that the facility contributes unacceptable stress to the protected species, critical habitat of those species, or species of concern. ( 2) Entrainment Design and Construction Technologies or Operational Measures. You must select and implement design and construction technologies or operational measures to minimize entrainment for entrainable life stages of fish and shellfish if: ( i) There are threatened or endangered or otherwise protected Federal, State, or Tribal species, or critical habitat for these species, within the hydraulic zone of influence of the cooling water intake structure; or ( ii) There are or would be undesirable cumulative stressors affecting entrainable life stages of species of concern to the Director or any fishery management agency( ies), and it is determined by the Director or any fishery management agency( ies) that the facility contributes unacceptable stress to these species of concern. ( B) Comply with the requirements of Track II in ( c). ( 6) Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures Located in One of the Great Lakes. If you own or operate an existing facility with a cooling water intake structure located in one of the Great Lakes you must select and implement design and construction technologies or operational measures to reduce impingement mortality by 80 to 95% and entrainment by 60 to 90% for all life stages of fish and shellfish. ( 7) Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures Located in an Ocean. If you own or operate an existing facility with a cooling water intake structure located in an ocean you must comply with paragraphs ( b)( 7)( i) or ( ii) as follows: ( i) If your total design intake flow is less than 500 MGD, you must select and implement design and construction technologies or operational measures to reduce impingement mortality by 80 to 95% and entrainment by 60 to 90% for all life stages of fish and shellfish; or ( ii) If your total design intake flow is equal to, or greater than 500 MGD, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( b)( 7)( ii)( A) or ( B): ( A) Reduce your intake flow to a level commensurate with that which can be attained by a closed­ cycle recirculating system and select and implement design and construction technologies or operational measures as follows: ( 1) Impingement Design and Construction Technologies or Operational Measures. You must select and implement design and construction technologies or operational measures to minimize impingement mortality for fish and shellfish if: ( i) There are threatened or endangered or otherwise protected Federal, State, or Tribal species, or critical habitat for these species, within the hydraulic zone of influence of the cooling water intake structure; or ( ii) There are migratory and/ or sport or commercial species of impingement concern to the Director or any fishery management agency( ies), which pass through the hydraulic zone of influence of the cooling water intake structure; or ( iii) It is determined by the Director or any fishery management agency( ies) that the facility contributes unacceptable stress to the protected species, critical habitat of those species, or species of concern. ( 2) Entrainment Design and Construction Technologies or Operational Measures. You must select and implement design and construction technologies or operational measures to minimize entrainment for entrainable life stages of fish and shellfish if: ( i) There are threatened or endangered or otherwise protected Federal, State, or Tribal species, or critical habitat for these species, within the hydraulic zone of influence of the cooling water intake structure; or ( ii) There are or would be undesirable cumulative stressors affecting entrainable life stages of species of concern to the Director or any fishery management agency( ies), and it is determined by the Director or any fishery management agency( ies) that the facility contributes unacceptable stress to these species of concern. ( B) Comply with the requirements of Track II in ( c). ( 8) You must submit the application information required; ( 9) You must implement the monitoring requirements specified; ( 10) You must implement the recordkeeping requirements specified; ( c) Track II Requirements. If you are an existing steam electric power generating facility with a cooling water intake structure located in an estuary, tidal river, or ocean that chooses to meet the requirements of Track II in lieu of Track I in ( b)( 5)( ii) or ( b)( 7)( ii), you must comply with the following: ( 1) You must demonstrate to the Director that the technologies, operational measures, and supplemental restoration measures employed will reduce the level of adverse environmental impact from your cooling water intake structures to a level comparable to that which you would achieve were you to reduce your intake flow to a level commensurate with that which can be attained by a closed­ cycle recirculating system. ( 2) Except as specified in subparagraph ( c)( 4) below, your demonstration must include a showing that the impacts to fish and shellfish, including important forage and predator species, within the watershed will be comparable to those which would result if you were to reduce your intake flow to a level commensurate with that which can be attained by a closed­ cycle recirculating system. This showing may include consideration of impacts other than impingement mortality and entrainment. ( 3) Restoration Measures. Phase II existing facilities complying with the requirements of Track II may supplement technologies with restoration measures that will result in increases in fish and shellfish if you can demonstrate that they will result in a comparable performance for species that the Director, in consultation with national, State and Tribal fishery management agencies with responsibility for fisheries potentially affected by your cooling water intake structure, identifies as species of concern. ( 4) In cases where air emissions and/ or energy impacts that would result from reducing your intake flow to a level commensurate with that which can be attained by a closed­ cycle recirculating system would result in significant adverse impacts on local air quality, or significant adverse impact on local energy markets, you may request alternative requirements. ( 5) You must submit the application information required; ( 6) You must implement the monitoring requirements specified; ( 7) You must implement the recordkeeping requirements specified; EPA notes that of these, some facilities would likely opt to comply through Track II and estimates that 21 facilities would select this option. These facilities would perform site­ specific studies and demonstrate compliance using alternative technologies, perhaps supplemented by habitat enhancement or fishery restocking efforts. Assuming as a high impact scenario that all 51 of these facilities install wet cooling towers, the energy impacts associated with these 51 facilities would comprise 0.2 percent of total existing electric generating capacity from facilities with an intake flow of 50 MGD or more. The environmental impacts associated with increased air emissions ( SO2, NOX, CO2, and Hg) associated with this option would be a 0.1 percent increase of emissions of these pollutants from the total existing electric generators. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that a steam­ electric plant utilizing a once­ through cooling system would consume approximately 40 percent less water than a comparably sized plant equipped with recirculating wet cooling towers because a wet cooling tower uses a small amount of water many times and evaporates most of this water to provide its cooling ( which can sometimes be seen as a white vapor plume). In contrast, a oncethrough cooling system uses a much larger volume of water, one time. While no cooling water evaporates directly to the air, once the heated water is discharged back into the waterbody, some evaporation occurs. Thus, in some areas, conversion to closed­ cycle cooling could raise water quantity issues. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17158 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules Based on an analysis of data collected through the detailed industry questionnaire and the short technical questionnaire, EPA estimates there are potentially 109 Phase II existing facilities located on estuaries, tidal rivers, or oceans which may incur capital cost under this option. Of these 109 facilities, EPA estimates that 51 would exceed the applicable flow threshold and be required to meet performance standards for reducing impingement mortality and entrainment based on a reduction in intake flow to a level commensurate with that which can be attained by a closed­ cycle recirculating system. Of the 58 facilities estimated to fall below the applicable flow threshold, 10 facilities already meet these performance standards and would not require any additional controls, whereas 48 facilities would require entrainment or impingement controls, or both. Because this option would only require cooling tower­ based performance standards for facilities located on tidal rivers, estuaries or oceans where they withdraw saline or brackish waters, EPA does not believe that this option would raise any significant water quantity issues. Total annualized post­ tax cost of compliance for the waterbody/ capacitybased option is approximately $ 585 million. Not included in this estimate are 9 facilities that are projected to be baseline closures. Including compliance costs for these 9 facilities would increase the total cost of compliance with this option to approximately $ 595 million. EPA also examined the annualized post­ tax compliance costs of the waterbody/ capacity­ based option as a percentage of annual revenues to assess the economic practicability of this alternative option. This analysis was conducted at the facility and firm levels. The revenue estimates are the same as those used in the analysis in Section VI. A. 3 above: facility­ specific baseline projections from the Integrated Planning Model ( IPM) for 2008. The results at the facility level are similar to those of the proposed rule: 355 out of 550 facilities, or 65 percent, would incur annualized costs of less than 0.5 percent of revenues; 60 facilities would incur costs of between 0.5 and 1 percent of revenues; 57 facilities would incur costs of between 1 and 3 percent; and 67 facilities would incur costs of greater than 3 percent. Nine facilities are estimated to be baseline closures, and for one facility, revenues are unknown. Exhibit 4 below summarizes these findings. EXHIBIT 4. WATERBODY/ CAPACITYBASED OPTION ( FACILITY LEVEL) Annualized cost­ torevenue ratio All phase II Percent of total phase II < 0.5 % ..................... 355 65 0.5 1.0 ...................... 60 11 1.0 3.0% ................... 57 10 > 3.0 % ..................... 67 12 Baseline Closure ...... 9 2 n/ a ............................. 1 0 Total ...................... 550 100 Similar to the preferred option, EPA estimates that the compliance costs for the waterbody/ capacity­ based option would also be low compared to firmlevel revenues. Of the 131 unique parent entities that own the facilities subject to this rule, 108 entities would incur compliance costs of less than 0.5 percent of revenues; 12 entities would incur compliance costs of between 0.5 and 1 percent of revenues; 6 entities would incur compliance costs of between 1 and 3 percent of revenues; and three entities would incur compliance costs of greater than 3 percent of revenues. Two entities only own facilities that are estimated to be baseline closures. The estimated annualized facility compliance costs for this option represent between 0.001 and 5.4 percent of the entities' annual sales revenue. Exhibit 5 below summarizes these findings. EXHIBIT 5. WATERBODY/ CAPACITYBASED OPTION ( FIRM LEVEL) Annualized cost­ torevenue ratio Number of phase II entities Percent of total phase II < 0.5 % ..................... 108 82 0.5 1.0 % ................. 12 9 1.0 3.0% ................... 6 5 > 3.0 % ..................... 3 2 Baseline Closure ...... 2 2 Total ...................... 131 100 The results of EPA's approach to estimating national benefits are $ 79.86 million per year for impingement reduction and $ 769.0 million annually for entrainment reduction. Additional details of EPA's economic practicability and benefits analysis of this and other options can be found in the Economic and Benefits Analysis for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule and the Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule. While the national costs of this option are lower than those of requiring wet cooling towers­ based performance standard for all facilities located on oceans, estuaries and tidal rivers, the cost for facilities to meet these standards could be substantial if they installed a cooling tower. Under this option, EPA would provide an opportunity to seek alternative requirements to address locally significant air quality or energy impacts. EPA notes that the incremental costs of this option relative to the proposed option ($ 413 million) significantly outweigh the incremental benefits ($ 146 million). While EPA is not proposing this option, EPA is considering it for the final rule. To facilitate informed public comment, EPA has drafted sample rule language reflecting this option ( see above). EPA invites comment on this alternative technology based option for establishing best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts from cooling water intake structures at Phase II existing facilities. 4. Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Controls Everywhere Under an additional alternative being considered, EPA would establish national minimum performance requirements for the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures based on the use of design and construction technologies that reduce impingement and entrainment at all Phase II existing facilities without regard to waterbody type and with no site­ specific compliance option available. Under this alternative the Agency would set performance requirements based on the use of design and construction technologies or operational measures that reduce impingement and entrainment. EPA would specify a range of impingement mortality and entrainment reduction that is the same as the performance requirements proposed in § 125.94( b)( 3) ( i. e., Phase II existing facilities would be required to reduce impingement mortality by 80 to 95 percent for fish and shellfish, and to reduce entrainment by 60 to 90 percent for all life stages of fish and shellfish). However, unlike the proposed option, performance requirements under this alternative would apply to all Phase II existing facilities regardless of the category of waterbody used for cooling water withdrawals. Like the proposed option, the percent impingement and entrainment reduction under this alternative would be relative to the calculation baseline. Thus, the baseline for assessing performance would be an existing facility with a shoreline intake with the capacity to support once­ through VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17159 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules cooling water systems and no impingement or entrainment controls. In addition, as proposed, a Phase II existing facility could demonstrate either that it currently meets the performance requirements or that it would upgrade its facility to meet these requirements. Further, under this alternative, EPA would set technologybased performance requirements, but the Agency would not mandate the use of any specific technology. Unlike the proposed option, this alternative would not allow for the development of best technology available on a site­ specific basis ( except on a best professional judgment basis). This alternative would not base requirements on the percent of source water withdrawn or restrict disruption of the natural thermal stratification of lakes or reservoirs. It also would impose entrainment performance requirements on Phase II existing facilities located on freshwater rivers or streams, and lakes or reservoirs. Finally, under this alternative, restoration could be used, but only as a supplement to the use of design and construction technologies or operational measures. This alternative would establish clear performance­ based requirements that are simpler and easier to implement that those proposed and are based on the use of available technologies to reduce adverse environmental impact. Such an alternative would be consistent with the focus on use of best technology required under section 316( b). Total annualized post­ tax cost of compliance for the modified proposed option is approximately $ 191 million. Not included in this estimate are 11 facilities that are projected to be baseline closures. Including compliance costs for these 11 facilities would increase the total cost of compliance with this option to approximately $ 195 million. The benefits calculated for reduced impingement under this option were $ 64.5 million per year; entrainment reduction benefits were estimated to be $ 0.65 billion annually. C. Site­ Specific Based Options Under Consideration 1. Sample Site­ Specific Rule EPA also invites comment on sitespecific approaches for determining the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact at existing facilities. In general, a site­ specific option is a formal process for determining the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact at particular facilities that focuses on the site­ specific interactions between cooling water intakes and the affected environment and the costs of implementing controls. This approach would be based on the view that the location of each power plant and the associated intake structure design, construction, and capacity are unique, and that the optimal combination of measures to reflect best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact must be determined on a case­ by­ case basis. In order to focus public comment, EPA, in consultation with other interested Federal agencies, has drafted sample regulatory text for a site­ specific approach, which is set forth below. The Site­ Specific Sample Rule omits regulatory text on two key subjects: ( 1) The definition of adverse environmental impact; and ( 2) the components of the analysis that is used to determine the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. Instead, the Sample Rule contains references to the preamble discussion of these subjects ( see § 125.93, definition of `` adverse environmental impact'' and § 125.94( b)( 2), concerning analysis of the best technology available). Regulatory text is not offered on these subjects because the various sitespecific approaches described in the discussion following the Sample Rule deal with them in significantly different ways. Site­ Specific Alternative: Sample Rule Sec. 125.90 What are the purpose and scope of this subpart? 125.91 Who is subject to this subpart? 125.92 When must I comply with this subpart? 125.93 What special definitions apply to this subpart? 125.94 As an owner or operator of an existing facility, what must I do to comply with this subpart? 125.95 As an owner or operator of an existing facility, may I undertake restoration measures to mitigate adverse environmental impact? 125.96 Will alternate State requirements and methodologies for determining the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact be recognized? 125.97 As an owner or operator of an existing facility, what must I collect and submit when I apply for my reissued NPDES permit? 125.98 As an owner or operator of an existing facility, must I perform monitoring? 125.99 As an owner or operator of an existing facility, must I keep records and report? 125.100 As the Director, what must I do to comply with the requirements of this subpart? Section 125.90 What Are the Purpose and Scope of This Subpart? ( a) This subpart establishes requirements that apply to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at existing facilities that have a design intake flow of equal to or greater than 50 million gallons per day ( MGD). The purpose of these requirements is to establish the best technology available for minimizing any adverse environmental impact associated with the use of cooling water intake structures. These requirements are implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permits issued under section 402 of the Clean Water Act ( CWA). ( b) This subpart implements section 316( b) of the CWA for existing facilities that have a design flow of equal to or greater than 50 MGD. Section 316( b) of the CWA provides that any standard established pursuant to sections 301 or 306 of the CWA and applicable to a point source shall require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. The process established in this subpart for determining the best technology available for intake design, location, construction, and capacity provides for a case­ by­ case determination based on the unique, sitespecific interactions between intakes and the environment and the costs of implementing controls at existing facilities. Section 125.91 Who Is Subject to This Subpart? ( a) This subpart applies to an existing facility if it: ( 1) Is a point source that uses or proposes to use a cooling water intake structure; ( 2) Has at least one cooling water intake structure that uses at least 25 percent of the water it withdraws for cooling purposes as specified in paragraph ( c) of this section; and ( 3) Has a design intake flow equal to or greater than 50 MGD; ( b) Use of a cooling water intake structure includes obtaining cooling water by any sort of contract or arrangement with an independent supplier ( or multiple suppliers) of cooling water if the supplier or suppliers withdraw( s) water from waters of the United States. Use of cooling water does not include obtaining cooling water from a public water system or use of treated effluent that otherwise would be discharged to a water of the U. S. This provision is intended to prevent circumvention of these requirements by creating arrangements to receive cooling water from an entity that is not itself a point source. ( c) The threshold requirement that at least 25 percent of water withdrawn be used for cooling purposes must be measured on an average monthly basis. Section 125.92 When Must I Comply With This Subpart? You must comply with this subpart when an NPDES permit containing requirements consistent with this subpart is issued to you. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17160 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules Section 125.93 What Special Definitions Apply to This Subpart? The definitions in Subpart I of Part 125 apply to this subpart. The following definitions also apply to this subpart: Adverse Environmental Impact [ Reserved; see discussion at V. C. 5. a below.] Existing facility means any facility that both generates and transmits electric power and any facility that generates electric power but sells it to another entity for transmission. This definition specifically includes ( 1) any major modification of a facility; ( 2) any addition of a new unit to a facility for purposes of the same industrial operation; ( 3) any addition of a unit for purposes of a different industrial operation that uses an existing cooling water intake structure but does not increase the design capacity of the cooling water intake structure; and ( 4) any facility that is constructed in place of a facility that has been demolished, but that uses an existing cooling water intake structure whose design intake flow has not been increased to accommodate the intake of additional cooling water. Section 125.94 How Will Requirements Reflecting Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact Be Established for My Existing Facility? ( a)( 1) Except as provided in paragraph ( a)( 2) of this section, an owner or operator of an existing facility covered by this subpart must conduct a baseline biological survey and provide any other information specified in § 125.97 that the Director concludes is necessary for determining the magnitude of any adverse environmental impact occurring at the facility. ( 2) A previously conducted section 316( b) demonstration may be used to determine whether the location, design, construction and capacity of the facility's cooling water intake structure reflect best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact if it reflects current biological conditions in the water body and the current location and design of the cooling water intake structure. A previously conducted section 316( b) demonstration generally would reflect current conditions or circumstances if: ( i) The previous section 316( b) demonstration used data collection and analytical methods consistent with guidance or requirements of the permitting agency and/ or the Administrator; ( ii) The available evidence shows that there have been no significant changes in the populations of critical aquatic species; and ( iii) The owner or operator can show there have been no significant changes in the location, design, construction, and capacity of the facility's cooling water intake structure that would lead to a greater adverse environmental impact. ( b) The determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact required by paragraph ( c) of this section may be based on: ( 1) A previously conducted section 316( b) demonstration that is shown to be still valid in the current circumstances, as described in paragraph ( a)( 2) of this section; or ( 2) An analysis of best technology available based on the Design and Construction Technology Plan, operational measures, and any restoration measures allowed under § 125.95, that are submitted pursuant to § 125.97. This analysis may include use of risk assessment. [ See V. C. 5. c below for a discussion of possible additional components of this analysis.] ( c) In determining the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact at an existing facility, the Director shall : ( 1) Minimize impingement mortality for fish and shellfish; ( 2) Minimize entrainment mortality for entrainable life stages of fish and shellfish; ( 3) Take into account non­ aquatic environmental impacts, including energy requirements, and impacts on local air quality or water resources; and ( 4) Not require any technologies for location, design, construction or capacity or operational and/ or restoration measures the costs of which would be significantly greater than the estimated benefits of such technology or measures. ( d) The Director may establish more stringent requirements as best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact if the Director determines that your compliance with the requirements of paragraph ( c) would not ensure compliance with State or other Federal law. ( e) The owner or operator of an existing facility must comply with any permit requirements imposed by the Director pursuant to § 125.100( b) of this section. Section 125.95 As an Owner or Operator of an Existing Facility, May I Undertake Restoration Measures To Mitigate Adverse Environmental Impact? ( a) An owner or operator of an existing facility may undertake restoration measures ( such as habitat improvement and fish stocking) that will mitigate adverse environmental impact from the facility's cooling water intake structure. ( b) In determining whether adverse environmental impact is minimized, the Director must take into account any voluntary restoration measures. Section 125.96 Will Alternative State Requirements and Methodologies for Determining the Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact Be Recognized? Notwithstanding any other provisions of this subpart, if a State demonstrates to the Administrator that it has adopted alternative regulatory requirements that will result in environmental performance within a watershed that is comparable to the reductions of impingement mortality and entrainment that would otherwise be achieved under this subpart, the Administrator shall approve such alternative regulatory requirements. Section 125.97 As an Owner or Operator of an Existing Facility, What Must I Collect and Submit When I Apply for My Reissued NPDES Permit? ( a) As an owner or operator of an existing facility covered by this part, you must submit the information required by § 125.94 and this section to the Director when you apply for a reissued NPDES permit in accordance with 40 CFR 122.21. ( b) Biological Survey. ( 1) The biological survey must include: ( i) A taxonomic identification and characterization of aquatic biological resources including a determination and description of the target populations of concern ( those species of fish and shellfish and all life stages that are most susceptible to impingement and entrainment), and a description of the abundance and temporal/ spatial characterization of the target populations based on the collection of a sufficient number of years of data to capture the seasonal and diel variations ( e. g., spawning, feeding and water column migration) of all life stages of fish and shellfish found in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure; and ( ii) An identification of threatened or endangered or otherwise protected Federal, state or tribal species that might be susceptible to impingement and entrainment by the cooling water intake structure( s); and ( iii) A description of additional chemical, water quality, and other anthropogenic stresses on the source water body based on available information. ( 2) As provided in § 125.94( a)( 2) and ( d)( 1), biological survey data previously produced to demonstrate compliance with section 316( b) of the CWA may be used in the biological survey if the data are representative of current conditions. ( c) Design and Construction Technology Plan. ( 1) The Design and Construction Technology Plan must explain the technologies and measures you have selected to minimize adverse environmental impact based on information collected for the biological survey. ( 2) In­ place technologies implemented previously to comply with section 316( b), and information regarding their effectiveness, may be included in the Design and Construction Technology Plan for an existing facility. ( 3) Design and engineering calculations, drawings, maps, and costs estimates supporting the technologies and measures you have selected to minimize adverse environmental impact. ( d) Operational Measures. Operational measures that may be proposed include, but are not limited to, seasonal shutdowns or reductions in flow and continuous operation of screens. ( e) Restoration Measures. If you propose to use restoration measures to minimize adverse environmental impact as allowed in § 125.95, you must provide the following information to the Director for review: ( 1) Information and data to show that you have coordinated with the appropriate fish and wildlife management agency; ( 2) A plan that provides a list of the measures you have selected and will implement and how you will demonstrate that your restoration measures will maintain the fish and shellfish in the water body to the level required to offset mortality from entrainment and impingement; and ( 3) Design and engineering calculations, drawings, maps, and costs estimates VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17161 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules supporting the proposed restoration measures. Section 125.98 As an Owner or Operator of an Existing Facility, Must I Perform Monitoring? ( a) Following issuance of an NPDES permit, an owner or operator of an existing facility must submit to the Director a program for monitoring that will be adequate to verify that the location, design, construction, and capacity of the cooling water intake structure reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. ( b) The Director may require modifications of the monitoring program proposed by the owner or operator based on, but not limited to, consideration of the following factors: ( 1) Whether or not the facility has been determined to cause adverse environmental impacts under § 125.100; ( 2) The types of modifications and restoration that are required in the NPDES permit under § 125.100; ( 3) The amount and quality of the data or information available on the water body health and quality of the fishery; and ( 4) The stability or flux in the environmental factors that influence biological response in the water body. ( c) The monitoring program for an existing facility that the Director has determined is not causing adverse environmental impact must provide for monitoring sufficient for the Director to make the subsequent 5­ year permit decision. ( d) The monitoring program for an existing facility that the Director has determined to cause adverse environmental impact must provide for monitoring sufficient to demonstrate that the modifications to facility operations and intake technology and any restoration measures included in the NPDES permit have been effective for minimizing adverse environmental impact. The monitoring must begin during the first year following implementation of the modifications and restoration measures, and must continue until the Director is satisfied that adverse environmental impact caused by the facility's cooling water intake has been minimized. Section 125.99 As an Owner or Operator of an Existing Facility, Must I Keep Records and Report? ( a) As an owner or operator of an existing facility, you must keep records of all the data used to complete the permit application and show compliance with the requirements in the permit and any compliance monitoring data for a period of at least three ( 3) years from the date of permit issuance. ( b) The Director may require that these records be kept for a longer period. Section 125.100 As the Director, What Must I Do To Comply With the Requirements of This Subpart? ( a) Permit Applications. As the Director, you must review materials submitted by the applicant under 40 CFR 122.21( r)( 3) and § 125.94 before each permit renewal or reissuance. ( 1) After receiving the permit application from the owner or operator of a new facility, the Director must determine if the applicant is subject to the requirements of this subpart. ( 2) For each subsequent permit renewal for a covered facility, the Director must review the application materials and monitoring data to determine whether requirements, or additional requirements, for design and construction technologies or operational measures should be included in the permit, as provided in paragraph ( b) of this section. ( b) Permitting Requirements. ( 1) Section 316( b) requirements are implemented for a facility through an NPDES permit. As the Director, you must: ( i) Determine whether the location, design, construction and capacity of the cooling water intake structure at the existing facility reflects best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact, based on the information provided under § 125.94( a) and § 125.97 and any other available, relevant information; and ( ii) If the location, design, construction and capacity of the cooling water intake structure at the existing facility does not reflect best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact, specify the requirements and conditions for the location, design, construction, and capacity of the cooling water intake structure( s) that must be included in the permit for minimizing adverse environmental impact. This determination must be based on information provided under § 125.94 and § 125.97 and any other available, relevant information. ( 2) ( i) Before issuing an NPDES permit containing section 316( b) requirements, the Director must consult with and consider the views and any information provided by interested fish and wildlife management agencies. ( ii) If any fish and wildlife management agency having jurisdiction over the water body used for cooling water withdrawal determines that the cooling water intake structure( s) of an existing facility contributes to unacceptable stress to aquatic species or their habitat, the fish and wildlife management agency may recommend design, construction, or operational changes to the Director that will minimize that stress. ( c) Monitoring Requirements. At a minimum, the Director must ensure that the permit requires the permittee to perform the monitoring required in § 125.98. You may modify the monitoring program when the permit is reissued and during the term of the permit based on changes in the physical or biological conditions in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure. The Agency invites comment on the above framework as an appropriate approach for implementing section 316( b) as an alternative to today's proposed requirements. The Agency also invites comments on the following site­ specific approaches for implementing section 316( b) on a sitespecific basis within the general framework set forth in the Sample Rule. 2. Site­ Specific Alternative Based on EPA's 1977 Draft Guidance Since the Fourth Circuit remanded EPA's section 316( b) regulations in 1977, decisions implementing section 316( b) have been made on a case­ bycase site­ specific basis. EPA published guidance addressing section 316( b) implementation in 1977. See Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Adverse Impact of Cooling Water Intake Structures on the Aquatic Environment: Section 316( b) P. L. 92 500 ( U. S. EPA, 1977). This guidance describes the studies recommended for evaluating the impact of cooling water intake structures on the aquatic environment, and it establishes a basis for determining the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. The 1977 Section 316( b) Draft Guidance states, `` The environmental­ intake interactions in question are highly site­ specific and the decision as to best technology available for intake design, location, construction, and capacity must be made on a case­ by­ case basis.'' ( Section 316( b) Draft Guidance, U. S. EPA, 1977, p. 4). This case­ by­ case approach also is consistent with the approach described in the 1976 Development Document referenced in the remanded regulation. The 1977 Section 316( b) Draft Guidance recommends a general process for developing information needed to support section 316( b) decisions and presenting that information to the permitting authority. The process involves the development of a sitespecific study of the environmental effects associated with each facility that uses one or more cooling water intake structures, as well as consideration of that study by the permitting authority in determining whether the facility must make any changes to minimize adverse environmental impact. Where adverse environmental impact is occurring and must be minimized by application of best technology available, the 1977 guidance suggests a `` stepwise'' approach that considers screening systems, size, location, capacity, and other factors. Although the Draft Guidance describes the information to be developed, key factors to be considered, and a process for supporting section 316( b) determinations, it does not establish national standards for best technology available to minimize adverse environmental impact. Rather, the guidance leaves the decisions on the appropriate location, design, capacity, and construction of each facility to the permitting authority. Under this framework, the Director determines whether appropriate studies have been performed and whether a given facility has minimized adverse environmental impact. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17162 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 3. The Utility Water Act Group ( UWAG) Approach The Utility Water Act Group ( UWAG), an association of more than 100 individual electric utility companies and three national trade associations of electric utilities, provided EPA with a recommended site­ specific regulatory framework, entitled `` 316( b) Decision Principles for Existing Facilities.'' UWAG's recommended approach for decision making under section 316( b) includes the following components: A definition of `` Adverse Environmental Impact; Use of Representative Indicator Species ( RIS) for the assessment of adverse environmental impact; Making decisions under section 316( b) that complement, but do not duplicate, other Federal, state, and local regulatory programs; Use of de minimis criteria to exempt small cooling water users that pose no appreciable risk of causing adverse environmental impact because only a small amount of cooling water is withdrawn from a water body at a location that does not require special protection; Determination of adverse environmental impact or its absence using the facility's choice of three methods, either alone or in combination: ( 1) Use of previously conducted section 316( b) demonstrations that are still valid in light of current circumstances; ( 2) use of ecological risk assessment by means of demonstration of no appreciable risk of adverse environmental impact using conservative decision criteria; or assessment of risk using a structured decision making process consistent with EPA's Ecological Risk Assessment Guidelines; A `` maximize net benefits'' approach for selecting the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact; At the option of the permittee, recognition of voluntary enhancements such as fish stocking or habitat improvements; and Providing data or information with NPDES permit renewal applications if new information shows that previously conducted section 316( b) demonstrations are no longer scientifically valid. These features of UWAG's recommended approach are discussed in the Discussion of Site­ Specific Approach Issues and Questions for Comment that follows. UWAG's submission is included in the rulemaking record. 4. Site­ Specific Alternative Suggested by PSEG EPA also received a suggested sitespecific regulatory framework from the Public Service Electricity and Gas Company ( PSEG). The framework includes three alternative decisionmaking approaches that would allow permittees and permit writers to utilize prior analyses and data that may be appropriate and helpful, consider previous best technology available determinations that were based on these analyses and data, and take into account the benefits of prior section 316( b) implementing actions. The following summary of the framework suggested by PSEG closely tracks PSEG's submission, which is included in the rulemaking record. PSEG's submission states that EPA guidance and other precedents have identified certain ecological criteria as relevant factors for considering adverse environmental impact, including entrainment and impingement; reductions of threatened, endangered, or other protected species; damage to critical aquatic organisms, including important elements of the food chain; diminishment of a population's compensatory reserve; losses to populations, including reductions of indigenous species populations, commercial fishery stocks, and recreational fisheries; and stresses to overall communities or ecosystems as evidenced by reductions in diversity or other changes in system structure or function. Many existing section 316( b) decisions are based upon extensive data and analyses pertaining to those factors. Those factors would remain applicable for all existing facilities. Under PSEG's recommended approach, permitting authorities would have the authority to continue to place emphasis on the factors they believe are most relevant to a given situation. For example, when long­ term data are available that meet appropriate data quality standards, and when analyses using appropriate techniques such as models that already have been developed to allow population­ level analysis of the potential for adverse environmental impact, permit writers would focus on those adverse environmental impact factors related to population­ level impacts. In other situations, especially where permittees do not wish to invest the time and financial resources necessary for biological data gathering and analysis, permitting authorities would have the discretion to focus on other factors by applying different decision­ making paths. 5. Discussion of Site­ Specific Approach Issues and Associated Questions for Comment The following sections focus on several key aspects of any site­ specific approach, specifically requesting comment on an appropriate definition of adverse environmental impact and associated decision­ making criteria. a. Determination of Adverse Environmental Impact EPA's 1977 Draft Guidance assumes there will be adverse environmental impact whenever there is entrainment or impingement `` damage'' as a result of a cooling water intake structure, and focuses study on the magnitude of the impact to determine the appropriate technologies needed to minimize the impact. The evaluation criteria for assessing the magnitude of an adverse impact are broad and recommend consideration both in terms of absolute damage ( e. g., numbers of fish) and percentages of populations. Although the UWAG and PSEG site­ specific approaches contain different definitions of the term `` adverse environmental impact,'' there is general agreement among them that the focus should be on the health of critical aquatic populations or ecosystems, rather than on absolute numbers of fish and other aquatic organisms impinged or entrained by the cooling water intake structure. UWAG offered the most detailed and specific recommendations for making a determination of adverse environmental impact. ( 1) EPA's 1977 Definition of Adverse Environmental Impact and Examples of Its Current Use In EPA's 1977 Draft Guidance, adverse environmental impact is defined as follows: Adverse environmental impact means the adverse aquatic environmental impact that occurs whenever there will be entrainment or impingement damage as a result of the operation of a specific cooling water intake structure. The critical question is the magnitude of any adverse impact which should be estimated both in terms of short term and long term impact with respect to ( 1) absolute damage ( number of fish impinged or percentage of larvae entrained on a monthly or yearly basis); ( 2) percentage damage ( percentage of fish or larvae in existing populations which will be impinged or entrained, respectively); ( 3) absolute and percentage damage to any endangered species; ( 4) absolute and percentage damage to any critical aquatic organism; ( 5) absolute and percentage damage to commercially valuable and/ or sport species yield; and ( 6) whether the impact would endanger ( jeopardize) the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish and fish VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17163 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 61 Drawing on the concept of `` critical aquatic organisms'' in EPA's 1977 draft guidance, UWAG would define a representative indicator species ( RIS) as a species of commercial or recreational importance, a Federal or state threatened or endangered or specially designated species, an important species for ecological community structure or function, or on the basis of species and life stage vulnerability. in and on the body of water from which the cooling water is withdrawn ( long term impact). Over the past 25 years, permitting agencies have interpreted this definition in a variety of ways. Some agencies consider the absolute number of organisms subjected to impingement and entrainment by facility cooling water intakes. Permitting authorities that evaluate adverse environmental impact by enumerating losses of numbers of fish individuals find this approach removes much of the uncertainty associated with evaluating effects to species at higher organizational levels such as populations, communities, or ecosystems. Other permitting authorities have focused on evaluating effects on populations in determining whether an adverse environmental impact is occurring. ( 2) An Alternative Definition EPA solicits comment on an alternative definition of `` adverse environmental impact'' as follows: Adverse environmental impact means one or more of the following: entrainment and impingement of significant numbers of a critical aquatic organisms or percentages of aquatic populations; adverse impacts to threatened, endangered or other protected species, or their designated critical habitat; significant losses to populations, including reductions of indigenous species populations, commercial fishery stocks, and recreational fisheries; and stresses to overall communities or ecosystems as evidenced by reductions in diversity or other changes in system structure or function. ( 3) Discussion of UWAG Recommendation for Determining Adverse Environmental Impact UWAG offers the following definition: Adverse environmental impact is a reduction in one or more representative indicator species ( RIS) 61 that ( 1) creates an unacceptable risk to a population's ability to sustain itself, to support reasonably anticipated commercial or recreational harvests, or to perform its normal ecological function and ( 2) is attributable to operation of the cooling water intake structure. In UWAG's view, defining adverse environmental impact in terms of `` unacceptable risk'' combines science with the judgments society makes about the value of different resources. UWAG argues that this recommended definition is scientifically sound and environmentally protective because it focuses on protecting populations or species that are subject to impingement and entrainment by cooling water intake structures and because it requires that the level of population protection be adequate to ensure protection of the integrity of the ecosystem ( community structure and function). However, it notes that this definition does not create a `` bright line'' test based on engineering or science. In addition to use of a valid, previously conducted section 316( b) demonstration, UWAG would allow facilities to use two risk assessment approaches to make a demonstration of `` no adverse environmental impact.'' The first approach involves demonstrating that the facility meets one or more of a set of conservative decision criteria. Under the second approach, a facility would cooperate with regulators and stakeholders to determine the benchmarks for a risk analysis to determine whether there is an appreciable risk of adverse environmental impact. ( a) Protective Decision Criteria for Determining Adverse Environmental Impact UWAG recommends protective decision criteria that it believes are conservative enough to eliminate the risk of adverse environmental impact for all practical purposes. The recommended physical and biological decision criteria are as follows: Physical Criteria Locational Criterion: An existing cooling water intake structure would be considered not to create a risk of adverse environmental impact if it withdraws water from a zone of a water body that does not support aquatic life due to anoxia or other reasons, such as lack of habitat, poor habitat, or water quality conditions. Design Criterion: An existing cooling water intake structure would not be considered to create a risk of adverse environmental impact if it uses wet closed­ cycle cooling or technologies that achieve a level of protection reasonably consistent with that achieved by wet closed­ cycle cooling. However, wet closed­ cycle cooling or reasonably consistent protection would be considered insufficient if permit writers or natural resource agencies identify special local circumstances such as impacts to threatened, endangered, or otherwise protected species or areas designated for special protection. Proportion of Flow or Volume Criterion: On fresh water rivers, lakes ( other than the Great Lakes), and reservoirs, a cooling water intake structure would be considered not to create a risk of adverse environmental impact if it withdraws no more than 5% of either the source water body or the `` biological zone of influence.'' This criterion would apply only to entrainable life stages. Because it might not be appropriate for many RIS to consider the entire source water body in making this decision, determining the appropriate flow or volume would be of critical importance. UWAG recommends how the `` biological zone of influence'' would be determined for different RIS. Biological Criteria Percent Population Loss Criterion: On freshwater rivers, lakes ( other than the Great Lakes), and reservoirs, a facility would be considered not to create a risk of adverse environmental impact if the cooling water intake structure causes the combined loss, from entrainment and impingement, of ( 1) no more than 1% of the population of any harvested RIS and ( 2) no more than 5% of the population of any non­ harvested RIS, with fractional losses summed over life stages for the entire lake, reservoir, or river reach included in the evaluation. UWAG explains that the 1%/ 5% population loss criteria are based in part on the recognition that these percentages are small relative to the inter­ annual fluctuations typical of fish populations and also small relative to the compensatory responses typical of many species. No Significant Downward Trend: On freshwater rivers, lakes ( other than the Great Lakes), and reservoirs, a cooling water intake structure would be considered to create no risk of adverse environmental impact if adequate data collected over a representative period of years, including preoperational data, show no statistically significant downward trend in the population abundance of RIS. The foregoing criteria would be applied independently. Passing a single criterion could serve as the basis for a successful demonstration of no risk of adverse environmental impact for a facility. If population­ based biological criteria are used, they would be applied independently to each RIS species, and each species would need to meet the criteria for the facility to demonstrate no risk of adverse environmental impact. UWAG states that most of these recommended criteria have limitations on their use, such as being limited to certain water body types or to use with either impingeable or entrainable organisms, but not both. Some facilities, therefore, might use the criteria for only VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17164 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules some of their RIS and would address the remainder through the structured adverse environmental impact decision making process discussed below. ( b) The Structured Adverse Environmental Impact Decision Making Process Consistent with EPA Ecological Risk Assessment Guidelines Under this alternative for determining adverse environmental impact, a facility would work with permit writers, resource managers, other appropriate technical experts, and stakeholders to determine what constitutes an `` unacceptable'' risk of adverse environmental impact in a water body. The process would be based on EPA's 1998 Ecological Risk Assessment Guidelines. The key steps would be as follows: Stakeholders would be involved in identifying issues of concern caused by the cooling water intake structure relative to RIS. To focus the effort to identify RIS at risk, previous section 316 studies, the results of demonstrations using the criteria discussed above, information on the design and operation of the facility, water body fisheries management data and plans, and other relevant water body information could be used. The permit writer, with input from the facility, would then determine what data collection and assessment studies are necessary to address the RIS of concern. Decisions regarding the scope of the assessment would include identification of RIS; study design, sampling methods, locations, and durations; and analytical methods and/ or models to be employed. The facility and regulators also would identify explicit measurement endpoints and criteria for assessing adverse environmental impact before any studies are conducted. If the studies demonstrate that predetermined endpoints are not exceeded, the intake structure would be considered not to cause adverse environmental impact. If not, the facility would proceed to identify best technology available alternatives or to identify enhancements that would eliminate adverse environmental impact. ( 4) Questions for Comment on the Determination of Adverse Environmental Impact ( a) EPA invites public comment on all aspects of the foregoing approaches to defining adverse environmental impact and for making the preliminary determination on adverse environmental impact, and on which approach should be included if the Agency adopts a site­ specific approach for the final rule. ( b) Should the final rule adopt the 1977 Draft Guidance approach to defining adverse environmental impact as any entrainment or impingement damage caused by a cooling water intake structure? ( c) Should the final rule state that any impingement and entrainment is an adverse environmental impact and focus site­ specific assessment on whether that impact is minimized by technologies already in place or potential changes in technology? Alternatively, should the final rule define adverse environmental impact in terms of population­ level or community­ level effects? ( d) Should EPA adopt an approach that makes more explicit use of threshold determinations of whether adverse environmental impact is occurring, If so, should EPA adopt any or all of the conservative decision criteria suggested by UWAG in a final rule? ( e) Should the structured risk assessment decision process that UWAG recommends for determining adverse environmental impact be adopted? b. Use of Previous Section 316( b) Demonstration Studies The Sample Site­ Specific Rule and the PSEG and UWAG approaches would all give the permittee an opportunity to show that a previously conducted section 316( b) demonstration study was conducted in accordance with accepted methods and guidance, reflects current conditions, and supports decisions regarding the existence of adverse environmental impact and the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. ( 1) Sample Site­ Specific Rule Approach for Using Previous Demonstration Studies Sections 125.94( a)( 2) and 125.94( c)( 1) of the Sample Rule would permit use of a previously conducted section 316( b) demonstration if the previous study was performed using data collection and analytical methods that conformed to applicable guidance or requirements of the permitting agency or EPA and there have been no significant changes to either the aquatic populations affected by the cooling water intake structure or to the design, construction, or operation of the facility. The burden would be on the owner or operator of the facility to show that these conditions were met. ( 2) PSEG Recommendation for Using Previous Demonstration Studies PSEG would permit use of previous section 316( b) determinations that were based upon analysis deemed to be thorough and based on the appropriate statutory factors and detailed, sitespecific data and information. In PSEG's view, such prior decisions need not be subject to a complete re­ evaluation in subsequent permit renewal proceedings absent indications that the current cooling water intake structure is allowing adverse environmental impacts to occur or that there have been material changes in any of the key factors the agency relied upon in reaching the prior determination. Under PSEG's approach, if a cooling water intake structure at an existing facility has previously been determined to employ best technology available based upon a diligent review of a section 316( b) demonstration that was conducted in conformance with the 1977 EPA Guidance, then the existing intake would continue to be determined to employ best technology available for the next permit cycle. The permit renewal application would have to include information sufficient to allow the permitting agency to determine that: ( 1) There has been no material change in the operation of the facility that would affect entrainment or impingement; ( 2) any in­ place technologies have been properly operated, maintained, and are not allowing losses to occur in excess of the levels the agency considered in its prior determination; ( 3) any conservation or mitigation measures included in prior permits are in place and are producing the intended benefits; ( 4) the economics of applying a different technology have not changed; and ( 5) data and/ or analyses show that fish species of concern are being maintained or that any declines in those species are not attributable to the cooling water intake structure. In the Fact Sheet accompanying the draft permit, the permitting agency would be required specifically to: ( 1) Make a finding of fact that the prior section 316( b) determination had been based upon a demonstration conducted in conformance with the Agency's 1977 Guidance; and ( 2) identify the data and information that the permittee provided in support of the reaffirmance of its prior section 316( b) determination. Interested third parties as well as Federal, state and interstate resource protection agencies ( e. g., National Marine Fisheries Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service) would have an opportunity to comment on the draft section 316( b) determination and to challenge the final determination if they were aggrieved by the agency's final decision. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17165 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( 3) UWAG Recommendation for Using Previous Demonstration Studies UWAG also would permit use of a previously conducted section 316 demonstration if the past demonstration reflects current biological conditions in the water body and the current location, design, construction, and capacity of the cooling water intake structure. UWAG argues that many States have developed section 316( b) regulatory programs with significant information­ gathering requirements and that this information would provide, for many existing facilities, a sufficient basis for determination of compliance with section 316( b). More specifically, UWAG's approach would consider ( 1) Whether the RIS used in past determinations are still the appropriate ones; ( 2) whether the data collection and analytical tools used were adequate in light of current circumstances; ( 3) whether water body biological conditions at the time of the study reflect current conditions; ( 4) whether the location, design, construction, or capacity of the cooling water intake structure has been altered since the previous section 316( b) demonstration; and ( 5) other factors that should be considered if there is reason to believe that the previous demonstrations are inadequate. ( 4) Questions for Comment on Using Previous Demonstration Studies EPA invites public comment on whether a final rule should permit the use of a previous section 316( b) demonstration for determining whether there is adverse environmental impact and the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. If such a provision is included in the final rule, what criteria or conditions should be included to ensure that the previously conducted demonstration is an adequate basis for section 316( b) decisions? c. Process for Determining the Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact and the Role of Costs and Benefits Once it is determined that there is adverse environmental impact attributable to a cooling water intake structure, the facility and permitting agency must decide on a site­ specific basis what changes to the location, design, construction, or capacity of the intake or what alternative voluntary measures, must be installed and implemented to minimize the impact. ( 1) EPA's Draft 1977 Guidance and Development Document EPA's draft 1977 draft guidance and development document provide guidance on how to select best technology for minimizing adverse environmental impact but are silent on the role of costs and benefits in determining best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. In 1979, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that cost is an acceptable consideration in section 316( b) determinations. Seacoast Anti­ Pollution League v. Costle, 597 F. 2d 306, 311 ( 1st Cir. 1979). Over the years, section 316( b) determinations have focused on whether the costs of technologies employed would be wholly disproportionate to the environmental gains to be derived from their use. See e. g., Seacoast Anti­ Pollution League v. Costle; Decision of the General Counsel No. 63 ( July 29, 1977); Decision of the General Counsel No. 41 ( June 1, 1976). ( 2) Sample Site­ Specific Rule The Sample Rule would require that the analysis of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact be based on a biological survey of the part of the water body affected by the cooling water intake structure and a Design and Construction Technology Plan submitted by the permittee, together with any voluntary operational measures or restoration measures that would be implemented at the facility. ( See Sample Rule § § 125.94, 125.95 and 125.97.) Examples of appropriate technologies a facility could propose in the Design and Construction Technology Plan include wedgewire screens, fine mesh screens, fish handling and return systems, barrier nets, aquatic filter barrier systems, an increase in the opening of the cooling water intake structure to reduce velocity and, if warranted by site specific conditions, cooling tower technology. Under the Sample Rule, in­ place technologies implemented previously to comply with section 316( b), and information regarding their effectiveness, may be included in the Design and Construction Technology Plan. Operational measures that may be proposed include seasonal shutdowns or reductions in flow and continuous operation of screens. The Sample Rule also would provide that the Director could exclude any design or construction technology if the costs of such technology would be significantly greater than the estimated benefits of the technology ( § 125.94( f)( 2)). ( 3) Processes Structured on Incremental Cost­ Benefit Assessment EPA solicits comment on whether an evaluation of the cost­ effectiveness ( i. e., the incremental cost to benefit ratio) of cooling water intake structure technologies and any operational and/ or restoration measures offered by the owner or operator of a facility is an appropriate component of the analysis that would be undertaken in a sitespecific approach to determining best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. The UWAG and PSEG recommendations for selecting technologies and other measures based on an evaluation of costs and benefits are discussed below. ( A) UWAG Recommendation for a Process Under the UWAG approach, if the facility is not able to demonstrate that its cooling water intake structure is not causing adverse environmental impact, it would then select and implement the best technology available. As the first step in choosing best technology available, a facility would identify technology alternatives. It would then estimate the costs and benefits of the alternatives. Relevant benefits typically would include preservation of fish and other aquatic life and economic benefits from recreational and commercial fisheries. Relevant costs typically would include the capital cost of constructing a technology, operation and maintenance costs ( including energy penalties), and adverse environmental effects such as evaporative loss, salt drift, visible plumes, noise, or land use. For those facilities for which the technologies will lower the generating output of the facility, the cost of replacement power and the environmental effects of increased air pollution and waste generation from generating the replacement power also would be considered. Facilities then would calculate the net benefits for each technology and rank them by cost­ effectiveness. Those with marginal costs greater than marginal benefits would be rejected. The technology with the greatest net benefit would be the `` best'' technology for the site. UWAG believes use of existing EPA cost­ benefit calculation methodologies, such as those used for natural resource damage valuation under CERCLA and under NEPA would be sufficient. ( B) PSEG Recommendation for a Process PSEG suggests two options for determining best technology available where prior section 316( b) determinations were not based upon VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17166 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules data and analyses sufficient to allow a permittee to seek renewal. Under the first option, the permittee would provide the permit writer with an assessment that would address: ( 1) The alternative technologies or other measures that are available for addressing the cooling water intake structure's effects, and ( 2) the incremental costs and benefits of alternative technologies or other measures relative to the existing cooling water intake structure's operation. The application would include: an engineering report identifying the suite of technologies potentially applicable to the facility; an analysis describing the bases for the selection of technologies applicable to the facility; an assessment of the issues associated with retrofitting the facility to include each of the applicable technologies and their costs; and an assessment of the reasonably likely reductions in entrainment and impingement losses that would be achieved if the facility were to be retrofitted to operate with the technology. The application also would include a cost­ benefit analysis that would address and assess: the effects of the reductions in entrainment and impingement losses on life stages of the species for which an economic value can be determined utilizing readily available information, such as market values of commercial species, and recreational costs based on methods determined to be appropriate by the Director and the appropriate fisheries management agencies. The Director would then select the best alternative technology or other measures, the costs of which are not wholly disproportionate to the benefits, unless the proposed technology or other measures clearly would not result in any substantial improvement to the species of concern. In evaluating the benefits of alternative technologies, and in determining whether there is likely to be a substantial improvement to the species of concern, permittees and permitting authorities would undertake the level of biological analysis that was appropriate to the situation, supported by the applicable data, and commensurate with the resources available for developing and reviewing the necessary studies. PSEG's second option would be appropriate where the permittee elects to undertake an in­ depth analysis of the potential adverse environmental impact attributable to its cooling water intake structure, followed by a site­ specific determination of the appropriate best technology available to minimize that adverse environmental impact. This path represents the most resourceintensive and scientifically rigorous approach to implementing section 316( b). Under this option, the permittee would provide the permit writer with a detailed assessment that evaluates the effects of the existing cooling water intake structure's operation, and demonstrates the extent to which the operation may be jeopardizing the sustainability of the populations of the species of concern, or assesses other appropriate factors for determining adverse environmental impact. If the permitting agency concurs in an assessment that no adverse environmental impact is being caused by the existing operation, then the existing cooling water intake structure would be deemed to be best technology available. If the assessment demonstrates that the cooling water intake structure is causing adverse environmental impact or the permitting authority rejects the applicant's determination, then the permit applicant would proceed to evaluate alternative technologies or other measures. ( 4) Questions for Comment on a Process for Determining the Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact and the Role of Costs and Benefits EPA invites public comment on the standard that would be included in any site­ specific final rule for determining best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact, including the appropriate role for a consideration of costs and benefits. EPA invites comment on whether the long­ standing `` wholly disproportionate'' cost­ to­ benefit test is an appropriate measure of costs and benefits in determining best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. EPA also invites comment on the use of the `` significantly­ greater'' cost to benefit test in today's sample site­ specific rule. EPA also invites comment on whether a test based on the concept that benefits should justify costs would be more appropriate, as is used in various other legal and regulatory contexts ( see, e. g., Safe Drinking Water Act Section 1412( b)( 6)( A) and Executive Order 12866, Section 1( b)( 6)). EPA also invites public comment on whether variances are appropriate and, if so, what test or tests should be used for granting a variance. d. Use of Voluntary Restoration Measures or Enhancements The Sample Site­ Specific Rule and the UWAG and PSEG approaches would all permit the owner or operator of an existing facility to voluntarily undertake restoration ( or enhancement) measures in combination with, or in lieu of, technologies to minimize adverse environmental impact. Section 125.95 of the Sample Rule provides that an owner or operator of an existing facility may undertake restoration measures, and the Director would be required to take into account the expected benefits of those measures to fish and shellfish in determining whether the facility has minimized adverse environmental impact. The permittee would include in its section 316( b) plan a list of the measures it proposed to implement and the methods for evaluating the effectiveness of the restoration measures. UWAG gives the following as examples of potential enhancements: ( 1) Stocking fish to replace impaired RIS; ( 2) creating or restoring spawning or nursery habitat for RIS; ( 3) raising the dissolved oxygen in anoxic areas to expand the carrying capacity of the RIS in a water body; and ( 4) removing obstructions to migratory species. UWAG would require the objectives of particular enhancements to be established in advance, and appropriate monitoring and/ or reporting obligations would be included in the facility's permit to confirm that enhancement objectives have been achieved. UWAG argues that using enhancements might lower compliance costs, might possibly be of more benefit to RIS than technologies, and might provide a longer­ term benefit to RIS. EPA invites public comment on whether a final site­ specific rule should permit voluntary restoration or enhancement measures to be taken into account in determining compliance with section 316( b) and, if so, what criteria should be included for evaluating the effectiveness of such measures. e. Consultation With Fish and Wildlife Management Agencies Because the central focus of any sitespecific approach is the effect of the cooling water intake structure on the aquatic populations or ecosystems, it is important that fish and wildlife management agencies with jurisdiction over the affected water body have an opportunity to provide information and views to the Director before section 316( b) determinations are made. The Sample Rule would provide for this in § 125.100( b)( 2). The UWAG recommendations also recognize the important role of stakeholders, including fish and wildlife management VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17167 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 62 Information provided by EPA Region I. Region I serves as permitting authority for the nondelegated states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire. 63 See communications from Mr. William McCracken, Chief of the Permits Section, Surface Water Quality Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, January 24, 2002. 64 Backlog counts for these facilities are based on permits expired as of November 21, 2001 or if the permit expired field in the database is blank. 65 NPDES Permit Backlog Trend Report: October 31, 2001, issued on November 30, 2001 by EPA's Water Permits Division, US EPA, Washington, DC. 66Decision Memorandum from the Deputy Chief Financial Officer of EPA to the Administrator, December 18, 2001. 67 The Environmental Council Of States is a national non­ profit association of state and territorial environmental commissioners. See website: www. sso. org/ ecos/. When the Axe Falls: How State Environmental Agencies Deal with Budget Cuts by R. Steven Brown, Deputy Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer of ECOS. ( See Docket for today's proposed rule.) 68 This state budget outlook is supported by a report published on October 31, 2001, by the National Conference of State Legislatures ( NCSL). agencies, in a structured site­ specific alternative ( UWAG, pp. 8 9). EPA invites public comment on the appropriate role of fish and wildlife management agencies if the final rule implements a site­ specific approach. 6. Implementation Burden Under Any Site­ Specific Approach Although well­ implemented, sitespecific approaches for determining best technology available to minimize adverse environmental impact can ensure that technologies are carefully tailored to site­ specific environmental needs, EPA also recognizes that sitespecific regulatory approaches can lead to difficult implementation challenges for State and Federal permitting agencies. EPA invites comment on the following discussion of the burdens associated with implementing section 316( b) on a site­ specific basis, the competing demands on permitting agencies, and resources available to permitting agencies. EPA invites comment on ways to employ a sitespecific approach while minimizing implementation burdens on permitting agencies. The site­ specific decision­ making process requires each regulated facility to develop, submit, and refine studies that characterize or estimate potential adverse environmental impact. Although some approaches allow facilities to use existing studies in renewal applications, States must still conduct evaluations to ascertain the continued validity of these studies and assess existing conditions in the water body. Such studies can be resource intensive and require the support of a multidisciplinary team. A Director's determinations as to whether the appropriate studies have been performed and whether a given facility has minimized adverse environmental impact have often been subject to challenges that can take significant periods of time to resolve and can impose significant resource demands on permitting agencies, the public, and the permit applicant. Some examples of the workload that can be required for permitting agencies to implement a site­ specific approach follow. Since, 1999, EPA New England has devoted 0.6 full­ time employees a year, including a permit writer, a biologist and attorney, to reissuance of a permit for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station ( PNPS), 62 At the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station, EPA Region I has invested about one full­ time employee per year over four years to determine the nature and degree of adverse environmental impacts and the appropriate permit conditions the permit renewal. The State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation's Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources spent $ 169,587 in 1997 and $ 167,564 in 1998 to review cooling systems at steammotivated electricity generating facilities. The Division estimated a total effort expenditure of approximately 2.2 full­ time employees in 1997 and 1998 and 4.3 full­ time employees for 2001. These figures do not include the level of effort associated with review time spent by the Division of Environmental Permits, the Division of Water, or the Division of Legal Affairs. ( See Docket W 00 03.) Because of workload concerns, some States have requested that EPA adopt regulations that set clear requirements specifying standards of performance, monitoring and compliance. 63 These levels of burden are of particular concern to the Agency and to some State permitting agencies given the heavy permit workloads, pressure on resources available to permitting agencies, and the complexity of finalizing permits required to address 316( b) requirements. Recent data indicate that most States are struggling to meet their major permits issuance targets set for decreasing the permit backlog. For example, these data indicate that for major facilities engaged in the generation, transmission and/ or distribution of electric energy for sale ( SIC 4911), the permit backlog is 30.3 percent 64, that is, higher than other categories of major permits ( data indicate a backlog of 23.1 percent for major permits in general), 65 In 1998, the EPA Office of Inspector General identified the backlog in issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits as a material weakness pursuant to the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act ( FMFIA). As part of its Fiscal Year 2001 FMFIA Report, EPA recommended that the permit backlog be identified as a continuing material weaknesses in its programs. EPA's Office of Water is examining strategies to correct this weakness. 66 The evidence does not, however, establish that section 316( b) determinations are a factor in the backlog in issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits. EPA is also aware that resources available to State permitting agencies are limited. In a recent survey conducted by ECOS ( Environmental Council of States) 67 on States environmental agency budget reductions during the current fiscal year and for the upcoming fiscal year, 42 States reported that their agency was asked to cut or reduce their budgets for the current fiscal year. 68 For the following fiscal year, 23 of the responding States expected additional budget cuts. EPA is aware that at least one State, the State of Maryland, has used State law to impose a small surcharge on electric bills in the State to support a State research program, and that funds from that program are used for section 316( b) studies. EPA seeks additional information and data on the resources necessary and available for the review of section 316( b) determinations in existing facilities' permit renewals. EPA invites comment on whether the resource requirements of the sitespecific approach also have served as a disincentive to a comprehensive revisiting of section 316( b) permit conditions during each renewal ( typically every 5 years), despite advances in technologies for reducing impingement mortality and entrainment. EPA seeks comment on the above discussion of the resource implications of implementing the requirements of section 316( b) on a case­ by­ case basis. EPA invites comment on how the workload of a site­ specific approach could be streamlined so as to provide for the benefits of a site­ specific approach ( e. g., application of technologies specifically tailored to sitespecific conditions) while recognizing the resource constraints faced by so many permitting agencies. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17168 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules D. Why EPA Is Not Considering Dry Cooling Anywhere? EPA conducted a full analysis for the new facility rule ( Phase I) and rejected dry cooling as an economically practicable option on a national basis. Dry cooling systems use either a natural or a mechanical air draft to transfer heat from condenser tubes to air. In conventional closed­ cycle recirculating wet cooling towers, cooling water that has been used to cool the condensers is pumped to the top of a recirculating cooling tower; as the heated water falls, it cools through an evaporative process and warm, moist air rises out of the tower, often creating a vapor plume. Hybrid wet­ dry cooling towers employ both a wet section and dry section and reduce or eliminate the visible plumes associated with wet cooling towers. For the new facility rule, EPA evaluated zero or nearly zero intake flow regulatory alternatives, based on the use of dry cooling systems. EPA determined that the annual compliance cost to industry for this option would be at least $ 490 million. EPA based the costs on 121 facilities having to install dry cooling. The cost for Phase II existing facilities would be significantly higher. EPA estimates that 539 Phase II existing facilities would be subject to this proposal. The cost would be significantly higher because existing facilities have less flexibility, thus incurring higher compliance costs ( capital and operating) than new facilities. For example, existing facilities might need to upgrade or modify existing turbines, condensers, and/ or cooling water conduit systems, which typically imposes greater costs than use of the same technology at a new facility. In addition, retrofitting a dry cooling tower at an existing facility would require shutdown periods during which the facility would lose both production and revenues, and decrease the thermal efficiency of an electric generating facility. The disparity in costs and operating efficiency of dry cooling systems compared with wet cooling systems is considerable when viewed on a nationwide or regional basis. For example, under a uniform national requirement based on dry cooling, facilities in the southern regions of the U. S. would be at an unfair competitive disadvantage compared to those in cooler northern climates. Even under a regional subcategorization strategy for facilities in cool climatic regions of the U. S., adoption of a minimum requirement based on dry cooling could impose unfair competitive restrictions for steam electric power generating facilities. This relates primarily to the elevated capital and operating costs associated with dry cooling. Adoption of requirements based on dry cooling for a subcategory of facilities under a particular capacity would pose similar competitive disadvantages for those facilities. EPA does not consider dry cooling a reasonable option for a national requirement, nor for subcategorization under this proposal, because the technology of dry cooling carries costs that are sufficient to cause significant closures for Phase II existing facilities. Dry cooling technology would also have a significant detrimental effect on electricity production by reducing energy efficiency of steam turbines. Unlike a new facility that can use direct dry cooling, an existing facility that retrofits for dry cooling would most likely use indirect dry cooling which is much less efficient than direct dry cooling. In contrast to direct dry cooling, indirect dry cooling does not operate as an air­ cooled condenser. In other words, the steam is not condensed within the structure of the dry cooling tower, but instead indirectly through an indirect heat exchanger. Therefore, the indirect dry cooling system would need to overcome additional heat resistance in the shell of the condenser compared to the direct dry cooling system. Ultimately, the inefficiency penalties of indirect dry cooling systems will exceed those of direct dry cooling systems in all cases. Although the dry cooling option is extremely effective at reducing impingement and entrainment and would yield annual benefits of $ 138.2 million for impingement reductions and $ 1.33 billion for entrainment reductions, it does so at a cost that would be unacceptable. EPA recognizes that dry cooling technology uses extremely low­ level or no cooling water intake, thereby reducing impingement and entrainment of organisms to dramatically low levels. However, EPA interprets the use of the word `` minimize'' in section 316( b) in a manner that allows EPA the discretion to consider technologies that very effectively reduce, but do not completely eliminate, impingement and entrainment and therefore meet the requirements of section 316( b). Although EPA has rejected dry cooling technology as a national minimum requirement, EPA does not intend to restrict the use of dry cooling or to dispute that dry cooling may be the appropriate cooling technology for some facilities. For example, facilities that are repowering and replacing the entire infrastructure of the facility may find that dry cooling is an acceptable technology in some cases. A State may choose to use its own authorities to require dry cooling in areas where the State finds its fishery resources need additional protection above the levels provided by these technology­ based minimum standards. E. What Is the Role of Restoration and Trading? 1. Restoration Measures Restoration measures, as used in the context of section 316( b) determinations, include practices that seek to conserve fish or aquatic organisms, compensate for lost fish or aquatic organisms, or increase or enhance available aquatic habitat used by any life stages of entrained or impinged species. Such measures have been employed in some cases in the past as one of several means of fulfilling the requirements imposed by section 316( b). Examples of restoration measures that have been included as conditions of permits include creating, enhancing, or restoring wetlands; developing or operating fish hatcheries or fish stocking programs; removing impediments to fish migration; and other projects designed to replace fish or restore habitat valuable to aquatic organisms. Restoration measures have been used, however, on an inconsistent and somewhat limited basis in the context of the 316( b) program. Their role under section 316( b) has never been explicitly addressed in EPA regulations or guidance until EPA promulgated the final section 316( b) regulations for new facilities, which is discussed below in more detail. Prior to the section 316( b) new facility regulations, restoration projects were undertaken as part of section 316( b) determinations at Phase II existing facilities and in permitting actions where the cost of the proposed technology was considered to be wholly disproportionate to the demonstrated environmental benefits that could be achieved. Often such cases involved situations where retrofitting with a technology such as cooling towers was under consideration. In addition to the role for restoration outlined as part of the today's proposed rule ( see Section VI. A. above), EPA invites comment on the following alternatives for restoration as part of regulations for Phase II existing facilities. a. The Role of Restoration in the Section 316( b) New Facility Regulations The final rule for new facilities includes restoration measures as part of Track II. EPA did not include restoration in Track I because it was VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17169 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 69 In re Tennessee Valley Authority John Sevier Steam Plant, NPDES Permit No. TN0005436 ( 1986); In re Florida Power Corp. Crystal River Power Plant Units 1, 2, & 3, NPDES Permit FL0000159 ( 1988); Chalk Point, MDE, State of Maryland, Discharge Permit, Potomac Electric Power Co., State Discharge Permit No. 81 DP 0627B, NPDES Permit No. MD0002658B ( 1987, modified 1991); Draft NJDEP Permit Renewal Including Section 316( a) Variance Determination and Section 316( b) BTA Decision: NJDEP Permit No. NJ0005622 ( 1993). intended to be expeditious and provide certainty for the regulated community and a streamlined review process for the permitting authority. To do this for new facilities, EPA defined the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact in terms of reduction of impingement and entrainment, a relatively straightforward metric for environmental performance of cooling water intake structures. In contrast, restoration measures in general require complex and lengthy planning, implementation, and evaluation of the effects of the measures on the populations of aquatic organisms or the ecosystem as a whole. EPA included restoration measures in Track II to the extent that the Director determines that the measures taken will maintain the fish and shellfish in the waterbody in a manner that represents performance comparable to that achieved in Track I. Applicants in Track II need not undertake restoration measures, but they may choose to undertake such measures. Thus, to the extent that such measures achieve performance comparable to that achieved in Track I, it is within EPA's authority to authorize the use of such measures in the place of Track I requirements. This is similar to the compliance alternative approach EPA took in the effluent guidelines program for Pesticide Chemicals: Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging. There EPA established a numeric limitation but also a set of best management practices that would accomplish the same numeric limitations. See 61 FR 57518, 57521 ( Nov. 6, 1997). EPA believed that section 316( b) of the Clean Water Act provided EPA with sufficient authority to allow the use of voluntary restoration measures in lieu of the specific requirements of Track I where the performance is substantially similar under the principles of Chevron USA v. NRDC, 467 U. S. 837, 844 45 ( 1984). In section 316( b) of the Clean Water Act, Congress is silent concerning the role of restoration technologies both in the statute and in the legislative history, either by explicitly authorizing or explicitly precluding their use. In the context of the new facility rule EPA also believes that appropriate restoration measures or conservation measures that are undertaken on a voluntary basis by a new facility to meet the requirements of that rule fall within EPA's authority to regulate the `` design'' of cooling water intake structures. Bailey v. U. S., 516 U. S. 137 ( 1995) ( In determining the meaning of words used in a statute, the court considers not only the bare meaning of the word, but also its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.) In the new facility rule EPA recognized that restoration measures have been used at existing facilities implementing section 316( b) on a caseby case, best professional judgment basis as an innovative tool or as a tool to conserve fish or aquatic organisms, compensate for the fish or aquatic organisms killed, or enhance the aquatic habitat harmed or destroyed by the operation of cooling water intake structures. Under Track II, that flexibility will continue to be available to new facilities to the extent that they can demonstrate performance comparable to that achieved in Track I. For example, if a new facility that chooses Track II is on an impaired waterbody, that facility may choose to demonstrate that velocity controls in concert with measures to improve the productivity of the waterbody will result in performance comparable to that achieved in Track I. The additional measures may include such things as reclamation of abandoned mine lands to eliminate or reduce acid mine drainage along a stretch of the waterbody, establishment of riparian buffers or other barriers to reduce runoff of solids and nutrients from agricultural or silvicultural lands, removal of barriers to fish migration, or creation of new habitats to serve as spawning or nursery areas. Another example might be a facility that chooses to demonstrate that flow reductions and less protective velocity controls, in concert with a fish hatchery to restock fish being impinged and entrained with fish that perform a similar function in the community structure, will result in performance comparable to that achieved in Track I. Finally, in the new facility rule, EPA recognized that it may not always be possible to establish quantitatively that the reduction in impact on fish and shellfish is comparable using the types of measures discussed above as would be achieved in Track I, due to data and modeling limitations. Despite such limitations, EPA stated that there may be situations where a qualitative demonstration of comparable performance could reasonably assure substantially similar performance. For that reason, EPA provided, in § 125.86 of the new facility rule, that the Track II Comprehensive Demonstration Study should show that either: ( 1) The Track II technologies would result in reduction in both impingement mortality and entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish of 90 percent or greater of the reduction that would be achieved through Track I ( quantitative demonstration) or, ( 2) if consideration of impacts other than impingement mortality and entrainment is included, the Track II technologies would maintain fish and shellfish in the waterbody at a substantially similar level to that which would be achieved under Track I ( quantitative or qualitative demonstration). b. Restoration Approaches Being Considered for the Existing Facilities Rule In the existing facilities rule, EPA is proposing to allow restoration as one means of satisfying the compliance requirements for any one of the three alternatives in § 125.94( a). The demonstration a facility would make to show that the restoration measures provide comparable performance to design and construction technologies and/ or operational measures would be similar to the demonstration that a facility would make under Track II in the new facility rule. EPA is also inviting comment on other restoration approaches it is considering. These include discretionary and mandatory regulatory approaches involving restoration measures as well as restoration banking, which are discussed below. ( 1) Discretionary Restoration Approaches An approach being considered by EPA would provide the Director with the discretion to specify appropriate restoration measures under section 316( b), but would not require that he or she do so. This approach is consistent with several precedents in which the permitting authority allowed the use of restoration measures when the cost to retrofit an existing facility's cooling water intake structures with control technologies was determined to be wholly disproportionate to the benefits the control technology would provide ( e. g., John Sevier, Crystal River, Chalk Point, Salem). 69 ( 2) Mandatory Restoration Approach Under this approach, the use of restoration measures would be required as an element of a section 316( b) determination in all cases or in some defined set of cases ( e. g., for intake structures located on oceans, estuaries, VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17170 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules or tidal rivers). Restoration would be required to compensate for organisms that were not protected following facility installation of control technologies. Phase II existing facilities with cooling water intake structures would be required to implement some form of restoration measures in addition to implementing direct control technologies to minimize adverse environmental impact. Under this approach, an existing facility would submit a plan to restore fish and shellfish to the extent necessary for offsetting fish and shellfish entrainment and impingement losses estimated to continue to occur after any required control technology is installed. This restoration plan would be reviewed and approved by the Director and incorporated in the permit. This is similar to the mitigation sequence used under CWA section 404, wherein environmental impacts are avoided and minimized prior to consideration of compensatory mitigation measures although in section 404, not all projects require mitigation. The development of restoration measures applicable to a cooling water intake structure would focus on the unique situation faced by each facility and would allow for review and comment by the permitting agency and the public. ( 3) Restoration Banking Restoration plans could potentially use a banking mechanism similar to those used in the CWA section 404 program, that would allow the permittee to meet requirements by purchasing restoration credits from an approved bank. For example, should wetlands restoration be an appropriate mechanism for offsetting the adverse impact caused by a cooling water intake structure, the permittee could purchase credits from an existing wetlands mitigation bank established in accordance with the Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks ( 50 FR 58605; November 28, 1995). As in the CWA section 404 program, public or private entities could establish and operate the banks providing mitigation for impacts under 316( b). EPA views the use of restoration banking for the purposes of this proposed rule as one way to facilitate compliance and reduce the burden on the permit applicant, while at the same time potentially enhancing the ecological effectiveness of the required restoration activities. 2. Entrainment Trading Under § 125.90( d) of today's proposed rule, States may adopt alternative regulatory requirements that will result in environmental performance within a watershed that is comparable to the reductions of impingement mortality and entrainment specified in the proposed § 125.94. EPA is considering an approach for implementing section 316( b) that would allow specific Phase II existing facilities to trade entrainment reductions to achieve an overall standard of performance for entrainment reduction in a watershed at a lower cost through a voluntary State or authorized Tribal section 316( b) trading program. EPA believes such an approach might be appropriate in light of section 316( b)' s objective of minimizing adverse environmental impact. The goal of the trading approach is to provide an incentive for some Phase II existing facilities to implement more protective technologies than required by today's proposed rule, resulting in credits that can be traded with other facilities that may not find the most protective technologies economically practicable. EPA acknowledges that the trading framework that EPA is contemplating under section 316( b) differs from previous trading strategies implemented by EPA because it involves trading living resources rather than pollutant loads. Because this is a novel approach to trading, it raises many questions. For example, how would the program address concerns that some species have greater economic value than others, or the counter­ argument that some species may not be economically valuable but nonetheless have high ecological value? What is an appropriate spatial scale under which trading can occur to ensure protection of water quality and aquatic organisms? The following section addresses these questions and others and seeks comment on the appropriate elements of a trading approach under section 316( b) that would conserve and protect water quality and aquatic resources. a. Entrainment Reduction vs. Impingement Reduction as a Basis for Trading Entrainment and impingement are the main causes of adverse environmental impact from cooling water intake withdrawals. However, impingement reduction technologies are relatively inexpensive compared to entrainment reduction ( see Chapter 2 of the Technical Development Document for the New Facility Rule, EPA 821 R 01 036, November 2001). Impingement reduction measures include decreasing intake velocities and installation of traveling screens with fish baskets and fish return systems. The implementation of a section 316( b) trading program for impingement may not justify the cost of monitoring susceptible species and administrating the program. EPA believes that a trading program that focuses on entrainment is more viable. However, EPA requests comment on whether to extend trading to include impingement of aquatic organisms. In contrast to impingement controls, entrainment reduction technologies can be relatively expensive. Section 316( b) trading would enable smaller facilities that cannot afford to install more costly technologies to reduce their costs by trading with other Phase II existing facilities that face relatively lower costs of entrainment reduction. For the purpose of a section 316( b) trading program, an entrainment reduction performance standard for a watershed would be set by the authorized State or Tribe within the range of 60 to 90 percent for all life stages of entrained fish and shellfish. The performance standard would be set to reflect sitespecific facility and ecological characteristics. All facilities located in the watershed would need to reach the performance standard through the installation of technologies to reduce entrainment ( or, potentially, restoration measures to compensate for entrainment losses at the facility). A facility that can afford to implement technologies to reduce entrainment above the performance standard would have entrainment reduction credits to sell to other facilities that cannot afford or choose not to meet the performance standard by technology alone. EPA notes that in § 125.94( c) of today's proposed rule, Phase II existing facilities may request a site­ specific determination of best technology available if the costs of compliance with the applicable performance standards are significantly greater than the costs EPA considered when establishing the performance standards or significantly greater than site­ specific benefits. If a section 316( b) trading program was available, these facilities could potentially have a lower cost option for meeting the applicable performance standard for their respective waterbodies by purchasing credits from another facility that implements more protective technologies. EPA seeks comment on whether a section 316( b) trading program would generally afford greater watershed protection by increasing the number of facilities meeting the performance standard and whether consideration of credit purchases should be mandatory prior to the Director setting alternative requirements. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.846173

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0049-0003

Proposed Rule

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Proposed Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II ExistingFacilities; Proposed Rule. Part 2.

17171 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules b. What Should Be the Spatial Scale for Trading? EPA is considering limiting the zone within which trading may occur among Phase II existing facilities subject to section 316( b). Due to site­ specific differences in species and life stages of entrained organisms, the scale of the trading zone would be set to minimize these differences as much as possible. Trading would be most protective if it occurred among Phase II existing facilities that generally entrain the same species and life stages at relatively similar densities per unit flow through the facility. Thus, EPA would prefer that trades be conducted by Phase II existing facilities sited in waterbodies that share similar ecological characteristics, regardless of the relative geographic proximity of the facilities to each other. EPA is also considering limiting trades to specific waterbodies, specific watersheds, or general waterbody types ( tidal rivers, estuaries, oceans). Preliminary EPA analyses indicate that some of these options may increase the number of Phase II existing facilities eligible to trade and thus may produce sufficient opportunities to reduce the cost of meeting the performance standard, allowing for a broader range of trades. ( 1) Specific Waterbody If section 316( b) trades for Phase II existing facilities were limited on an individual waterbody basis, EPA estimates that there would be a total of 132 Phase II existing facilities in 40 specific waterbodies eligible to trade. In order to be eligible to trade, each facility involved in the trade would need to be located on the same waterbody and required to meet the performance standard of the waterbody. Further limits would have to be placed on trading in very large waterbodies ( e. g., Mississippi River, Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean) to ensure that the facilities are within similar climatic zones, and thus entrain similar species. Allowing trading among Phase II existing facilities and those that may be subject to Phase III regulations for cooling water intake structures could increase opportunities for facilities to trade intake control requirements. ( 2) Specific Watershed By limiting trading on a watershed basis, the problems posed by very large waterbodies are eliminated; however, the zone may include different types of waterbodies that may harbor different species of organisms. Hydrologic Unit Codes ( HUC) were developed by the United States Geological Survey ( USGS) to divide the conterminous United States by drainage basins. As the number of digits in the code increases, the drainage basin delineation becomes more refined. Eight­ digit codes represent the fourth level of classification in the hierarchy of hydrologic units, where each code represents all or part of a surface drainage basin. There are 2,150 eightdigit HUCs in the conterminous United States. In order to be eligible to trade under this approach, all facilities involved in the trade would be located in the same eight­ digit HUC. EPA invites comment on these and other potential trading zones for section 316( b) trading for Phase II existing facilities. ( 3) General Waterbody Type EPA is also considering a site­ specific approach that would require facilities to study and provide data on the numbers, life stages, and species of organisms entrained in order to be properly matched for trading with another Phase II existing facility on the same waterbody type ( e. g., tidal river, estuary, ocean, Great Lake) which entrains the similar numbers, life stages, and species of organisms. EPA seeks comment on this approach which allows trades to occur among facilities on the same general waterbody type, but not necessarily the same waterbody. c. What Should Be the Unit ( Credit) for Trading? A trading option requires a definition of the trading commodity and the unit, or credit, that would be traded. In contrast to pollutant­ specific trading, which is normally based on the pounds of a single pollutant released into the environment or reduced from a source, trading of entrained species can involve a variety of fish and shellfish species and their life stages, and may be highly variable among facilities. Therefore, it could be difficult to define a trading unit and substantial oversight would be needed under any of these trading units to determine if the trade complied with the underlying performance standards from year to year, or another appropriate period. In developing this proposal, EPA considered a variety of potential trading credits and invites comment on these and other potential trading units. EPA is specifically interested in comments on whether entrainment trading should be species­ specific, have weighted values for different species, or simply be net biomass entrainment expressed in mass. EPA is also considering use of restoration measures in conjunction with any of the trading units discussed below. Please see section VI. E. 1 of the preamble to today's proposed rule for additional information and discussion on restoration. ( 1) Species Density Trading based on the density of entrained species life stages ( the number of eggs, larvae, juvenile and small fish for all fish and shellfish species entrained per unit of flow through a facility) is EPA's preferred approach because it would account for differences among facilities in the number of organisms entrained per unit flow and would, in a sense, standardize entrainment losses with intake flow withdrawals. Under this approach, trading would be restricted to those Phase II existing facilities sited at waterbodies with similar ecological zones, such as the transitional zone between saline and freshwater portions of an estuary. Because many aquatic species tend to inhabit specific zones within a waterbody during their life histories, restricting trade to individual zones would ensure that similar species at similar densities are traded. In order for a trade to occur, the facilities involved must historically entrain similar species. Under this approach the comparable worth of the unit of flow would be dependent upon the density of the species entrained ( see example below). Thus, if a facility entrains twice as many organisms as another facility, its flow would be worth comparably twice as much. This approach would ensure that all species entrained are protected, but may limit the number of trades possible. It is possible that use of this approach may lead to overprotection or under­ protection of some species since the average density of all fish and shellfish would be used rather than the density for individual species. ( 2) Species Counts Another option for a trading unit is entrained organism counts by species, life stage, and size. These types of measurements are routinely collected as part of historical facility demonstration studies. This option would be protective of all life stages independently, but would require significant expenditures of time and resources. Entrained organisms would need to be identified to fairly precise taxonomic levels and organized by life stage and size classes. This option would best address the question of different economic values versus ecological values of species since it would allow different monetary values to be set for each species. Although this option would allow for comparable species­ by­ species trading among Phase II existing facilities, EPA is concerned that it may also result in VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17172 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules complex trading transactions. Also, the number of each species entrained by a facility can vary substantially each year for many reasons, including facility outages and extreme weather events. Substantial oversight might be needed to determine if the trade achieved the underlying technology­ based performance standard from year to year, or other appropriate period, for compliance. ( 3) Biomass Another potential measure that can be used for trading is the biomass of entrained organisms. Biomass is defined as the weight of living material ( plant and animal) and can be measured in pounds or kilograms. Measuring the biomass of organisms entrained by facility intakes would be relatively fast and easy to quantify. However, the pound/ kilogram as a unit of measurement does not take into account species variations found at different facility locations and within multiple waterbody types. Thus, as a result of adopting this unit of measurement, it would be impossible to distinguish between different species, or even different kingdoms. Because the weights of all entrained organisms are combined into a total mass, biomass measurement may not be equally protective of all species and life stages, and larger, heavier organisms may bias final results. Over time, biomass trading may upset the natural equilibrium of certain species and/ or impact the functionality of the entire ecosystem should some species be entrained more frequently than others. However, EPA invites comment on whether biomass trading might be limited to certain zones of certain waterbodies or waterbody types, in a manner similar to that described above for species­ density trading to address some of these concerns. d. Example of Section 316( b) Trading Under EPA's Preferred Alternative ( Species Density) Facility A is an existing 750 MGD facility located in an estuary. Facility B is an existing 350 MGD facility located at the mouth of the same estuary. The performance standard for this estuary has been set by the authorized State or Tribe at a 75 percent reduction of entrainment for all facilities. Facility A determines that it can install a cooling tower at relatively low cost. The installation of the cooling tower reduces the facility's flow by 95 percent. Using the standard assumption that entrained organisms behave like passive water molecules, this flow reduction will, on a long­ term average basis, reduce entrainment by 95 percent at Facility A. In effect, Facility A has reduced its entrainment by 20 percent more than it needs to in order to provide its share toward meeting the performance standard of 75 percent for the estuary. Because of its small size, Facility B determines that it is not cost effective to reduce entrainment by 75 percent. Instead, Facility B chooses to install fine mesh wedgewire screens, which reduce its entrainment by 60 percent. Facility B could possibly make up for the remaining 15 percent of its share to meet the estuary's performance standard by trading. Based on historical monitoring data, Facility A entrains alewife, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, bay anchovy, blueback herring, silversides, spot, striped bass, weakfish and white perch. The average number, across many years of data, of all life stages of all species entrained is 417,210 fish per day. Per gallon of water used, it entrains 0.000556 fish ( 417,210/ 750,000,000). Facility B also entrains alewife, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, bay anchovy, blueback herring, silversides, spot, striped bass, weakfish, and white perch as determined by historical monitoring data. Facility B historically entrains the same species of fish as Facility A as they withdraw water from the same waterbody. The average number, across many years of data, of all life stages of all species entrained is 322,620 fish per day. Per gallon of water used, it entrains 0.000922 fish ( 322,620/ 350,000,000). Based on density, Facility B entrains 1.658 times as many fish as Facility A per unit flow ( 0.000922/ 0.000556). This is the average density ratio of organisms entrained. Facility B needs to make up for 15 percent of its share toward the estuary's performance standard for entrainment reduction. Again, using the standard assumption that entrained organisms behave like passive water molecules, the simplified 1: 1 relationship between flow and entrainment from Facility A is also used for Facility B in this example. Therefore, Facility B needs to compensate for the environmental effects caused by 15 percent of its flow, or 52,500,000 gallons of resource use ( 0.15 * 350,000,000). Since Facility A has reduced entrainment 20 percent more than required, it has 150,000,000 gallons of resource use available for trading ( 0.20 * 750,000,000). A trade could be made between these two facilities because they are located on the same waterbody, they both must install entrainment controls, and the same species are present in their respective entrainment numbers. The average density ratio of organisms entrained multiplied by the gallons of resource use needed by Facility B would equal the gallons of resource use that Facility B would need to buy from Facility A in order to make up for the difference in the density of the species the two facilities entrain. Based on the discrepancy in the average density of organisms entrained as calculated above, in order to trade with Facility A, Facility B must purchase entrainment credits for 1.658 times as many gallons as it needs. Thus, Facility B needs to purchase 87,045,000 gallons of resource use from Facility A ( 1.658 * 52,500,000). e. Trading Option for New Facilities EPA is considering extending a section 316( b) trading program beyond the Phase II rule for existing electric generation facilities. Those facilities that are covered by the Phase I rule ( new facilities) might be allowed to participate in a section 316( b) trading program. New facilities could implement technological controls beyond what is required under the Phase I rule. In general, if more facilities were allowed to trade, there would be an increased degree of competitiveness in trading and it would become easier to meet the performance standard because entrainment reductions would be shared by multiple facilities. EPA invites comment on the option of extending a section 316( b) trading program to new facilities. f. Voluntary Adoption of Trading by Authorized States and Tribes Under EPA's preferred alternative for section 316( b) trading, authorized States or Tribes would decide whether to voluntarily adopt a section 316( b) trading program. EPA notes that authorized States and Tribes would first need to adopt the appropriate legal authority to conduct a section 316( b) trading program. In general, EPA believes that States and Tribes have a better understanding of the dynamics, value, and overall quality of their local waterbodies based on assigned designated uses, 305( b) monitoring reports, and other relevant information and studies compiled over time. Thus, authorized States or Tribes may be in a better position to judge whether or not to develop and implement a section 316( b) trading program. Although EPA acknowledges that a nationally­ run section 316( b) trading program may enhance uniformity, EPA is concerned that a national program may not be feasible because of differences in species; habitats; waterbody characteristics; and the variety, nature, and magnitude of environmental impacts from cooling water intake VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17173 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules structures found across the United States. EPA seeks comment on whether a national registry of trades and associated national trading guidance would be appropriate. A voluntary program would be administered by the authorized State or Tribe. Authorized States and Tribes that participate could allow trading among facilities to meet the entrainment reduction performance standard. Key environmental and natural resource agencies, industry and its trade associations, and local environmental groups involved in the protection of the watershed would participate in the authorized State or Tribal section 316( b) trading program through the public comment process. The program would also include consultation with from relevant Federal, State and authorized Tribal resource agencies and neighboring authorized States and Tribes where interstate waters are affected ( similar to stakeholder involvement under the NPDES permitting program). g. When Would the Permits Be Reissued to Trading Partners? If trades under section 316( b) are done on a watershed basis, and permits are synchronized, then permits would be reissued to trading partners at the same time according to the permitting authority's standard permit renewal cycle ( e. g., every 5 years). With permitting authorities that have moved toward a watershed permitting strategy, synchronizing the permit renewal process for all trading partners in a geographic area reduces some administrative cost and burden on the permitting authorities. Alternatively, a trading arrangement may not be specified in the permit. Instead, the permit would include the performance standard and a requirement to meet that standard. Under this approach, trades could occur between permitting cycles. Another option would allow trading of entrainment units between Phase II existing facilities within permit cycles at the discretion of each authorized State or Tribal permitting authority. A disadvantage to this approach is the additional administrative burden borne by the permitting authorities. EPA seeks comment on how to harmonize the reissuance of permits with trading among Phase II existing facilities under section 316( b). h. Implementation and Enforcement Issues for Section 316( b) Trading The concept of a section 316( b) trading program for Phase II existing facilities presents many challenges for the permitting program at the Federal, State, or authorized Tribe level. These challenges include development of implementation guidance, incorporation of a section 316( b) trade tracking system within EPA's Permit Compliance System or through some other tracking mechanism, self­ reporting on compliance with trade agreements ( similar to the self­ reporting conducted through use of Discharge Monitoring Reports), determination of the administrative cost and burden of such a trading program and EPA oversight of whether regulatory requirements for impingement and entrainment reduction are met. EPA invites comment on these unique challenges and any others regarding implementation, compliance assessment, and enforcement of a section 316( b) trading program. VII. Implementation As in the new facility rule, section 316( b) requirements for Phase II existing facilities would be implemented through the NPDES permit program. Today's proposal would establish application requirements in § 125.95, monitoring requirements in § 125.96, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements in § 125.97 for Phase II existing facilities that have a design intake flow of 50 MGD or more. The proposed regulations also require the Director to review application materials submitted by each regulated facility and include monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in the permit ( § 125.98). EPA will develop a model permit and permitting guidance to assist Directors in implementing these requirements after they are finalized. In addition, the Agency will develop implementation guidance for owners and operators that will address how to comply with the application requirements, the sampling and monitoring requirements, and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in these proposed regulations. A. When Does the Proposed Rule Become Effective? Phase II existing facilities subject to today's proposed rule would need to comply with the Subpart J requirements when an NPDES permit containing requirements consistent with Subpart J is issued to the facility. See proposed § 125.92. Under existing NPDES program regulations, this would occur when an existing NPDES permit is reissued or, when an existing permit is modified or revoked and reissued. B. What Information Must I Submit to the Director When I Apply for My Reissued NPDES Permit? The NPDES regulations that establish the application process at 40 CFR 122.21( d)( 2) generally require that facilities currently holding a permit submit information and data 180 days prior to the end of the permit term, which is five years. If you are the owner or operator of a facility that is subject to this proposed rule, you would be required to submit the information that is required under 40 CFR 122.21( r)( 2), ( 3), and ( 5) and § 125.95 of today's proposed rule with your application for permit reissuance. This section provides a general discussion of the proposed application requirements for Phase II existing facilities at the outset and then goes into more detail in subsequent subsections. The Director would review the information you provide in your application including the information submitted in compliance with 40 CFR 122.21( r) and § 125.95 and would confirm whether your facility should be regulated as an existing facility under these proposed regulations or as a new facility under regulations that were published on December 19, 2001 ( 66 FR 65256) and establish the appropriate requirements to be applied to the cooling water intake structure( s). Today's proposed rule would modify regulations at 40 CFR 122.21( r) to require existing facilities to prepare and submit some of the same information required for new facilities. The proposed application requirements would require owners or operators of Phase II existing facilities to submit two general categories of information when they apply for a reissued NPDES permit. The general categories of information would include ( 1) Physical data to characterize the source waterbody in the vicinity where the cooling water intake structures are located ( 40 CFR 122.21( r)( 2)) and ( 2) data to characterize the design and operation of the cooling water intake structures ( 40 CFR 122.21( r)( 3)). Unlike the new facilities, however, Phase II existing facilities would not be required to submit the Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data required under 40 CFR 122.21( r)( 4)). Today's proposed rule would add a new requirement at 40 CFR 122.21( r)( 5) to require a facility to submit information describing the design and operating characteristics of its cooling water systems and how they relate to the cooling water intake structures at the facility. In addition, today's proposed rule would require all Phase II existing facilities to submit the information VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17174 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules required under § 125.95. In general, the proposed application requirements in § 125.95 require all Phase II existing facility applicants, except those that already use a closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling system, to submit a Comprehensive Demonstration Study ( § 125.95( b)). This study includes a proposal for information collection; source waterbody information; a characterization of impingement morality and entrainment; a proposal for technologies, operational measures, restoration measures and estimated efficacies; and a plan to conduct monitoring to demonstrate that the proposed technologies and measures achieve the performance levels that were estimated. The following describes the proposed application requirements in more detail. 1. Source Water Physical Data ( 40 CFR 122.21( r)( 1)( ii)) Under the proposed requirements at 40 CFR 122.21( r)( 1)( ii), Phase II existing facilities subject to this proposed rule would be required to provide the source water physical data specified at 40 CFR 122.21( r)( 2) in their application for a reissued permit. These data are needed to characterize the facility and evaluate the type of waterbody and species potentially affected by the cooling water intake structure. The Director would use this information to evaluate the appropriateness of the design and construction technologies proposed by the applicant. The applicant would be required to submit the following specific data: ( 1) A narrative description and scale drawings showing the physical configuration of all source waterbodies used by the facility, including areal dimensions, depths, salinity and temperature regimes, and other documentation; ( 2) an identification and characterization of the source waterbody's hydrological and geomorphological features, as well as the methods used to conduct any physical studies to determine the intake's zone of influence and the results of such studies; and ( 3) locational maps. 2. Cooling Water Intake Structure Data ( 40 CFR 122.21( r)( 1)( ii)) Under the proposed requirements at 40 CFR 122.21( r)( 1)( ii), Phase II existing facilities would be required to submit the cooling water intake structure data specified at 40 CFR 122.21( r)( 3) to characterize the cooling water intake structure and evaluate the potential for impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms. Information on the design of the intake structure and its location in the water column would allow the permit writer to evaluate which species or life stages would potentially be subject to impingement and entrainment. A diagram of the facility's water balance would be used to identify the proportion of intake water used for cooling, make­ up, and process water. The water balance diagram also provides a picture of the total flow in and out of the facility, allowing the permit writer to evaluate compliance with the performance standards. The applicant would be required to submit the following specific data: ( 1) A narrative description of the configuration of each of its cooling water intake structures and where they are located in the waterbody and in the water column; ( 2) latitude and longitude in degrees, minutes, and seconds for each of its cooling water intake structures; ( 3) a narrative description of the operation of each of your cooling water intake structures, including design intake flows, daily hours of operation, number of days of the year in operation, and seasonal operation schedules, if applicable; ( 4) a flow distribution and water balance diagram that includes all sources of water to the facility, recirculating flows, and discharges; and ( 5) engineering drawings of the cooling water intake structure. 3. Phase II Existing Facility Cooling Water System Description ( 40 CFR 122.21( r)( 1)( ii)) Under the proposed requirements at 40 CFR 122.22( r)( 1)( ii), Phase II existing facilities would be required to submit the cooling water system data specified at 40 CFR 122.21( r)( 5) to characterize the operation of cooling water systems and their relationship to the cooling water intake structures at the facility. Also proposed to be required is a description of the design intake flow that is attributed to each system and the number of days of the year in operation and any seasonal operation schedules, if applicable. This information would be used by the applicant and the Director in determining the appropriate standards that can be applied to the Phase II facility. Facilities that have closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling water systems will be determined to have met the performance standards in § 125.94 if all of their systems are closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling systems. These facilities are not required to submit a Comprehensive Demonstration Study. Additionally, if only a portion of the total design intake flow is water withdrawn for a closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling system, such facilities may use the reduction in impingement mortality and entrainment that is attributed to the reduction in flow in complying with the performance standards in § 125.94( b). 4. Comprehensive Demonstration Study ( § 125.95( b)) Proposed application requirements at § 125.95( b) would require all existing facilities except those deemed to have met the performance standard in § 125.94( b)( 1) ( reduced intake capacity to a level commensurate with the use of a closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling water system) to perform and submit to the Director the results of a Comprehensive Demonstration Study, including data and detailed analyses to demonstrate that you will meet applicable requirements in § 125.94. The proposed Comprehensive Demonstration Study has seven components. Proposal for Information Collection; Source Waterbody Flow Information; Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study; Design and Construction Technology Plan; Information to Support Proposed Restoration Measures; Information to Support Site­ specific Determination of Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact; and Verification Monitoring Plan. The information required under each of these components of the Comprehensive Demonstration Study may not be required to be submitted by all Phase II existing facilities. Required submittals for your facility would depend on the compliance option you have chosen. All Phase II existing facilities, except those deemed to have met the performance standard in § 125.94( b)( 1), would be required to submit a Proposal for Information Collection; a Source Waterbody Flow Information; an Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study; a Design and Construction Technology Plan; and a Verification Monitoring Plan. Only those Phase II existing facilities that propose to use restoration measures in whole or in part to meet the performance standards in § 125.94 would be required to submit the Information to Support Proposed Restoration Measures. Only those facilities who choose to demonstrate that a site­ specific standard is appropriate for their site would be required to submit Information to Support Site­ specific Determination of Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17175 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules a. Proposal for Information Collection Before performing the study you would be required to submit to the Director for review and approval, a proposal stating what information would be collected to support the study ( see § 125.96( b)( 1)). This proposal would provide: ( 1) A description of the proposed and/ or implemented technology( ies) and/ or supplemental restoration measures to be evaluated; ( 2) a list and description of any historical studies characterizing impingement and entrainment and/ or the physical and biological conditions in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structures and their relevance to this proposed study. If you propose to use existing data, you must demonstrate the extent to which the data are representative of current conditions and that the data were collected using appropriate quality assurance/ quality control procedures; ( 3) a summary of any past, ongoing, or voluntary consultations with appropriate Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife agencies that are relevant to this study and a copy of written comments received as a result of such consultation; and ( 4) a sampling plan for any new field studies you propose to conduct in order to ensure that you have sufficient data to develop a scientifically valid estimate of impingement and entrainment at your site. The sampling plan would document all methods and quality assurance/ quality control procedures for sampling and data analysis. The sampling and data analysis methods you propose must be appropriate for a quantitative survey and must take into account the methods used in other studies performed in the source waterbody. The sampling plan would include a description of the study area ( including the area of influence of the cooling water intake structure), and provide taxonomic identifications of the sampled or evaluated biological assemblages ( including all life stages of fish and shellfish). The proposed rule does not specify particular timing requirements for your information collection proposal, but does require review and approval of the proposal by the Director. In general, EPA expects that it would be submitted well in advance of the other permit application materials, so that if the Director determined that additional information was needed to support the application, the facility would have time to collect this information, including additional monitoring as appropriate. In some cases, however, where the facility intends to rely on existing data and there has been no change in conditions at the site since the last permit renewal, a long lead time might not be necessary. This would most likely be the case for subsequent permit renewals following the first renewal after the Phase II requirements go into effect. EPA requests comment on whether it should specify a particular time frame for submitting the information collection proposal, or alternatively, whether it should remove the requirement for approval by the Director. b. Source Waterbody Flow Information Under the proposed requirements at § 125.95( b)( 2)( i), Phase II existing facilities, except those deemed to meet the performance standard in § 125.94( b)( 1), with cooling water intake structures that withdraw cooling water from freshwater rivers or streams would be required to provide the mean annual flow of the waterbody and any supporting documentation and engineering calculations that allow a determination of whether they are withdrawing less than or greater than five ( 5) percent of the annual mean flow. This would provide information needed to determine which requirements ( § 125.94( b)( 2) or ( 3)) would apply to the facility. The documentation might include either publicly available flow data from a nearby U. S. Geological Survey ( USGS) gauging station or actual instream flow monitoring data collected by the facility. The waterbody flow should be compared with the total design flow of all cooling water intake structures at the regulated facility. Under the proposed requirements at § 125.95( b)( 2)( ii), Phase II existing facilities subject to the proposed rule with cooling water intake structures that withdraw cooling water from a lake or reservoir and that propose to increase the facility's design intake flow would be required to submit a narrative description of the waterbody thermal stratification and any supporting documentation and engineering calculations to show that the increased flow meets the requirement not to disrupt the natural thermal stratification or turnover pattern ( where present) of the source water except in cases where the disruption is determined to be beneficial to the management of fisheries for fish and shellfish by any fishery management agency( ies) ( § 125.94( b)( 4)( ii)). Typically, this natural thermal stratification would be defined by the thermocline, which may be affected to a certain extent by the withdrawal of cooler water and the discharge of heated water into the system. This information demonstrates to the permit writer that any increase in design intake flow is maintaining the thermal stratification or turnover pattern ( where present) of the source water except in cases where the disruption is determined to be beneficial to the management of fisheries for fish and shellfish by any fishery management agency( ies). c. Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study ( § 125.95( b)( 3)) The proposed regulations would require that you submit the results of an Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study in accordance with § 125.96( b)( 3). This characterization would include: ( 1) Taxonomic identifications of those species of fish and shellfish and their life stages that are in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure and are most susceptible to impingement and entrainment; ( 2) a characterization of these species of fish and shellfish and life stages, including a description of the abundance and temporal/ spatial characteristics in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure, based on the collection of a sufficient number of years of data to characterize annual, seasonal, and diel variations in impingement mortality and entrainment ( e. g., related to climate/ weather differences, spawning, feeding and water column migration); and ( 3) documentation of the current impingement mortality and entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish at the facility and an estimate of impingement mortality and entrainment under the calculation baseline. This documentation may include historical data that are representative of the current operation of the facility and of biological conditions at the site. Impingement mortality and entrainment samples to support the calculations required in § 125.95( b)( 4)( iii) and ( b)( 5)( ii) must be collected during periods of representative operational flows for the cooling water intake structure and the flows associated with the samples must be documented. In addition, this study must include an identification of species that are protected under Federal, State, or Tribal law ( including threatened or endangered species) that might be susceptible to impingement and entrainment by the cooling water intake structure( s). The Director might coordinate a review of your list of threatened, endangered, or other protected species with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, or other relevant agencies to ensure that potential VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17176 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules impacts to these species have been addressed. d. Design and Construction Technology Plan ( § 125.96( b)( 4)) If you choose to use existing and/ or proposed design and construction technologies or operational measures in whole or in part to meet the requirements of § 125.94, proposed § 125.95( b)( 4) would require that you develop and submit a Design and Construction Technology Plan with your application that demonstrates that your facility has selected and would implement the design and construction technologies necessary to reduce impingement mortality and/ or entrainment to the levels required. The Agency recognizes that selection of the specific technology or group of technologies for your site would depend on individual facility and waterbody conditions. Phase II existing facilities seeking to avoid entrainment reduction requirements because their capacity utilization rate is less than 15 percent, would also be required to calculate and submit the capacity utilization rate and supporting data and calculations. The data being requested include ( 1) the average annual net generation of the facility in ( Mwh) measured over a five year period ( if available) and representative of operating conditions and ( 2) the net capacity of the facility ( in MW). These data are needed to determine whether the facility has less than a 15 percent utilization rate and would only be required to reduce impingement mortality in accordance with § 125.94( b)( 1). In its application, a Phase II existing facility choosing to use design and construction technologies or operational measures to meet the requirements of § 125.94 would be required to describe the technology( ies) or operational measures they would implement at the facility to reduce impingement mortality and entrainment based on information that demonstrates the efficacy of the technologies for those species most susceptible. Examples of appropriate technologies would include, but are not limited to, wedgewire screens, fine mesh screens, fish handling and return systems, barrier nets, aquatic filter barrier systems, enlargement of the cooling water intake structure to reduce velocity. Examples of operational measures include, but are not limited to, seasonal shutdowns or reductions in flow, and continuous operations of screens, etc. Phase II existing facilities that are required to meet the proposed ranges to reduce impingement mortality by 80 to 95 percent and entrainment by 60 to 90 percent would be required to provide calculations estimating the reduction in impingement mortality and entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish that would be achieved through the use of existing and/ or proposed technologies or operational measures. In determining compliance with any requirements to reduce impingement mortality or entrainment, you must first determine the calculation baseline against which to assess the total reduction in impingement mortality and entrainment. The calculation baseline is defined § 125.93 as an estimate of impingement mortality and entrainment that would occur at your site assuming you had a shoreline cooling water intake structure with an intake capacity commensurate with a once­ through cooling water system and with no impingement and/ or entrainment reduction controls. Reductions in impingement mortality and entrainment from this calculation baseline as a result of any design and construction technologies already implemented at your facility would be added to the reductions expected to be achieved by any additional design and construction technologies that would be implemented in order to determine compliance with the performance standards. Facilities that recirculate a portion of their flow may take into account the reduction in impingement mortality and entrainment associated with the reduction in flow when determining the net reduction associated with existing technology and operational measures. This estimate must include a site­ specific evaluation of the suitability of the technology( ies) based on the species that are found at the site, and/ or operational measures and may be determined based on representative studies ( i. e., studies that have been conducted at cooling water intake structures located in the same waterbody type with similar biological characteristics) and/ or site­ specific technology prototype studies. If your facility already has some existing impingement mortality and entrainment controls, you would need to estimate the calculation baseline. This calculation baseline could be estimated by evaluating existing data from a facility nearby without impingement and/ or entrainment control technology ( if relevant) or by evaluating the abundance of organisms in the source waterbody in the vicinity of the intake structure that may be susceptible to impingement and/ or entrainment. The proposed rule would specifically require that the following information be submitted in the Design and Construction Technology Plan: ( 1) A narrative description of the design and operation of all design and construction technologies existing or proposed to reduce impingement mortality; ( 2) a narrative description of the design and operation of all design and construction technologies existing or proposed to reduce entrainment; ( 3) calculations of the reduction in impingement mortality and entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish that would be achieved by the technologies and operational measures you have selected based on the Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study in § 125.95( b)( 3); ( 4) documentation which demonstrates that you have selected the location, design, construction, and capacity of the cooling water intake structure that reflects the best technology available for meeting the applicable requirements in § 125.94; and ( 5) design calculations, drawings, and estimates to support the narrative descriptions required by steps ( 1) and ( 2) above. Today's proposed rule allows for the Director to evaluate, with information submitted in your application, the performance of any technologies you may have implemented in previous permit terms. Additional or different design and construction technologies may be required if the Director determines that the initial technologies you selected and implemented would not meet the requirements of § 125.94. e. Information To Support Proposed Restoration Measures ( § 125.94( b)( 5)) Under proposed § 125.94( d), Phase II existing facilities subject to the proposed rule may propose to implement restoration measures in lieu of or in combination with design and construction or operational measures to meet the performance standards in § 125.94( b) or site­ specific requirements imposed under § 125.94( c). Facilities proposing to use restoration measures would be required to submit the following information to the Director for review as proposed in § 125.95( b)( 5). The Director must approve any use of restoration measures. First, the Phase II existing facility must submit a list and narrative description of the restoration measures the facility has selected and proposes to implement. This list and description should identify the species and other aquatic resources targeted under any restoration measures. The facility also must submit a summary of any past, ongoing, or voluntary consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife agencies regarding the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17177 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules proposed restoration measures that is relevant to the Comprehensive Demonstration Study and a copy of any written comments received as a result of such consultation. Second, the facility must submit a quantification of the combined benefits from implementing design and construction technologies, operational measures and/ or restoration measures and the proportion of the benefits that can be attributed to each. This quantification must include: ( 1) The percent reduction in impingement mortality and entrainment that would be achieved through the use of any design and construction technologies or operational measures that the facility has selected ( i. e., the benefits that would be achieved through impingement and entrainment reduction); ( 2) a demonstration of the benefits that could be attributed to the restoration measures selected; and ( 3) a demonstration that the combined benefits of the design and construction technology( ies), operational measures, and/ or restoration measures would maintain fish and shellfish at a level comparable to that which you would achieve were you to implement the requirements of § 125.94. They also must establish that biotic community structure and function would be maintained to a level comparable or substantially similar to that which would be achieved through § 125.94 ( b) or ( c). If it is not possible to demonstrate quantitatively that restoration measures such as creation of new habitats to serve as spawning or nursery areas or establishment of riparian buffers would achieve comparable performance, a facility may make a qualitative demonstration that such measures would maintain fish and shellfish in the waterbody at a level substantially similar to that which would be achieved under § 125.94. Any qualitative demonstration must be sufficiently substantive to support a demonstration under § 125.94( d). Third, the facility must submit a plan for implementing and maintaining the efficacy of the restoration measures it has selected as well as supporting documentation to show that the restoration measures, or the restoration measures in combination with design and construction technology( ies) and operational measures, would maintain the fish and shellfish in the waterbody, including the community structure and function, to a level comparable or substantially similar to that which would be achieved through § 125.94( b) and ( c). This plan should be sufficient to ensure that any beneficial effects would continue for at least the term of the permit. Finally, the facility must provide design and engineering calculations, drawings, and maps documenting that the proposed restoration measures would meet the restoration performance standard at § 125.94( d). The proposed regulations at § 125.98( b)( 1)( ii) would require that this information be reviewed by the Director to determine whether the documentation demonstrates that the proposed restoration measures, in conjunction with design and construction technologies and operational measures would maintain the fish and shellfish in the waterbody to a level substantially similar to that which would be achieved under § 125.94. f. Information To Support Site­ Specific Determination of Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact Under the third compliance option, the owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility may demonstrate to the Director that a site­ specific determination of best technology available is appropriate for the cooling water intake structures at that facility if the owner or operator can meet one of the two cost tests specified under § 125.94( c)( 1). To be eligible to pursue this approach, the Phase II existing facility must first demonstrate to the Director either ( 1) that its cost of compliance with the applicable performance standards specified in § 125.94( b) would be significantly greater than the costs considered by the Administrator in establishing such performance standards, or ( 2) that the existing facility's costs would be significantly greater than benefits of complying with the performance standards at the facility's site. A discussion of applying this cost test is provided in Section VI. A of this proposed rule. Where a Phase II existing facility demonstrates that it meets either of these cost tests, the Director must make a site­ specific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. This determination would be based on less costly design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures proposed by the facility and approved by the Director. The Director can approve less costly technologies to the extent justified by the significantly greater cost, and could determine that technologies and measures in addition to those already in place are not justified because of the significantly greater cost. A Phase II existing facility that meets one of the two cost tests described above must select less costly design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures that would minimize adverse environmental impact to the extent justified by the significantly greater cost. In order to do this, Phase II existing facilities that pursue this option would have to assess the nature and degree of adverse environmental impact associated with their cooling water intake structures, and then identify the best technology available to minimize such impact. Phase II existing facilities would assess adverse environmental impact associated with their cooling water intake structures in the Comprehensive Demonstration Study that would be required to be submitted to the Director under § 125.95( b). This study would include source waterbody flow information, and a characterization of impingement mortality and entrainment, as described in this section of this preamble. Such facilities also must submit to the Director for approval a Site­ Specific Technology Plan. This plan would be based on the Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study and, for those facilities seeking a site­ specific determination of best technology available based on costs significantly greater than benefits, a valuation of monetized benefits ( see Section VI. A). It would describe the design and operation of all design and construction technologies, operational measures, and restoration measures selected, and provide information that demonstrates the effectiveness of the selected technologies or measures for reducing the impacts on the species of concern. Existing facilities would be required to submit design calculations, drawings, and estimates to support these descriptions. This plan also would need to include engineering estimates of the effectiveness of the technologies or measures for reducing impingement mortality and entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish. It also would need to include a site­ specific evaluation of the suitability of the technologies or measures for reducing impingement mortality and entrainment based on representative studies and/ or site­ specific technology prototype studies. Again, design calculations, drawings and estimates would be required to support such estimates. If a Phase II existing facility intends to use restoration measures in its site­ specific approach, it also must submit the information required under VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17178 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 70 If the answer is no to these flow parameters and yes to all the other questions, the Director would use best professional judgment on a case­ by­ case basis to establish permit conditions that ensure compliance with section 316( b). § 125.95( b)( 5). See preamble Section VII. B. 4. e. Finally, the Site­ Specific Technology Plan would have to include documentation that the technologies, operational measures or restoration measures selected would reduce impingement mortality and entrainment to the extent necessary to satisfy the requirements of § 125.94 ( i. e., the level of performance would be reduced only to the extent justified by the significantly greater cost). g. Verification Monitoring Plan Finally, proposed § 125.95( b)( 7) would require all Phase II existing facilities, except those deemed to meet the performance standard in § 125.94( b)( 1), to submit a Verification Monitoring Plan to measure the efficacy of the implemented design and construction technologies, operational measures, and restoration measures. The plan would include a monitoring study lasting at least two years to verify the full­ scale performance of the proposed or already implemented technologies and of any additional operational and restoration measures. The plan would be required to describe the frequency of monitoring and the parameters to be monitored and the bases for determining these. The Director would use the verification monitoring to confirm that the facility is meeting the level of impingement mortality and entrainment reduction expected and that fish and shellfish are being maintained at the level expected ( as required in § 125.94( b)). Verification monitoring would be required to begin once the technologies, operational measures, or supplemental restoration measures are implemented and continue for a sufficient period of time ( but at least two years) to demonstrate that the facility is reducing impingement mortality and entrainment to the level of reduction required at § 125.94( b) or ( c). C. How Would the Director Determine the Appropriate Cooling Water Intake Structure Requirements? The Director's first step would be to determine whether the facility is covered by this rule. If the answer to all the following questions is yes, the facility would be required to comply with the requirements of this proposed rule. ( 1) Does the facility both generate and transmit electric power or generate electric power but sell it to another entity for transmission? ( 2) Is the facility an `` existing facility'' as defined in § 125.93? ( 3) Does the facility withdraw cooling water from waters of the U. S.; or does the facility obtain cooling water by any sort of contract or arrangement with an independent ( supplier or multiple suppliers) of cooling water if the supplier( s) withdraw( s) water from waters of the U. S. and is not a public water system? ( 4) Is at least 25 percent of the water withdrawn by the facility used for cooling purposes? ( 5) Does the facility have a design intake flow of 50 million gallons or more per day ( MGD)? 70 ( 6) Does the facility discharge pollutants to waters of the U. S., including storm water­ only discharges, such that the facility has or is required to have an NPDES permit? The Director's second step would be to determine whether the facility proposes to comply by demonstrating that its existing design and construction technologies, operational measures, or restoration measures meet the proposed performance standards ( Option 1); by implementing design and construction technologies, operational measures, or restoration measures that, in combination with existing technologies and operational measures, meet the proposed performance standards ( Option 2); or by seeking a site­ specific determination of best technology available to minimize adverse environmental impact ( Option 3) ( see, § 125.98( 1)). The Director also would need to determine whether the facility's utilization rate is less than 15 percent, since such facilities are only subject to impingement mortality performance requirements. Where a Phase II existing facility selects Option 1 and chooses to demonstrate that its existing design and construction technologies, operational measures, or restoration measures meet the proposed performance standards, the Director would verify either that the existing facility satisfies the reduced intake capacity requirement, or that the facility meets the impingement and entrainment reduction and other requirements. Facilities that have closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling water systems would meet the reduced intake capacity requirement, and would not be subject to further performance standards. Other methods of reducing intake capacity also could be used but would need to be commensurate with the level that can be attained by a closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling water system. Under Option 1, to verify that existing controls meet the impingement and entrainment reduction requirements in the proposed rule, the Director would need to ( 1) verify the facility's baseline calculation; ( 2) confirm the location of the facility's cooling water intake structure( s); ( 3) verify the withdrawal percentage of mean annual flow; ( 4) review impingement and/ or entrainment rates or estimates; and ( 5) consider any use of restoration. These same steps also would be part of determining requirements under Options 2 and 3, as discussed below. The Director would initially review and verify the calculation baseline estimate submitted by the facility under § 125.95( b)( iii). This estimate must be consistent with the proposed definition of the term `` calculation baseline'' and must be representative of current biological conditions at the facility. The Director would then review the information that the facility provides to validate the source waterbody type in which the cooling water intake structure is located ( freshwater river or stream; lake or reservoir; or estuary, tidal river, ocean, or Great Lake). The Director would review the supporting material the applicant provided in the permit application to document the physical placement of the cooling water intake structure. For existing facilities with one or more cooling water intake structures located in a freshwater river or stream, the Director would need to determine whether the facility withdraws more or less than five percent of the mean annual flow, which determines whether impingement, or impingement and entrainment controls would apply. For facilities with cooling water intake structures located on lakes or reservoirs other than a Great Lake for which the facility seeks to increase the design flow, the Director would need to determine whether the increased intake flow would disrupt the natural thermal stratification or turnover pattern of the source waterbody. In making this determination the Director would need to consider anthropogenic factors that can influence the occurrence and location of a thermocline, and would need to coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, or Tribal fish and wildlife agencies to determine if the disruption is beneficial to the management of the fisheries. Both of these determinations would be based on the source waterbody flow information required under proposed § 125.95( b)( 2). For Phase II existing facilities that use or propose to implement restoration measures to meet the requirements of § 125.94( b), the Director would review the evaluation of any current or proposed restoration measures submitted under proposed VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17179 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules § 125.95( b)( 5). The Director could gather additional information and solicit input for the review from appropriate fishery management agencies as necessary. The Director would need to determine whether the current or proposed measures would maintain the fish and shellfish in the waterbody at comparable levels to those that would be achieved under § 125.94, as well as review and approve the proposed Verification and Monitoring Plan to ensure the restoration measures meet § 125.94( d) and 125.95( b)( 3). Finally, the Director would review impingement and/ or entrainment data or estimates to determine whether inplace or identified controls achieve the performance standards proposed for the different categories of source waterbodies. This step would involve comparing the calculation baseline with the impingement and/ or entrainment data or estimates provided as part of the Comprehensive Demonstration Study required under § 125.95( b) and the Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study required under § 125.95( b)( 3). It may also entail considering whether, how, and to what extent restoration would allow the facility to meet applicable performance standards. If the Director determines that the Comprehensive Demonstration Study submitted does not demonstrate that the technologies, operational measures, and supplemental restoration measures employed would achieve compliance with the applicable performance standards, the Director may issue a permit requiring such compliance. If such studies are approved and a permit is issued but the Director later determines, based on the results of subsequent monitoring, that the technologies, operational measures, and supplemental restoration measures did not meet the rule standards, the Director could require the existing facility to implement additional technologies and operational measures as necessary to meet the rule requirements. In general, this would occur at the next renewal of the permit. The Director would also review the facility's Technology Verification Plan for post­ operational monitoring to demonstrate that the technologies are performing as predicted. Under compliance Option 2, the same general steps would be followed as described above for assessing compliance of existing controls with applicable performance standards except that under this option the Phase II existing facility would be demonstrating that the technologies and measures identified would meet ( rather than currently meet) the applicable performance standards. This review would also be based on data submitted in the Comprehensive Demonstration Study required under § 125.95( b). These same basic steps also apply to facilities seeking to comply under Option 3, however, the Director must make two additional determinations under this option, including whether the facility meets one of the applicable cost tests and whether any alternative requirements are justified by significantly greater costs. Under Option 3, a Director must first determine whether a Phase II existing facility satisfies either of the cost tests proposed at § 125.94( c). Phase II existing facilities seeking to comply under this option are required to submit a Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study under § 125.95( b)( 6), which includes data that document the cost of implementing design and construction technologies or operational measures to meet the requirements of § 125.94, as well as the costs of alternative technologies or operational measures proposed. The Director would need to review these data, including detailed engineering cost estimates, and compare these with the costs the Agency considered in establishing these requirements. Where the Director finds that the facility's cost of implementation are significantly greater than those considered during rule development, he or she must approve site­ specific requirements and could approve alternative technologies or operational measures. Such alternative technologies or operational measures could be those proposed by the facility in the Site­ Specific Technology Plan, but less protective requirements would have to be justified by the significantly greater costs. Where a Phase II existing facility seeks site­ specific requirements based on facility costs that are significantly greater than the environmental benefits of compliance, the facility must submit a Valuation of Monetized Benefits of Reducing Impingement and Entrainment. The Director must review this valuation to determine whether it fully values the impacts of the cooling water intake structures at issue, as required in § 125.95( b)( 6)( ii), and whether the facility's cost of implementation are significantly greater than the environmental benefits of complying with the requirements of § 125.94. If the Director determines that the implementation costs are significantly greater than the environmental benefits, the Director must approve site­ specific requirements and could approve alternative technologies or operational measures. Such alternative technologies or operational measures could be those proposed by the facility in the Site­ Specific Technology Plan, but less protective requirements would have to be justified by the significantly greater costs. EPA is interested in ways to decrease application review time and make this process both efficient and effective. D. What Would I Be Required To Monitor? Proposed § 125.96 provides that Phase II existing facilities would have to perform monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of § 125.94 as prescribed by the Director. In establishing such monitoring requirements, the Director should consider the need for biological monitoring data, including impingement and entrainment sampling data sufficient to assess the presence, abundance, life stages, and mortality ( including eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults) of aquatic organisms ( fish and shellfish) impinged or entrained during operation of the cooling water intake structure. These data could be used by the Director in developing permit conditions to determine whether requirements, or additional requirements, for design and construction technologies or operational measures should be included in the permit. The Director should ensure, where appropriate, that any required sampling would allow for the detection of any annual, seasonal, and diel variations in the species and numbers of individuals that are impinged or entrained. The Director should also consider if a reduced frequency in biological monitoring may be justified over time if the supporting data show that the technologies are consistently performing as projected under all operating and environmental conditions and less frequent monitoring would still allow for the detection of any future performance fluctuations. The Director should further consider whether weekly visual or remote or similar inspections should be required to ensure that any technologies that have been implemented to reduce impingement mortality or entrainment are being maintained and operated in a manner that ensures that they function as designed. Monitoring requirements could be imposed on Phase II existing facilities that have been deemed to meet the performance standard in § 125.94( b)( 1) to the extent consistent with the provisions of the NPDES program. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17180 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules E. How Would Compliance Be Determined? This proposed rule would be implemented by the Director placing conditions consistent with this proposed rule in NPDES permits. To demonstrate compliance, the proposed rule would require that the following information be submitted to the Director: Data submitted with the NPDES permit application to show that the facility is in compliance with location, design, construction, and capacity requirements; Compliance monitoring data and records as prescribed by the Director. Proposed § 125.97 would require existing facilities to keep records and report compliance monitoring data in a yearly status report. In addition, Directors may perform their own compliance inspections as deemed appropriate ( see CFR 122.41). F. What Are the Respective Federal, State, and Tribal Roles? Section 316( b) requirements are implemented through NPDES permits. Today's proposed regulations would amend 40 CFR 123.25( a)( 36) to add a requirement that authorized State and Tribal programs have sufficient legal authority to implement today's requirements ( 40 CFR part 125, subpart J). Therefore, today's proposed rule would affect authorized State and Tribal NPDES permit programs. Under 40 CFR 123.62( e), any existing approved section 402 permitting program must be revised to be consistent with new program requirements within one year from the date of promulgation, unless the NPDES­ authorized State or Tribe must amend or enact a statute to make the required revisions. If a State or Tribe must amend or enact a statute to conform with today's proposed rule, the revision must be made within two years of promulgation. States and Tribes seeking new EPA authorization to implement the NPDES program must comply with the requirements when authorization is requested. EPA recognizes that some States have invested considerable effort in developing section 316( b) regulations and implementing programs. EPA is proposing regulations that would allow States to continue to use these programs by including in this national rule a provision that allows States to use their existing program if the State establishes that such programs would achieve comparable environmental performance. Specifically, the proposed rule would allow any State to demonstrate to the Administrator that it has adopted alternative regulatory requirements that would result in environmental performance within each relevant watershed that is comparable to the reductions in impingement mortality and entrainment that would be achieved under § 125.94. EPA invites comment on such `` functionally equivalent'' programs. In particular, EPA invites comment on the proposed alternative and on decision criteria EPA should consider in determining whether a State program is functionally equivalent. If EPA adopts such an approach, the Agency would also need to specify the process through which an existing State program is evaluated and whether such process can occur under the existing State program regulations or whether additional regulations to provide the evaluation criteria are needed. Finally, EPA invites comment on the role of restoration and habitat enhancement projects as part of any `` functionally equivalent'' State programs. In addition to updating their programs to be consistent with today's proposed rule, States and Tribes authorized to implement the NPDES program would be required to implement the cooling water intake structure requirements following promulgation of the proposed regulations. The requirements would have to be implemented upon the issuance or reissuance of permits containing the requirements of proposed subpart J. Duties of an authorized State or Tribe under this regulation may include Review and verification of permit application materials, including a permit applicant's determination of source waterbody classification and the flow or volume of certain waterbodies at the point of the intake; Determination of the standards in § 125.94 that apply to the facility; Verification of a permit applicant's determination of whether it meets or exceeds the applicable performance standards; Verification that a permit applicant's Design and Construction Technology Plan demonstrates that the proposed alternative technologies would reduce the impacts to fish and shellfish to levels required; Verification that a permit applicant meets the cost test and that permit conditions developed on a site­ specific basis are justified based on documented costs, and, if applicable, benefits; Verification that a permit applicant's proposed restoration measures would meet regulatory standards; Development of draft and final NPDES permit conditions for the applicant implementing applicable section 316( b) requirements pursuant to this rule; and Ensuring compliance with permit conditions based on section 316( b) requirements. EPA would implement these requirements where States or Tribes are not authorized to implement the NPDES program. EPA also would implement these requirements where States or Tribes are authorized to implement the NPDES program but do not have sufficient authority to implement these requirements. G. Are Permits for Existing Facilities Subject to Requirements Under Other Federal Statutes? EPA's NPDES permitting regulations at 40 CFR 122.49 contain a list of Federal laws that might apply to federally issued NPDES permits. These include the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U. S. C. 1273 et seq.; the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U. S. C. 470 et seq.; the Endangered Species Act, 16 U. S. C. 1531 et seq.; the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U. S. C. 1451 et seq.; and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U. S. C. 4321 et seq. See 40 CFR 122.49 for a brief description of each of these laws. In addition, the provisions of the Magnuson­ Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U. S. C. 1801 et seq., relating to essential fish habitat might be relevant. Nothing in this proposed rulemaking would authorize activities that are not in compliance with these or other applicable Federal laws. H. Alternative Site­ Specific Requirements Today's proposed rule would establish national requirements for Phase II existing facilities. EPA has taken into account all the information that it was able to collect, develop, and solicit regarding the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at these existing facilities. EPA concludes that these proposed requirements would reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact on a national level. In some cases, however, data that could affect the economic practicability of requirements might not have been available to be considered by EPA during the development of today's proposed rule. Therefore, where a facility's cost would be significantly greater than the cost considered by EPA in establishing the applicable performance standards, proposed § 125.94( c)( 2) would require the Director VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17181 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 71 For a more detailed description of IPM 2000 see the EBA document. 72 The IPM model simulates electricity market function for a period of 25 years. Model output is provided for five user specified model run years. EPA selected three run years to provide output across the ten year compliance period for the rule. Analyses of regulatory options are based on output for model run years which reflect a scenario in which all facilities are operating in their postcompliance condition. Options requiring the installation of cooling towers are analyzed using output from model run year 2013. All other options are analyzed using output from model run years 2008. See the EBA document for a detailed discussion of IPM 2000 model run years. to make a site­ specific determination of the best technology available based on less costly design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures. Less costly technologies or measures would be allowable to the extent justified by the significantly greater cost. Similarly, § 125.94( c)( 3) provides that where an existing facility's cost would be significantly greater than the benefits of complying with the applicable performance standards, the Director must make a site­ specific determination of the best technology available based on less costly technologies or measures. These provisions would allow the Director, in the permit development process, to set alternative best technology available requirements that are less stringent than the nationally applicable requirements. Under proposed § 125.94( c), alternative requirements would not be granted based on a particular facility's ability to pay for technologies that would result in compliance with the requirements of proposed § 125.94. Thus, so long as the costs of compliance are not significantly greater than the costs EPA considered and determined to be economically practicable, and are not significantly greater than the benefits of compliance with the proposed performance standards, the ability of an individual facility to pay in order to attain compliance with the rule would not support the imposition of alternative requirements. Conversely, if the costs of compliance for a particular facility are significantly higher than those considered by EPA in establishing the presumptive performance standards, then regardless of the facility's ability to afford the significantly higher costs, the Director should make a site­ specific determination of best technology available based on less costly technologies and measures to the extent justified by the significantly higher costs. The burden is on the person requesting the site­ specific alternative requirement to demonstrate that alternative requirements should be imposed and that the appropriate requirements of proposed § 125.94 have been met. The person requesting the site­ specific alternative requirements should refer to all relevant information, including the support documents for this proposed rulemaking, all associated data collected for use in developing each requirement, and other relevant information that is kept on public file by EPA. VIII. Economic Analysis EPA used an electricity market model, the Integrated Planning Model 2000 ( IPM 2000), to identify potential economic and operational impacts of various regulatory options considered for proposal. Analyzed characteristics include changes in capacity, generation, revenue, cost of generation, and electricity prices. These changes are identified by comparing two scenarios: ( 1) The base case scenario ( in the absence of Section 316( b) regulation); and ( 2) the post compliance scenario ( after the implementation of Section 316( b) regulation). The results of these comparisons were used to assess the impacts of the proposed rule and two of the five alternative regulatory options considered by EPA. The following sections present EPA's economic analyses of the proposed rule and the alternative options. A. Proposed Rule Today's proposed rule would provide three compliance options for Phase II existing facilities. Such facilities could: ( 1) Demonstrate that their existing cooling water intake structure design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures meet the proposed performance standards; ( 2) implement design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures that meet the proposed performance standards; or ( 3) where the facility can demonstrate that its costs of complying with the proposed performance standards are significantly greater than either the costs EPA considered in establishing these requirements or the benefits of meeting the performance standards, seek a sitespecific determination of best technology available to minimize adverse environmental impact. The applicable performance standards are described in Section VI. A., above. Section VIII. A. 1 below presents the analysis of national costs associated with the proposed section 316( b) Phase II Rule. Section VIII. A. 2 presents a discussion of the impact analysis of the proposed rule at the market level and for facilities subject to this rule. 1. Costs EPA estimates that facilities subject to this proposed rule will incur annualized post­ tax compliance costs of approximately $ 178 million. These costs include one­ time technology costs of complying with the rule, annual operating and maintenance costs, and permitting costs ( including initial permit costs, annual monitoring costs, and repermitting costs). This cost estimate does not include the costs of administering the rule by permitting authorities and the federal government. Also excluded are compliance costs for 11 facilities that are projected to be baseline closures ( see discussion below). Including compliance costs for projected baseline closure facilities would result in a total annualized compliance cost of approximately $ 182 million. 2. Economic Impacts EPA used an electricity market model to account for the dynamic nature of the electricity market when analyzing the potential economic impacts of Section 316( b) regulation. The IPM 2000 is a long­ term general equilibrium model of the domestic electric power market which simulates the least­ cost dispatch solution for all generation assets in the market given a suite of user­ specified constraints. 71 The impacts of compliance with a given regulatory option are defined as the difference between the model output for the base case scenario and the model output for the post­ compliance scenario. 72 Due to the lead time required in running an integrated electricity market model, EPA first completed an electricity market model analysis of two options with costs higher than those in today's proposed option: the `` Closed­ Cycle, Recirculating Wet Cooling based on Waterbody type and Intake Capacity'' Option ( waterbody/ capacity­ based option) and the `` Closed­ Cycle, Recirculating Wet Cooling Everywhere'' Option ( all cooling towers option). Both of the analyzed options are more stringent in aggregate than the proposed rule and provide a ceiling on its potential economic impacts. Because of limited time after final definition of the rule as proposed herein, EPA was unable to rerun the IPM model with an analytic option that completely matches the proposed rule's specifications. As a result, EPA adopted a two­ step approach for the aggregate impact analysis. First, EPA identified that for certain regional electricity markets that VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17182 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 73 While the compliance requirements are identical under the proposed rule and the alternative waterbody/ capacity­ based option, permitting costs associated with the proposed rule are higher than those for the alternative option analyzed using the IPM 2000. The cost differential averages approximately 30 percent of total compliance costs associated with the alternative option. Despite the higher permitting costs, EPA concludes that the results of the alternative analysis are representative of impacts that could be expected under the proposed rule. 74 ECAR ( East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement) includes the states of Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia, and portions of Michigan, Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. MAIN ( Mid­ America Interconnected Network, Inc.) includes the state of Illinois and portions of Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota and Michigan. MAPP ( Mid­ Continent Area Power Pool) includes the states of Nebraska and North Dakota, and portions of Iowa, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Montana and Minnesota. SPP ( Southwest Power Pool) includes the states of Kansas and Oklahoma, and portions of Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and New Mexico. 75 The market level results include results for all units located in each of the four NERC regions including facilities both in scope and out of scope of the alternative waterbody/ capacity­ based option. do not have any facilities costed with a closed­ cycle recirculating cooling water system, the waterbody/ capacity­ based option, as analyzed, matches the technology compliance requirements of the proposed rule. 73 These are the North American Electric Reliability Council ( NERC) regions that do not border oceans and estuaries: ECAR, MAIN, MAPP, SPP. 74 Accordingly, EPA was able to interpret the results of the IPM analysis for the waterbody/ capacitybased option for these four NERC regions as representative of the proposed rule in these regions. As shown below, EPA found very small or no impacts in these NERC regions. Second, EPA identified and compared data relevant to determination of rule impacts for these four NERC regions and the remaining NERC regions for which the IPM analysis would not be indicative of the proposed rule. Finding no material differences in these underlying characteristics between the two groups of NERC regions, EPA concluded that the finding of no significant impacts from the IPM­ based analysis of the four NERC regions identified above, could also be extended to the remaining six NERC regions. Therefore, EPA believes that the proposed option, which would apply the same requirements ( e. g., based on technologies such as fine mesh screens, filter fabric barrier nets, or fish return systems) to facilities in all NERC regions, would, in total, have very small or no impacts. The remainder of this section presents an assessment of the impacts of the proposed rule using the market and Phase II existing facilitylevel results from the IPM 2000 analysis of the alternative waterbody/ capacitybased option for these four NERC regions. A more detailed analysis of all NERC regions under the alternative waterbody/ capacity­ based option is presented in Section VIII. B. 2 below. i. Market Level Impacts This section presents the results of the IPM 2000 analysis for the four NERC regions with no cooling tower requirements under the alternative waterbody/ capacity­ based option: ECAR, MAIN, MAPP, and SPP. 75 As indicated above, the compliance requirements of this analyzed option are identical to those of the proposed rule for these four regions. Given the similarity in compliance requirements and the limited electricity exchanges between NERC regions modeled in IPM 2000, EPA concludes that the impacts modeled for the alternative waterbody/ capacity­ based option would be representative of potential impacts associated with the proposed rule for each of these regions. Five measures developed from the IPM 2000 output are used to assess market level impacts associated with Section 316( b) regulation: ( 1) Total capacity, defined as the total available capacity of all facilities not identified as either baseline closures or economic closures resulting from the regulatory option; ( 2) new capacity, defined as total capacity additions from new facilities; ( 3) total generation, calculated as the sum of generation from all facilities not identified as baseline closures or economic closures resulting from the regulatory option; ( 4) production costs per MWh of generation, calculated as the sum of total fuel and variable O& M costs divided by total generation; and ( 5) energy prices, defined as the prices received by facilities for the sale of electricity. Exhibit 6 presents the base case and post compliance results for each of these economic measures. EXHIBIT 6. MARKET­ LEVEL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE [ Four Nerc Regions; 2008] NERC region Base case Option 1 Difference % Change ( ECAR) Total Capacity ( MW) ........................................................................................ 118,390 118,570 180 0.2 New Capacity ( MW) ......................................................................................... 8,310 8,490 180 2.2 Total Generation ( GWh) .................................................................................. 649,140 649,140 0 0.0 Production Costs ($ 2001/ MWh) ....................................................................... $ 12.53 $ 12.53 $ 0.00 0.0 Energy Prices ($ 2001/ MWh) ............................................................................ $ 22.58 $ 22.56 ($ 0.02) ¥ 0.1 ( MAIN) Total Capacity ( MW) ........................................................................................ 60,230 60,210 ¥ 20 0.0 New Capacity ( MW) ......................................................................................... 6,540 6,530 ¥ 10 ¥ 0.2 Total Generation ( GWh) .................................................................................. 284,920 284,860 ¥ 60 0.0 Production Costs ($ 2001/ MWh) ....................................................................... $ 12.29 $ 12.29 $ 0.00 0.0 Energy Prices ($ 2001/ MWh) ............................................................................ $ 22.54 $ 22.55 $ 0.01 0.0 ( MAPP) Total Capacity ( MW) ........................................................................................ 35,470 35,470 0 0.0 New Capacity ( MW) ......................................................................................... 2,760 2,760 0 0.0 Total Generation ( GWh) .................................................................................. 179,110 179,170 60 0.0 Production Costs ($ 2001/ MWh) ....................................................................... $ 11.67 $ 11.68 $ 0.01 0.0 Energy Prices ($ 2001/ MWh) ............................................................................ $ 22.25 $ 22.20 ($ 0.05) ¥ 0.2 ( SPP) Total Capacity ( MW) ........................................................................................ 49,110 49,110 0 0.0 New Capacity ( MW) ......................................................................................... 160 160 0 0.0 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17183 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 76 In addition to the five impact measures presented in Exhibit 6, EPA utilized IPM 2000 to identify changes in other economic and operational characterisitcs, including revenues, average fuel costs, changes in repowering, and the number and capacity of facilities identfiied as economic closures. The IPM results showed no economic closures and no changes in repowering associated with compliance with the alternative waterbody/ capacity­ based option in any of the four NERC regions presented in Exhibit 6. For a detailed discussion of the results of the IPM 2000 analysis of the alternative waterbody/ capacity based option see section VIII. B. 2 and the EBA document. 77 The six other NERC regions are: Electric Reliability Council of Texas ( ERCOT), Florida Reliability Coordinating Council ( FRCC), Mid Atlantic Area Council ( MAAC), Northeast Power Coordination Council ( NPCC), Southeastern Electricity Reliability Council ( SERC), and Western Systems Coordinating Council ( WSCC). 78 The comparison presented in Exhibit 7 includes information for facilities modeled in IPM 2000 only. Of the 539 existing facilities subject to the section 316( b) Phase II rule, nine are not modeled in the IPM 2000: Three facilities are in Hawaii, and one is in Alaska. Neither state is represented in the IPM 2000. One facility is identified as an `` Unspecified Resource'' and does not report on any EIA forms. Four facilities are onsite facilities that do not provide electricity to the grid. The 530 existing facilities were weighted to account for facilities not sampled and facilities that did not respond to the EAP's industry survey and thus represent a total of 540 facilities industrywide EXHIBIT 6. MARKET­ LEVEL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE Continued [ Four Nerc Regions; 2008] NERC region Base case Option 1 Difference % Change Total Generation ( GWh) .................................................................................. 217,670 217,750 80 0.0 Production Costs ($ 2001/ MWh) ....................................................................... $ 14.43 $ 14.43 $ 0.00 0.0 Energy Prices ($ 2001/ MWh) ............................................................................ $ 25.00 $ 24.99 ($ 0.01) 0.0% The results presented in Exhibit 6 reveal no significant changes in any of the economic measures used to assess the impacts of the alternative waterbody/ capacity­ based option in any of the four NERC regions. 76 One region, SPP, experienced no change of any consequence to any of the five impact measures as a result of the alternative option. Post compliance changes in total capacity and new capacity were experienced in both ECAR and MAIN. Each of these measures decreased by insignificant amounts in MAIN while ECAR experienced a slight increase of 0.2 percent in total capacity and a slightly larger increase of 2.2 percent in new capacity additions. While the slight increases in total and new capacity seen in ECAR did not result in changes in either generation or production costs, energy prices did decrease slightly. Energy prices also decreased slightly in MAPP despite no appreciable difference in any other measure for that region. Based on these results, EPA concludes that there are no significant impacts associated with the proposed section 316( b) Phase II Rule in these regions. While the waterbody/ capacity­ based option, as analyzed in IPM, matches the technology specifications of the proposed rule for the four regions discussed above, this is not the case for the other six NERC regions: ERCOT, FRCC, MAAC, NPCC, SERC, and WSCC. 77 Under the waterbody/ capacitybased option, as analyzed, some facilities in these regions were analyzed with more stringent and costly compliance requirements, including recirculating wet cooling towers, than would required by the proposed rule. As a result, the IPM waterbody/ capacitybased option overstates the expected rule impacts in these remaining six regions. To provide an alternative approach to estimating the rule's impacts in these regions, EPA compared characteristics relevant to the determination of rule impacts for the four NERC regions explicitly analyzed in the IPM analysis and the six NERC regions for which the IPM analysis otherwise overstates impacts. EPA found no material differences between the two groups of regions in ( 1) the percentage of total base case capacity subject to the proposed rule, ( 2) the ratio of the annualized compliance costs of the proposed rule to total base case generation, and ( 3) the compliance requirements of the proposed rule ( see Exhibit 7 below). EPA therefore concludes that the results for the four regions would be representative of the other NERC regions as well. 78 EXHIBIT 7. COMPARISON OF COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS BY NERC REGION 2008 NERC region Percent of total capacity subject to the rule Total annualized compliance cost per MWh generation ($ 2001) Percentage of facilities subject to each compliance requirement proposed rule Total facilities Both impingement and entrainment controls Entrainment controls only ( percent) Impingement controls only ( percent) None ( percent) ECAR ........................... 66.5 0.05 99 32.4 7.1 23.9 36.6 MAIN ............................ 60.9 0.04 49 30.6 6.1 22.7 40.7 MAPP ........................... 42.1 0.04 42 9.5 7.1 28.5 54.8 SPP .............................. 40.7 0.03 32 12.6 0.0 46.9 40.5 Average ........................ 57.1 0.04 ........................ 24.8 5.8 27.8 41.5 ERCOT ......................... 57.8 0.04 51 2.0 11.8 60.8 25.5 FRCC ........................... 49.8 0.07 30 40.0 13.3 16.7 30.0 MAAC ........................... 50.7 0.06 43 26.2 19.1 28.8 25.9 NPCC ........................... 49.6 0.08 54 22.1 34.2 16.5 27.1 SERC ........................... 53.8 0.03 95 16.8 7.4 31.6 44.2 WSCC .......................... 18.3 0.02 33 52.9 3.0 16.6 27.5 Average ........................ 43.6 0.04 ........................ 22.8 14.6 30.3 32.3 Average of All NERC Regions .................... 47.7 0.04 ........................ 23.6 10.9 29.3 36.2 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17184 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 79 These results only pertain to the steam electric component of the Phase II existing facilities and thus do not provide complete measures for facilities with both steam electric and non­ steam electric generation. Exhibit 7 indicates that, on average, the percentage of total capacity is slightly higher and the percentage of facilities subject to the proposed rule is slightly lower in the four analyzed NERC regions compared to the other six regions. In addition, the average annualized compliance costs per MWh of generation is very similar in all NERC regions. Based on this comparison and the limited amount electricity exchanges between regions modeled in IPM 2000, EPA concluded that the analysis of impacts under the proposed rule for the four NERC regions is representative of likely impacts in the other NERC regions. As the analysis of the impacts of the alternative waterbody/ capacity­ based option revealed no significant impacts at the market level, EPA concluded that there would be no significant impacts on any NERC region associated with the proposed rule. ii. Impacts on Facilities Subject to the Proposed Rule This section presents the results of the facility impact analysis for the proposed rule, again using the IPM 2000 analysis of the alternative waterbody/ capacitybased option for the four NERC regions where the compliance requirements of the proposed rule and the analyzed option are identical. 79 EPA used the IPM 2000 results to analyze two potential facility level impacts of the proposed section 316( b) Phase II Rule: ( 1) potential changes in the economic and operational characteristics of the group of Phase II existing facilities and ( 2) potential changes to individual facilities within the group of Phase II existing facilities. EPA used output from model run year 2008 to develop four measures used to identify changes in the economic and operational characteristics of the group of Phase II existing facilities. These measures include: ( 1) Total capacity, defined as the total available capacity of all facilities not identified as either baseline closures or economic closures resulting from the regulatory option; ( 2) total generation, calculated as the sum of generation from all facilities not identified as baseline closures or economic closures resulting from the regulatory option; ( 3) revenues, calculated as the sum of energy and capacity revenues; and ( 4) production costs per MWh of generation, calculated as the sum of total fuel and variable O& M costs divided by total generation. Exhibit 8 presents the base case and post compliance results for each of these economic measures. EXHIBIT 8. IMPACTS ON PHASE II EXISTING FACILITIES OF THE PROPOSED RULE [ Four NERC Regions; 2008] Base case Proposed rule Difference % Change ( ECAR) Total Capacity ( MW) ........................................................................................ 78,710 78,710 0.00 0.0 Total Generation ( GWh) .................................................................................. 515,020 515,030 10.00 0.0 Revenues ( Million $ 2001) ................................................................................ $ 17,650 $ 17,650 0.00 0.0 Production Costs ($ 2001/ MWh) ....................................................................... $ 12.34 $ 12.34 0.00 0.0 ( MAIN) Total Capacity ( MW) ........................................................................................ 36,700 36,700 0.00 0.0 Total Generation ( GWh) .................................................................................. 226,360 226,350 ¥ 10.00 0.0 Revenues ( Million $ 2001) ................................................................................ $ 7,890 $ 7,890 0.00 0.0 Production Costs ($ 2001/ MWh) ....................................................................... $ 11.74 $ 11.74 0.00 0.0 ( MAPP) Total Capacity ( MW) ........................................................................................ 14,920 14,920 0.00 0.0 Total Generation ( GWh) .................................................................................. 103,430 103,470 40.00 0.0 Revenues ( Million $ 2001) ................................................................................ $ 3,420 $ 3,420 0.00 0.0 Production Costs ($ 2001/ MWh) ....................................................................... $ 11.78 $ 11.78 0.00 0.0 ( SPP) Total Capacity ( MW) ........................................................................................ 19,990 19,990 0.00 0.0 Total Generation ( GWh) .................................................................................. 112,250 112,350 100.00 0.1 Revenues ( Million $ 2001) ................................................................................ $ 3,930 $ 3,930 0.00 0.0 Production Costs ($ 2001/ MWh) ....................................................................... $ 13.32 $ 13.34 0.01 0.1 Note: Total capacity, total generation, and revenues have been rounded to the closest 10. The results for the four NERC regions presented in Exhibit 8 reveal no significant changes in any of the economic measures used to assess the impacts of the alternative waterbody/ capacity­ based option to the group of Phase II existing facilities. None of the four NERC regions analyzed experienced any post compliance change in either capacity or revenues. Further, while there were some variations in total generation derived from Phase II existing facilities in these regions, no region experienced an increase or decrease in generation of more than one tenth of one percent. Similarly, there was no significant change to the production costs of Phase II existing facilities in any of the analyzed regions. Given EPA's earlier noted finding of no material differences between these four NERC regions and the remaining six NERC regions in important characteristics relevant to rule impacts, EPA again concluded that the finding of no significant impact for these four regions could be extended to the remaining six regions. As a result, EPA concludes that the proposed rule will not pose significant impacts in any NERC region. While the group of Phase II existing facilities as a whole is not expected to experience impacts under the proposed rule, it is possible that there would be shifts in economic performance among individual facilities subject to this rule. To examine the range of possible impacts to individual Phase II existing facilities, EPA analyzed facility­ specific changes in generation, production costs, capacity utilization, revenue, and VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17185 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules operating income. Exhibit 9 presents the number of Phase II existing facilities located in the four analyzed NERC regions by category of change for each economic measure. EXHIBIT 9. OPERATIONAL CHANGES AT PHASE II EXISTING FACILITIES FROM THE PROPOSED RULE [ Four NERC Regions; 2008] Economic measures Reduction Increase No change 0 1% 1% 0 1% 1% Change in Generation ............................................................................. 2 0 1 2 218 Change in Production Costs .................................................................... 0 0 27 0 178 Change in Capacity Utilization ................................................................. 2 0 2 1 218 Change in Revenue ................................................................................. 56 0 44 2 121 Change in­ Operating Income ................................................................... 66 0 58 1 98 Note: IPM 2000 output for run year 2008 provides data for 223 Phase II existing facilities located in the four NERC regions with identical compliance requirements under the alternative option and proposed rule. Eighteen facilities had zero generation in either the base case or post compliance scenario. As such it was not possible to calculate production costs in dollars per MWh of generation for these facilities. For all measures, the percentages used to assign facilities to impact categories have been rounded to the nearest 10th of a percent. Exhibit 9 shows that there is almost no shift in economic activity between facilities subject to this rule in the four analyzed NERC regions. No facility experiences a decrease in generation, capacity utilization, revenues, or operating income, or an increase in production costs of more than one percent. These findings, together with the findings from the comparison of compliance costs and requirements across all regions above, further confirm EPA's conclusion that the proposed rule would not result in economic impacts to Phase II existing facilities located in the four analyzed NERC regions. B. Alternative Regulatory Options EPA is considering four alternative options that would establish substantive requirements for best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact by specific rule rather than by site­ specific analysis. These include: ( 1) Requiring existing facilities located on estuaries and tidal rivers to reduce intake capacity commensurate with the use of a closedcycle recirculating cooling system; ( 2) requiring all Phase II existing facilities to reduce intake capacity commensurate with the use of closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling systems; ( 3) requiring all Phase II existing facilities to reduce impingement and entrainment to levels established based on the use of design and construction ( e. g., fine mesh screens, fish return systems) or operational measures; and ( 4) requiring all existing facilities to reduce their intake capacity to a level commensurate with the use of a dry cooling system. EPA conducted an electricity market model analysis of alternative options one and two as defined above. Section VIII. B. 1 below presents the national costs of these two alternative regulatory options considered by EPA. Section VIII. B. 2 discusses the impacts associated with these two alternative regulatory options. 1. Costs EPA estimated total national annualized post­ tax cost of compliance for two alternative options: ( 1) The `` Intake Capacity Commensurate with Closed­ Cycle, Recirculating Cooling System based on Waterbody Type/ Capacity'' Option ( waterbody/ capacitybased option) and ( 2) the `` Intake Capacity Commensurate with Closed­ Cycle, Recirculating Cooling System for All Facilities'' Option ( all closed­ cycle option). The estimated total annualized post­ tax cost of compliance for the waterbody/ capacity­ based option is approximately $ 585 million. EPA further estimates that the total annualized post­ tax cost of compliance for the all cooling tower option is approximately $ 2.26 billion. Not included in either estimate are 9 facilities that are projected to be baseline closures. Including compliance costs for these 9 facilities would increase the total cost of compliance with the waterbody/ capacity­ based option to approximately $ 595 million, and to roughly $ 2.32 billion for the all cooling tower option. 2. Economic Impacts As stated in Section VIII. A. 2 above, EPA used the IPM 2000 electricity market model to assess impacts associated with the proposed rule and regulatory options. These impacts are assessed by comparing model output for the base case and post compliance scenarios for each regulatory option. In support of this rule, EPA completed an electricity market model analysis of two post compliance scenarios: ( 1) The `` Intake Capacity Commensurate with Closed­ Cycle, Recirculating Cooling System based on Waterbody Type/ Capacity'' Option ( waterbody/ capacitybased option) and ( 2) the `` Intake Capacity Commensurate with Closed­ Cycle, Recirculating Cooling System for All Facilities'' Option ( all closed­ cycle option). This section presents the results of the IPM 2000 analysis of these two post­ compliance scenarios. a. Intake Capacity Commensurate With Closed­ Cycle, Recirculating Cooling System Based on Waterbody Type/ Capacity This section presents the market level and Phase II existing facility level impacts of the alternative waterbody/ capacity­ based option. This option would require facilities that withdraw water from an estuary, tidal river, or ocean and that meet certain intake flow requirements, to reduce their intake capacity to a level that can be attained by a closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling system. This requirement would be met within five to ten years of promulgation of the final rule ( 2004 to 2012) depending on when a permittee's first NPDES permit after promulgation expires. The impacts of compliance with this option are calculated using base case and post compliance results for model run year 2013. This run year reflects the long­ term operational changes of the regulatory option with all in­ scope facilities operating in their post compliance condition. ( 1) Market Level Impacts EPA used five measures to identify changes to economic and operational characteristics of existing facilities and assess market level impacts due to compliance with the alternative waterbody/ capacity­ based option: ( 1) Capacity retirements, calculated as the total capacity of facilities identified as economic closures due to the alternative VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17186 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules option; ( 2) capacity retirements as a percentage of baseline capacity; ( 3) post compliance changes in total production costs per MWh, where production costs are calculated as the sum of total fuel and variable O& M costs divided by total generation; ( 4) post compliance changes in energy price, where energy prices are defined as the prices received by facilities for the sale of electric generation; and ( 5) post compliance changes in capacity price, where capacity prices are defined as the price paid to facilities for making unloaded capacity available as reserves to ensure system reliability. Exhibit 10 presents the market level summary of these impact measures by NERC region. EXHIBIT 10. MARKET­ LEVEL IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE WATERBODY/ CAPACITY­ BASED OPTION ( 2013) NERC region Baseline capacity ( MW) Capacity closures ( MW) Closures as % of baseline capacity Change in production cost ($/ MWh) ( percent) Change in energy price ($/ MWh) ( percent) Change in capacity price ($/ MWh) ( percent) ECAR ....................................................... 122,080 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ¥ 0.2 ERCOT ..................................................... 80,230 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ¥ 0.2 FRCC ....................................................... 52,850 0 0.0 0.4 0.5 ¥ 2.0 MAAC ....................................................... 65,270 0 0.0 0.7 0.6 ¥ 1.5 MAIN ........................................................ 61,380 0 0.0 0.2 0.1 ¥ 0.1 MAPP ....................................................... 36,660 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ¥ 0.1 NPCC ....................................................... 74,080 840 1.1 0.5 ¥ 0.3 13.2 SERC ....................................................... 205,210 0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 SPP .......................................................... 51,380 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WSCC ...................................................... 173,600 2,170 1.3 1.9 ¥ 0.1 2.0 Total .................................................. 922,740 3,010 0.3 0.5 n/ a n/ a Note: Baseline Capacity and Closure Capacity have been rounded to the nearest 10 MW. Exhibit 10 shows that with the exception of an increase in the capacity price paid in NPCC, no significant change in market­ level operation would result from the alternative waterbody/ capacity­ based option. Two of the ten NERC regions modeled, NPCC and WSCC, would experience economic closures of existing facilities as a result of the alternative option. However, these closures represent an insignificant percentage of total baseline capacity in these regions ( 1.1 percent and 1.3 percent respectively). Of the capacity retirements in NPCC, 400 MW would be nuclear capacity and 440 MW would be oil/ gas­ fired capacity. The vast majority of the closures in WSCC, 2,150 MW, represents nuclear capacity. Six NERC regions would experience slight increases in production costs per MWh. Production cost per MWh in WSCC would increase the most, by almost 2 percent. In addition, three NERC regions would experience a slight increase in energy price while NPCC and WSCC both would both see a slight decrease in post compliance energy prices due to the economic closure of existing capacity. Further, NPCC and WSCC are the only regions that would experience an increase in capacity price. The increase in capacity prices would be the highest in NPCC with 13.2 percent. ( 2) Phase II Existing Facility Level Impacts The IPM 2000 results from model run year 2013 were used to analyze two potential facility level impacts associated with the alternative waterbody/ capacity­ based option: ( 1) Potential changes in the economic and operational characteristics of the group of Phase II existing facilities and ( 2) potential changes to individual facilities within the group of Phase II existing facilities. EPA analyzed economic closures and changes in production costs to assess impacts to all Phase II existing facilities resulting from the alternative option. Exhibit 11 below presents the results from this analysis, by NERC region. EXHIBIT 11. IMPACTS ON PHASE II EXISTING FACILITIES OF THE ALTERNATIVE WATERBODY/ CAPACITY­ BASED OPTION ( 2013) NERC region Baseline capacity ( MW) Closure Analysis Change in production cost ($/ MWh) ( percent) # Facilities Capacity ( MW) Percent of baseline capacity ECAR ................................................................................... 78,680 0 0 0.0 ¥ 0.1 ERCOT ................................................................................. 42,330 0 0 0.0 0.0 FRCC ................................................................................... 24,460 0 0 0.0 0.7 MAAC ................................................................................... 30,310 0 0 0.0 0.0 MAIN .................................................................................... 33,650 0 0 0.0 0.0 MAPP ................................................................................... 14,900 0 0 0.0 0.0 NPCC ................................................................................... 36,360 ( 1) 650 1.8 ¥ 0.2 SERC ................................................................................... 100,780 0 0 0.0 0.0 SPP ...................................................................................... 19,990 0 0 0.0 0.0 WSCC .................................................................................. 30,110 2 2,170 7.2 3.9 Total .............................................................................. 411,570 1 2,820 0.7 ¥ 0.3 Note: Baseline Capacity and Closure Capacity have been rounded to the nearest 10 MW. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 21: 35 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm11 PsN: 09APP2 17187 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 80 Note that the facility­ level exhibit excludes inscope facilities with significant status changes ( including baseline closures, avoided closures, and facilities that repower) to allow for a better comparison of operational changes as a result of the analyzed option. Status changes are discussed separately in this section and the supporting Economic and Benefits Analysis Document. Exhibit 11 shows that impacts under the waterbody/ capacity­ based option would be small. Similar to the market level, WSCC and NPCC are the only regions that would experience capacity retirements at Phase II existing facilities under this regulatory option. It should be noted that retirements presented in these exhibits are net retirements, accounting for both a potential increase and decrease in the number of retirements, post compliance. For example, NPCC is projected to experience a capacity loss of 650 MW under this option. However, one facility fewer than under the base case is projected to retire: Two facilities that would have retired in the baseline remain operational under the analyzed option, because their compliance costs are low compared to that of other facilities in the same region and they would therefore become relatively more profitable. WSCC is the other region with projected Phase II retirements under this option. The combined capacity retirements of both regions would be 2,820 MW, or 0.7 percent of all Phase II capacity. While the group of Phase II existing facilities as a whole is not expected to experience impacts under the waterbody/ capacity­ based option, it is possible that there would be shifts in economic performance among individual facilities subject to this rule. To assess potential distributional effects, EPA analyzed facility­ specific changes in generation, production costs, capacity utilization, revenue, and operating income. Exhibit 12 presents the total number of Phase II existing facilities with different degrees of change in each of these measures. 80 EXHIBIT 12. OPERATIONAL CHANGES AT PHASE II EXISTING FACILITIES FROM THE WATERBODY/ CAPACITY­ BASED OPTION ( 2013) Economic measures Reduction Increase No change 0 1% 1 3% > 3% 0 1% 1 3% > 3% Change in Generation .............................. 7 17 21 4 4 9 444 Change in Production Costs .................... 6 5 1 13 16 3 380 Change in Capacity Utilization ................. 10 7 12 7 3 5 462 Change in Revenue ................................. 57 43 17 48 15 20 306 Change in Operating Income ................... 75 42 10 46 15 22 296 Note: IPM 2000 output for model run year 2013 provides output for 506 Phase II existing facilities. Eighty­ two facilities had zero generation in either the base case or post compliance scenario. As such it was not possible to calculate production costs in dollars per MWh of generation for these facilities. For all measures percentages used to assign facilities to impact categories have been rounded to the nearest 10th of a percent. Exhibit 12 indicates that the majority of Phase II existing facilities would not experience changes in generation, production costs, or capacity utilization due to compliance with the alternative option. Of those facilities with changes in post compliance generation and capacity utilization, most would experience decreases in these measures. In addition, while approximately 40 percent of Phase II existing facilities would experience an increase or decrease in revenues and/ or operating income, the magnitude of such changes would be small. Under the alternative waterbody/ capacity­ based option, facilities withdrawing water from an estuary, tidal river, or ocean are required to meet standards for reducing impingement mortality and entrainment based on the performance of wet cooling towers. These facilities would have the choice to comply with Track I or Track II requirements. Facilities that choose to comply with Track I would be required to reduce their intake flow to a level commensurate with that which can be attained by a closed­ cycle, recirculating system. Facilities that choose to comply with Track II would have to demonstrate that alternative technologies would reduce impingement and entrainment to comparable levels that would be achieved with a closed­ cycle recirculating system. EPA's estimation of impacts associated with the alternative waterbody/ capacity­ based option is based on an electricity market model analysis that assumes all facilities withdrawing water from an estuary, tidal river, or ocean choose to comply with the requirements of Track I. While these impacts represent the worst case scenario under this option, it is reasonable to assume that a number of facilities would choose to comply with the requirements of Track II. EPA therefore also considered an additional scenario in which 33 of the 54 existing facilities costed with a cooling tower, or 61 percent, would choose to comply with the requirements of Track II. While this scenario was not explicitly analyzed, the absence of significant impacts under the more expensive scenario, where all 54 facilities are costed with cooling towers, suggests the alternative scenario would have similar or lower impacts. b. Intake Capacity Commensurate with Closed­ Cycle, Recirculating Cooling System for All Facilities This section presents the market level and Phase II existing facility level impacts of the closed­ cycle, recirculating wet cooling everywhere option. This option requires that existing facilities with a design intake flow 50 MGD or more reduce their total design intake flow to a level that can be attained by a closed­ cycle recirculating cooling water system. In addition, facilities in specified circumstances would have to install design and construction technologies to minimize impingement mortality and entrainment. Existing facilities would be required to comply within five to ten years of promulgation of the final rule ( 2004 to 2012) depending on when a permittee's first NPDES permit after promulgation expires. The impacts of compliance with this option are calculated using base case and post compliance results for model run year 2013 in order to reflect the long­ term operational changes of the rule with all in­ scope facilities operating in their post compliance condition. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17188 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( 1) Market Level Impacts EPA used IPM output to examine changes to economic and operational characteristics of existing facilities and to assess market level impacts due to compliance with the all cooling towers option. The measures used to assess market level responses to this option include capacity retirements, capacity retirements as a percentage of baseline capacity, and post compliance changes in total production costs per MWh, energy price, and capacity price. Exhibit 13 presents the market level summary of these impact measures by NERC region. EXHIBIT 13. MARKET­ LEVEL IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE ALL COOLING TOWERS OPTION ( 2013) NERC region Baseline capacity ( MW) Capacity closures ( MW) Closures as % of baseline capacity percent Change in production cost ($/ MWh) percent Change in energy price ($/ MWh) percent Change in capacity price ($/ MWh) percent ECAR ................... 122,080 2,190 1.8 2.4 1.9 0.7 ERCOT ................. 80,230 510 0.6 0.3 0.4 ¥ 0.1 FRCC ................... 52,850 90 0.2 0.7 1.1 ¥ 3.8 MAAC ................... 65,270 0 0.0 1.8 0.6 ¥ 0.2 MAIN .................... 61,380 490 0.8 2.3 0.9 0.3 MAPP ................... 36,660 0 0.0 1.0 0.1 3.0 NPCC ................... 74,080 890 1.2 1.0 0.1 16.6 SERC ................... 205,210 0 0.0 1.2 0.4 0.0 SPP ...................... 51,380 20 0.0 0.5 0.3 ¥ 0.7 WSCC .................. 173,600 2,370 1.4 1.9 0.1 1.0 Total .............. 922,740 6,560 0.7 1.4 Note: Baseline Capacity and Closure Capacity have been rounded to the nearest 10 MW. Exhibit 13 indicates that, of the ten NERC regions modeled, only MAAC, MAPP, and SERC would not experience economic closures of existing capacity as a result of the all cooling towers option. ECAR and WSCC would experience the highest closures with 2,370 MW and 2,190 MW, respectively. Of the 6,560 MW of capacity projected to retire as a result of this option, 5,150 MW, or 79 percent, would be nuclear capacity. The remainder would be oil/ gas steam capacity. In addition, every NERC region would experience an increase in both production costs per MWh and energy prices. The increases in production costs would range from a 0.3 percent increase in ERCOT to an increase of more than 2 percent in ECAR. The most substantial changes would occur in the prices paid for capacity reserves. The highest capacity price increase would occur in NPCC with 16.6 percent. ( 2) Phase II Existing Facility Level Impacts: As with the alternative waterbody/ capacity­ based option analysis, the IPM 2000 results from model run year 2013 were used to analyze two potential facility level impacts associated with the alternative all cooling towers option: ( 1) Potential changes in the economic and operational characteristics of the Phase II existing facilities and ( 2) potential changes to individual facilities within the group of Phase II existing facilities. EPA analyzed economic closures and changes in production costs to assess impacts to all Phase II existing facilities resulting from the alternative option. Exhibit 14 below presents the results from this analysis, by NERC region. EXHIBIT 14. IMPACTS ON PHASE II EXISTING FACILITIES OF THE ALTERNATIVE ALL COOLING TOWERS OPTION ( 2013) NERC region Baseline capacity Closure analysis Change in production Cost ($/ MWh) ( percent) # Facilities Capacity ( MW) Percent of baseline capacity ECAR ..................................................... 78,680 1 2,060 2.6 1.4 ERCOT .................................................. 42,330 1 420 1.0 ¥ 0.5 FRCC ..................................................... 24,460 0 0 0.0 0.8 MAAC ..................................................... 30,310 0 0 0.0 ¥ 1.0 MAIN ...................................................... 33,650 0 490 1.5 1.4 MAPP ..................................................... 14,900 0 0 0.0 1.3 NPCC ..................................................... 36,360 0 720 2.0 ¥ 0.3 SERC ..................................................... 100,780 0 0 0.0 1.0 SPP ........................................................ 19,990 1 20 0.1 0.1 WSCC .................................................... 30,110 2 2,170 7.2 2.6 Total ................................................ 411,570 5 5,880 1.4 ¥ 0.2 Note: Baseline Capacity and Closure Capacity have been rounded to the nearest 10 MW. Exhibit 14 shows that economic impacts under the all cooling tower option would be higher than under the proposed rule and the alternative waterbody/ capacity­ based option. Overall, seven Phase II existing facilities would retire under this option. An additional two facilities that retire in the base case would find it profitable to remain operating under this option. The net retirements are therefore five facilities and 5,880 MW of capacity. ECAR would experience the highest impact with capacity closures of over 2,000 MW while WSCC would experience the highest percentage retirement, with 7.2 percent of its total Phase II capacity. While the group of Phase II existing facilities as a whole is not expected to experience impacts under the all VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 21: 35 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm11 PsN: 09APP2 17189 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 81 As explained earlier, facilities with significant status changes ( including baseline closures, avoided closures, and facilities that repower) are excluded from this comparison. cooling towers option, it is possible that this option would lead to shifts in economic performance among individual facilities subject to this rule. To identify these shifts, EPA analyzed facility­ specific changes in generation, production costs, capacity utilization, revenue, and operating income. Exhibit 15 presents the total number of Phase II existing facilities with different degrees of change in each of these measures. EXHIBIT 15. OPERATIONAL CHANGES AT PHASE II EXISTING FACILITIES FROM THE ALL COOLING TOWERS OPTION ( 2013) Economic Measures Reduction Increase No Change 0 ¥ 1% 1 ¥ 3% > 3% 0 ¥ 1% 1 3% > 3% Change in Generation .............................. 18 251 53 3 4 22 151 Change in Production Costs .................... 16 12 4 64 257 17 51 Change in Capacity Utilization ................. 15 25 25 8 12 15 402 Change in Revenue ................................. 154 121 55 88 39 35 10 Change in­ Operating Income ................... 118 160 50 83 47 29 15 Note: IPM 2000 output for model run year 2013 provides output for 502 Phase II existing facilities. Eighty­ one facilities had zero generation in either the base case or post compliance scenario. As such it was not possible to calculate production costs in dollars per MWh of generation for these facilities. For all measures percentages used to assign facilities to impact categories have been rounded to the nearest 10th of a percent. Exhibit 15 indicates that under the all cooling tower option, more facilities would experience changes in their operations and economic performance than under the other two analyzed options. For example, 322 out of 502 facilities, or 64 percent, would experience a reduction in generation. 81 In addition, 328 facilities would experience a reduction in operating income while 338 facilities would see their production cost per MWh increase. However, some facilities subject to today's rule would also benefit from regulation under this option: 162 facilities would experience an increase in revenues and 159 would experience an increase in operating income. IX. Benefit Analysis A. Overview of Benefits Discussion This section presents EPA's estimates of the national environmental benefits of the proposed section 316( b) regulations for Phase II existing facilities. The benefits occur due to the reduction in impingement and entrainment at cooling water intake structures affected by this rulemaking. Impingement and entrainment kills or injures large numbers of aquatic organisms. By reducing the levels of impingement and entrainment, today's proposed rule would increase the number of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic life in local aquatic ecosystems. This, in turn, will directly and indirectly improve direct use benefits such as those associated with recreational and commercial fisheries. Other types of benefits, including ecological and nonuse values, would also be enhanced. The text below provides an overview of types and sources of benefits anticipated, how these benefits were estimated, what level of benefits have been estimated for the proposed rule, and how benefits compare to costs. Additional detail and EPA's complete benefits assessment can be found in the EBA for the proposed rule. B. The Physical Impacts of Impingement and Entrainment Impingement and entrainment can have adverse impacts on many kinds of aquatic organisms, including fish, shrimp, crabs, birds, sea turtles, and marine mammals. Adult fish and larger organisms are trapped against intake screens, where they often die from the immediate impact of impingement, residual injuries, or from exhaustion and starvation. Entrained organisms that are carried through the facility's intakes die from physical damage, thermal shock, or chemical toxicity induced by antifouling agents. The extent of harm to aquatic organisms depends on species characteristics, the environmental setting in which the facilities are located, and facility location, design, and capacity. Species that spawn in nearshore areas, have planktonic eggs and larvae, and are small as adults experience the greatest impacts, since both new recruits and reproducing adults are affected ( e. g., bay anchovy in estuaries and oceans). In general, higher impingement and entrainment are observed in estuaries and near coastal waters because of the presence of spawning and nursery areas. By contrast the young of freshwater species are epibenthic and/ or hatchel from attached egg masses rather than existing as freefloating individuals, and therefore freshwater species may be less susceptible to entrainment. The likelihood of impingement and entrainment also depends on facility characteristics. If the quantity of water withdrawn is large relative to the flow of the source waterbody, a larger number of organisms will be affected. Intakes located in nearshore areas tend to have greater ecological impacts than intakes located offshore, since nearshore areas are usually more biologically productive and have higher concentrations of aquatic organisms. In general, the extent and value of reducing impingement and entrainment at existing cooling water intake structure locations depends on intake and species characteristics that influence the intensity, time, and spatial extent of interactions of aquatic organisms with a facility's cooling water intake structure and the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the source waterbody. A oncethrough cooling system withdraws water from a source waterbody, circulates it through the condenser system, and then discharges the water back to the waterbody without recirculation. By contrast, closed­ cycle cooling systems ( which are one part of the basis for best technology available in some circumstances) withdraw water from the source waterbody, circulate the water through the condensers, and then sends it to a cooling tower or cooling pond before recirculating it back through the condensers. Because cooling water is recirculated, closedcycle systems generally reduce the water flow from 72 percent to 98 percent, thereby using only 2 percent to 28 percent of the water used by oncethrough systems. It is generally assumed that this would result in a comparable reduction in impingement and entrainment. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17190 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules C. Impingement and Entrainment Impacts and Regulatory Benefits are Site­ Specific Site­ specific information is critical in predicting benefits, because studies at existing facilities demonstrate that benefits are highly variable across facilities and locations. Even similar facilities on the same waterbody can have very different impacts depending on the aquatic ecosystem in the vicinity of the facility and intake­ specific characteristics such as location, design, construction, and capacity. Some of the important factors that make benefits highly site­ specific include important differences across the regulated facilities themselves. Many of these facility­ specific characteristics that affect benefits add additional stressors to the aquatic systems in which they operate. Benefits occur through the reduction of the stressors through the application of impingement and entrainment reduction technologies. Stressor­ related factors that make benefits site­ specific include: Cooling water intake structure size and scale of operation ( e. g., flow volume and velocity) Cooling water intake structure technologies and/ or operational practices in place ( if any) for impingement and entrainment reduction at baseline ( i. e., absent any new regulations) Cooling water intake structure intake location in relation to local zones of ecological activity and significance ( e. g., depth and orientation of the intake point, and its distance from shore) Cooling water intake structure flow volumes in relation to the size of the impacted waterbody Many of the key factors that make impingement and entrainment impacts site­ specific reflect the receptors exposed to the stressor­ related impacts. Receptors include the types of waterbodies impacted, the aquatic species that are affected in those waterbodies, and the people who use and/ or value the status of the water resources and aquatic ecosystems affected. Receptor­ oriented factors that make impingement and entrainment impacts highly site­ specific include: The aquatic species present near a facility The ages and life stages of the aquatic species present near the intakes The timing and duration of species' exposure to the intakes The ecological value of the impacted species in the context of the aquatic ecosystem Whether any of the impacted species are threatened, endangered, or otherwise of special concern and status ( e. g., depleted commercial stocks) Local ambient water quality issues that may also affect the fisheries and their uses All of these factors, as well as several others, have important impacts on the level and significance of impingement and entrainment. These factors determine baseline impacts, and the size and value of regulation­ related reductions in those impacts. The regulatory framework proposed by EPA recognizes the site­ specific nature of impingement and entrainment impacts and is designed to accommodate these factors to the greatest degree practicable in a national rulemaking. For example, EPA's proposed regulatory approach accounts for the types of waterbodies that a cooling water intake structure impacts, the proportion of the source water flow supplied to the cooling water intake structure, and technological design parameters related to the impingement and entrainment from the intake. The Agency's benefits analysis attempts to accommodate and reflect these sitespecific parameters. D. Data and Methods Used to Estimate Benefits To estimate the economic benefits of reducing impingement and entrainment at existing cooling water intake structures, all the beneficial outcomes need to be identified and, where possible, quantified and assigned appropriate monetary values. Estimating economic benefits can be challenging because of the many steps that need to be analyzed to link a reduction in impingement and entrainment to changes in impacted fisheries and other aspects of relevant aquatic ecosystems, and then to link these ecosystem changes to the resulting changes in quantities and values for the associated environmental goods and services that ultimately are linked to human welfare. The benefit estimates for this rule are derived from a series of case studies from a range of waterbody types at a number of locations around the country including: The Delaware Estuary ( Mid­ Atlantic Estuaries) The Ohio River ( Large Freshwater Rivers) Tampa Bay ( Gulf Coast Estuaries) New England Coast ( Oceans) Mount Hope Bay, New England ( North Atlantic Estuaries) San Francisco Bay/ Delta ( Pacific Coast Estuaries) The Great Lakes The following sections describe the methods used by EPA used to evaluate impingement and entrainment impacts at section 316( b) case study Phase II existing facilities and to derive an economic value associated with any such losses. 1. Estimating Losses of Aquatic Organisms The first set of steps in estimating the benefits of the proposed rule involves estimating the magnitude of impingement and entrainment. EPA's analysis involved compiling facilityreported empirical impingement and entrainment counts and life history information for affected species. Life history data typically included speciesspecific growth rates, the fractional component of each life stage vulnerable to harvest, fishing mortality rates, and natural ( nonfishing) mortality rates. It is important to note that impingement and entrainment monitoring data are often limited to a subset of species, and monitoring is often of very limited duration ( e. g., confined to a single year). This implies that the magnitude of impingement and entrainment is often underestimated. In addition, in many cases data are over two decades old ( e. g., from 1979). Therefore the data may not always reflect current fishery conditions, including changes in fisheries due to water quality improvements since the monitoring period. The limited temporal extent of the data also omits the high variability often seen in aquatic populations. If data are collected only in a year of low abundance, impingement and entrainment rates will also be low, and may not reflect the long term average. The data also may not represent potential cumulative long­ term impacts of impingement and entrainment. In EPA's analysis of impingement and entrainment impacts, these facilityderived impingement and entrainment counts were modeled with relevant life history data to derive estimates of age 1 equivalent losses ( the number of individuals that would have survived to age 1 if they had not been impinged and entrained by facility intakes), foregone fishery yield ( the amount in pounds of commercial and recreational fish and shellfish that is not harvested due to impingement and entrainment losses) and foregone production ( losses of impinged and entrained forage species that are not commercial or recreational fishery targets but serve as valuable components of aquatic food webs, particularly as an important food supply to other aquatic species including commercial and recreational species). VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17191 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 2. Estimating Baseline Losses and the Economic Benefits of the Proposed Rule Given the projected physical impact on aquatic organisms ( losses of age 1 equivalents resulting from impingement and entrainment), the second set of steps in the benefits analysis entails assigning monetary values to the estimated losses. These economic loss estimates are subsequently converted into estimated benefits for the proposed rule by examining the extent to which impingement and entrainment is reduced by adoption of the best technology available in accordance with the options defined in this proposed rule. Economic benefits can be broadly defined according to several categories of goods and services furnished by the impacted species, including those that pertain to the direct use or indirect use of the impacted resources. There also are benefits that are independent of any current or anticipated use ( direct or indirect) of the resource; these are known as nonuse or passive use values. The benefits can be further categorized according to whether or not affected goods and services are traded in the market. `` Direct use'' benefits include both `` market'' commodities ( e. g., commercial fisheries) and `` nonmarket'' goods ( e. g., recreational angling). Indirect use benefits also can be linked to either market or nonmarket goods and services `` for example, the manner in which reduced impingement and entrainment­ related losses of forage species leads through the aquatic ecosystem food web to enhance the biomass of species targeted for commercial ( market) and recreational ( nonmarket) uses. `` Nonuse'' benefits include only `` nonmarketed'' goods and services, reflecting human values associated with existence and bequest motives. The economic value of benefits is estimated using a range of traditional methods, with the specific approach being dependent on the type of benefit category, data availability, and other suitable factors. Accordingly, some benefits are valued using market data ( e. g., for commercial fisheries), and others are valued using secondary nonmarket valuation data ( e. g., benefits transfer of nonmarket valuation studies of the value of recreational angling). Some benefits are described only qualitatively, because it was not feasible to derive reliable quantitative estimates of the degree of impact and/ or the monetary worth of reducing those impacts. In addition, some nonmarket benefits are estimated using primary research methods. Specifically, recreational values are estimated for some of the case studies ( those that are examined on a watershed­ scale) using a Random Utility Model ( RUM). Also, some benefits estimates are developed using habitat restoration costing or similar approaches that use replacement costs as a proxy for beneficial values. Variations of these general methodologies have been applied to better reflect site­ specific circumstances or data availability. In the case of forage species, benefits valuation is challenging because these species are not targeted directly by commercial or recreational anglers and have no direct use values that can be observed in markets or inferred from revealed actions of anglers. Therefore, two general approaches were used to translate estimated impingement and entrainment losses to forage species into monetary values. The first approach examines replacement costs as a proxy for the value of estimated forage species losses ( expressed as the total number of age 1 equivalents) and was valued based on hatchery costs. This approach does not take into consideration ecological problems associated with introducing hatchery fish into wild populations. The second approach used two distinct estimates of trophic transfer efficiency to relate foregone forage production to foregone commercial and recreational fishery yields. A portion of total forage production has relatively high trophic transfer efficiency because it is consumed directly by harvested species. The remaining portion of total forage production has low trophic transfer efficiency because it reaches harvested species indirectly following multiple interactions at different parts of the food web. Ultimately, the production foregone approach assigns a value to reduced forage species losses based on their indirect contribution to higher commercial and recreational fishery values. Benefits analyses for rulemakings under the Clean Water Act have been limited in the range of benefits addressed, which has hindered EPA's ability to compare the benefits and costs of rules comprehensively. The Agency is working to improve its benefits analyses, including applying methodologies that have now become well established in the natural resources valuation field, but have not been used previously in the rulemaking process. EPA was particularly interested in expanding its benefits analysis for this rule to include more primary research along with the use of secondary ( e. g., benefits transfer) methods to estimate recreation benefits. EPA has therefore expanded upon its traditional methodologies in the benefits analysis for this proposed rule by applying an original travel cost study using data from the National Marine Fishery Service in the Delaware and Tampa Estuaries and data from the National Recreational Demand Survey ( NDS) in Ohio in a Random Utility Model ( RUM) of recreational behavior, to estimate the changes in consumer valuation of water resources that would result from reductions in impingement and entrainment­ related fish losses. These studies are presented in detail in the Case Study Document. The Agency also improved its analyses by performing several Habitat­ Based Replacement Cost analyses. A complete Habitat­ Based Replacement Cost analysis develops values for impingement and entrainment losses based on the combined costs for implementing habitat restoration actions, administering the programs, and monitoring the increased production after the restoration actions. These costs are developed by identifying the preferred habitat restoration alternative for each species with impingement and entrainment, and then scaling the level of habitat restoration until the losses across all species have been offset fully by expected increases in the production of those species. The total value of the impingement and entrainment losses is then calculated as the sum of the costs across the categories of preferred habitat restoration alternatives. An in­ depth discussion of the Habitat­ Based Replacement Cost methodology is in Chapter A11 of the Case Study Document. Examples of estimating benefits using the Habitat­ Based Replacement Cost methodology can be found in the case studies for the Pilgrim Nuclear facility ( Part G) and the Brayton Point facility ( Part F). A stream­ lined version of the methodology can be found in the J. R. Whiting case study ( Part H) and the Monroe case study ( Part I) of the Case Study Document. The primary strength of the Habitat­ Based Replacement Cost method is the explicit recognition that impingement and entrainment losses have impacts on all components of the aquatic ecosystem, and the public's use and enjoyment of that ecosystem, beyond that estimated by reduced commercial and recreational fish catches. Results depend on the quality of the impingement and entrainment data collected, the availability of data on the habitat requirements of impinged or entrained species, and the program for defining expected production increases for species following implementation of restoration activities. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17192 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 3. EPA's Estimates of Impingement and Entrainment Losses and Benefits Probably are Underestimates EPA's estimates of fish losses due to impingement and entrainment, and of the benefits of the proposed regulations, are subject to considerable uncertainties. As a result, the Agency's benefits estimates could be either overor under­ estimated. However, because of the many factors omitted from the analysis ( typically because of data limitations) and the manner in which several key uncertainties were addressed, EPA believes that its analysis is likely to lead to a potentially significant underestimate of baseline losses and, therefore lead to understated estimates of regulatory benefits. Several of the key factors that are likely to lead EPA's analysis to underestimate benefits include: Data Limitations EPA's analysis is based on facilityprovided biological monitoring data. These facility­ furnished data typically focus on a subset of the fish species impacted by impingement and entrainment, resulting in an underestimate of the total magnitude of losses. Industry biological studies often lack a consistent methodology for monitoring impingement and entrainment. Thus, there are often substantial uncertainties and potential biases in the impingement and entrainment estimates. Comparison of results between studies is therefore very difficult and sometimes impossible, even among facilities that impinge and entrain the same species. The facility­ derived biological monitoring data often pertain to conditions existing many years ago ( e. g., the available biological monitoring often was conducted by the facilities 20 or more years ago, before activities under the Clean Water Act had improved aquatic conditions). In those locations where water quality was relatively degraded at the time of monitoring relative to current conditions, the numbers and diversity of fish are likely to have been depressed during the monitoring period, resulting in low impingement and entrainment. In most of the nation's waters, current water quality and fishery levels have improved, so that current impingement and entrainment losses are likely to be greater than available estimates for depressed populations. Estimated Technology Effectiveness The only technology effectiveness that is certain is reductions in impingement and entrainment with cooling towers. Potential latent mortality rates are unknown for most technologies. Installed technologies may not operate at the maximum efficiency assumed by EPA in its estimates of technology effectiveness. Potential Cumulative Impacts Impingement and entrainment impacts often have cumulative impacts that are usually not considered. Cumulative impacts refer to the temporal and spatial accumulation of changes in ecosystems that can be additive or interactive. Cumulative impacts can result from the effects of multiple facilities located within the same waterbody and from individually minor but collectively significant impingement and entrainment impacts taking place over a period or time. Relatively low estimates of impingement and entrainment impacts may reflect a situation where cumulative impingement and entrainment impacts ( and other stresses) have appreciably reduced fishery populations so that there are fewer organisms present in intake flows. In many locations ( especially estuary and coastal waters), many fish species migrate long distances. As such, these species are often subject to impingement and entrainment risks from a large number cooling water intake structures. EPA's analyses reflect the impacts of a limited set of facilities on any given fishery, whereas many of these fish are subjected to impingement and entrainment at a greater number of cooling water intake structures than are included in the boundaries of the Agency's case studies. Recreational Benefits The proportion of impingement and entrainment losses of fishery species that were valued as lost recreational catch was determined from stockspecific fishing mortality rates, which indicate the fraction of a stock that is harvested. Because fishing mortality rates are typically less than 20%, a large proportion of the losses of fishery species were not valued in the benefits transfer and RUM analyses. Only selected species were evaluated because impingement and entrainment or valuation data were limited. In applying benefits transfer to value the benefits of improved recreational angling, the Agency only assigned a monetary benefit to the increases in consumer surplus for the baseline number of fishing days. Changes in participation ( except where the RUM is estimated) are not considered. Thus, benefits will be understated if participation increases in response to increased availability of fishery species as a result of reduced impingement and entrainment. This approach omits the portion of recreational fishing benefits that arise when improved conditions lead to higher levels of participation. Empirical evidence suggests that the omission of increased angling days can lead to an underestimate of total recreational fishing benefits. Where EPA has been able to apply its RUM analyses, the recreational angling benefits are more indicative of the full range of beneficial angling outcomes. Secondary ( Indirect) Economic Impacts Secondary impacts, are not calculated ( effects on marinas, bait sales, property values, and so forth are not included, even though they may be significant and applicable on a regional scale). Commercial Benefits The proportion of impingement and entrainment losses of fishery species that were valued as lost commercial catch was determined from stockspecific fishing mortality rates, which indicate the fraction of a stock that is harvested. Because fishing mortality rates are typically less than 20%, a large proportion of the losses of fishery species were not valued in the benefits transfer analyses. In most cases, invertebrate species ( e. g, lobsters, mussels, crabs, shrimp) were not included because of a lack of impingement and entrainment data and/ or life history information. Impingement and entrainment impacts and associated reductions in fishery yields are probably understated even for those species EPA could evaluate because of a lack of monitoring data to capture population variability and cumulative impingement and entrainment impacts over time. Current fishing mortality rates ( and resulting estimates of yield) often reflect depleted fisheries, not what the fisheries should or could be if not adversely impacted by impingement and entrainment and other stressors. As such, yield estimates may be artificially low because of significantly curtailed recreational and/ or commercial catch of key species impinged and entrained ( e. g., winter flounder in Mount Hope Bay). Forage Species Forage species often make up the predominant share of losses due to impingement and entrainment. However, impingement and entrainment VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17193 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules losses of forage species are usually not known because many facility studies focus on commercial and recreational fishery species only. Even when forage species are included in loss estimates, the monetary value assigned to forage species is likely to be understated because the full ecological value of the species as part of the food web is not considered. Forage losses are often valued at only a fraction of their potential full value because of partial `` replacement'' cost ( even if feasible to replace). Low production foregone assumptions ( no inherent value, only added biomass to landed recreational and commercial species is considered). In one valuation approach EPA applied to forage species, only the small share of these losses are valued namely the contribution of the forage species to the increased biomass of landed recreational and commercial species. This does not apply to benefits derived by the Habitat­ Based Replacement Cost approach, which provides a more comprehensive indication of the benefits of reducing impingement and entrainment on all species, including forage fish. EPA has applied this approach to a limited number of settings, and in those settings the findings suggest benefits appreciably greater than derived from the more traditional, partial benefits approaches applied by the Agency. Nonuse Benefits Nonuse benefits are most likely understated using the 50 percent rule because the recreational values used are likely to be understated. The 50 percent rule itself is conservative ( e. g., only reflects nonuse component of total value to recreational users. It does not reflect any nonuse benefits to recreational nonusers). Impacts on threatened and endangered species are not fully captured. Incidental Benefits EPA has not accounted for thermal impact reductions, which will be incidental benefits in places where once­ through facilities are replaced with recirculating water regimes. E. Summary of Benefits Findings: Case Studies As noted above, EPA developed benefits estimates for various case studies, and key results are described below. 1. The Delaware Estuary ( Mid­ Atlantic Estuaries) The results of EPA's evaluation of impingement and entrainment rates at cooling water intake structures in the Delaware Estuary transition zone indicate that cumulative impacts can be substantial. EPA's analysis shows that even when losses at individual facilities appear insignificant, the total of all impingement and entrainment impacts on the same fish populations can be sizable. For example, nearly 44,000 age 1 equivalents of weakfish are lost as a result of entrainment at Hope Creek, which operates with closed­ cycle cooling and therefore has relatively low entrainment rates. However, the number of total weakfish age 1 equivalents lost as a result of entrainment at all transition zone cooling water intake structures is over 2.2 million individuals. Cumulative impacts of all species at Delaware Estuary transition zones facilities is 14.3 million age 1 equivalent fish impinged per year and entrainment is 616 million age 1 equivalent fish entrained per year. EPA has conservatively estimated cumulative impacts on Delaware Estuary species by considering the impingement and entrainment impacts of only transition zone cooling water intake structures. In fact, many of the species affected by cooling water intake structures within the transition zone move in and out of this area, and therefore may be exposed to many more cooling water intake structures than considered here. Regardless of the geographic extent of an evaluation of cumulative impacts, it is important to consider how impingement and entrainment rates relate to the relative abundance of species in the source waterbody. Thus, low impingement and entrainment does not necessarily imply low impact, since it may reflect low population abundance, which can result from numerous natural and anthropogenic factors, including longterm impingement and entrainment impacts of multiple cooling water intake structures. On the other hand, high population abundance in the source waterbody and associated high impingement and entrainment may reflect waterbody improvements that are independent of impacts from or improvements in cooling water intake structure technologies. High levels of impingement and entrainment impacts on a species may also indicate a high susceptibility of that given species to cooling water intake structure effects. In addition to estimating the physical impact of impingement and entrainment in terms of numbers of fish lost because of the operation of all in scope and outof scope cooling water intake structures in the Delaware Estuary transition zone, EPA also examined the estimated economic value of the losses from impingement and entrainment. The estimated cumulative impact of impingement and entrainment at the 12 cooling water intake structures located in the Delaware case study area was based on data available for the Salem facility and then extrapolated to the other facilities on the basis of flow. Average losses at all transition zone cooling water intake structures from impingement are valued ( using benefits transfer) at between roughly $ 0.5 million and $ 1.1 million per year, and between approximately $ 23.9 million and $ 49.5 million per year for entrainment ( all in 2001$). Average losses at the four in scope facilities ( using benefits transfer combined with RUM recreation estimates) range from $ 0.5 million to $ 0.8 million per year for impingement and from $ 26.0 to $ 46.2 million per year for entrainment ( all in 2001$) ( see Exhibit 13). In this estuarine setting, benefits attributed to reducing losses due to both impingement and entrainment may be quite large in terms of numbers of fish and in terms of the portion of benefits that could be monetized. Entrainment losses are over 40 times greater than impingement losses. This reflects the typical richness of estuary waters as important nursery locations for early life stages of many important aquatic species, coupled with the significant adverse impact that entrainment can have on such life stages. This result indicates the relative importance of entrainment controls in estuary areas. EXHIBIT 13. BASELINE IMPACTS ( ANNUAL AVERAGE) AT FOUR IN SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE TRANSITION ZONE OF THE DELAWARE ESTUARY Impingement Entrainment Four In Scope Facilities a. age 1 equivalent fish lost ......................................................... > 14.3 mil/ yr ......................................... > 616 mil/ yr. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17194 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules EXHIBIT 13. BASELINE IMPACTS ( ANNUAL AVERAGE) AT FOUR IN SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE TRANSITION ZONE OF THE DELAWARE ESTUARY Continued Impingement Entrainment b. # lbs lost to landed fishery ....................................................... > 438,000 lbs/ yr ................................... > 16 mil lbs/ yr. c. $ value of loss ( 2001$) ............................................................. $ 0.5 mil $ 0.8 mil ................................ $ 26.0 mil $ 46.2 mil. In part, EPA's recreational benefits estimates for the Delaware Estuary is based on a RUM analysis of recreational fishing benefits from reduced impingement and entrainment. The RUM application in the Delaware Estuary focuses on weakfish and striped bass fishing valuation. Several recreational fishing studies have valued weakfish and striped bass, but values specific to these studies are not available. The study area includes recreational fishing sites at the Delaware River Estuary and the Atlantic coasts of Delaware and New Jersey. EPA uses data for this case study from the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey ( MRFSS), combined with the 1994 Add­ on MRFSS Economic Survey ( AMES). The study uses MFRSS information on angler characteristics and angler preferences, such as where they go fishing and what species they catch, to infer their values for changes in recreational fishing quality. EPA estimated angler behavior using a RUM for single­ day trips. The study used standard assumptions and specifications of the RUM model that are readily available from the recreation demand literature. Among these assumptions are that anglers choose fishing mode and then the site in which to fish; and that anglers' choice of target species is exogenous to the model. EPA modeled an angler's decision to visit a site as a function of site­ specific cost, fishing trip quality, presence of boat launching facilities, and water quality. The quality of a recreational fishing trip is expressed in terms of the number of fish caught per hour of fishing. Catch rate is the most important attribute of a fishing site from the angler's perspective. This attribute is also a policy variable of concern because catch rate is a function of fish abundance, which may be affected by fish mortality caused by impingement and entrainment. The Agency combined the estimated model coefficients with the estimated changes in impingement and entrainment associated with various cooling water intake structure technologies to estimate per trip welfare losses from impingement and entrainment at the cooling water intake structures located in the Delaware Estuary transition zone. The estimated economic values of recreational losses from impingement and entrainment at the 12 cooling water intake structures located in the case study area are $ 0.75, $ 2.04, and $ 9.97 per trip for anglers not targeting any particular species and anglers targeting weakfish and striped bass, respectively ( all in 2001$). EPA then estimated benefits of reducing impingement and entrainment of two species weakfish and striped bass at the four in scope cooling water intake structures in the case study area. The estimated values of an increase in the quality of fishing sites from reducing impingement and entrainment at the in scope cooling water intake structures are $ 0.52, $ 1.40 and $ 6.90 per trip for no target anglers and anglers targeting weakfish and striped bass, respectively ( all in 2001$). EPA also examined the effects of changes in fishing circumstances on fishing participation during the recreational season. First, the Agency used the negative binomial form of the Poisson model to model an angler's decision concerning the number of fishing trips per recreation season. The number of fishing trips is modeled as function of the individual's socioeconomic characteristics and estimates of individual utility derived from the site choice model. The Agency then used the estimated model coefficients to estimate percentage changes in the total number of recreational fishing trips due to improvements in recreational site quality. EPA combined fishing participation data for Delaware and New Jersey obtained from MFRSS with the estimated percentage change in the number of trips under various policy scenarios to estimate changes in total participation stemming from changes in the fishing site quality in the study area. The MRFSS fishing participation data include information on both single­ day and multiple­ day trips. The Agency assumed that per day welfare gain from improved fishing site quality is independent of trip length. EPA therefore calculated total fishing participation for this analysis as the sum of the number of single day trips and the number of fishing days corresponding to multiple day trips. Analysis results indicate that improvements in fishing site quality from reducing impingement and entrainment at all in scope facilities will increase the total number of fishing days in Delaware and New Jersey by 9,464. EPA combined fishing participation estimates with the estimated per trip welfare gain under various policy scenarios to estimate the value to recreational anglers of changes in catch rates resulting from changes in impingement and entrainment in the Delaware Estuary transition zone. EPA calculated low and high estimates of economic values of recreational losses from impingement and entrainment by multiplying the estimated per trip welfare gain by the baseline and policy scenario number of trips, respectively. The estimated recreational losses ( 2001$) to Delaware and New Jersey anglers from impingement and entrainment of 2 species at all Phase II existing facilities in the transitional estuary, and all facilities in the transitional estuary range from $ 0.2 to $ 0.3 and from $ 7.2 to $ 13.2 million, respectively. Using similar calculations, the Agency estimated that reducing impingement and entrainment of weakfish and striped bass at the four in scope cooling water intake structures in the transition zone will generate $ 5.2 to $ 9.3 million ( 2001$) annually, in recreational fishing benefits alone, to Delaware and New Jersey anglers. In interpreting the results of the case study analysis, it is important to consider several critical caveats and limitations of the analysis. For example, in the economic valuation component of the analysis, valuation of impingement and entrainment losses is often complicated by the lack of market value for forage species, which may comprise a large proportion of total losses. EPA estimates that more than 500 million age 1 equivalents of bay anchovy may be lost to entrainment at transition zone cooling water intake structure each year ( over 85 percent of the total of over 616 million estimated lost age 1 individuals for all species combined). Bay anchovy has no direct market value, but it is nonetheless a critical component of estuarine food webs. EPA included forage species impacts in the economic benefits calculations, but the final VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17195 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules estimates may well underestimate the full value of the losses imposed by impingement and entrainment. Thus, on the whole, EPA believes the estimates developed here probably underestimate the economic benefits of reducing impingement and entrainment in the Delaware transition zone. 2. Ohio River ( Large Rivers) EPA evaluated the impacts of impingement and entrainment using facility­ generated data at 9 cooling water intake structures along a 500 mile stretch of the Ohio River, spanning from the western portion of Pennsylvania, along the southern border of Ohio, and into eastern Indiana. The results were then extrapolated to the 20 other in scope facilities along this stretch of the river ( a total of 29 facilities are expected to be in scope for this rulemaking, and another 19 facilities are out­ of­ scope). To estimate impingement and entrainment impacts for the Ohio, EPA evaluated the available impingement and entrainment monitoring data at 9 case study facilities ( W. C. Beckjord, Cardinal, Clifty Creek, Kammer, Kyger Creek, Miami Fort, Philip Sporn, Tanners Creek, and WH Sammis). The results from these 9 facilities with impingement and entrainment data were then extrapolated to the remaining in scope facilities to derive an impingement and entrainment baseline for all facilities subject to the proposed rule ( additional extrapolations were also made to out­ of­ scope facilities so that total impingement and entrainment could be estimated as well). The extrapolations were made on the basis of relative operating size ( operating MGD) and by river pool ( Hannibal, Markland, McAlpine, New Cumberland, Pike Island, and Robert C. Byrd pools). The results indicate that impingement at all facilities ( in scope and out­ ofscope causes the mortality of approximately 11.6 million fish ( age 1 equivalents) per year. This translates into over 1.11 million pounds of fishery production foregone per year, and over 15,000 pounds of lost fishery yield annually. For in scope facilities only, the results indicate that impingement causes the mortality of approximately 11.3 million fish ( age 1 equivalents) per year ( 97.8 percent of all impingement). This translates into nearly 1.09 million pounds of fishery production foregone per year, and nearly 15,000 pounds of lost fishery yield annually ( 98.1 percent and 97.1 percent of the total, respectively). For entrainment, the results indicate that all facilities combined ( in scope and out­ of­ scope) cause the mortality of approximately 24.4 million fish ( age 1 equivalents) per year. This translates into over 10.08 million pounds of fishery production foregone per year, and over 39,900 pounds of lost fishery yield annually. For in scope facilities only, the results indicate that entrainment causes the mortality of approximately 23.0 million fish ( age 1 equivalents) per year ( 94.2 percent of all entrainment). This translates into nearly 9.89 million pounds of fishery production foregone per year, and over 39,000 pounds of lost fishery yield annually ( 98.1 percent and 97.7 percent of the total, respectively). In addition to estimating the physical impact of impingement and entrainment in terms of numbers of fish lost because of the operation of all in scope and outof scope cooling water intake structures in the Ohio River case study area, EPA also estimated the baseline economic value of the losses from impingement and entrainment. The economic value of these losses is based on benefits transfer­ based values applied to losses to the recreational fishery, nonuse values, and the partial value of forage species impacts ( measured as partial as replacement costs or production foregone). This provides an indication of the estimated cumulative impact of impingement and entrainment at the all in scope and out­ of­ scope cooling water intake structures in the case study area, based on data available for the 9 case study facilities with usable impingement and entrainment data, and then extrapolated to the other facilities on the basis of flow and river pool. Average historical losses from all in scope facilities in the case study area for impingement are valued using benefits transfer at between roughly $ 0.1 million and $ 1.4 million per year ( in 2001$). Average historical losses from entrainment are valued using benefits transfer at between approximately $ 0.8 million and $ 2.4 million per year ( all in 2001$) for in scope facilities. EPA also estimated a random utility model ( RUM) to provide primary estimates of the recreational fishery losses associated with impingement and entrainment in the Ohio River case study area. This primary research results supplement the benefits transfer estimates derived by EPA. The average annual recreation­ related fishery losses at all facilities in the case study amount to approximately $ 8.4 million ( in 2001$) per year ( impingement and entrainment impacts combined). For the in scope facilities covered by the proposed Phase II rule, the losses due to impingement and entrainment were estimated via the RUM to amount to approximately $ 8.3 million per year ( in 2001$). Results for the RUM analysis were merged with the benefits transfer­ based estimates in a manner that avoids double counting, and indicate that baseline losses at in scope facilities amount to between $ 3.5 million and $ 4.7 million per year for impingement and between $ 9.3 and $ 9.9 million per year for entrainment ( in 2001$) ( see Exhibit 14). EXHIBIT 14. BASELINE IMPACTS ( ANNUAL AVERAGE) IN THE OHIO RIVER AT IN SCOPE FACILITIES Impingement Entrainment 29 In Scope Facilities a. age 1 equivalent fish lost .......................................... > 11.3 mil/ yr ............................................... > 23.0 mil/ yr b. # lbs lost to landed fishery ........................................ > 1.1 mil lbs/ yr ............................................ > 9.9 mil lbs/ yr c. $ value of loss ( 2001$) .............................................. $ 3.5 mil $ 4.7 mil/ yr .................................. $ 9.3 mil $ 9.9 mil/ yr In interpreting the results of the case study analysis, it is important to consider several critical caveats and limitations of the analysis. In the economic valuation component of the analysis, valuation of impingement and entrainment losses is often complicated by the lack of market value for forage species, which may comprise a large proportion of total losses. Forage species have no direct market value, but are nonetheless a critical component of aquatic food webs. EPA included forage species impacts in the economic benefits calculations, but because techniques for valuing such losses are limited, the final estimates may well underestimate the full ecological and economic value of these losses. In addition, the Ohio River case study is intended to reflect the level of impingement and entrainment, and VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17196 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules hence the benefits associated with reducing impingement and entrainment impacts, for cooling water impact structures along major rivers of the U. S. However, there are several factors that suggest that the Ohio River case study findings may be a low­ end scenario in terms of estimating the benefits of the proposed regulation at facilities along major inland rivers of the U. S. These factors include the following: The impingement and entrainment data developed by the facilities were limited to one year only, and are from 1977 ( nearly 25 years ago) and pertain to a period of time when water quality in the case study area was worse than it is currently. This suggests that the numbers of impinged and entrained fish today ( the regulatory baseline) would be appreciably higher than observed in the data collection period. In addition, the reliance on a monitoring period of one year or less implies that the naturally high variability in fishery populations is not captured in the analysis, and the results may reflect a year of above or below average impingement and entrainment. The Ohio River is heavily impacted by numerous significant anthropogenic stressors in addition to impingement and entrainment. The river's hydrology has been extensively modified by a series of 20 dams and pools, and the river also has been extensively impacted by municipal and industrial wastewater discharges along this heavily populated and industrialized corridor. To the degree to which these multiple stressors were atypically extensive along the Ohio River ( in 1977) relative to those along other cooling water intake structure­ impacted rivers in the U. S. ( in 2002), the case study will yield smaller than typical impingement and entrainment impact estimates. The Ohio River is very heavily impacted by cumulative effects of impingement and entrainment over time and across a large number of cooling water intake structures. The case study segment of the river has 29 facilities that are in scope for the Phase II rulemaking, plus an additional 19 facilities that are out of scope. Steam electric power generation accounted for 5,873 MGD of water withdrawal from the river basin, more than 90 percent of the total surface water withdrawals, according to 1995 data from USGS. In conclusion, several issues and limitations in the impingement and entrainment data for the Ohio case study ( e. g., the reliance on data for one year, nearly 25 years ago), and the many stressors that affect the river ( especially in the 1977 time frame), suggest that the results obtained by EPA underestimate the benefits of the rule relative to current Ohio River conditions. The results are also likely to underestimate the benefits value of impingement and entrainment reductions at other inland river facilities. 3. San Francisco Bay/ Delta ( Pacific Coast Estuaries) The results of EPA's evaluation of impingement and entrainment of striped bass, and threatened and endangered and other special status fish species at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities in the San Francisco Bay/ Delta demonstrate the significant economic benefits that can be achieved if losses of highly valued species are reduced by the proposed section 316( b) rule. The benefits were estimated by reference to other programs already in place to protect and restore the declining striped bass population and threatened and endangered fish species of the San Francisco Bay/ Delta region. The special status species that were evaluated included delta smelt, threatened and endangered runs of chinook salmon and steelhead, sacramento splittail, and longfin smelt. Based on limited facility data, EPA estimates that the striped bass recreational catch is reduced by about 165,429 fish per year due to impingement at the two facilities and 185,073 fish per year due to entrainment. Estimated impingement losses of striped bass are valued at between $ 379,000 and $ 589,000 per year, and estimated entrainment losses are valued at between $ 2.58 million to $ 4.01 million per year ( all in 2001$). EPA estimates that the total loss of special status fish species at the two facilities is 145,003 age 1 equivalents per year resulting from impingement and 269,334 age 1 equivalents per year due to entrainment. Estimated impingement losses of these species are valued at between $ 12.38 million and $ 42.65 million per year, and estimated entrainment losses are valued at between $ 23.1 million and $ 79.2 million per year ( all in 2001$). The estimated value of the recreational losses and the special status species losses combined range from $ 12.8 million to $ 43.2 million per year for impingement and from $ 25.6 million to $ 83.2 million per year for entrainment ( all in 2001$) ( see Exhibit 15). EXHIBIT 15. BASELINE IMPACTS ( ANNUAL AVERAGE) FOR SPECIAL STATUS FISH SPECIES AT 2 FACILITIES IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY/ DELTA Impingement Entrainment Two In Scope Facilities a. age 1 equivalent fish lost .......................................... > 145,000/ yr ............................................... > 269,000/ yr b. number of striped bass lost to recreational catch ..... 165,429 ....................................................... 185,073 c. $ value of combined loss ( 2001$) ............................. $ 12.8 mil $ 43.2 mil/ yr .............................. $ 25.6 mil $ 83.2 mil/ yr In interpreting these results, it is important to consider several critical caveats and limitations of the analysis. No commercial fisheries losses or nonspecial status forage species losses are included in the analysis. Recreational losses are analyzed only for striped bass. There are also uncertainties about the effectiveness of restoration programs in terms of meeting special status fishery outcome targets. It is also important to note that under the Endangered Species Act, losses of all life stages of endangered fish are of concern, not simply losses of adults. However, because methods are unavailable for valuing losses of fish eggs and larvae, EPA valued the losses of threatened and endangered species based on the estimated number of age 1 equivalents that are lost. Because the number of age 1 equivalents can be substantially less than the original number of eggs and larvae lost to impingement and entrainment, and because the life history data required to calculate age 1 equivalent are uncertain for these rare species, this method of quantifying impingement and entrainment losses may result in an underestimate of the true benefits to society of the proposed section 316( b) regulation. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17197 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 4. The Great Lakes EPA examined the estimated economic value of impingement and entrainment at J. R. Whiting before installation of a deterrent net to reduce impingement to estimate the historical losses of the facility and potential impingement and entrainment damages at other Great Lakes facilities that do not employ technologies to reduce impingement or entrainment. Average impingement without the net is valued at between $ 0.4 million and $ 1.2 million per year, and average entrainment is valued at between $ 42,000 and $ 1.7 million per year ( all in 2001$) ( see Exhibit 16). The midpoints of the pre­ net results from the benefits transfer approach were used as the lower ends of the valuations losses. The upper ends of the valuation of losses reflect results of the Habitatbased Replacement Cost ( HRC) method for valuing impingement and entrainment losses. HRC­ based estimates of the economic value of impingement and entrainment losses at J. R. Whiting were included with the transfer­ based estimates to provide a better estimate of loss values, particularly for forage species for which valuation techniques are limited. The HRC technique is designed to provide a more comprehensive, ecological­ based valuation of impingement and entrainment losses than valuation by traditional commercial and recreational impacts methods. Losses are valued on the basis of the combined costs for implementing habitat restoration actions, administering the programs, and monitoring the increased production after the restoration actions. In a complete HRC, these costs are developed by identifying the preferred habitat restoration alternative for each species with impingement and entrainment losses and then scaling the level of habitat restoration until the losses across all the species in that category have been offset by expected increases in production of each species. The total value of impingement and entrainment losses at the facility is then calculated as the sum of the costs across the categories of preferred habitat restoration alternatives. The HRC method is thus a supplyside approach for valuing impingement and entrainment losses in contrast to the more typically used demand­ side valuation approaches ( e. g., commercial and recreational fishing impacts valuations). An advantage of the HRC method is that the HRC values can easily address losses for species lacking a recreational or commercial fishery value ( e. g., forage species that typically are a large proportion of impingement and entrainment impacts, but that are not readily valued in a traditional benefits analysis). Further, the HRC explicitly recognizes and captures the fundamental ecological relationships between impinged and entrained organisms and their surrounding environment by valuing losses through the cost of the actions required to provide an offsetting increase in the existing populations of those species in their natural environment. Impingement losses at J. R. Whiting with an aquatic barrier net are estimated to be reduced by 92 percent, while entrainment losses are not significantly affected. Thus, losses with a net are valued at between $ 29,000 and $ 99,000 for impingement and between $ 42,000 and $ 1.7 million per year for entrainment ( all in 2001$) ( see Exhibit 17). EXHIBIT 16. BASELINE IMPACTS ( ANNUAL AVERAGE) FOR J. R. WHITING WITHOUT NET Impingement Entrainment One Great Lakes Facility a. age 1 equivalent fish lost .......................................... > 1.8 mil/ yr ................................................... > 290,000/ yr. b. # lbs lost to landed fishery ........................................ > 21.4 mil lbs/ yr ........................................... > 404,000 lbs/ yr. c. $ value of loss ( 2001$) .............................................. $ 0.4 mil $ 1.2 mil/ yr .................................... $ 42,000 $ 1.7 mil/ yr. EXHIBIT 17. BASELINE IMPACTS ( ANNUAL AVERAGE) FOR J. R. WHITING WITHOUT NET Impingement Entrainment One Great Lakes Facility a. age 1 equivalent fish lost .......................................... > 0.1 mil/ yr ................................................... > 290,000/ yr. b. # lbs lost to landed fishery ........................................ > 1.7 mil lbs/ yr ............................................. > 404,000 lbs/ yr. c. $ value of loss ( 2001$) .............................................. $ 29,000 $ 99,000/ yr .................................... $ 42,000 $ 1.7 mil/ yr. 5. Tampa Bay To evaluate potential impingement and entrainment impacts of cooling water intake structures in estuaries of the Gulf Coast and Southeast Atlantic, EPA evaluated impingement and entrainment rates at the Big Bend facility in Tampa Bay. EPA estimated that the impingement impact of Big Bend is 420,000 age 1 equivalent fish and over 11,000 pounds of lost fishery yield per year. The entrainment impact is 7.71 billion age 1 equivalent fish and over nearly 23 million pounds of lost fishery yield per year. Extrapolation of these losses to other Tampa Bay facilities indicated a cumulative impingement impact of 1 million age 1 fish ( 27,000 pounds of lost fishery yield) and a cumulative entrainment impact of 19 billion age 1 equivalent fish ( 56 million pounds of lost fishery yield) each year. The results of EPA's evaluation of the dollar value of impingement and entrainment losses at Big Bend, as calculated using benefits transfer, indicate that baseline economic losses range from $ 61,000 to $ 67,000 per year for impingement and from $ 7.1 million to $ 7.4 million per year for entrainment ( all in 2001$). Baseline economic losses using benefits transfer for all in scope facilities in Tampa Bay ( Big Bend, PL Bartow, FJ Gannon, and Hookers Point) range from $ 150,000 to $ 165,000 for impingement and from $ 17.5 million to $ 18.5 million per year for entrainment ( all in 2001$). EPA also developed a random utility model ( RUM) approach to estimate the effects of improved fishing opportunities due to reduced impingement and entrainment in the Tampa Bay Region. Cooling water intake structures withdrawing water from Tampa Bay impinge and entrain many of the species sought by recreational VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 21: 35 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm11 PsN: 09APP2 17198 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules anglers. These species include spotted seatrout, black drum, sheepshead, pinfish, and silver perch. The study area includes Tampa Bay itself and coastal sites to the north and south of Tampa Bay. The study's main assumption is that anglers will get greater satisfaction, and thus greater economic value, from sites where the catch rate is higher, all else being equal. This benefit may occur in two ways: first, an angler may get greater enjoyment from a given fishing trip when catch rates are higher, and thus get a greater value per trip; second, anglers may take more fishing trips when catch rates are higher, resulting in greater overall value for fishing in the region. EPA's analysis of improvements in recreational fishing opportunities in the Tampa Bay Region relies on a subset of the 1997 Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey ( MRFSS) combined with the 1997 Add­ on MRFSS Economic Survey ( AMES) and the follow­ up telephone survey for the Southeastern United States. The Agency evaluated five species and species groups in the model: drums ( including red and black drum), spotted seatrout, gamefish, snapper­ grouper, and all other species. Impingement and entrainment was found to affect black drum, spotted seatrout, and sheepshead which is included in the snapper­ grouper species category. EPA estimated both a random utility site choice model and a negative binomial trip participation model. The random utility model assumes that anglers choose the site that provides them with the greatest satisfaction, based on the characteristics of different sites and the travel costs associated with visiting different sites. The trip participation model assumes that the total number of trips taken in a year are a function of the value of each site to the angler and characteristics of the angler. To estimate changes in the quality of fishing sites under different policy scenarios, EPA relied on the recreational fishery landings data by State and the estimates of recreational losses from impingement and entrainment on the relevant species at the Tampa Bay cooling water intake structures. The Agency estimated changes in the quality of recreational fishing sites under different policy scenarios in terms of the percentage change in the historic catch rate. EPA divided losses to the recreational fishery from impingement and entrainment by the total recreational landings for the Tampa Bay area to calculate the percent change in historic catch rate from baseline losses ( i. e., eliminating impingement and entrainment completely). The results show that anglers targeting black drum have the largest per trip welfare gain ($ 7.18 in 2001$) from eliminating impingement and entrainment in the Tampa region. Anglers targeting spotted seatrout and sheepshead have smaller per­ trip gains ($ 1.80 and $ 1.77 respectively, in 2001$). The large gains for black drum are due to the large predicted increase in catch rates. In general, based on a hypothetical one fish per trip increase in catch rate, gamefish and snappergrouper are the most highly valued fish in the study area, followed by drums and spotted seatrout. EPA calculated total economic values by combining the estimated per trip welfare gain with the total number of trips to sites in the Tampa Bay region. EPA used the estimated trip participation model to estimate the percentage change in the number of fishing trips with the elimination of impingement and entrainment. These estimated percentage increases are 0.93 percent for anglers who target sheepshead, 0.94 percent for anglers who target spotted seatrout, and 3.82 percent for anglers who target black drum. If impingement and entrainment is eliminated in the Tampa region, total benefits are estimated to be $ 2,428,000 per year at the baseline number of trips, and $ 2,458,000 per year at the predicted increased number of trips ( all in 2001$). At the baseline number of trips, the impingement and entrainment benefits to black drum anglers are $ 270,000 per year; benefits to spotted seatrout anglers are $ 2,016,000 per year; and benefits to sheepshead anglers are $ 143,000 per year ( all in 2001$). Results for the RUM analysis were merged with the benefits transfer­ based estimates to create an estimate of recreational fishery losses from impingement and entrainment in a manner that avoids double counting of the recreation impacts. Baseline economic losses combining both approaches for all in scope facilities in Tampa Bay ( Big Bend, PL Bartow, FJ Gannon, and Hookers Point) range from $ 0.80 million to $ 0.82 million for impingement and from $ 20.0 million to $ 20.9 million per year for entrainment ( all in 2001$) ( see Exhibit 18). For a variety of reasons, EPA believes that the estimates developed here underestimate the value of impingement and entrainment losses at Tampa Bay facilities. EPA assumed that the effects of impingement and entrainment on fish populations are constant over time ( i. e., that fish kills do not have cumulatively greater impacts on diminished fish populations). EPA also did not analyze whether the number of fish affected by impingement and entrainment would increase as populations increase in response to improved water quality or other improvements in environmental conditions. In the economic analyses, EPA also assumed that fishing is the only recreational activity affected. EXHIBIT 18. BASELINE IMPACTS ( ANNUAL AVERAGE) FOR TAMPA BAY Impingement Entrainment Four In Scope Facilities a. age 1 equivalent fish lost .......................................... > 1 mil/ yr ...................................................... > 19 billion/ yr. b. # lbs lost to landed fishery ........................................ > 27,000 lbs/ yr ............................................. > 56 million lbs/ yr. c. $ value of loss ( 2001$) .............................................. $ 0.80 mil $ 0.82 mil/ yr ................................ $ 20.0 mil $ 20.9 mil/ yr. 6. Brayton Point EPA evaluated cumulative impingement and entrainment impacts at the Brayton Point Station facility in Mount Hope Bay in Somerset, Massachusetts. EPA estimates that the cumulative impingement impact is 69,300 age 1 equivalents and 5,100 pounds of lost fishery yield per year. The cumulative entrainment impact amounts to 3.8 million age 1 equivalents and 70,400 pounds of lost fishery yield each year. The results of EPA's evaluation of the dollar value of impingement and entrainment losses at Brayton Point ( as calculated using benefits transfer) indicate that baseline economic losses range from $ 7,000 to $ 12,000 per year for impingement and from $ 166,000 to VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17199 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules $ 303,000 per year for entrainment ( all in 2001$). EPA also developed an Habitat­ based Replacement Cost ( HRC) analysis to examine the costs of restoring impingement and entrainment losses at Brayton Point. These HRC estimates were merged with the benefits transfer results to develop a more comprehensive range of loss estimates. The HRC results were used as an upper bound and the midpoint of the benefits transfer method was used as a lower bound ( HRC annualized at 7 percent over 20 years). Combining both approaches, the value of impingement and entrainment losses at Brayton Point range from approximately $ 9,000 to $ 890,00 per year for impingement, and from $ 0.2 million to $ 28.3 million per year for entrainment ( all in 2001$) ( see Exhibit 19). For a variety of reasons, EPA believes that the estimates developed here underestimate the total economic benefits of reducing impingement and entrainment at Brayton Point. EPA assumed that the effects of impingement and entrainment on fish populations are constant over time ( i. e., that fish kills do not have cumulatively greater impacts on diminished fish populations). EPA also did not analyze whether the number of fish affected by impingement and entrainment would increase as populations increase in response to improved water quality or other improvements in environmental conditions. In the economic analyses, EPA also assumed that fishing is the only recreational activity affected. EXHIBIT 19. BASELINE IMPACTS ( ANNUAL AVERAGE) FOR BRAYTON POINT Impingement Entrainment One In Scope Facility a. age 1 equivalent fish lost .......................................... > 69,300/ yr .................................................. > 3.8 mil/ yr. b. # lbs lost to landed fishery ........................................ > 5,100 lbs/ yr ............................................... > 70,400 lbs/ yr. c. $ value of loss ( 2001$) .............................................. $ 9,000 $ 890,000/ yr .................................... $ 0.2 mil $ 28.3 mil/ yr. 7. Seabrook Pilgrim The results of EPA's evaluation of impingement and entrainment rates at Seabrook and Pilgrim indicate that impingement and entrainment at Seabrook's offshore intake is substantially less than impingement and entrainment at Pilgrim's nearshore intake. Impingement per MGD averages 68 percent less and entrainment averages 58 percent less at Seabrook. The species most commonly impinged at both facilities are primarily winter flounder, Atlantic herring, Atlantic menhaden, and red hake. These are species of commercial and recreational interest. However, the species most commonly entrained at the facilities are predominately forage species. Because it is difficult to assign an economic value to such losses, and because entrainment losses are much greater than impingement losses, the benefits of an offshore intake or other technologies that may reduce impingement and entrainment at these facilities are likely to be underestimated. There also are several important factors in addition to the intake location ( nearshore versus offshore) that complicate the comparison of impingement and entrainment at the Seabrook facility to impingement and entrainment at Pilgrim ( e. g., entrainment data are based on different flow regimes, different years of data collection, and protocols for reporting monitoring results). Average impingement losses at Seabrook are valued at between $ 3,500 and $ 5,200 per year, and average entrainment losses are valued at between $ 142,000 and $ 315,000 per year ( all in 2001$) ( see Exhibit 20). Average impingement losses at Pilgrim are valued at between $ 3,300 and $ 5,000 per year, and average entrainment losses are valued at between $ 523,500 and $ 759,300 per year ( all in 2001$). These values reflect estimates derived using benefits transfer. EPA also developed an HRC analysis to examine the costs of restoring impingement and entrainment losses at Pilgrim. Using the HRC approach, the value of impingement and entrainment losses at Pilgrim are approximately $ 507,000 for impingement, and over $ 9.3 million per year for entrainment ( HRC annualized at 7 percent over 20 years) ( all in 2001$). These HRC estimates were merged with the benefits transfer results to develop a more comprehensive range of loss estimates. These HRC estimates were merged with the benefits transfer results to develop a more comprehensive range of loss estimates. The HRC results were used as an upper bound and the midpoint of the benefits transfer method was used as a lower bound ( HRC annualized at 7 percent over 20 years). Combining both approaches, the value of impingement and entrainment losses at Pilgrim range from approximately $ 4,000 to $ 507,00 per year for impingement, and from $ 0.6 million to $ 9.3 million per year for entrainment ( all in 2001$) ( see Exhibit 21). EXHIBIT 20. BASELINE IMPACTS ( ANNUAL AVERAGE) FOR SEABROOK Impingement Entrainment One In Scope Facility: Seabrook a. age 1 equivalent fish lost .......................................... > 1.8 mil/ yr ................................................. > 290,000/ yr b. # lbs lost to landed fishery ........................................ > 21.4 mil lbs/ yr .......................................... > 404,000 lbs/ yr c. $ value of loss ( 2001$) .............................................. $ 3,000 $ 5,000 ............................................ $ 142,000 $ 315,000 EXHIBIT 21. BASELINE IMPACTS ( ANNUAL AVERAGE) FOR PILGRIM Impingement Entrainment One In Scope Facility: Pilgrim Losses Using Benefits Transfer a. age 1 equivalent fish lost .......................................... > 1.8 mil/ yr ................................................. > 290,000/ yr VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17200 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules EXHIBIT 21. BASELINE IMPACTS ( ANNUAL AVERAGE) FOR PILGRIM Continued Impingement Entrainment b. # lbs lost to landed fishery ........................................ > 21.4 mil lbs/ yr .......................................... > 404,000 lbs/ yr c. $ value of loss ( 2001$) .............................................. $ 3,000 $ 5,000/ yr ........................................ $ 0.5 mil $ 0.7 mil/ yr Pilgrim Losses Using HRC as Upper Bounds and Benefits Transfer Midpoints as Lower a. age 1 equivalent fish lost .......................................... > 1.8 mil/ yr ................................................. > 290,000/ yr b. # lbs lost to landed fishery ........................................ > 21.4 mil lbs/ yr .......................................... > 404,000 lbs/ yr c. $ value of loss ( 2001$) .............................................. $ 4,000 $ 507,000/ yr .................................... $ 0.6 mil $ 9.3 mil/ yr 8. Monroe EPA estimates that the baseline impingement losses at the Monroe facility are 35.8 million age 1 equivalents and 1.4 million pounds of lost fishery yield per year. Baseline entrainment impacts amount to 11.6 million age 1 equivalents and 608,300 pounds of lost fishery yield each year. The results of EPA's evaluation of the dollar value of baseline impingement and entrainment losses at Monroe ( as calculated using benefits transfer) indicate that baseline economic losses range from $ 502,200 to $ 981,750 per year for impingement and from $ 314,600 to $ 2,298,500 per year for entrainment ( all in 2001$). EPA also developed an HRC analysis to examine the costs of restoring impingement and entrainment losses at Pilgrim. These HRC estimates were merged with the benefits transfer results to develop a more comprehensive range of loss estimates. These HRC estimates were merged with the benefits transfer results to develop a more comprehensive range of loss estimates. The HRC results were used as an upper bound and the midpoint of the benefits transfer method was used as a lower bound ( HRC annualized at 7 percent over 20 years). Combining both approaches, the value of impingement and entrainment losses at Monroe range from approximately $ 0.7 million to $ 5.6 per year for impingement, and from $ 1.3 million to $ 13.9 million per year for entrainment ( all in 2001$) ( see Exhibit 22). For a variety of reasons, EPA believes that the estimates developed here underestimate the total economic benefits of reducing impingement and entrainment at the Monroe facility. EPA assumed that the effects of impingement and entrainment on fish populations are constant over time ( i. e., that fish kills do not have cumulatively greater impacts on diminished fish populations). EPA also did not analyze whether the number of fish affected by impingement and entrainment would increase as populations increase in response to improved water quality or other improvements in environmental conditions. In the economic analyses, EPA also assumed that fishing is the only recreational activity affected. EXHIBIT 22. BASELINE LOSSES AT ( ANNUAL AVERAGE) MONROE ( USING HRC VALUES AS UPPER BOUNDS) Impingement Entrainment One In Scope Facility a. age 1 equivalent fish lost .......................................... > 1.8 mil/ yr ................................................. > 290,000/ yr b. # lbs lost to landed fishery ........................................ > 21.4 mil lbs/ yr .......................................... > 404,000 lbs/ yr c. $ value of loss ( 2001$) .............................................. $ 0.7 mil $ 5.6 mil ........................................ $ 1.3 mil $ 13.9 mil F. Estimates of National Benefits 1. Methodology In order to compare benefits to costs for a national rulemaking such as the section 316( b) proposed rule for Phase II existing facilities, there is a need to generate national estimates of both costs and benefits. This section describes the methodology EPA has developed to provide national estimates of benefits. Because benefits are very site­ specific, there are limited options for how EPA can develop national­ level benefits estimates from a diverse set of over 500 regulated entities. EPA could only develop a limited number of case studies, and to interpret these cases in a national context, the Agency identified a range of settings that reflect the likely benefits potential of a given type of facility ( and its key stressorrelated attributes) in combination with the waterbody characteristics ( receptor attributes) in which it is located. Benefits potential settings can thus be defined by the various possible combinations of stressor ( facility) and receptor ( waterbody, etc) combinations. Ideally, case studies would be selected to represent each of these `` benefits potential'' settings and then could be used to extrapolate to likecharacterized facility­ waterbody setting cooling water intake structure sites. However, data limitations and other considerations precluded EPA from developing enough case studies to reflect the complete range of benefitspotential settings. Data limitations also made it difficult to reliably assign facilities to the various benefits potential categories. Based on the difficulties noted above, EPA adopted a more practical, streamlined extrapolation version of its preferred approach, as this is the only viable approach available to the Agency. To develop a feasible, tractable manner for developing national benefits estimates from a small number of case study investigations, EPA made its national extrapolations on the basis of a combination of three relevant variables: ( 1) The volume of water ( operational flow) drawn by a facility; ( 2) the level of recreational angling activity within the vicinity of the facility; and ( 3) the type of waterbody on which the facility is located. Extrapolations were then made across facilities according to their respective waterbody type. The first of these variables operational flow ( measured as millions of gallons per day, or MGD) reflects the degree of stress caused by a facility. The second variable the number of angler days in the area ( measured as the number of recreational angling days within a 120 mile radius) reflects the degree to which there is a demand VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17201 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( value) by local residents to use the fishery that is impacted. The third variable waterbody type ( e. g., estuary, ocean, freshwater river or lake, or Great Lakes) reflects the types, numbers, and life stages of fish and other biological receptors that are impacted by the facilities. Accordingly, the extrapolations based on these three variables reflect the key factors that affect benefits: the relevant stressor, the biological receptors, and the human demands for the natural resources and services impacted. Flow: The flow variable the Agency developed is the monetized benefits per volume of water flowing through cooling water intake structures, in specific, applying a metric of `` dollars per million gallons per day'' ($/ MGD), where MGD levels are based on average operational flows as reported by the facilities in the EPA Section 316( b) Detailed Questionnaire and Short Technical Questionnaire responses, or through publically available data. Angler days. The angler day variable the Agency used is based on data developed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Survey as part of its 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife­ Associated Recreation. These data were interpreted within a GISbased approach to estimate the level of recreational angling pursued by populations living within 120 miles of each facility ( additional detail is provided in the EBA). In developing the index, EPA used a GIS analysis to identify counties within a 120 mile radius of each facility. The area for each facility included the county the facility is located in and any other county with 50 percent or more of its population residing within 120 miles of the facility. EPA estimated angling activity levels for two types of angling days for each county: freshwater angling days and saltwater angling days. Estimated angling days for the appropriate waterbody type were summed across all counties in a facility's area to yield estimated angling days near the facility. For each type of angling, EPA estimated angling days by county residents as a percentage of the State angling days by residents 16 years and older reported in the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife­ Associated Recreation ( USFWS, 1997). Angling days in each State were partitioned into days by urban anglers and days by rural anglers based on the U. S. percentages reported in the 1996 National Survey. For urban counties, Angling Days = State Urban Angling Days * County Pop/ State Pop in Urban Counties For rural counties, Angling Days = State Rural Angling Days * County Pop/ State Pop in Rural Counties EPA determined urban and rural population by State by summing the 1999 county populations for the State's urban and rural counties respectively. EPA determined each county's urban/ rural status using definitions developed by the U. S. Department of Agriculture ( as included in NORSIS 1997). These index values are based upon the estimated number of angling days by residents living near the facility. The index value for each facility is a measure of the facility's share of the total angling days estimated at all in scope facilities located on a similar waterbody. The analysis then proceeded by waterbody type. Estuaries National baseline losses and benefits for estuaries were based on the Salem and Tampa Bay case studies. The case studies were extrapolated to other facilities on the basis of regional fishery types, in an effort to reflect the different types of fisheries that are impacted in various regions of the country's coastal waters. As such, the Tampa Bay case study results were applied to estuary facilities located in Florida and other Gulf Coast States, and the Salem results were applied to all remaining estuary facilities ( note that the Salem results used for the extrapolation differ from the case study results presented above in order to reflect losses without a screen currently in place at the facility). Ideally, a West Coast facility would have served as the basis of extrapolation to estuarine facilities along the Pacific Coast, but EPA could not develop a suitable case study for that purpose in time for this proposal. However, EPA intends to develop such a western estuary case study and report its findings in an anticipated forthcoming Notice of Data Availability. In order to extrapolate baseline losses from the Salem and Big Bend facilities to all in scope facilities on estuaries, EPA calculated an index of angling activity for each of these in scope facilities. The angling index is a percentage value that ranges from 0 to 1. Dividing baseline losses at a facility by the index value provides an estimate of total baseline losses at all in scope facilities located on waterbodies in the same category. Rivers and Lakes EPA combined rivers, lakes and reservoirs into one class of freshwaterbased facilities ( Great Lakes are not included in this group, and were considered separately). The waterbody classifications for freshwater rivers and lakes/ reservoirs were grouped together for the extrapolation due to similar ecological and hydrological characteristics of freshwater systems used as cooling water. The majority of these hydrologic systems have undergone some degree of modification for purposes such as water storage, flood control, and navigation. The degree of modification can vary very little or quite dramatically. A facility falling into the lake/ reservoir category may withdraw cooling water from a lake that has been reclassified as a reservoir due to the addition of an earthen dam, or from a reservoir created by the diversion of a river through a diversion canal for use as a cooling lake. The species composition and ecology of these two waterbodies may vary greatly. While the ecology of river systems and lakes or reservoirs are considerably different, due to structural modifications these two classifications may be quite similar ecologically depending on the waterbody in question. For example, many river systems, including the Ohio River, are now broken up into a series of navigational pools controlled by dams that may function more similarly to a reservoir than a naturally flowing river. Baseline losses and benefits in the Ohio case study were based on 29 in scope facilities in the Ohio River case study area. The Agency extrapolated these losses to all in scope facilities on other freshwater rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Oceans and Great Lakes Oceans and Great Lakes estimates were based on extrapolations from the Pilgrim and JR Whiting facility case studies, respectively. For these two facilities ( and their associated waterbody types), the valuation method applied by EPA in the national extrapolations was based on the Habitatbased Replacement Cost approach, which reflects values for addressing a much greater number of impacted species ( not just the small share that are recreational or commercial species that are landed by anglers). For example, at JR Whiting, the benefits transfer approach developed values for recreational angling amounted to only 4 percent of the estimated total impingement losses, and reflected only 0.02 percent of the age 1 fish lost due to impingement. At Pilgrim, the benefits transfer approach reflected recreational losses for only 0.5 percent of the entrained age 1 equivalent fish at that site. Because the Agency was able to VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17202 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules develop HRC values for these sites and recreational fishery impacts were such a small part of the impacts, EPA extrapolated only based on HRC estimates and used only the flow­ based ( MGD) index for oceans and the Great Lakes. Results The results of the index calculations for operational flow and angling effort used for extrapolating case study baseline losses to national baseline losses for all in scope facilities are reported in Exhibit 23 below. EXHIBIT 23. FLOW AND ANGLING INDICES Waterbody Type Based on Normalized MGD percent Percent of in scope angling base Estuary­ N. Atlantic ............................................................ Salem ............................................................................... 4.39 2.10 Estuary­ S. Atlantic ............................................................. 4 Tampa Bay facilities ..................................................... 19.24 20.28 Freshwater systems .......................................................... 29 Ohio River facilities ..................................................... 9.30 12.34 Great Lake ........................................................................ JR Whiting ........................................................................ 3.92 13.89 Ocean ................................................................................ Pilgrim .............................................................................. 3.42 6.54 Waterbody EPA further tailored its extrapolation approach, so that monetized benefits estimates are based on available data for similar types of waterbody settings. Thus, for example, the case study results for the Salem facility ( located in the Delaware Estuary) and the Tampa facilities are applied ( on a per MGD and angling day index basis) only to other facilities located in estuary waters. Likewise, results from Ohio River facilities are applied to inland freshwater water cooling water intake structures ( excluding facilities on the Great Lakes), and losses estimated for the Pilgrim facility are applied to facilities using ocean waters at their intakes, and results for J. R. Whiting are used for the Great Lakes facilities. As noted above, the waterbody classifications for freshwater rivers and lakes or reservoirs were grouped together for the extrapolation due to similar ecological and hydrological characteristics of freshwater systems used as cooling water. The majority of these hydrologic systems have undergone some degree of modification for purposes such as water storage, flood control, and navigation. Due to structural modifications, these freshwater waterbody types be quite similar ecologically. For example, many river systems, including the Ohio River, are now broken up into a series of navigational pools controlled by dams that may function more similarly to a reservoir than a naturally flowing river. The natural species distribution, genetic movement, and seasonal migration of aquatic organisms that may be expected in a natural system is affected by factors such as dams, stocking of fish, and water diversions. Since the degree of modification of inland waterbodies and the occurrence of fish stocking could not be determined for every cooling water source, the waterbody categories `` freshwater rivers'', and `` lakes/ reservoirs'' were grouped together. The facilities chosen for extrapolation are expected to have relatively average benefits per MGD and angling day index, for their respective waterbody types. Benefits per MGD and angling day index are not expected to be extremely high or low relative to other facilities. EPA was careful not to use facilities that were unusual in this regard. Salem is located in the transitional zone of the estuary, a lesser productive part of the estuary. The use of flow and angler day basis for extrapolation has some practical advantages and basis in logic; however, it also has some less than fully satisfactory implications. The advantages of using this extrapolation approach include: Feasibility of application, because the extrapolation relies on waterbody type, angler demand, and MGD data that are available for all in scope facilities. Selectively extrapolating case study results to facilities on like types of waterbodies reflects the type of aquatic setting impacted, which is intended to capture the number and types of species impacted by impingement and entrainment at such facilities ( i. e., impacts at facilities on estuaries are more similar to impacts at other estuarybased cooling water intake structures than they are to facilities on inland waters). Flow in MGD is a useful proxy for the scale of operation at cooling water intake structures, a variable that typically will have a large impact on baseline losses and potential regulatory benefits. While there may be a high degree of variability in the actual losses ( and benefits) per MGD across facilities that impact similar waterbodies, the extrapolations are expected to be reasonably accurate on average for developing an order­ of­ magnitude national­ level estimate of benefits. The recreational participation level ( angler day) variable provides a logical basis to reflect the extent of human user demands for the fishery and other resources affected by impingement and entrainment. The estimates are not biased in either direction. Some of the disadvantages of the use of extrapolating results on the basis of waterbody type, recreational angling day data, and operational flows ( MGD) include: The approach may not reflect all of the variability that exists in impingement and entrainment impacts ( and monetized losses or benefits) within waterbody classifications. For example, within and across U. S. estuaries, there may be different species, numbers of individuals, and life stages present at different cooling water intake structures. The approach may not reflect all of the variability that exists in impingement and entrainment impacts ( and monetized losses or benefits) across operational flow levels ( MGD) at different facilities within a given waterbody type. Extrapolating to national benefits according to flow ( MGD), angling levels, and waterbody type, as derived from estimates for a small number of case studies, may introduce inaccuracies into national estimates. This is because the three variables used as the basis for the extrapolation ( MGD, recreational angling days, and waterbody type) may not account for all of the variability expected in site­ specific benefits levels. The case studies may not reflect the average or `` typical'' cooling water intake structures impacts on a given type of waterbody ( i. e., the extrapolated results might under­ or over­ state the physical and dollar value of impacts per MGD and fishing day index, by VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17203 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules waterbody type). The inaccuracies introduced to the national­ level estimates by this extrapolation approach are of unknown magnitude or direction ( i. e., the estimates may over­ or understate the anticipated national­ level benefits), however EPA has no data to indicate that the case study results are atypical for each waterbody type. 2. Results of National Benefits Extrapolation National benefits for 3 regulatory compliance options were estimated for the 539 facilities found to be in scope of the section 316( b) Phase II rulemaking. The benefits estimates were derived in a multi­ step process that used operational flows and the recreational fishing index as the basis for extrapolating case study results to the national level. In the first step, EPA used the baseline losses ( dollars per year) derived from the analysis of facilities examined in the case studies. In some instances, the case study facilities had already implemented some measures to reduce impingement and/ or entrainment. In such cases, baseline losses as appropriate to the national extrapolation were estimated using data for years prior to the facilities' actions ( e. g., based on impingement and entrainment before the impingement deterrent net was installed at JR Whiting). These preaction baselines provide a basis for examining other facilities that have not yet taken actions to reduce impingement and/ or entrainment. Baseline losses at the selected case study facilities are summarized in Exhibit 24. EXHIBIT 24. BASELINE LOSSES FROM SELECTED CASE STUDIES [ Baseline losses from selected case studies, values in thousands of 2001$] Case study Impingement Entrainment Low Mid High Low Mid High Salem ............................................................................... $ 528 $ 704 $ 879 $ 16,766 $ 23,657 $ 30,548 Brayton ............................................................................. 9 450 890 235 14,261 28,288 Contra Costa .................................................................... 2,666 5,726 8,785 6,413 13,630 20,847 Pittsburgh ......................................................................... 10,096 22,268 34,440 19,166 40,760 62,354 4 Tampa Bay Facilities .................................................... 801 809 817 20,007 20,454 20,901 29 Ohio Facilities ............................................................. 3,452 4,052 4,652 9,257 9,584 9,912 Monroe ............................................................................. 742 3,190 5,639 1,307 7,604 13,902 JR Whiting ........................................................................ 358 797 1,235 42 873 1,703 Pilgrim Nuclear ................................................................. 4 256 507 642 4,960 9,279 In the second step, EPA extrapolated the baseline dollar loss estimates from the case study models to all of the remaining 539 facilities by multiplying the index of operational flow for each facility by the estimated dollar losses at baseline per unit flow, based on each facility's source waterbody type, were extrapolated. This resulted in a national estimate of baseline monetizable losses for all 539 in scope facilities as summarized in Exhibit 25. EXHIBIT 25. BASELINE LOSSES EXTRAPOLATED TO ALL IN SCOPE FACILITIES USING MGD ONLY [ Baseline losses extrapolated to all in scope facilities MGD only, values in thousands of 2001$] Facility Case study Impingement Entrainment Low Mid High Low Mid High Estuary, Non Gulf Salem .................................................. Delaware ................................ $ 528 $ 704 $ 879 $ 16,766 $ 23,657 $ 30,548 Brayton Point ...................................... Brayton ................................... 9 450 890 235 14,261 28,288 Contra Costa ....................................... California ................................ 2,666 5,726 8,785 6,413 13,630 20,847 Pittsburgh ............................................ California ................................ 10,096 22,268 34,440 19,166 40,760 62,354 All Other In Scope .............................. ............................................ 11,167 14,875 18,583 354,346 499,991 645,636 All 78 In Scope ................................... ............................................ 24,467 44,022 63,578 396,925 592,298 787,672 Estuary, Gulf Coast 4 Tampa Facilities ............................... Tampa Bay ............................. 801 809 817 20,007 20,454 20,901 All Other In Scope .............................. ............................................ 3,361 3,395 3,429 83,982 85,857 87,732 All 30 In Scope ................................... ............................................ 4,162 4,204 4,247 103,989 106,311 108,633 Freshwater 29 Ohio Facilities ................................ Ohio ........................................ 3,452 4,052 4,652 9,257 9,584 9,912 Monroe ................................................ Monroe ................................... 742 3,190 5,639 1,307 7,604 13,902 All Other In Scope .............................. ............................................ 33,317 39,111 44,906 89,348 92,514 95,679 All 393 In Scope ................................. ............................................ 37,511 46,353 55,196 99,911 109,702 119,493 Great Lake JR Whiting ........................................... JR Whiting .............................. 358 797 1,235 42 873 1,703 All Other In Scope .............................. ............................................ 8,774 19,523 30,271 1,025 21,385 41,745 All 16 In Scope ................................... ............................................ 9,132 20,319 31,506 1,067 22,257 43,448 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17204 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules EXHIBIT 25. BASELINE LOSSES EXTRAPOLATED TO ALL IN SCOPE FACILITIES USING MGD ONLY Continued [ Baseline losses extrapolated to all in scope facilities MGD only, values in thousands of 2001$] Facility Case study Impingement Entrainment Low Mid High Low Mid High Ocean Pilgrim Nuclear .................................... Pilgrim .................................... 4 256 507 642 4,960 9,279 All Other In Scope .............................. ............................................ 115 7,219 14,323 18,127 140,146 262,165 All 22 In Scope ................................... ............................................ 119 7,475 14,830 18,769 145,106 271,444 Total All Facilities All 539 In Scope ................................. ............................................ 75,390 122,374 169,357 620,661 975,675 1,330,690 In the third step, the Agency extrapolated baseline losses from the case studies were also developed using the angling index values for each case study. The calculation of the index is described above. The results are summarized in Exhibit 26. EXHIBIT 26. BASELINE LOSSES EXTRAPOLATED ANGLING DAYS ONLY [ Values in thousands of 2001$] Facility Case Study Impingement Entrainment Low Mid High Low Mid High Estuary, Non Gulf Salem .......................... Delaware ..................... $ 528 $ 704 $ 879 $ 16,766 $ 23,657 $ 30,548 Brayton Point .............. Brayton ....................... 9 450 890 235 14,261 28,288 Contra Costa .............. California ..................... 2,666 5,726 8,785 6,413 13,630 20,847 Pittsburgh .................... California ..................... 10,096 22,268 34,440 19,166 40,760 62,354 All Other In Scope ...... ..................................... 23,840 31,755 39,671 756,471 1,067,399 1,378,327 All 78 In Scope ........... ..................................... 37,139 60,903 84,667 799,050 1,159,706 1,520,363 Estuary, Gulf Coast 4 Tampa Facilities ...... Tampa Bay ................. $ 801 $ 809 $ 817 $ 20,007 $ 20,454 $ 20,901 All Other In Scope ...... ..................................... 3,148 3,180 3,212 78,664 80,421 82,177 All 30 In Scope ........... ..................................... 3,949 3,989 4,029 98,672 100,875 103,078 Freshwater 29 Ohio Facilities ........ Ohio ............................ $ 3,452 $ 4,052 $ 4,652 $ 9,257 $ 9,584 $ 9,912 Monroe ........................ Monroe ........................ 742 3,190 5,639 1,307 7,604 13,902 All Other In Scope ...... ..................................... 23,203 27,238 31,273 62,224 64,429 66,633 All 393 In Scope ......... ..................................... 27,396 34,480 41,564 72,787 81,617 90,447 Great Lake JR Whiting .................. JR Whiting .................. $ 358 $ 797 $ 1,235 $ 42 $ 873 $ 1,703 All Other In Scope ...... ..................................... 2,231 4,965 7,698 261 5,438 10,616 All 16 In Scope ........... ..................................... 2,589 5,761 8,933 302 6,311 12,319 Ocean Pilgrim Nuclear ........... Pilgrim ......................... $ 4 $ 256 $ 507 $ 642 $ 4,960 $ 9,279 All Other In Scope ...... ..................................... 56 3,529 7,001 8,861 68,504 128,147 All 22 In Scope ........... ..................................... 60 3,784 7,508 9,502 73,464 137,426 Total All Facilities All 539 In Scope ......... ..................................... $ 71,134 $ 108,918 $ 146,701 $ 980,314 $ 1,421,974 $ 1,863,633 As a fourth step, EPA calculated the average baseline losses of the flow­ based results and the angling­ based results. This develops results that reflect an equal­ weighted extrapolation measure of each case study facility's baseline loss, based on it's percent share of flow and recreational fishing relative to all in scope facilities in each waterbody type. The results of this average are reported in Exhibit 27. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17205 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules EXHIBIT 27. BASELINE LOSSES EXTRAPOLATED TO ALL IN SCOPE FACILITIES MEANS OF MGD AND ANGLING [ Values in thousands of 2001$] Facility Case Study Impingement Entrainment Low Mid High Low Mid High Estuary, Non Gulf Salem .......................... Delaware ..................... $ 528 $ 704 $ 879 $ 16,766 $ 23,657 $ 30,548 Brayton Point .............. Brayton ....................... 9 450 890 235 14,261 28,288 Contra Costa .............. California ..................... 2,666 5,726 8,785 6,413 13,630 20,847 Pittsburgh .................... California ..................... 10,096 22,268 34,440 19,166 40,760 62,354 All Other In Scope ...... ..................................... 17,503 23,315 29,127 555,409 783,695 1,011,981 All 78 In Scope ........... ..................................... 30,803 52,463 74,122 597,988 876,002 1,154,017 Estuary. Gulf Coast 4 Tampa Facilities ...... Tampa Bay ................. $ 801 $ 809 $ 817 $ 20,007 $ 20,454 $ 20,901 All Other In Scope ...... ..................................... 3,255 3,288 3,321 81,323 83,139 84,955 All 30 In Scope ........... ..................................... 4,055 4,097 4,138 101,330 103,593 105,856 Freshwater 29 Ohio Facilities ........ Ohio ............................ $ 3,452 $ 4,052 $ 4,652 $ 9,257 $ 9,584 $ 9,912 Monroe ........................ Monroe ........................ 742 3,190 5,639 1,307 7,604 13,902 All Other In Scope ...... ..................................... 28,260 33,175 38,089 75,786 78,471 81,156 All 393 In Scope ......... ..................................... 32,453 40,417 48,380 86,349 95,660 104,970 Great Lake JR Whiting .................. JR Whiting .................. $ 358 $ 797 $ 1,235 $ 42 $ 873 $ 1,703 All Other In Scope ...... ..................................... 5,503 12,244 18,985 643 13,412 26,180 All 16 In Scope ........... ..................................... 5,861 13,040 20,220 685 14,284 27,884 Ocean Pilgrim Nuclear ........... Pilgrim ......................... $ 4 $ 256 $ 507 $ 642 $ 4,960 $ 9,279 All Other In Scope ...... ..................................... 86 5,374 10,662 13,494 104,325 195,156 All 22 In Scope ........... ..................................... 90 5,629 11,169 14,135 109,285 204,435 Total All Facilities All 539 In Scope ......... ..................................... $ 73,262 $ 115,642 $ 158,029 $ 800,487 $ 1,198,824 $ 1,597,162 In the fifth step, EPA selected the set of extrapolation values the Agency believes are the most reflective of the baseline loss scenarios that applied in each waterbody type. For estuaries and freshwater facilities, EPA used the midpoint of its loss estimates of impingement and entrainment at the case study facilities, and then applied the average of the MGD­ and anglerbased extrapolation results. This provides estimates of national baseline losses that reflect the broadest set of values and parameters ( i. e., the full range of loss estimates, plus the application of all three extrapolation variables). For oceans and the Great Lakes, EPA developed national­ scale estimates using its HRC­ based loss estimates, because EPA was able to develop HRC estimates for these sites, and because these HRC values are more comprehensive than the values derived using the more traditional benefits transfer approach. The HRC estimates cover losses for a much larger percentage of fish lost due to impingement and entrainment, whereas the benefits transfer approach addressed losses only for a small share of the impacted fish. Since recreational fish impacts were an extremely small share of the total fish impacts at these sites, EPA extrapolated the HRC findings using only the MGD­ based index ( i. e., the angler­ based index was not relevant). The results of EPA's assessment of its best estimates for baseline losses due to impingement and entrainment are shown in Exhibit 28. EXHIBIT 28. BEST ESTIMATE BASELINE LOSSES [ Best estimate baseline losses, values in thousands of 2001$] Facility Case study Impingement Entrainment Salem ...................................................................... Delaware ................................................................ $ 704 $ 23,657 Brayton Point .......................................................... Brayton ................................................................... 450 14,261 Contra Costa ........................................................... California ................................................................ 5,726 13,630 Pittsburgh ................................................................ California ................................................................ 22,268 40,760 All Other In Scope .................................................. ................................................................................. 23,315 783,695 All 78 In Scope ....................................................... ................................................................................. 52,463 876,002 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17206 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules EXHIBIT 28. BEST ESTIMATE BASELINE LOSSES Continued [ Best estimate baseline losses, values in thousands of 2001$] Facility Case study Impingement Entrainment Estuary and Gulf Coast 4 Tampa Facilities .................................................. Tampa Bay ............................................................. $ 809 $ 20,454 All Other In Scope .................................................. ................................................................................. 3,288 83,139 All 30 In Scope ....................................................... ................................................................................. 4,097 103,593 Freshwater 29 Ohio Facilities .................................................... Ohio ........................................................................ $ 4,052 $ 9,584 Monroe .................................................................... Monroe ................................................................... 3,190 7,604 All Other In Scope .................................................. ................................................................................. 30,891 73,069 All 393 In Scope ..................................................... ................................................................................. 38,133 90,258 Great Lake JR Whiting .............................................................. JR Whiting .............................................................. $ 1,235 $ 1,703 All Other In Scope .................................................. ................................................................................. 30,271 41,745 All 16 In Scope ....................................................... ................................................................................. 31,506 43,448 Ocean Pilgrim Nuclear ....................................................... Pilgrim .................................................................... $ 507 $ 9,279 All Other In Scope .................................................. ................................................................................. 14,323 262,165 All 22 In Scope ....................................................... ................................................................................. 14,830 271,444 Total All Facilities All 539 In Scope ..................................................... ................................................................................. $ 141,029 $ 1,384,745 In the sixth and final step, EPA estimated the potential benefits of each regulatory option by applying a set of estimated percent reductions in baseline losses. The percent reduction in baseline losses for each facility reflects EPA assessment of ( 1) regulatory baseline conditions at the facility ( i. e., current practices and technologies in place), and ( 2) the percent reductions in impingement and entrainment that EPA estimated would be achieved at each facility that the Agency believes would be adopted under each regulatory option. The options portrayed in the Exhibits correspond to the following technical descriptions of each alternative: Option 1 requires all Phase II existing facilities located on different categories of waterbodies to reduce intake capacity commensurate with the use of closedcycle recirculating cooling water systems based on location and the percentage of the source waterbody they withdraw for cooling; Option 2 is variation of Option 1, but embodies a two­ track approach whereby some facilities may use site­ specific studies to comply using alternative approaches; Option 3 ( the Agency's preferred option) requires all Phase II existing facilities to reduce impingement and entrainment to levels established based on the use of design and construction or operational measures, except for facilities that are below flow thresholds for lakes and rivers; Option 3a is a variation of Option 3, wherein all Phase II existing facilities are required to reduce impingement and entrainment to levels established based on the use of design and construction or operational measures; Option 4 requires all Phase II existing facilities to reduce intake capacity commensurate with the use of closedcycle recirculating cooling water systems; Option 5 requires that all Phase II existing facilities reduce intake capacity commensurate with the use of dry cooling systems. The results of EPA approach to estimating national benefits are shown in Exhibits 29 through 32 ( note that the percent reductions shown in these exhibits are the flow­ weighted average reductions across all facilities in each waterbody category for each regulatory option). EXHIBIT 29. IMPINGEMENT BENEFITS FOR VARIOUS OPTIONS BY REDUCTION LEVEL Waterbody Type Facility Baseline impingement loss Percentage Reductions OPTION 1 percent OPTION 2 percent OPTION 3 percent OPTION 3a percent OPTION 4 percent OPTION 5 percent Estuary NonGulf All 78 In Scope ..... $ 52,463 64.5 47.5 33.2 25.0 40.9 97.5 Estuary Gulf ........ All 30 In Scope ..... 4,097 63.2 45.9 26.5 30.0 45.3 96.7 Freshwater ............ All 393 In Scope ... 40,417 47.3 47.3 47.3 46.7 59.0 98.0 Great Lake ............ All 16 In Scope ..... 31,506 80.0 80.0 80.0 77.0 88.6 96.3 Ocean ................... All 22 In Scope ..... 14,830 73.2 59.0 50.6 47.2 59.7 88.8 ALL ........................ All 539 In Scope ... 143,312 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17207 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules EXHIBIT 30. IMPINGEMENT BENEFITS FOR VARIOUS OPTIONS BY BENEFIT LEVEL Waterbody type Facility Baseline impingement loss Benefits ( Values in thousands of 2001$) OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 OPTION 3a OPTION 4 OPTION 5 Estuary NonGulf All 78 In Scope ..... $ 52,463 $ 33,834 $ 24,909 $ 17,418 $ 13,125 $ 21,470 $ 51,141 Estuary Gulf ........ All 30 In Scope ..... 4,097 2,588 1,882 1,087 1,230 1,856 3,961 Freshwater ............ All 393 In Scope ... 40,417 19,117 19,117 19,117 18,855 23,828 39,605 Great Lake ............ All 16 In Scope ..... 31,506 25,205 25,205 25,205 24,260 27,900 30,326 Ocean ................... All 22 In Scope ..... 14,830 10,849 8,746 7,503 6,995 8,858 13,168 ALL ........................ All 539 In Scope ... 143,312 91,593 79,858 70,329 64,465 83,911 138,201 EXHIBIT 31. ENTRAINMENT BENEFITS FOR VARIOUS OPTIONS BY REDUCTION LEVEL Waterbody type Facility Baseline loss Entrainment percentage reductions OPTION 1 percent OPTION 2 percent OPTION 3 percent OPTION 3a percent OPTION 4 percent OPTION 5 percent Estuary NonGulf All 78 In Scope ..... $ 876,002 67.2 59.1 48.5 47.1 79.2 97.5 Estuary Gulf ........ All 30 In Scope ..... 103,593 66.9 52.3 47.0 47.8 79.3 96.7 Freshwater ............ All 393 In Scope ... 95,660 12.4 12.4 12.4 44.2 72.7 98.0 Great Lake ............ All 16 In Scope ..... 43,448 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 88.6 96.3 Ocean ................... All 22 In Scope ..... 271,444 74.2 58.9 45.0 45.0 74.1 88.8 ALL ........................ All 539 In Scope ... 1,390,147 EXHIBIT 32. ENTRAINMENT BENEFITS FOR VARIOUS OPTIONS BY BENEFIT LEVEL Waterbody type Facility Baseline loss Entrainment benefit ( Values in thousands of 2001$) OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 5 OPTION 6 Estuary NonGulf All 78 In Scope ..... $ 876,002 $ 588,552 $ 517,960 $ 424,708 $ 412,696 $ 693,420 $ 853,940 Estuary Gulf ........ All 30 In Scope ..... 103,593 69,324 54,206 48,645 49,508 82,186 100,175 Freshwater ............ All 393 In Scope ... 95,660 11,883 11,883 11,883 42,277 69,575 93,738 Great Lake ............ All 16 In Scope ..... 43,448 25,092 25,092 25,092 25,092 38,474 41,820 Ocean ................... All 22 In Scope ..... 271,444 201,301 159,809 122,098 122,098 201,025 241,020 ALL ........................ All 539 In Scope ... 1,390,147 896,152 768,950 632,426 651,671 1,084,681 1,330,694 In addition, EPA developed a more generic illustration of potential benefits, based on a broad range ( from 10 percent to 90 percent) of potential reductions in impingement and entrainment. These illustrative results are shown in Exhibit 33. Finally, the benefits estimated for Option 3, the Agency's preferred option, are detailed in Exhibit 34. EXHIBIT 33. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT REDUCTION LEVELS Reduction level percent Benefits ( values in thousands of 2001$) Impingement Entrainment 10 ................................................. All 539 In Scope ................................................................................ $ 14,331 $ 139,015 20 ................................................. All 539 In Scope ................................................................................ 28,662 278,029 30 ................................................. All 539 In Scope ................................................................................ 42,994 417,044 40 ................................................. All 539 In Scope ................................................................................ 57,325 556,059 50 ................................................. All 539 In Scope ................................................................................ 71,656 695,073 60 ................................................. All 539 In Scope ................................................................................ 85,987 834,088 70 ................................................. All 539 In Scope ................................................................................ 100,319 973,103 80 ................................................. All 539 In Scope ................................................................................ 114,650 1,112,118 90 ................................................. All 539 In Scope ................................................................................ 128,981 1,251,132 EXHIBIT 34. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS FROM IMPINGEMENT CONTROLS ASSOCIATED WITH OPTION 3 Waterbody type Facility Benefits ( values in thousands of 2001$) Impingement Entrainment Estuary NonGulf ................................................... All 78 In Scope ....................................................... $ 17,418 $ 424,708 Estuary Gulf .......................................................... All 30 In Scope ....................................................... 1,087 48,645 Freshwater .............................................................. All 393 In Scope ..................................................... 19,117 11,883 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17208 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules EXHIBIT 34. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS FROM IMPINGEMENT CONTROLS ASSOCIATED WITH OPTION 3 Continued Waterbody type Facility Benefits ( values in thousands of 2001$) Impingement Entrainment Great Lake .............................................................. All 16 In Scope ....................................................... 25,205 25,092 Ocean ..................................................................... All 22 In Scope ....................................................... 7,503 122,098 ALL .......................................................................... All 539 In Scope ..................................................... 70,329 632,426 Under today's proposal, facilities can choose the Site­ Specific Determination of Best Technology Available in § 125.94( a) in which a facility can demonstrate to the Director that the cost of compliance with the applicable performance standards in § 125.94( b) would be significantly greater than the costs considered by EPA when establishing these performance standards, or the costs would be significantly greater than the benefits of complying with these performance standards. EPA expects that if facilities were to choose this approach, then the overall national benefits of this rule will decrease markedly. This is because under this approach facilities would choose the lowest cost technologies possible and not necessarily the most effective technologies to reduce impingement and entrainment at the facility. X. Administrative Requirements A. E. O. 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The order defines a `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities; Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this proposed rule is a `` significant regulatory action.'' As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. EPA has prepared an Information Collection Request ( ICR) document ( EPA ICR No. 2060.01) and you may obtain a copy from Susan Auby by mail at Collection Strategies Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.; Washington, DC 20007, by e­ mail at auby. susan@ epamail. epa. gov, or by calling ( 202) 260 49011. You also can download a copy off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr. The information collection requirements relate to existing electric generation facilities with design intake flows of 50 million gallons per day or more collecting information for preparing comprehensive demonstration studies, monitoring of impingement and entrainment, verifying compliance, and preparing yearly reports. The total burden of the information collection requirements associated with today's proposed rule is estimated at 4,251,240 hours. The corresponding estimates of cost other than labor ( labor and non­ labor costs are included in the total cost of the proposed rule discussed in Section VIII of this preamble) is $ 191 million for 539 facilities and 44 States and one Territory for the first three years after promulgation of the rule. Non­ labor costs include activities such as capital costs for remote monitoring devices, laboratory services, photocopying, and the purchase of supplies. The burden and costs are for the information collection, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for the three­ year period beginning with the assumed effective date of today's rule. Additional information collection requirements will occur after this initial three­ year period as existing facilities continue to be issued permit renewals and such requirements will be counted in a subsequent information collection request. EPA does not consider the specific data that would be collected under this proposed rule to be confidential business information. However, if a respondent does consider this information to be confidential, the respondent may request that such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR part 2, and EPA's Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Compliance with the applicable information collection requirements imposed under this proposed rule ( see § § 122.21( r), 125.95, 125.96, 125.97, and 125.98) is mandatory. Existing facilities would be required to perform several data­ gathering activities as part of the permit renewal application process. Today's proposed rule would require several distinct types of information collection as part of the NPDES renewal application. In general, the information would be used to identify which of the requirements in today's proposed rule apply to the existing facility, how the existing facility would meet those requirements, and whether the existing facility's cooling water intake structure reflects the best technology available for minimizing environmental impact. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17209 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules Categories of data required by today's proposed rule follow. Source waterbody data for determining appropriate requirements to apply to the facility, evaluating ambient conditions, and characterizing potential for impingement and entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish by the cooling water intake structure; Intake structure data, consisting of intake structure design and a facility water balance diagram, to determine appropriate requirements and characterize potential for impingement and entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish; Information on design and construction technologies implemented to ensure compliance with applicable requirements set forth in today's proposed rule; and Information on supplemental restoration measures proposed for use with or in lieu of design and construction technologies to minimize adverse. In addition to the information requirements of the permit renewal application, NPDES permits normally specify monitoring and reporting requirements to be met by the permitted entity. Existing facilities that fall within the scope of this proposed rule would be required to perform biological monitoring as required by the Director to demonstrate compliance, and visual or remote inspections of the cooling water intake structure and any additional technologies. Additional ambient water quality monitoring may also be required of facilities depending on the specifications of their permits. The facility would be expected to analyze the results from its monitoring efforts and provide these results in an annual status report to the permitting authority. Finally, facilities would be required to maintain records of all submitted documents, supporting materials, and monitoring results for at least three years. ( Note that the Director may require that records be kept for a longer period to coincide with the life of the NPDES permit.) All impacted facilities would carry out the specific activities necessary to fulfill the general information collection requirements. The estimated burden includes developing a water balance diagram that can be used to identify the proportion of intake water used for cooling, make­ up, and process water. Facilities would also gather data to calculate the reduction in impingement mortality and entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish that would be achieved by the technologies and operational measures they select. The burden estimates include sampling, assessing the source waterbody, estimating the magnitude of impingement mortality and entrainment, and reporting results in a comprehensive demonstration study. The burden also includes conducting a pilot study to evaluate the suitability of the technologies and operational measures based on the species that are found at the site. Some of the facilities ( those choosing to use restoration measures to maintain fish and shellfish) would need to prepare a plan documenting the restoration measures they would implement and how they would demonstrate that the restoration measures were effective. The burden estimates incorporate the cost of preparing calculations, drawings, and other materials supporting the proposed restoration measures, as well as performing monitoring to verify the effectiveness of the restoration measures. Some facilities may choose to request a site­ specific determination of BTA because of costs significantly greater than those EPA considered in establishing the performance standards or because costs are significantly greater than the benefits of complying with the performance standards. These facilities must perform a comprehensive cost evaluation study and/ or a valuation of the monetized benefits of reducing impingement and entrainment, as well as submitting a site­ specific technology plan characterizing the design and construction technologies, operational measures and restoration measures they have selected. Exhibit 35 presents a summary of the maximum burden estimates for a facility to prepare a permit application and monitor and report on cooling water intake structure operations as required by this rule. EXHIBIT 35. MAXIMUM BURDEN AND COSTS PER FACILITY FOR NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION AND MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIVITIES Activities Burden ( hr) Labor cost Other direct costs ( lump sum) a Start­ up activities ................................................................................................................... 43 $ 1,964 $ 50 Permit application activities ................................................................................................... 242 9,071 500 Source water baseline biological characterization data ........................................................ 265 10,622 750 Proposal for collection of information for comprehensive demonstration study b ................. 271 11,407 1,000 Source waterbody flow information ....................................................................................... 116 3,794 100 Design and construction technology plan ............................................................................. 146 5,260 50 Impingement mortality and entrainment characterization studyb .......................................... 5,264 289,061 13,000 Evaluation of potential cooling water intake structure effectsb ............................................. 2,578 144,838 500 Information for site­ specific determination of BTA ................................................................ 692 32,623 200 Site­ specific technology plan ................................................................................................. 177 6,963 75 Verification monitoring plan ................................................................................................... 128 5,489 1,000 Subtotal ....................................................................................................................... 9,922 521,092 17,225 Biological monitoring ( impingement sampling) ...................................................................... 388 20,973 650 Biological monitoring ( entrainment sampling) ....................................................................... 776 42,044 4,000 Visual or remote inspections c ............................................................................................... 253 8,994 100 Verification study d ................................................................................................................. 122 5,927 500 Yearly status report activities ................................................................................................ 324 14,906 750 Subtotal ....................................................................................................................... 1,863 92,844 $ 6,000 a Cost of supplies, filing cabinets, photocopying, boat renting, etc. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17210 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 82 In addition, 13 facilities owned by Tennessee Valley Authority ( TVA), a federal entity, incur $ 9.8 million in compliance costs. The costs incurred by the federal government are not included in this section. b The Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study and Evaluation of Potential CWIS Effects also have capital, O& M and contracted service costs associated with them. c Remote monitoring equipment also has capital and O& M costs associated with it. d The verification monitoring also has contracted services associated with it. EPA believes that all 44 States and one Territory with NPDES permitting authority will undergo start­ up activities in preparation for administering the provisions of the proposed rule. As part of these start­ up activities, States and Territories are expected to train junior technical staff to review materials submitted by facilities, and then use these materials to evaluate compliance with the specific conditions of each facility's NPDES permit. Each State's/ Territory's actual burden associated with reviewing submitted materials, writing permits, and tracking compliance depends on the number of new in­ scope facilities that will be built in the State/ Territory during the ICR approval period. EPA expects that State and Territory technical and clerical staff will spend time gathering, preparing, and submitting the various documents. EPA's burden estimates reflect the general staffing and level of expertise that is typical in States/ Territories that administer the NPDES permitting program. EPA considered the time and qualifications necessary to complete various tasks such as reviewing submitted documents and supporting materials, verifying data sources, planning responses, determining specific permit requirements, writing the actual permit, and conferring with facilities and the interested public. Exhibit 36 provides a summary of the maximum burden estimates for States/ Territories performing various activities with the proposed rule. EXHIBIT 36. ESTIMATING STATE/ TERRITORY MAXIMUM BURDEN AND COSTS FOR ACTIVITIES Activities Burden ( hr) Labor cost Other direct costs ( lump sum) a Start­ up activities ( per State/ Territory) .................................................................................. 100 $ 3,496 $ 50 State/ Territory permit issuance activities ( per facility) ........................................................... 811 32,456 300 Verification study review ( per facility) .................................................................................... 21 689 50 Review of alternative regulatory requirements ( per facility) .................................................. 192 6,237 50 Annual State/ Territory activities ( per facility) ......................................................................... 50 1,662 50 Subtotal ....................................................................................................................... 1,174 44,540 500 An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. EPA requests comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Office of Management and Budget; 725 17th Street, NW.; Washington, DC 20503, marked `` Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Because OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after April 9, 2002, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by May 9, 2002. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 1. UMRA Requirements Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Pub. L. 104 4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost­ benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost­ effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost­ effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with regulatory requirements. EPA estimated total annualized ( posttax costs of compliance for the proposed rule to be $ 182 million ($ 2001). Of this total, $ 153 million is incurred by the private sector and $ 19.6 million is incurred by State and local governments that operate in­ scope facilities. 82 Permitting authorities incur an additional $ 3.6 million to administer the rule, including labor costs to write permits and to conduct compliance monitoring and enforcement activities. EPA estimates that the highest VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17211 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules undiscounted cost incurred by the private sector in any one year is approximately $ 480 million in 2005. The highest undiscounted cost incurred by government sector in any one year is approximately $ 42 million in 2005. Thus, EPA has determined that this rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $ 100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared a written statement under § 202 of UMRA, which is summarized below. 2. Analysis of Impacts on Government Entities Governments may incur two types of costs as a result of the proposed regulation: ( 1) Direct costs to comply with the rule for facilities owned by government entities; and ( 2) administrative costs to implement the regulation. Both types of costs are discussed below. a. Compliance Costs for Government­ Owned Facilities Exhibit 37 below provides an estimate of the number of government entities that operate facilities subject to the proposed rule, by ownership type and size of government entity. The exhibit shows that 23 large government entities operate 43 facilities subject to the proposed regulation. There are 22 small government entities that operate 22 facilities subject to regulation. No small government entity operates more than one affected facility. Of the 65 facilities that are owned by government entities, 48 are owned by municipalities, eight are owned by political subdivisions, seven are owned by state governments, and two are owned by municipal marketing authorities. EXHIBIT 37. NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT ENTITIES AND GOVERNMENT­ OWNED FACILITIES Ownership type Number of government entities ( by size) Number of facilities ( by government entity size) Large Small Total Large Small Total Municipality ...................................................................... 16 19 35 29 19 48 Municipal marketing authority .......................................... 0 2 2 0 2 2 State Government ............................................................ 4 0 4 7 0 7 Political Subdivision ......................................................... 3 1 4 7 1 8 Total .......................................................................... 23 22 45 43 22 65 Exhibit 38 summarizes the annualized compliance costs incurred by State, local, and Tribal governments for the proposed rule. The exhibit shows that the estimated annualized compliance costs for all government­ owned facilities are $ 19.6 million. The 43 facilities owned by large governments would incur costs of $ 13.6 million; the 22 facilities owned by small governments would incur costs of $ 6 million. EXHIBIT 38. NUMBER OF REGULATED GOVERNMENT­ OWNED FACILITIES AND COMPLIANCE COSTS BY SIZE OF GOVERNMENT FOR PROPOSED RULE Size of Government Number of facilities subject to regulation Compliance costs ( million $ 2001) Facilities Owned by Large Governments ....... 43 $ 13.6 Facilities Owned by Small Governments ....... 22 6.0 All Government­ Owned Facilities ................. 65 19.6 EPA's analysis also considered whether the proposed rule may significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA estimates that 22 facilities subject to the proposed rule are owned by small governments ( i. e., governments with a population of less than 50,000). The total compliance cost for all the small government­ owned facilities incurring costs under the proposed rule is $ 6.0 million, or approximately $ 273,000 per facility. The highest annualized compliance costs for a government­ owned facility is $ 965,000. In comparison, all nongovernment owned facilities subject to this rule are expected to incur annualized compliance costs of $ 176 million, or $ 330,000 per facility. The highest annualized cost for a facility not owned by a small government is $ 4.3 million. EPA therefore concludes that these costs do not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The Economic and Benefits Assessment provides more detail on EPA's analysis of impacts on governments. b. Administrative Costs The requirements of Section 316( b) are implemented through the NPDES ( National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit program. Forty­ five states and territories currently have NPDES permitting authority under section 402( b) of the Clean Water Act ( CWA). EPA estimates that states and territories will incur four types of costs associated with implementing the requirements of the proposed rule: ( 1) Start­ up activities; ( 2) first permit issuance activities; ( 3) repermitting activities, and ( 4) annual activities. EPA estimates that the total annualized cost for these activities will be $ 3.6 million. Exhibit 39 below presents the annualized costs of the major administrative activities. EXHIBIT 39. ANNUALIZED GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ( MILLION $ 2001) Activity Cost Start­ up Activities ...................... $ 0.02 First Permit Issuance Activities 1.61 Repermitting Activities .............. 1.05 Annual Activities ....................... 0.94 Total .......................................... 3.62 3. Consultation EPA consulted with State governments and representatives of local governments in developing the regulation. The outreach activities are discussed in Section XI. E ( E. O. 13131 addressing Federalism) of this preamble. 4. Alternatives Considered In addition to the proposed rule, EPA considered and analyzed several alternative regulatory options to determine the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. EPA selected the proposed rule because it meets the requirement of section 316( b) of the CWA that the location, design, construction, and capacity of CWIS reflect the BTA for minimizing AEI, and it is economically practicable. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17212 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 83 The North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) replaced trhe Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) System as of October 1, 2000. The data sources EPA used to identify the parent entities of the facilities subject to this rule did not provide NAICS codes at the time of analysis. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by SBREFA ( 1996) The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, the Agency certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for reasons explained below. For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: ( 1) A small business according to Small Business Administration ( SBA) size standards; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county; town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and ( 3) a small organization that is a not­ forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The SBA thresholds define minimum employment, sales revenue, or MWh output sizes below which an entity qualifies as small. The thresholds used in this analysis are firm­ level four­ digit Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes. 83 Exhibit 40 below presents the SBA size standards used in this analysis. EXHIBIT 40. UNIQUE PHASE II ENTITY SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS ( BY STANDARD INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION CODES ( SIC)) 84 SIC code SIC description SBA size standard 1311 ................................................ Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas ........................................................ 500 Employees 3312 ................................................ Steel Works, Blast Furnaces ( Including Coke Ovens), and Rolling Mills. 1,000 Employees. 4911 ................................................ Electric Services .................................................................................... 4 million MWh. 4924 ................................................ Natural Gas Distribution ........................................................................ 500 Employees. 4931 ................................................ Electric and Other Services Combined ................................................. $ 5.0 Million. 4932 ................................................ Gas and Other Services Combined ...................................................... $ 5.0 Million. 4939 ................................................ Combination Utilities, NEC .................................................................... $ 5.0 Million. 4953 ................................................ Refuse Systems ..................................................................................... $ 10.0 Million. 6512 ................................................ Operators of Nonresidential Buildings ................................................... $ 5.0 Million. 8711 ................................................ Engineering Services ............................................................................. $ 6.0 Million. 84 Information Source: U. S. Small Business Administration, Office of Size Standards, Exhibit of Size Standards ( www. sba. gov/ regulations/ siccodes/ siccodes. html) EPA used publicly available data from the 1999 Forms EIA 860A and EIA 860B as well as information from EPA's 2000 Section 316( b) Industry Survey to identify the parent entities of electric generators subject to this proposed rule. EPA also conducted research to identify recent changes in ownership, including the current owner of each generator, and each owner's primary SIC code, sales revenues, employment, and/ or electricity sales. Based on the parent entity's SIC code and the related size standard set by the SBA, EPA identified facilities that are owned by small entities. Based on this analysis, EPA expects this proposed rule to regulate only a small absolute number of facilities owned by small entities, representing only 1.3 percent of all facilities owned by small entities in the electric power industry. EPA has estimated that 28 inscope electric generators owned by small entities would be regulated by this proposed rule. Of the 28 generators, 19 are projected to be owned by a municipality, six by a rural electric cooperative, two by a municipal marketing authority, and one by a political subdivision. Only facilities with design intake flows of 50 MGD or more are subject to this rule. In addition, only a small percentage of all small entities in the electric power industry, 1.3 percent, is subject to this rule. Finally, of the 28 small entities, two entities would incur annualized post­ tax compliance costs of greater than three percent of revenues; nine would incur compliance costs of between one and three percent of revenues; and the remaining 17 small entities would incur compliance costs of less than one percent of revenues. The estimated compliance costs that facilities owned by small entities would likely incur represent between 0.12 and 5.29 percent of the entities' annual sales revenue. Exhibit 41 summarizes the results of Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis. From the small absolute number of facilities owned by small entities that would be affected by the proposed rule, the low percentage of all small entities, and the very low impacts, EPA concludes that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EXHIBIT 41. SUMMARY OF RFA ANALYSIS Type of Entity ( A) Number of in­ scope facilities owned by small entities ( B) Number of small entities with in­ scope facilities ( C) Total number of small entities ( D) Percent of small entities in­ scope of rule [( B)/( C)] ( E) Annual compliance costs/ annual sales revenue Municipality ............................................................................................ 19 19 1,110 1.7 0.4 to 5.3% VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17213 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules EXHIBIT 41. SUMMARY OF RFA ANALYSIS Continued Type of Entity ( A) Number of in­ scope facilities owned by small entities ( B) Number of small entities with in­ scope facilities ( C) Total number of small entities ( D) Percent of small entities in­ scope of rule [( B)/( C)] ( E) Annual compliance costs/ annual sales revenue Municipal Marketing Authority ............................................................... 2 2 22 9.1 0.1 to 0.1% Rural Electric Cooperative .................................................................... 6 6 877 0.7 0.2 to 0.5% Political Subdivision ............................................................................... 1 1 104 1.0 1.2 to 1.2% Other Types ........................................................................................... 0 0 97 0.0 n/ a Total ............................................................................................... 28 28 2,210 1.3 0.1 5.3% The Economic and Benefits Analysis for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule presents more detail on EPA's small entity analysis in support of this proposed rule. E. E. O. 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low­ Income Populations Executive Order 12898 requires that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, each Federal agency must make achieving environmental justice part of its mission. E. O. 12898 provides that each Federal agency must conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner that ensures such programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons ( including populations) from participation in, denying persons ( including populations) the benefits of, or subjecting persons ( including populations) to discrimination under such programs, policies, and activities because of their race, color, or national origin. Today's final rule would require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures ( CWIS) at Phase II existing facilities reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. For several reasons, EPA does not expect that this final rule would have an exclusionary effect, deny persons the benefits of the participating in a program, or subject persons to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin. To assess the impact of the rule on low­ income and minority populations, EPA calculated the poverty rate and the percentage of the population classified as non­ white for populations living within a 50­ mile radius of each of the 539 in­ scope facilities. The results of the analysis, presented in the EBA, show that the populations affected by the inscope facilities have poverty levels and racial compositions that are quite similar to the U. S. population as a whole. A relatively small subset of the facilities are located near populations with poverty rates ( 24 of 539, or 4.5%), or non­ white populations ( 101 of 539, or 18.7%), or both ( 13 of 539, or 2.4%), that are significantly higher than national levels. Based on these results, EPA does not believe that this rule will have an exclusionary effect, deny persons the benefits of the NPDES program, or subject persons to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin. In fact because EPA expects that this final rule would help to preserve the health of aquatic ecosystems located in reasonable proximity to Phase II existing facilities, it believes that all populations, including minority and low­ income populations, would benefit from improved environmental conditions as a result of this rule. Under current conditions, EPA estimates approximately 2.2 billion fish ( expressed as age 1 equivalents) of recreational and commercial species are lost annually due to impingement and entrainment at the 529 in scope Phase II existing facilities. Under the Agency's preferred option, over 1.2 billion individuals of these commercially and recreationally sought fish species ( age 1 equivalents) will now survive to join the fishery each year ( 435 million fish due to reduced impingement impacts, and 789 million fish due to reduced entrainment). These additional 1.2 billion fish will provide increased opportunities for subsistence anglers to increase their catch, thereby providing some benefit to low income households located near regulation­ impacted waters. F. E. O. 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that ( 1) is determined to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe might have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health and safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is an economically significant rule as defined under Executive Order 12866. However, it does not concern an environmental health or safety risk that would have a disproportionate effect on children. Therefore, it is not subject to Executive Order 13045. G. E. O. 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled `` Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' `` Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.'' This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 21: 48 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm11 PsN: 09APP2 17214 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules as specified in Executive Order 13175. EPA's analyses show that no facility subject to this proposed rule is owned by tribal governments. This proposed rule does not affect Tribes in any way in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rule. H. E. O. 13158: Marine Protected Areas Executive Order 13158 ( 65 FR 34909, May 31, 2000) requires EPA to `` expeditiously propose new sciencebased regulations, as necessary, to ensure appropriate levels of protection for the marine environment.'' EPA may take action to enhance or expand protection of existing marine protected areas and to establish or recommend, as appropriate, new marine protected areas. The purpose of the Executive Order is to protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment, which means `` those areas of coastal and ocean waters, the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, and submerged lands thereunder, over which the United States exercises jurisdiction, consistent with international law.'' This proposed rule recognizes the biological sensitivity of tidal rivers, estuaries, oceans, and the Great Lakes and their susceptibility to adverse environmental impact from cooling water intake structures. This proposal provides the most stringent requirements to minimize adverse environmental impact for cooling water intake structures located on these types of water bodies, including potential reduction of intake flows to a level commensurate with that which can be attained by a closed­ cycle recirculating cooling system for facilities that withdraw certain proportions of water from estuaries, tidal rivers, and oceans. EPA expects that this proposed rule will reduce impingement and entrainment at facilities with design intake flows of 50 MGD or more. The rule would afford protection of aquatic organisms at individual, population, community, or ecosystem levels of ecological structures. Therefore, EPA expects today's proposed rule would advance the objective of the Executive Order to protect marine areas. I. E. O. 13211: Energy Effects Executive Order 13211 on `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' requires EPA to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects when undertaking regulatory actions identified as `` significant energy actions.'' For the purposes of Executive Order 13211, `` significant energy action'' means ( 66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001): any action by an agency ( normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: ( 1)( i) That is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and ( ii) Is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or ( 2) That is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. For those regulatory actions identified as `` significant energy actions,'' a Statement of Energy Effects must include a detailed statement relating to ( 1) any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use ( including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and increased use of foreign supplies), and ( 2) reasonable alternatives to the action with adverse energy effects and the expected effects of such alternatives on energy supply, distribution, and use. This proposed rule does not qualify as a `` significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211 because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The proposed rule does not contain any compliance requirements that would directly reduce the installed capacity or the electricity production of U. S. electric power generators, for example through parasitic losses or auxiliary power requirements. In addition, based on the estimated costs of compliance, EPA currently projects that the rule will not lead to any early capacity retirements at facilities subject to this rule or at facilities that compete with them. As described in detail in Section VIII, EPA estimates small effects of this rule on installed capacity, generation, production costs, and electricity prices. EPA's therefore concludes that this proposed rule will have small energy effects at a national, regional, and facility­ level. As a result, EPA did not prepare a Statement of Energy Effects. EPA recognizes that some of the alternative regulatory options discussed in the preamble would have much larger effects and might well quality as `` significant energy actions'' under Executive Order 13211. If EPA decides to revise the proposed requirements for the final rule, it will reconsider its determination under Executive Order 13211 and prepare a Statement of Energy Effects as appropriate. For more detail on the potential energy effects of this proposed rule or the alternative regulatory options considered by EPA, see Section VIII above or the Economic and Benefits Analysis for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule. J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ( NTTAA) of 1995, Pub. L. 104 113, Sec. 12( d) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rule does not involve such technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rule and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this proposed rule. K. Plain Language Directive Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. We invite your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand. For example: Have we organized the material to suit your needs? Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? Would a different format ( grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? Would more ( but shorter) sections be better? Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams? What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand? L. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132 ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. Policies VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17215 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Rather, this proposed rule would result in minimal administrative costs on States that have an authorized NPDES program. EPA expects an annual burden of 146,983 hours with an annual cost of $ 41,200 ( non­ labor costs) for States to collectively administer this proposed rule. EPA has identified 65 Phase II existing facilities that are owned by federal, state or local government entities. The annual impacts on these facilities is not expected to exceed 2,252 burden hours and $ 56,739 ( non­ labor costs) per facility. The proposed national cooling water intake structure requirements would be implemented through permits issued under the NPDES program. Forty­ three States and the Virgin Islands are currently authorized pursuant to section 402( b) of the CWA to implement the NPDES program. In States not authorized to implement the NPDES program, EPA issues NPDES permits. Under the CWA, States are not required to become authorized to administer the NPDES program. Rather, such authorization is available to States if they operate their programs in a manner consistent with section 402( b) and applicable regulations. Generally, these provisions require that State NPDES programs include requirements that are as stringent as Federal program requirements. States retain the ability to implement requirements that are broader in scope or more stringent than Federal requirements. ( See section 510 of the CWA.) Today's proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on either authorized or nonauthorized States or on local governments because it would not change how EPA and the States and local governments interact or their respective authority or responsibilities for implementing the NPDES program. Today's proposed rule establishes national requirements for Phase II existing facilities with cooling water intake structures. NPDES­ authorized States that currently do not comply with the final regulations based on today's proposal might need to amend their regulations or statutes to ensure that their NPDES programs are consistent with Federal section 316( b) requirements. See 40 CFR 123.62( e). For purposes of this proposed rule, the relationship and distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and the States and local governments are established under the CWA ( e. g., sections 402( b) and 510); nothing in this proposed rule would alter that. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did consult with State governments and representatives of local governments in developing the proposed rule. During the development of the proposed section 316( b) rule for new facilities, EPA conducted several outreach activities through which State and local officials were informed about this proposal and they provided information and comments to the Agency. The outreach activities were intended to provide EPA with feedback on issues such as adverse environmental impact, BTA, and the potential cost associated with various regulatory alternatives. EPA has made presentations on the section 316( b) rulemaking effort in general at eleven professional and industry association meetings. EPA also conducted two public meetings in June and September of 1998 to discuss issues related to the section 316( b) rulemaking effort. In September 1998 and April 1999, EPA staff participated in technical workshops sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute on issues relating to the definition and assessment of adverse environmental impact. EPA staff have participated in other industry conferences, met upon request on numerous occasions with industry representatives, and met on a number of occasions with representatives of environmental groups. In the months leading up to publication of the proposed Phase I rule, EPA conducted a series of stakeholder meetings to review the draft regulatory framework for the proposed rule and invited stakeholders to provide their recommendations for the Agency's consideration. EPA managers have met with the Utility Water Act Group, Edison Electric Institute, representatives from an individual utility, and with representatives from the petroleum refining, pulp and paper, and iron and steel industries. EPA conducted meetings with environmental groups attended by representatives from between 3 and 15 organizations. EPA also met with the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators ( ASIWPCA) and, with the assistance of ASIWPCA, conducted a conference call in which representatives from 17 states or interstate organizations participated. EPA also met with OMB and utility representatives and other federal agencies ( the Department of Energy, the Small Business Administration, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service and the Department of Interior's U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). After publication of the proposed Phase I rule, EPA continued to meet with stakeholders at their request. EPA received more than 2000 comments on the Phase I proposed rule and NODA. In some cases these comments have informed the development of the Phase II rule proposal. In January, 2001, EPA also attended technical workshops organized by the Electric Power Research Institute and the Utilities Water Action Group. These workshops focused on the presentation of key issues associated with different regulatory approaches considered under the Phase I proposed rule and alternatives for addressing 316( b) requirements. On May 23, 2001, EPA held a daylong forum to discuss specific issues associated with the development of regulations under section 316( b). At the meeting, 17 experts from industry, public interest groups, States, and academia reviewed and discussed the Agency's preliminary data on cooling water intake structure technologies that are in place at existing facilities and the costs associated with the use of available technologies for reducing impingement and entrainment. Over 120 people attended the meeting. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17216 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules Finally, in August 21, 2001, EPA staff participated in a technical symposium sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute in association with the American Fisheries Society on issues relating to the definition and assessment of adverse environmental impact for section 316( b) of the CWA. In the spirit of this Executive Order and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials. BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17217 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules BILLING CODE 6560 50 C VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17218 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 9 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 122 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control. 40 CFR Part 123 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous substances, Indian­ lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control. 40 CFR Part 124 Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, Indians­ lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply. 40 CFR Part 125 Cooling Water Intake Structure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control. Dated: February 28, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 9 OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U. S. C. 135 et seq., 136 136y; 15 U. S. C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601 2671, 21 U. S. C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U. S. C. 9701; 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 ( d) and ( e), 1361; E. O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971 1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U. S. C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g 1, 300g 2, 300g 3, 300g 4, 300g 5, 300g 6, 300j 1, 300j 2, 300j 3, 300j 4, 300j 9, 1857 et seq., 6901 6992k, 7401 7671q, 7542, 9601 9657, 11023, 11048. 2. In § 9.1 the table is amended by revising the entry for `` 122.21( r)'' and by adding entries in numerical order under the indicated heading to read as follows: § 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paper Work Reduction Act. * * * * * 40 CFR citation OMB control No. * * * * * * * EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System * * * * * * * 122.21( r) ................................................................................................................................................................... 2040 0241, xxxxx xxxxx * * * * * * * Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System * * * * * * * 125.95 ....................................................................................................................................................................... xxxx xxxx 125.96 ....................................................................................................................................................................... xxxx xxxx 125.97 ....................................................................................................................................................................... xxxx xxxx 125.98 ....................................................................................................................................................................... xxxx xxxx * * * * * * * PART 122 EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM 1. The authority citation for part 122 continues to read as follows: Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq. 2. Section § 122.21 by revising paragraph ( r) to read as follows: § 122.21 Application for a permit ( applicable to State programs, see § 123.25) * * * * * ( r) Applications for facilities with cooling water intake structures ( 1)( i) New facilities with new or modified cooling water intake structures. New facilities with cooling water intake structures as defined in part 125, subpart I of this chapter must report the information required under paragraphs ( r)( 2), ( 3), and ( 4) of this section and § 125.86 of this chapter. Requests for alternative requirements under § 125.85 of this chapter must be submitted with your permit application. ( ii) Phase II existing facilities. Phase II existing facilities as defined in part 125, subpart J of this chapter must report the information required under paragraphs ( r)( 2), ( 3), and ( 5) of this section and § 125.95 of this chapter. Requests for site­ specific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact under § 125.94( c) of this chapter must be submitted with your permit application. ( 2) Source Water Physical Data including: ( i) A narrative description and scaled drawings showing the physical configuration of all source water bodies used by your facility, including areal dimensions, depths, salinity and temperature regimes, and other documentation that supports your determination of the water body type where each cooling water intake structure is located; ( ii) Identification and characterization of the source waterbody's hydrological and geomorphological features, as well as the methods you used to conduct any physical studies to determine your intake's area of influence within the waterbody and the results of such studies; and VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17219 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( iii) Locational maps. ( 3) Cooling Water Intake Structure Data including: ( i) A narrative description of the configuration of each of your cooling water intake structures and where it is located in the water body and in the water column; ( ii) Latitude and longitude in degrees, minutes, and seconds for each of your cooling water intake structures; ( iii) A narrative description of the operation of each of your cooling water intake structures, including design intake flows, daily hours of operation, number of days of the year in operation and seasonal changes, if applicable; ( iv) A flow distribution and water balance diagram that includes all sources of water to the facility, recirculating flows, and discharges; and ( v) Engineering drawings of the cooling water intake structure. ( 4) Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data. This information is required to characterize the biological community in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure and to characterize the operation of the cooling water intake structures. The Director may also use this information in subsequent permit renewal proceedings to determine if your Design and Construction Technology Plan as required in § 125.86( b)( 4) should be revised. This supporting information must include existing data ( if they are available). However, you may supplement the data using newly conducted field studies if you choose to do so. The information you submit must include: ( i) A list of the data in paragraphs ( r)( 4)( ii) through ( vi) of this section that are not available and efforts made to identify sources of the data; ( ii) A list of species ( or relevant taxa) for all life stages and their relative abundance in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure; ( iii) Identification of the species and life stages that would be most susceptible to impingement and entrainment. Species evaluated should include the forage base as well as those most important in terms of significance to commercial and recreational fisheries; ( iv) Identification and evaluation of the primary period of reproduction, larval recruitment, and period of peak abundance for relevant taxa; ( v) Data representative of the seasonal and daily activities ( e. g., feeding and water column migration) of biological organisms in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure; ( vi) Identification of all threatened, endangered, and other protected species that might be susceptible to impingement and entrainment at your cooling water intake structures; ( vii) Documentation of any public participation or consultation with Federal or State agencies undertaken in development of the plan; and ( viii) If you supplement the information requested in paragraph ( r)( 4)( i) of this section with data collected using field studies, supporting documentation for the Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization must include a description of all methods and quality assurance procedures for sampling, and data analysis including a description of the study area; taxonomic identification of sampled and evaluated biological assemblages ( including all life stages of fish and shellfish); and sampling and data analysis methods. The sampling and/ or data analysis methods you use must be appropriate for a quantitative survey and based on consideration of methods used in other biological studies performed within the same source water body. The study area should include, at a minimum, the area of influence of the cooling water intake structure. ( 5) Phase II Existing Facility Cooling Water System Data. Phase II existing facilities, as defined in part 125, subpart J of this chapter, must provide the following information: ( i) A narrative description of the operation of each of your cooling water systems, relationship to cooling water intake structures, proportion of the design intake flow that is used in the system, number of days of the year in operation and seasonal changes, if applicable; ( ii) Engineering calculations and supporting data to support the description required by paragraph ( r)( 5)( i) of this section. 3. Section 122.44 is amended by revising paragraph ( b)( 3) to read as follows: § 122.44 Establishing limitations, standards, and other permit conditions ( applicable to State NPDES programs, see § 123.25). * * * * * ( b) * * * ( 3) Requirements applicable to cooling water intake structures under section 316( b) of the CWA, in accordance with part 125, subparts I and J of this chapter. * * * * * PART 123 STATE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS 1. The authority citation for part 123 continues to read as follows: Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq. 2. Section 123.25 is amended by revising paragraph ( a)( 4) ( a) and ( 36) to read as follows: § 123.25 Requirements for permitting. ( a) * * * ( 4) § 122.21 ( a) ( b), ( c)( 2), ( e) ( k), ( m) ( p), and ( r) ( Application for a permit); * * * * * ( 36) Subparts A, B, D, H, I, and J of part 125 of this chapter; * * * * * PART 124 PROCEDURES FOR DECISIONMAKING 1. The authority citation for part 124 continues to read as follows: Authority: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U. S. C. 6901 et seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U. S. C. 300f et. seq; Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq.; Clean Air Act, 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq. 2. Section 124.10 is amended by revising paragraph ( d)( 1)( ix) to read as follows: § 124.10 Public notice of permit actions and public comment period. * * * * * ( d) * * * ( 1) * * * ( ix) Requirements applicable to cooling water intake structures under section 316( b) of the CWA, in accordance with part 125, subparts I and J of this chapter. * * * * * PART 125 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM 1. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as follows: Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq.; unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 125.83 is amended by revising the definition of cooling water as follows: § 125.83 What special definitions apply to this subpart? * * * * * Cooling water means water used for contact or noncontact cooling, including water used for equipment cooling, evaporative cooling tower makeup, and dilution of effluent heat content. The intended use of the cooling water is to absorb waste heat rejected from the process or processes used, or from auxiliary operations on the facility's premises. Cooling water that is used in a manufacturing process either before or VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17220 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules after it is used for cooling is considered process water for the purposes of calculating the percentage of a new facility's intake flow that is used for cooling purposes in § § 125.81( c) and 125.91( c). * * * * * 3. Add subpart J to part 125 to read as follows: Subpart J Requirements Applicable to Cooling Water Intake Structures for `` Phase II Existing Facilities'' Under Section 316( b) of the Act Sec. 125.90 What are the purpose and scope of this subpart? 125.91 What is a Phase II existing facility subject to this subpart? 125.92 When must I comply with this subpart? 125.93 What special definitions apply to this subpart? 125.94 How will requirements reflecting best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact be established for my Phase II existing facility? 125.95 As an owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility, what must I collect and submit when I apply for my reissued NPDES permit? 125.96 As an owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility, what monitoring must I perform? 125.97 As an owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility, what records must I keep and what information must I report? 125.98 As the Director, what must I do to comply with the requirements of this subpart? Subpart J Requirements Applicable to Cooling Water Intake Structures for `` Phase II Existing Facilities'' Under Section 316( b) of the Act § 125.90 What are the purpose and scope of this subpart? ( a) This subpart establishes requirements that apply to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at existing facilities that are subject to this subpart ( Phase II existing facilities). The purpose of these requirements is to establish the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact associated with the use of cooling water intake structures. These requirements are implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permits issued under section 402 of the Clean Water Act ( CWA). ( b) This subpart implements section 316( b) of the CWA for Phase II existing facilities. Section 316( b) of the CWA provides that any standard established pursuant to sections 301 or 306 of the CWA and applicable to a point source shall require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. ( c) Existing facilities that are not subject to this subpart must meet requirements under section 316( b) of the CWA determined by the Director on a case­ by­ case, best professional judgment ( BPJ) basis. ( d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, if a State demonstrates to the Administrator that it has adopted alternative regulatory requirements that will result in environmental performance within a watershed that is comparable to the reductions of impingement mortality and entrainment that would otherwise be achieved under § 125.94, the Administrator shall approve such alternative regulatory requirements. ( e) Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to preclude or deny the right of any State or political subdivision of a State or any interstate agency under section 510 of the CWA to adopt or enforce any requirement with respect to control or abatement of pollution that is not less stringent than those required by Federal law. § 125.91 What is a `` Phase II Existing Facility'' subject to this subpart? ( a) This subpart applies to an existing facility, as defined in § 125.93, if it: ( 1) Is a point source that uses or proposes to use a cooling water intake structure; ( 2) Both generates and transmits electric power, or generates electric power but sells it to another entity for transmission; ( 3) Has at least one cooling water intake structure that uses at least 25 percent of the water it withdraws for cooling purposes as specified in paragraph ( c) of this section; and ( 4) Has a design intake flow of 50 million gallons per day ( MGD) or more. Facilities that meet these criteria are referred to as `` Phase II existing facilities.'' ( b) In the case of a cogeneration facility that shares a cooling water intake structure with another existing facility, only that portion of the cooling water intake flow that is used in the cogeneration process shall be considered for purposes of determining whether the 50 MGD and 25 percent criteria in paragraphs ( a)( 3) and ( 4) of this section are met. ( c) Use of a cooling water intake structure includes obtaining cooling water by any sort of contract or arrangement with an independent supplier ( or multiple suppliers) of cooling water if the supplier or suppliers withdraw( s) water from waters of the United States. Use of cooling water does not include obtaining cooling water from a public water system or use of treated effluent that otherwise would be discharged to a water of the U. S. This provision is intended to prevent circumvention of these requirements by creating arrangements to receive cooling water from an entity that is not itself a point source. ( d) Whether or not 25 percent of water withdrawn is used for cooling purposes must be measured on an average monthly basis. The 25 percent threshold is met if any monthly average of cooling water over any 12 month period is 25 percent or more of the total water withdrawn. § 125.92 When must I comply with this subpart? You must comply with this subpart when an NPDES permit containing requirements consistent with this subpart is issued to you. § 125.93 What special definitions apply to this subpart? The definitions in Subpart I of Part 125, except the definitions of cooling water and existing facility, apply to this subpart. The following definitions also apply to this subpart: Administrator means the same as defined in 40 CFR 122.2. All life stages means eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults. Calculation baseline means an estimate of impingement mortality and entrainment that would occur at your site assuming you had a shoreline cooling water intake structure with an intake capacity commensurate with a once­ through cooling water system and with no impingement and/ or entrainment reduction controls. Capacity utilization rate means the ratio between the average annual net generation of the facility ( in MWh) and the total net capability of the facility ( in MW) multiplied by the number of available hours during a year. The average annual generation must be measured over a five year period ( if available) of representative operating conditions. Cogeneration facility means a facility that operates equipment used to produce, from the same fuel source: electric energy used for industrial, commercial, and/ or institutional purposes at one or more host facilities and/ or for sale to another entity for transmission; and forms of useful thermal energy ( such as heat or steam), used for industrial commercial, VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.903533

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0049-0004

Proposed Rule

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Proposed Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II ExistingFacilities; Proposed Rule. Part 3.

17221 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules institutional, heating, and/ or cooling purposes at one or more host facilities. Cooling water means water used for contact or noncontact cooling, including water used for equipment cooling, evaporative cooling tower makeup, and dilution of effluent heat content. The intended use of the cooling water is to absorb waste heat rejected from the process or processes used, or from auxiliary operations on the facility's premises. Cooling water that is used in a manufacturing process either before or after it is used for cooling is considered process water for the purposes of calculating the percentage of a facility's intake flow that is used for cooling purposes in § 125.91( c). Diel means sample variation in organismal abundance and density over a 24­ hour period due to the influence of water movement and changes in light intensity. Director means the same as defined in 40 CFR 122.2. Existing facility means any facility that commenced construction before January 17, 2002; and ( 1) Any modification of such a facility; ( 2) Any addition of a unit at such a facility for purposes of the same industrial operation; ( 3) Any addition of a unit at such a facility for purposes of a different industrial operation, if the additional unit uses an existing cooling water intake structure and the design capacity of the intake structure is not increased; or ( 4) Any facility constructed in place of such a facility, if the newly constructed facility uses an existing cooling water intake structure whose design intake flow is not increased to accommodate the intake of additional cooling water. Once­ through cooling water system means a system designed to withdraw water from a natural or other water source, use it at the facility to support contact and/ or noncontact cooling uses, and then discharge it to a water body without recirculation. Once­ through cooling systems sometimes employ canals/ channels, ponds, or nonrecirculating cooling towers to dissipate waste heat from the water before it is discharged. Phase II existing facility means any existing facility that meets the criteria specified in § 125.91. § 125.94 How will requirements reflecting best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact be established for my Phase II existing facility? ( a) You may choose one of the following three alternatives for establishing best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact at your site: ( 1) You may demonstrate to the Director that your existing design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures meet the performance standards specified in paragraph ( b) of this section; ( 2) You may demonstrate to the Director that you have selected design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures that will, in combination with any existing design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures, meet the performance standards specified in paragraph ( b) of this section; or ( 3) You may demonstrate to the Director that a site­ specific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact is appropriate for your site in accordance with paragraph ( c) of this section. ( b) Performance Standards. If you choose the alternative in paragraphs ( a)( 1) or ( a)( 2) of this section, you must meet the following performance standards: ( 1) You must reduce your intake capacity to a level commensurate with the use of a closed­ cycle, recirculating cooling system; or ( 2) You must reduce impingement mortality of all life stages of fish and shellfish by 80 to 95 percent from the calculation baseline if your facility has a capacity utilization rate less than 15 percent, or your facility's design intake flow is 5 percent or less of the mean annual flow from a freshwater river or stream; or ( 3) You must reduce impingement mortality of all life stages of fish and shellfish by 80 to 95 percent from the calculation baseline, and you must reduce entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish by 60 to 90 percent from the calculation baseline if your facility has a capacity utilization rate of 15 percent or greater and withdraws cooling water from a tidal river or estuary, from an ocean, from one of the Great Lakes, or your facility's design intake flow is greater than 5 percent of the mean annual flow of a freshwater river or stream; or ( 4) If your facility withdraws cooling water from a lake ( other than one of the Great Lakes) or reservoir: ( i) You must reduce impingement mortality of all life stages of fish and shellfish by 80 to 95 percent from the calculation baseline; and ( ii) If you propose to increase your facility's design intake flow, your increased flow must not disrupt the natural thermal stratification or turnover pattern ( where present) of the source water, except in cases where the disruption is determined by any Federal, State or Tribal fish or wildlife management agency( ies) to be beneficial to the management of fisheries. ( c)( 1) Site­ Specific Determination of Best Technology Available. If you choose the alternative in paragraph ( a)( 3) of this section, you must demonstrate to the Director that your costs of compliance with the applicable performance standards in paragraph ( b) of this section would be significantly greater than the costs considered by the Administrator when establishing such performance standards, or that your costs would be significantly greater than the benefits of complying with such performance standards at your site. ( 2) If data specific to your facility indicate that your costs would be significantly greater than those considered by the Administrator in establishing the applicable performance standards, the Director shall make a sitespecific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact that is based on less costly design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures to the extent justified by the significantly greater cost. The Director's site­ specific determination may conclude that design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures in addition to those already in place are not justified because of significantly greater costs. ( 3) If data specific to your facility indicate that your costs would be significantly greater than the benefits of complying with such performance standards at your facility, the Director shall make a site­ specific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact that is based on less costly design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures to the extent justified by the significantly greater costs. The Director's site­ specific determination may conclude that design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures in addition to those already in place are not justified because the costs would be significantly greater than the benefits at your facility. ( d) Restoration Measures. In lieu of, or in combination with, reducing impingement mortality and entrainment VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17222 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules by implementing design and construction technologies or operational measures to comply with the performance standards specified in paragraph ( b) of this section or the Director's determination pursuant to paragraph ( c) of this section, you may, with the Director's approval, employ restoration measures that will result in increases in fish and shellfish in the watershed. You must demonstrate to the Director that you are maintaining the fish and shellfish within the waterbody, including community structure and function, to a level comparable to those that would result if you were to employ design and construction technologies or operational measures to meet that portion of the requirements of paragraphs ( b) or ( c) of this section that you are meeting through restoration. Your demonstration must address species that the Director, in consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife management agencies with responsibility for fisheries and wildlife potentially affected by your cooling water intake structure, identifies as species of concern. ( e) More Stringent Standards. The Director may establish more stringent requirements as best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact if the Director determines that your compliance with the applicable requirements of paragraphs ( b) and ( c) of this section would not meet the requirements of other applicable Federal, State, or Tribal law. ( f) If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that your compliance with this subpart would result in a conflict with a safety requirement established by the Commission, the Director shall make a site­ specific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact that is less stringent than the requirements of this subpart to the extent necessary for you to comply with the Commission's safety requirement. ( g) You must submit the application information required in § 125.95, implement the monitoring requirements specified in § 125.96, and implement the record­ keeping requirements specified at § 125.97. § 125.95 As an owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility, what must I collect and submit when I apply for my reissued NPDES permit? ( a) You must submit to the Director the application information required by 40 CFR 122.21( r)( 2), ( 3) and ( 5) and the Comprehensive Demonstration required by paragraph ( b) of this section at least 180 days before your existing permit expires, in accordance with § 122.21( d)( 2). ( b) Comprehensive Demonstration Study. All facilities except those deemed to have met the performance standards in accordance with § 125.94( b)( 1), must submit a Comprehensive Demonstration Study ( Study). This information is required to characterize impingement mortality and entrainment, the operation of your cooling water intake structures, and to confirm that the technology( ies), operational measures, and/ or restoration measures you have selected and/ or implemented at your cooling water intake structure meet the applicable requirements of § 125.94. The Comprehensive Demonstration Study must include: ( 1) Proposal For Information Collection. You must submit to the Director for review and approval a description of the information you will use to support your Study. The proposal must include: ( i) A description of the proposed and/ or implemented technology( ies), operational measures, and/ or restoration measures to be evaluated in the Study; ( ii) A list and description of any historical studies characterizing impingement and entrainment and/ or the physical and biological conditions in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structures and their relevance to this proposed Study. If you propose to use existing data, you must demonstrate the extent to which the data are representative of current conditions and that the data were collected using appropriate quality assurance/ quality control procedures; ( iii) A summary of any past, ongoing, or voluntary consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife agencies that is relevant to this Study and a copy of written comments received as a result of such consultation; and ( iv) A sampling plan for any new field studies you propose to conduct in order to ensure that you have sufficient data to develop a scientifically valid estimate of impingement and entrainment at your site. The sampling plan must document all methods and quality assurance/ quality control procedures for sampling and data analysis. The sampling and data analysis methods you propose must be appropriate for a quantitative survey and include consideration of the methods used in other studies performed in the source waterbody. The sampling plan must include a description of the study area ( including the area of influence of the cooling water intake structure), and provide a taxonomic identification of the sampled or evaluated biological assemblages ( including all life stages of fish and shellfish). ( 2) Source Waterbody Flow Information. You must submit to the Director the following source waterbody flow information: ( i) If your cooling water intake structure is located in a freshwater river or stream, you must provide the annual mean flow of the waterbody and any supporting documentation and engineering calculations to support your analysis of which requirements specified in § 125.94( b)( 2) or ( 3) would apply to your facility based on its water intake flow in proportion to the mean annual flow of the river or steam; and ( ii) If your cooling water intake structure is located in a lake ( other than one of the Great Lakes) or reservoir and you propose to increase your facility's design intake flow, you must provide a narrative description of the thermal stratification in the water body, and any supporting documentation and engineering calculations to show that the natural thermal stratification and turnover pattern will not be disrupted by the increased flow in a way that adversely impacts water quality or fisheries. ( 3) Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study. You must submit to the Director an Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study whose purpose is to provide information to support the development of a calculation baseline for evaluating impingement mortality and entrainment and to characterize current impingement mortality and entrainment. The Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study must include: ( i) Taxonomic identifications of those species of fish and shellfish and their life stages that are in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure and are most susceptible to impingement and entrainment; ( ii) A characterization of those species of fish and shellfish and life stages pursuant to paragraph ( b)( 3)( i) of this section, including a description of the abundance and temporal/ spatial characteristics in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure, based on the collection of a sufficient number of years of data to characterize annual, seasonal, and diel variations in impingement mortality and entrainment ( e. g., related to climate/ weather differences, spawning, feeding and water column migration); ( iii) Documentation of the current impingement mortality and entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish at VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17223 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules your facility and an estimate of impingement mortality and entrainment under the calculation baseline. The documentation may include historical data that are representative of the current operation of your facility and of biological conditions at the site. Impingement mortality and entrainment samples to support the calculations required in paragraph ( b)( 4)( iii) and ( b)( 5)( ii) of this section must be collected during periods of representative operational flows for the cooling water intake structure and the flows associated with the samples must be documented; ( iv) An identification of species that are protected under Federal, State, or Tribal law ( including threatened or endangered species) that might be susceptible to impingement and entrainment by the cooling water intake structure( s). ( 4) Design and Construction Technology Plan. If you choose to use design and construction technologies or operational measures in whole or in part to meet the requirements of § 125.94, you must submit a Design and Construction Technology Plan to the Director for review and approval. In the plan you must provide the capacity utilization rate for your facility and provide supporting data ( including the average annual net generation of the facility ( in Mwh) measured over a five year period ( if available) of representative operating conditions and the total net capacity of the facility ( in MW)) and calculations. The plan must explain the technologies and operational measures you have in place or have selected to meet the requirements in § 125.94. ( Examples of potentially appropriate technologies may include, but are not limited to, wedgewire screens, fine mesh screens, fish handling and return systems, barrier nets, aquatic filter barrier systems, and enlargement of the cooling water intake structure opening to reduce velocity. Examples of potentially appropriate operational measures may include, but are not limited to, seasonal shutdowns or reductions in flow, and continuous operations of screens.) The plan must contain the following information: ( i) A narrative description of the design and operation of all design and construction technologies or operational measures ( existing and proposed), including fish handling and return systems, that you have in place or will use to meet the requirements to reduce impingement mortality of those species expected to be most susceptible to impingement, and information that demonstrates the efficacy of the technology for those species; ( ii) A narrative description of the design and operation of all design and construction technologies or operational measures ( existing and proposed) that you have in place or will use to meet the requirements to reduce entrainment of those species expected to be the most susceptible to entrainment, if applicable, and information that demonstrates the efficacy of the technology for those species; ( iii) Calculations of the reduction in impingement mortality and entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish that would be achieved by the technologies and operational measures you have selected based on the Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study in paragraph ( b)( 3) of this section. In determining compliance with any requirements to reduce impingement mortality or entrainment, you must assess the total reduction in impingement mortality and entrainment against the calculations baseline determined in paragraph ( b)( 3) of this section. Reductions in impingement mortality and entrainment from this calculation baseline as a result of any design and construction technologies and operational measures already implemented at your facility should be added to the reductions expected to be achieved by any additional design and construction technologies and operational measures that will be implemented, and any increases in fish and shellfish within the waterbody attributable to your restoration measures. Facilities that recirculate a portion of their flow may take into account the reduction in impingement mortality and entrainment associated with the reduction in flow when determining the net reduction associated with existing technology and operational measures. This estimate must include a site­ specific evaluation of the suitability of the technology( ies) based on the species that are found at the site, and/ or operational measures and may be determined based on representative studies ( i. e., studies that have been conducted at cooling water intake structures located in the same waterbody type with similar biological characteristics) and/ or site­ specific technology prototype studies; ( iv) Documentation which demonstrates that the location, design, construction, and capacity of the cooling water intake structure technologies you have selected reflect best technology available for meeting the applicable requirements in § 125.94; ( v) Design calculations, drawings, and estimates to support the descriptions required by paragraphs ( b)( 4)( ii) and ( iii) of this section. ( 5) Information to Support Proposed Restoration Measures. If you propose to use restoration measures to meet the performance standards in § 125.94, you must submit the following information with your application for review and approval by the Director: ( i) A list and narrative description of the restoration measures you have selected and propose to implement; ( ii) A quantification of the combined benefits from implementing design and construction technologies, operational measures and/ or restoration measures and the proportion of the benefits that can be attributed to each. This quantification must include: the percent reduction in impingement mortality and entrainment that would be achieved through the use of any design and construction technologies or operational measures that you have selected ( i. e., the benefits you would achieve through impingement and entrainment reduction); a demonstration of the benefits that could be attributed to the restoration measures you have selected; and a demonstration that the combined benefits of the design and construction technology( ies), operational measures, and/ or restoration measures will maintain fish and shellfish at a level comparable to that which would be achieved under § 125.94. If it is not possible to demonstrate quantitatively that restoration measures such as creation of new habitats to serve as spawning or nursery areas or establishment of riparian buffers will achieve comparable performance, you may make a qualitative demonstration that such measures will maintain fish and shellfish in the waterbody at a level substantially similar to that which would be achieved under § 125.94; ( iii) A plan for implementing and maintaining the efficacy of the restoration measures you have selected and supporting documentation to show that the restoration measures, or the restoration measures in combination with design and construction technology( ies) and operational measures, will maintain the fish and shellfish in the waterbody, including the community structure and function, to a level comparable or substantially similar to that which would be achieved through § 125.94( b) or ( c); ( iv) A summary of any past, ongoing, or voluntary consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife agencies regarding the proposed restoration measures that is relevant to this Study and a copy of any written comments received as a result of such consultation; and VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17224 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( v) Design and engineering calculations, drawings, and maps documenting that your proposed restoration measures will meet the restoration performance standard at § 125.94( d). ( 6) Information to Support Sitespecific Determination of Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact. If you have chosen to request a site­ specific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact pursuant to § 125.94( c) because of costs significantly greater than those EPA considered in establishing the requirements at issue, or because costs are significantly greater than the benefits of complying with the otherwise applicable requirements of § 125.94( b) and ( e) at your site, you must provide the following additional information with your application for review by the Director: ( i) Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study. You must perform and submit the results of a Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study. This information is required to document the costs of implementing your Design and Construction Plan under § 125.95( b)( 4) above and the costs of the alternative technologies and operational measures you propose to implement at your site. You must submit detailed engineering cost estimates to document the costs of implementing the technologies or operational measures in your Design and Construction Plan. ( ii) Valuation of the Monetized Benefits of Reducing Impingement and Entrainment. If you are seeking a sitespecific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact because of costs significantly greater than the benefits of complying with the otherwise applicable requirements of § 125.94( b) and ( e) at your site, you must use a comprehensive methodology to fully value the impacts of impingement mortality and entrainment at your site and the benefits achievable by compliance with the applicable requirements of § 125.94. The benefit study must include a description of the methodology used, the basis for any assumptions and quantitative estimates, and an analysis of the effects of significant sources of uncertainty on the results of the study. ( iii) Site­ Specific Technology Plan. Based on the results of the Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study and the valuation of the monetized benefits of reducing impingement and entrainment required by paragraphs ( b)( 7))( i) and ( ii) of this section, you must submit a Site­ Specific Technology Plan to the Director for review and approval. The plan must contain the following information: ( A) A narrative description of the design and operation of all design and construction technologies and operational measures, and restoration measures ( existing and proposed) that you have selected in accordance with § 125.94( d), and information that demonstrates the efficacy of the technology for those species; ( B) An engineering estimate of the efficacy of the proposed and/ or implemented technologies or operational measures for reducing impingement mortality and entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish. This estimate must include a sitespecific evaluation of the suitability of the technologies or operational measures for reducing impingement mortality and entrainment based on representative studies ( e. g., studies that have been conducted at cooling water intake structures located in the same waterbody type with similar biological characteristics) and/ or site­ specific technology prototype studies; ( C) Documentation which demonstrates that the technologies, operational measures, or restoration measures selected would reduce impingement mortality and entrainment to the extent necessary to satisfy the requirements of § 125.94; and ( D) Design calculations, drawings, and estimates to support the descriptions required by paragraphs ( b)( 6)( iii)( A) and ( B) of this section. ( 7) Verification Monitoring Plan. You must include in the Study a plan to conduct, at a minimum, two years of monitoring to verify the full­ scale performance of the proposed or implemented technologies, operational measures, or restoration measures. The verification study must begin once the technologies, operational measures, and restoration measures are implemented and continue for a period of time that is sufficient to demonstrate that the facility is reducing the level of impingement and entrainment to the levels documented pursuant to paragraphs ( b)( 4)( iii), ( b)( 5)( ii), and/ or ( b)( 6)( iii)( B) of this section. The plan must describe the frequency of monitoring and the parameters to be monitored and the basis for determining the parameters and the frequency and duration for monitoring. The plan must also describe the information to be included in a yearly status report to the Director. The Director will use the verification monitoring to confirm that you are meeting the applicable requirements of § 125.94. § 125.96 As an owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility, what monitoring must I perform? As an owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility, you must perform monitoring as specified by the Director to demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements of § 125.94. § 125.97 As an owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility, what records must I keep and what information must I report? As an owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility you are required to keep records and report information and data to the Director as follows: ( a) You must keep records of all the data used to complete the permit application and show compliance with the requirements of § 125.94, any supplemental information developed under § 125.95, and any compliance monitoring data conducted under § 125.96, for a period of at least three ( 3) years. The Director may require that these records be kept for a longer period. ( b) You must provide annually to the Director a status report that includes appropriate monitoring data as specified by the Director. § 125.98 As the Director, what must I do to comply with the requirements of this subpart? ( a) Permit Application. As the Director, you must review materials submitted by the applicant under 40 CFR 122.21( r) and § 125.95 before each permit renewal or reissuance. ( 1) After receiving the permit application from the owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility, the Director must determine which of the standards specified in § 125.94 to apply to the facility. In addition, the Director must review materials to determine compliance with the applicable standards. ( 2) At each permit renewal, the Director must review the application materials and monitoring data to determine whether requirements, or additional requirements, for design and construction technologies or operational measures should be included in the permit. ( b) Permitting Requirements. Section 316( b) requirements are implemented for a facility through an NPDES permit. As the Director, you must consider the information submitted by the Phase II existing facility in its permit application, and determine the appropriate requirements and conditions to include in the permit based on the alternative for establishing best technology available chosen by the facility. The following requirements must be included in each permit: VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17225 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( 1) Cooling Water Intake Structure Requirements. The permit conditions must include the performance standards that implement the requirements of § 125.94( b)( 2), ( 3), and ( 4); § 125.94( c)( 1) and ( 2); § 125.94( d); § 125.94( e); and § 125.94( f). In determining compliance with the flow requirement in § 125.94( b)( 4)( ii), the Director must consider anthropogenic factors ( those not considered `` natural'') unrelated to the Phase II existing facility's cooling water intake structure that can influence the occurrence and location of a thermocline. These include source water inflows, other water withdrawals, managed water uses, wastewater discharges, and flow/ level management practices ( e. g., some reservoirs release water from deeper bottom layers). The Director must coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, or Tribal fish or wildlife agencies to determine if any disruption is beneficial to the management of fisheries. ( i) You must review the Design and Construction Technology Plan required in § 125.96( b)( 4) to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of the technology or operational measures proposed to meet the requirements of § 125.94. In each reissued permit, you must include a condition requiring the facility to reduce impingement mortality and entrainment commensurate with the implementation of the technologies in the permit. In considering a permit application, the Director must review the performance of the technologies implemented and require additional or different design and construction technologies, if needed, to meet the impingement mortality and entrainment reduction requirements for all life stages of fish and shellfish. In addition, you may consider any chemical, water quality, and other anthropogenic stresses on the source waterbody in order to determine whether more stringent conditions are needed to comply with the requirements of other applicable Federal, State, or Tribal law in accordance with § 125.94( e). ( ii) If you determine that restoration measures are appropriate at the Phase II existing facility, you must review the Information to Support Proposed Restoration Measures required under § 125.95( b)( 5) and determine whether the proposed measures, alone or in combination with design and construction technologies and operational measures, will maintain the fish and shellfish in the waterbody at a comparable level to that which would be achieved under § 125.94. If the application includes a qualitative demonstration for restoration measures that will result in increases in fish and shellfish that are difficult to quantify, you must determine whether the proposed measures will maintain fish and shellfish in the waterbody at a level substantially similar to that which would be achieved under § 125.94. You must also review and approve the proposed Verification Monitoring Plan submitted under § 125.95( b)( 7) and require that the monitoring continue for a sufficient period of time to demonstrate that the restoration measures meet the requirements of § 125.94( d). ( iii) For a facility that requests requirements based on site­ specific best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact, you must review the application materials and any other information you may have that would be relevant to a determination of whether alternative requirements are appropriate for the facility. If you determine that alternative requirements are appropriate, you must make a site­ specific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact in accordance with § 125.95( c). ( 2) Monitoring Conditions. The permit must require the permittee to perform the monitoring required in § 125.96. In determining applicable monitoring requirements, the Director must consider the facility's verification monitoring plan, as appropriate. You may modify the monitoring program when the permit is reissued and during the term of the permit based on changes in physical or biological conditions in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure. ( 3) Record Keeping and Reporting. At a minimum, the permit must require the permittee to report and keep records as required by § 125.97. [ FR Doc. 02 5597 Filed 4 8 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.938963

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0049-0006

Supporting & Related Material

Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Page 1 The docket index is organized as follows: Range of Document Control Numbers ( DCN) Subject Matter 4­ 0000 to 4­ 0999 Preamble 4­ 1000 to 4­ 2499 Benefits Analysis 4­ 2500 to 4­ 2999 Facility Costs 4­ 3000 to 4­ 3999 Economics Analysis 4­ 4000 to 4­ 4999 Technical Information Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Page 2 Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment 4­ 0000 USEPA The Docket for the New Facility Rule ( W­ 00­ 03) is Incorporated in its Entirety by Reference n/ a 4/ 9/ 2002 4­ 0001 DOC USEPA Information Collection Request ( ICR) for Cooling Water Intake Structures Phase II Existing Facility Proposed Rule 92 Feb­ 02 4­ 0002 DOC USEPA Economic and Benefits Analysis for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule ( EPA­ 821­ R­ 02­ 001) 252 4/ 9/ 2002 4­ 0003 DOC USEPA Case Study Analysis for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule ( EPA­ 821­ R­ 02­ 002) 1074 4/ 9/ 2002 4­ 0004 DOC USEPA Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule ( EPA­ 821­ R­ 02­ 003) 282 4/ 9/ 2002 4­ 0005 LEG United States District Court for Southern District of New York Amended Consent Decree in Cronin v. Browner, No. 93 Civ 0314 ( AGS) 19 11/ 21/ 2000 Also referred to as Cronin v. Whitman. Also see DCN 1­ 5033­ PR. 4­ 0006 USEPA Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Adverse Impact of Cooling Water Intake Structures on the Aquatic Environment: Section 316 ( b) P. L. 92­ 500 1 See DCN 1­ 5045­ PR 4­ 0007 USEPA Preliminary Regulatory Development Section 316 ( b) of the Clean Water Act Background Paper Number 3: Cooling Water Intake Technologies 1 See DCN 1­ 5069­ PR 4­ 0008 USEPA Supplement to Background Paper 3: Cooling Water Intake Technologies 1 See DCN 1­ 5070­ PR 4­ 0009 EPA Technical Development Document for the Final 1 See DCN 3­ 0002 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 3 Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities ( EPA­ 821­ R­ 01­ 036) 4­ 0010 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Appalachian Power Co. v. Train 1 See DCN 1­ 5031­ PR 4­ 0011 DOC USEPA Information Collection Request ( ICR), Detailed Industry Questionnaires: Phase II Cooling Water Intake Structures & Watershed Case Study Short Questionnaire 1176 Aug­ 99 4­ 0012 DOC USEPA Comment Response Document 1 See DCN 3­ 0091 4­ 0013 Supreme Court of the United States Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. US Army Corps of Engineers ( 531 US 159 ( 2001)) 1 See DCN 3­ 0004 4­ 0014A DOC USEPA Initial SBREFA Analysis­­ National Estimate of Affected Design Flows and Plants 8 6/ 1/ 2001 4­ 0014B DOC USEPA Table Shell For Preliminary Phase 2 SBREFA Analysis 4 6/ 19/ 2001 4­ 0014C DOC USEPA Firm Size of In­ Scope Utility and Non­ utility Plants 4 6/ 25/ 2001 4­ 0015 DOC Bureau of the Census 1982 Census of Manufacturers, Volume I: Summary and Subject Statistics 83 1982 4­ 0016A DOE FERC Form 1: Annual Report for Major Electric Utilities, Licensees and Others 1 See DCN 4­ 3007 4­ 0016B DOC Utility Data Institite Directory of U. S. Cogeneration, Small Power, and Industrial Plants 698 Jun­ 95 4­ 0016C RDI, Inc. NewGEN Database­­ February 2001 1 See DCN 2­ 006 4­ 0016D DAT USEPA Section 316( b) Survey Questionnaire Database n/ a 4/ 9/ 2002 Contained in CBI docket within DCN 4­ 0016F­ CBI Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 4 4­ 0016E EPA Information Collection Request ( ICR): Industry Screener Questionnaire 1 See DCN 3­ 3084­ R2 4­ 0016F MEM Choudhry, G. H., I. Park and J. Edmonds, Westat Cooling Water Intake Structure Study Material 10 4/ 2/ 2002 Also see DCN 3­ 3077. CD­ ROM contains non­ CBI supporting data. 4­ 0016F­ R1 DAT Westat Non­ CBI Folder n/ a Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 0016FCBI DAT Westat CBI Folder n/ a 4/ 9/ 2002 Contained in the CBI docket. 4­ 0016G DOC USEPA 316( b) Detailed Industry Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water Intake Structures Traditional Steam Electric Utilities 101 Aug­ 99 4­ 0016H USEPA Industry Short Technical Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water Intake Structures 1 See DCN 3­ 0031 4­ 0016I USEPA 316( b) Detailed Industry Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water Intake Structures Steam Electric Nonutility Power Producers 1 See DCN 3­ 0030 4­ 0016J DOC USEPA 316( b) Detailed Industry Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water Intake Structures Manufacturers 122 Aug­ 99 4­ 0016K DOC USEPA Watershed Case Study Short Questionnaire 40 Aug­ 99 4­ 0016L USDOE Form EIA­ 412 : Annual Report of Public Electric Utilities 1 See DCN 4­ 3000 4­ 0016M USDOE Form EIA­ 767 1 See DCN 4­ 3001 4­ 0016N USDOE Form EIA­ 860 1 See DCNs 4­ 3002 and 4­ 3003 4­ 0016O USDOE Form EIA­ 861 : Annual Electric Utility Report 1 See DCN 4­ 3004 4­ 0016P USDA RUS Form 12 : Electric Operating Report 1 See DCN 4­ 3006A and 4­ Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 5 3006B 4­ 0016Q MEM Tatum, J., Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( NRC) Email RE: Cooling Towers 2 11/ 28/ 2001 4­ 0017 Mayhew, D. A., L. D. Jensen, D. F. Hanson, and P. H. Muessig A comparative review of entrainment survival studies at power plants in estuarine environments 1 See DCN 3­ 0006 4­ 0018 EPRI Review of Entrainment Survival Studies 1 See DCN 2­ 017A­ R7 4­ 0019 Hart, D., EPA ASMFC Power Plant Information 1 See DCN 3­ 0008A 4­ 0020 Florida Power and Light Company Assessment of the impacts at the St. Lucie Nuclear Generating Plant on sea turtle species found in the inshore waters of Florida 1 See DCN 3­ 0009 4­ 0021 USEPA, Region IV Brunswick Nuclear Steam Electric Generating Plant of Carolina Power and Light Company, Historical Summary and Review of Section 316( b) Issues 1 See DCN 1­ 5065­ PR 4­ 0022 USEPA, Region IV In Re Florida Power Corp. Crystal River Power Plant Units 1, 2, & 3 NPDES Permit FLR0000159 1 See DCN 1­ 5049­ PR 4­ 0023 Thurber, N. J. and D. J. Jude Impingement Losses at the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant during 1975­ 1982 with a Discussion of Factors Responsible and Possible Impact on Local Populations 1 See DCN 1­ 5030­ PR 4­ 0024 ART Watson, R. and D. Pauly Systematic Distortions in World Fisheries Catch Trends 3 11/ 29/ 2001 4­ 0025 Jackson, J. et. al. Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems 1 See DCN 3­ 0063 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 6 4­ 0026 Boreman, J. and P. Goodyear. Estimates of Entrainment Mortality for Striped Bass and Other Fish Species Inhabiting the Hudson River Estuary 1 See DCN 1­ 5004­ PR 4­ 0027 State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation Draft Environmental Impact Statement for SPDES for Bowline Point, Indian Point 2 & 3, and Roseton Steam Electric Generating Stations 1 See DCN 2­ 013E 4­ 0028 NYDEC Internal memorandum provided to the USEPA on NYDEC's position on SPDES permit renewals for Roseton, Bowline Point 1 & 2, and Indian Point 2 & 3 generating stations 1 See DCN 3­ 0015 4­ 0029 DOC Tondreau, R., J. Hey, and E. Shane, Morningside College Missouri River Aquatic Ecology Studies: Ten Year Summary ( 1972 ­ 1982) 78 Undated 4­ 0030 Metcalf & Eddy Brayton Point Station Monitoring Program Technical Review 1 See DCN 3­ 0016 4­ 0031 Gibson, M. Comparison of Trends in the Finfish Assemblages of Mt. Hope Bay and Narragansett Bay in Relation to Operation of the New England Power Brayton Point Station 1 See DCN 1­ 5009­ PR 4­ 0032 Southern California Edison Report on 1987 Data: Marine Environmental Analysis and Interpretation, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station 1 See DCN 1­ 5021­ PR 4­ 0033 Swarbrick, S. and Ambrose, R. F. Technical Report C: Entrapment of Juvenile and Adult Fish at SONGS 1 See DCN 1­ 5028­ PR Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 7 4­ 0034 Kastendiek, J. and K. Parker Interim Technical Report to the California Coastal Commission: Midwater and Benthic Fish 1 See DCN 3­ 0020 4­ 0035 Southern Energy Delta LLC Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan: Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants 1 See DCN 3­ 0022 4­ 0036 DOC Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers Lovett Generating Station Gunderboom System Evaluation Program 60 1998 Also submitted in comments from 316bNFR. 528 4­ 0037 DOC Consumers Power Company Summary of Deterrent Net Performance at JR Whiting Plant 8 1991 4­ 0038 Schmitt, R. J. and C. E. Osenberg Detecting Ecological Impacts. Concepts and Applications in Coastal Habitats 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R21 4­ 0039 EPRI, Dixon, D. A. Catalog of Assessment Methods for Evaluating the Effect of Power Plant Operations on Aquatic Communities 1 See DCN 2­ 013J 4­ 0040 *** Citation Deleted*** 4­ 0041 DOC Mitsch, W. J and J. G. Gosselink Wetlands 36 2000 Selected pages 4­ 0042 DOC Bartoldus, C. C. The Process of Selecting a Wetland Assessment Procedure: Steps and Considerations 38 2000 4­ 0043 DOC Fisher, A. and R. Raucher Intrinsic Benefits of Improved Water Quality: Conceptual and Empirical Perspectives 30 1984 4­ 0044 DOC Alexander, R. B., J. R. Slack, A. S. Ludtke, K. K. Fitzgerald, and T. L. Schertz, USGS Classification of Hydrologic Drainage Basins in the United States 2 undated Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 8 4­ 0045A DOC The Cadmus Group State Water Quality Management Resource Model 19 Sep­ 00 User's Guide only. Also see 4­ 0045B. 4­ 0045B DAT The Cadmus Group State Water Quality Management Resource Model n/ a Sep­ 00 Model available on CDROM 4­ 0046 MEM Stein, M., USEPA Region I Office of Regional Counsel Email RE: Question 2 1/ 24/ 2002 4­ 0047 *** Citation Deleted*** 4­ 0048A LEG US Court of Appeals, First Circuit Seacoast Anti­ Pollution League et. al. v. Costle 8 1979 4­ 0048B LEG General Counsel, USEPA Decision of the General Counsel, In Re: Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation 14 7/ 29/ 1977 4­ 0048C LEG General Counsel, USEPA Decision of the General Counsel on Matters of Law Pursuant to 40 CFR 125.36( m) 15 6/ 1/ 1976 4­ 0049 MEM McCracken, W., Michigan DEQ Email RE: 316( b) Burden 2 1/ 24/ 2002 4­ 0050 DOC Best­ Wong, B., USEPA, Water Permits Division NPDES Permit Backlog Trend Report: October 31, 2001 50 11/ 30/ 2001 4­ 0051 MEM Ryan, M. W. S., Deputy Chief Financial Officer, USEPA Decision Memorandum: Recommendations on Material Weaknesses for EPA's FY 2001 Integrity Act Report and on Internal Agency Weaknesses 12 12/ 18/ 2001 4­ 0052A DOC Brown, R. S., ECOStates Coping with Budget Crunch: When the Axe Falls­­ How State Environmental Agencies Deal With Budget Cuts 4 2002 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 9 4­ 0052B DOC National Conference of State Legislatures ( NCSL) State Fiscal Outlook for FY 2002: October Update 34 10/ 31/ 2001 4­ 0053 Supreme Court of the United States Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council ( 467 US 838, 843 ( 1984)) 1 See DCN 3­ 0075 4­ 0054 Supreme Court of the United States Bailey v. US ( 516 US 137 ( 1995)) 1 See DCN 3­ 0078 4­ 0055 USEPA In re Tennessee Valley Authority John Sevier Steam Plant, NPDES Permit no. TN0005436 1 See DCN 1­ 5051­ PR 4­ 0056 State of Maryland Department of Environment Chalk Point, MDE, Potomac Electric Power Co., State Discharge Permit No. 81­ DP­ 0627B, NPDES Permit No. MD0002658B 1 See DCN 1­ 5023­ PR 4­ 0057 DOC State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy Draft NJDEP Permit Renewal Including Section 316( a) Variance Determination and Section 316( b) BTA Decision: NJDEP Permit No. NJ0005622 224 6/ 24/ 1993 Missing page 13 of Attachment C 4­ 0058 DOC US Small Business Administration ( SBA), Office of Size Standards Table of Small Business Size Standards 57 Feb­ 02 4­ 0059 to 4­ 0999: No Entry 4­ 1000 DOC Abt Associates Inc. 316b Delaware Case Study Docket Program List. pdf 7 3/ 11/ 2002 Delaware Case Study Program Guide; Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 1001 PRG National Marine Unpack NMFS Intercept Data. pdf 1 4/ 9/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 10 Fisheries Service SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1002 PRG National Marine Fisheries Service Unpack NMFS Site Ids. pdf 1 3/ 14/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1003 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Modify NMFS Data for Coastal Modeling with Additional Obs ( full set). pdf 5 10/ 10/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1004 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Zip Codes for NMFS­ Coastal Full Set. pdf 2 10/ 20/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1005 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Create Distance Matrix ­ NMFS Full Set. pdf 1 10/ 20/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1006 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Zip_ fmt5. pdf 9 10/ 20/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1007 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Rch_ fmt. pdf 18 2/ 16/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1008 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Lori_ fmt. pdf 18 2/ 16/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1009 PRG Abt Associates Inc. NMFS Catch for Spatial Analysis 4. pdf 6 10/ 19/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1010 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Generate Storet WQ per RF1id. pdf 2 10/ 1/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1011 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Coastal Restricted Choice Sets III ( full set). pdf 13 10/ 22/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1012 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Coastal Model Benefits ( bass) 1_ 11_ 02. pdf 9 1/ 11/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1013 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Coastal Model Benefits ( no­ target) 1_ 11_ 02. pdf 9 1/ 11/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1014 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Coastal Model Benefits ( weak) 1_ 11_ 02. pdf 9 1/ 11/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 11 SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1015 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Coastal Model Benefits ( bass) Unit Increase 12_ 11_ 01. pdf 9 12/ 11/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1016 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Coastal Model Benefits ( blue) Unit Increase 12_ 11_ 01. pdf 9 12/ 11/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1017 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Coastal Model Benefits ( flnd) Unit Increase 12_ 11_ 01. pdf 9 12/ 11/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1018 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Coastal Model Benefits ( no­ target) Unit Increase 12_ 11_ 01. pdf 9 12/ 11/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1019 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Coastal Model Benefits ( weak) Unit Increase 12_ 11_ 01. pdf 9 12/ 11/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1020 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Create Data Set for Poisson Model ­ All Species Model 11_ 14_ 01. pdf 8 11/ 14/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1021 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Statistics for Background Chapter. pdf 5 12/ 14/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF 4­ 1022 DAT Abt Associates Inc. Uos. csv n/ a 2/ 7/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 1023 DAT Abt Associates Inc. Zips5. in n/ a 10/ 20/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 1024 DAT Abt Associates Inc. Dist1020. out n/ a 10/ 20/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 1025 DAT U. S. EPA Stortdat. sd2 n/ a 2/ 23/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 1026 DAT Abt Associates Inc. Uos_ stor. sd2 n/ a 2/ 20/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 1027 DAT Abt Associates Inc., Delorme ( 1993& 1999); U. S. EPA Attribut5. sd2 n/ a 8/ 17/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM; Based on DE, NJ, MD Atlas and Gazetteer; Storet 4­ 1028 DAT Abt Associates Inc. Cst_ nmfs. sas7bdat n/ a 8/ 17/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 1029 DAT Abt Associates Inc. Spatial5. dbf n/ a 10/ 19/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 12 4­ 1030 DAT Abt Associates Inc. Cst_ ctch3. sas7bdat n/ a 10/ 22/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 1031 DOC Abt Associates Inc. Salem ONLY ­ DE­ NJ Landings ­ 011002. pdf n/ a 1/ 10/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. Excel File as PDF 4­ 1032 DOC Abt Associates Inc. All Facilities ­ DE­ NJ Landings ­ 011002. pdf n/ a 1/ 10/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. Excel File as PDF 4­ 1033 DOC Abt Associates Inc. In­ Scope Facilities ­ DE­ NJ Landings ­ 011002. pdf n/ a 1/ 10/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. Excel File as PDF 4­ 1034 DOC Abt Associates Inc. MRFSS Number of Trips by State and Mode. pdf 4 1/ 11/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. Excel File as PDF 4­ 1035 DOC Abt Associates Inc. MRFSS State Territorial Landings for Weak Bass 1994 to 1998. pdf 1 1/ 11/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. Excel File as PDF 4­ 1036 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Coastal Restricted Model. pdf 1 12/ 14/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. LIMDEP Program as PDF. 4­ 1037 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Poisson Model and Negbin 12_ 20_ 01. pdf 1 12/ 20/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. LIMDEP Program as PDF. 4­ 1038 PRG Abt Associates Inc. CatchVisitLink. pdf 3 3/ 17/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. ArcView Avenue Script as PDF. 4­ 1039 PRG Abt Associates Inc. ClosestRecSiteII. pdf 5 2/ 7/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. ArcView Avenue Script as PDF. 4­ 1040 PRG Abt Associates Inc. GetLineCenter. pdf 2 2/ 1/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. ArcView Avenue Script as PDF. 4­ 1041 PRG Abt Associates Inc. SetShpNull. pdf 1 3/ 26/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 13 ArcView Avenue Script as PDF. 4­ 1042 PRG Abt Associates Inc. SiteVisitLink. pdf 5 1/ 23/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. ArcView Avenue Script as PDF. 4­ 1043 to 4­ 1099: No Entry 4­ 1100 DOC Abt Associates Inc. 316b Florida Case Study Docket Program List. pdf 5 3/ 11/ 2002 Florida Case Study Program Guide; Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 1101 PRG Abt Associates Inc. UNPACK NMFS Intercept Data for Florida. pdf 1 7/ 30/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1102 PRG Abt Associates Inc. UNPACK NMFS Add_ On Data for Florida. pdf 1 8/ 7/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1103 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Pull Tampa Bay Anglers from 1997 Intercept Survey. pdf 2 8/ 23/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1104 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Create files for Distance Matrix Calc. pdf 2 9/ 10/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1105 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Create Distance matrix ­ Florida. pdf 1 9/ 10/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1106 PRG Abt Associates Inc. NMFS Catch for Florida Spatial Analysis ­ Combined Modes 2_ 4_ 02. pdf 7 2/ 4/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1107 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Import. pdf 1 2/ 12/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1108 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Tampadata. pdf 27 2/ 12/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1109 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Tampastats. pdf 11 2/ 12/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 14 4­ 1110 DAT Abt Associates Inc. Fl_ sites. in n/ a 9/ 4/ 2001 See DCN 4­ 1104 4­ 1111 DAT Abt Associates Inc. Fl_ zips. in n/ a 9/ 10/ 2001 See DCN 4­ 1105 4­ 1112 DAT Abt Associates Inc., NMFS Catch Rates Shore Boat. csv n/ a 2/ 9/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 1113 DAT Abt Associates Inc. Hhinc. sas7bdat n/ a 9/ 17/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 1114 DAT Abt Associates Inc.; Delorme ( 1997) Site Characteristics. csv n/ a 2/ 4/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM; Based on FL Atlas and Gazetteer 4­ 1115 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Site Choice Program. pdf 1 2/ 12/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. LIMDEP Program as PDF. 4­ 1116 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Trip Participation Model Program. pdf 1 2/ 12/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. LIMDEP Program as PDF. 4­ 1117 PRG Abt Associates Inc. CatchAverage. pdf 5 2/ 7/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. ArcView Avenue Script as PDF. 4­ 1118 PRG Abt Associates Inc. ClosestRecSite. pdf 5 8/ 24/ 2000 Available on CD­ ROM. ArcView Avenue Script as PDF. 4­ 1119 PRG Abt Associates Inc. DeleteShape. pdf 1 2/ 6/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. ArcView Avenue Script as PDF. 4­ 1120 PRG Abt Associates Inc. GetLineCenter. pdf 2 2/ 1/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. ArcView Avenue Script as PDF. 4­ 1121 PRG Abt Associates Inc. SetFields. pdf 1 12/ 11/ 2000 Available on CD­ ROM. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 15 ArcView Avenue Script as PDF. 4­ 1122 PRG Abt Associates Inc. SiteVisitLink. pdf 5 1/ 23/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. ArcView Avenue Script as PDF. 4­ 1123 PRG Abt Associates Inc. StdCorrections. pdf 1 2/ 8/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. ArcView Avenue Script as PDF. 4­ 1124 DOC Abt Associates Inc. Welfare estimates for I& E using boat model. pdf 1 2/ 12/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. Excel File as PDF. 4­ 1125 to 4­ 1199: No Entry 4­ 1200 DOC Abt Associates Inc. 316b Ohio Case Study Docket Program List. pdf 4 3/ 11/ 2002 Ohio Case Study Program Guide; Available on CDROM 4­ 1201 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Create Full Activity Set. pdf 21 11/ 27/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1202 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Merge Link IDs for Out of State Anglers. pdf 1 11/ 27/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1203 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Dst_ mtx3. pdf 1 9/ 24/ 1999 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1204 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Zip_ fmt. pdf 6 9/ 24/ 1999 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1205 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Rch_ fmt. pdf 35 9/ 24/ 1999 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1206 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Lori_ fmt. pdf 35 9/ 24/ 1999 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1207 PRG Abt Associates Inc. New Fish per 300M Data for Craig. pdf 2 12/ 20/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 16 SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1208 PRG Abt Associates Inc. New Wght per 300M Data to Rch_ info 01_ 10_ 02. pdf 1 1/ 10/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1209 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Fishing Model ­ with Out of State. pdf 9 12/ 20/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1210 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Data fix 01_ 10_ 02. pdf 1 1/ 10/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1211 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Generate Set for Poisson All Anglers EB Model 01_ 23_ 02. pdf 4 1/ 23/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1212 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Oh­ Riv­ TripBenefits­ All­ 011002. eb. pdf 4 1/ 10/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1213 PRG Abt Associates Inc. OH­ Riv_ TripBenefits­ Phase2­ 011002. eb. pdf 4 1/ 10/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. SAS Program as PDF. 4­ 1214 DAT Abt Associates Inc. Universe. csv n/ a 10/ 21/ 1998 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 1215 DAT Abt Associates Inc. Zips923. out n/ a 9/ 24/ 1999 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 1216 DAT Abt Associates Inc; Ohio EPA ( 1996); Delorme ( 1995) Rch_ info. sd2 n/ a 1/ 10/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM; Based on Ohio Water Resource Inventory and Ohio Atlas and Gazetteer 4­ 1217 DAT Abt Associates Inc. Oh_ pools. sd2 n/ a 12/ 26/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 1218 DAT Ohio Water Resources Inventory Fish89. sd2 n/ a 12/ 19/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 1219 DAT Abt Associates Inc. Outstate. sd2 n/ a 12/ 11/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 1220 DAT U. S. EPA( 1994); Abt Associates Inc. Anglers3. sd2 n/ a 9/ 24/ 1999 See DCN 4­ 1201 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 17 4­ 1221 DOC Abt Associates Inc. Loss Values, by Weight, Benefits, and Pool Benefits 01­ 10­ 02. fnl. pdf n/ a 1/ 10/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. Excel File as PDF. 4­ 1222 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Site Choice 011002­ fnl­ run. pdf 2 1/ 10/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. LIMDEP Program as PDF. 4­ 1223 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Fish ­ Participation ­ 011002­ fnl­ run. pdf 2 1/ 10/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. LIMDEP Program as PDF. 4­ 1224 PRG Abt Associates Inc. GetLineCenter. pdf 2 2/ 1/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. ArcView Avenue Script as PDF. 4­ 1225 PRG Abt Associates Inc. Network_ FCF. pdf 4 12/ 14/ 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. ArcView Avenue Script as PDF. 4­ 1226 to 4­ 1299: No Entry 4­ 1300 DOX Able, K. W. and M. P. Fahay. The First Year in the Life of Estuarine Fishes in the Middle Atlantic Bight. 132 1998 4­ 1301 TEL Abt Associates Inc Personal Communication with Cape May Point State Park personnel, September 21, 1999. 1 1999 4­ 1302 DOC AFS ( American Fisheries Society). Sourcebook for Investigation and Valuation of Fish Kills. 156 1993 4­ 1303 DOC Agnello, R. The Economic Value of Fishing Success: An Application of Socioeconomic Survey Data. 10 1989 4­ 1304 DOX Akçakaya, H. R., and L. R. Ginzburg. Ecological risk analysis for single and multiple populations. In A. Seitz, and V. Loeschcke, eds., Species Conservation: A Population­ Biological Approach. 16 1991 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 18 4­ 1305 DAT Alexander, Richard B., John W. Brakebill, Robert E. Brew, and Richard A. Smith Enhanced RF1 GIS Hydrological Coverage. 2 + CD February, 1999 Available on CD­ ROM. Downloaded from USGS website http:// water. usgs. gov/ GIS/ metadata/ usgswrd/ erf1. ht ml. This CD­ ROM also contains additional files as listed below in this index. 4­ 1306 DOX Allan, J. D. Stream Ecology, Structure and Function of Running Waters. 82 1995 4­ 1307 DOC Allen, D. M., J. H. Hudson, and T. J. Costello. Postlarval shrimp ( Penaeus) in the Florida Keys: Species, size, and seasonal abundance. 7 1980 4­ 1308 WEB American Electric Power Company, Inc. ( AEP). American Electric Power Company, Inc. ( AEP). http:// www. aep. com/ about/ facts. htm. 1 2001 4­ 1309 American Electric Power Service Corporation. Cardinal Plant Demonstration Document for P. L. 92­ 500 Section 316( b). 1 See DCN 2­ 013L­ R1. 4­ 1310 DOC Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. Portney, E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. 67 January 11, 1993 4­ 1311 WEB Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Atlantic Croaker. 2 2000 Accessed July 12, 2000. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 19 Commission. http:// www. asmfc. org/ Programs/ Fish% 20Mgnt/ cro aker1. html 4­ 1312 WEB Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Shad and River Herring. http:// www. asmfc. org/ Programs/ Fish% 20Mgnt/ SH AD6. html. 3 2000 Accessed July 13, 2000. 4­ 1313 WEB Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Spot. http:// www. asmfc. org/ Programs/ Fish% 20Mgnt/ SP OT1. html. 3 2000 Accessed July 13, 2000. 4­ 1314 WEB Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Striped Bass. http:// www. asmfc. org/ Programs/ Fish% 20Mgnt/ ST RBASS6. html. 3 2000 Accessed July 13, 2000. 4­ 1315 WEB Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Review of the Fishery Management Plan for Striped Bass. http:// www. asmfc. org/ Programs/ Fish% 20Mgnt/ 200 0% 20FMP% 20Reviews/ StrBassFMPRev2000_ FM P. html. 10 2000 Accessed July 12, 2000. 4­ 1316 WEB Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Review of the ASMFC Fishery Management Plan for Tautog ( Tautoga onitis). Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. http:// www. asmfc. org/ Programs/ Fish% 20Mgnt/ FM P% 20Reviews/ 2000% 20Tautog% 20Reviews. htm. 8 2000 Accessed November 2000. 4­ 1317 WEB Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Tautog. http:// www. asmfc. org/ Programs/ Fish% 20Mgnt/ TA UTOG1. html. 3 2000 Accessed November 27, 2000. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 20 4­ 1318 WEB Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Atlantic Herring. www. asmfc. org/ Programs/ Fish% 20Mgnt/ AHERRI NG1. html. 2 2001 Accessed February 12, 2001. 4­ 1319 WEB Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Review of the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden. http:// www. asmfc. org/ Programs/ Fish% 20Mgnt/ 200 0% 20FMP% 20Reviews/ menhaden2000_ FMP. HT M. 5 2001 Accessed March 19, 2001. 4­ 1320 DOC Ault, J. S., G. A. Diaz, S. G. Smith, J. Luo, and J. E. Serafy. An efficient sampling survey design to estimate pink shrimp population abundance in Biscayne Bay, Florida. 17 1999 4­ 1321 PAP Auster, P. J. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates ( North and Mid­ Atlantic) Tautog and Cunner. 23 1989 4­ 1322 WEB Author Unknown. Blue Mussel Morphology and Anatomy, Physiology, Life Cycle and Reproduction. http:// www. irh. k12. nf. ca/ index. htm. 18 2001 Accessed 06/ 30/ 01. 4­ 1323 DOC Bailey, R. M. and G. E. Smith. Origin and geography of the fish fauna of the Laurentian Great Lakes. 23 1981 4­ 1324 DOC Baird, P. H. Influence of abiotic factors and prey distribution on diet and reproductive success of three seabird species in Alaska. 12 1990 4­ 1325 DOC Balletto, J. H. and H. W. Brown. Kammer Plant Demonstration Document for P. L. 92­ 500 Section 316( b). 81 1980 4­ 1326 DOC Balletto, J. H. and Philip Sporn Plant Demonstration Document for 79 1980 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 21 H. W. Brown. P. L. 92­ 500 Section 316( b). 4­ 1327 DOC Balletto, J. H. and S. A. Zabel. Clifty Creek Station Demonstration Document for P. L. 92­ 500 Section 316( b). 373 1978 4­ 1328 Balletto, J. H. and S. A. Zabel. Tanners Creek Plant Demonstration Document for P. L. 92­ 500 Section 316( b). 1 See DCN 2­ 013L­ R2. 4­ 1329 Barnthouse, L. B. Impacts of power­ plant cooling systems on estuarine fish populations: the Hudson River after 25 years. 1 See DCN 2­ 018B­ R1 4­ 1330 DOC Barrett, R. T. and Y. V. Krasnov. Recent responses to changes in stocks of prey species by seabirds breeding in the southern Barents Sea. 10 1996 4­ 1331 DOC Bartell, S. M. and K. R. Campbell. Ecological Risk Assessment of the Effects of the Incremental Increase of Commercial Navigation Traffic ( 25, 50, 75, and 100 Percent Increase of 1992 Baseline Traffic) on Fish. Prepared for U. S. Army Engineer District, Rock Island. http:// www. mvr. usace. army. mil/ pdw/ nav_ study/ env _ reports/ ENVRPT16. htm. 246 July, 2000 Accessed 2000. 4­ 1332 PAP Bason, W. H. Ecology and Early Life History of Striped Bass, Morone saxatilis, in the Delaware Estuary. 134 December, 1971 4­ 1333 WEB BCCVB. Southeastern Massachusetts. Bristol County Convention & Visitors Bureau. http:// www. southofboston. org/ bristol_ home. htm. Accessed January 2002. 3 2002 Accessed January 2002. 4­ 1334 WEB BEA. Bureau of Economic Analysis National Accounts Data: Gross Product by Industry. http:// www. bea. doc. gov/ bea/ dn2/ gpoc. htm 4 1998 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 22 4­ 1335 DOC Beardsley, G. L. Jr. Distribution of migrating juvenile pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum duorarum Burkenroad, in Burronwood Canal, Everglades National Park, Florida. 8 1970 4­ 1336 PAP Beauchamp, D. A., M. F. Shepard and G. B. Pauley. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates ( Pacific Northwest): Chinook Salmon. 20 October, 1983 4­ 1337 DOC Beck, M. W. Size­ specific shelter limitation in stone crabs: a test of the demographic bottleneck hypothesis. 13 1995 4­ 1338 DOX Beck, S. White Perch. In Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L. E. Dove and R. M. Nyman ( eds.). 9 July, 1995 4­ 1339 DOC Becker, P. H., T. Troschje, A. Behnke, and M. Wagener. Starvation of common tern Sterna hirundo fledglings during heat waves. 7 1997 4­ 1340 DOC Beckman, D. W., A. L. Stanley, J. H. Render, and C. A. Wilson. Age and growth of black drum in Louisiana waters of the Gulf of Mexico. 8 1990 4­ 1341 WEB Beever, J. W. The regional wildlife habitat plan in the Tampa Bay region: Accomplishments and assessment. In: Proceedings of the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 3: Applying Our Knowledge, October 21­ 23, 1996 ( S. F. Treat, ed.), Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. 404 1997 4­ 1342 DOC Begon, M., and M. Mortimer. Population Ecology: A Unified Study of Animals and Plants. 26 1986 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 23 4­ 1343 DOC Beintema, A. J. European black terns ( Chlidonias niger) in trouble: Examples of dietary problems. 10 1997 4­ 1344 ART Ben­ Akiva, Moshe, and Steven R. Lerman. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Applications to Travel Demand. 21 1985 4­ 1345 Benda, R. S. and W. C. Houtcooper. Impingement Studies at 16 Electric­ Generating Plants in Michigan. In: Ecological Analysts Inc. Third National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement: Section 316( b) Research and Compliance. L. D. Jensen ( eds.). Third National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement: Section 316( b) Research and Compliance, New York, NY. 1 See DCN 1­ 3003­ BE. 4­ 1346 DOC Bert, T. M. and J. M. Stevely. Population characteristics of the stone crab, Menippe mercenaria, in Florida Bay and the Florida Keys. 1 1989 Abstract only. 4­ 1347 PAP Bert, T. M., R. E. Warner and L. D. Kessler. The Biology and Florida Fishery of the Stone Crab, Menippe mercenaria ( Say), With Emphasis on Southwest Florida. 89 October, 1978 4­ 1348 PAP Bielsa, L. M., W. H. Murdich, and R. F. Labisky. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates ( South Florida) Pink Shrimp. 31 October, 1983 4­ 1349 DOX Bigelow, H. B. and W. C. Schroeder. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. 70 1953 4­ 1350 DOC Bishop, R. C., S. R. Milliman, K. J. Boyle, and B. L. Benefit­ Cost Analysis of Fishery Rehabilitation Projects: A Great Lakes Case Study. 22 1990 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 24 Johnson. 4­ 1351 DOC Bockstael, N. E., K. E. McConnell and I. E. Strand. Contributions to Economic Analysis In: Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality, John B. Braden and Charles D. Kolstad ( eds.). 18 1991 4­ 1352 DOC Bockstael, N. E., W. M. Hanemann, and C. L. Kling. Estimating the Value of Water Quality Improvements in a Recreational Demand Framework 10 1987 4­ 1353 DOC Bodola, A. Life history of the gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum ( Le Sueur), in western Lake Erie. 35 1966 4­ 1354 PAP Boler, R. N., R. C. Malloy, and E. M. Lesnett. Surface water quality monitoring by the environmental protection commission of Hillsborough County. In: Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. February 27­ March 1, 1991, Tampa, FL ( S. F. Treat and P. A. Clark, eds.). 538 1991 4­ 1355 *** Citation Deleted*** 4­ 1356 DOC Boreman, J. Evaluation of the PSE& G Estimates of Entrainment and Impingement Mortality at the Salem Nuclear Plant. 26 December, 1993 4­ 1357 Boreman, J. Impacts of Power Plant Intake Velocities on Fish. 1 See DCN 1­ 5003­ PR. 4­ 1358 Boreman, J. Surplus production, compensation, and impact assessments of power plants. 1 See DCN 2­ 018A. 4­ 1359 WEB Boschker, E. Pictures of Saltmarshes and Seagrass Beds http:// www. nioo. knaw. nl/ homepages/ boschker/ Pict uresEB. htm. 7 2001 Accessed November 20, 2001 4­ 1360 DOC Boston Edison Company. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi­ Annual Report Number 45, 274 April 30, 1995 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 25 January 1994­ December 1994. 4­ 1361 DOC Boston Edison Company. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi­ Annual Report Number 46, January 1995­ June 1995. 103 October 31, 1995 4­ 1362 DOC Boston Edison Company. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi­ Annual Report Number 49, January 1996­ December 1996. 252 April 30, 1997 4­ 1363 DOC Boston Edison Company. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi­ Annual Report Number 50, January 1997­ June 1997. 106 October 31, 1997 4­ 1364 DOC Boston Edison Company. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi­ Annual Report Number 37, January 1990­ December 1990. 389 April 30, 1991 4­ 1365 DOC Boston Edison Company. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi­ Annual Report Number 39, January 1991­ December 1991. 371 April 30, 1992 Missing pages iv and vi in 4/ 6/ 92 report 4­ 1366 DOC Boston Edison Company. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi­ Annual Report Number 41, January 1992­ December 1992. 282 April 30, 1993 4­ 1367 DOC Boston Edison Company. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi­ Annual Report Number 43, January 1993­ December 1993. 260 April 30, 1994 4­ 1368 DOC Boston Edison Company. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi­ Annual Report Number 47, January 1995­ December 1995. 230 April 30, 1996 4­ 1369 DOC Boston Edison Company. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi­ Annual Report Number 51, 255 April 30, 1998 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 26 January 1997­ December 1997. 4­ 1370 DOC Boston Edison Company. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi­ Annual Report Number 53, January 1998­ December 1998. 220 April 30, 1999 4­ 1371 DOC Boyd, J., D. King, and L. A. Wainger. Compensation for Lost Ecosystem Services: The Need for Benefit­ Based Transfer Ratios and Restoration Criteria. 20 May, 2001 4­ 1372 DOX Boydstun, L. B., R. J. Hallock, and T. J. Mills. Anadromous Fishes: Salmon. In Leet, W. S., C. M. Dewees, and C. W. Haugen ( eds.), California's Living Marine Resources and their Utilization. 14 1992 4­ 1373 DOC Boyle, K. J. and R. C. Bishop. Valuing Wildlife in Benefit­ Cost Analyses: A Case Study Involving Endangered Species. 8 1987 4­ 1374 PAP Boyle, K. J., B. Roach, and D. G. Waddington. 1996 Net Economic Values for Bass, Trout and Walleye Fishing, Deer, Elk and Moose Hunting, and Wildlife Watching: Addendum to the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife­ Associated Recreation. 35 August, 1998 4­ 1375 DOC Brazner, J. C. Regional, Habitat, and Human Development Influences on Coastal Wetland and Beach Fish Assemblages in Green Bay, Lake Michigan. 16 1997 4­ 1376 DOC Breffle, W. S., and R. D. Rowe. Comparing Choice Question Formats for Evaluating Natural Resource Tradeoffs. 34 2002 4­ 1377 DOX Broome, S. W. and C. B. Craft. Tidal salt marsh restoration, creation, and mitigation. 42 2000 Chapter 37 in Reclamation of Drastically Disturbed Lands. 4­ 1378 Brown, H. W. and J. H. VanHassel. Kyger Creek Station Demonstration Document for P. L. 92­ 500 Section 316( b). 1 See DCN 2­ 013L­ R4. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 27 4­ 1379 PAP Buckley, J. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates ( North Atlantic) winter flounder. 21 1989 4­ 1380 PAP Buckley, J. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates ( North Atlantic) Rainbow Smelt. 18 1989 4­ 1381 PAP Buckley, L. J. Effects of temperature on growth and biochemical composition of larval winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus. 6 May, 1982 4­ 1382 DOC Bur, M. T. Food of freshwater drum in western Lake Erie. 4 1982 4­ 1383 ART Burgman, M. A., S. Ferson, and H. R. Akçakaya. Risk Assessment in Conservation Biology. 56 1993 Also see DCN 2­ 019A­ R4. 4­ 1384 DAT Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program buzzbay2001sma­ atlas­ public. xls n/ a 2001 Contained in the CBI docket. Summary of the tidally restricted wetlands in the Buzzards Bay watershed as of the fall of 2001. 4­ 1385 DOC Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program. Atlas of Tidally Restricted Salt Marshes: Buzzards Bay Watershed, Massachusetts. Draft Final. 61 January, 2001 4­ 1386 TEL Cacela, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Personal Communication with E. Peebles. 1 January, 2002 4­ 1387 WEB CALFED. CALFED Bay­ Delta Program. http:// calfed. ca. gov/. 3 2002 Accessed January, 2002. 4­ 1388 DAT California grandtabXL. xls n/ a November Available on CD­ ROM. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 28 Department of Fish and Game 26, 2001 See DCN 4­ 1305. Received from California Department of Fish and Game, Native Anadromous Fish and Watershed Branch. 4­ 1389 DAT California Department of Fish and Game Green Sturgeon. xls n/ a November 19, 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Received from California Department of Fish and Game, Central Valley Bay­ Delta Branch. 4­ 1390 DAT California Department of Fish and Game Steelhead ­ ALLCOUNT. xls n/ a December 5, 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Received from California Department of Fish and Game. 4­ 1391 WEB California Department of Fish and Game. The economic importance of sport fishing. http:// www. dfg. ca. gov/ fishing/ econ. sptfsh. html. 4 2002 Accessed 1/ 18/ 02. 4­ 1392 WEB California Department of Fish and Game. Young­ of­ the­ year Striped Bass Abundance Indices www. delta. dfg. ca. gov/ data/ mwt99/ charts. html. 3 2002 Accessed January, 2002. 4­ 1393 DOX California Energy Commission. Contra Costa Unit 8 Power Project, Application for Certification ( 00­ AFC­ 1). 24 May, 2001 4­ 1394 DOC Campana, S. E., G. A. Chouinard, J. M. Hanson, and Mixing and migration of overwintering Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua) stocks near the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 9 1999 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 29 A. Fréchet. 4­ 1395 ART Campbell, J. S. and H. R. MacCrimmon. Biology of the emerald shiner, Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque in Lake Simcoe, Canada. 15 1970 4­ 1396 DOX Carlander, K. D. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology: Life History Data on Freshwater Fishes of the United States and Canada, Exclusive of the Perciformes. 131 1969 4­ 1397 DOX Carlander, K. D. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology: Life History Data on Centrarchid Fishes of the United States and Canada, Volume Two. 118 1977 4­ 1398 DOX Carlander, K. D. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology: Life History Data on Icthyopercid and Percid Fishes of the United States and Canada, Volume Three. 171 1997 4­ 1399 DOC Carr, R. S., E. R Long, H. L. Windom, D. C. Chapman, G. Thursby, G. M. Sloane, and D. A. Wolfe. Sediment quality assessment studies of Tampa Bay, Florida. 14 1996 4­ 1400 DOX Carson, R., W. M. Hanneman, R. J. Knopp, J. A. Krosnick, R. C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P. A. Ruud, and V. K. Smith. Prospective Interim Lost Use Value Due to DDT and PCB Contamination in the Southern California Bight. ( NOAA) Natural Resource Damage Assessment. 40 1994 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 30 4­ 1401 Carson, R. T. and R. C. Mitchell. The value of clean water: The public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water. 1 See DCN 1­ 3006­ BE. 4­ 1402 ART Carson, R. T., N. E. Flores, and R. C. Mitchell. The Theory and Measurement of Passive Use Value. In Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. Edited by Ian J. Bateman and Kenneth G. Willis. 51 1999 4­ 1403 DOC Carson, R. T., N. E. Flores, K. M. Martin, and J. L. Wright. Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi­ Public Goods. 20 1996 4­ 1404 DOC Castro, K. M., J. S. Cobb, R. A. Wahle, and J. Catena. In Press. Habitat addition and stock enhancement for American lobsters, Homarus americanus. Marine and Freshwater Research. 38 In Press. 4­ 1405 DOC Castro, L. R. and R. K. Cowen. Environmental factors affecting the early life history of bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli in Great South Bay, New York. 13 October, 1991 4­ 1406 WEB Caton, P. A. Developing an Effluent Trading Program to Address Nutrient Pollution in the Providence and Seekonk Rivers, Working Draft ( 12/ 6/ 01). http:// envstudies. brown. edu/ thesis/ 2002/ caton/ Tra ding/. 75 2001 4­ 1407 PAP CDWR ( California Department of Water Resources). Effects of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project on Delta Smelt and Sacramento Splittail. Biological Assessment. 249 August, 1994 Original copy was missing pages. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 31 4­ 1408 PAP Chadwick, H. K., D. E. Stevens, and L. W. Miller. Some factors regulating the striped bass population in the Sacramento­ San Joaquin Estuary, California. In W. Van Winkle ( ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Assessing the Effects of Power Plant Induced Mortality on Fish Populations, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, May 3­ 6, 1977. 8 1977 4­ 1409 WEB Chang, S., P. L. Berrien, D. L. Johnson, and W. W. Morse. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Windowpane, Scophthalmus aquosus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. http:// www. nefsc. nmfs. gov/ nefsc/ publications/. 40 1999 4­ 1410 DOC Chao, L. N. and J. A. Musick. Life history, feeding habits, and functional morphology of juvenile sciaenid fishes in the York River estuary. 46 1977 4­ 1411 DOC Charbonneau, J. J. and M. Hay. Determinants and Economic Values of Hunting and Fishing Nationwide. 8 1978 4­ 1412 DOX Cherry, D. A. and R. J. Currie. Effects of Impingement/ Entrainment at the Kanawha River Plant on the Fish Community Structure of the Kanawha River: Reflections on the 20 Year Study. In: EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Technical Workshop. EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Technical Workshop, September 22­ 24, Berkeley Springs, WV. D. Dixon and K. Zammit ( eds.). 48 September, 1998 Also see DCN 1­ 3007­ BE. 4­ 1413 ART Cheung, T. S. The environmental and hormonal control of growth and reproduction in the adult female stone crab, Menippe mercenaria ( Say). 20 June, 1969 4­ 1414 ART Chittenden, M. E., Status of the striped bass, Morone saxatilis, in the 6 September, Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 32 Jr. Delaware River. 1971 4­ 1415 Christensen, S. W., and C. P. Goodyear. Testing the validity of stock­ recruitment curve fits. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R26. 4­ 1416 Christensen, S. W., D. L. DeAngelis, and A. G. Clark. Development of a stock­ progeny model for assessing power plant effects on fish populations. In W. Van Winkle, ed. Proceedings of the Conference on Assessing the Effects of Power­ Plant Induced Mortality on Fish Populations. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R25. 4­ 1417 ART Churchill, E. P. Life history of the blue crab. 45 1921 4­ 1418 Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company. 316( b) Demonstration, Walter C. Beckjord and Miami Fort Power Stations. 1 See DCN 2­ 013L­ R5. 4­ 1419 DOX Clark, C. W. Mathematical Bioeconomics. The Optimal Management of Renewable Resources ( 2nd edition). 67 1990 Also see DCN 2­ 019AR27 4­ 1420 DOX Clark, K. E. Osprey. In Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L. E. Dove and R. M. Nyman, ( eds.) The Delaware Estuary Program. 6 July, 1995 4­ 1421 Clark, P. A. Management directions and needs for Tampa Bay tidal tributaries. In: Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. February 27­ March 1, 1991, Tampa, FL. ( S. F. Treat and P. A. Clark, eds.). 1 See DCN 4­ 1354. 4­ 1422 DOC Clayton, G., C. Cole, S. Murawski, and J. Parrish. Common Marine Fishes of Coastal Massachusetts. 238 1978 4­ 1423 DOC Cleland and An Assessment of the Economic Conditions of the 92 April, 1984 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 33 Bishop. Bay Mills Indian Community, Sault Saint Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, and a Cost­ Return Analysis of Treaty Commercial Fishermen ­ 1981. 4­ 1424 WEB CMS Energy Corporation ( CMS). Form 10­ K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2000, filed on March 23, 2001. 5 2001 4­ 1425 DOC Cohen, M. A. The Costs and Benefits of Oil Spill Prevention and Enforcement. 22 1986 4­ 1426 DOX Colarusso, P. Winter Flounder Life History Information. Draft. From Phil Colarusso, EPA Region 1. Brayton Point TAC Meeting, 11/ 17/ 00. 41 November, 2000 4­ 1427 DOX Cole, R. Bluefish. In Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L. E. Dove and R. M. Nyman ( eds.). The Delaware Estuary Program. 4 July, 1995 4­ 1428 Cole, R. A. Entrainment at a Once­ Through Cooling System on Western Lake Erie, Volume I. 1 See DCN 1­ 3010­ BE. 4­ 1429 WEB Conectiv. 10­ K, filed on March 15, 2001. 2 2001 4­ 1430 Conservation Consultants Inc. Ecological Studies at Big Bend Steam Electric Station ( Tampa Electric Company): An Analysis and Summary of Studies on the Effects of the Cooling Water System on Aquatic Fauna: A 316 Demonstration Biological Study. Volume III ( Volume 3 of Final Report of Biological Surveys of the Big Bend Area). 1 See DCN 1­ 3011­ BE. 4­ 1431 Consolidated Environmental Report to Accompany Application 1 See DCN 1­ 3012­ BE. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 34 Edison Company of New York Inc. for Facility License Amendment for Extension of Operation with Once­ Through Cooling for Indian Point Unit No. 2. 4­ 1432 Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. and New York Power Authority. Hudson River Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point: 1982 Annual Report. 1 See DCN 1­ 3013­ BE. 4­ 1433 DOC Consumers Power Company. Luddington Pumped Storage Project: 1994 Annual Report of Barrier Net Operation. 237 1994 4­ 1434 DOC Consumers Power Company. Report of Deterrent Net Performance, J R Whiting Plant. 74 June, 1984 4­ 1435 DOX Consumers Power Company. Report of Deterrent Net Performance, J R Whiting Plant. 8 1988 4­ 1436 Consumers Power Company. Summary of Deterrent Net Performance at JR Whiting Plant. 1 See DCN 4­ 0037. 4­ 1437 WEB Contra Costa County. About the County. http:// www. co. contracosta ca. us/ about. html. Industry and Employment. 15 January, 2002 Accessed 1/ 18/ 02. 4­ 1438 DOC Correia, S. J., A. B. Howe, T. P. Currier, and S. X. Cadrin. Stock Assessment of Winter Flounder in Massachusetts Waters: An Update. 12 1993 4­ 1439 DOC Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon et al. The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. 8 1997 4­ 1440 DOC Costello, T. J. and Migrations and geographic distribution of pink 11 1966 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 35 D. M. Allen. shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, of the Tortugas and Sanibel grounds, Florida. 4­ 1441 DOC Costello, T. J. and D. M. Allen. Synopsis of Biological Data on the Pink Shrimp. In Proceedings of the World Scientific Conference on the Biology and Culture of Shrimps and Prawns. Volume IV: Species Synopses., Mexico City, June 12­ 21, 1967. 41 1970 4­ 1442 DOC Cowan, J. H., Jr. and R. S. Birdsong. Seasonal occurrence of larval and juvenile fishes in a Virginia Atlantic coast estuary with emphasis on drums ( Family Sciaenidae). 12 March, 1995 4­ 1443 DOC Crawford, R. J., and B. M. Dyer. Responses by four seabird species to a fluctuating availability of Cape Anchovy Engraulis capensis off South Africa. 11 1995 4­ 1444 DOC Cummings, R., Ganderton, P. and McGuckin, T., Substitution effects in CVM values. 10 1994 4­ 1445 ART Cummings, W. C. Maturation and spawning of the pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad. 7 1961 4­ 1446 DOX Cushing, D. H. Climate and Fisheries. 119 1982 Also see DCN 2­ 019AR28 4­ 1447 DOC Daiber, F. C. Notes on the spawning population of the freshwater drum ( Aplodinotus grunniens Rafinesque) in western Lake Erie. 7 1953 4­ 1448 DOC Dames & Moore. 316( b) Demonstration for the Cayuga and Wabash River Generating Stations. 214 August 30, 1977 Also see DCN 3­ 0041. 4­ 1449 DOC Dames & Moore. Miami Fort and Walter C. Beckjord Generating Stations 316( b) Study: First Quarterly Data 8 September 16, 1977 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 36 Presentation, April 1, 1977 to June 30, 1977. 4­ 1450 DOC Dames & Moore. Miami Fort and Walter C. Beckjord Generating Stations 316( b) Study: Third and Fourth Quarterly Data Presentation, October 1, 1977 to March 31, 1978. 11 May 9, 1978 4­ 1451 DOC Daniels, R. A. and P. B. Moyle. Life history of splittail ( Cyprinidae: Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) in the Sacramento­ San Joaquin Estuary. 8 1983 4­ 1452 DOX Day, J. W., Jr., C. A. S. Hall, W. M. Kemp, and A. Yáñez­ Arancibia. Estuarine Ecology. 48 1989 Chapter 1 only 4­ 1453 DOC DDNREC ( Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control). Striped Bass Spawning Stock Assessment Project: F­ 47­ R­ 9 Anadromous Species Investigations. 37 2000 4­ 1454 DOC de Sylva. D. P., F. Kalber, Jr., and C. N. Shuster, Jr. Fishes and Ecological Conditions in the Shore Zone of the Delaware Estuary, with Notes on Other Species Collected in Deeper Water. 168 April, 1962 4­ 1455 WEB DeAlteris, J. T., M. Gibson, and L. G. Skrobe, Fisheries of Rhode Island Narragansett Bay Summit 2000 White Paper, Working Draft ( 4/ 14/ 00). http:// www. nbep. org/ summit/ pdf/ Fisheries. PDF. 48 2000 4­ 1456 DeHart, R. E. Brayton Point Station Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Summary, October 20. 1 See DCN 1­ 3014­ BE. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 37 4­ 1457 PAP Delaware Estuary Program. Discover its Secrets ­­ A Management Plan for the Delaware Estuary. 475 1996 4­ 1458 WEB Delaware Estuary Program. Delaware Estuary Indicators. http:// www. delep. org/ shad. pdf. 2 2001 Accessed October 8, 2001. 4­ 1459 DOC Delorme Maryland/ Delaware Atlas & Gazetteer. 1 1993 4­ 1460 DOC Delorme Ohio Atlas & Gazetteer. 1 1995 4­ 1461 DOC Delorme New Jersey Atlas & Gazetteer. 1 1999 4­ 1462 DOC Delorme Florida Atlas and Gazetteer. 1 1997 4­ 1463 WEB Desfosse, J., H. Austin, L. Daniel, W. Laney, and H. Speir. 1999 Review of the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Croaker ( Micropogonias undulatus). http:// www. asmfc. org/ Programs/ Fish% 20Mgnt/ cro aker98_ FMP. HTM. 9 1999 4­ 1464 DOC Desvouges 1992. Benefits Transfer: Conceptual Problems in Estimating Water Quality Benefits Using Existing Studies. 9 March, 1992 4­ 1465 WEB Detroit Edison. Power Plants. http:// www. detroitedison. com/ company/ powerPlant s. html. 2 2002 Accessed 2/ 5/ 02. 4­ 1466 DOC Dew, C. B. A contribution to the life history of the cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus, in Fishers Island Sound, Connecticut. 13 1976 4­ 1467 DOC Dietrich, C. S. Fecundity of the Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus. 4 1979 4­ 1468 DOC Dionne, M., F. T. Short, and D. M. Burdick. Fish utilization of restored, created, and reference salt­ marsh habitat in the Gulf of Maine. In Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation. 21 1999 4­ 1469 Dixon, D. A. Catalog of Assessment Methods for Evaluating the 1 See DCN 2­ 013J. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 38 Effects of Power Plant Operations on Aquatic Communities. Final Report. 4­ 1470 WEB Dodge, D. and R. Kavetsky. August Aquatic Habitat and Wetlands of the Great Lakes. SOLEC Working Paper presented at State of the Great Lakes Ecosystem Conference. www. epa. gov/ grtlakes/ solec/ 94habitat/. 46 August, 1995 4­ 1471 WEB Dodge, K. E. River Raisin Assessment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special Report 23. http:// www. dnr. state. mi. us/ www/ ifr/ ifrlibra/ special/ r eports/ sr23/ sr23Text. pdf. 114 1998 Accessed February 5, 2002. 4­ 1472 ART Dorsey, S. E., E. D. Houde, and J. C. Gamble. Cohort abundances and daily variability in mortality of eggs and yolk­ sac larvae of bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli, in Chesapeake Bay. 11 1996 4­ 1473 ART Doyle, M. J. A morphological staging system for the larval development of the herring, Clupea harengus. 9 1977 4­ 1474 WEB DRBC ( Delaware River Basin Commission). 1996 Delaware River Withdrawal and Consumptive Use Estimates ( Tidal Estuary Portion). http:// www. state. nj. us/ drbc/ withdrawals96. htm. 3 1996 4­ 1475 PAP DRBC ( Delaware River Basin Commission). Delaware River and Bay Water Quality Assessment: 1996­ 1997 305( b) Report. 18 1998 4­ 1476 WEB DRBC ( Delaware River Basin Commission). Ecological Significance of Delaware Bay. http:// www. state. nj. us/ drbc/ shorebirds/ ecolog. htm. 1 2001 Accessed 2001. 4­ 1477 WEB DTE Energy DTE Energy Company. Annual Report 2000. 4 2002 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 39 Company http:// www. dteenergy. com/ investors/ annual/ ar2000 / results. html. 4­ 1478 DOC Durbin, A. G., E. G. Durbin, T. J. Smayda, and P. G. Verity. Age, size, growth, and chemical composition of Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus, from Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. 9 1983 4­ 1479 DOC EA Engineering Science and Technology and E. Perry. Leslie­ Matrix Modeling of Possible 316( b) Effects on Selected Ohio River Fishes. 84 2001 4­ 1480 DOC EA Engineering Science and Technology. 2000 Ohio River Ecological Research Program. Final Report. 191 October, 2001 4­ 1481 DOC EA Engineering Science and Technology. Entrainment and Impingement Studies at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 1984­ 1985. 196 July, 1986 4­ 1482 EA Engineering Science and Technology. Review of Entrainment Survival Studies: 1970­ 2000. 1 See DCN 2­ 017A­ R7 4­ 1483 EA Engineering, Science and Technology. Encina Power Plant Supplemental 316( b) Assessment Report. Final. 1 See DCN 1­ 3015­ BE. 4­ 1484 DOC EA Engineering, Science, and Technology. Indian Point Generating Station 1988 Entrainment Survival Study. Final. 135 August, 1989 4­ 1485 EA Science and Technology. Final Report: Clifty Creek Station Impingement Study and Impact Assessment. 1 See DCN 2­ 013L­ R6. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 40 4­ 1486 DOC EA Science and Technology. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival Study. 1985 Annual Report. 86 1986 4­ 1487 DOC EA Science and Technology. Results of Entrainment and Impingement Studies Conducted at the Braidwood Nuclear Station and the Adjacent Kankakee River. 138 January, 1990 4­ 1488 DOC Ecological Analysts Inc. Port Jefferson Generating Station Entrainment Survival Study. 56 December, 1978 4­ 1489 DOC Ecological Analysts Inc. Impact of the Cooling Water Intake at the Indian River Power Plant: A 316( b) Evaluation. 438 May, 1978 4­ 1490 DOC Ecological Analysts Inc. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival and Related Studies 1979 Annual Report. 159 April, 1981 Original copy is missing pages. 4­ 1491 DOC Ecological Analysts Inc. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival and Related Studies 1980 Annual Report. 110 January, 1982 4­ 1492 DOC Ecological Analysts Inc. . Entrainment Survival Studies at the Cayuga Generating Plant. 122 March, 1980 4­ 1493 DOC Ecological Analysts Inc. . Potrero Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structures 316( b) Demonstration. 456 January, 1980 4­ 1494 DOC Ecological Analysts, Inc. Pittsburg Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structures 316b Demonstration. 859 August, 1981 4­ 1495 DOC Ecological Analysts, Inc. Contra Costa Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structures 316b Demonstration. 872 October, 1981 4­ 1496 DOC Edsall, T. A. Biology of the freshwater drum in western Lake Erie. 20 November, 1967 4­ 1497 DOX Edwards, E. A., D. A. Krieger, G. Gebhart, and O. E. Maughan. Habitat suitability index models: White Crappie. 10 1982 First 10 pages only Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 41 4­ 1498 Edwards, R. E. Nursery habitats of important early­ juvenile fishes in the Manatee River estuary system of Tampa Bay. In: Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. February 27­ March 1, 1991, Tampa, FL. ( S. F. Treat and P. A. Clark, eds.). 1 See DCN 4­ 1354. 4­ 1499 PAP Egerton, F. N. Overfishing or Pollution? Case History of a Controversy on the Great Lakes. 36 January, 1985 4­ 1500 DOC Ehrhardt, N. M., D. J. Die and V. R. Restrepo. Abundance and impact of fishing on a stone crab ( Menippe mercenaria) population in Everglades National Park, Florida. 13 1990 4­ 1501 Electric Power Research Institute. Gizzard Shad. In Compensatory Mechanisms in Fish Populations: Literature Reviews Volume 2: Compensation in Fish Populations Subject to Catastrophic Impact. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R59. 4­ 1502 DOC Emmett, R. L., S. L. Stone, S. A. Hinton, and M. E. Monaco. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in West Coast Estuaries, Volume II: Species Life History Summaries. 336 August, 1991 4­ 1503 Energy Impact Associates Inc. Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies at Clifty Creek Station. Final Report. 1 See DCN 2­ 013L­ R9 4­ 1504 Energy Impact Associates Inc. Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies at Tanners Creek Power Plant: Final Report ( Tanners Creek Plant Demonstration Document for P. L. 92­ 500 316( b), Volume II, Appendix B). 1 See DCN 2­ 013L­ R10. 4­ 1505 DOC ENSR. Redacted Version 316 Demonstration Report ­ Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. 362 March, 2000 4­ 1506 WEB Entergy About Entergy. 2 2001 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 42 Corporation. www. entergy. com/ about/ default. asp 4­ 1507 DOC Entergy Nuclear General Company, Marine ecology studies related to the operation of pilgrim station. January 2000­ December 2000. 204 May 14, 2001 4­ 1508 DOC Entergy Nuclear Generation Company. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi­ Annual Report Number 55, January 1999­ December 1999. 204 2000 4­ 1509 Environmental Science & Engineering Inc. 1990 Ohio River Ecological Research Program: Executive Summary. 1 See DCN 2­ 013L­ R12. 4­ 1510 DOC State of California Public Utilities Commission ( CPUC). Draft Environmental Impact Report for Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Application for Authorization to Sell Certain Generating Plants and Related Assets ( Application No. 98­ 01­ 008 to the State of California Public Utilities Commission). 42 1998 Selected pages 4­ 1511 *** Citation Deleted*** 4­ 1512 DOX Epifanio, C. E. Atlantic Blue Crab. In Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L. E. Dove and R. M. Nyman ( eds.). 7 July, 1995 4­ 1513 DAT Ernst Peebles, St. Petersburg ( FL) peebles. florida. ELS. xls n/ a April 23, 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Ambient density data at Tampa Bay. 4­ 1514 DAT ESRI dtl_ cnty. shp n/ a 1999 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Detailed County GIS Shapefile for the United States. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 43 4­ 1515 DAT ESRI dtl_ st. shp n/ a 1999 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Detailed State GIS Shapefile for the United States. 4­ 1516 DOC ESSA Technologies ( ESSA Technologies Ltd.). Review of Portions of New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NJPDES) Renewal Application for the Public Service Electric & Gas' ( PSE& G) Salem Generating Station. Final Report. ( Attachment A: Permit No. NJ0005622 Discharge to Surface Water, Surface Water Permit Renewal Action). 171 June 14, 2000 4­ 1517 Estevez, E. D. and M. J. Marshall. A landscape­ level method to assess estuarine impacts of freshwater inflow alterations. In: Proceedings of the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 3: Applying Our Knowledge, October 21­ 23, 1996 ( S. F. Treat, ed.), Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. 1 See DCN 4­ 1341. 4­ 1518 Estevez, E. D., R. E. Edwards, and D. M. Hayward. An ecological overview of Tamp Bay's tidal rivers. In: Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. February 27­ March 1, 1991 ( Treat, S. F. and P. A. Clark, eds.). 1 See DCN 4­ 1354. 4­ 1519 WEB Fahay, M. P., P. L. Berrien, D. L. Johnson, W. W. Morse. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Cod, Gadus morhua, Life history and Habitat Characteristics. http:// www. nefsc. nmfs. gov/ nefsc/ publications/ text/ nefscseries/ current/ techmemo/ AtlanticCod124. pdf. 16 September, 1999 Accessed November 2, 2001. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 44 4­ 1520 DOC Farber, S. The Value of Coastal Wetlands for Protection of Property against Hurricane Wind Damage. 9 1987 4­ 1521 PAP Fay, C. W., R. J. Neves, and G. B. Pardue. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates ( Mid­ Atlantic) Atlantic Silverside. 24 October, 1983 4­ 1522 PAP Fay, C. W., R. J. Neves, and G. B. Pardue. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates ( Mid­ Atlantic). Striped bass. 43 October, 1983 4­ 1523 PAP Fay, C. W., R. J. Neves, and G. B. Pardue. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates ( Mid­ Atlantic): Alewife / Blueback Herring. 32 October, 1983 4­ 1524 ART Feather, Peter M.; Daniel Hellerstein; and Theodore Thomaso. A Discrete­ Count Model of Recreational Demand. 14 1995 4­ 1525 DOC Feinerman, E., and K. Knapp. Benefits from Groundwater Management: Magnitude, Sensitivity, and Distribution. 12 November, 1983 4­ 1526 DOX Fell, P. E., R. S. Warren, and W. A. Niering. Restoration of salt and brackish tidelands in southern New England. In Concepts and Controversies. In Tidal Marsh Ecology. M. P. Weinstein and D. A. Kreeger ( eds.). 14 2000 4­ 1527 Finkel, A. M. Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Management. 79 Also see DCN 2­ 019­ R9 4­ 1528 DOC Fischman, R. L. The EPA's NEPA Duties and Ecosystem Services. 40 May, 2001 4­ 1529 ART Fish, M. P. Contributions to the early life histories of sixty­ two species of fishes from Lake Erie, and its tributary waters. 115 1932 4­ 1530 Fisher, A. and R. Intrinsic benefits of improved water quality: 1 See DCN 1­ 3018­ BE. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 45 Raucher. Conceptual and empirical perspectives. 4­ 1531 DOC Fitzhugh, G. R., B. A. Thompson, and T. G. Snider III. Ovarian development, fecundity, and spawning frequency of black drum Pogonias cromis in Louisiana. 10 1993 4­ 1532 MTG FL DEP ( Florida Department of Environmental Protection). Meeting between EPA, contractors, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1 December, 2000 4­ 1533 Flannery, M. S., H. C. Downing, G. A. McGarry, and M. O. Walters. Increased nutrient loading and baseflow supplementation in the Little Manatee River watershed. In: Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. February 27­ March 1, 1991 ( Treat, S. F. and P. A. Clark, eds.). 1 See DCN 4­ 1354. 4­ 1534 Fletcher, R. I., and R. B. Deriso. Fishing in dangerous waters: remarks on a controversial appeal to spawner­ recruit theory for long­ term impact assessment. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R29. 4­ 1535 WEB Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Fishing Lines Fish Identification Section. http:// marinefisheries. org/ fishinglines/ fish_ id2. pdf. 38 2001 Accessed December 12, 2001. 4­ 1536 WEB Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Marine Fisheries. http:// marinefisheries. org/ fish/ silverper. jpg. 1 2002 Accessed January 2002. 4­ 1537 WEB Florida Fish and Wildlife Status and Trends 2001 Report ­ Florida's Nearshore and Inshore Species. 5 2002 Accessed January, 2002. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 46 Conservation Commission. http:// www. floridamarine. org/ features/ view_ article. asp? id= 4961. 4­ 1538 Florida Power Corporation. Crystal River Units 1, 2 and 3 § 316 Demonstration. Final Report Appendix. 1 See DCN 1­ 3019­ BE. 4­ 1539 Fogarty, M. J., A. A Rosenberg, and M. P. Sissenwine. Fisheries risk assessment: A case study of Georges Bank haddock. 1 See DCN 3­ 0061. 4­ 1540 Fogarty, M. J., M. P. Sissenwine, and E. B. Cohen. Recruitment variability and the dynamics of exploited fish populations. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R30. 4­ 1541 Fonferek, W. J. Dredged material management ­ a federal perspective. In: Proceedings of the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 3: Applying Our Knowledge, October 21­ 23, 1996 ( S. F. Treat, ed.), Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. 1 See DCN 4­ 1341. 4­ 1542 DOX Fonseca, M. S. Restoring seagrass systems in the United States. In Restoring the Nation's Marine Environment, G. W. Thayer ( ed.). 18 1992 4­ 1543 DOC Foster, K. L., F. W. Steimle, W. C. Muir, R. K. Kropp, and B. E. Conlin. Mitigation potential of habitat replacement: Concrete artificial reef in Delaware Bay Preliminary results. 13 1994 4­ 1544 ART Fraser, S., V. Gotceitas, and J. A. Brown. Interactions between age­ classes of Atlantic cod and their distribution among bottom substrates. 10 1996 4­ 1545 Freeman, R. F. and R. K. Sharma. Survey of Fish Impingement at Power Plants in the United States Volume II: Inland Waters. 1 See DCN 1­ 3021­ BE. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 47 4­ 1546 WEB Friedman, S. Morgan The Inflation Calculator. http:// www. westegg. com/ inflation/ infl. cgi 15 February, 2002 4­ 1547 WEB Froese, R. and D. Pauly ( eds.) FishBase. www. fishbase. org. 273 2001 Accessed October 2001. 4­ 1548 WEB Froese, R. and D. Pauly, Eds. FishBase 2000. 44 2000 4­ 1549 ART Fuchs, E. H. Life history of the emerald shiner, Notropis atherinoides, in Lewis and Clark Lake, South Dakota. 6 1967 4­ 1550 ART Galbraith, H., I. C. T. Nisbet, J. J. Hatch, and T. H. Kunz. Age­ related changes in efficiency among breeding common terns Sterna hirundo: Measurement of energy expenditure using doubly­ labeled water. 12 1999 4­ 1551 ART Garwood, G. P. Notes on the life histories of the silversides, Menidia beryllina ( Cope) and Membras martinica ( Valenciennes) in Mississippi Sound and adjacent water. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners 21: 314­ 323. 10 1968 4­ 1552 LET Gautam, Amy, NMFS Economist. Personal correspondence by email, September. 2 September, 2001 4­ 1553 Geo­ Marine Inc. 316( b) Demonstration for the W. H. Sammis Generating Station. 1 See DCN 1­ 3022­ BE. 4­ 1554 Getz, W. M., and R. G. Haight Population Harvesting. Demographic Models of Fish, Forest, and Animal Resources. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R31. 4­ 1555 Gibson, M. Comparisons of Trends in the Finfish Assemblage of Mt. Hope Bay and Narragansett Bay in Relation 1 See DCN 1­ 5009­ PR. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 48 to Operations at the New England Power Brayton Point Station. 4­ 1556 LET Gibson, M. Letter to Phil Colarusso of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency­ New England re: Winter Flounder Regulations in Rhode Island. 8 October 3, 2001 4­ 1557 DOC Ginzburg, L. R., L. B. Slobodkin, K. Johnson, and A. G. Bindman. Quasi­ extinction probabilities as a measure of impact on population growth. 11 1982 4­ 1558 DOX Goldman, C. R. and A. R. Horne. Limnology. 44 1983 Also see 1­ 3024­ BE. 4­ 1559 Goodyear, C. D. Evaluation of 316( b) Demonstration: Detroit Edison's Monroe Power Plant. Final Report for the Period April 1977 through December 1977. 1 See DCN 1­ 3025­ BE. 4­ 1560 Goodyear, C. P. Assessing the impact of power plant mortality on the compensatory reserve of fish populations. In W. Van Winkle, ed. Proceedings of the Conference on Assessing the Effects of Power­ Plant Induced Mortality on Fish Populations. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R55. 4­ 1561 Goodyear, C. P. Mathematical Methods to Evaluate Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms by Power Plants. 1 See DCN 1­ 3027­ BE and 2­ 013L­ R15. 4­ 1562 Goodyear, C. P. Entrainment Impact Estimates Using the Equivalent Adult Approach. 1 See DCN 1­ 3026­ BE. 4­ 1563 Goodyear, C. P. Compensation in fish populations. In C. H. Hocutt and J. R. Stauffer, Jr., eds. Biological Monitoring of Fish. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R56. 4­ 1564 ART Gotceitas, V., S. Use of eelgrass beds ( Zostera marina) by juvenile 14 1997 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 49 Fraser, and J. A. Brown. Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua). 4­ 1565 PAP Gottholm, B. W. and D. D. Turgeon. Toxic Contaminants in the Gulf of Maine. 20 1992 4­ 1566 WEB Government of Canada. The Fisheries Then and Now: Prince Edward Island. http:// collections. ic. gc. ca/ peifisheries/ species. 1 December 12, 2001 Accessed 12/ 12/ 01. 4­ 1567 WEB Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Fisheries and Aquaculture. Pelagics. http:// www. gov. nf. ca/ fishaq/ Species/ Pelagics/ Com pleteList. htm. 4 2002 Accessed 1/ 11/ 02. 4­ 1568 WEB Government of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia Canada. Natural Resources. http:// www. gov. ns. ca/ natr/ images/ array/ osprey. jpg. 1 2000 Accessed 1/ 30/ 02. 4­ 1569 ART Grant, S. M. and J. A. Brown. Diel foraging cycles and interactions among juvenile Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua) at a nearshore site in Newfoundland. 10 1998 4­ 1570 WEB Great Lakes Commission. Great Lakes Information Network. http:// www. great­ lakes. net. 18 2001 Accessed 2001. 4­ 1571 WEB Great Outdoor Recreation Pages. Destinations: Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge website. http:// www. gorp. com/ gorp/ resource/ us_ nwr/ de_ bo mba. htm. 5 1999 Accessed August, 2001. 4­ 1572 DOC Greene, William H. Limdep Version 7 User's Manual. 60 1995 4­ 1573 DAT Gret, A., Stratus Consulting Inc. E­ mail attachment from Gibson, 1996; Meredith Simas, Environmental Engineer, Brayton Point Station, March 23, 2001. 2 March 23, 2001 4­ 1574 DAT Gret, A., Stratus E­ mail Communication with Michael D. Murphy, 253 January 23, Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 50 Consulting Inc. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute, January 23, 2002. 2002 4­ 1575 DOC Grigalunas, T. A., J. J. Opaluch, D. French, and M. Reed. Measuring Damages to Marine Natural Resources from Pollution Incidents under CERCLA: Applications of an Integrated Ocean Systems/ Economic Model. 21 1988 4­ 1576 PAP Grimes, B. H., M. T. Huish, J. H. Kerby, and D. Moran. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates ( Mid­ Atlantic) Summer and Winter Flounder. 26 August, 1989 4­ 1577 ART Griswold, C. A. and M. J. Silverman. Fecundity of the Atlantic mackerel ( Scomber scombrus) in the Northwest Atlantic in 1987. 7 1992 4­ 1578 ART Gulland, J. A. The Management of Marine Fisheries. 42 1974 4­ 1579 PAP Haab, Timothy C., John Whitehead, and Ted McConnell The Economic Value of Marine Recreational Fishing in the Southeast United States: 1997 Southeast Economic Data Analysis. Final Report. 105 2000 4­ 1580 ART Hafner, H., P. J. Dugan, M. Kersten, O. Pinneau, and J. P. Wallace. Flock feeding and food intake in little egrets Egretta garzetta and their effects on food provisioning and reproductive success. 8 1993 4­ 1581 DOC Hagen, D., J. Vincent, and P. Welle. Benefits of Preserving Old Growth Forests and the Spotted Owl. 14 April, 1992 4­ 1582 TEL Hagenstad, M. ( Stratus Consulting Personal Communication ( telephone conversation) with Earl Cummings, California Division of Water 1 2000 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 51 Inc.) Resources, Environmental Services Office, March 2000. 4­ 1583 TEL Hagenstad, M. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Personal Communication ( telephone conversation) with Jeff Sandberg, Central Valley Project, March 2000. 1 2000 4­ 1584 PAP Hales, L. S. and M. J. Van Den Avyle. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates ( South Atlantic) Spot. 33 January, 1989 4­ 1585 DOX Hall, W. R. Atlantic Menhaden. In Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L. E. Dove and R. M. Nyman ( eds.). The Delaware Estuary Program. 7 July, 1995 4­ 1586 DOC Hanemann, M., J. Loomis, and B. Kanninen. Statistical Efficiency of Double­ Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. 9 1991 4­ 1587 DOX Hansen, D. F. Biology of the white crappie in Illinois. 31 August, 1951 Selected pages only. 4­ 1588 DOC Harpman et al., Nonuse economic Value: Emerging Policy Analysis Tool. 12 1993 4­ 1589 ART Harrison, P. Seabirds ­­ An Identification Guide. 10 1983 4­ 1590 ART Hausman, J. A., G. K. Leonard, and D. McFadden A Utility­ Consistent, Combined Discrete Choice and Count Model: Assessing Recreational Use Losses Due to Natural Resource Damage. 30 1995 4­ 1591 ART Hazleton Environmental Science Corporation. The Survival of Entrained Icthyoplankton at Quad­ Cities Station 1978. 67 February 15, 1978 4­ 1592 DOC Heal, G., G. C. Daily, P. R. Ehrlich, Protecting Natural Capital Through Ecosystem Service Districts. 33 May, 2001 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 52 J. Salzman, C. Boggs, J. Hellmann, J. Hughes, C. Kremen, and T. Ricketts. 4­ 1593 DOC Heck, K. L., K. W. Able, M. P. Fahay, and C. T. Roman. Fishes and decapod crustaceans of Cape Cod eelgrass meadows: Species composition, seasonal abundance patterns and comparison with unvegetated substrates. 7 June, 1989 4­ 1594 DOX Helfman, G. S., B. B. Collette, and D. E. Facey. The diversity of fishes. 528 1997 4­ 1595 TEL Henderson, J. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Personal Communication ( telephone conversation) with Dick Daniel, CH2MHill, Sacramento office, June 27,2001. 1 2001 4­ 1596 TEL Henderson, J. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Personal Communication ( telephone conversation) with Michael Thabault, US Fish and Wildlife Service, June 26, 2001. 1 June, 2001 4­ 1597 WEB Hendrickson, L. Windowpane Flounder. NOAA. http:// www. nefsc. nmfs. gov/ sos/ spsyn/ fldrs/ window . 5 January, 2000 Accessed February 1, 2002. 4­ 1598 PAP Herbold, B., A. Jassby, and P. B. Moyle. Status and Trends Report on Aquatic Resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary. 404 March, 1992 4­ 1599 PAP Herbold, B., and P. B. Moyle. The Ecology of the Sacramento­ San Joaquin Delta: A Community Profile. 117 1989 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 53 4­ 1600 DOC Herman, J. S., D. C. Culver, and J. Salzman. Groundwater Ecosystems and the Service of Water. 18 May, 2001 4­ 1601 Heyl, M. G. and J. A. Zimmerman. Manatee River salinity response to reservoir releases. In: Proceedings of the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 3: Applying Our Knowledge, October 21­ 23, 1996 ( S. F. Treat, ed.), Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. 1 See DCN 4­ 1341. 4­ 1602 Hicks, D. B. Statement of Findings for the Coleman Power Plant, Henderson, Kentucky. 1 See DCN 1­ 3029­ BE. 4­ 1603 PAP Hicks, Rob, Scott Steinback, Amy Gautam, and Eric Thunberg Volume II: The Economic Value of New England and Mid­ Atlantic Sportfishing in 1994. 51 1999 4­ 1604 Hilborn, R. Living with uncertainty in resource management. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R10. 4­ 1605 *** Citation Deleted*** 4­ 1606 Hilborn, R. and C. J. Walters. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment, Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R11. 4­ 1607 DOX Hildebrand, M. Analysis of Vertebrate Structure. 710 1988 First edition available temporarily in the docket. Newer edition ( 3rd) included in the permanent record. 4­ 1608 ART Hildebrand, S. F. Notes on habits and development of eggs and larvae of the silversides Menidia menidia and Menidia beryllina. 8 1922 4­ 1609 DOX Hildebrand, S. F. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. 47 1928 Original copy is missing Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 54 and W. C. Schroeder. pages. Poor copy quality. 4­ 1610 PAP Hill, J., J. W. Evans, and M. J. Van Den Avyle. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates ( South Atlantic) Striped Bass. 43 1989 4­ 1611 Holling, C. S. Surprise for science, resilience for ecosystems, and incentives for people. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R13. 4­ 1612 DOC Holmlund, C. M., and M. Hammer. Ecosystem services generated by fish populations. 16 1999 4­ 1613 DOC Holt, M. T. and R. C. Bishop. A semiflexible normalized quadratic inverse demand system: An application to the price formation of fish. 40 February 1, 2002 4­ 1614 WEB Hoover's Online. Company capsule for CMS Energy Corporation. www. hoovers. com/ co/ capsule/ 3/ 0,2163,10263,00. html. 4 2001 4­ 1615 WEB Hoover's Online. Company capsule for Entergy Corporation. www. hoovers. com/ co/ capsule/ 4/ 0,2163,10524,00. html. 4 2001 4­ 1616 WEB Hoover's Online. Company capsule for Northeast Utilities. www. hoovers. com/ co/ capsule/ 8/ 0,2163,11088,00. html. 4 2001 4­ 1617 WEB Hoover's Online. Company capsule for PG& E Corporation. www. hoovers. com/ co/ capsule/ 5/ 0,2163,11145,00. html. 4 2001 4­ 1618 WEB Hoover's Online. Company capsule for Conectiv. www. hoovers. com/ co/ capsule/ 9/ 0,2163,56339,00. html. 4 2001 Accessed September 28, 2001. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 55 4­ 1619 WEB Hoover's Online. Company capsule for FirstEnergy Corp. www. hoovers. com/ co/ capsule/ 3/ 0,2163,11113,00. html. 3 2001 4­ 1620 WEB Hoover's Online. Company capsule for American Electric Power Company, Inc. www. hoovers. com/ co/ capsule/ 4/ 0,2163,10084,00. html. 3 2001 4­ 1621 WEB Hoover's Online. Company capsule for Cinergy Corp. www. hoovers. com/ co/ capsule/ 1/ 0,2163,42531,00. html. 3 2001 4­ 1622 WEB Hoover's Online. Company capsule for TECO Energy, Inc. www. hoovers. com/ co/ capsule/ 9/ 0,2163,11429,00. html. 3 2001 4­ 1623 WEB Hoover's Online. Company capsule for Progress Energy, Inc. www. hoovers. com/ co/ capsule/ 6/ 0,2163,10296,00. html. 3 2001 4­ 1624 WEB Hoover's Online. Company capsule for DTE Energy Company. http:// www. hoovers. com/ co/ capsule/ 3/ 0,2163,1045 3,00. html. 3 2002 4­ 1625 PAP Horst, T. J. The assessment of impact due to entrainment of ichthyoplankton. 12 1975 4­ 1626 Horst, T. J. The Equivalent Adult Model. A General Model for Fisheries Impact Assessment. 1 See DCN 1­ 3030­ BE. 4­ 1627 DOC Houde, E. D., W. J. Richards, and V. P. Saksena. Description of eggs and larvae of scaled sardine, Harengula jaguana. 17 1974 4­ 1628 ART Howe, A. and P. Winter flounder movements, growth, and mortality 18 1975 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 56 Coates. off Massachusetts. 4­ 1629 PAP Howell, P., A. Howe, M. Gibson, and S. Ayvanzian. Fishery Management Plan for Inshore Stocks of Winter Flounder ( Pleuronectes americanus). 146 May, 1992 4­ 1630 ART Hughes, J. E., L. A. Deegan, J. C. Wyda, and A. Wright. An Index of Biotic Integrity Based on Fish Community Structure Applied to Rhode Island and Connecticut Estuaries. 13 November 17, 2000 4­ 1631 ART Hundley, Kris. St. Petersburg Times, Problems have halted plant before. 2 1999 4­ 1632 Hunter Environmental Services Inc. Ohio River Ecological Research Program Final Report. 1988. 1 See DCN 2­ 013L­ R16. 4­ 1633 Huppert, D. Measuring the Value of Fish to Anglers: Application to Central California Anadromous Species. 1 See DCN 1­ 5010­ PR. 4­ 1634 DOC Huppert, D. D. Economic Benefits from Commercial Fishing. 45 1990 4­ 1635 ART Hutchings, J. A. Spatial and temporal variation in the density of northern cod and a review of hypotheses for the stock's collapse. 20 1996 4­ 1636 Hutchings, J. A. and R. A. Myers. What can be learned from the collapse of a renewable resource? Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, of Newfoundland and Labrador. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R33. 4­ 1637 DOX Hynes, H. B. N. The Ecology of Running Water. 89 1970 4­ 1638 WEB InfoMI. Monroe County, Michigan. http:// www. multimag. com/ county/ mi/ monroe/. 4 2001 Accessed October 11, 2001. 4­ 1639 WEB Information Please At: http:// infoplease. lycos. com/. 2 2001 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 57 LLC. © 1999. 4­ 1640 WEB Institute for Marine Research. Institute for Marine Research, Kiel Larvalbase. http:// www. larvalbase. org/. 9 2002 Accessed January 2002. 4­ 1641 WEB Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2001. Fishes of Iowa. http:// www. state. ia. us/ dnr/ organiza/ fwb/ fish/ iafish/ i afish. htm. 1 November, 2001 Accessed 11/ 5/ 01. 4­ 1642 DOC Jackson, H. W. and R. E. Tiller. Preliminary Observations on Spawning Potential in the Striped Bass, Roccus saxatilis ( Walbaum). 12 May, 1952 4­ 1643 DOX Jacobson, P. M., E. Lorda, D. J. Danilla, J. D. Miller, C. A. Tomichek, and R. A. Sher. Studies of Cooling Water Intake Effects at Two Large Coastal Nuclear Power Stations in New England. In EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Technical Workshop. D. Dixon and K. Zammit ( eds.). EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Technical Workshop, September 22­ 24, Berkeley Springs, WV. 49 September, 1998 Also see DCN 1­ 3032­ BE. 4­ 1644 DOX Jenkins, D. and L. A. Gelvin­ Innvaer. Colonial wading birds. In Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary L. E. Dove and R. M. Nyman, ( eds.). The Delaware Estuary Program. 11 July, 1995 4­ 1645 Johansson, J. O. R. Long­ term trends of nitrogen loading, water quality and biological indicators in Hillsborough Bay, Florida. In: Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. February 27­ March 1, 1991, Tampa, FL. ( S. F. Treat and P. A. Clark, eds.). 1 See DCN 4­ 1354. 4­ 1646 PAP Johnson, D. R. and W. Seaman. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates 28 August, 1986 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 58 ( South Florida): Spotted Seatrout. http:// www. nwrc. gov/ wdb/ pub/ 0139. pdf. 4­ 1647 DOC Jones & Stokes Associates Inc. Environmental Assessment for PG& E's Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan for Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants. Draft. 319 August 10, 1998 4­ 1648 ART Jones, C. Within­ season differences in growth of total larval Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus. 10 1985 4­ 1649 DOX Jones, P. W., F. D. Martin, and J. D. Hardy, Jr. Development of fishes of the Mid­ Atlantic Bight: An atlas of egg, larval, and juvenile stages. Vol. I. Acipenseridae through Ictaluridae. 47 1978 Also see 2­ 017A­ R13. 4­ 1650 ART Jordan, F., S. Coyne, and J. C. Trexler. Sampling fishes in vegetated habitats: effects of habitat structure on sampling characteristics of the 1­ m2 throw trap. 9 1997 4­ 1651 DOC Joseph, E. B. Status of Sciaenid stocks of the middle Atlantic coast. 14 June, 1972 4­ 1652 DOC Jude, D. J., F. J. Tesar, S. F. Deboe, and T. J. Miller. Diet and selection of major prey species by Lake Michigan salmonines, 1973­ 1982. 15 1987 4­ 1653 DOC Jude, D. J., P. J. Mansfield, and M. Perrone, Jr. Impingement and entrainment of fish and effectiveness of the fish return system at the Monroe Power Plant, western Lake Erie, 1982­ 1983. 216 December, 1983 4­ 1654 Jude, D. J., P. J. Mansfield, P. J. Schneeberger, and J. A. Wojcik. Compensatory Mechanisms in Fish Populations: Literature Reviews. Volume 2: Compensation in Fish Populations Subject to Catastrophic Impact. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R59 4­ 1655 DOC Jury, S. H., J. D. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and 226 May, 1994 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 59 Field, S. L. Stone, D. M. Nelson, and M. E. Monaco. Invertebrates in North Atlantic Estuaries. 4­ 1656 DOX Kaiser, S. C. and M. J. Neuman. Flounder. In Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L. E. Dove and R. M. Nyman ( eds.) The Delaware Estuary Program. 7 July, 1995 4­ 1657 DOC Kaoru, Y. Differentiating Use and Nonuse Values for Coastal Pond Water Quality Improvements. 8 1993 4­ 1658 Kaplan, C. Condenser and Cooling Tower Make­ Up Flows for a 1000 MW Steam Electric Power Plant. Memo to Tetra Tech, Inc. June 26, 2000. 1 See DCN 1­ 1073­ BC. 4­ 1659 DOX Kaufman, K. Lives of North American Birds. 152 1996 4­ 1660 ART Keller, A. A. and G. Klein­ MacPhee. Impact of elevated temperature on the growth, survival, and trophic dynamics of winter flounder larvae: A mesocosm study. 11 2000 4­ 1661 DOC Keller, A. A., C. A. Oviatt, H. A. Walker, and J. D. Hawk. Predicted impact of elevated temperature on the magnitude of the winter­ spring phytoplankton bloom in temperate coastal waters: a mesocosm study. 13 1999 4­ 1662 DOC Kelly, B., R. Lawton, V. Malkoski, S. Correia, and M. Borgatti. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Marine Environmental Monitoring Program Report Series No. 6. Final Report on Haul­ Seine Survey and Impact Assessment of Pilgrim Station on Shore­ Zone Fishes, 1981­ 1991. 38 December 30, 1992 4­ 1663 DOC Kelly, J. F., and B. Van Horne. Effects of food supplementation on the timing of nest initiation in belted kingfishers. 8 1997 4­ 1664 PAP Kelly, K. H. and Species profiles: life histories and environmental 33 April, 1986 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 60 J. R. Moring. requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates ( North Atlantic)­ Atlantic herring. 4­ 1665 Kelso, J. R. M., and G. S. Milburn. Entrainment and impingement of fish by power plants in the Great Lakes which use the oncethrough cooling process. 1 See DCN 1­ 3034­ BE. 4­ 1666 DOX Kennish, M. J. Chapter 5, Case Study 4: San Francisco Estuary Project. In M. J. Kennish ( ed.) Estuary Restoration and Maintenance: The National Estuary Program. 83 2000 4­ 1667 WEB Kimmel, C. B., W. W. Ballard*, S. R. Kimmel, B. Ullmann, and T. F. Schilling. 1995. Stages of Embryonic Development of the Zebrafish. At: http:// zfin. org/ zf_ info/ zfbook/ stages/ stages. html. 116 1995 4­ 1668 PAP Kimmerer, W. J. How density­ dependence can be important and still be lost in the noise. Paper presented at Power Generation Impacts on Aquatic Resources Conference, April 12­ 15, 1999, Renaissance Waverly Hotel, Atlanta, GA. 15 1999 4­ 1669 DOC Kitts, A. and E. Thunberg. Description and Impacts of Northeast Groundfish Fishery Buyout Programs. 23 November, 1998 4­ 1670 ART Kjesbu, O. S. The spawning activity of cod, Gadus morhua L. 12 1989 4­ 1671 PAP Kleinholz, C. W. Species Profile: Bigmouth Buffalo. 4 June, 2000 4­ 1672 WEB Kocik, John. River Herring. From: Status of Fisheries Resources off Northeastern United States website. http:// www. wh. whoi. edu/ sos/ spsyn/ af/ herring/ 1 2000 Accessed March 26, 2001. 4­ 1673 DOC Kotchen, M. J. and S. D. Reiling Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case 15 2000 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 61 study involving endangered species. 4­ 1674 Lane, J. A., C. B. Portt, and C. K. Minns. . Adult habitat characteristics of Great Lakes Fishes. 1 See DCN 1­ 3035­ BE. 4­ 1675 Lane, J. A., C. B. Portt, and C. K. Minns. . Nursery habitat characteristics of Great Lakes fishes. 1 See DCN 1­ 3036­ BE. 4­ 1676 PAP Laney, R. W. The relationship of submerged aquatic vegetation ( SAV) ecological value to species managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission ( ASMFC): Summary for the ASMFC SAV subcommittee. In Atlantic Coastal Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: A Review of its Ecological Role, Anthropogenic Impacts, State Regulation, and Value to Atlantic Coastal Fish Stocks, C. E. Stephen and T. E. Bigford ( eds.). 27 April, 1997 4­ 1677 PAP Lassuy, D. R. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements ( Gulf of Mexico)­ Spotted Seatrout. 16 February, 1983 4­ 1678 ART Laughlin, R. A. Feeding habits of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, in the Apalachicola estuary, Florida. 16 1982 4­ 1679 Lawler J. P., W. T. Hogarth, B. J. Copeland, M. P. Weinstein, R. G. Hodson, and H. Y. Chen. Techniques for Assessing the Impact of Entrainment and Impingement as Applied to the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. In L. D. Jensen ( ed.) Paired Position Papers, Issues Associated with Impact Assessment: Proceedings of the Fifth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. 1 See DCN 1­ 3037­ BE. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 62 4­ 1680 Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1974 Hudson River Aquatic Ecology Studies ­ Bowline Point and Lovett Generating Stations. 1 See DCN 1­ 3038­ BE. 4­ 1681 Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1975 Hudson River Aquatic Ecology Studies ­­ Bowline Point and Lovett Generating Stations: Vol. I: Chapters I­ IX. 1 See DCN 1­ 3039­ BE. 4­ 1682 DOC Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. Brayton Point Station Unit 4 Angled Screen Intake Biological Evaluation Program: Volume I. 272 October, 1987 4­ 1683 Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1979 and 1980 Data Analyses and Application of Empirical Models of Hudson River Fish Populations. 1 See DCN 1­ 3040­ BE. 4­ 1684 DOX Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 2.0 Entrainment Survival Studies. In Quad Cities Aquatic Program 1984 Annual Report. 23 1985 4­ 1685 Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1990 Impingement Studies at the Bowline Point Generating Station. 1 See DCN 1­ 3041­ BE. 4­ 1686 Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. Impingement and Entrainment Study at Zion Nuclear Generating Station July 1991 ­ July 1993. 1 See DCN 1­ 3042­ BE. 4­ 1687 DOC Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. Brayton Point Power Station Entrainment Survival Study, 1997­ 1998. Draft. 86 December, 1999 4­ 1688 DOC Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. Biological Evaluation of Chambers Works Water Intake Located at Atlantic City Electric Company's Deepwater Generating Station. 127 September, 1989 4­ 1689 Lawler, J. P. Some considerations in applying stock­ recruitment models to multiple­ age spawning populations. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R34. 4­ 1690 DOC Lawton, R., B. Kelly, P. Nitschke, J. Boardman, and V. Malkoski. Final Report Studies ( 1990­ 1997) and Impact Assessment of Pilgrim Station on Cunner in Western Cape Cod Bay. 72 January, 2000 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 63 4­ 1691 PAP Layton, D., and G. Brown. Heterogenous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change. Presented at NOAA Applications of Stated Preference Methods to Resource Compensation Workshop, Washington, D. C. 33 1998 4­ 1692 ART Lazaroff, C. Environment News Service, Florida Utility Agrees to $ 1 Billion Pollution Control Program. 4 March 1, 2000 4­ 1693 ART Leak, J. C. and E. D. Houde. Cohort growth and survival of bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli, larvae in Biscayne Bay, Florida. 14 May, 1987 4­ 1694 PAP Leard, R., R. Matheson, K. Meador, W. Keithly, C. Luquet, M. Van Hoose, C. Dyer, S. Gordon, J. Robertson., D. Horn, and R. Scheffler. The black drum fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A regional management plan. 155 May, 1993 4­ 1695 *** Citation Deleted*** 4­ 1696 ART Lewis R. and G. Seegert. Entrainment and impingement studies at two powerplants on the Wabash River in Indiana. In: EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Technical Workshop. D. Dixon and K. Zammit ( eds.). EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Technical Workshop, September 22­ 24, Berkeley Springs, WV. 43 September, 1998 Also see DCN 1­ 3043­ BE and 3­ 0040. 4­ 1697 DOC Lewis, R. M., E. P. Wilkins, and H. R. Gordy. A description of young Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus, in the White Oak River estuary, North Carolina. 4 1972 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 64 4­ 1698 DOC Lewis, R. R., III, and E. D. Estevez. The ecology of Tampa Bay, Florida: an estuarine profile. 153 September, 1988 4­ 1699 Liermann, M., and R. Hilborn. Depensation in fish stocks: A hierarchic Bayesian meta­ analysis. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R60. 4­ 1700 DOC Liermann, M., and R. Hilborn. Depensation: evidence, models and implications. 26 2001 4­ 1701 PAP Lindberg, W. J. and M. J. Marshall. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates ( South Florida) Stone Crab. 22 March, 1984 4­ 1702 ART Loesch, J. G. and W. A. Lund, Jr. A contribution to the life history of the blueback herring, Alosa aestivalis. 7 1977 4­ 1703 Lohner, T. Fish Entrainment, Impingement, and Long­ term Monitoring Studies at Ohio River Power Plants. Presentation at EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Technical Workshop, September 22­ 24, Berkeley Springs, WV. 1 See DCN 1­ 3044­ BE. 4­ 1704 DOC Loomis, J. The Bioeconomic Effects of Timber Harvesting on Recreational and Commercial Salmon and Steelhead Fishing: A Case Study of Siuslaw National Forest. 10 1988 4­ 1705 DOC Loomis, J. B. and White, D. S. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: Summary and meta­ analysis. 10 1996 4­ 1706 DOC Loomis, J., and E. Ekstrand. Economic Benefits of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using a Multiple Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey. 11 1997 4­ 1707 DOC Loomis, J., P. Kent, E. M. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: 15 2000 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 65 Strange, K. Fausch, and A. Covich. results from a contingent valuation survey. 4­ 1708 ART Lough, R. G. and D. C. Potter. Vertical distribution patterns and diel migrations of larval and juvenile haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus and Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, on Georges Bank. 23 1993 4­ 1709 LET Lowther, Alan, NMFS Statistician. Lowther, Alan, NMFS Statistician. 2001. Personal correspondence by email, January. 5 January, 2001 4­ 1710 DOC Ludwigs, J. D. Kleptoparasitism in common terns Sterna hirundo as an indicator of food shortage. 11 1998 4­ 1711 Mace, P. M. Relationships between common biological reference points used as thresholds and targets of fisheries management strategies. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R36. 4­ 1712 ART Maddala, G. S. Limited­ Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. 30 1983 4­ 1713 DOC MADEP. Selected Federal and State Grant Funded Indicative Project Summaries: FFY 1996­ 2000. 138 2000 4­ 1714 DOX Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. Southeastern Massachusetts Natural Resource Atlas. March 2001. http:// www. manomet. org/ semass/ atlas. html. 59 March, 2001 Chapters 1 and 2 only. Accessed on 11/ 29/ 01. 4­ 1715 PAP Mansueti, R. J. and E. H. Hollis. Striped Bass in Maryland Tidewater. 28 February, 1963 4­ 1716 DOC MAPC. Atlas of Tidal Restrictions on the South Shore of Massachusetts. 57 June, 2001 4­ 1717 DOC Marine Research Inc. and New New England Power Company Brayton Point Generating Station, Mount Hope Bay, Somerset, 388 June, 1981 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 66 England Power Company. Massachusetts: Final Environmental Impact Report and Sections 316( a) and 316( b) Demonstrations with the Proposed Conversion of Generating Unit No. 4 from Closed­ Cycle Cooling to Once­ Through Cooling. June. 4­ 1718 DOC Martosubroto, P. Fecundity of pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad. 11 1974 4­ 1719 WEB Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Service. Black drum. http:// www. dnr. state. md. us/ fisheries/ education/ bla ckdrum/ blackdrum. html. 3 2002 Accessed 1/ 21/ 02. 4­ 1720 WEB Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management. The Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program in Massachusetts. http:// www. state. ma. us/ czm/ npstoc. htm. 22 1994 Accessed 11/ 15/ 01. 4­ 1721 DOX Matthews, W. J. Patterns in Freshwater Fish Ecology. 86 1998 Also see DCN 1­ 3045­ BE. 4­ 1722 DOC May, A. W. Fecundity of Atlantic cod. 12 1967 4­ 1723 DOX McBride, R. S. Marine Forage Fish. In Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L. E. Dove and R. M. Nyman ( eds.) The Delaware Estuary Program. 7 July, 1995 4­ 1724 DOC McCambridge, J. T. Jr. and R. W. Alden, III. Growth of juvenile spot, Leiostomus xanthurus Lacepede, in the nursery region of the James River, Virginia. 9 December, 1984 4­ 1725 PAP McConnell, K. and I. Strand. The Economic Value of Mid and South Atlantic Sportfishing: Volume 2. 142 1994 Missing pages 28, 52, 68, 102, 110, 114, 118, 132. 4­ 1726 ART McCrimmon, H. R. Carp in Canada. 50 1968 4­ 1727 ART McDermot, D. and An individual­ based model of lake fish 36 2000 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 67 K. A. Rose. communities: Application to piscivore stocking in Lake Mendota. 4­ 1728 DOX McEwan, D. Fish Resources­­ Anadromous Fishes: Steelhead In Leet, W. S., C. M. Dewees, and C. W. Haugen ( eds.), California's Living Marine Resources and Their Utilization. 12 1992 Selected pages 4­ 1729 DOX McFadden, D. Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice. In C. F. Manski and D. L. McFadden, Eds., Structural Analysis of Discrete Data. 22 1981 4­ 1730 DOC McFadden, J. T., and J. P. Lawler, eds. Supplement 1 to influence of Indian Point Unit 2 and other steam electric generating plants on the Hudson River estuary, with emphasis on striped bass and other fish populations. 472 July, 1977 Unpublished report. 4­ 1731 ART McMichael, R. H., Jr. and K. M. Peters. Early life history of spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus ( Pisces: Sciaenidae) in Tampa Bay, Florida. 13 June, 1989 4­ 1732 WEB MDCH. Michigan 2001 Fish Advisory: Important Facts to Know if You Eat Michigan Fish. www. mdch. state. mi. us/ pha/ fish/ FishAdvisory. pdf. 29 2001 Accessed 12/ 01. 4­ 1733 WEB MDHCD. Community Profiles. http:// www. state. ma. us/ dhcd/ iprofile/ 273. pdf. 11 2001 Accessed October 18, 2001. 4­ 1734 DOX Meadows, P. S. and J. I. Campbell. An Introduction to Marine Science. 30 1978 4­ 1735 DOC Meffe, G. K. Techno­ arrogance and halfway technologies: salmon hatcheries on the Pacific Coast of North America. 5 1992 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 68 4­ 1736 DOC Meng, L., and P. B. Moyle. Status of splittail in the Sacramento­ San Joaquin Estuary. 12 1995 4­ 1737 DOC Mercer, L. P. Fishery Management Plan for Spot. 88 October, 1987 4­ 1738 DAT Meredith Simas ( Brayton Point Station) brayton. ENT1973.1985. xls. n/ a January 24, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Entrainment data at Brayton Point from 1973 to 1985. 4­ 1739 ART Meredith, W. H. and V. A. Lotrich. Production dynamics of tidal creek population of Fundulus heteroclitus ( linnaeus). 20 1979 4­ 1740 ART Messieh, S. N. Fecundity studies on Atlantic herring from the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and along the Nova Scotia Coast. 11 1976 4­ 1741 DOX Michaud D. T. Wisconsin Electric's Experience with Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies. In: EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Technical Workshop. D. Dixon and K. Zammit ( eds.). EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Technical Workshop, September 22­ 24, Berkeley Springs, WV. 34 September, 1998 4­ 1742 DOX Miller, E. E. Channel Catfish. In Inland Fisheries Management. 24 1966 4­ 1743 DOX Miller, J. P. American shad. In Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L. E. Dove and R. M. Nyman, ( eds.). The Delaware Estuary Program. 7 July, 1995 4­ 1744 ART Miller, R. R. Systematics and biology of the gizzard shad ( Dorosoma cepedianum) and related fishes. 26 1960 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 69 4­ 1745 DOX Miller, R. W. Striped Bass. In Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L. E. Dove and R. M. Nyman ( eds.). The Delaware Estuary Program. 7 July, 1995 4­ 1746 DOC Milliman, S. R., B. L. Johnson, R. C. Bishop, and K. J. Boyle. The bioeconomics of resource rehabilitation: A commercial­ sport analysis for a Great Lakes fishery. 20 May, 1992 4­ 1747 DAT Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) E­ mail Communication with A. Lipsky, Save the Bay, 2001. 1 December, 2001 Attachment is DCN 4­ 1384 ( CBI) 4­ 1748 DAT Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Fax from C. Powell, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, September, 2001. 2 September, 2001 4­ 1749 TEL Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Telephone Conversation with C. Powell, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, December, 2001. 1 December, 2001 4­ 1750 TEL Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Telephone Conversation with D. Quinn, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, November, 2001. 1 November, 2001 4­ 1751 TEL Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Telephone Conversation and e­ mail communication with J. Brazner, U. S. EPA, Duluth Lab, September and December, 2001. 3 2001 4­ 1752 DAT Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) E­ mail Communication with J. Catena, NOAA Restoration Center, December, 2001. 1 December, 2001 4­ 1753 TEL Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Telephone Conversation and e­ mail communication with J. Costa, Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program, 2001. 2 November, 2001 4­ 1754 DAT Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Telephone Conversation and e­ mail communication with J. Hughes, NOAA Marine Biological Laboratory, December, 2000, and 2 2002 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 70 January, 2002. 4­ 1755 DAT Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Telephone Conversation and e­ mail communication with J. Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, November and December 2001, January 2002. 3 2002 4­ 1756 TEL Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Telephone Conversation with K. Castro, University of Rhode Island, July, 2001. 1 July, 2001 4­ 1757 DAT Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Telephone Conversation and e­ mail communication with K. Reback, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, November and December, 2001. 2 2001 4­ 1758 TEL Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Telephone Conversation with L. Primiano, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, October, 2001. 1 October, 2001 4­ 1759 TEL Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Telephone Conversation with M. Camisa, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, November, 2001. 1 November, 2001 4­ 1760 TEL Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Telephone Conversation with M. Fahay, NOAA, November, 2001. 1 November, 2001 4­ 1761 TEL Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Telephone Conversation with P. Edwards, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, January, 2002. 1 January, 2002 4­ 1762 TEL Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Telephone Conversation with R. Micka, Lake Erie Clean Up Committee Inc., September, 2001. 1 September, 2001 4­ 1763 DAT Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) E­ mail Communication with Kenny Raposa, November and December, 2001. 3 2001 4­ 1764 TEL Mills, D. ( Stratus Personal Communication with S. Block, 1 November, Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 71 Consulting Inc.) Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs ­ Wetlands Restoration Program, November, 2001. 2001 4­ 1765 TEL Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) E­ mail Communication with T. Ardito, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, November, 2001. 1 November, 2001 4­ 1766 TEL Mills, D. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Personal Communication with P. Colarusso, U. S. EPA Region 1, 2002. 1 2002 4­ 1767 PAP Milon, J. W., E. Thunberg, C. M. Adams, and C. T. J. Lin. Recreational Anglers' Valuation of Near­ Shore Marine Fisheries in Florida. 148 January, 1994 4­ 1768 WEB Mirant Corporation Mirant Unsure of Start Date for Plant Expansion. 2 2001 4­ 1769 WEB Mirant Corporation. Mirant Completes Spin­ Off From Southern Company. 2 2001 4­ 1770 DOC Mirant Corporation. Southern Energy, Inc. 8­ K, filed on January 19, 2001. 9 2001 4­ 1771 WEB MIT Sea Grant. Marine Bio Invaders. http:// massbay. mit. edu. 10 2001 Accessed 11/ 19/ 2001. 4­ 1772 Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson. The Use of Contingent Valuation Data for Benefit/ Cost Analysis of Water Pollution Control. 1 See DCN 1­ 3050­ BE. 4­ 1773 DOX Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. Wetlands, 2nd ed. 111 1993 Also see DCN 4­ 0041. 4­ 1774 DOC Monaghan, P., J. D. Uttley, M. D. Burns, C. Thaine, and J. Blackwood. The relationship between food supply, reproductive effort and breeding success in arctic terns Sterna paradisaea. 14 1989 4­ 1775 DOC Monteleone, D. M. Seasonality and abundance of ichthyoplankton in 9 June, 1992 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 72 Great South Bay, New York. 4­ 1776 DOC Mood, Alexander M., Franklin A. Graybill, and Duane C. Boes. Introduction to the Theory of Statistics. 10 1974 4­ 1777 DOC Morey, Edward R. Two RUMS unCLOAKED: Nested Logit Models of Site Choice and Nested Logit Models of Participation and Site Choice. In Herriges and Kling, Eds., Valuing Recreation and the Environment. 32 1999 4­ 1778 DOC Morse, W. W. Maturity, spawning, and fecundity of the Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus, occurring North of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. 6 1980 4­ 1779 ART Morse, W. W. Spawning and fecundity of Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus, in the Middle Atlantic Bight. 6 1980 4­ 1780 PAP Morton, Timothy. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates ( Mid­ Atlantic): Bay Anchovy. 23 February, 1989 4­ 1781 DOX Moyle, P. B. Inland Fishes of California. 62 1976 4­ 1782 DOX Moyle, P. B. and J. J. Cech. 1996. Fishes: An introduction to ichthyology, 3rd ed. 590 1996 4­ 1783 ART Moyle, P. B., B. Herbold, D. E Stevens, and L. W. Miller. Life history and status of delta smelt in the Sacramento­ San Joaquin Estuary, California. 11 1992 4­ 1784 PAP Muncy, R. J. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates 28 September, 1984 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 73 ( Gulf of Mexico): Pinfish. http:// www. nwrc. gov/ wdb/ pub/ 0166. pdf. 4­ 1785 ART Murphy, M. D. and R. G. Taylor. Reproduction and growth of black drum, Pogonias cromis, in northeast Florida. 11 August, 1989 4­ 1786 ART Murphy, M. D. and R. G. Taylor. Age, growth, and mortality of spotted seatrout in Florida waters. 7 1994 Selected pages 4­ 1787 WEB Murphy, M. D., G. A. Nelson, and R. G. Muller. Florida's Inshore and Nearshore Species: 2000 Status and Trends Report. http:// floridamarine. org. 202 2000 4­ 1788 DOX Murphy, R. C. Oceanic Birds of South America. 68 1936 Selected pages 4­ 1789 DOC Myers, R. A. Compensation in Fish: A Review. Appendix B of Utility Water Act Group comments on the § 316( b) new sources rule. 80 2001 Unpublished manuscript. 4­ 1790 Myers, R. A., and N. G. Cadigan. Density­ dependent juvenile mortality in marine demersal fish. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R42. 4­ 1791 Myers, R. A., and N. J. Barrowman. Is fish recruitment related to spawner abundance? 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R39. 4­ 1792 Myers, R. A., J. Bridson, and N. J. Barrowman. Summary of worldwide stock and recruitment data. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R40. 4­ 1793 Myers, R. A., K. G. Bowen, and N. J. Barrowman. Maximum reproductive rate of fish at low population sizes. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R38. 4­ 1794 Myers, R. A., N. J. Barrowman, J. A. Hutchings, and A. A. Rosenberg. Population dynamics of exploited fish stocks at low population levels. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R41. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 74 4­ 1795 DAT Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve Prudence_ Island_ data. xls n/ a 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Estimates of the abundance of species captured in sampling efforts within the tidal wetlands of the Coggeshall marsh on Prudence Island in the Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve in July and September 2000. 4­ 1796 WEB National Audubon Society. Refuge map. Florida. http:// www. audubon. org/ campaign/ refuge/ refuges/ f lorida. html. 9 2000 Accessed January 2002. 4­ 1797 *** Citation Deleted*** 4­ 1798 DOX National Geographic Society. 1969. Wondrous World of Fishes, 2nd edition. 4 1969 4­ 1799 WEB National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS) Office of Protected Resources. Shortnose Sturgeon. http:// www. nmfs. noaa. gov/ prot_ res/ species/ fish/ Sh ortnose_ sturgeon. html 3 March , 6 2001 4­ 1800 WEB National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS), Office of Science and Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics: Data User's Manual. http:// www. st. nmfs. gov/ st1/ recreational/ research/ p rocedures. html. 123 1999 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 75 Technology, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division 4­ 1801 National Marine Fishery Service ( NMFS) National Marine Fishery Service ( NMFS). http:// www. st. nmfs. gov/ st1/ econ/ rec_ econ. html 1 See DCN 4­ 1001 and 4­ 1002 4­ 1802 National Marine Fishery Service ( NMFS) National Marine Fishery Service ( NMFS). http:// www. st. nmfs. gov/ st1/ econ/ rec_ econ. html. 1 See DCN 4­ 1101 and 4­ 1102 4­ 1803 WEB National Marine Fishery Service ( NMFS) National Marine Fishery Service ( NMFS). http:// www. st. nmfs. gov/ recreational/ data. html 4 2001 4­ 1804 WEB Natural Heritage Network Natural Heritage Network. http:// www. natureserve. org/ nhp/ us_ programs. htm. 1 2001 4­ 1805 WEB NBC. Narragansett Bay: An Introduction. http:// narrabay. com. 1 2001 Accessed October 16, 2001. 4­ 1806 WEB NBEP. Working Across the Watershed: 1998 Report. http:// www. nbep. org/ pubs/ pdf/ watw98. pdf. 14 1998 Accessed 12/ 05/ 01. 4­ 1807 WEB NBEP. About the Bay. http:// www. nbep. org/ bay/ index. html 2 2001 Accessed October 16, 2001. 4­ 1808 PAP Neckles, H. and M. Dionne ( eds.). Regional Standards to Identify and Evaluate Tidal Wetland Restoration in the Gulf of Maine: A GPAC Workshop, June 2­ 3. 35 June, 1999 4­ 1809 PAP NEFSC ( Northeast Fisheries Science Center). Report of the 30th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop ( 30th SAW) Stock Assessment Review Committee ( SARC) 56 April, 2000 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 76 consensus summary of assessments. 4­ 1810 WEB NEFSC ( Northeast Fisheries Science Center). Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States. Atlantic cod. http:// www. nefsc. nmfs. gov/ sos/ spsyn/ pg/ cod/. 7 January, 2000 Accessed 1/ 16/ 02. 4­ 1811 WEB NEFSC ( Northeast Fisheries Science Center). Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States. Atlantic herring. http:// www. nefsc. nmfs. gov/ sos/ spsyn/ pp/ herring/ 6 January, 2000 Accessed 1/ 16/ 02. 4­ 1812 WEB NEFSC ( Northeast Fisheries Science Center). Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States. Winter flounder. http:// www. nefsc. nmfs. gov/ sos/ spsyn/ fldrs/ winter/. 9 January, 2000 Accessed 1/ 16/ 02. 4­ 1813 WEB NEFSC ( Northeast Fisheries Science Center). NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center Present: Fish FAQ. http:// www. nefsc. nmfs. gov/ faq/ fishfaq2a. html. 5 January, 2001 Accessed 1/ 16/ 02. 4­ 1814 PAP Nelson, D. M. ( ed.). Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico Estuaries. Volume I: Data Summaries. 275 September, 1992 4­ 1815 ART Nelson, G. A. Abundance, growth, and mortality of young­ of­ theyear pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides, in three estuaries along the gulf coast of Florida. 14 1998 4­ 1816 Nelson, G. A., R. H. McMichael, T. C. MacDonals, and J. R. O'Hop. Fisheries monitoring and its use in fisheries resources management. In: Proceedings of the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 3: Applying Our Knowledge, October 21­ 23, 1996 ( S. F. Treat, ed.). 1 See DCN 4­ 1341. 4­ 1817 DOX Nelson, J. S. 1994. Fishes of the world, 3rd ed. 600 1994 4­ 1818 WEB Nevada Division of Water Words Dictionary ­­ A Compilation of 388 1997 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 77 Water Planning. 1997. Technical Water, Water Quality, Environmental, and Water­ Related Terms. At: http:// www. state. nv. us/ cnr/ ndwp/ dict­ 1/ waterwds. htm. 4­ 1819 New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc. Brayton Point Station Annual Biological and Hydrological Report, January­ December 1994. 1 See DCN 3­ 0081. 4­ 1820 DOC New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc. New England Power Company Brayton Point Station 1997 Annual Biological and Hydrological Report. 551 August, 1998 4­ 1821 WEB New Hampshire Estuaries Project. Draft Technical Characterization. http:// webster. state. nh. us/ nhep/. 273 2002 Accessed January 2002. 4­ 1822 DOC New Hampshire Yankee Electric Company. Seabrook Station: Facility Description. 41 March, 1986 4­ 1823 WEB New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife. New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife. http:// www. state. nj. us/ dep/ fgw/ ensphome. htm 5 2002 4­ 1824 WEB New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Education Program. Selected Fishes of New York State. www. dnr. cornell. edu/ sarep/ fish/ fish. html. 26 2001 Accessed September 19, 2001. 4­ 1825 DAT New York State Department of Unpublished tables of impingement data for steam electric stations in New York. 14 January, 2000 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 78 Environmental Conservation. 4­ 1826 PAP Newell, R. I. E. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates ( North and Mid­ Atlantic) Blue Mussel. 35 June, 1989 4­ 1827 ART Nieland, D. L. and C. A. Wilson. Reproductive biology and annual variation of reproductive variables of black drum in the northern Gulf of Mexico. 10 1993 4­ 1828 WEB NIH ( National Institute of Health). Research Services Branch. http:// rsb. info. nih. gov/ ij/ images/ Diatoms. jpg. 1 1999 Accessed 1/ 30/ 02. 4­ 1829 DOX Niles, L. J. Bald eagle. In Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L. E. Dove and R. M. Nyman ( eds.). The Delaware Estuary Program. 8 July, 1995 4­ 1830 DOC NJDEP ( New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). Fact Sheet for a Draft NJPDES Permit Including Section 316( a) Variance Determination and Section 316( b) Decision. Permit No. NJ0005622, Salem Generating Station. 91 2000 4­ 1831 DOX NMFS ( National Marine Fisheries Service). Our Living Oceans. Report on the status of U. S. living marine resources. 1 1999 See DCN 2­ 020A 4­ 1832 WEB NMFS ( National Marine Fisheries Service). Personal communication from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, MD. http:// www. st. nmfs. gov/ st1/. n/ a 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Accessed March 2001. 4­ 1833 WEB NMFS. Annual Commercial Landing Statistics website. http:// www. st. nmfs. gov/ st1/ commercial/. n/ a 2001, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 79 Accessed September 2001. 4­ 1834 WEB NOAA. Bay Anchovy. http:// www. csc. noaa. gov/ acebasin/ specgal/ bayanc h. htm. 2 2001 Accessed 10/ 18/ 01. 4­ 1835 DOC NOAA. Status of the Fishery Resources Off the Northeastern United States for 1993. 144 1993 4­ 1836 WEB NOAA. NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office Species Information. http:// noaa. chesapeakebay. net/ fisheries/ species. ht m. 13 2001 Accessed December 2001. 4­ 1837 WEB NOAA. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States. http:// www. nefsc. nmfs. gov/ sos/. 171 2001 Accessed November, 2001. 4­ 1838 WEB NOAA. Characterization Of The Ashepoo­ Combahee­ Edisto ( Ace) Basin, South Carolina. Species Gallery. http:// www. csc. noaa. gov/ acebasin/ specgal/ fish. ht m. 1 2002 4­ 1839 WEB NOAA. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Regional Office. Pink Shrimp ( Pandalus borealis). http:// www. fakr. noaa. gov/ trawl/ shr/ shrimps. htm. 1 2002 Accessed 1/ 17/ 02. 4­ 1840 WEB NOAA. NOAA Photo Library. http:// www. photolib. noaa. gov 4 2002 Accessed 1/ 11/ 02. 4­ 1841 WEB NOAA. NOAA'S Biogeography Program. Gulf of Mexico Essential Fish Habitat: LA/ MS/ AL. http:// biogeo. nos. noaa. gov/ projects/ efh/ gom­ 1 2002 Accessed 1/ 17/ 02. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 80 efh/ mmerc. gif. 4­ 1842 WEB NOAA. Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Research Programs. http:// stellwagen. nos. noaa. gov/ research/ programs. html. 4 2002 Accessed 1/ 11/ 02. 4­ 1843 DOC Normandeau Associates Inc. Impingement and Entrainment at the Cooling Water Intake Structure of the Delaware City Refinery, April 1998 ­ March 2000. 51 August, 2000 4­ 1844 Normandeau Associates Inc. Hudson River Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point: 1983 Annual Report. 1 See DCN 1­ 3053­ BE. 4­ 1845 Normandeau Associates. Seabrook Environmental Studies 1993. A Characterization of Environmental Conditions in the Hampton­ Seabrook Area During the Operation of Seabrook Station. 1 See DCN 1­ 3054­ BE. 4­ 1846 DOC Normandeau Associates. Seabrook Environmental Studies, 1989. A Characterization of Baseline Conditions in the Hampton­ Seabrook Area, 1975­ 1989. A Preoperational Study for Seabrook Station. 381 September, 1990 4­ 1847 DOC Normandeau Associates. Seabrook Environmental Studies, 1990. A Characterization of Environmental Conditions in the Hampton­ Seabrook Area During the Operation of Seabrook Station. 512 November, 1991 4­ 1848 DOC Normandeau Associates. Seabrook Environmental Studies, 1992. A Characterization of Environmental Conditions in the Hampton­ Seabrook Area During the Operation of Seabrook Station. 344 August, 1993 4­ 1849 DOC Normandeau Seabrook Station 1994. Environmental Studies in 456 October, Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 81 Associates. the Hampton­ Seabrook Area. A Characterization of Environmental Conditions During the Operation of Seabrook Station. 1995 4­ 1850 DOC Normandeau Associates. Seabrook Station 1995. Environmental Studies in the Hampton­ Seabrook Area. A Characterization of Environmental Conditions During the Operation of Seabrook Station. 434 August, 1996 4­ 1851 DOC Normandeau Associates. Seabrook Station 1998. Environmental Monitoring in the Hampton ­ Seabrook Area. A Characterization of Environmental Conditions During the Operation of Seabrook Station. 359 October, 1999 4­ 1852 DOC Normandeau Associates. Evaluation of Seabrook Station Estuarine Benthos Program. 13 October, 1994 4­ 1853 DOC Normandeau Associates. Seabrook Station 1996. Environmental Monitoring in the Hampton­ Seabrook Area. A Characterization of Environmental Conditions During the Operation of Seabrook Station. 455 January, 1996 4­ 1854 DOC Normandeau Associates. Seabrook Station 1997. Environmental Monitoring in the Hampton­ Seabrook Area. A Characterization of Environmental Conditions During the Operation of Seabrook Station. 419 September, 1997 4­ 1855 DOC North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation. Seabrook Station Sea Duck Entrapment Report. 7 March 22, 1999 4­ 1856 WEB North Dakota Game and Fish Department. Fishes of North Dakota. http:// www. npwrc. usgs. gov/ resource/ tools/ ndfishes / ndfishes. htm ( Version 02FEB98). 8 1986 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 82 4­ 1857 Northeast Utilities Environmental Laboratory. Monitoring the Marine Environment of Long Island Sound at Millstone Nuclear Power Station 1998 Annual Report. 1 See DCN 1­ 3055­ BE. 4­ 1858 DOX Northeast Utilities. 2000 Summary Annual Report, filed on April 12, 2001. 2 2001 4­ 1859 WEB Northeast Utilities. Form 10­ K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2000, filed on March 28, 2001. 4 2001 4­ 1860 DOC Norton, V., T. Smith, and I. Strand ( eds.). Stripers: The Economic Value of the Atlantic Coast Commercial and Recreational Striped Bass Fisheries. 64 1983 4­ 1861 DOX NRC ( National Research Council). Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas. 67 1993 4­ 1862 WEB NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation ( New South Wales State Government Department of Land and Water Conservation). Caring for our Natural Resources. http:// www. dlwc. nsw. gov. au/ care/ wetlands/ facts/ p aa/ algae/. 28 2001 Accessed 1/ 30/ 02. 4­ 1863 DAT Nuhfer, Andrew Fax from Andrew Nuhfer, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, to Stratus Consulting Inc. 2/ 13/ 02. 6 February 13, 2002 4­ 1864 WEB O'Brien, L. American Plaice. http:// www. nefsc. nmfs. gov/ sos/ spsyn/ fldrs/ plaice/. 4 2000 Accessed 06/ 30/ 01. 4­ 1865 DOC Ohio Department Ohio Public Hunting & Fishing Areas. 12 1996 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 83 of Natural Resources 4­ 1866 WEB Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Division of Wildlife Fish Identification. http:// www. dnr. state. oh. us/ wildlife/ fishing/ fishid/ def ault. htm. 4 2001 Accessed 8/ 28/ 01. 4­ 1867 WEB Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Fishing Prospect Report 2002. http:// www. dnr. state. oh. us/ wildlife/ fishing/ fishpro/ pr osoh. html. 14 2002 Accessed 2002. 4­ 1868 WEB Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Life History Notes. http:// www. dnr. state. oh. us/ wildlife/ resources/ defau lt. htm. 5 2001 Accessed 03/ 20/ 01. 4­ 1869 WEB Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Ohio River Fishing Regulations and License Reciprocity. http:// www. dnr. state. oh. us/ wildlife/ fishing/ fishregs/ f sh6. html. 2 2001 Accessed 2001. 4­ 1870 WEB Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Ohio River Offers Excellent Sportfishing Opportunities. http:// www. dnr. state. oh. us/ 00fishpkt ohioriver. html. 1 2001 Accessed 10/ 26/ 2001. 4­ 1871 WEB Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Recreational Sportfishing Pumps More Than $ 2 Billion Into Ohio's Economy. http:// www. dnr. state. oh. us/ 00fish­ pkt/ econofi html. 2 2001 Accessed 2001. 4­ 1872 DOC Ohio EPA Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Volume II: Users Manual for Biological Field Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters. 78 1988 Selected pages 4­ 1873 DOC Ohio EPA Ohio Waste Resource Inventory. 210 1996 4­ 1874 DOC Ohio Valley Ohio Valley Electric Corporation ( OVEC). Annual 24 2000 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 84 Electric Corporation ( OVEC) Report ­­ 2000. 4­ 1875 DOC Olla, B. L., A. J. Bejda, and A. D. Martin. Activity, movements, and feeding behavior of the cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus, and comparison of food habits with young tautog, Tautoga onitis, off Long Island, New York. 6 1975 4­ 1876 DOC Olla, B. L., A. J. Bejda, and A. D. Martin. Seasonal dispersal and habitat selection of cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus, and young tautog, Tautoga onitis, in Fire Island Inlet, Long Island, New York. 7 1979 Missing last page 4­ 1877 DOC Olsen, D.; Richards, J., and Scott, D. R. Existence and sport values for doubling the size of Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead runs. 11 undated 4­ 1878 DOC Oro, D. Interspecific kleptoparasitism in Audouin's gull Larus audouinii at the Ebro Delta, northeast Spain: A behavioral response to low food availability. 4 1996 4­ 1879 DOC ORSANCO. Aquatic life resources of the Ohio River. An inventory and evaluation of fish populations, limnological conditions, commercial fishing, and sports fishing, with historical notes. 32 1962 Selected pages 4­ 1880 DOC ORSANCO. Assessment of nonpoint source pollution of the Ohio River. 12 1990 4­ 1881 DOC ORSANCO. Biennial assessment of Ohio river water quality conditions for water years 1996 and 1997. 169 1998 4­ 1882 WEB ORSANCO. Ohio River Facts. http:// www. orsanco. org/ rivinfo/ facts. htm. 2 2001 Accessed 10/ 22/ 01. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 85 4­ 1883 ART Ouellet, P. Characteristics and vertical distribution of Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua) eggs in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the possible effect of cold water temperature on recruitment. 13 1997 4­ 1884 WEB Overholtz, W. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States. Atlantic Mackerel. http:// www. nefsc. nmfs. gov/ sos/ spsyn/ pp/ mackerel/ . 4 2002 Accessed 1/ 11/ 02. 4­ 1885 PAP Overholtz, W. J., R. S. Armstrong, D. G. Mountain, and M. Tercerio. Factors Influencing Spring Distribution, Availability, and Recreational Catch of Atlantic Mackerel ( Scomber scombrus) in the Middle Atlantic and Southern New England Regions. 17 August, 1991 4­ 1886 WEB NOAA. Spot. http:// www. csc. noaa. gov/ acebasin/ specgal/ spot. ht m. 2 2001 Accessed 10/ 18/ 01. 4­ 1887 DOC Parsons, G. and A. Hauber Spatial Boundaries and Choice Set Definition in a Random Utility Model of Recreational Demand. 17 1997 4­ 1888 DOC Parsons, G. and M. J. Kealy Randomly Drawn Opportunity Sets in a Random Utility Model of Land Recreation. 8 1992 4­ 1889 DOC Parsons, George R. and Michael S. Needelman Site Aggregation in a Random Utility Model of Recreation. 9 1992 4­ 1890 DOC Parsons, George R., Paul M. Jakus, and Ted Tomasi A Comparison of Welfare Estimates from Four Models for Linking Seasonal Recreational Trips to Multinomial Logit Models of Site Choice. 15 1999 4­ 1891 PAP Pattillo, M. E., T. E. Czapla, D. M. Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico estuaries, Volume 383 August, 1997 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 86 Nelson, and M. E. Monaco. II: Species life history summaries. 4­ 1892 DOC Peacock, B. Habitat Equivalency Analysis: Conceptual Background and Hypothetical Example. 11 April 30, 1999 4­ 1893 DOC Peebles, E. B., J. R. Hall, and S. G. Tolley. Egg production by the bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli in relation to adult and larval prey fields. 13 February, 1996 4­ 1894 Peebles, E. B., M. S. Flannery, R. E. Matheson, and J. P. Rast. Fish nursery utilization of the Little Manatee River estuary: relationships to physicochemical gradients and the distribution of food resources. In: Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. February 27­ March 1, 1991, Tampa, FL. ( S. F. Treat and P. A. Clark, eds.). 1 See DCN 4­ 1354. 4­ 1895 WEB Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. http:// www. dcnr. state. pa. us/ wrcf/ franda. htm. 32 undated 4­ 1896 WEB Pennsylvania. Rules and Regulations: Title 58­ Recreation, Fish and Boat Commission [ 58 PA. Code CHS. 61 and 65] ( http:// www. pabulletin. com/ secure/ data/ vol29/ 29­ 28/ 29_ 28_ rr. pdf). 5 July 10, 1999 Accessed 11/ 01. 4­ 1897 DOX Pérez Farfante, I. Western Atlantic shrimps of the genus Penaeus. 41 1969 Selected pages 4­ 1898 DOC Peters, K. M. and R. H. McMichael, Early life history of the black drum Pogonias cromis ( Pisces: Sciaenidae) in Tampa Bay, 20 July, 1990 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 87 Jr. Florida. 4­ 1899 DOX Peterson, C. H., and J. Lubchenco. Marine ecosystem services. In G. C. Daily, ed., Nature's Services, Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. 22 1997 4­ 1900 Pettigrew, L. New Jersey Wildlife Viewing Guide. 1 See DCN 3­ 3065 4­ 1901 PG& E ( Pacific Gas and Electric Company). Best Technology Available 1995 Technical Report for the Contra Costa and Pittsburg Power Plants. 1 See DCN 3­ 0084. 4­ 1902 PG& E ( Pacific Gas and Electric Company). Best Technology Available 1996 Technical Report for the Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants. 1 See DCN 3­ 0085. 4­ 1903 PG& E ( Pacific Gas and Electric Company). Best Technology Available 1997 Technical Report for the Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants. 1 See DCN 3­ 0086. 4­ 1904 PG& E ( Pacific Gas and Electric Company). Best Technology Available 1998 Technical Report for the Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants. 1 See DCN 3­ 0087. 4­ 1905 DOC PG& E Generating and Marine Research Inc. 1998 Annual Report, Brayton Point Station. 535 September, 1999 Also see DCN 2­ 013LR18 4­ 1906 DOC PG& E National Energy Group. Brayton Point Station permit renewal application, NPDES permit no. MA0003654. 316( a) and ( b) demonstration. 297 November, 2001 Executive summary and appendices. 4­ 1907 DOX PG& E. Form 10­ K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2000, filed on April 17, 2001. 7 2001 4­ 1908 PAP Phillips, J. M., M. T. Huish, J. H. Kerby, Species Profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates 22 February, 1989 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 88 and D. P. Moran. ( mid­ Atlantic) Spot. 4­ 1909 ART Pierce, D. J., B. Mahmoudi, and R. R. Wilson, Jr. Age and growth of the scaled herring, Harengula jaguana, from Florida waters, as indicated by microstructure of the sagittae. 8 2001 4­ 1910 WEB Pollock, J. Jeffery Pollock for Congress: Dam Issues. http:// www. pollock4congress. com/ issues/ dam. html . 4 2001 Accessed November 21, 2001. 4­ 1911 WEB Port Manatee. Port Manatee. http:// www. portmanatee. com. 3 2000 Accessed January 2002. 4­ 1912 DOX Postel, S., and S. Carpenter. Freshwater ecosystem services. In G. C. Daily, ed., Nature's Services, Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. 20 1997 4­ 1913 Potter, W. A. Assessment of the Effects of Impingement and Entrainment on the Fish Community of the New River, Virginia. 1 See DCN 1­ 3056­ BE. 4­ 1914 Potter, W. A., E. D. Maruhnich, R. L. Shema, and C. J. Cook. Cardinal Plant Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies. 1 See DCN 1­ 3057­ BE. 4­ 1915 Potter, W. A., E. D. Maruhnich, R. L. Shema, and C. J. Cook. Kammer Plant Demonstration Document for P. L. 92­ 500 Section 316( b) Volume II: Kammer Plant Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies. 1 See DCN 1­ 3058­ BE 4­ 1916 Potter, W. A., E. D. Maruhnich, R. L. Shema, and C. J. Cook. Kyger Creek Station Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies. 1 See DCN 1­ 3059­ BE. 4­ 1917 Potter, W. A., E. D. Philip Sporn Plant Demonstration Document for 1 See DCN 1­ 3060­ BE. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 89 Maruhnich, R. L. Shema, and C. J. Cook. P. L. 92­ 500 Section 316( b) Volume II, Appendix B: Philip Sporn Plant Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies. 4­ 1918 ART Pottle, R. A. and J. M. Green. Field observations on the reproductive behaviour of the cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus ( Waldbaum), in Newfoundland. 10 1979 4­ 1919 WEB Washington Business Journal. Regulators approve $ 2.2B Pepco­ Conectiv union. http:// washington. bizjournals. com/ washington/ stori es/ 2001/ 08/ 06/ daily16. html. 2 2001 Accessed 3/ 27/ 02. 4­ 1920 WEB Progress Energy. Form 10­ K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2000, filed on March 29, 2001. 3 2001 4­ 1921 PSEG ( Public Service Electric and Gas Company). Salem NPDES Permit Application, Appendix H. 1 See DCN 1­ 3061­ BE. 4­ 1922 DOC PSEG ( Public Service Electric and Gas Company). PSEG Response to ESSA Report on the 1999 Salem Permit Application. 485 2001 4­ 1923 DOC PSEG ( Public Service Electric and Gas Company). PSEG's Specific Comments on Proposed Terms and Conditions and Fact Sheet, Part 2. Draft NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622, Salem Generating Station. 59 March 14, 2001 4­ 1924 WEB PSEG ( Public Service Electric and Gas Company). Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. 10­ K405 filed on 03/ 06/ 2001. 2 2001 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 90 4­ 1925 WEB PSEG ( Public Service Electric and Gas Company). About PSEG Power. www. pseg. com/ companies/ power/ about. html. 2 2001 Accessed September 28, 2001. 4­ 1926 DOC PSEG ( Public Service Electric and Gas Company). Assessment of the Impacts of the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations on Kemp's Ridley ( Lepidochelys kempi) and Loggerhead ( Caretta caretta) Sea Turtles. 98 1989 4­ 1927 WEB PSEG. PSEG. www. pseg. com/ companies/ power/ overview. html. 1 undated 4­ 1928 DOX Public Service Electric and Gas Company. Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622. Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Generating Station. Appendix C: Attachments C­ 1 through C­ 2. 863 1999 Missing pages 17­ 67. Best available copy. 4­ 1929 DOX Public Service Electric and Gas Company. Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622. Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Generating Station. Appendix C: Attachments C­ 9 through C­ 14. 732 1999 4­ 1930 Public Service Electric and Gas Company. Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622. Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Generating Station. Appendix F, Section 316( b) Demonstration ( Volume 2). 1 See DCN 2­ 013C. 4­ 1931 Public Service Electric and Gas Company. Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622. Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Generating Station. Appendix L: Data Set Descriptions. 1 See DCN 2­ 013D. 4­ 1932 QuanTech, Survey 1997 AMES Telephone Follow­ Up Survey Coding 1 1998 See DCN 4­ 1800 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 91 Research Center Handbook. ( Appendices B & D). 4­ 1933 DOX Quinn, T. J., II. and R. B. Dairies. Quantitative Fish Dynamics. 110 1999 Also see DCN 2­ 019AR45 4­ 1934 R. G. Otto & Associates and Science Applications International Corporation. Mechanisms of Compensatory Response of Fish Populations: Workshop Proceedings. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R63. 4­ 1935 DOC Rago, P. J. Production forgone: An alternative method for assessing the consequences of fish entrainment and impingement losses at power plants and other water intakes. 33 1984 4­ 1936 PAP Rakoczy, G. P. and D. Wesander­ Russell. Charter Boat Catch and Effort from the Michigan Waters of the Great Lakes, 1997. 51 July 30,1998 4­ 1937 DOC Rakoczy, G. P. and R. F. Svoboda. Sportfishing Catch and Effort from the Michigan waters of Lakes Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Superior. 126 December 22, 1997 4­ 1938 DOC Raposa, K. B. In press. Early responses of fishes and crustaceans to restoration of a tidally restricted New England salt marsh. 46 in press 4­ 1939 TEL Raucher, B. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Telephone Conversation and e­ mail communication with Richard Bishop, Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin. February, 2002. 1 February, 2002. 4­ 1940 PAP Reid, R. N., L. M. Essential fish habitat source document: Atlantic 17 September, Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 92 Cargnelli, S. J. Griesbach, D. B. Packer, D. L. Johnson, C. A. Zetlin, W. W. Morse, and P. L. Berrien. herring, Clupea harengus, life history and habitat characteristics. 1999 4­ 1941 DOC Resource Data International ( RDI) NEWGen Database. Plant Data Sheet for Gannon power plant. 2 2001 Also see DCN 2­ 006 4­ 1942 ART Restrepo, V. R. Growth estimates for male stone crabs along the southwest coast of Florida: A synthesis of available data and methods. 10 1989 4­ 1943 ART Restrepo, V. R. A mortality model for a population in which harvested individuals do not necessarily die: The stone crab. 5 1992 4­ 1944 PAP Rettig, R. and B. McCarl. Potential and Actual Benefits from Commercial Fishing Activities. In Making Information More Useful for Salmon and Steelhead Production Decisions. 14 1985 4­ 1945 DAT Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. Mthopebay_ RIjuvfinfishsurvey. xls. Annual abundance estimates for tautog and winter flounder from various sampling sites in and near Mt. Hope Bay for the period 1990­ 2000 that were developed from data collected as part of the Rhode Island juvenile finfish survey program. n/ a 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Received from Chris Powell, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management ­ Fish and Wildlife Division, 2001. 4­ 1946 DAT Rhode Island RIsaltpond_ templesampling. xls. Winter flounder n/ a 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 93 Department of Environmental Management. capture and abundance estimates from sampling conducted from 1994 ­ 2001 as part of the Rhode Island coastal pond survey program. See DCN 4­ 1305. Received from Jennifer Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2001. 4­ 1947 Richkus, W. A. and R. McLean. Historical Overview of the Efficacy of Two Decades of Power Plant Fisheries Impact Assessment Activities in Chesapeake Bay. In: EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Technical Workshop. D. Dixon and K. Zammit ( eds.). EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Technical Workshop, September 22­ 24, Berkeley Springs, WV. 1 See DCN 1­ 3062­ BE. 4­ 1948 Ricker, W. E. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R46. 4­ 1949 WEB RIEDC. The Rhode Island Economy. http:// www. riedc. com/ pdfpubs/ RI% 20Economy. PD F. 14 1999 Accessed January 29, 2002. 4­ 1950 WEB RIEDC. Rhode Island Annual Economic Trends. http:// www. riedc. com/ pdfpubs/ Annual% 20Trends. PDF. 3 2000 Accessed January 29, 2002. 4­ 1951 PAP Robinette, H. R. Species Profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates ( Gulf of Mexico): Bay anchovy and striped anchovy. 22 October, 1983 4­ 1952 PAP Rogers, B. A., D. T. Westin, and S. B. Saila. Life Stage Duration Studies on Hudson River Striped Bass , Morone saxatillis ( Walbaum). 119 December, 1977 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 94 4­ 1953 ART Roman, C. T., K. B. Raposa, S. C. Adamowicz, M.­ J. James­ Pirri, and J. G. Catena. Submitted Quantifying vegetation and nekton response to tidal restoration of a New England salt marsh. 36 May, 2000 4­ 1954 Ronafalvy, J. P., R. R. Cheesman, and W. M. Matejek. Circulating water traveling screen modifications to improve impinged fish survival and debris handling at the Salem Generating Station. 1 See DCN 1­ 5018­ PR. 4­ 1955 ART Rose, K. A. and J. H. Cowan. Individual­ based model of young­ of­ the­ year striped bass population dynamics. I. Model description and baseline simulations. 24 1993 4­ 1956 DOC Rose, K. A., J. H. Cowan, Jr., K. O. Winemiller, R. A. Myers, and R. Hilborn. Compensatory density­ dependence in fish populations: Importance, controversy, understanding, and prognosis. 35 2001 Also see DCN 3­ 0064. 4­ 1957 DOX Ross, D. A. 1995. Introduction to Oceanography. 496 1995 4­ 1958 DOX Rothschild, B. J. Dynamics of Marine Fish Populations. 88 1986 Also see DCN 2­ 019AR47 4­ 1959 DOX Rowe, R. D., W. D. Shaw, and W. Schulze. Nestucca Oil Spill. In Natural Resource Damages, edited by K. Ward and J. Duffield. 30 1992 4­ 1960 ART Rozas, L. P. Bottomless lift net for quantitatively sampling nekton on intertidal marshes. 6 November, 1992 4­ 1961 DOC Ruhl, J. B., and Integrating Ecosystem Services into 28 2001 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 95 R. J. Gregg. Environmental Law: A Case Study of Wetlands Mitigation Banking. 4­ 1962 ART Ruppert, D., R. L. Reish, R. B. Deriso, and R. J. Carroll. A stochastic population model for managing the Atlantic menhaden ( Brevoortia tyrannus) fishery and assessing managerial risks. 9 1985 4­ 1963 SAIC ( Science Applications International Corporation). Background Paper Number 3: Cooling Water Intake Technologies. 1 See DCN 1­ 5069­ PR. 4­ 1964 SAIC ( Science Applications International Corporation). Preliminary Draft Working Paper: Biological Impacts from the Intake of Cooling Water. 1 See DCN 3­ 3027 4­ 1965 SAIC ( Science Applications International Corporation). Background Paper Number 2: Cooling Water Use for Selected U. S. Industries. 1 See DCN 1­ 1070­ TC. 4­ 1966 SAIC ( Science Applications International Corporation). Supplement to Background Paper Number 3: Cooling Water Intake Technologies. 1 See DCN 1­ 5070­ PR. 4­ 1967 SAIC ( Science Applications International Corporation). Review of San Diego Gas & Electric Encina Power Plant 316( b) Demonstration. Draft. 1 See DCN 1­ 3066­ BE. 4­ 1968 PAP Saila, S. B. and E. Lorda. Sensitivity analysis applied to a matrix model of the Hudson River striped bass population. In 22 1977 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 96 Proceedings of a Conference on Assessing the Effects of Power Plant Induced Mortality on Fish Populations, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, May 3­ 6, 1977. W. Van Winkle ( ed.). 4­ 1969 ART Saila, S. B., E. Lorda, J. D. Miller, R. A. Sher, and W. H. Howell. Equivalent adult estimates for losses of fish eggs, larvae, and juveniles at Seabrook Station with use of fuzzy logic to represent parametric uncertainty. 15 November, 1997 4­ 1970 Saila, S. B., X. Chen, K. Erzini, and B. Martin. Compensatory Mechanisms in Fish Populations: Literature Reviews. Volume 1: Critical Evaluation of Case Histories of Fish Populations Experiencing Chronic Exploitation or Impact. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R64. 4­ 1971 DOC Salzman, J., B. H. Thompson, Jr., and G. C. Daily. Protecting Ecosystem Services: Science, Economics, and Law. 24 May, 2001 4­ 1972 DOC Samples, K. C. and R. C. Bishop. Estimating the Value of Variations in Angler's Success Rates: An Application of the Multiple­ Site Travel Cost Method. 17 1985 4­ 1973 DOC Sanders, L. D., R. G. Walsh, and J. B. Loomis. Toward Empirical Estimation of the Total Value of Protecting Rivers. 13 1990 4­ 1974 PAP Santoro, E. D. Delaware Estuary Monitoring Report. 71 1998 Missing pages 52­ 56 4­ 1975 ART Saucier, M. H. and D. M. Baltz. Spawning site selection by spotted seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus, and black drum, Pogonias cromis, in Louisiana. 16 1993 4­ 1976 WEB Save the Bay. Eelgrass: A Critical Narragansett Bay Habitat. http:// www. savebay. org/ bayissues/ eelgrass. htm. 5 2001 Accessed October 12, 2001. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 97 4­ 1977 Savidge, I. R., J. B. Gladden, K. P. Campbell, and J. S. Ziesenis. Development and sensitivity of impact assessment equations based on stock­ recruitment theory. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R48. 4­ 1978 DOC Scherer, M. D. The Biology of the Blueback Herring, Alosa aestivalis ( Mitchill) in the Connecticut River above the Holyoke Dam, Holyoke, Massachusetts. 101 February, 1972 4­ 1979 DOX Schoelkopf, R. And E. Stetzar. Marine turtles. In L. E. Dove and R. M. Nyman, eds. Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. The Delaware Estuary Program. 13 1995 4­ 1980 WEB Schorfhaar, R. G. and P. J. Schneeberger. Commercial and Sport Fisheries for Lake Whitefish in Michigan Waters of Lake Superior, 1983­ 96. http:// www. dnr. state. mi. us/ www/ ifr/ ifrlibra/ research / reports/ 2034rr. pdf. 65 June 30, 1997 4­ 1981 WEB Schram, S. T., T. N. Halpern, and T. B. Johnson. Ecology of Burbot in Western Lake Superior. In Biology and Management of Burbot, V. Paragamian and D. MacKinlay ( eds). International Congress on the Biology of Fish, Baltimore, MD, July 27­ 30. http:// www­ heb. pac. dfompo gc. ca/ congress/ Burbot. pdf. 13 1998 4­ 1982 WEB Schultz, Ken The Angling Authority; Species Encyclopedia. 24 2001 Best available copy 4­ 1983 DOX Scott, W. B. and E. J. Crossman. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. 124 1973 4­ 1984 DOX Scott, W. B. and E. J. Crossman. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. 125 1998 4­ 1985 DOX Scott, W. B. and Atlantic fishes of Canada. 143 1988 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 98 M. G. Scott. 4­ 1986 DOX Seagraves, R. J. Weakfish. In Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L. E. Dove and R. M. Nyman, ( eds.). The Delaware Estuary Program. 6 July, 1995 4­ 1987 DOC Serchuk, F. and C. Cole. Age and growth of the cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus ( Waldbaum), Pisces ( Labridae), in the Weweantic River Estuary, Massachusetts. 5 1974 4­ 1988 PAP Setzler, E. M., W. R. Boynton, K. V. Wood, H. H. Zion, L. Lubbers, N. K. Mountford, P. Frere, L. Tucker, and J. A. Mihursky. Synopsis of Biological Data on Striped Bass, Morone saxatilis ( Walbaum). 77 June, 1980 4­ 1989 Sharma, R. K. and R. F. Freeman. Survey of Fish Impingement at Power Plants in the United States Volume I: The Great Lakes. 1 See DCN 1­ 3067­ BE. 4­ 1990 PAP Shaw, W. N., T. J. Hassler, and D. P. Moran. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates ( Pacific Southwest): California Sea Mussel and Bay Mussel. 26 September, 1988 4­ 1991 DOC Shepherd, G. R. and C. B. Grimes. Geographic and historic variations in growth of weakfish, Cynoscion regalis, in the Middle Atlantic Bight. 11 1983 4­ 1992 DOC Shepherd, G. R. and C. B. Grimes. Reproduction of weakfish, Cynoscion regalis, in the New York Bight and evidence for geographically specific life history characteristics. 11 1984 4­ 1993 Shepherd, J. G., Regulation in fish populations: myth or mirage. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R49. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 99 and D. H. Cushing. 4­ 1994 ART Sheridan, P. Forecasting the fishery for pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, on the Tortugas grounds, Florida. 13 1996 4­ 1995 DOC Short, R., R. Davis, and D. Burdick. Eelgrass ( Zostera marina L.) habitat restoration in New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts. Scope of work in proposal submitted to the New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council. 32 July 17, 1997 4­ 1996 DOC Simmons, R. L., A. V. Zale, and D. M. Leslie. Physical and biological factors affecting seasonal double­ crested cormorant densities at Oklahoma reservoirs. 13 1997 4­ 1997 DOX Smith, C. L. The inland fishes of New York State. 69 1985 4­ 1998 WEB Smith­ Root. Online Store. http:// www. smith­ root. com/ store/. 3 2001 Accessed December 2001. 4­ 1999 WEB Snyder, D. E. Burbot ­­ Larval Evidence for More than One North American Species? In Biology and Management of Burbot, V. Paragamian and D. MacKinlay ( eds). International Congress on the Biology of Fish, Baltimore, MD, July 27­ 30. http:// wwwheb pac. dfo­ mpo. gc. ca/ congress/ Burbot. pdf. 13 1998 4­ 2000 DOC Sorg, C. F., J. B. Loomis, D. M. Donnelly, G. L. Peterson, and L. J. Nelson. Net Economic Value of Cold and Warm Water Fishing in Idaho. 32 November, 1985 4­ 2001 WEB South Carolina Department of Marine Resources Research Institute. http:// water. dnr. state. sc. us/ marine/ mrri/ seamap/ sp 6 2001 Accessed 12/ 12/ 01. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 100 Natural Resources. ecies. htm. 4­ 2002 WEB South Florida Water Management District. Coastal Ecosystems. http:// www. sfwmd. gov/ org/ wrp/ wrp_ ce/ 2_ wrp_ ce_ i nfo/ 2_ wrp_ ce_ photos. html. 4 2002 Accessed 1/ 30/ 02. 4­ 2003 Southern California Edison Company. Report on 1987 Data: Marine Environmental Analysis and Interpretation: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. 1 See DCN 1­ 5021­ PR. 4­ 2004 Southern Energy California. Best Technology Available 1999 Technical Report for the Contra Costa and Pittsburg Power Plants. 1 See DCN 3­ 0088. 4­ 2005 Southern Energy Delta, LLC. Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan, Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants. Draft­ Revision 5, June 30, 2000. 1 See DCN 3­ 0022. 4­ 2006 Spicer G., T. O'Shea, and G. Pichler. Entrainment, Impingement and BTA Evaluation for an Intake Located on a Cooling Water Reservoir in the Southwest. In: EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Technical Workshop. D. Dixon and K. Zammit ( eds.). EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Technical Workshop, September 22­ 24, Berkeley Springs, WV. 1 See DCN 1­ 3068­ BE. 4­ 2007 Spigarelli, S. A., A. J. Jensen, and M. M. Thommes. An Assessment of the Impacts of Water Intakes on Alewife, Rainbow Smelt, and Yellow Perch Populations in Lake Michigan. 1 See DCN 1­ 3069­ BE. 4­ 2008 DOX Spratt, J. D. Pacific Herring. In Leet, W. S., C. M. Dewees, and C. W. Haugen ( eds.), California's Living Marine Resources and their Utilization. 12 1992 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 101 4­ 2009 DOX Springer, V. G. and K. D. Woodburn. An ecological study of the fishes of the Tampa Bay area. 3 1960 Pages 18 and 19 only. 4­ 2010 DOC Standard & Poor's. Public Service Enterprise Group Stock Report. 2 2001 4­ 2011 DOC Standard & Poor's. Stock Report for PG& E Corporation. 2 2001 4­ 2012 PAP Stanley, J. G. and D. S. Danie. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates ( north Atlantic): white perch. 20 October, 1983 4­ 2013 WEB State of Maine Department of Marine Resources. Saltwater Anglers Guide, Know Your Catch. Family Labridae, Wrasses, Cunner. http:// www. state. me. us/ dmr/ recreational/ fishes/ cun ner. htm. 1 2001 Accessed February 6, 2001. 4­ 2014 WEB State of Maine Department of Marine Resources. Saltwater Anglers Guide, Know Your Catch. Family Labridae, Wrasses, Tautog. http:// www. state. me. us/ dmr/ recreational/ fishes/ tau tog. htm. 1 2001 Accessed February 6, 2001. 4­ 2015 WEB State of Maine Department of Marine Resources. Saltwater Anglers Guide, Know Your Catch. http:// www. state. me. us/ dmr/ recreational/ fishes/ sha d. htm. 1 2001 Accessed February 6, 2001. 4­ 2016 WEB State of Massachusetts. Plymouth, Plymouth County. www. state. ma. us/ dhcd/ iprofile/ 239. pdf. 11 2002 Accessed 1/ 9/ 02. 4­ 2017 WEB State of New York, Department of Environmental Conservation. List of Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Fish & Wildlife Species of New York State. http:// www. dec. state. ny. us/ website/ dfwmr/ wildlife/ e 7 March , 2001 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 102 ndspec/ etsclist. html. 4­ 2018 PAP Steimle, F. W. and P. A. Shaheen. Tautog ( Tautoga onitis) life history and habitat requirements. 27 May, 1999 4­ 2019 WEB Steiner, L. Pennsylvania Fishes. http:// sites. state. pa. us/ PA_ Exec/ Fish_ Boat/ fishhtm s/ chapindx. htm. 15 2000 Accessed 10/ 30/ 2001 4­ 2020 DOX Stevens, D. E. Striped Bass. In Leet, W. S., C. M. Dewees, and C. W. Haugen ( eds.), California's Living Marine Resources and their Utilization. 12 1992 4­ 2021 DOC Stevens, D. E., L. W. Miller, and B. C. Bolster. Report to the Fish and Game Commission: A Status Review of Delta Smelt ( Hypomesus transpacificus) in California. 47 1990 4­ 2022 DOC Stevens, T. H.; Field, M. K.; More, T. A., and Glass, R. J. Contingent valuation of rare and endangered species: An assessment. 18 1994 4­ 2023 DOC Stevens, T. H., J. Echeverria, R. J. Glass, T. Hager, and T. A. More. Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show? 11 November, 1991 4­ 2024 ART Stewart, N. H. Development, growth, and food habits of the white sucker, Catostomus commersonii Lesueur. 40 1926 4­ 2025 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. 316( A) and ( B) Demonstration Big Bend Station ­ Unit 4. Volume I and Volume II, Appendices. 1 See DCN 1­ 3071­ BE. 4­ 2026 DOC Stone & Webster Engineering Fine Mesh Screen Prototype Study Final Report: Big Bend Power Station Unit 4, Tampa Electric 210 November, 1980 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 103 Corporation. Company. 4­ 2027 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. Supplemental Assessment in Support of the 316 Demonstration, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2. 1 See DCN 1­ 3072­ BE. 4­ 2028 DOC Strange, E. M., K. D. Fausch, and A. P. Covich. Sustaining ecosystem services in humandominated watershed: biohydrology and ecosystem processes in the South Platte River Basin. 16 1999 4­ 2029 DOC Strange, E. M., H. Galbraith, S. Bickel, D. Mills, D. Beltman, and J. Lipton. Determining ecological equivalence in service­ toservice scaling of salt marsh restoration. 11 2002 4­ 2030 TEL Strange, E. M., Stratus Consulting Inc. Personal Communication ( telephone conversation) with Bruce Herbold, EPA Region 9, September 1, 2000. 1 September 1, 2000 4­ 2031 TEL Strange, E. M., Stratus Consulting Inc. Personal Communication ( telephone conversations) with Steve Gallo, Project Manager, Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants, 9/ 15/ 00 and 9/ 18/ 00. 2 September 18, 2000 4­ 2032 DAT Stratus Consulting epa_ cwis. xls. n/ a February, 2002 Contained in the CBI docket. Results of Detailed and Short Technical Questionnaire in a GIS compatible database for import into ArcGIS for use in analysis. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 104 4­ 2033 DAT Stratus Consulting cwis_ alb83. n/ a February, 2002 Contained in the CBI docket. GIS coverage containing facility locations from the Detailed and Short Technical Questionnaire. Derived from the excel file epa_ cwis. xls and modified where there were known problems with locational data. 4­ 2034 TEL Abt Associates, Inc. Personal Communication with Marion Pohlman, Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge, September 21, 1999. 1 September 21, 1999 4­ 2035 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. beckjord. input. data. n/ a December 18, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for analysis of Beckjord ( Ohio Facility): Number of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters. 4­ 2036 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. bigbend. input. data n/ a February 7, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for analysis of Bigbend ( Tampa Bau Facility): Number of organisms Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 105 I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters. 4­ 2037 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. brayton. input. data n/ a February 13, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for analysis of Brayton Point facility: Number of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters, flow. 4­ 2038 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. brayton. test. input. data n/ a February 13, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for HRC analysis at Brayton Point: Random numbers of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters. 4­ 2039 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. cardinal. input. data n/ a December 18, 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for analysis of Cardinal ( Ohio Facility): Number of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters. 4­ 2040 DAT Stratus Consulting clifty_ cr. input. data n/ a February 20, Available on CD­ ROM. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 106 Inc. 2002 See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for analysis of Clifty Creek ( Ohio Facility): Number of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters. 4­ 2041 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. contracosta. input. data n/ a January 21, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for analysis of Contracosta ( California Facility): Number of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters. 4­ 2042 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. jr. whiting. input. data n/ a February 14, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for analysis of JR. Whiting( Great Lakes Facility): Number of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters. 4­ 2043 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. kammer. input. data n/ a December 18, 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 107 analysis of Kammer( Ohio Facility): Number of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters. 4­ 2044 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. kyger. input. data n/ a December 18, 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for analysis of Kyger ( Ohio Facility): Number of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters. 4­ 2045 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. miamifort. input. data n/ a December 18, 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for analysis of Miami Fort ( Ohio Facility): Number of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters. 4­ 2046 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. monroe. input. data n/ a December 18, 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for analysis of Monroe ( Great Lakes Facility): Number of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 108 parameters. 4­ 2047 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. p. sporn. input. data n/ a December 18, 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for analysis of Philipp Sporn ( Ohio Facility): Number of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters. 4­ 2048 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. pilgrim. test. input. data n/ a February 7, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for HRC analysis at Pilgrim: Random numbers of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters. 4­ 2049 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. pilgrim. input. data n/ a February 11, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for analysis of Pilgrim ( New England Facility): Number of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters. 4­ 2050 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. pittsburg. input. data n/ a January 21, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 109 analysis of Pittsburg( California Facility): Number of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters. 4­ 2051 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. Salem. input. data n/ a February 20, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for analysis of Salem ( Delaware Facility): Number of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters, entrainment mortality factors for each species at Salem and flow rates at Salem from Appendix F, PSEG ( 1999). 4­ 2052 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. Seabrook. input. data n/ a March 13, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for analysis of Seabrook( New England Facility): Number of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 110 4­ 2053 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. tanners. input. data n/ a December 18, 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for analysis of Tanners( Ohio Facility): Number of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters. 4­ 2054 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. virtual. bigbend. input. data n/ a January 24, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for analysis of Tampa Bay ( extrapoalted from ambient larval densities ( see peebles. florida. ELS. xls): Number of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters. 4­ 2055 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. wh. sammis. input. data n/ a December 18, 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Includes all input data for analysis of WH Sammis ( Ohio Facility): Number of organisms I& E, life history parameters, growth parameters. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 111 4­ 2056 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. design. master n/ a February 21, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Describes sampling event at each facility for each year. 4­ 2057 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. seabrook. macroinverts. xls n/ a January 7, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Macroinvertebrate I& E losses input data, and " design. master" for Seabrook ( New England Facility). 4­ 2058 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. JRWhiting. xls n/ a February 14, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Annualized I& E data at JR. Whiting. 4­ 2059 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. ohio. db n/ a December 18, 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Annualized I& E data for all Ohio facilities. 4­ 2060 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. tanners_ stage. xls n/ a October 22, 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Annualized I& E data at Tanners Facility ( Ohio Facility). 4­ 2061 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. All Econvalues. xls n/ a February 21, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Compilation of all dollar Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 112 values for all the fish at each facility. 4­ 2062 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. Brayton Econ Values. xls n/ a January 24, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Dollar values for fish at Brayton with references and landings data. 4­ 2063 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. Del Econ Values. xls n/ a February 20, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Dollar values for fish at Salem ( Delaware Facility) with references and landings data. 4­ 2064 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. JR. Whiting Econ Values. xls n/ a November 7, 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Dollar values for fish at JR. WHiting with references and landings data. 4­ 2065 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. Monroe Econ Values. xls n/ a February 20, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Dollar values for fish at Monroe with references. 4­ 2066 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. Ohio Econ Values. xls n/ a February 28, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Dollar values for fish at Monroe with references. 4­ 2067 DAT Stratus Consulting Pil Sea Values. xls n/ a February 25, Available on CD­ ROM. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 113 Inc. 2002 See DCN 4­ 1305. Dollar values for fish at Pilgrim and Seabrook with references. 4­ 2068 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. Tampa Econ Values. xls n/ a January 25, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Dollar values for fish at Tampa Bay with references and landings data. 4­ 2069 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. Cal. Econ. Values. xls n/ a January 11, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Dollar values for fish at California with references. 4­ 2070 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. Stratus. National. Benefits. Estimates. xls n/ a March 26, 2002 Contained in the CBI docket. National Benefits Extrapolation workbook. Used to extrapolate benefits of various technology options for all facilities based on waterbody type. 4­ 2071 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. Brayton. ambient. org. xls n/ a February 13, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Larval densities at Brayton Point, and flow at Brayton Point. 4­ 2072 PAP Studholme, A. L., D. B. Packer, P. L. Berrien, D. L. Essential fish habitat document: Atlantic Mackerel, Scomber scombrus, life history and habitat characteristics. 17 September, 1999 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 114 Johnson, C. A. Zetlin, and W. W. Morse. 4­ 2073 Stupka, R. C. and R. K. Sharma. Survey of Fish Impingement at Power Plants in the United States Volume III: Estuaries and Coastal Waters. 1 See DCN 1­ 3073­ BE. 4­ 2074 DOC Suddaby, D. and N. Ratcliffe. The effects of fluctuating food availability on breeding arctic terns Sterna paradisaea. 7 1997 4­ 2075 PAP Sullivan, J. R. The Stone Crab, Menippe mercenaria, in the Southwest Florida Fishery. 41 December, 1979 4­ 2076 Summers, J. K. Simulating the indirect effects of power plant entrainment losses on an estuarine ecosystem. 1 See DCN 3­ 3026. 4­ 2077 DOC Sutherland, R. J. and R. G. Walsh. Effect of Distance on the Preservation Value of Water Quality. 11 August, 1985 4­ 2078 PAP Sutter, F. C., R. S. Waller and T. D. McIlwain. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fisheries and invertebrates ( Gulf of Mexico)­ Black Drum. 20 April, 1986 4­ 2079 ART Swedberg, D. V. and C. H. Walburg. Spawning and early life history of the freshwater drum in Lewis and Clark Lake, Missouri River. 11 1970 4­ 2080 DOC Swee, U. B. and H. R. McCrimmon. Reproductive biology of the carp, Cyprinus carpio L., in Lake St. Lawrence, Ontario. 9 1966 4­ 2081 Systec Engineering, Inc. Compensatory Mechanisms in Fish Populations: Literature Reviews. Volume 3: A Critical Review of Mathematical Models for Fish Compensation Mechanisms. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R66. 4­ 2082 Taft, E. P. Fish protection technologies: A status report. 1 See DCN 1­ 3075­ BE. 4­ 2083 DOC Tagatz, M. E. Biology of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus 17 June, 1968 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 115 Rathbun in the St. John's River, Florida. 4­ 2084 WEB Tampa Bay Beaches Chamber of Commerce. Tampa Bay Beaches Chamber of Commerce Website. http:// www. gulfbeachestampabay com/ sports. asp. 4 2001 Accessed August 2001. 4­ 2085 DOC Tampa Bay National Estuary Program ( TBNEP) Distribution of Selected Fish Species in Tampa Bay. 59 1992 4­ 2086 DOC TBNEP ( Tampa Bay National Estuary Program). Benthic infauna of Tampa Bay, summer 1993: A technical data report. 145 1995 4­ 2087 PAP TBNEP ( Tampa Bay National Estuary Program). Estimates of total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total suspended solids to Tampa Bay, Florida. 53 1996 4­ 2088 DOC TBNEP ( Tampa Bay National Estuary Program). Setting priorities for Tampa Bay habitat protection and restoration: restoring the balance. 244 March, 1996 4­ 2089 DOC TBNEP ( Tampa Bay National Estuary Program). Synthesis of basic life histories of Tampa Bay species. 288 December, 1992 4­ 2090 DOX TBNEP ( Tampa Bay National Estuary Program). Charting The Course: The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Tampa Bay. 272 December, 1996 4­ 2091 DOC TBNEP ( Tampa Bay National Estuary Program). Physical impacts to habitats in Tampa Bay. 147 May, 1994 4­ 2092 WEB TBNEP ( Tampa Bay National Tampa Estuary Program. Charting the Course. http:// www. tbep. org/ portrait/ fastfacts. html. 2 2001 Accessed January 2002. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 116 Estuary Program). 4­ 2093 WEB TECO ( TECO Energy, Inc.). Tampa Electric Vital Statistics. www. tampaelectric. com/ TENWVitalStats. html. 3 2002 4­ 2094 Tennessee Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development. Volume 5: Effects of the Gallatin Steam Plant Cooling Water Intake on the Fish Populations of Old Hickory Reservoir. 1 See DCN 1­ 3076­ BE. 4­ 2095 Tennessee Valley Authority. 316 ( a) and 316( b) Demonstration, Cumberland Steam Plant: Volume 5, Effects of the Cumberland Steam Plant Cooling Water Intake on the Fish Populations of Barkley Reservoir. 1 See DCN 1­ 3077­ BE. 4­ 2096 Utility Water Act Group ( UWAG) Biological Effects of Once­ Through Cooling Part I, Volume 2: The Marine Environment. 1 See DCN 1­ 3084­ BE. 4­ 2097 Texas Instruments Inc. Hudson River Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point: 1979 Annual Report. 1 See DCN 1­ 3079­ BE. 4­ 2098 Texas Instruments Inc. and Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers. Biological Effects of Once­ Through Cooling Part I, Volume 5: Great Lakes Basin and Connecting Water Bodies. 1 See DCN 1­ 3078­ BE. 4­ 2099 PAP Thayer, G. W., M. S. Fonseca, and J. W. Kenworthy. Ecological value of seagrasses: A brief summary for the ASMFC habitat committee's SAV subcommittee. In Atlantic Coastal Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: A Review of its Ecological Role, Anthropogenic Impacts, State Regulation, and Value to Atlantic Coastal Fish Stocks, C. D. Stephen and T. E. Bigford ( eds.). 6 1997 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 117 4­ 2100 PAP Thomas M. V. and R. C. Haas. Status of Yellow Perch and Walleye Populations in Michigan Waters of Lake Erie, 1994­ 98. 12 August, 2000 4­ 2101 WEB Thomas, P. Species Information. http:// www. utmsi. utexas. edu/ people/ staff/ thomas/ s pecies_ information. htm. 1 2001 Accessed 1/ 30/ 02. 4­ 2102 Thurber, N. J. and D. J. Jude. Impingement Losses at the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant during 1975­ 1982 with a Discussion of Factors Responsible and Possible Impact on Local Populations. 1 See DCN 1­ 5030­ PR. 4­ 2103 PAP Tofflemire, T. J., S. O. Quinn, and I. G. Carcich. Sediment and Water Sampling and Analysis for Toxics: Relative to PCB in the Hudson River, New York. 27 1980 4­ 2104 WEB Towery Publishing. introTampaBay. http:// www. introtampabay. com/ entertainment/ bea. html. 3 2000 Accessed August 2000. 4­ 2105 PAP Townsend, D. W. and P. F. Larsen ( eds.). The Gulf of Maine: Proceedings of a Seminar Held May 22, 1989, Washington, D. C. 140 1992 4­ 2106 WEB TPA ( Tampa Port Authority). Tampa Port Authority Announces Port of Tampa Reaches its Zenith. http:// www. tampaport. com/ pdf. asp? PAGE_ NAME = News+ and+ Events. 1 2002 Accessed 1/ 31/ 02. 4­ 2107 DOC Trautman, M. B. The Fishes of Ohio, with Illustrated Keys, Revised ed. 98 1981 4­ 2108 ART Tupper, M. and R. G. Boutilier. Effects of conspecific density on settlement, growth and post­ settlement survival of a temperate reef fish. 14 1995 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 118 4­ 2109 DOX Twomey, K. A., K. L. Williamson, and P. C. Nelson. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability curves: White sucker. 15 1984 First 15 pages only 4­ 2110 DOC U. S. District Court. United States of America, Plaintiff, V. Melvin A. Fisher, Kane Fisher, Salvors, Inc., a Florida Corporation, M/ V/ Bookmaker, M/ V Dauntless, M/ V Tropical Magic, Their Engines, Apparel, Tackle, Appurtenances, Stores and Cargo, in Rem, Defendants; Motivation, Inc, Plaintiff V. Unidentified, Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, Etc., Defendant. 22 1997 4­ 2111 WEB U. S. Census Bureau. ss00002. uf1; < ftp:// ftp2. census. gov/ census_ 2000/ datasets/ Sum mary_ File_ 1> 8 2000 Accessed 12/ 21/ 2001. 4­ 2112 WEB U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division of Consumer Prices and Price Indexes Consumer Price Index ( CPI) data: CPI­ U, Not Seasonally Adjusted. http:// www. bls. gov/ cpi/ home. htm. 7 2001 4­ 2113 WEB U. S. Census Bureau. State and County QuickFacts, http:// quickfacts. census. gov. 28 2001 4­ 2114 DOC U. S. Circuit Court. State of Ohio v. U. S. Department of the Interior. 104 1989 4­ 2115 U. S. Department of Energy ( U. S. DOE). Energy Information Administration ( EIA). Form EIA­ 767. Steam­ Electric Plant Operation and Design Report. 1 See DCN 4­ 3001. Accessed for 1999. 4­ 2116 U. S. Department of Energy Information Administration ( EIA). Form 1 See DCN 4­ 3002. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 119 Energy ( U. S. DOE). EIA­ 860A ( 1999). Annual Electric Generator Report Utility. Accessed for the years 1999 and 2000. 4­ 2117 U. S. Department of Energy ( U. S. DOE). Energy Information Administration ( EIA). Form EIA­ 906. Power Plant Report. 1 See DCN 4­ 3005. Accessed for the years 1970­ 2000. 4­ 2118 U. S. Department of Energy ( U. S. DOE). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC). FERC Form No. 1: Annual Report of Major Electric Utilities, Licensees and Others. 1 See DCN 4­ 3007. Select data 1995­ 1999. 4­ 2119 WEB U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Treasury Bill Rates. http:// www. hud. gov/ offices/ pih/ divisions/ ffmd/ fm/ tbi ll. cfm. 2 2001 Accessed December 12, 2001. 4­ 2120 DOC U. S. District Court. United States of America, Plaintiff, V. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., Defendant; Board of Trustees of the International Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida and Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Plaintiff, V. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., Defendant. 20 1999 4­ 2121 U. S. Department of Energy ( U. S. DOE). Form EIA­ 860B. Annual Electric Generator Report ­ Nonutility. 1 See DCN 4­ 3003. Accessed for the year 1999. 4­ 2122 DOC U. S. DOI. 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife­ Associated Recreation. 27 November, 1997 4­ 2123 WEB U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( U. S. EPA). Terms of Environment. http:// www. epa. gov/ OCEPAterms/. 200 May 13, 1998 Accessed January, 2002. 4­ 2124 WEB U. S. EPA USEPA Reach File Version 1.0 ( RF1) for the 21 1997 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 120 Conterminous United States. Http// nsdi. epa. gov/ nsdi/ projects/ rf1_ meta. html. 4­ 2125 *** Citation Deleted*** 4­ 2126 DOC U. S. EPA ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). Survey of National Demand for Water Based Recreation. 27 1994 4­ 2127 WEB U. S. EPA ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Demand for Water­ Based Recreation Survey. n/ a 1995 Available on CD­ ROM. 1998 Database Retrieval. 4­ 2128 U. S. EPA ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 316( b) Industry Screener Questionnaire: Phase I Cooling Water Intake Structures. 1 See DCN 1­ 5035­ PR. 4­ 2129 U. S. EPA ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). Survey Data from Detailed Industry Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water Intake Structures. 1 See DCN 4­ 0016D 4­ 2130 WEB U. S. EPA ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program. Drums. http:// www. epa. gov/ owow/ oceans/ lagoon/ drum. ht ml. 2 2002 Accessed 1/ 17/ 02. 4­ 2131 U. S. EPA ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). Technical Support Document for Water Quality­ Based Toxics Control. 1 See DCN 1­ 5055­ PR. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 121 4­ 2132 DOX U. S. EPA ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Impact Statement, Tampa Electric Company Big Bend Unit 4. Technical Reference Document Volume II. Draft. 88 July, 1981 4­ 2133 WEB U. S. EPA. Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan 2000. www. epa. gov/ glnpo/ lakeerie/ lamp2000/. 70 2000 Accessed 12/ 01. 4­ 2134 WEB U. S. EPA. Coastal Wetlands of the Great Lakes. www. epa. gov/ glnpo/ solec/ 96/ coastal/ status_ of_ cw . html. 34 2001 Accessed 12/ 01. 4­ 2135 WEB U. S. EPA. River Raisin Area of Concern. http:// www. epa. gov/ grtlakes/ aoc/ rvraisin. html. 10 2001 Accessed February 5, 2002. 4­ 2136 WEB U. S. EPA. Indian River Lagoon. Fishes of the IRL. http:// www. epa. gov/ owow/ oceans/ lagoon/ herring. h tml. 1 2002 Accessed 1/ 11/ 02. 4­ 2137 U. S. EPA. Development Document for Best Technology Available for the Location, Design, Construction, and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact. 1 See DCN 1­ 1056­ TC. 4­ 2138 U. S. EPA. Determination Regarding Modification of NPDES Permit No. MA0003654 for Brayton Point Station, Somerset, MA. 1 See DCN 1­ 3083­ BE. 4­ 2139 U. S. EPA. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R23. 4­ 2140 PAP U. S. EPA/ ORD ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency/ Office of Condition of the Mid­ Atlantic Estuaries. 58 November, 1998 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 122 Research and Development). 4­ 2141 WEB U. S. FDA. Regulatory Fish Encyclopedia website. http:// vm. cfsan. fda. gov/~ frf/ rfe0cb. html. 2 2001 Accessed 10/ 18/ 01. 4­ 2142A DOC U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. Habitat conservation planning and incidental take permit processing handbook. http:// endangered. fws. gov/ hcp/ hcpbook. html 88 March 6, 2000 Selected pages. 4­ 2142B WEB U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Habitat Conservation Plans and the Incidental Take Permitting Process 7 undated 4­ 2143 DOC U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Stratus Consulting. Restoration and Compensation Determination Plan ( RCDP). Lower Fox River / Green Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment. 701 October 25, 2000 4­ 2144 WEB U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Endangered Species Act of 1973. A Summary of the ESA and Implementation Activities. 14 undated Downloaded on 10/ 10/ 2000 from http:// endangered. fws. gov / esasum. html. 4­ 2145 WEB U. S. National Marine Fishery Service. Sea Turtle Protection and Conservation. http:// www. nmfs. noaa. gov/ prot_ res/ PR3/ Turtles/ tu rtles. html 23 2001 4­ 2146 WEB University of California Museum of Paleology. Glossary of Natural History Terms. http:// www. ucmp. berkeley. edu/ glossary/ glossary. h tml 45 1994­ 2002 4­ 2147 WEB University of Saskatchewan. Lake Whitefish. ( Coregonus clupeaformis). http:// interactive. usask. ca/ skinteractive/ modules/ fis 2 2002 Accessed 2/ 6/ 02. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 123 heries/ fish/ types/ whitefish. html. 4­ 2148 WEB University of Wisconsin Sea Grant. Fish of Lake Erie. http:// www. seagrant. wisc. edu/ greatlakesfish/ Lake Erie. html. 2 2001 Accessed 10/ 29/ 01 4­ 2149 WEB US Army Corps of Engineers. Huntington District Navigational Charts. http:// cae. lrh. usace. army. mil/ River_ Charts/ default. htm. 12 2001 Accessed 12/ 5/ 01. 4­ 2150 WEB US Army Corps Engineers. Pittsburgh District Navigational Charts. http:// www. lrp. usace. army. mil/ navindex. htm. 21 2001 Accessed 12/ 5/ 01. 4­ 2151 WEB US Army Corps Engineers. UMR­ IWW System Navigation Study. Waterway Traffic Forecasts for the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Volume I: Summary. http:// www. mvr. usace. army. mil/ pdw/ nav_ study/ eco n_ reports/ watfor/ finrep. htm# back8 25 April 7, 1997 4­ 2152 DOC US Army Corps Engineers. Integrated Decision Document and Environmental Assessment. 94 October, 2000 4­ 2153 DAT USFS National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information System. n/ a 1997 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. 4­ 2154 DOC USFWS ( U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Recovery Plan for the Sacramento­ San Joaquin Delta Native Fishes. 208 1996 4­ 2155 DOC USGen New England. Variance Request Application and Partial Demonstration Under the Clean Water Act, Section 316( a) and ( b) in Support of Renewal of NPDES Permit No. MA 000 3654 for USGen New England, Inc.' s Brayton Point Station. May 24. 272 May, 2001 4­ 2156 WEB USGS ( U. S. Alaska Science Center ­ Biological Science Office. 5 2001 Accessed 1/ 30/ 02. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 124 Geological Survey). Marine Habitat. http:// www. absc. usgs. gov/ research/ seabird& forag efish/ marinehabitat/ home. html. 4­ 2157 DAT USGS ( U. S. Geological Survey). Federal Land Features of the United States ( polygon). 23 2000 4­ 2158 WEB USGS. National Water­ Quality Assessment Program Lake Erie ­ Lake St. Clair Basin. http:// wwwoh er. usgs. gov/ nawqa/ fs. 94056. html. 4 2001 Accessed February 5, 2002. 4­ 2159 DAT USGS. Total Pounds and Dollar Value of Commercial Catch in U. S. Waters of the Great Lakes by Year, State, Lake, and Species. www. glsc. usgs. gov/ data/ commercialfishingreports. htm. n/ a 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Accessed 12/ 01. 4­ 2160 USGS. National Water­ Use Data Files. http:// water. usgs. gov/ watuse/ spread95. html. 1 See DCN 1­ 2116­ EA. Accessed February 2002. 4­ 2161 PAP Van den Avyle, M. J. and D. L. Fowler. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates ( South Atlantic)­ blue crab. 20 March, 1984 4­ 2162 DOC Van Hassel, J. H., R. J. Reash, and H. W. Brown. Distribution of Upper and Middle Ohio River fishes, 1973­ 1985: I. Associations with water quality and ecological variables. 18 December, 1988 4­ 2163 PAP Van Oosten, J. The age and growth of the Lake Erie white bass, Lepibema chrysops ( Refinesque). 16 1942 4­ 2164 Van Winkle, W., L. W. Barnthouse, B. L. Kirk, and D. S. Evaluation of Impingement Losses of White Perch at the Indian Point Nuclear Station and Other Hudson River Power Plants. 1 See DCN 1­ 3085­ BE. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 125 Vaughan. 4­ 2165 PAP Vaughan, D. S, J. W. Smith, and M. H. Prager. Population Characteristics of Gulf Menhaden, Brevoortia patronus. 22 April, 2000 4­ 2166 DOC Versar Inc. Evaluation of the Section 316 Status of Delaware Facilities with Cooling Water Discharge. Final Report. 125 April, 1990 4­ 2167 DOC Vouglitois, J. J., K. W. Able, R. J. Kurtz, and K. A. Tighe. Life history and population dynamics of the bay anchovy in New Jersey. 13 March, 1987 4­ 2168 ART Wahl, D. H. and L. A. Neilsen, Feeding ecology of the Sauger ( Stizostedion canadense) in a large river. 9 1985 4­ 2169 DOC Wainger, L. A., D. King, J. Salzman, and J. Boyd. Wetland Value Indicators for Scoring Mitigation Trades. 66 2001 4­ 2170 DOC Walburg, C. H. Abundance and life history of the shad, St. Johns River, Florida. 15 1960 4­ 2171 DOC Wallace, D. C. Age, growth, year class strength, and survival rates of the white perch, Morone americana ( Gmelin) in the Delaware River in the vicinity of Artificial Island. 14 December, 1971 4­ 2172 DOC Wallus, R., B. L. Yeager, and T. P. Simon. Reproductive Biology and Early Life History of Fishes in the Ohio River Drainage, Volume I: Acipenseridae through Esocidae. 250 1990 4­ 2173 PAP Walsh, R., Bjonback, R. D., Public Benefits of Programs to Protect Endangered Wildlife in Colorado Symposium on 7 1985 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 126 Rosenthal, T. D. and Aiken, R., Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted Western Wildlife. 4­ 2174 DOC Walsh, R. G., D. M. Johnson, and J. R. McKean. Nonmarket Values from Two Decades of Research on Recreation Demand. In Advances in Applied Micro­ Economics. V. K. Smith and A. N. Link ( eds.). 27 1990 4­ 2175 DOC Walsh, R. G., J. B. Loomis, and R. A. Gillman. Valuing Option, Existence, and Bequest Demands for Wilderness. 16 February, 1984 4­ 2176 WEB Wang, J. C. S. Fishes of the Sacramento­ San Joaquin Estuary and Adjacent Waters, California: A Guide to the Early Life Histories. http:// elib. cs. berkeley. edu/ kopec/ tr9/ html/ home. ht ml. 44 1986 Accessed November 2001. 4­ 2177 DOX Wang, J. C. S. Fishes of the Sacramento­ San Joaquin Estuary and Adjacent Waters, California: A Guide to the Early Life Histories. 123 1986 4­ 2178 DOX Wang, J. C. S. and R. J. Kernehan. Fishes of the Delaware estuaries: A guide to early life histories. 71 1979 4­ 2179 DOC Wapora. Impingement and Entrainment Assessment Using the Production Foregone Analysis at J. R. Whiting Plant During 1978. 98 October, 1979 4­ 2180 DOC Wapora. Impingement, Entrainment and Net Deterrent Studies at the J. R. Whiting Plant During 1979. Final. 74 June, 1980 4­ 2181 ART Ware, D. M. and T. C. Lambert. Early life history of Atlantic mackerel ( Scomber scombrus) in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. 16 1985 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 127 4­ 2182 DOC Warke, G. M., K. R. Day, J. E. Greer, and R. D. Davidson. Cormorant ( Phalacrocorax carbo) populations and patterns of abundance at breeding and feeding sites in northern Ireland, with particular reference to Lough Neagh. 10 1994 4­ 2183 ART Warren, R. S., P. E. Fell, R. Rozsa, A. H. Brawley, A. C. Orsted, E. T. Olson, V. Swamy, and W. A. Niering. Salt marsh restoration in Connecticut: 20 years of science and management. 56 August, 2001 4­ 2184 WEB Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2001­ 2002 Fishing Regulations Pamphlet. http:// www. wa. gov/ wdfw/ fish/ regs/ fishregs. htm. 10 2002 Cited image from front cover only. Accessed 1/ 30/ 02. 4­ 2185 DOX Waterfield, G. B. River Herrings. In Living Resources of the Delaware estuary, L. E. Dove and R. M. Nyman, eds. 7 July, 1995 4­ 2186 TEL Weinberg, A. ( Stratus Consulting Inc.) Personal Communication ( telephone conversation) with Patricia Morrison, Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge, October 24, 2001. 1 October 24, 2001 4­ 2187 ART Weisberg, S. B. and W. H. Burton. Spring distribution and abundance of ichthyoplankton in the tidal Delaware river. 10 1993 4­ 2188 DOC Weisberg, S. B., H. T. Wilson, R. Allen, P. Himchak, and T. Baum. Temporal trends in abundance of fish in the tidal Delaware river. 7 1996 4­ 2189 DOX Wetzel, R. G. 1983. Limnology, 2nd ed. 858 1983 Also see 1­ 1072­ TC. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 128 4­ 2190 DOC White, M. L. and M. E. Chittenden, Jr. Age determination, reproduction, and population dynamics of the Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus. 15 1977 4­ 2191 DOC White, R. J., J. R. Karr, and W. Nehlsen. Hatchery Reform in the Northwest: Issues, Opportunities, and Recommendations. 76 April, 1997 4­ 2192 DOC Whitehead, J. C., and G. C. Blomquist. Ex ante willingness to pay with supply and demand uncertainty: implications for valuing a sea turtle protection programme. 8 1992 4­ 2193 DOC Whitehead, J. C., and G. C. Blomquist. Measuring Contingent Values for Wetlands: Effects of Information About Related Environmental Goods. 9 1991 4­ 2194 DOC Wilber, D. H. and W. F. Herrnkind. The fall emigration of stone crabs Menippe mercenaria ( Say) from an intertidal oyster habitat and temperature's effect on locomotory activity. 7 1986 4­ 2195 DOC Williams, A. B. Substrates as a factor in shrimp distribution. 8 1958 4­ 2196 PAP Williams, A. B., and D. L. Felder. Analysis of stone crabs: Menippe mercenaria ( Say), restricted, and a previously unrecognized species described ( Decapoda: Xanthidae). 27 1986 4­ 2197 PAP Williamson, K. L. and P. C. Nelson. Habitat Suitability Index Models and Instream Flow Suitability Curves: Gizzard Shad. 42 September, 1985 4­ 2198 ART Winkelmann, Rainer Econometric Analysis of Count Data. 50 2000 4­ 2199 DAT Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory RIcoastalpond. xls. n/ a 2001 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Raw capture data and associated abundance Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 129 estimates for species captured in sampling of SAV ( sub­ aquatic vegetation) in a group of coastal salt ponds in Rhode Island during July 1999. 4­ 2200 DOC Woodward, R. T., and Y. S. Wui. The Economic Value of Wetland Services: A Meta­ Analysis. 14 2001 4­ 2201 DOX Wootton, R. J. Ecology of Teleost Fishes. 92 1990 Chapter 6 only. Also see DCN 2­ 019A­ R24. 4­ 2202 ART Wyda, J. C., L. A. Deegan, J. E. Hughes, and M. J. Weaver. In press. The response of fishes to submerged aquatic vegetation complexity in two ecoregions of the Mid­ Atlantic Bight: Buzzards Bay and Chesapeake Bay. 57 In press. 4­ 2203 DOX Yoshiyama, R. M., E. R. Gerstung, F. W. Fisher, and P. B. Moyle. Historical and Present Distribution of Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley Drainage of California. In Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress, Volume 3: Assessments, Commissioned Reports, and Background Information. 50 1996 Accessed 08/ 29/ 01 4­ 2204 Zarbock, H., J. Schulten, E. Long, and D. MacDonald. Sediment contamination in Tampa Bay ­ sources, risks, and management. In: Proceedings of the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 3: Applying Our Knowledge, October 21­ 23, 1996 ( S. F. Treat, ed.), Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. 1 See DCN 4­ 1341. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 130 4­ 2205 DOC Zastrow, C. E., E. D. Houde, and L. G. Morin. Spawning, fecundity, hatch­ date frequency and young­ of­ year growth of bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli, in mid­ Chesapeake Bay. 11 July, 1991 4­ 2206 *** Citation Deleted*** 4­ 2207 TEL Abt Associates, Inc. Personal Communication with Jerry Schulte, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission ( ORSANCO). April 2, 2002. 1 2002 4­ 2208 *** Citation Deleted*** 4­ 2209 TEL Strange, E. M., Stratus Consulting Inc. Personal Communication with Matt Camisa, Fisheries Supervisor, Massachusetts DMF, January 31, 2002. 4 January 31, 2002 4­ 2210 TEL Mills, D., Stratus Consulting Inc. Personal Communication with Mike Hickey, MA Division of Marine Fisheries, January 16, 2002. 1 January 16, 2002 4­ 2211 TEL Gret, A., Stratus Consulting Inc. Personal Communication with R. Sher, Seabrook Station, 2001. 1 2001 4­ 2212 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. buff120_ update. xls n/ a February, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Results of GIS analysis to determine for each facility which counties contained 50% of their geographic area within 120 miles of the facility. 4­ 2213 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. final120 ­ from SAS. xls n/ a February, 2002 Contained in the CBI docket. Results from the estimation of angling days in each county within a Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 131 120­ mile radius of an inscope facility. 4­ 2214 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. EJ results. xls n/ a February, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. 4­ 2215 DAT U. S. Census Bureau 2khxx. zip. Demographic data. ftp:// ftp2. census. gov/ census_ 2000/ datasets/ demo graphic_ profile/ 0_ All_ State/. n/ a February, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Downloaded in February, 2002. 4­ 2216 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. buff50_ update. csv n/ a February, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Results of GIS analysis to determine for each facility which counties contained 50% of their geographic area within 50 miles of the facility. 4­ 2217 DAT U. S. Census Bureau Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. State and County Estimates. http:// www. census. gov/ hhes/ www/ saipe/ estimateto c. html. n/ a February, 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Downloaded February, 2002. 4­ 2218 WEB Alaska Department of Fish and Game. White­ winged Scoters! What are they? http:// www. state. ak. us/ adfg/ wildlife/ duck/ scoter/ ww scoter. htm. 2 1999 Accessed 4/ 1/ 02. 4­ 2219 WEB Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Weakfish. http:// www. asmfc. org/ Programs/ Fish% 20Mgnt/ WE AKFISH1. html. 3 2000 Accessed July 13, 2000. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 132 4­ 2220 WEB Badman's Tropical Fish. Glossary of Terms. < http:// badmanstropicalfish. com/ glossary. html> 7 2002 Accessed 3/ 29/ 02. 4­ 2221 WEB CALFED. Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan. Response to Comments, Volume II. 92 2000 4­ 2222 WEB CALFED. Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan. Volume I ­ Ecological Attributes of the San Francisco Bay­ Delta Watershed. http:// calfed. water. ca. gov/ environmental_ docs/ july 2000_ eis. html. 52 2000 4­ 2223 WEB California Department of Fish and Game. Marine Sportfish Identification Pictures. http:// www. dfg. ca. gov/ mrd/ msfindx1. html. 4 2002 Accessed 1/ 21/ 02. 4­ 2224 WEB Childrens Mercy Hospital. Strata: What is a stratified random sample and why would I want to use one? http:// www. cmh. edu/ stats/ ask/ strata. htm 1 2000 Accessed 4/ 2/ 02. 4­ 2225 DOC Coutant, C. C. Comments on Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, LLP. 1999 Draft: Brayton Point Power Plant Entrainment Survival Study 1997­ 1998. 14 2001 4­ 2226 WEB Chapin, F. S, III. Textbook: Principles of Ecosystem Ecology ( draft): Glossary. http:// www. faculty. uaf. edu/ fffsc/ Ecotext. html. 23 2002 Accessed 4/ 1/ 02. 4­ 2227 WEB Chudler, E. H. Adventures in Neuroanatomy: Divisions of the Nervous System. < http:// faculty. washington. edu/ chudler/ nsdivide. ht ml> 8 2002 Accessed 4/ 1/ 02. 4­ 2228 DOX Cole, G. A. Textbook of Limnology. Third Edition. 9 1983 4­ 2229 DOX Davis, G., M. D. Management of the California State Water Project. 51 1999 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 133 Nichols, and T. M. Hannigan. 4­ 2230 WEB Eckhardt, G. A. The Edwards Aquifer Homepage: Glossary of Water Resource Terms. < http:// www. edwardsaquifer. net/ glossary. html.> 29 2002 Accessed 3/ 29/ 02. 4­ 2231 WEB Ehlinger, T. General Glossary Homepage. < http:// www. uwm. edu/ People/ ehlinger/ glossary. ht m.> 11 2002 Accessed 3/ 29/ 02. 4­ 2232 WEB Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. < http:// www. eb. com/.> 37 2002 Accessed 4/ 1/ 02. 4­ 2233 WEB Environment Canada. Double­ crested cormorant. Environment Canada website. http:// www. qc. ec. gc. ca/ faune/ oiseaux_ de_ mer/ htm l/ double­ crested_ cormorant. html. 1 2001 Accessed 4/ 1/ 02. 4­ 2234 WEB European Environment Agency. EUNIS Habitat classification. < http:// mrw. wallonie. be/ dgrne/ sibw/ EUNIS/ home. h tml.> 6 2002 Accessed 3/ 29/ 02. 4­ 2235 WEB Fish Endocronology Research Group. Endocrine Control of Teleost Osmoregulation. http:// www. st_ and. ac. uk/~ seeb/ ferg/ teleost. htm. < http:// www. st­ and. ac. uk/~ seeb/ ferg/ teleost. htm.> 2 2002 Accessed 4/ 1/ 02. 4­ 2236 WEB Greenhalgh, M. The Wild Trout: Glossary. http:// www. wild_ trout. co. uk/ glossary. htm. 3 2002 Accessed 3/ 29/ 02. 4­ 2237 WEB King, D. M. and Mazzotta, M. Ecosystem Valuation. Methods, Section 6: Contingent Valuation Method. http:// www. cbl. umces. edu/~ dkingweb/ contingent_ v aluation. htm. 17 2002 Accessed 4/ 2/ 02. 4­ 2238 WEB Lackey, R. T. Fisheries: History, Science, and Management. 16 2001 Accessed 4/ 1/ 02. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 134 < http:// www. epa. gov/ wed/ pages/ staff/ lackey/ pubs/ history. htm.> 4­ 2239 WEB Lexico LLC. Dictionary. com. http:// www. dictionary. com/ 4 2002 Accessed 4/ 2/ 02. 4­ 2240 WEB Lycos, Inc. Infoplease. com. < http:// infoplease. lycos. com/.> 143 2002 Accessed 4/ 1/ 02. 4­ 2241 DOX Madigan, M. T., J. M. Martinko, and J. Parker. Brock Biology of Microorganisms. 17 1997 4­ 2242 WEB Madzura, T. Glossary of Water­ Related Terms. http:// outreach. missouri. edu/ mowin/ Resources/ glo ssary/ glossary. html. 10 2001 Accessed 3/ 29/ 02. 4­ 2243 WEB Maryland Department of Natural Resources. About Oyster Diseases. http:// www. bayjournal. com/ 95_ 04/ oyster1. htm 1 1995 Accessed 4/ 1/ 02. 4­ 2244 WEB Merriam­ Webster Online. Collegiate Dictionary. http:// www. m_ w. com/ dictionary. htm 22 2002 Accessed 4/ 1/ 02. 4­ 2245 WEB Mouratov, D. MarineReference. com: Marine Glossary. < http:// www. marinereference. com/ glossary/.> 97 2001 Accessed 4/ 1/ 02. 4­ 2246 WEB Nature Conservation Council of NSW. Environmental Glossary: Glossary Item: Critical Habitat. < http:// www. nccnsw. org. au/ glossary/ Criticalhabitat . html.> 1 2002 Accessed 3/ 29/ 02. 4­ 2247 DOX Nicholson, W. Intermediate Microeconomics and its application. 7 1994 4­ 2248 WEB NRDC. Glossary of environmental terms. < http:// www. nrdc. org/ reference/ glossary/ b. asp.> 2 2002 Accessed 3/ 29/ 02. 4­ 2249 DOC Public Service Electric and Gas Company. Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622. Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Generating Station. Appendix J, 57 March 4, 1999 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 135 Section 316( b) Demonstration ( Volume 2). 4­ 2250 WEB San Diego Natural History Museum. Shark Glossary. < http:// www. sdnhm. org/ kids/ sharks/ glossary. html> 3 1998 Accessed 4/ 1/ 02. 4­ 2251 WEB Shaw, M. Biology 71.125 Glossary. http:// www. umanitoba. ca/ faculties/ science/ biologic al_ sciences/ labgloss. html. 66 1998 Accessed 4/ 1/ 02. 4­ 2252 WEB State of Maine Department of Marine Resources. Saltwater Anglers Guide, Know Your Catch. Family Pleuronectidae, righteye flounders. http:// www. state. me. us/ dmr/ recreational/ fishes/ win terflounder. htm. 1 2001 Accessed February 6, 2001. 4­ 2253 WEB U. S. EPA. Total Maximum Daily Load ( TMDL) Program: Glossary. < http:// www. epa. gov/ owow/ tmdl/ pathogen/ glossar y. htm.> 16 2002 Accessed 4/ 1/ 02. 4­ 2254 WEB UCMP. UCMP Glossary. < http:// www. ucmp. berkeley. edu.> 10 2002 Accessed 4/ 1/ 02. 4­ 2255 WEB University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute. Fish of the Great Lakes: Fish Glossary. < http:// seagrant. wisc. edu/ greatlakesfish/ glossary. h tml.> 5 2001 Accessed 3/ 29/ 02. 4­ 2256 WEB Washington Tourist. com. Salmon Glossary. < http:// www. washingtontourist. com/ salmon/ journe y/ glossary. html.> 4 2000 Accessed 3/ 29/ 02 4­ 2257 WEB Water Quality Association. Water Quality Glossary. < http:// www. wqa. org/ glossary. cfm? gl= 287.> 2 1999 Accessed 3/ 29/ 02. 4­ 2258 DOX White, M. National Geographic Guide to Birdwatching Sites. Eastern U. S. 5 1999 Selected pages 4­ 2259 WEB California Wildlife Gallery­ Anadromus Species Resources. 6 2002 Accessed 1/ 21/ 02. Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 136 Department of Fish and Game. http:// www. delta. dfg. ca. gov/ gallery/ anad. html. 4­ 2260 WEB Mason, D. Natural Recruitment of Salmonids in the Muskegon River, Michigan. http:// www. glerl. noaa. gov/ res/ Task_ rpts/ edymason 09­ 4. html. 2 2002 Accessed 1/ 21/ 02. 4­ 2261 DAT NatureServe. Natural Heritage Central Databases. n/ a 2002 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. 4­ 2262 DOC Rottmann, R. W., R. Francies­ Floyd, and R. Durborow. The Role of Stress in Fish Disease. 4 1992 4­ 2263 DOC Marcy, B. C., A. D. Beck, and R. E. Ulanowicz. Effects and Impacts of Physical Stress on Entrained Organisms. In Power Plant Entrainment: A Biological Assessment. 28 1978 4­ 2264 DOC Masnik, M. T. and J. H. Wilson. Assessment of the Impacts of the Salem and Hope Creek Stations on Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur. 103 1980 4­ 2265 WEB U. S. Department of Energy ( U. S. DOE). Energy Information Administration ( EIA). Roster of Nuclear Generating Units Operable as of December 31, 1995. http:// www. eia. doe. gov/ cneaf/ nuclear/ pub_ summar ies/ npg96/ apen_ c. html. 16 2002 Accessed April 4, 2002. 4­ 2266 DOC Dames & Moore. Miami Fort and Walter C. Beckjord Generating Stations 316( b) Study: Second Quarterly Data Presentation, July 7, 1977 to September 28, 1977. 7 November 21, 1977 4­ 2267 DAT PSEG ( Public Service Electric Salem Generating Station Historical Annual Water Withdrawal. 2 December 4, 2001 Graph and data table. Received via e­ mail from Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 137 and Gas Company). J. H. Balletto, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, 12/ 4/ 2001. 4­ 2268 DOC Shirey, C. A., C. C. Martin, and E. J. Stetzar. Abundance of sub­ adult Atlantic sturgeon and areas of concentration within the lower Delaware River. Final Report. 44 1997 4­ 2269 U. S. Department of Energy ( U. S. DOE). Form EIA­ 861. Annual Electric Generator Report ­ Utilities. Accessed for the year 1999. 1 See DCN 4­ 3004 4­ 2270 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. ei_ dta. mdb. Impingement and Entrainment Microsoft Access Database. n/ a 2000 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Summary and outline of methods (" ie_ dvlpmt. wpd" and " int. meth. doc"). 4­ 2271 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. ei_ sum_ water. xls n/ a 2000 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Database containing aggregated, summarized impingement and entrainment data from workbooks " entsum. xls" and " impsum. xls". Source of tables for Chapter 11 of the EEBA. 4­ 2272 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. impsum. xls n/ a 2000 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Database containing aggregated impingement Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 138 data from Impingement and Entrainment Microsoft Access Database: " ei_ dta. mdb". 4­ 2273 DAT Stratus Consulting Inc. entsum. xls n/ a 2000 Available on CD­ ROM. See DCN 4­ 1305. Database containing aggregated entrainment data from Impingement and Entrainment Microsoft Access Database: " ei_ dta. mdb". 4­ 2274 DOC Freeman, A. M. The Benefits of Air and Water Pollution Control: A Review and Synthesis of Recent Estimates 66 1979 Added to docket 5/ 22/ 02. 4­ 2275 to 4­ 2499: No Entry 4­ 2500 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, New York Power Authority, and Southern Energy New York Draft Environmental Impact Statement for SPDES for Bowline Point, Indian Point 2 & 3, and Roseton Steam Electric Generating Stations 1 See DCN 2­ 013E 4­ 2501 DOC Various Utility Responses to NYDEC/ Tellus Institute Comments and Questions on Preliminary DEIS for SPDES Permits for Indian Point 2 and 3, Bowline, 34 Various Selected pages Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 139 and Roseton Power Plants 4­ 2502 MEM Connor, T. and A. Allen, USEPA Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Conference Call Notes 6 4/ 9/ 2002 4­ 2503 DOC Anonymous Vendor Turnkey Cooling Tower Costs at Existing Facility Sites 5 4/ 9/ 2002 Proprietary data. Contained in the CBI docket. Selected pages. 4­ 2504 DOC Connor, T., USEPA Examples of Existing Plants with Wet Towers in Northern Climates and in Close Proximity to Transportation Routes 10 4/ 9/ 2002 Proprietary data. Contained in the CBI docket. 4­ 2505 DOC State of New York Hearing Report and Recommended Decision ­­ Mirrant Bowline, LLC Application for a SPDES Permit 47 11/ 30/ 2001 4­ 2506 DOC Connor, T., USEPA Correspondence with John Veil, Argonne National Laboratories 20 4/ 9/ 2002 4­ 2507 DOC Connor, T., USEPA Capacity Utilization Calculation Spreadsheet 27 4/ 9/ 2002 4­ 2508 LET South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. Response to Information Request by T. Connor of USEPA 3 2002 4­ 2509 DOC US Department of Energy ( DOE) Cooling System Costs, Coal­ Fired Power Plants, In: Market­ Based Advanced Coal Power Systems 2 10/ 2001 4­ 2510 ART Burns, J. M and J. L. Tsou Modular Steam Condenser Replacements Using Corrosion Resistant High Performance Stainless Steel Tubing 11 2001 4­ 2511 MEM Connor, T., USEPA Comments on Proposed Energy Penalty Analysis of the US Department of Energy 2 4/ 2/ 2001 4­ 2512 DOC US Department of Energy ( DOE) Energy Penalty Analysis of Possible Cooling Water Intake Structure Requirements on Existing 32 8/ 2001 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 140 Coal­ Fired Power Plants ( Working Draft) 4­ 2513 DOC Connor, T., USEPA Comparison of Catawba and McGuire Nuclear Plants ­­ Capacity Ratings 1 4/ 9/ 2002 4­ 2514 WEB Marley Cooling Tower Company Marley ClearFlow Plume Reduction System ­ Brochure 2 2002 4­ 2515 DOC Connor, T., USEPA Notes on Telephone Conversation with Ed Parsons of US DOE, National Energy Technology Laboratory 1 2/ 2002 4­ 2516 DOC US Department of Energy ( DOE), Office of Fossil Fuel Market­ Based Advanced Coal Power Systems, Final Report 3 1999 Selected pages from Appendix D 4­ 2517 DOC Construction Industry Institute CII Benchmarking and Metrics Analysis Results 4 2001 4­ 2518 WEB Barnhart Crane & Rigging Co., International Barnhart " nukes" another outage schedule, excerpt from Newsletter 1 6/ 1/ 1998 Selected pages 4­ 2519 DOC Platts Nucleonics Week 3 1/ 18/ 2001 Selected pages 4­ 2520 ART Beck, A. and M. Schaal Water Requirements of an Inland Nuclear Power Station: Engineering and Economic Aspects 6 1982 4­ 2521 DOC US Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( NRC) Nuclear Power Plant Data, In: Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants ( NUREG­ 1437 Vol. 1 and 2) 5 1996 Also see DCN 3­ 3074 4­ 2522 DOC Connor, T., USEPA Turn­ key Cost Estimates for Projects at Existing Facility, from Cooling Tower Vendors 1 4/ 9/ 2002 4­ 2523 DOC Pearrow, J. J Water Treatment: Hydrogen Peroxide Keeps 5 2001 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 141 Cooling Tower Fill Clean 4­ 2524 MEM Stein, M. Notes on Telephone Conversation with Gary Kolle of Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Station 1 1/ 24/ 2002 4­ 2525 MEM Zaya, S, USEPA Phone Memorandum ­ Fogging and Icing Problems caused by Cooling Towers 1 1/ 4/ 2002 4­ 2526 DOC Connor, T., USEPA Capital Costs of Two " Retrofit" Cooling System Conversions 1 4/ 9/ 2002 4­ 2527 DOC Perry, W. J Adverse Impact Study: Cooling Water Facilities, Jefferies Generating Station 107 5/ 2/ 1991 4­ 2528 LET Santee Cooper Response to Information Request by T. Connor of USEPA 3 2002 4­ 2529 LET Gulvas, J. A., Consumers Energy Palisades Plant Once­ Through and Cooling Towers 11 2/ 28/ 2002 4­ 2530 LET Knighton, G. W, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Final Addendum to the Final Environmental Statement for Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant 76 1978 4­ 2531 LET Gulvas, J. A., Consumers Energy Palisades Plant Cooling Water Intake Assessment 26 5/ 18/ 2001 4­ 2532 ART Benda, R. S. and J. Gulvas Effects of the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant on Lake Michigan 9 1975 4­ 2533 DOC New England Power Company Feasibility Study of Cooling Water System Alternatives for Brayton Point Generating Station 13 1/ 1997 4­ 2534 DOC Consolidated Edison Company Environmental Analysis of Natural Draft Cooling Towers for Roseton Generating Station 154 7/ 1977 4­ 2535 DOC Cental Hudson, Consolidated Edison, Orange Report on Cost­ Benefit Analysis of Operation of Hudson River Steam­ Electric Units with Once­ Through and Closed­ Cycle Cooling Systems 76 7/ 1977 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 142 and Rockland, Power Authority of the State of New York 4­ 2536 DOC Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation Roseton Generating Station: Engineering, Environmental ( Nonbiological), and Economic Aspects of a Close­ Cycle Cooling System 113 7/ 1977 Selected pages ( Chapter 2) 4­ 2537 DAT Connor, T., USEPA Unit Cost Estimates Comparison ­ Bowline Point Cooling Tower Retrofit n/ a 4/ 9/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 2538 DOC RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data 35 1998 Proprietary data. Contained in the CBI docket. Selected pages. 4­ 2539 DOC RS Means Building Construction Cost Data 117 2000 Proprietary data. Contained in the CBI docket. Selected pages. 4­ 2540 WEB Sullivan County Government, New York Landfill Tipping Fees 2 12/ 29/ 1999 4­ 2541 DOC D. B. Grogan Associates Hudson River Power Plants Cooling Water System Design Assessment 17 10/ 20/ 2000 4­ 2542 DOC Connor, T., USEPA Cooling System Conversion Unit Cost Estimates for Civil Works 1 4/ 9/ 2002 4­ 2543 DOC Connor, T., USEPA Vendor and Unit Cost Estimates of Pipe, Fittings and Pumps 2 4/ 9/ 2002 4­ 2544 DOC Connor, T., USEPA Make­ up/ Blowdown Piping Trenching Calculations­ ­ Bowline Point Cost Estimates 3 2/ 2/ 2002 4­ 2545 DOC Abt Associates & Historical Electricity Generation Data for Canadys, 5 2002 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 143 USEPA Jefferies, and Palisades Plants 4­ 2546 DOC PG& E National Energy Group Brayton Point Station ­ Permit Renewal Application ­ NPDES Permit No. MA0003654 7 11/ 2001 4­ 2547 DOC Entergy Nuclear Generation Company 316 Demonstration Report ­ Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station ­ Redacted Version 6 4/ 5/ 2000 4­ 2548 WEB BDT Engineering ( Balcke­ Durr) Hybrid Cooling Towers ­ Brochure 12 2000 4­ 2549 DOC Sunda, J., M. Moe, SAIC and T. Connor, USEPA Pumping Energy Requirements of Palisades Nuclear Plant Cooling Systems 6 4/ 9/ 2002 4­ 2550 DAT SAIC Model Plant Cost Estimates for Regulatory Options n/ a 2/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 2551 DAT USEPA Supporting Files for Model Plant Cost Estimates for Regulatory Options n/ a 2/ 2002 Contained in the CBI docket. 4­ 2552 DOC USEPA Supporting Calculations for Air Emissions from Energy Penalties of Cooling Towers 22 4/ 9/ 2002 4­ 2553 DOC USEPA Historical Cooling Tower Demonstrations with High Salt Content Water 3 4/ 9/ 2002 4­ 2554 DOC Allen, A., USEPA Phone Memorandum ­ Conversation with Ron Kino of Mirant 1 1/ 2/ 2002 4­ 2555 DOC Mirant Corporation form 8­ K, Item 9, Regulation FD Disclosure 21 4/ 9/ 2002 4­ 2556 DOC USEPA Draft: New Source Review Workshop Manual 82 10/ 1998 4­ 2557 to 4­ 2999: No Entry 4­ 3000 DAT U. S. DOE Energy Information Association. Form EIA­ 412. Annual Report of Public Electric Utilities. n/ a 1998 Available on CD­ ROM Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 144 Accessed for 1998. 4­ 3001 DAT U. S. DOE Energy Information Administration ( EIA). Form EIA­ 767. Steam­ Electric Plant Operation and Design Report. Accessed for 1999. n/ a 1999 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3002 DAT U. S. DOE Energy Information Administration ( EIA). Form EIA­ 860A. Annual Electric Generator Report Utility. Accessed for the years 1997 through 2000. n/ a 1997 ­ 2000 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3003 DAT U. S. DOE Energy Information Administration ( EIA). Form EIA­ 860B. Annual Electric Generator Report ­ Nonutility. Accessed for years 1998 and 1999. n/ a 1998, 1999 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3004 DAT U. S. DOE Energy Information Administration ( EIA). Form EIA­ 861. Annual Electric Utility Report. Accessed for years 1996 through 2000. n/ a 1996 ­ 2000 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3005 DAT U. S. DOE Energy Information Administration ( EIA). Form EIA­ 906. Power Plant Report. ( Effective January 2001, the Form EIA­ 906, Power Plant Report, superseded Form EIA­ 759, Monthly Power Plant Report, and Form EIA­ 900, Monthly Nonutility Power Plant Report. Accessed for the years 1970­ 2000. n/ a 1970 ­ 2000 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3006A DAT USDA Rural Utilities Service ( RUS). Form RUS­ 12. Operating Report. Accessed for 1998. n/ a 1998 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3006B DOC USDA Rural Utilities Service ( RUS). Form RUS­ 12. Operating Report. Accessed for 1998. 16 1998 4­ 3007 DOC FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC). FERC Form No. 1: Annual Report of Major Electric Utilities, Licensees and Others. Select data 1995­ 140 1995­ 1999 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 145 1999. 4­ 3008N DAT U. S. DOE AEO Data­ N. xls n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3008F DAT U. S. DOE AEO DataFN. xls n/ a 3/ 1/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3009N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Jan11Phase2_ Option1_ CostSummary­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3009F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Jan11Phase2_ Option1_ CostSummary­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3010N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Jan14Phase2_ Option2_ CostSummary­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3010F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Jan14Phase2_ Option2_ CostSummary­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3011N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Jan14Phase2_ Option3_ CostSummary­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3011F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Jan14Phase2_ Option3_ CostSummary­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3012N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Feb20Phase2_ Option3A_ CostSummary­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3012F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Feb20Phase2_ Option3A_ CostSummary­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3013N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Feb12Phase2_ Option4_ CostSummary­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3013F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Feb12Phase2_ Option4_ CostSummary­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3014N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Feb14Phase2_ Option5_ CostSummary­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3014F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Feb14Phase2_ Option5_ CostSummary­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3015N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Energy_ pen_ drycool­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3015F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Energy_ pen_ drycool­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3016N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Energy_ pen_ wetcool­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3016F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Energy_ pen_ wetcool­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3017N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Compliance Costs­ Option 1­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3017F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Compliance Costs­ Option 1­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3018N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Compliance Costs­ Option 2­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3018F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Compliance Costs­ Option 2­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3019N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Compliance Costs­ Option 3­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3019F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Compliance Costs­ Option 3­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 146 4­ 3020N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Compliance Costs­ Option 3a­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3020F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Compliance Costs­ Option 3a­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3021N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Compliance Costs­ Option 4­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3021F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Compliance Costs­ Option 4­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3022N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Compliance Costs­ Option 5­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3022F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Compliance Costs­ Option 5­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3023N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Compliance Summary­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3023F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Compliance Summary­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3024N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Capacity Utilization­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3024F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Capacity Utilization­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3025N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Baseline Econ­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3025F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Baseline Econ­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3026N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Type & Capacity­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3026F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Type & Capacity­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3027N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Tax Rates­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3027F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Tax Rates­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3028N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II 861 Data­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3028F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II 861 Data­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3029N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Compliance Years­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3029F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Compliance Years­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3030N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Compliance Years ­ all CT­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3030F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Compliance Years ­ all CT­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3031N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Plant Generation­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3031F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Plant Generation­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3032N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Revenues­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 147 4­ 3032F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Revenues­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3033N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Firm Level Analysis­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3033F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Firm Level Analysis­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3034N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II SBA­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3034F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II SBA­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3035N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II SBA­ Public Data­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3035F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II SBA­ Public Data­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3036N DAT Abt Associates Inc. SBREFA ­ EIA­ 861 Revenues­ N. xls n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3036F DAT Abt Associates Inc. SBREFA ­ EIA­ 861 Revenues­ F. xls n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3037N DAT Abt Associates Inc. P2_ Pop­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3037F DAT Abt Associates Inc. P2_ Pop­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3038N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Final Parent Information­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3038F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Final Parent Information­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3039N DAT Abt Associates Inc. _ Utility Parent Information­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3039F DAT Abt Associates Inc. _ Utility Parent Information­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3040N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II UMRA­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3040F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II UMRA­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3041N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Implementation Costs­ Options 1 & 2­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3041F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Implementation Costs­ Options 1 & 2­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3042N DAT Abt Associates Inc. 316b_ ICR_ Opt. 3­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3042F DAT Abt Associates Inc. 316b_ ICR_ Opt. 3­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3043N DAT Abt Associates Inc. 316b_ ICR_ Opt. 1­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3043F DAT Abt Associates Inc. 316b_ ICR_ Opt. 1­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 148 4­ 3044 to 4­ 3049: No Entry 4­ 3050N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Closures­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3050F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Closures­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3051N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Facility Analysis ­ Unparsed­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3051F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Facility Analysis ­ Unparsed­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3052N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Market Analysis ­ NERC Level­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3052F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Market Analysis ­ NERC Level­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3053N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Transmission analysis ­ 1d 3d­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3053F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Transmission analysis ­ 1d 3d­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3054N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Facilities 1d­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3054F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Facilities 1d­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3055N DAT Abt Associates Inc. GeneratorMW_ NoFlowData_ ToABT_ 1­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3055F DAT Abt Associates Inc. GeneratorMW_ NoFlowData_ ToABT_ 1­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3056N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Generators option 1­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3056F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Generators option 1­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3057N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Facilities 1­ draft­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3057F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Facilities 1­ draft­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3058N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Generators option 4­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3058F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Generators option 4­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3059N DAT Abt Associates Inc. IPM_ BoilerLevelData­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3059F DAT Abt Associates Inc. IPM_ BoilerLevelData­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3060 DOC U. S. EPA Documentation of EPA Modeling Applications ( V. 2.1) Using the Integrated Planning Model. 242 2002 4­ 3061 to 4­ 3069: No Entry 4­ 3070N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Utility Data­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 149 4­ 3070F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Utility Data­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3071N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Nonutility Data­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3071F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Nonutility Data­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3072N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Tables­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3072F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Tables­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3073N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Prime Mover­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3073F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Prime Mover­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3074N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Utility Ownership­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3074F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Utility Ownership­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3075N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Generation by Fuel Source­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3075F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Generation by Fuel Source­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3076N DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Tech Data­ N. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3076F DAT Abt Associates Inc. Phase II Tech Data­ F. pdf n/ a 2/ 28/ 2002 Available on CD­ ROM 4­ 3077 DOC U. S. DOE Energy Information Administration ( EIA). Status of State Electric Industry Restructuring Activity as of March 2002. 2 2002 4­ 3078 DOC U. S. DOE Energy Information Administration ( EIA) Electric Power Annual 1999 Volume I. 12 2000 4­ 3079 DOC U. S. DOE Energy Information Administration ( EIA) Electric Power Annual 1999 Volume II. 9 2000 4­ 3080 DOC U. S. DOE Energy Information Administration ( EIA) Electric Power Annual 1997 Volume I. 8 1998 4­ 3081 DOC U. S. DOE Energy Information Administration ( EIA) Electric Power Annual 1997 Volume II. 8 1998 4­ 3082 DOC U. S. DOE Energy Information Administration ( EIA) Electric Power Annual 1994 Volume I. 7 1995 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 150 4­ 3083 DOC U. S. DOE Energy Information Administration ( EIA) Electric Power Annual 1994 Volume II. 9 1995 4­ 3084 DOC U. S. DOE Energy Information Administration ( EIA). Annual Energy Outlook 2002 With Projections to 2020 264 2001 4­ 3085 DOC U. S. DOE Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2002 with Projections to 2020. 126 2001 4­ 3086 Beamon, J. Alan. Competitive Electricity Prices: An Update 1 See DCN 1­ 2110­ EA 4­ 3087 Joskow, Paul L. Restructuring, Competition and Regulatory Reform in the U. S. Electricity Sector, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1 See DCN 1­ 2118­ EA 4­ 3088 U. S. DOE Energy Information Administration ( EIA) Electric Power Annual 1995 Volume I. 1 See DCN 1­ 2112­ EA 4­ 3089 U. S. DOE Energy Information Administration ( EIA). Electric Power Annual 1995 Volume II. 1 See DCN 1­ 2113­ EA 4­ 3090 U. S. DOE Energy Information Administration ( EIA). Electric Power Industry Overview. 1 See DCN 1­ 2115­ EA 4­ 3091 U. S. DOE Energy Information Administration ( EIA). Impacts of Electric Power Industry Restructuring on the Coal Industry. 1 See DCN 1­ 2111­ EA 4­ 3092 USGS Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995 1 See DCN 1­ 2116­ EA 4­ 3093 to 4­ 3099: No Entry 4­ 3100 Consolidated Edison Company of New York Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits for Bowline Point, Indian Point 2& 3, and Roseton Steam Electric Generating Stations. 1 See DCN 2­ 013E 4­ 3101 Science Review of Southern California Edison, San Onofre 1 See DCN 3­ 0021 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 151 Applications International Corporation ( SAIC) Nuclear Generating Station ( SONGS) 316( b) Demonstration. 4­ 3102 Science Applications International Corporation ( SAIC) Background Paper Number 3: Cooling Water Intake Technologies. 1 See DCN 1­ 5070­ PR 4­ 3103 Science Applications International Corporation ( SAIC) Background Paper Number 2: Cooling Water Use of Selected U. S. Industries. 1 See DCN 1­ 2134­ EA 4­ 3104 Thurber, Nancy J. and David J. Jude Impingement Losses at the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant during 1975­ 1982 with a Discussion of Factors Responsible and Possible Impact on Local Populations, Special Report No. 115 of the Great Lakes Research Division. 1 See DCN 1­ 5030­ PR 4­ 3105 U. S. EPA Development Document for Best Techonology Available for the Location, Design, Construction, and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact. 1 See DCN 1­ 1056­ TC 4­ 3106 U. S. EPA Economic Analysis of the Final Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities ( EPA­ 821­ R­ 01­ 035) 1 See DCN 3­ 0001 4­ 3107 U. S. EPA ­ Region IV. Brunswick Nuclear Steam Electric Generating Plant of Carolina Power and Light Company Located near Southport, North Carolina, Historical Summary and Review of Section 316( b) Issues. 1 See DCN 1­ 5065­ PR Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 152 4­ 3108 U. S. EPA ­ Region IV. Findings and Determination under 33 U. S. C. Section 1326, In the Matter of Florida Power Corporation Crystal River Plant Units 1, 2, and 3. NPDES Permint No. FL0000159. 1 See DCN 1­ 3019­ BE 4­ 3109 to 4­ 3115: No Entry 4­ 3116 DOC Corporate Service Center, Inc. Federal Tax Rates 3 2002 Accessed March 31, 2002. 4­ 3117 DOC Federal Tax Administration Range of State Corporate Income Tax Rates ( For tax year 2002) 2 2002 Accessed February 23, 2002. 4­ 3118 to 4­ 3120: No Entry 4­ 3121 DOC Various Research on parent firms and size determination. 798 1999­ 2002 Accessed between 1999 and 2002. 4­ 3122 DOC U. S. DOE Energy Information Administration ( EIA). Electric Power Monthly. Accessed for years 2000­ 2002. 38 2000­ 2002 4­ 3123 U. S. EPA Revised Interim Guidelines for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 1 See DCN 1­ 2107­ EA 4­ 3124 DOC U. S. DOC 1997 NAICS Definitions: 551 Management of Companies and Enterprises. 2 2002 4­ 3125 U. S. SBA Small Business Size Standards 1 See DCN 3­ 4029 4­ 3126 to 4­ 3135: No Entry 4­ 3136 DOC MPA Marine Protected Areas ( MPA) of the United States: What is a Marine Protected Area? 4 2002 4­ 3137 to 4­ 3999: No Entry 4­ 4001A ART Rabago, K. R. What Comes Out Must Go In: Cooling Water Intakes and the Clean Water Act 77 1992 Submitted to EPA prior to comment period for Phase Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 153 I proposed rule 4­ 4001B *** Citation Deleted*** 4­ 4001C MTG USEPA Meeting Notes from Delaware Riverkeeper Meeting RE: Salem 1 11/ 19/ 1999 4­ 4001C­ R1 DOC Clean Ocean Action Public Service Electric & Gas Company's Salem Nuclear Generating Station 1 & 2 Current Operating Permit Does Not Comply With Section 316( b) of the Clean Water Act 8 Undated 4­ 4001C­ R2 DOC Versar, Inc. Technical Review and Evaluation of Thermal Effects Studies and Cooling Water Intake Structure Demonstration of Impact for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station Revised Final Report 1 Jan­ 89 4­ 4001C­ R3 DOC Clean Ocean Action Eagle Island 1 10/ 19/ 1999 4­ 4001C­ R4 New Jersey Environmental Federation PSE& G: Killing the Marsh With Rodeo 1 See DCN 3­ 3062­ R2 4­ 4001C­ R5 DOC Pesticide Action Network Updates Service Glyphosate May Pose A Significant Risk 1 10/ 28/ 1999 4­ 4001C­ R6 ART Hajna, L. R., Cherry Hill Courier­ Post Nuclear Plant Trying To Save Fish 2 11/ 7/ 1999 4­ 4001D LET Super, R., Riverkeeper Letter to Dr. J. Graham, OMB 10 2/ 7/ 2002 4­ 4001E van Rossum, M. K, Delaware Riverkeeper Letter to D. Nagle, EPA 1 See DCN 1­ 7010­ EF Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 154 4­ 4001F TEL Wall, T., USEPA Phone Call with Riverkeeper 1 12/ 27/ 2001 4­ 4001G TEL Wall, T., USEPA Phone Call with Riverkeeper 3 1/ 31/ 2002 4­ 4001H MTG Wall, T., USEPA OMB/ Riverkeeper Meeting 11 2/ 7/ 2002 4­ 4002A MTG American Chemistry Council ( ACC) Meeting Summary: Discussion of the Section 316( b) Phase III and Other Cross­ Cutting Issues 2 1/ 17/ 2002 4­ 4002B DOC EPRI Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intakes 315 Dec­ 99 4­ 4002C DOC EPRI Procedural Guideline for Evaluating alternative Fish Protection Technologies to Meet Section 316( b) Requirements of he Clean Water Act 30 Dec­ 00 4­ 4002D DOC PSEG Section 316( b) Rulemaking Phase II Existing Facilities 13 1/ 3/ 2002 4­ 4002E LET Bulleit, K. A. N, and J. N. Christman, Hunton and Williams The Use of Economic Data in EPA's Rulemaking to Implement Clean Water Act Section 316( b) 7 1/ 10/ 1997 4­ 4002F LET Heidrich, A., and D. E. Bailey, UWAG Letter to C. Fox, Assistant Administrator ( Office of Water) 4 4/ 16/ 1999 4­ 4002G LET Bailey, D. E., UWAG Letter to Assistant Administrator ( Office of Water) Fox 1 8/ 17/ 1999 4­ 4002H Bailey, D. E, UWAG UWAG Comments on EPA's Revised Draft 316( b) Decision Framework 1 See DCN 1­ 7036­ EF 4­ 4002I Perkins, W. G., and D. E. Bailey, UWAG Letter to D. Nagle, EPA, RE: June 4 Meeting 1 See DCN 1­ 7033­ EF 4­ 4002J McKenzie and Letter to B. Mahanes, EPA 1 See DCN 1­ 7035­ EF Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 155 M. F. Bollinger, UWAG 4­ 4002K LET C. R. Bozek, EEI Letter to C. Fox, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water 1 8/ 31/ 1998 4­ 4002L LET Lohner, T. W., American Electric Power ( AEP) Letter to D. Nagle, EPA 7 6/ 2/ 1998 4­ 4002M LET Banks, J. T., Hogan & Hartson Letter to J. C. Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water 7 9/ 14/ 1999 4­ 4002N LET Siegler, E., Hogan & Hartson Suggested Preamble Language Explaining Why Proposal May Not Be Appropriate As Guidance for Existing Source Permitting 3 5/ 11/ 2000 4­ 4002O LET Bailey, D. E., UWAG Recommended Decision Principles for Applying 316( b) to Existing Facilities 33 10/ 22/ 2001 4­ 4002P MTG Hunton & Williams Summary of Meeting with Utility Water Act Group ( UWAG) Officials 8 2/ 26/ 1997 4­ 4002Q MTG Wall, T., USEPA Meeting Summary: Discussion of UWAG's Approach for the Section 36( b) Phase II Proposal 12 10/ 5/ 2001 4­ 4002R LET Banks, J. T., Hogan & Hartson Letter to D. Nagle, USEPA 5 7/ 1/ 1999 4­ 4002S LET Hay, L., FPL Group Letter to Governor Whitman, USEPA 8 2/ 14/ 2002 4­ 4002T MTG USEPA Informational Meeting with UWAG on Cooling Water Intakes Regulation Development 8 9/ 6/ 1995 4­ 4002U LET Dixon, D. A. and K. D. Zammit Letter to D. Nagle, USEPA 12 3/ 28/ 2000 4­ 4002V LET Dixon, D. A, EPRI Delivery of References Cited in EPRI's Follow­ Up 2 8/ 24/ 1998 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 156 Comment Letter 4­ 4002V­ R1 Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI) Compensatory mechanisms in fish populations: literature reviews. Volume 1: Critical evaluations of case histories of fish populations experiencing chronic exploitation or impact. Prepared by S. B. Saila, X. Chen, K. Erzini, and B. Martin. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R64 4­ 4002V­ R2 Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI) Compensatory mechanisms in fish populations: literature reviews. Volume 2: Compensation in fish populations subject to catastrophic impact. Prepared by D. J. Jude, P. J. Mansfield, P. J. Schneeberger, and J. A. Wojcik. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R59 4­ 4002V­ R3 Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI) Mechanisms of compensatory response of fish populations: workshop proceedings. Prepared by R. G. Otto & Associates, Key West, FL and C. R. Shriner 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R63. 4­ 4002V­ R4 DOC Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI) Proceedings: fish protection at steam and hydroelectric power plants. Proceedings of a Workshop held October 28­ 30, 1987, San Francisco, CA. 378 March, 1988 4­ 4002V­ R5 DOC Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI) Summary of EPRI cooling system effects research 1975­ 1993. Prepared by Woodis Associates, McLean, VA. 79 September, 1994 4­ 4002V­ R6 DOC Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI) Sampling design for aquatic ecological monitoring. Volume 1: Summary Report. Prepared by the University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 221 December, 1985 4­ 4002V­ R7 DOC Electric Power Research Institute Sampling design for aquatic ecological monitoring. Volume 5: Delphi Supplement. Prepared by the 148 December, 1985 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 157 ( EPRI) University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 4­ 4002V­ R8 DOC Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI) Compensatory mechanisms in fish populations: an EPRI research plan. Prepared by R. G. Otto & Associates, Reston, VA. 79 September, 1987 4­ 4002V­ R9 Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI) Compensatory mechanisms in fish populations: literature reviews. Volume 3: A critical review of mathematical models for fish compensation mechanisms. Prepared by Systech Engineering, Inc., Lafayette, CA. 1 See DCN 2­ 019A­ R66. 4­ 4002VR10 DOC Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI) Research update on fish protection technologies for water intakes. Prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., Boston, MA. 211 May, 1994 4­ 4002VR11 DOC Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI) Fish protection/ passage technologies evaluated by EPRI and guidelines for their use. Prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., Boston, MA. 325 May, 1994 4­ 4002VR12 DOC Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI) Intake technologies: research status. Prepared by Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, Pearl River, NY. 48 March, 1989 4­ 4002W DOC Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI) Comparison of Alternate Cooling Technologies for California Power Plants ( Draft) 255 Feb­ 02 4­ 4002X MTG Wall, T., USEPA TXU/ Progress Energy Meeting with OW/ OGC 27 11/ 15/ 2001 4­ 4002Y MEM Greeson, M., Progress Energy Email RE: O& M Cost Estimates for Brunswick Nuclear Plant 3 12/ 18/ 2001 4­ 4002Z MTG Wall, T., USEPA Electric Generating Industry Representatives Meeting with OW 3 11/ 21/ 2001 4­ 4002AA TEL Wall, T., USEPA Phone Call with EEI 1 1/ 3/ 2002 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 158 4­ 4002BB TEL Wall, T., USEPA Phone Call with Mirant 1 1/ 8/ 2002 4­ 4002CC MTG Wall, T., USEPA OMB/ Edison Institute Meeting 23 2/ 8/ 2002 4­ 4002DD MTG Wall, T., USEPA EEI Meeting with OPEI/ OW 8 2/ 20/ 2002 4­ 4002EE MTG Wall, T., USEPA EEI Meeting with OPEI 1 2/ 7/ 2002 4­ 4002FF MEM Vaskis M., PSEG Email RE: Section 316( b) rulemaking 7 1/ 28/ 2002 4­ 4002GG MTG Wall, T., USEPA PSE& G Meeting with G. Tracy Mehan, III 16 4­ 4003A Reading, J., State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Letter to S. Frace, USEPA 1 See DCN 2­ 034B 4­ 4003B LET Cipriano, R., Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Letter to Governor Whitman, USEPA 2 2/ 22/ 2002 4­ 4003C LET Easley, M. F., State of North Carolina, Office of the Governor Letter to Governor Whitman, USEPA 1 2/ 22/ 2002 4­ 4003D TEL Wall, T., USEPA Cooling Water Intake Standards Conference Call 4 12/ 4/ 2001 4­ 4003E LET Struhs, D. B, Florida DEP Letter to Governor Whitman 2 2/ 27/ 2002 4­ 4004A LET Dunnigan, J. H., Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission ( ASMFC) Letter to Administrator Whitman, USEPA 1 12/ 14/ 2001 4­ 4004B LET Mehan, G. T., Response to letter from J. Dunnigan, ASMFC 2 1/ 8/ 2002 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 159 USEPA 4­ 4004C LET Furlong, D. T., Mid­ Atlantic Fishery Management Council Letter to Administrator Whitman, USEPA 1 12/ 14/ 2001 4­ 4004D LET Mehan, G. T., USEPA Response to letter from D. Furlong, MAFMC 2 1/ 8/ 2002 4­ 4004E LET Hill, T. R., New England Fishery Management Council Letter to Administrator Whitman, USEPA 2 12/ 14/ 2001 4­ 4004F LET Mehan, G. T., USEPA Response to letter from T. Hill, NEFMC 2 1/ 8/ 2002 4­ 4004G LET Mattlin, R. H., Marine Mammal Commission Letter to Administrator Whitman, USEPA 2 12/ 19/ 2001 4­ 4004H LET Spalding, H. C., Save The Bay Letter to Administrator Whitman, USEPA 2 12/ 19/ 2001 4­ 4004I LET Cohen, D. C., Atlantic Capes Fisheries Letter to Administrator Whitman, USEPA 2 12/ 21/ 2001 4­ 4004J LET Mehan, G. T., USEPA Response to letter from D. Cohen, ACF 2 1/ 25/ 2002 4­ 4004K LET Axelsson, B. E, Axelsson & Johnson Fish Company, Inc. Letter to Dr. W. T. Hogarth, NMFS 2 12/ 28/ 2001 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 160 4­ 4005 DOC USEPA OMB Review Draft for the Proposed Section 316( b) Rule for Large Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Power Generating Facilities 262 12/ 28/ 2001 4­ 4006 DOC USEPA 316( b) Detailed Questionnaires for In­ Scope Facilities 8093 4/ 9/ 2002 Water docket contains non­ CBI surveys only. CBI surveys contained in CBI docket. 4­ 4007 DOC National Research Council ( NRC) Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems 572 1992 4­ 4008 DOC USEPA Summary of Maryland's 316( b) Regulations ( COMAR 26.08.03.05) 5 Undated 4­ 4009 MEM Thomas, D., USEPA Documentation on Waterbody­ based Trading 17 2002 4­ 4010 DOC USEPA Regional Permitting Authority Examples on the Cost of Supporting a " No Adverse Environmental Impact" Justification from a 316( b) Facility 8 12/ 5/ 2001 4­ 4011 DOC Cederholm, C. J., et. al. Pacific Salmon and Wildlife: Ecological Contexts, Relationships, and Implications for Management 146 2000 4­ 4012 ART Coen, L. D, and M. W. Luckenbach Developing Success Criteria and Goals for Evaluating Oyster Reef Restoration: Ecological Function or Resource Exploitation? 21 2000 4­ 4013 WEB USGS Hydrologic Unit Maps: What Are Hydrologic Units? 2 2002 4­ 4014 ART Franklin, H. B. The Most Important Fish in the Sea 10 Sep­ 01 4­ 4015 WEB NOAA State of the Coast: Regional Contrasts 4 2002 4­ 4016 DOC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden 146 Jul­ 01 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 161 ( ASMFC) 4­ 4017 MEM Thomas, D., USEPA Documentation on Florida Manatee Conservation Conversation with Kipp Frohlich 1 1/ 23/ 2002 4­ 4018 MEM Choudhry, G. H. and I. Park, Westat Tables Requested Under TD# W040313d 18 4/ 4/ 2002 4­ 4019 MEM USEPA Summary of Major Changes During Interagency Review 9 4/ 9/ 2002 Updated on May 23, 2002. 4­ 4020 DOC National Research Council ( NRC) Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act 345 6/ 23/ 1905 4­ 4021 MEM Meadows, K., Tetra Tech Completed 1% Tidal River/ Estuary Threshold Data Analysis 2 3/ 14/ 2002 4­ 4021­ R1 DAT Meadows, K., Tetra Tech Supporting Data for 1% Tidal Excursion Analysis n/ a 4/ 9/ 2002 Contained in the CBI docket on CD­ ROM. 4­ 4022A LET Herbinson, K. T. and D. W. Kay, Southern California Edison Letter to G. T. Mehan RE: Erroneous References to San Onofre 5 1/ 7/ 2002 4­ 4022B MEM Hart, D., USEPA Discussions with Kevin Herbinson ( Southern California Edison) re: January 7, 2002 Letter to EPA 1 4/ 9/ 2002 4­ 4023A DOC USEPA Transcript: Public Meeting of Technical Experts to Discuss Preliminary Data on Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies at Existing Facilities and Their Costs 201 5/ 23/ 2001 4­ 4023B DOC USEPA Draft Agenda, Public Meeting of Invited Technical Experts to Discuss Preliminary Data on Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies at Existing 5 5/ 23/ 2001 Docket W­ 00­ 32 Clean Water Act Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Document Control Number Item Type Author Title/ Subject Pages Document Date Comment Page 162 Facilities and Their Costs 4­ 4023C DOC USEPA Preliminary Data Analyses Using Responses from the Detailed Industry Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water Intake Structures ( Draft) 17 May­ 01 4­ 4023D DOC USEPA Restoration Cost Estimates for CWA 316( b) New Facility Rule 9 Jul­ 00 4­ 4023E DOC USEPA Initial Cost Estimates for 316( b) Existing Source Rile ( Draft) 14 5/ 17/ 2001 4­ 4023F MEM Snyder, B., Tetra Tech 316( b) Monitoring Cost Estimates for New Facilities 2 5/ 17/ 2001 4­ 4023G DOC USEPA Distribution of Facilities by Sources of Surface Water and Industry Groups 2 May­ 01 Addendum to 4­ 4023C 4­ 4023H DOC USEPA Draft List of Facilities with Dry Cooling Technology 6 May­ 01 4­ 4023I DOC USEPA Attendance List for Public Meeting of Technical Experts to Discuss Preliminary Data on Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies at Existing Facilities and Their Costs 3 May­ 01 4­ 4024 TEL Meadows, K., Tetra Tech Big Bend Intake Technologies and Survey Responses 1 1/ 24/ 2002 4­ 4025 MEM Moe, M., SAIC Email RE: Chalk Point 3 2/ 1/ 2002

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.948222

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0021-0001

Supporting & Related Material

MILESTONES PLANS EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD MANUFACTURING CATEGORY ( 40 CFR PART 430) EPA ICR # 1877.02 February 2002 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Engineering and Analysis Division 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D. C. 20460 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION ......................... 1 1( a). Title of the Information Collection .............................................................. 1 1( b). Short Characterization/ Abstract .................................................................. 1 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION ................................................ 2 2( a). Need/ Authority for the Collection ............................................................... 2 2( b). Practical Utility/ Users of the Data ............................................................... 2 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA ............................................................................................................. 3 3( a). Nonduplication ............................................................................................. 3 3( b). Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB .......................... 3 3( c). Consultations ................................................................................................ 3 3( d). Effects of Less Frequent Collection ............................................................. 3 3( e). General Guidelines ....................................................................................... 3 3( f). Confidentiality .............................................................................................. 3 3( g). Sensitive Questions ...................................................................................... 4 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ................... 4 4( a). Respondents/ SIC Codes ............................................................................... 4 4( b). Information Requested ................................................................................. 4 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED ­­ AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ........................... 5 5( a). Agency Activities .......................................................................................... 5 5( b). Collection Methodology and Management ................................................... 6 5( c). Small Entity Flexibility ................................................................................. 6 5( d). Collection Schedule ...................................................................................... 6 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION ............... 6 6( a). Estimating Respondent Burden .................................................................... 6 6( b). Estimating Respondent Costs ...................................................................... 8 6( c). Estimating Agency Burden and Costs ......................................................... 9 6( d). Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Cost ............... 10 6( e). Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables ............................................... 11 6( f). Reasons for Change in Burden ..................................................................... 12 6( g). Burden Statement ......................................................................................... 12 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Summary of Estimated Industry Respondent Burden ............................ 7 Table 2 Breakdown Estimate of Hours/ Mill ....................................................... 8 Table 3 Summary of Estimated Industry Respondent Costs ............................... 9 Table 4 Total Industry Respondent Burden and Cost ......................................... 11 Table 5 Bottom Line Burden and Costs Based on 29 Mills in 2000 Dollars ................................................................... 12 Table 6 Bottom Line Burden and Costs ( annualized)............................................ 12 1 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a). Title of the Information Collection ICR: Milestones Plans Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing Category ( 40 CFR Part 430) ( EPA ICR No. 1877.02) 1( b). Short Characterization/ Abstract This Information Collection Request ( ICR) presents estimates of the burden and costs to the eligible community ( direct discharging bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills) and NPDES permitting authorities for activities associated with the development of a Milestones Plan, which is required as part of a Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program ( VATIP) established under the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards ( 40 CFR Part 430) portion of the Cluster Rule promulgated on April 15, 1998. The Milestones Plan is required only of those mills that voluntarily choose to enroll in the incentives program. This is a renewal ICR. The VATIP ( 40 CFR 430.24( b)) is intended to encourage existing and new direct discharging mills to move beyond today's baseline BAT and NSPS technologies toward the " mill of the future," which EPA believes will have a minimum impact on the environment. In order to facilitate achievement of the ultimate effluent limitations required by this Incentives Program, existing mills that choose to enroll in this voluntary program are required to submit plans ( referred to as " Milestones Plans") detailing the strategy the mill will follow to develop and implement the technologies or processes it intends to use to achieve the requirements of the program. See 40 CFR 430.24( c). New sources enrolling in the Incentives Program are not required to develop Milestones Plans because they must achieve the ultimate VATIP standards as soon as they commence discharge. The purpose of the Milestones Plan is to provide information necessary for the development of interim limitations or permit conditions under 40 CFR 430.24( b)( 2) that lead to achievement of the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations codified at 40 CFR 430.24( b)( 3) and ( 4). Each Milestones Plan must be developed by the participating mill and submitted to the NPDES permitting authority ( i. e., EPA or the State, if it is authorized to administer the NPDES permitting program). EPA expects the permitting authority to use the information contained in the Milestones Plan to establish enforceable permit limitations and conditions for the participating mill. These milestones would also provide valuable benchmarks for reasonable inquiries into progress being made by participating mills toward achievement of the interim and ultimate effluent limitations. EPA's legal authority to require such Milestones Plans in 2 effluent limitations guidelines and standards is found in Section 308( a) of the Clean Water Act ( CWA). For additional information on the VATIP, see the Technical Support Document for the Voluntary Advanced Incentives Program ( EPA­ 821­ R­ 97­ 014; DCN 14488). For the regulated community, the burden and costs of the Milestones Plan are those associated with its development. For the government, the burden and costs are those sustained by the NPDES permitting authority and EPA in reviewing the Milestones Plan, deriving and enforcing interim permit requirements and generally tracking the mill's implementation of the Milestones Plan. 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a). Need/ Authority for the Collection The Incentives Program requires achievement of ultimate effluent limitations that go beyond the baseline BAT limitations. Mills that choose to enroll in the program are given additional time to achieve those ultimate effluent limitations. During this additional time period during which the mill is preparing to meet the ultimate limitations, the regulation requires participating mills to meet interim limitations or permit conditions. See 40 CFR 430.24( b)( 2). In order to determine interim limitations or permit conditions that will take into account the special circumstances at each mill while at the same time promote timely achievement by the mill of the ultimate limitations, the permitting authority needs to know the details of how the mill is planning to develop and implement the technologies and processes to achieve the ultimate limitations. The Milestones Plan, prepared by the mill, will provide this information. Even when not used as the basis for enforceable permit conditions, the Milestones Plan will also provide valuable benchmarks for reasonable inquiries into progress being made toward achievement of the ultimate limitations and will help ensure that mills enrolled in the program are making a good­ faith effort to fulfill the requirements of the program. EPA's legal authority to require Milestones Plans for meeting effluent limitations is found in Section 308( a) of the Clean Water Act. Section 308( a) gives the EPA Administrator the authority to require the owner or operator of any point source ( e. g., a pulp and paper mill) to make reports or provide such other information that the Administrator determines is necessary to ( 1) develop any effluent limitation or other limitation under the Act, ( 2) determine compliance with effluent limitations, or ( 3) carry out the NPDES permit program. The Milestones Plan fits all three criteria for the reasons set forth in paragraph 2( b) below. 2( b). Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The Milestones Plan will assist the permitting authority ( i. e., the State or EPA) to set appropriate interim limitations and permit conditions for that interim period when the mill is preparing to achieve the ultimate limitations. An individualized Milestones Plan will make it easier for the permitting authority to account for any unique situations at the mill and to provide 3 appropriate flexibility for the mill. The Milestones Plan will also enable the permitting authority to track the progress being made by the mill to achieve the interim and ultimate effluent limitations and to enable the permitting authority to recognize if and when a mill is not making expected progress toward fulfilling the requirements of the program and take appropriate action. By advancing these purposes, the Milestones Plan thus helps to carry out the NPDES permit program. 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a). Nonduplication The information in the Milestones Plan is necessarily mill­ specific and, to EPA's knowledge has never been collected by another source. Therefore, none of the information to be collected by the Milestones Plan is available elsewhere. Moreover, although EPA expects that many participating mills will already be developing such plans for their own planning purposes, the permitting authority would have no access to this information without this information collection request. 3( b). Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB OMB approved this information collection ( ICR No. 1877.01) on October 31, 1998 and assigned control number 2040­ 0204. EPA is now soliciting comments on the renewal of this ICR ( No. 1877.02) prior to submission to OMB for approval. 3( c). Consultations EPA has discussed this information collection with the State NPDES permitting authorities. 3( d). Effects of less Frequent Collection Since the Milestones Plan is a one­ time information collection and not a collection with periodic reporting, consideration of the effects of less frequent collection is not relevant. 3( e) General Guidelines This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.6 and 1320.12. 3( f) Confidentiality 4 EPA received two comments on the proposed Milestones Plan regulation ( 63 FR 18796, April 15, 1998) indicating that a mill may wish to claim as CBI the technologies or processes by which it intends to achieve the ultimate VATIP limitations. Therefore, EPA promulgated language in the final rule to provide that, in those situations, a mill may claim that portion of the Milestones Plan as confidential ( 64 FR 36582, July 7, 1999). Such claims are handled pursuant to 40 CFR Part 2 when EPA is the permitting authority and applicable State rules and regulations governing CBI when States are the permitting authorities. EPA also added language to the final regulations that requires mills asserting a CBI claim to prepare a public summary of the confidential portion of the plan and to submit that summary to the permitting authority along with the Milestones Plan. This requirement allows the public, on request, to obtain information about the mill's progress in achieving its VATIP limitations. 3( g) Sensitive Questions No sensitive questions are anticipated in this information collection. 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents will be those existing, direct­ discharging bleached papergrade kraft and soda pulp and paper mills that have chosen to enroll in the VATIP. The SIC code associated with these potential respondents is 2611 ( pulp mills). 4( b). Information Requested An existing mill choosing to enroll in the VATIP must submit a Milestones Plan. ( i) Data items: ° A Milestones Plan required under 40 CFR 430.24( c). ­­ The Milestones Plan must describe each anticipated new technology component or process modification the mill intends to implement in order to achieve the ultimate effluent limitations ( i. e., the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limits). This information is required under 40 CFR 430.24( c)( 1) ( see DCN 14488). ­­ In addition, the Milestones Plan must include a master schedule ( 1) showing the sequence of implementing the new technology components or process modifications and ( 2) identifying critical path relationships. This information is required under 40 CFR 5 430.24( c)( 2). ­­ For each individual new technology component or process modification, the Milestones Plan must include a schedule that identifies the anticipated dates when associated construction, installation, and operational " shakedown" will be initiated, the anticipated dates those steps will be completed, and the anticipated date that the full Advanced Technology process or individual component will be fully demonstrated as operational. EPA also intends that the Milestones Plan describe the anticipated improvements in effluent quality and reductions in effluent quantity as measured at the bleach plant and at the end of the pipe. ­­ The schedule must also identify the anticipated dates of initiation and completion of associated research, process development and mill trials when applicable, i. e., when the mill intends to employ technologies or process modifications that are not commercially available or demonstrated on a full­ scale basis at the time the Milestones Plan is developed. This " R& D Schedule," which should be part of the Master Schedule, should show major milestone dates and the anticipated date the technology or process change will be available for mill implementation. This information is required under 40 CFR 430.24 ( c)( 3)( i). ­­ The Milestones Plan must also include contingency plans in the event that any of the technologies or processes need to be adjusted or alternative approaches developed to ensure that the ultimate effluent limitations are achieved by deadlines specified in 40 CFR 430.24( b)( 4)( ii). This information is required under 40 CFR 430.24( c)( 3)( iii). ( ii) Respondent Activities: ° Preparation of the Milestones Plan, containing the information described above. ° Signature by the responsible corporate officer as defines by 40 CFR 122.22, and submittal of the Milestones Plan to the permitting authority. These activities are required by 40 CFR 430.24( c) and ( c)( 4). 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED ­­ AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a). AGENCY ACTIVITIES 6 Agency ( i. e., permitting authority) activities associated with the Milestones Plans consist of the following: ° Review Milestones Plans for completeness. ° Consider the information in those plans when establishing enforceable interim effluent limitations and permit conditions that facilitate the achievement of the ultimate effluent limitations; include reopener clauses to allow the permitting authority to adjust the permits to reflect the results of research, process development, mill trials, and possible contingencies. ° Monitor progress of the participating mills toward achieving the ultimate effluent limitations, using the milestones in the Milestones Plan as benchmarks. Take appropriate action if and when progress falters. 5( b). COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT After having enrolled in the VATIP, a particular mill is required to submit the Milestones Plan to the permitting authority, which would consider the Plan as described in 5( a). The Milestones Plan is intended to be a dynamic document that will be adjusted to reflect the results of research, process development, mill trials, etc. EPA expects the Plan to be maintained on file by the mill and the permitting authority. Public access will be managed through standard procedures under the codified authorities ( see 3( f) above). 5( c). SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY EPA considered less burdensome information collection mechanisms for small entities, but chose not to alter the collection procedure for the following reasons: ° This information collection will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA has determined that, of all the pulp and paper mills that are eligible for the VATIP only three mills are small businesses, and EPA does not believe this is a substantial number as that term is used in EPA's Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Final Pulp and Paper Cluster Rules. ( See the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649). ° Moreover, these three mills will be subject to the information collection only if they choose to enroll in the VATIP. ° Finally, the cost of this information collection to any small entity choosing to enroll in the VATIP is not substantial. EPA has calculated the cost to be between $ 4,000 and $ 24,000 per mill. 7 5( d). COLLECTION SCHEDULE This is a one­ time information collection. The participating mill must submit the Milestones Plan by the date the mill applies for its NPDES permit limitations. 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a). ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN The respondent burden of this information collection has been estimated by calculating the labor requirements ( in hours) of preparing typical Milestones Plans for each of the three possible technology tiers in the VATIP. The labor estimates assume that the Milestones Plans will be prepared by mill or corporate process engineering staff, with senior management input. These burden estimates cover the total time and effort expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, and disclose or provide the information collection. This includes the time needed to review regulations and instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing or providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Additionally, for Tiers II and III plan development, a budget is included to perform scoping studies to determine implementation at the mills. The estimates do not reflect the cost of detailed engineering studies or feasibility studies that a company may perform when investigating whether to pursue the development and installation of advanced technology, nor do the estimates include the labor hours related to internal corporate discussions about a decision to enroll in the incentives program. Such activities are considered part of the corporate strategic planning function and are not considered part of the burden associated with the Milestones Plan. The labor estimates are based on the anticipated level of complexity for each of the tiers. The estimates reflect the greater complexity of higher tiers and were prepared by an EPA contractor with much experience preparing plans and schedules for projects with similar complexities. The estimate for a Tier I Milestones Plan assumes the mill will implement readily available technology ( e. g., oxygen delignification and 100 percent chlorine dioxide substitution) and will not perform research and development ( R & D) activities. The estimate for a Tier II Milestones Plan assumes the mill will conduct one research and development project related to condensate reuse, but otherwise will implement readily available technology ( e. g., a two­ stage oxygen delignification system followed by ozone bleaching and 100 percent chlorine dioxide substitution). Additionally, the burden estimate for R & D scheduling only includes the cost of producing a schedule for this project. The estimate for a Tier III Milestones Plan assumes the mill will conduct six research and development projects designed to upgrade condensate quality from evaporators, to improve treatment of condensates, to provide advanced process control, to optimize water balance strategies to achieve nearly closed loop processing, and to remove minerals 8 and/ or chloride; the burden estimate for R & D scheduling only includes the cost of producing a schedule for this project. The following tables summarize the estimated industry respondent burden: Table 1 Summary of Estimated Industry Respondent Burden Technology Tier Hours / Mill Tier I 56 Tier II 154 Tier III 328 Table 2 Breakdown Estimate of Hours / Mill Milestones Plan Element Tier I Hours ( X + Y) a Tier II Hours ( X + Y) a Tier III Hours ( X + Y) a Overview of Strategy 12 + 4 20 + 8 24 + 8 Description of New Technology Components or Process Modifications 10 + 2 20 + 4 32 + 8 Master Schedule 20 + 4 46 + 8 64 + 16 R & D Schedule ­­­­ 24 + 8 112 + 40 Appendix of Documentationb 4 + 0 16 + 0 24 + 0 Subtotal Hours 46 + 10 126 + 28 256 + 72 Total Hours 56 154 328 a X = process engineering hours Y = senior management hours b Tier I: Includes vendor documentation or preliminary engineering studies. Tier II: Includes the above ( for Tier I) plus feasibility studies, research proposals and 9 reports, and review of literature on minimum effluent technology. Tier III: Includes the above ( for Tier II) plus review of literature on closed­ cycle technology. 6( b). ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS The respondent costs of this information collection have been estimated by taking the labor hours ( in Table 2 above) and multiplying them by the appropriate wage rates applicable to process engineering time and senior management time. EPA estimates an average hourly cost ( labor plus overhead) of $ 65 for process engineering time and $ 100 for senior management time. These cost estimates are based on EPA contractors' recent historical experience with typical, competitive rates for process engineering and senior management time. ( There are no capital costs or O& M costs associated with this information collection.) The following Table 3 summarizes the estimated industry respondent costs based on labor effort: Table 3 Summary of Estimated Industry Respondent Costs Technology Tier Engineering Hours / Mill Management Hours / Mill Costs / Milla Tier I 46 10 $ 3,990 Tier II 126 28 $ 11,120 Tier III 256 72 $ 23,840 aAssumes $ 65 and $ 100 per hour for process engineering time and senior management time, respectively ( labor plus overhead). Additionally, for Tiers II and III, an allowance for scoping studies was included. For Tier II, EPA estimated approximately $ 14,000 for each scoping study, which may be performed by a consultant. A scoping study estimate of $ 26,000 was applied to Tier III. The extended costs, including labor and the scoping study estimate, are reflected in Table 4. 6( c). ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COSTS Estimates for Federal and State labor rates were based on the 1998 US Labor department figures adjusted to 2000 dollars with the Consumer Price Index, whereby the average annual salary for Federal and State employees is $ 43,926; this is equivalent to the salary of a GS­ 9, Step 10 Federal employee. At 2,080 available labor hours per year, the hourly rate is $ 21.12. Overhead costs for Federal and State employees are estimated by EPA to be 60 percent ( EPA ICR Handbook), or $ 12.67 per hour, which results in a total hourly rate of $ 33.79 ($ 21.12 + $ 12.67). 10 EPA estimates the initial burden to State and local NPDES permitting authorities for the review of the Milestones Plan to be an average of 16 hours per mill respondent. With 29 mills anticipated to enter the program ( see Section 6( d) below), the total initial State NPDES permitting authority burden is estimated at 464 hours. Based on the Federal and State labor rates, total initial labor costs are estimated at $ 15,680 for State permitting authorities. It is anticipated that no one State permitting authority will incur the entire burden, because anticipated mill respondents are located in different States. There exists no more than four anticipated mill respondents in any one State. Therefore, the maximum initial burden that any one State permitting authority is 64 hours for a cost of $ 2,160. EPA estimates the recurring burden to State permitting authorities to be an average of 6 hours per year per mill for periodic review of the mill's progress in implementation of the Milestones Plan and to take appropriate action if and when progress falters ( see section 5( a) above). The total recurring burden for State permitting authorities is estimated at 174 hours per year at a total cost of $ 5,880. The maximum recurring burden any one State permitting authority could incur is 24 hours per year at a cost of $ 810. This maximum burden represents no more than 14% of the total estimated recurring burden. The initial Agency burden is estimated to be an average of 20 hours per mill respondent. With 29 mills anticipated to enter the program ( see Section 6( d) below), the total initial Agency burden is estimated at 580 hours. Based on the Federal and State labor rates, total initial labor costs are estimated at $ 15,680 for the Agency. EPA estimates recurring burden to the Agency to be an average additional 4 hours per year per mill respondent for support of State and local NPDES permitting authorities. The total recurring burden for the Agency is estimated at 116 hours per year at a total cost of $ 3,920. 6( d). ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSE AND TOTAL BURDEN AND COST As discussed previously, EPA estimates the potential respondent universe ( i. e., the mills likely to enroll in the incentives program) to be 29 mills. The estimates of how many mills are likely to enroll in the incentives program for each of the three tiers are based on the following: ° There are 16 mills that already have technology in place that is comparable to that specified as the model technology required for Tier I or have a corporate commitment to install the technology. Two of those 16 mills, however, are projected to go to Tier III ( see below). Therefore, the EPA estimate of how many mills are likely to enroll for Tier I is 14. ° EPA's projection on how many mills are likely to enroll for Tier II is based on the assumption that mills with over 400 kkg/ day softwood production and with technology using minimal chlorine dioxide substitution are likely candidates to adopt Tier II technology. There are 12 mills that meet these criteria. One existing totally chlorine free kraft mill is also projected to enroll for Tier II, making a total 11 of 13 mills projected to enroll for Tier II. ° There are two mills operated by a company developing technology to recycle bleach plant filtrate. These two mills are projected to enroll for Tier III. The result is that 29 mills are projected to enroll in the incentives program ­­ 14 for Tier I, 13 for Tier II, and 2 for Tier III. Total respondent burden and cost are calculated by multiplying the hours per mill and the costs per mill for each technology tier by the projected number of mills likely to enroll in the incentives program at that tier. The following Table 4 summarizes the total respondent burden and cost: Table 4 Total Industry Respondent Burden and Cost Technology Tier Hours / Mill Costs / Mill # of Enrolled Mills Total Hours Total Labor Costa Tier I 56 $ 3,990 14 784 $ 55,900 Tier II 154 $ 25,000 13 2,002 $ 325,000 Tier III 328 $ 50,000 2 656 $ 100,000 TOTAL 29 3,442 $ 480,900 Annualized 1,147 a Includes the cost of a scoping study for each mill. 6( e). BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COST TABLES The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for respondents are the summaries of all the hours and costs incurred for all activities. There are no associated Operating and Maintenance or capital start up costs associated with this ICR. ( i) Respondent Tally The bottom line respondent ( mills and State governments) is presented in Table 5. ( ii) The Agency Tally 12 The bottom line Agency tally is also presented in Table 5 Table 5 Bottom Line Burden and Costs Based on 29 Mills in 2000 Dollars Category Year 1 Labor Hours/ Costs Year 2 Labor Hours/ Costs Year 3 Labor Hours/ Costsa 3­ year Total Burden Respondents ­ Subpart B and E mills 3,442 $ 480,900 n/ a n/ a 3,442 hours Respondents­ State governments 464 $ 15,680 174 $ 5,880 174 $ 5,880 812 hours Total Respondents Hours 4,254 hours Agency 580 $ 19,600 116 $ 3,920 116 $ 3,920 812 hours a Includes the cost of a scoping study for each mill. Table 6: Bottom Line Burden Hour and Cost Table Annual Respondent burden 1,418 hours Annual Respondent Cost ( O& M) 0 6( f). REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN 13 The additional burden incurred in this ICR is due to preparing and submitting a Milestones Plan. The annual recurring burden to respondents and state governments is estimated to be 174 hours per year. There are no capital operating and maintenance costs in this ICR. The adjustment of $ 78,000 dollars was due to an error in categorizing the costs in the previous ICR. 6( g). BURDEN STATEMENT EPA estimates that 29 mills will voluntarily enroll into VATIP. The burden for a mill ( which chooses to participate voluntarily in the incentives program) to prepare and submit a Milestones Plan is estimated to average approximately 120 hours per respondent. This is a one­ time burden. State NPDES permitting authorities burden to review the Milestones Plans is estimated at 16 hours per respondent as an initial burden with a average recurring annual review burden of 6 hours per respondent. Agency burden to review the Milestones Plans is estimated at 20 hours per respondent as an initial burden with a average recurring annual review burden of 4 hours per respondent. The total initial cost for the 29 mills anticipated to enroll in the VATIP and thus be required to develop a Milestones Plan is estimated at $ 480,900. The total initial burden incurred by State permitting authorities and EPA for review the Milestones Plans is estimated at $ 15,680 and $ 19,600, respectively. The total recurring burden incurred by State permitting authorities and EPA for periodic review of the Milestones Plans is estimated at $ 5,880 and $ 3,920, respectively. There is no recurring burden for mill respondents associated with this information collection. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. Send comments on the need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number ( 1877.02) in any correspondence.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.990624

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0002-0235

Supporting & Related Material

Dear Mr. Robb: Thank you for the information on your plant. This will be helpful as we move forward on the Phase III regulations, which your facility may potentially be subject to. Have a good day. Sincerely, Deborah Nagle Deborah Nagle EPA Headquarters Engineering and Analysis Division MC 4303T 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20460 Tel: ( 202) 566­ 1063 FAX: ( 202) 566­ 1053 Steve Robb < powerplt@ iolaks. com> 10/ 23/ 02 02: 04 PM To: Deborah Nagle/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: EPA316b The City of Iola Power Plant was started in 1900. The power plant has used river water from the Neosho river for cooling systems since the very start as we do today. The river water ( surface water) is used in a once thru pass for cooling steam condensers, then returned to the river. From 1900 to 1962 the power plant operated 24 hours per day 7 days per week 365 days per year. From 1962 to present the power plant only operates 3 to 4 months per year during peak seasons. In 1995 the power plant installed a new traveling screen with 3/ 8" square woven mesh wire screens. We use a bar rack in front of the intake structure and a solid barrier at water level to keep floating derbies out of our traveling screens. We have had no problem with fish or other river life being trapped in our intake screens. To reduce the size of our screens would make it impossible for us to operate our system. Tree leaves, sticks and mud during high water plug our screens reasonably quick. The steam equipment we are using are 3 megawatt and 5 megawatt condensing steam turbines. Total daily flow can go from 6 mgd to 24 mgd depending on day to day operations. Thanks Steve Robb Power Plant Superintendent. [ Iola Electric Department, Iola, KS]

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.997418

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0002-0626

Supporting & Related Material

To: Carey Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA From: " Satterlee, Kent S SEPCO kent. satterlee@ shell. com> cc: Subject: RE: EPA CWIS 09/ 30/ 2002 02: 43 PM Carey, Attached is Shell's updated information. Platforms EI331B & MC810A have been updated. This completes all of the platforms except for GB426A ( Auger). Kent Satterlee, III Shell Exploration and Production Company ( SEPCo) Regulatory Affairs P. O. Box 61933 New Orleans, LA. 70161 Phone: ( 504) 728­ 4143 Fax: ( 504) 728­ 4567 Email: kent. satterlee@ shell. com ­­­­­ Original Message­­­­­ From: Johnston. Carey@ epamail. epa. gov [ mailto: Johnston. Carey@ epamail. epa. gov] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 9: 56 AM To: Satterlee, Kent S SEPCO Subject: RE: EPA CWIS Dear Kent: Thanks again for all your help on this project. We are compiling the data and soon set to start developing various options ( including the no regulation option). Your 08/ 22/ 02 message stated that you were expecting more data from two more Shell platforms. Any updates? Last call for data is 9/ 30. Thanks! Carey A. Johnston, P. E. U. S. EPA, Office of Water ph: ( 202) 566 1014 fx: ( 202) 566 1053 johnston. carey@ epa. gov " Satterlee, Kent S SEPCO" To: " Satterlee, Kent S SEPCO" < kent. satterlee@ s < kent. satterlee@ shell. com>, Carey hell. com> Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: 08/ 22/ 02 03: 33 PM Subject: RE: EPA CWIS Sorry Carey. I forgot to include the file. << CWIS. zip>> Kent Satterlee, III Shell Exploration and Production Company ( SEPCo) Regulatory Affairs P. O. Box 61933 New Orleans, LA. 70161 Phone: ( 504) 728­ 4143 Fax: ( 504) 728­ 4567 Email: kent. satterlee@ shell. com ­­­­­ Original Message­­­­­ From: Satterlee, Kent S SEPCO Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 2: 32 PM To: Johnston Carey ( E­ mail) Subject: EPA CWIS Carey, Attached is a new zip file with the Shell data ( pdf file) included. We are still lacking data from two platforms and will update this when we are able to get with the engineers. Kent Satterlee, III Shell Exploration and Production Company ( SEPCo) Regulatory Affairs P. O. Box 61933 New Orleans, LA. 70161 Phone: ( 504) 728­ 4143 Fax: ( 504) 728­ 4567 Email: kent. satterlee@ shell. com ( See attached file: EPA_ CWIS_ PROJECT_ LINKED 9­ 30­ 02. pdf)

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:48.999832

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0040-0004

Supporting & Related Material

II. W­ 00­ 12 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclides; Final Rule December 7, 2000 Volume 65 Number 236 A. Federal Register Notices 1. Final Rule 2. Other Federal Register Notices Cited in the Final Rule B. References Cited in the Preamble C. Other Background Material D. OMB Review E. Congressional Receipt Letters W­ 00­ 12 RADS FNL II­ A A. Federal Register 1 Federal Register Notice: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclides; Final Rule. Thursday, December 7, 2000. Volume 65 Number 236 76707 ­ 76753 W­ 00­ 12 RADS FNL II­ A­ 2 A. 2 Other Federal Registers 1. Federal Register. Final Rule. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Removal of the Prohibition on the Use of Point of Use Devices for Compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Final Rule. Thursday, June 11, 1998 Volume 63, Number 112, Page 31932­ 31934, 3 pp. 2. Federal Register. Final Rule. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Analytical Methods for chemical and Microbiological Contaminants and Revisions to Laboratory Certification Requirements; Fnal Rule Wednesday, December 1, 1999, Volume 64, Number 230, Page 67449­ 67467, 19 pp. II. W­ 00­ 12 RADS FNL II­ B B. References Cited in the Preamble 1. ( NIH). 2000a. " Kidney Diseases: Publications On­ Line." National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases ( NIDDK). June 2000. Website: http:// www. niddk. nih. gov/ health/ kidney/ pubs/ 2 pp. 2. ( NIH). 2000b.. " Proteinuria." National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Information Clearinghouse. June 2000. Website: http:// www. niddk. nih. gov/ health/ kidney/ pubs 5 pp. 3. ( NIH). 2000c.. " Your Kidneys and How They Work." National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Information Clearinghouse. June 2000. Website: http:// www. niddk. nih. gov/ health/ kidney/ pubs/ 11 pp. 4. USEPA. 1991. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Radionuclides ( Draft dated June 14, 1991). Prepared by Wade Miller Associates. 153 pp. See W­ 00­ 12, III. F. 1. References Cited in Phase III, 1991 rule. 5. USEPA. 1994. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low­ Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994. 6 pp. 6. USEPA. 1998a. A Fact Sheet on the Health Effects from Ionizing Radiation. Prepared by the Office of Radiation & Indoor Air, Radiation Protection Division. EPA 402­ F­ 98­ 010. May 1998. 4 pp. 7. USEPA. 1998b. Announcement of Small System Compliance Technology Lists for Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and Findings Concerning Variance Technologies, 63 FR 42032, August 6, 1998. 28 pp. 8. USEPA. 1998c. " Ionizing Radiation Series No. 1." Prepared by the Office of Radiation & Indoor Air, Radiation Protection Division. EPA 402­ F­ 98­ 009. May 1998. 3 pp. Website: http:// www. epa. gov/ radiation/ ionize. htm 9. USEPA. 1998d. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer Confidence; Proposed Rule. Friday, February 13, 1998. Volume 63, Number 30, Page 7605­ 7633. 44 pp. II. W­ 00­ 12 RADS FNL II­ B Con't 10. USEPA 1998e. National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Consumer Confidence Reports; Final Rule, 63 FR 44511, August 19, 1998. 48 pp. 11. USEPA 1998f. Small System Compliance Technology List for the Non­ Microbial Contaminants Regulated Before 1996. EPA 815/ R­ 98­ 002. September 1998. See W­ 99­ 08, Radon Pro, I­ B. 85. 12. USEPA 1999a. Small Systems Compliance Technology List for the Radionuclides Rule. Prepared by International Consultants, Inc. Draft. April 1999. See W­ 00­ 12, I­ B. 14, Radionuclides Notice of Data Availability, April 21, 2000. 13. USEPA. 1999b. Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides, Federal Guidance Report No. 13. EPA 402­ R­ 99­ 001 US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 1999. 325 pp. See W­ 00­ 12 I­ B. 14 References cited in Radionuclides Notice of Data Availability, April 21, 2000. 14. USEPA. 1999c. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.: Ground Water and Drinking Water Tribal Consultation Meeting. Executive Summary. February 24­ 25, 1999. 12pp. 15. USEPA. 1999d. OGWDW Tribal Consultations: Workshops at the Annual Conference of the National Tribal Consultation Meeting. Executive Summary. February 24­ 25, 1999. 3 pp. 16. USEPA. 2000a( 1). Comment/ Response Document for the Radionuclides Notice of Data Availability, November 2000. 768 pp. 17. USEPA. 2000a( 2). Comment/ Response Document for the Radionuclides Proposed Rule. 283 pp. 18. USEPA. 2000b. Draft Toxicological Review of Uranium. Prepared by the Office of Science and Technology. Draft. June 6, 2000. 69 pp. 19. USEPA. 2000c. Government Dialogue on U. S. EPA's Upcoming Drinking Water Regulations. Meeting Summary. May 30, 2000. 97 pp. 20. USEPA. 2000d. Information Collection Request for National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Radionuclides. Final. Prepared by ISSI Consulting Group for US Environmental Protection Agency. 148 pp. II. W­ 00­ 12 RADS FNL II­ B Con't 21. USEPA. 2000e. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclides, Notice of Data Availability; Proposed Rule, Friday, April 2l, 2000. 65 FR 21577­ 21628. EPA 815­ 2­ 00­ 003. 50 pp. 22. USEPA. 2000f Preliminary Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis. Revised National Primary Drinking Water Standards for Radionuclides. Prepared by Industrial Economics, Inc. for EPA. Draft. January 2000. 182 pp. 23. USEPA. 2000g. Economic Analysis of the Radionuclides National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Prepared by Industrial Economics, Inc. for EPA. November 2000. 260 pp. 24. USEPA. 2000h. Technical Support Document for the Radionuclides Notice of Data Availability. Draft. March, 2000. See W­ 00­ 12, I­ D. 3. References Cited in Phase III, 1991 rule. 25. USEPA. 2000i. Technologies and Costs for the Removal of Radionuclides from Potable Water Supplies. Draft, Prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. June 2000. 217 pp. W­ 00­ 12 RADS FNL II­ C C. Other Background Material. 1. National Indian Health Board, 1998a. Summary Report Tribal Workshops at NIHB Consumer Conference, Anchorage, AK, October 6­ 8. 6 pp. 2. USEPA. 1997. Meeting Summary, Radionuclide Stakeholder Meeting, Arlington, VA. December 11­ 12. 20pp. 3. USEPA. 1998b. Executive Summary, Environmental Justice Stakeholder Meeting, Washington, DC, March 12. 17 pp. 4. USEPA. 1999. Technologies and Costs for Removal of Arsenic From Drinking Water. Draft EPA 815­ R­ 00­ 012. Prepared by Malcolm Piernie, Inc. November 1999. 5. USEPA. 2000a. Minutes from the EPA/ Science Advisory Board; Environmental Economics Advisory Committee Meeting. Washington, DC, February 25. 6. USEPA. 2000b. Office of Radiation & Indoor Air, Radiation Protection Division, Supplemental Information. Hormesis. 6 pp. 7. USEPA. 2000c. Office of Radiation & Indoor Air, Radiation Protection Division, Supplemental Information. Practical Threshold. 9 pp. 8. USEPA. 2000d. Office of Radiation & Indoor Air, Radiation Protection Division, Supplemental Information. Real Threshold. 3 pp. 9. USEPA. 2000e. Office of Radiation & Indoor Air, Radiation Protection Division, Supplemental Information. Tabulation of the Cohort of 1530 Female Radium Dial Workers. 1 pp. 10. USEPA. 2000f. Office of Radiation & Indoor Air, Radiation Protection Division, Supplemental Information. Some Relationships of Dose and Risk from Ingested Radionuclides. 3 pp. 11. Welch, Alan H. ( et. al.) , 1995 Gross­ beta Activity in Ground Water: Natural Sources and Artifacts of Sampling and Laboratory Analysis. Applied Geochemistry, Vol. 10, pp. 491­ 505, 16 pp. W­ 00­ 12 RADS FNL II­ D D. OMB Review 1. USEPA. 2000a Form for Compliance with E. O. 12866 Docket Requirements. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclides; Final Rule. 1 pp. 2. USEPA. 2000b. Attachment 1 to Form for Compliance with E. O. 12866 Docket Requirements; Changes Made to the Final Radionuclides Rule as a result of OMB Review. November 21. 2 pp. 3. USEPA. 2000c. Attachment 2 to Form for Compliance with E. O. 12866 Docket Requirements. Other Agency Changes Made to the Final Radionuclides Preamble and Rule. November 21. 2 pp. 4. USEPA. 2000d. OMB Red Line Strike Out Review: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclides; Final Rule. 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142. November 21, 2000. 181 pp W­ 00­ 12 RADS FNL II­ E E. Congressional Receipt Letters 1. Senate, House, and GAO Receipt Ltrs., Nov. 28, 2000, ( FRL # 6909­ 3)

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.003916

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0011-0545

Supporting & Related Material

FINAL Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data Submitted by the American Portland Cement Alliance Response to EPA Contract No. 68­ W­ 99­ 001 WA 231 Submitted to: Eastern Research Group 2200 Wilson Blvd, Suite 400 Arlington, VA 22201 Submitted by: Tetra Tech EM Inc. 1881 Campus Commons Drive Suite 200 Reston, VA 20191 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Part I – Introduction .................................................................................................................... I­ 1 A. Overview ............................................................................................................. I­ 1 B. Summary of Available Data ................................................................................ I­ 2 Part II – Analysis of Individual Facility Reports ........................................................................ II­ 1 I­ 1 Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data Submitted by the American Portland Cement Alliance I. Introduction This report contains summaries of the information gathered from the document Cement Kiln Dust Groundwater Monitoring Summary, produced by the American Portland Cement Alliance (APCA), dated October 2001. A. Overview Eighteen reports were evaluated. Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech) attempted to determine whether claims made within each facility report were justified by the data and methods found within. Tetra Tech also looked for general characteristics of groundwater quality related to potential influences from cement kiln dust (CKD) activities at each facility. This process consisted of detailed review of geographical information (i. e., site maps and descriptions), geological/ hydrogeological investigations, historical information, sampling methods, analytical methods and analytical result interpretation. The cement kiln dust groundwater reports reviewed herein include 18 facilities owned by 10 companies, spanning 10 states. The purpose of this review is to determine, if possible, the relative influence CKD landfill facilities have on groundwater. Tetra Tech reviewed groundwater data and compared them to government MCL and HBN regulatory values. In most cases, the reports submitted by the APCA were not detailed enough to make any meaningful determinations. However, Tetra Tech has provided a descriptive summary of all available data. The following summaries include information pertaining to: ° Groundwater constituents measured ° Instances where groundwater concentrations exceeded MCL and HBN standards ° Background information of individual site (if available) ° Overall quality of available report (content, evidence to justify conclusions, etc.) In general, a reasonable review/ assessment of the influence of CKD facilities cannot be made with respect to these file reports. In order to provide reasonable reviews of groundwater studies at CKD facilities, Tetra Tech recommends that the submitted investigative reports include, at minimum, the following: ° Site map with monitoring well and source area locations should be included with the report ° Groundwater flow direction or groundwater elevations ° Geologic information ° Monitoring well information – i. e., depths screened, specifics of construction ° Brief site history is suggested – historical property use, use of surrounding area, past environmental assessments conducted, regulatory history ° Lab and field QC samples (MS/ MSD, duplicate samples, rinsate samples, blank samples) should be collected and results listed ° Analytical methods stated and should be EPA approved methods (SW 846) I­ 2 ° Sample collection methods should be stated ° Filtered or not filtered metals samples collected should be stated ° Detection limits should be considerably less than the MCLs ° There should be a consistent list of base line substances to analyze so there is some consistency between sites. Some sites are not analyzing for substances they perhaps should be. ° If statistical models are being used there should be support of the models and not a conclusion statement alone ° If there were soil samples collected from the sources areas one the property the data should presented to determine and assess the groundwater analyses Examples of reports that did meet most or all of these criteria include Lebec, California and Midlothian, Texas. The remaining reports appeared to be either partial sections or abstracts with data tables. More information is required to adequately review these documents. Based on the limited information available, Tetra Tech can report the following observations: ° Several facilities indicated elevated levels of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, selenium, thallium and some others ° A significant number of the reports are inconsistent with regard to sampled constituent (i. e., parameter) ° A number of reports do not include parameters of potential interest to the EPA (various metals and inorganics) B. Summary of Available Data The following tables show how the available data compare across all facilities. Because adequate information was not made available, there is no comparison between background (or upgradient) constituent concentrations and downgradient samples. Some comparisons are made within individual site reports (next section). These tables also indicate what constituents were sampled at each site (shown by "NA"). Table 1. MCL Summary. This table reports all exceedances by facility, each constituent that was not sampled, and those that were sampled but were found to be below MCL standards. Note that in some cases analytical detection limits are greater than MCL standards. Table 2. HBN Summary. This table reports all exceedances by facility, each constituent that was not sampled, and those that were sampled but were found to be below HBN standards. Note that in some cases analytical detection limits are greater than HBN standards. I­ 3 I­ 4 PART II ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL FACILITY REPORTS II­ 1 Ash Grove Cement Company – Chanute, KS Summary: This report is thorough as it contains historical information, subsurface descriptions (geology and geochemistry of groundwater), permitting history and documentation, and a summary of groundwater quality, submitted to the facility by ARCADIS (Geraghty & Miller). Table 1. Overall report quality Subsurface description Yes Total no. of wells sampled 6 Sampling dates or duration Eight sampling events: 8/ 98, 11/ 98, 1/ 99, 2/ 99, 4/ 99, 5/ 99, 6/ 99, and 8/ 99 Upgradient wells specified 2 Downgradient wells specified 2 Site map included No Adequate physical description Fair Contains discussion section Yes Contains conclusions Yes References cited Yes Table 2. Summary of reported data Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Background #> Background Inorganic Chemicals Alkalinity N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Aluminum Y ­ NL NL ­ 0.26 – 3 .66; 7 > 3.66 Ammonia­ N N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Antimony Y 0.002 to 0.04 0.006 0.014 60**/ 60** 0.0021 – 0.07 0 > 0.07 Arsenic Y 0.001 to 0.01 0.05 0.0000568 0/ 72** ND – 0.007 5 > 0.007 Barium Y ­ 2 NL 0 0.14 – 0.22 22 > 0.22 Beryllium Y 0.001 to 0.005 0.004 0.004 2/ 55** ­ Bicarbo nate N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Cadmium Y 0.005 0.005 NL 0 ­ Calcium Y ­ NL NL ­ 47.4 – 5 2.5 1 > 52.5 Carbonate N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Chloride Y ­ NL NL ­ 5.4 – 28 .5 5 Chromium (total) Y 0.005 to 0.01 0.1 40 1/ 0 ­ Copper Y 0.01 1.3 1.0 0/ 0 ­ Fluoride N ­ 4 NL ­ ­ Iron Y ­ NL NL ­ 0.39 – 8 .4 3 > 8.4 Lead Y 0.001 to 0.003 0.015 0.015 6/ 6 ND – 0.01 3 > 0.01 Magnesium Y ­ NL NL ­ 37.3 – 4 1.0 1 > 41.0 Manganese Y 0.01 NL NL ­ 0.026 – 0.171 3 > 0.171 Ash Grove Cement Company – Chanute, KS (continued) Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Background #> Background II­ 2 Mercury (inorganic) Y 0.0002 0.002 0.011 0/ 0 ­ Nickel Y 0.005 to 0.04 0.1 NL 3 ND – 0.02 3 > 0.02 Nitrate (as nitrogen) N ­ 10 NL ­ ­ Nitrite (as nitrogen) N ­ 1 NL ­ ­ Potassium Y ­ NL NL ND – 15.8 1 > 15.8 Selenium Y 0.002 to 0.005 0.05 0.175 0/ 0 ND 2 > ND Silver Y 0.007 to 0.01 0.05 0.20 2/ 2 ND ­ 500 0 Sodium Y ­ NL NL ­ 9.5 – 57 .0 47 > 57 .0 Sulfate Y ­ NL NL ­ 14.4 – 1 7.8 30 > 17 .8 Thallium Y 0.001 to 0.05 0.002 NL 60** ND – 0.145 Vanadium Y 0.01 NL 0.3 0 ­ Zinc Y 0.02 NL 10 0 ­ Field Parameters pH Y ­ NL NL ­ 6.67 – 7 .5 18 > 7.5; 2 < 6.67 Conductivity Y ­ NL NL ­ 6.82 – 700 12 > 700 TSS N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Note Background well locations were not identified. NL = Not listed as having a regulatory standard (MCL and/ or HBN). NA = Not applicable. ** Detection limit is greater than regulatory value. Specific Comments: Based on the report which is not dated but apparently submitted after August 2001 by ARCADIS (Geraghty & Miller), the following observations have been made: Conclusion (1): Hydrogeologic conditions at the site are not conducive for collecting representative groundwater samples; therefore, concentrations of metals and inorganic parameters are highly variable over time. While it may be true that conditions at the site are not conducive for collecting groundwater samples using EPA­ approved low flow sampling procedures, the report does not indicate why this fact would result in highly variable concentrations of metals and inorganic parameters. What evidence exists that this is the case in this region? A reference of historical studies is necessary to substantiate this conclusion. Also, since attaining representative groundwater samples is not possible, why should any of the data shown in this report be acceptable? Conclusion (2): The results of the statistical evaluation of the initial two years of groundwater quality data indicate that none of the 14 metals had concentrations which indicated a Ash Grove Cement Company – Chanute, KS (continued) II­ 3 statistically significant increase over background conditions. Therefore, the KDHE did not require ongoing statistical evaluation of additional groundwater quality data. Although the KDHE decided not to require ongoing statistical evaluations of the groundwater data, the report does not illustrate the degree upon which the observed data statistically differs from background conditions. Again, as commented under Conclusion (1), if the hydrogeologic conditions are not conducive for collecting representative groundwater samples, are the background samples representative of background conditions? It is apparent that time and effort has been expended to explore background conditions; however, the report needs to quantify the degree of uncertainty of all of the reported data, as well as the statistical evaluation of the data. Conclusion (3): Based on the initial statistical evaluation and comparison to the highly conservative Federal MCLs and Kansas HBLs, a release from the CKD landfill is not apparent. See next comment (4). Conclusion (4): Due to the high degree of variability, a long­ term monitoring program and possible additional statistical analysis will be required to determine whether releases are likely to occur in the future. Again, the report does not attempt to quantify the degree of variability that is supposedly inherent in groundwater constituent measurements in the vicinity of this site. There is no statement of how long long­ term monitoring should occur in order to reduce uncertainty to acceptable levels. Therefore, given that the initial and recent measurements of groundwater quality were not necessarily based on long­ term monitoring, the data may not be adequate to characterize past and present conditions with respect to the landfill. II­ 4 Ash Grove Cement Company – Montana City, Montana Summary: A 15­ acre CKD landfill was constructed on the Ash Grove property and as part of the permitting and sighting process four groundwater monitoring wells, including one upgradient well, were installed adjacent to the landfill. The report states that there is no evidence that leachate from the landfill is impacting local groundwater. Table 1. Overall report quality Subsurface description No Total no. of wells sampled 4 Sampling dates or duration 3 times (12/ 18/ 98, 6/ 28/ 99, 5/ 11/ 00) Upgradient wells specified 1 (not specified) Downgradient wells specified 3 (not specified) Site map included No Adequate physical description Limited Contains discussion section Limited Contains conclusions Limited References cited No Table 2. Summary of reported data Sampled? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Background mg/ l # > Background Inorganic Chemicals Alkalinity Y NA NA NL 0/ NA 234 – 251 0 Aluminum N NA NA NL ­ ­ Ammonia N N NA NA NL ­ ­ Antimony Y 0.003 0.006 0.014 2/ 2 <0.003 – 0.008 0 Arsenic Y 0.003 0.05 5.68E­ 5 0/ 7 <0.005 – 0.007 0 Barium Y 0.005 2 NL 0/ NA <0.005 – 0.036 8 Beryllium N NA 0.004 0.004 ­ ­ Bicarbo nate Y NL NA NL 0/ NA 285 – 306 2 Cadmium Y 0.0001 0.005 NL 0/ NA <0.0001 0 Calcium N NA NA NL ­ ­ Carbonate N NA NA NL ­ ­ Chloride Y 1.0 NA NL 0/ NA <1.0 – 5.18 9 Chromium (total) Y 0.001 0.1 40 0/ 0 <0.001 3 Copper Y 0.001 1.3 1.0 0/ 0 <0.001 – 0.005 4 Fluoride N NA 4 NL ­ ­ Iron Y 0.01 NA NL 0 <0.01 – 0.25 6 Lead Y 0.003 0.015 0.015 3/ 3 <0.003 – 0.016 3 Ash Grove Cement Company – Montana City, Montana (continued) Sampled? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Background mg/ l # > Background II­ 5 Magnesium Y 0.005 NA NL 0/ NA <0.005 – 0.016 9 Manganese N NA NA NL ­ ­ Mercury (inorganic) Y 0.0002 0.002 0.011 0/ 0 <0.0002 0 Nickel Y 0.02 0.1 NL 0/ NA <0.02 0 Nitrate (as nitrogen) Y 0.01 10 NL 0/ NA 1.51 – 1 .9 3 Nitrite (as nitrogen) Y 0.01 1 NL 0/ NA <0.01 2 Potassium N NA NA NL ­ ­ Phosphorus (total) Y 0.01 NA NL 0/ NA <0.01 – 0.05 8 Selenium Y 0.001 0.05 0.175 0/ NA <0.001 2 Silver Y 0.003 0.05 0.20 0/ NA <0.003 <0.01 0 Sodium N NA NA NL ­ ­ Sulfate Y NL NA NL 0/ NA 289 – 357 5 Thallium N NA 0.002 NL ­ ­ Zinc Y 0.01 NA 10 NA/ 0 <0.01 4 Field Parameters pH Y NA NA NL ­ 7.62 – 8 .1 Conductivity Y NA NA NL ­ 952­ 1,052 TSS N ­ NA NL ­ ­ Dissolved soilds Y NA NA NL ­ 719 ­ 768 COD N ­ NA NL ­ ­ Organic Substances (only detected substances listed) None sampled Note: Background well locations were not identified. NL = Not listed as having a regulatory standard (MCL and/ or HBN). NA = Not applicable. ** Detection limit is greater than regulatory value. Specific Comments: The text states that there is one upgradient and three down gradient locations; however, no specific well numbers are specified. Names of the monitoring wells are provided. The well listed with a "U" after its name would appear to represent the upgradient location and the wells with a "D" after their name represent the downgradient. Although this is likely and assumed for performing this review, the text does not state that this is the case. Groundwater samples were collected from multiple sampling events and analyzed for a reasonable number of parameters with low detection limits. Only two substances (antimony and lead) were detected at concentrations greater than MCLs; however, elevated antimony concentrations were noted in the reference well sample which potentially indicates either high natural levels of the substance or an upgradient contaminant source. Elevated antimony concentrations were only observed during one of the three sampling events. Ash Grove Cement Company – Montana City, Montana (continued) II­ 6 The text of the report states that there is no evidence that leachate from CKD is impacting groundwater; however, 14 of the 21 substances analyzed by the laboratory were detected at concentrations greater than background during multiple sampling events or at sample locations indicating that the CKD source area does impact the local groundwater. II­ 7 CEMEX., Inc. ­ Charlevoix, Michigan Summary: There are 9 CKD piles on the property. Investigations have been conducted to determine the extent of the impact to the local groundwater and to Lake Michigan. The report overtly states that there has been an impact to the groundwater as a result of CKD and that pH levels and potassium concentrations are the best indicators of the release due to the variability of other metals analyzed. Table 1. Overall report quality Subsurface description No Total no. of wells sampled Results listed for 19; however, total and dissolved results are not specified Sampling dates or duration 11/ 14/ 96, 5/ 22/ 96, 10/ 15/ 96, 11/ 20/ 96, 12/ 18/ 96, 1/ 13/ 00, 4/ 5/ 00, 10/ 4/ 00, 1/ 10/ 01, 4/ 4/ 01, 7/ 10/ 01 Upgradient wells specified Unknown Downgradient wells specified Unknown Site map included No Adequate physical description No Contains discussion section Limited Contains conclusions Limited References cited No Table 2. Summary of reported data Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Inorganic Chemicals Alkalinity ­ ­ NA NL Aluminum ­ ­ NA NL Ammonia N ­ ­ NA NL Antimony ­ ­ 0.006 0.014 Arsenic Y 0.025 0.05 5.68E­ 5 5/ 89 Barium Y 0.025 2 NL 0/ NA Beryllium ­ ­ 0.004 0.004 Bicarbonate ­ ­ NA NL Cadmium Y 0.0002 0.005 NL 1/ NA Calcium ­ ­ NA NL Carbonate ­ ­ NA NL Chloride ­ ­ NA NL Chromium (total) Y 0.005 0.1 40 0/ 0 Copper Y 0.025 1.3 1.0 0/ 0 Fluoride ­ ­ 4 NL Iron ­ ­ NA NL Lead Y 0.005 0.015 0.015 0/ 0 Magnesium ­ ­ NA NL Manganese ­ ­ NA NL ­ CEMEX., Inc. ­ Charlevoix, Michigan (continued) Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN II­ 8 Mercury (inorganic) Y 0.0002 0.002 0.011 0/ 0 Nickel ­ ­ 0.1 NL Nitrate (as nitrogen) ­ ­ 10 NL Nitrite (as nitrogen) ­ ­ 1 NL Potassium Y NL NA NL Selenium Y 0.0025 0.05 0.175 14/ 4 Silver Y 0.0025 0.05 0.2 0/ 0 Sodium Y NL NA NL Sulfate ­ ­ NA NL Thallium ­ ­ 0.002 NL Zinc Y 0.02 NA 10 NA/ 0 Field Parameters pH Y ­ NA NL Conductivity Y ­ NA NL TSS ­ ­ NA NL Dissolved soilds ­ ­ NA NL COD ­ ­ NA NL Organic Substances (only detected substances listed) None sampled ­ ­ ­ ­ Note: Background well locations were not identified. NL = Not listed as having a regulatory standard (MCL and/ or HBN). NA = Not applicable. ** Detection limit is greater than regulatory value. Specific Comments: In the first paragraph of the report, it is stated that investigations have been conducted on the property in accordance and under the oversight of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to determine the impact of CKD to the groundwater in the area and nearby Lake Michigan. The results of the investigations should be provided. An explanation about why the Michigan DEQ became involved with the site should be given. Some portions of the report reference background concentrations in the groundwater at the property, but the background well location is not specified. The background well should be listed to address the impact to the groundwater. It does appear that a significant amount of sampling has been conducted on the property during multiple sampling events conducted in 1996 and 2000. Based on the information provided, there has been an impact to the groundwater of metals and pH. The pH, as sampled in 1996, indicate levels ranging from approximately 8 to greater than 12 with the majority of results being nearer to 12. pH does not appear to have been analyzed during the 2000 sampling event. It should also CEMEX., Inc. ­ Charlevoix, Michigan (continued) II­ 9 be noted that the number of metals sampled on the property should be increased to better assess the impact and the nature of the impact. The low HBN concentration for arsenic dramatically increases the number of samples that exceed the criteria. Additionally, the analytical detection limits for the substance are considerably greater than the HBN value. As stated in the report, groundwater in the vicinity of this property has been affected by the presence of CKD piles. II­ 10 CEMEX, Inc. – Lyons, Colorado Summary: Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology requested an assessment of the property and the impact of CKD piles to the local groundwater. CKD has been disposed of on the property since 1969. Table 1. Overall report quality Subsurface description No Total no. of wells sampled 2 Sampling dates or duration Unknown Upgradient wells specified Unknown Downgradient wells specified Unknown Site map included No Adequate physical description No Contains discussion section Limited and not relevant to groundwater quality Contains conclusions Limited and not relevant References cited No Table 2. Summary of report data Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Inorganic Chemicals Alkalinity N ­ NL NL Aluminum Y ­ NL NL Ammonia N N ­ NL NL Antimony Y 0.005 0.006 0.014 0 Arsenic Y 0.003 0.05 5.68E­ 5 0/ 1 Barium Y ­ 2 NL 0/ NA Beryllium Y 0.004 0.004 0.004 0/ 0 Bicarbonate Y ­ NL NL Boron Y ­ NL NL Cadmium Y 0.005 0.005 NL 0/ NA Calcium Y ­ NL NL Carbonate Y ­ NL NL Chloride Y ­ NL NL Chromium (total) Y 0.01 0.1 40 0/ NA Cobalt Y 0.01 NL NL Copper Y 0.01 1.3 1.0 0/ 0 Fluoride Y ­ 4 NL 0/ NA Iron Y ­ NL NL Lead Y 0.05 0.015 0.015 0/ 0 Lithium Y ­ NL NL Magnesium Y ­ NL NL Manganese Y ­ NL NL ­ CEMEX, Inc. – Lyons, Colorado (continued) Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN II­ 11 Mercury (inorganic) Y 0.0002 0.002 0.011 0/ 0 Molybdenum Y 0.01 NL NL Nickel Y 0.04 0.1 NL 1/ NA Nitrate (as nitrogen) Y 0.01 10 NL 0/ NA Nitrite (as nitrogen) Y 0.01 1 NL 0/ NA Potassium Y 5 NL NL Selenium Y 0.005 0.05 0.175 0/ 0 Silver Y 0.01 0.05 0.20 0/ 0 Silicon Y ­ NL NL Sodium Y ­ NL NL Strontium Y ­ NL NL Sulfate Y ­ NL NL Sulfite Y ­ NL NL Sulfide Y ­ NL NL Titanium Y 0.01 NL NL Thallium Y 0.002 0.002 NL 0/ NA Vanadium Y 0.01 NL 0.3 Zinc Y ­ NL 10 Field Parameters pH Y ­ NL NL NA Conductivity Y ­ NL NL NA TSS N ­ NL NL NA Dissolved solids Y ­ NL NL NA Total Inorganic Carbon Y ­ NL NL NA Total Organic Carbon Y 1 NL NL NA COD N ­ NL NL NA Organic Substances (only detected substances listed) None sampled Other Substances Gross Alpha (pCi/ L) Y ­ NL NL NA Gross Beta (pCi/ L) Y ­ NL NL NA Note: Background well locations were not identified. NL = Not listed as having a regulatory standard (MCL and/ or HBN). NA = Not applicable. ** Detection limit is greater than regulatory value. CEMEX, Inc. – Lyons, Colorado (continued) II­ 12 Specific Comments: The first paragraph states that the past assessment was "performed to the ultimate satisfaction of the Division (Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology)" but it does not state what the assessment determined and there is no summary of any conclusions that were made. A chemical analysis, assessment of the local geology and hydrology, and analysis of groundwater impacts have been conducted and are included in the past reports, but no summary is included in this report. Leachate testing of CKD from the property was performed and a few parameters were found to be at concentrations greater than groundwater standards. This type of sampling and analysis should not be used to replace groundwater sampling. Subsequent sampling appears to have only analyzed for the parameters that were found to be greater than groundwater criteria during the leachate analysis. Groundwater sampling and analysis should be conducted for any possible contaminants, not only the elevated substances detected during the leachate analysis. The groundwater sample results listed in the tables are not addressed, summarized, or referenced in the report. No information is provided about the monitoring wells or samples that have been collected from them. In the last paragraph, a statement is made that samples have been collected from local surface water and analyzed for the substances detected during leachate analysis of the CKD and that no substances were detected at concentrations greater than the standards. This is not relevant to groundwater quality. The analytical tables and groundwater sampling events are not summarized in any way in the text of the report and it is not known whether there is any background water quality information. There appears to be only minimal impact to the groundwater based on the given information; however, more information and more data should be collected. The HBN for arsenic is less than the analytical detection limits. It is difficult to make a conclusion about the quality of the groundwater in the vicinity of the site without more information. Additionally, only two groundwater sampling points would not be able to adequately characterize the groundwater in the area even if the information was available. II­ 13 Essroc – Logansport, Indiana Summary: Samples were collected quarterly from a number of wells; however, specific information about the sampling events or the placement of the monitoring wells is not provided. The report concludes that the data "indicate the apparent lack of impact on the groundwater of the CKD landfills at the Logansport plant," but the report does not provide sufficient detail to either support or refute the given conclusion. Table 1. Overall report quality Subsurface description No Total no. of wells sampled 12* Sampling dates or duration Five quarterly sampling events ­ specific dates and times not listed. Upgradient wells specified 3 Downgradient wells specified 8 Site map included No Adequate physical description Limited Contains discussion section Limited Contains conclusions Limited References cited No * One monitoring well not mentioned in the report text is listed in the data tables (EW­ 3). There is no information concerning the well. Table 2. Summary of reported data Sampled ? DL* MCL HBN (Landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Background mg/ l #> Background Inorganic Chemicals Alkalinity N NL NA NL ­ NA Aluminum N NL NA NL ­ NA Ammonia N N NL NA NL ­ NA Antimony Y NL 0.006 0.014 0/ 0 BDL 0 Arsenic Y NL 0.05 5.68E­ 5 0/ 11 BDL­. 012 1 Barium Y NL 2 NL 0/ NA 0.16­ 0.2 14 Beryllium Y NL 0.004 0.0040 0/ 0 BDL 1 Bicarbo nate N NL NA NL ­ NA Cadmium Y NL 0.005 NL 0/ NA BDL 0 Calcium N NL NA NL ­ NA Carbonate N NL NA NL ­ NA Chloride N NL NA NL ­ NA Chromium (total) N NL 0.1 40 ­ NA Copper N NL 1.3 1.0 ­ NA Fluoride N NL 4 NL ­ NA Iron N NL NA NL ­ NA Lead Y NL 0.015 0.015 0/ 0 BDL 0 Magnesium N NL NA NL ­ NA Manganese N NL NA NL ­ NA Mercury (inorganic) Y NL 0.002 0.011 0/ 0 BDL 0 Nickel Y NL 0.1 NL 0/ NA BDL 1 Nitrate (as nitrogen) N NL 10 NL ­ NA Nitrite (as nitrogen) N NL 1 NL ­ NA ­ Essroc – Logansport, Indiana (continued) Sampled ? DL* MCL HBN (Landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Background mg/ l #> Background II­ 14 Potassium N NL NA NL ­ NA Selenium Y NL 0.05 0.175 0/ 0 BDL 0 Silver Y NL 0.05 0.20 0/ 0 BDL 0 Sodium N NL NA NL ­ NA Sulfate N NL NA NL ­ NA Thallium N NL 0.002 NL ­ NA Field Parameters pH N NL NA NL ­ NA Conductivity N NL NA NL ­ NA TSS N NL NA NL ­ NA Organic Substances (only detected substances listed) Naphthalene Y NL NA 1.0 NA/ 1 NA 1 1,1­ Dichloroethane Y NL NA 9.0E­ 4 NA/ 1 NA 1 1,1­ Dichloroethene Y NL 0.007 NL 0/ NA BDL 1 CIS­ 1,2­ Dichloroethene Y NL 0.07 NL 0/ NA BDL 4 Tetrachloroethene Y NL 0.005 0.40 4/ 0 BDL 4 1,1,1­ Trichloroethane Y NL 0.2 NL 0/ NA BDL 4 Trichloroethene Y NL 0.005 0.008 3/ 3 BDL 3 M/ P Xylene Y NL 10 70 0/ 0 BDL 1 NL = Not listed as having a regulatory standard (MCL and/ or HBN). NA = Not applicable. BDL = Below detection lim it. Specific Comments: The report lacks any detailed information concerning the site and the sampling events that occurred on the property. Inorganic contaminants have been detected at concentrations greater than background, but concentrations are less that applicable MCLs. Organic contaminants, not likely attributable to CKD, were detected at concentrations greater than MCLs but this occurrence is not addressed in the report. Due to the very low HBN for arsenic, it is unlikely that the analytical method detection limits were below this value. The description of the solid waste management units (SWMU) located on the property lacks any information concerning the size of the SWMUs or details of their use including disposal history. Chemical analysis of the waste material would assist in determining the groundwater parameters to analyze. In addition, site­ specific information concerning property characteristics, including, but not limited to, site geology, topography, the size of the property, and surrounding area is not included. The description of the eight groundwater monitoring wells and the three off­ site residential drinking water wells does specify which monitoring wells are considered upgradient of the source areas and that the monitoring wells located on the property are screened within the upper aquifer; however, there is no information to support these statements such as groundwater flow direction or groundwater table elevations. The paragraph does not specify whether the residential wells are screened within the same aquifer as the monitoring wells located on the property. A site map showing the placement of the monitoring wells is necessary to support any conclusions. Essroc – Logansport, Indiana (continued) II­ 15 The facility report states that a risk assessment was completed for the property and that EPA has accepted the risk assessment as valid; however, there is no statement of what the risk assessment concluded. The validity of the assessment does not communicate the inherent risk associated with the property. Additionally, a description of the NOD should be included. The facility report states that only a few substances are detected at concentrations greater than the detection limits, but the detection limits are not specified for any substances. It is necessary for the detection limits to be at concentrations less than the appropriate health based risk criteria for any conclusions to be made. Additionally, there is no mention in the paragraph of the substances that were detected at concentrations greater than the background values. The text portion of the report concludes that there is an apparent lack of impact on the groundwater from the site; however, this cannot be established based on the given information. The data tables list substances that were not detected at concentrations greater than the detection limits as BDL (below detection levels) but it does not state what the detection limits are. This is important for comparability to MCLs. It also is not stated whether the metals analysis is for unfiltered or dissolved metals and a number of metals which would be important to assess an impact to groundwater were not analyzed (i. e., Fe, Ca, and others). Additionally, it is not known whether EPA­ approved analytical methods were used by the lab or what sample collection methods were used in the field. II­ 16 Holnam – Ada, Oklahoma (Webster Facility – Pontotoc County) Summary: There are two reports submitted which summarize two independent sampling events. These reports include a detailed summary of the statistical analysis of the data results; however, general information concerning the property and the data results is not included. This information is needed to make an accurate assessment of the quality of the report and the conclusions that are made in the report. There are 4 groundwater monitoring wells on the property; one of which is considered upgradient of potential sources of contamination. Analytical data from two rounds of groundwater sampling is included with the report. The report states that groundwater elevation data also was collected as part of the sampling events; however, this data is not included in the report. Table 1. Overall report quality Subsurface description No Total no. of wells sampled 4 Sampling dates or duration Results for two sampling events provided (08/ 2000, 2/ 2001) (report indicates monitoring is conducted twice per year) Upgradient wells specified 1 Downgradient wells specified 3 Site map included No Adequate physical description No Contains discussion section Statistical analysis discussed Contains conclusions Conclusion of no impact based on statistical analysis References cited No Table 2. Summary of reported data Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Background mg/ l #> Backgroun d Inorganic Chemicals Alkalinity Y ­ NL NL ­ NA 0 Aluminum N ­ NL NL ­ NA NA Ammonia­ N N ­ NL NL ­ NA NA Antimony Y 0.02 0.006 0.014 0/ 0 <0.02 0 Arsenic N ­ 0.05 5.68E­ 5 ­ NA NA Barium N ­ 2 NL ­ NA NA Beryllium N ­ 0.004 0.004 ­ NA NA Bicarbo nate Y ­ NL NL ­ NA 0 Cadmium N ­ 0.005 NL ­ NA NA Calcium Y ­ NL NL ­ 300­ 330 0 Carbonate Y 0.06 NL NL ­ <0.06 0 Chloride Y ­ NL NL ­ 5 – 6 0 Chromium (total) Y 0.01 0.1 40 0/ 0 < 0.01 0 Copper N ­ 1.3 1.0 ­ NA NA Fluoride N ­ 4 NL ­ NA NA Iron N ­ NL NL ­ NA NA Holnam – Ada, Oklahoma (Webster Facility – Pontotoc County) (continued) Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Background mg/ l #> Backgroun d II­ 17 Lead N ­ 0.015 0.015 ­ NA NA Magnesium Y ­ NL NL ­ 23 – 30 0 ­ ? Manganese N ­ NL NL ­ NA NA Mercury (inorganic) N ­ 0.002 0.011 ­ NA NA Nickel N ­ 0.1 NL ­ NA NA Nitrate (as nitrogen) N ­ 10 NL ­ NA NA Nitrite (as nitrogen) N ­ 1 NL ­ NA NA Potassium Y 1.0 NL NL ­ 2.2 – 3.5 0 ­ ? Selenium N ­ 0.05 0.175 ­ NA NA Silver N ­ 0.05 0.2 ­ NA NA Sodium Y ­ NL NL ­ 6.9 ­ ? 3 Sulfate Y ­ NL NL ­ 310 ­ ? 0 Thallium N ­ 0.002 NL ­ NA NA Zinc Y 0.05 NL 10 0/ 5 <0.05 – 0.05 4 Field Parameters pH N ­ NL NL ­ NA NA Conductivity Y ­ NL NL ­ NA 0 TSS N ­ NL NL ­ NA NA Dissolved soilds Y ­ NL NL ­ 922 – 1,110 0 COD Y ­ NL NL ­ 25 ­ 32 1 Organic Substances (only detected substances listed) None sampled ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ Note Background well locations were not identified. NL = Not listed as having a regulatory standard (MCL and/ or HBN). NA = Not applicable. ? Due to the poor q uality of the repro duction some concentration are unidentifiable ** Detection limit is greater than regulatory value. Specific Comments: Both reports contain a relatively lengthy section describing the statistical analysis that was performed on the analytical results from the two sampling events. The analysis indicates the relative variability of the results and exceedances from the predicted values. However, at least a portion of the conclusion should summarize the individual data results in simple terms of greater than background or greater than the applicable regulatory value. For instance, the recorded concentrations of zinc are consistently greater in the downgradient wells than in the concentrations from the reference well during both sampling events. Additionally, the concentrations also are consistently greater than the HBN value. This clearly indicates an impact to the quality of the groundwater and it is not addressed in the data summary report. A greater number of substances, primarily metals, should be analyzed during the sampling events. Metals that are indicative of CKD were not sampled; thus, no conclusions of the impact of these substances can be determined. As previously stated, these two reports do not contain site specific background information, geologic information, site maps, or source area descriptions. General information necessary to assess the quality of the report is not included. There is no summary of the sampling methods used during sample collected. Holnam – Ada, Oklahoma (Webster Facility – Pontotoc County) (continued) II­ 18 The reports reference past sampling events; however, the data from the past sampling events is not contained in the report. The detection limits for antimony as listed in the data table (0.02 mg/ l) is significantly greater than the MCL for the metal (0.006 mg/ l). To properly assess whether there is an impact of antimony to the property, the detection limit must be below the MCL. Additionally, the report indicates that antimony was detected during past sampling at the property. It is likely that the detection limit used during that analysis is the same as the detection limit used in the subsequent analyses. If that is the case, then there are concentrations of antimony significantly greater that the MCLs present in the groundwater. Any new sampling on the property must properly address antimony before any conclusions of impact to the quality of groundwater can be made. The report indicates that sampling procedures have been inconsistent: "Additionally, a submersible pump was utilized to purge the wells prior to sampling. This change in well purging may have contributed to the detection of zinc." Sampling methods should not be altered between sampling events and wells should always be purged prior to sampling to ensure that a sample is representative of the natural conditions. It is not stated whether it was the use of the pump for purging the wells that changed or the purging of the wells itself. This should be stated. Purging wells by hand versus purging wells with a pump should not affect the resulting concentration provided adequate sampling techniques are utilized. Neither report definitively states whether there has been an impact to the groundwater table attributable to CKD stored on the property. The only conclusions of both reports is that groundwater monitoring on the property should continue. First, more information is needed to determine whether an impact to the groundwater table has occurred and second, these reports do not adequately address that question. II­ 19 Holnam – Clarksville, Missouri Summary: The text portion is brief and provides minimal information. Four wells have been installed on the property for regulatory purposes and to obtain geologic and hydrogeologic information. Wells upgradient or downgradient were not identified in the report. Samples have been collected from the property during five sampling events which have indicated stability of the concentrations. Table 1. Overall report quality Subsurface description No Total no. of wells sampled 4 Sampling dates or duration 5 sample events (11/ 5/ 98, 4/ 27/ 99, 7/ 22/ 99, 10/ 28/ 99, 1/ 10/ 00) Upgradient wells specified Unknown Downgradient wells specified Unknown Site map included No Adequate physical description No Contains discussion section Limited Contains conclusions Not relevant to groundwater quality References cited No Table 2. Summary of reported data Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Inorganic Chemicals Alkalinity N ­ NL NL Aluminum N ­ NL NL Ammonia N N ­ NL NL Antimony Y 0.005 0.006 0.014 0/ 0 Arsenic Y 0.005** 0.05 5.68E­ 5 0/ 1 Barium Y 0.010 2 NL 0/ NA Beryllium Y 0.004 0.004 0.004 0/ 0 Bicarbonate N ­ NL NL Boron N ­ NL NL Cadmium Y 0.001 0.005 NL 0/ NA Calcium N ­ NL NL Carbonate N ­ NL NL Chloride Y 1.00 NL NL NA/ NA Chromium (total) Y 0.005 0.1 40 0/ 0 Cobalt N ­ NL NL Copper N ­ 1.3 1.0 Fluoride N ­ 4 NL Iron N ­ NL NL Lead Y 0.003 0.015 0.015 1/ 1 Lithium N ­ NL NL ­ Holnam – Clarksville, Missouri (continued) Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN II­ 20 Magnesium N ­ NL NL Manganese N ­ NL NL Mercury (inorganic) Y 0.00002 0.002 0.011 0/ 0 Molybdenum N ­ NL NL Nickel Y 0.01 0.1 NL 1/ NA Nitrate (as nitrogen) N ­ 10 NL Nitrite (as nitrogen) N ­ 1 NL Potassium Y 1.0 NL NL NA/ NA Selenium Y 0.005 0.05 0.175 0/ 0 Silver Y 0.005 0.05 0.20 0/ 0 Silicon N ­ NL NL Sodium Y 1.00 NL NL NA/ NA Strontium N ­ NL NL Sulfate Y 1.0 NL NL NA/ NA Sulfite N ­ NL NL Sulfide N ­ NL NL Titanium N ­ NL NL Thallium Y 0.002 0.002 NL 0/ NA Vanadium N ­ NL 0.3 Zinc N ­ NL 10 Field Parameters pH Y NA NL NL NA Conductivity Y NA NL NL NA TSS N ­ NL NL Dissolved solids Y NA NL NL NA Total Inorganic Carbon N ­ NL NL Total Organic Carbon N ­ NL NL COD N ­ NL NL Organic Substances (only detected substances listed) None sampled ­ ­ Other Substances Gross Alpha (pCi/ L) NL NA NL NA Gross Beta (pCi/ L) NL NA NL NA Note: Background well locations were not identified. NL = Not listed as having a regulatory standard (MCL and/ or HBN). NA = Not applicable. ** detection limit is greater than regulatory value Specific Comments: No background monitoring well is identified and there is no site­ specific information contained in the report or the letter that is provided with the data summary report. Holnam – Clarksville, Missouri (continued) II­ 21 The only conclusion made in the report is that the concentrations of the substances detected has remained constant over time, a conclusion that is not relevant to an assessment of impact to the area. The data itself does not have a significant number of substances detected at concentrations greater than MCL or HBN standards, but without definitive information concerning the location of the wells and the depths screened, for example, a conclusion cannot be made that there is no impact. Additionally, without information concerning the background concentrations of substances, it cannot be determined whether there is an impact to the local groundwater at concentrations less than regulatory standards. II­ 22 Holnam – Florence, Colorado Summary: The report consists of three short paragraphs that briefly cover permitting status, facility history, and a brief conclusion regarding groundwater quality in the vicinity of the site. Table 1. Overall report quality Subsurface No Total no. of wells sampled 4 Sampling Dates or duration 3 wells/ 4 quarters; 1 additional well/ 5 th quarter Upgradient wells specified Not specified Downgradient wells specified 1 well, not named Site map included No Adequate physical description No Contains discussion section No Contains conclusions Limited Reference cited No Table 2. Summary of reported data Sampled? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Inorganic Chemicals Alkalinity Y ­ NL NL NA Aluminum Y 0.05 to 0.10 NL NL NA Ammonia­ N Y NL NL NA Antimony Y 0.01 to 0 .2 0.006 0.014 21**/ 7** Arsenic Y 0.005 to 0.1 0.05 0.0000568 1**/ 21** Barium Y 0.1 2 NL 0 Beryllium Y 0.005 to 0.01 0.004 0.004 21**/ 21** Bicarbo nate Y ­ NL NL NA Cadmium Y 0.005 to 0.01 0.005 NL 2** Calcium Y ­ NL NL NA Carbonate Y ­ NL NL NA Chloride Y ­ NL NL NA Chromium (total) N ­ 0.1 40 NA Copper N ­ 1.3 1.0 NA Fluoride Y ­ 4 NL 0 Iron Y 0.05 NL NL NA Lead Y 0.05 to 0.005 0.015 0.015 5**/ 5** Magnesium Y ­ NL NL NA Manganese Y 0.01 NL NL NA Mercury (inorganic) Y 0.0002 to 0.005 0.002 0.011 2**/ 0 Nickel Y 0.04 0.1 NL 0 Nitrate (as nitrogen) Y ­ 10 NL 1 Holnam – Florence, Colorado (continued) Sampled? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN II­ 23 Nitrite (as nitrogen) N ­ 1 NL NA Potassium Y ­ NA NL NA Selenium Y 0.005 to 0.1 0.05 0.175 6**/ 0 Silver Y 0.01 0.05 0.20 0/ 0 Sodium Y ­ NL NL NA Sulfate Y ­ NL NL NA Thallium Y 0.01 to 0 .1 0.002 NL 21** Field Parameters pH Y ­ NL ­ NA Conductivity Y ­ NL NL NA TSS Y ­ NL NL NA Note: Background well locations were not identified. NL = Not listed as having a regulatory standard (MCL and/ or HBN). NA = Not applicable. ** Detection limit is greater than regulatory value. Specific Comments: The quality of this report is very poor due to: (1) absence of site map, (2) absence of locational references associated with monitoring wells, (3) absence of background concentrations, and (4) lack of attention to statistical importance, if any, of results. The conclusion that groundwater in the vicinity of this site is not influenced by placing CKD in the quarry is unfounded based on the report and accompanying data. II­ 24 Holnam – Laporte, Colorado Summary: The report appears to be abbreviated, as it provides only a summary of analytical data collected over a five­ quarter period. However, actual data are only shown for the first three quarters, with calculated differences shown for all five quarters in separate tables. The text summary is extremely brief and states only the number and vague locations of wells, period of sampling, and the conclusion that the "monitoring wells were voluntarily sampled for five quarters to show that there is no impact to groundwater." Table 1. Overall report quality Subsurface description No Total no. of wells sampled 3 Sampling dates or duration Five sampling events: five consecutive quarters beginning with 1 st quarter 2000 Upgradient wells specified 1 Downgradient wells specified 2 Site map included No Adequate physical description None Contains discussion section No Contains conclusions No References cited No Table 2. Summary of reported data Sampled? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Background #> Background Inorganic Chemicals Alkalinity N ­ NL ­ ­ Aluminum N ­ NL ­ ­ Ammonia N N ­ NL ­ ­ Antimony N 0.006 0.014 ­ ­ Arsenic Y ­ 0.05 0.000056 8 1/ 9 0.01 – 0.027 d 3 > 0.027 Barium Y 2 NL 0 ND – 0.014 6 > 0.014 Beryllium N 0.004 0.004 0/ 0 ­ Bicarbo nate N ­ NL ­ ­ Cadmium N 0.005 NL ­ ­ Calcium N ­ NL ­ ­ Carbonate N ­ NL ­ ­ Chloride Y ­ NL ­ 25 ­ 28 6 > 28 Chromium (total) Y 0.1 40 0/ 0 ND d 0 Copper Y 1.3 1.0 0/ 0 ND d 0 Fluoride Y 4 NL 0 0.5 – 0.7 6 > 0.7 Iron Y ­ NL 0 ND – 0.1 3 > 0.1 Lead Y 0.015 0.015 0/ 0 ND – 0.013 0 Magnesium N ­ NL ­ ­ Manganese Y ­ NL ­ 0.04 – 0.053 5 > 0.053 Mercury (inorganic) N 0.002 0.011 ­ ­ Nickel N 0.1 NL ­ ­ ­ Holnam – Laporte, Colorado (continued) Sampled? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Background #> Background II­ 25 Nitrate (as nitrogen) Y 10 NL 0 3.28 – 3.77 0 Nitrite (as nitrogen) Y 1 NL 0 0.04 – 0.66 0 Potassium N ­ NL ­ ­ Selenium Y 0.05 0.175 2/ 0 0.046 – 0.101 0 Silver N 0.05 0.20 ­ ­ Sodium N ­ NL ­ ­ Sulfate Y ­ NL ­ 4000 ­ 4410 0 Thallium Y 0.002 NL 0 ND – 0.0007 0 Field Parameters pH Y ­ ­ 7.5 – 7.6 6 > 7.6 Conductivity N ­ NL ­ ­ TSS N ­ NL ­ ­ NL = Not listed as having a regulatory standard (MCL and/ or HBN). NA = Not applicable. d Dissolved. Specific Comments: Based on the report which is not dated, the following observations have been made: General Conclusion: The groundwater monitoring wells were voluntarily sampled for five quarters to show that there is no impact to groundwater. However: (1) Not all potentially important chemicals/ compounds were sampled. (2) Only data for first three quarters are explicitly shown. (3) There are several chemicals that indicate higher values within the downgradient sampling areas. Groundwater downgradient of the CDK disposal area appears to be influenced, to some degree, by increases in arsenic, barium, chloride, fluoride, iron, and manganese. (4) There is no information regarding the site description. II­ 26 Holnam – Three Rivers, Montana Summary: The report essentially consists of poorly labeled data tables. The introductory paragraph states that there are 3 wells (1 upgradient and 2 downgradient). However, the accompanying analytical results show data for 7 monitoring wells with no indication as to their association (relative position). As such, Table 2 cannot be completed for background comparisons. Table 1. Overall report quality Subsurface description No Total no. of wells sampled 3, but data sheets indicate 7 Sampling dates or duration Stated: sampled twice per year Upgradient wells specified 1, not indicated in analytical results Downgradient wells specified 2, not indicated in analytical results Site map included No Adequate physical description None Contains discussion section No Contains conclusions No References cited No Table 2. Summary of reported data Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Inorganic Chemicals Alkalinity N ­ NL Aluminum N ­ NL Ammonia N N ­ NL Antimony Y 0.003 0.006 0.014 0/ 0 Arsenic Y 0.003 0.05 0.000056 8 0/ 13** Barium Y ­ 2 NL 0 Beryllium Y 0.001 0.004 0.004 0/ 0 Bicarbonate N ­ ­ NL Cadmium Y 0.0001 0.005 NL 0 Calcium N ­ ­ NL Carbonate N ­ ­ NL Chloride Y ­ ­ NL Chromium (total) Y 0.001 0.1 40 0/ 0 Copper Y 0.001 1.3 1.0 0/ 0 Fluoride Y ­ 4 NL 0 Iron Y 0.01 ­ NL Lead Y 0.003 0.015 0.015 0/ 0 Magnesium N ­ ­ NL Manganese N ­ ­ NL ­ Holnam – Three Rivers, Montana (continued) Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN II­ 27 Mercury (inorganic) Y 0.0006 0.002 0.011 0/ 0 Nickel Y 0.02 0.1 NL 0 Nitrate (as nitrogen) N ­ 10 NL Nitrite (as nitrogen) N ­ 1 NL Potassium N ­ ­ NL Selenium Y 0.001 0.05 0.175 0/ 0 Silver Y 0.003 0.05 0.20 0/ 0 Sodium N ­ ­ NL Sulfate Y ­ ­ NL Thallium Y 0.003 0.002 NL 0 Vanadium Y 0.1 NL 0.3 0 Zinc Y 0.01 NL 10 0 Field Parameters pH Y ­ Conductivity Y ­ NL TSS N ­ NL Note: Background well locations were not identified. NL = Not listed as having a regulatory standard (MCL and/ or HBN). NA = Not applicable. ** Detection limit is greater than regulatory value. Specific Comments: Based on the report, which is not dated, the following observations have been made: (1) Not all potentially important chemicals/ compounds were sampled. (2) A comparison of background to downgradient samples is not possible due to a lack of monitoring well identification. (3) There is not sufficient information provided to draw conclusions about the impact of the facility. II­ 28 Lafarge Midwest, Inc. – Alpena, Michigan Summary: The CKD landfill located at the Lafarge facility is both lined and caped. Groundwater monitoring is conducted according to the State approved Hydrogeologic Monitoring Plan which includes annual sample collected from the network of 12 monitoring wells at the facility which includes background monitoring. Continuous quarry dewatering is also conducted in the vicinity of the CKD landfill which draws groundwater away from the CKD landfill. Subsurface description No Total no. of wells sampled 12 Sampling Dates or duration 2 (6/ 28/ 00, 6/ 7/ 01) Upgradient wells specified Not specified Downgradient wells specified Not specified Site map included No Adequate physical description No Contains discussion section Limited Contains conclusions Limited References cited No Summary of Reported Data: Sampled ? DL* MCL HBN (land fill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Background mg/ l* #> Background* Inorganic Chemicals Alkalinity Y 20 NL NL NA/ NA ? ? Aluminum N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Ammonia N Y 0.5 NL NL NA/ NA ? ? Antimony Y .0023/. 0 092 0.006 0.014 */* ? ? Arsenic Y .0044/. 0 .013 0.05 5.68E­ 5 0/* ? ? Asbestos (> 10 microns) N ­ 7 MFL NL ­ ­ Barium Y ? 2 NL 0/ NA ? ? Beryllium Y 0.001 0.004 0.004 0/ 0 ? ? Bicarbo nate Y 20 NL NL NA/ NA ? ? Boron N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Cadmium Y 0.0002 0.005 NL 0/ NA ? ? Calcium Y ? NL NL NA/ NA ? ? Carbonate Y 20 NL NL NA/ NA ? ? Chloride Y 10 NL NL NA/ NA ? ? Chromium (total) Y 0.001 0.1 40 0/ 0 ? ? Cobalt Y 0.015 NL NL NA/ NA ? ? Copper* Y 0.0022/ 0.001 1.3 1.0 0/ 0 ? ? Cyanide (as free cyanide) Y .02/. 005 0.2 NL 0/ NA ? ? Fluoride Y ? 4 NL 0/ NA ? ? Iron Y 0.020 NL NL NA/ NA ? ? Lafarge Midwest, Inc. – Alpena, Michigan (continued) Sampled ? DL* MCL HBN (land fill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Background mg/ l* #> Background* II­ 29 Lead* Y 0.001/ 0.0022 0.015 0.015 3/ 3 ? ? Lithium N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Magnesium Y ? NL NL NA/ NA ? ? Manganese Y 0.020 NL NL NA/ NA ? ? Mercury (inorganic) Y 0.0002 0.002 0.011 0/ 0 ? ? Molybdenum N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Nickel Y 0.020 0.1 NL 0/ NA ? ? Nitrate (as nitrogen) Y 0.08 10 NL 0/ NA ? ? Nitrogen (Nitrate + Nitrite) Y .037/. 02 11 NL 0/ NA ? ? Potassium Y ? NL NL NA/ NA ? ? Selenium Y .042/. 00 28 0.05 0.175 0/* ? ? Silver Y 0.0005 0.05 0.20 0/ 0 ? ? Silicon N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Sodium Y ? NL NL NA/ NA ? ? Strontium N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Sulfate Y ? NL NL NA/ NA ? ? Sulfite N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Sulfide N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Titanium N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Thallium Y .0056/. 0 18 0.002 NL */ NA ? ? Vanadium Y 0.010 NL 0.3 NA/ 0 ? ? Zinc Y 0.004 NL 10 NA/ 0 ? ? Field Parameters pH Y NA NL NL NA/ NA ? ? Conductivity Y NA NL NL NA/ NA ? ? TSS N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Dissolved solids Y ? NL NL NA/ NA ? ? Total Inorganic Carbon N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Total Organic Carbon Y ? NL NL NA/ NA ? ? COD Y 5 NL NL NA/ NA ? ? Organic Substances (only detected substances listed) Total rec overable phenolics Y 0.005 NL NL NA/ NA ­ ** detection limit is greater than regulatory value Specific Comments: The text of the report states that reference/ background data is collected at the site; however, no reference well location is given. As a result no conclusions can be made concerning the quality of the groundwater on the property in relation to background conditions. There are a few instances of accidences of MCL or HBN regulatory criteria for lead. Based on Lafarge Midwest, Inc. – Alpena, Michigan (continued) II­ 30 the number of samples collected from the property during the two sampling events there does not appear to be a significant impact from the property to the local groundwater but without significantly more information concerning the location and depth of the monitoring wells, local and regional geology, groundwater flow, background information and source area information no conclusions can be made concerning the impact. II­ 31 Lafarge – Paulding, Ohio Summary: The text portion of this report is comparatively detailed. The site has 6 monitoring wells (4 of which are upgradient) which are sampled twice annually. The location of upgradient wells are not specified in the text, but their locations are inferred based on the information contained in the report. The wells are set at 115 feet bgs or approximately 10 feet below the base of the landfill. The report states that, based on statistical analysis of the data, no impact to the groundwater has been observed. Table 1. Overall report quality Subsurface description Some well information, minimal geologic information Total no. of wells sampled 6 Sampling dates or duration 14 sample events (from 9/ 95 thru 6/ 01); 2 sample events for chemical analysis (dates unknown) Upgradient wells specified Yes (inferred) Downgradient wells specified Yes (inferred) Site map included No Adequate physical description Yes, of the source areas; otherwise limited Contains discussion section Limited Contains conclusions Statement of statistical analysis References cited No Table 2. Summary reported data Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Background mg/ l # > Background Inorganic Chemicals Alkalinity Y NL NL NL 0/ 0 81­ 230 0 Aluminum N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Ammonia N N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Antimony N ­ 0.006 0.014 ­ ­ Arsenic Y 0.005 0.05 5.68E­ 5 0/ 2** <0.005 1 Barium Y 0.010 2 NL 0/ 0 0.008 – 0.319 0 Beryllium N ­ 0.004 0.004 ­ ­ Bicarbo nate N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Boron N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Cadmium Y 0.0005 0.005 NL 0/ 0 <0.0005 0 Calcium Y NL NL NL 0/ 0 41 – 210 3 Carbonate N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Chloride Y NL NL NL 0/ 0 5 – 27 0 Chromium (total) Y 0.010 0.1 40 0/ 0 <0.01 0 Cobalt N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Copper N ­ 1.3 1.0 ­ ­ Fluoride N ­ 4 NL ­ ­ Iron Y 0.01 NL NL 0/ 0 <0.05 6 Lafarge – Paulding, Ohio (continued) Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Background mg/ l # > Background II­ 32 Lead Y 0.005 0.015 0.015 0/ 0 <0.005 0 Lithium N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Magnesium Y NL NL NL 0/ 0 34 – 130 2 Manganese Y 0.050 NL NL 0/ 0 <0.05 – 0.03 4 Mercury (inorganic) Y 0.0002 0.002 0.011 0/ 0 <0.0002 0 Molybdenum N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Nickel N ­ 0.1 NL ­ ­ Nitrate (as nitrogen) N ­ 10 NL ­ ­ Nitrite (as nitrogen) N ­ 1 NL ­ ­ Potassium N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Selenium Y 0.005 0.05 0.175 0/ 0 <0.005 0 Silver Y 0.010 0.05 0.20 0/ 0 <0.01 0 Silicon N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Sodium Y NL NL NL 0/ 0 15 – 69 2 Strontium N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Sulfate Y NL NL NL 0/ 0 123 – 680 3 Sulfite N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Sulfide N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Titanium N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Thallium N ­ 0.002 NL ­ ­ Vanadium N ­ NL 0.3 ­ ­ Zinc N ­ NL 10 ­ ­ Field Parameters pH N ­ NL NL NA ­ Conductivity N ­ NL NL NA ­ TSS N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Dissolved solids Y NL NL NL NA 210­ 1,100 3 Total Ino rganic Carbon N ­ NL NL ­ ­ Total Organic Carbon Y NL NL NL NA 1.9 – 11 0 COD Y NL NL NL ­ 19 ­ 63 0 Organic Substances (only detected substances listed) None sampled ­ ­ ­ ­ NL = Not listed as having a regulatory standard (MCL and/ or HBN). NA = Not applicable. ** Detection limit is greater than regulatory value Specific Comments: The report provides a reasonable amount of detail concerning the source areas on the property. There is some information concerning the depth of the monitoring wells, but no information about the location of the wells in relation to the sources. The text also does not state which of the 6 wells are located upgradient of the sources­­ only that 4 of the 6 are upgradient. The information concerning reference wells can be inferred from the sample summary tables with the exception of MW­ 1. Additionally, a greater number of wells are located upgradient than downgradient which should be explained. The number of upgradient wells seems excessive, and it appears there should have been more wells installed downgradient of the potential contaminant sources. Based on the analytical information, concentrations of contaminants are below MCL values; however, a number of substances are detected at greater Lafarge – Paulding, Ohio (continued) II­ 33 concentrations than reference values indicating that there is an impact to the local groundwater table as a result of the CKD piles. Samples for metals analysis were all field filtered. Unfiltered samples should have been collected as well for comparison to regulatory criteria. Not enough information is available to conclusively determine the impact from the CKD piles. The statistical analysis conducted for contaminants was performed for only a few parameters for which there is extensive data. A second method of analysis should be used to make a determination of the data for which there is only two sampling events. II­ 34 Lehigh Portland Cement Company – Mitchell, Indiana Summary: Lehigh is located in an area of karst geology; therefore, sampling of the local surface water bodies is a better indicator of groundwater contamination than groundwater monitoring wells and sample collection. Based on a sampling plan for the property, samples would be collected during multiple sampling events from periods of both high and low flow and from areas, both up and downgradient of the property. Due to the amount of time necessary for the transport of the potential contaminant substances from the facility to the sampling locations, the initial sampling event as summarized in the facility report would need to be used to establish base line conditions. As part of the summary report, samples were collected from the low flow period. High flow samples have not yet been collected and would be collected when sufficient conditions exist. Therefore, the data summarized in the data tables cannot be used for determining the impact of CKD to the groundwater table. It should be emphasized that the location of the landfill in an area of karst geology makes the impact of the landfill very difficult to assess. Also, the data collected and summarized in the report represents base line conditions only and are compared to groundwater regulatory criteria for consistency with other reports. Table 1. Overall report quality Subsurface description Indicates only karst conditions exist – more information is needed Total no. of wells sampled 0 – Surface water collection points only Sampling dates or duration 3 sample events during low or standard conditions – 30+ samples collected during each event (11/ 9/ 00, 1/ 11/ 01, 1/ 30/ 01) Upgradient wells specified NA – upgradient sample location not specified Downgradient wells specified NA – sample location not specified Site map included No Adequate physical description No Contains discussion section Limited Contains conclusions Only states that no conclusion could be made at this time References cited No Table 2. Summary reported data Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Inorganic Chemicals Alkalinity Y NL NL NL NA/ NA Aluminum N ­ NL NL Ammonia N N ­ NL NL Antimony N ­ 0.006 0.014 Arsenic Y 0.005 0.05 5.68E­ 5 40/** Lehigh Portland Cement Company – Mitchell, Indiana (continued) Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN II­ 35 Barium Y 0.020 2 NL 0/ NA Beryllium N ­ 0.004 0.004 Bicarbonate Y NL NL NL NA/ NA Boron N ­ NL NL Cadmium Y 0.005 0.005 NL 0/ NA Calcium Y 1.0 NL NL NA/ NA Carbonate Y 1 NL NL NA/ NA Chloride Y NL NL NL NA/ NA Chromium (total) Y 0.01 0.1 40 0/ 0 Cobalt N ­ NL NL Copper Y 0.01 1.3 1.0 0/ 0 Fluoride Y NL 4 NL 0/ NA Iron Y 0.10 NL NL NA/ NA Lead Y 0.005 0.015 0.015 0/ 0 Lithium N ­ NL NL Magnesium Y 1.0 NL NL NA/ NA Manganese Y 0.015 NL NL NA/ NA Mercury (inorganic) Y 0.0005 0.002 0.011 0/ 0 Molybdenum N ­ NL NL Nickel N ­ 0.1 NL Nitrate (as nitrogen) N ­ 10 NL Nitrite (as nitrogen) N ­ 1 NL Potassium Y ­ NL NL NA/ NA Selenium Y 0.005 0.05 0.175 0/ 0 Silver Y 0.005 0.05 0.20 0/ 0 Silicon N ­ NL NL Sodium Y NL NL NL NA/ NA Strontium N ­ NL NL Sulfate Y NL NL NL NA/ NA Sulfite N ­ NL NL Sulfide N ­ NL NL Titanium N ­ NL NL Thallium N ­ 0.002 NL Vanadium N ­ NL 0.3 Zinc Y 0.02 NL 10 NA/ 0 Field Parameters pH N ­ NL NL Conductivity N ­ NL NL TSS Y NL NL NL NA/ NA Lehigh Portland Cement Company – Mitchell, Indiana (continued) Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN II­ 36 Dissolved solids Y NL NL NL NA/ NA Total Inorganic Carbon N ­ NL NL Total Organic Carbon N ­ NL NL COD N ­ NL NL Organic Substances (only detected substances listed) None sampled ­ ­ ­ ­ Note: Background well locations were not identified. NL = Not listed as having a regulatory standard (MCL and/ or HBN). NA = Not applicable. ** Detection limit is greater than regulatory value Specific Comments: Areas of karst geology and the impact from areas of potential contamination are very difficult to assess. This report does not provide enough information concerning the conditions that exist at the site to determine whether the sampling approach is appropriate. For instance, the distance from the site to the sample locations for water bodies should be included and the water bodies receiving groundwater from the site and background location have not been specified. Additionally, the report states that conclusions concerning an impact to the groundwater cannot be made due to the length of time needed for the transport to occur. As a result, there can be no conclusions made at this time concerning the impact or lack of impact to the groundwater in the area. More information and sampling events are necessary. Also, if contaminants are detected they may not necessarily be attributable to the site – groundwater in the vicinity of the site may travel and be received by water bodies other than the few that are sampled. II­ 37 Lone Star Industries, Inc. – Cape Girardeau, Missouri Summary: This summary report makes two specific claims: (1) the source of elevated metals groundwater concentration does not appear to be the CKD Management Area because background concentrations are elevated, and therefore, not significantly different; and (2) previous studies indicated that metals are not leaching through the CKD to the groundwater. However, the report does not contain a site map, subsurface description, methods of groundwater collection and analyses, or any indication as to the relative locations of monitoring wells to one another with respect to groundwater flow direction. In other words, there is no way to substantiate or refute the claims stated above. The monitoring well data indicate concentrations of arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, and selenium that exceed MCLs. Silicon also is present in relatively high concentrations in some wells. Table 1. Overall report quality Subsurface description No Total no. of wells sampled 11 Sampling dates or duration Annual sampling in most cases Upgradient wells specified Not identifiable Downgradient wells specified Not identifiable Site map included No Adequate physical description None Contains discussion section No Contains conclusions No References cited No Table 2. Summary of reported data Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Inorganic Chemicals Alkalinity N ­ NL Aluminum N ­ NL Ammonia N N ­ NL Antimony Y 0.1 0.006 0.014 6**/ 6** Arsenic Y 0.001 0.05 0.000056 8 3/ 44** Barium Y 0.02 2 NL 0 Beryllium Y ­ 0.004 0.004 3/ 3 Bicarbonate N ­ ­ NL Cadmium Y 0.001 0.005 NL 7 Calcium N ­ ­ NL Carbonate N ­ NL NL Chloride N ­ NL NL Chromium (total) Y 0.01 0.1 40 0/ 0 Copper Y 0.01 1.3 1.0 0/ 0 Lone Star Industries, Inc. – Cape Girardeau, Missouri (continued) Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN II­ 38 Fluoride N ­ 4 NL 0 Iron Y ­ NL NL Lead Y 0.1 to 0.001 NL 0.015 13** Magnesium Y ­ NL NL Manganese Y ­ NL NL Mercury (inorganic) Y 0.0002 0.002 0.011 0/ 0 Nickel Y 0.04 0.1 NL 0 Nitrate (as nitrogen) N ­ 10 NL Nitrite (as nitrogen) N ­ 1 NL Potassium N ­ NL NL Selenium Y 0.001 0.06 0.175 1/ 0 Silver Y 0.001 to 0.01 0.05 0.20 0/ 0 Sodium N ­ NL NL Sulfate Y ­ NL NL Thallium Y 0.1 0.002 NL 0 Vanadium Y 0.05 NL 0.3 0 Zinc Y ­ NL 10 0 Field Parameters pH Y ­ NL NL Conductivity Y ­ NL NL TSS N ­ NL NL Note Background well locations were not identified. NL = Not listed as having a regulatory standard (MCL and/ or HBN). NA = Not applicable. ** Detection limit is greater than regulatory value. Specific Comments: Evaluating the likelihood that the metals present in the downgradient groundwater are insignificantly different than background is not possible due to the lack of necessary information (site maps, geologic descriptions, history, etc.). In addition, references to earlier work, or inclusion of past reports, is necessary to review potential historical impacts to the site. II­ 39 II­ 40 II­ 41 Lone Star Industries, Inc. – Pryor, Oklahoma Summary: This report consists of one paragraph that briefly covers permitting status, history, and brief conclusion regarding groundwater quality in the vicinity of the site. Table 1. Overall report quality Subsurface description No Total no. of wells sampled 7 Sampling dates or duration 1999 Upgradient wells specified Not specified Downgradient wells specified Not specified Site map included No Adequate physical description No Contains discussion section No Contains conclusions Limited Reference cited No Table 2. Summary reported data Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Inorganic Chemicals Alkalinity N NA NL NA Aluminum N NA NL NA Ammonia­ N N NA NL NA Antimony Y 0.005 0.006 0.014 1/ 0 Arsenic Y 0.005 0.05 0.000056 8 4/ 5** Barium Y ­ 2 NL 0 Beryllium Y 0.001 0.004 0.004 0/ 0 Bicarbonate N NA NL NA Cadmium Y 0.001 0.005 NL 0 Calcium N NA NL NA Carbonate N NA NL NA Chloride Y ­ NA NL NA Chromium (total) Y ­ 0.1 40 0/ 0 Copper Y 0.005 1.3 1.0 0/ 0 Fluoride N 4 NL 0 Iron Y 0.03 NA NL NA Lead Y 0.002 0.015 0.015 1/ 1 Magnesium N NA NL NA Manganese Y ­ NA NL NA Mercury (inorganic) Y 0.0002 0.002 0.011 0/ 0 Nickel Y 0.01 ­ NL NA Lone Star Industries, Inc. – Pryor, Oklahoma (continued) Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN II­ 42 Nitrate (as nitrogen) N 10 NL 1 Nitrite (as nitrogen) N 1 NL NA Potassium N NA NL NA Selenium Y 0.002 0.05 0.175 0/ 0 Silver Y 0.001 0.05 0.20 0 Sodium N NA NL NA Sulfate Y ­ 500 NL 3 Thallium Y 0.004 0.002 NL 7** Field Parameters pH N NA NL NA Conductivity N NA NL NA TSS Y 4.0 NA NL NA Note: Background well locations were not identified. NL = Not listed as having a regulatory standard (MCL and/ or HBN). NA = Not applicable. ** Detection limit is greater than regulatory value. Specific Comments: The quality of this report is very poor due to: (1) absence of a site map, (2) absence of geographical references associated with monitoring wells, (3) absence of background concentrations, and (4) lack of attention to statistical importance, if any, of results. The claim that the CKD­ influenced groundwater at this site is limited to a perched aquifer cannot be confirmed based on the information provided. II­ 43 National Cement Company of California – Lebec, California Summary: The CKD landfill has been closed and a documented release has occurred. Long­ term monitoring is being conducted to monitor for any new releases from the source area and to monitor the existing conditions. Table 1. Overall report quality Subsurface description Yes Total no. of wells sampled 12 Sampling dates or duration 40 (3/ 91 thru 8/ 00) Upgradient wells specified Yes Downgradient wells specified Yes Site map included Yes Adequate physical description Yes Contains discussion section Yes Contains conclusions Yes References cited Yes Table 2. Summary of reported data Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Inorganic C hemicals Alkalinity Y ­ NL NL NA Aluminum N ­ NL NL Ammonia N N ­ NL NL Antimony N ­ 0.006 0.014 Arsenic N ­ 0.05 5.68 E­ 5 Barium N ­ 2 NL Beryllium N ­ 0.004 0.004 Bicarbonate N ­ NL NL Boron N ­ NL NL Cadmium N ­ 0.005 NL Calcium Y ­ NL NL NA Carbonate N ­ NL NL Chloride Y ­ NL NL NA Chromium (total) N ­ 0.1 40 Cobalt N ­ NL NL Copper N ­ 1.3 1.0 Fluoride N ­ 4 NL Iron N ­ NL NL Lead Y 0.002 0.015 0.015 17/ 17 Lithium N ­ NL NL Magnesium Y ­ NL NL NA Manganese N ­ NL NL Mercury (inorganic) N ­ 0.002 0.011 Molybdenum N ­ NL NL ­ National Cement Company of California – Lebec, California (continued) Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN II­ 44 Nickel N ­ 0.1 NL Nitrate (as nitrogen) Y ­ 10 NL NA Nitrogen (Nitrate + Nitrite) N ­ 11 NL Potassium Y 5.00 NL NL NA Selenium N ­ 0.05 0.175 Silver N ­ 0.05 0.20 Silicon N ­ NL NL Sodium Y ­ NL NL NA Strontium N ­ NL NL Sulfate Y ­ NL NL NA Sulfite N ­ NL NL Sulfide N ­ NL NL Titanium N ­ NL NL Thallium N ­ 0.002 NL Vanadium N ­ NL 0.3 Zinc N ­ NL 10 Field Parameters pH Y ­ NL NL NA Conductivity Y ­ NL NL NA TSS N ­ NL NL Dissolved solids Y ­ NL NL NA Total Inorganic Carbon N ­ NL NL Total Organic Carbon N ­ NL NL COD N ­ NL NL Organic Substances (only detected substances listed) None sampled Note: Background well locations were not identified. NL = Not listed as having a re gulatory standard (MCL and/ or HB N). NA = Not applicable. ** Detection limit is greater than regulatory value. Specific Comments: The report is thorough and relatively complete. It appears that the rationale used for the analytical selection may be sufficient. The level of detail in the report and the amount of sampling that has been conducted is sufficient to support the conclusions that have been made concerning the impact to the groundwater table. However, the facility should be asked to provide any additional information it has to further substantiate that the parameters being monitored are adequate. II­ 45 North Texas Cement Company – Midlothian, Texas Summary: The summary for the site is fairly brief but included with the summary report is a copy of the RCRA Facility Investigation which is a detailed investigation containing maps, figures, and a complete site summary. The RCRA report states that there is no impact to the local groundwater table as a r esult of the CKD landfill on the property. Table 1. Overall report quality Subsurface description Yes Total no. of wells sampled 6 Sampling dates or duration 1 (7/ 1997) Upgradient wells specified Yes Downgradient wells specified Yes Site map included Yes Adequate physical description Yes Contains discussion section Yes Contains conclusions Yes References cited No Table 2. Summary of reported data Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN Inorganic Chemicals Alkalinity N ­ NL NL Aluminum N ­ NL NL Ammonia­ N N ­ NL NL Antimony Y 0.006 0.006 0.014 0/ 0 Arsenic Y 0.005 0.05 5.68E­ 5 0/* Barium Y 0.01 2 NL Beryllium Y 0.003 0.004 0.004 0/ 0 Bicarbonate N ­ NL NL Boron N ­ NL NL Cadmium Y 0.005 0.005 NL 0/ 0 Calcium N ­ NL NL Carbonate N ­ NL NL Chloride N ­ NL NL Chromium (total) Y 0.005 0.1 40 0/ 0 Cobalt N ­ NL NL Copper N ­ 1.3 1.0 Fluoride N ­ 4 NL North Texas Cement Company – Midlothian, Texas (continued) Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN II­ 46 Iron N ­ NL NL Lead Y 0.003 0.015 0.015 0/ 0 Lithium N ­ NL NL Magnesium N ­ NL NL Manganese N ­ NL NL Mercury (inorganic) Y 0.0002 0.002 0.011 0/ 0 Molybdenum N ­ NL NL Nickel N ­ 0.1 NL Nitrate (as nitrogen) N ­ 10 NL Nitrogen (Nitrate + Nitrite) N ­ 11 NL Potassium N ­ NL NL Selenium Y 0.005 0.05 0.175 0/ 0 Silver Y 0.005 0.05 0.20 0/ 0 Silicon N ­ NL NL Sodium N ­ NL NL Strontium N ­ NL NL Sulfate N ­ NL NL Sulfite N ­ NL NL Sulfide N ­ NL NL Titanium N ­ NL NL Thallium Y 0.01 0.002 NL 0/ 0 Vanadium N ­ NL 0.3 Zinc Y 0.02 NL 10 0/ 0 Field Parameters pH NL NL Conductivity N NL NL TSS N NL NL Dissolved solids N NL NL Total Inorganic Carbon N NL NL Total Organic Carbon N NL NL COD N NL NL North Texas Cement Company – Midlothian, Texas (continued) Sampled ? DL MCL HBN (landfill) # Exceed MCL/ HBN II­ 47 Organic Substances (only detected substances listed) None sampled Note: Background well locations were not identified. NL = Not listed as having a regulatory standard (MCL and/ or HBN). NA = Not applicable. ** Detection limit is greater than regulatory value. Specific Comments: The report is thorough and relatively complete, but there has been only one sampling event and only a few metals were analyzed. The level of detail in the report would be sufficient to support the conclusions if there were a greater number of metals analyzed and the conduct of multiple sampling events. Based on the information contained in the report, it does not appear that a release to the groundwater table has occurred although a greater number of samples should be collected to support that conclusion.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.009409

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0027-0004

Notice

Agency Information Collection Activities: Continuing Collection; Comment Request; General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards

52718 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2002 / Notices Dated: August 2, 2002. Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Director, Office of Science and Technology. [FR Doc. 02– 20450 Filed 8– 12– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7258– 1] Agency Information Collection Activities: Continuing Collection; Comment Request; General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that EPA is planning to submit the following continuing Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards, EPA ICR # 1571.07, OMB Control Number 2050– 0120, expires December 31, 2002. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 15, 2002. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, through hand delivery/ courier, or electronically. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. The mailing address, referencing Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0027, is: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460– 001. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the Arlington, Virginia address below. Comments may also be submitted electronically through the Internet to: rcra­ docket@ epa. gov. Comments in electronic format should also be identified by the Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0027. All electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Commenters should not submit any confidential business information (CBI) electronically. An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5303W), U. S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC 20460– 001. Hand deliveries must be brought to the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9: 00 a. m. to 4: 00 p. m. Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Eberly by phone at (703) 308– 8645, by mail at the Office of Solid Waste (5303W), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460– 001, or by e­ mail at eberly. david@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. How Can I Get Copies of the ICR Supporting Statement and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0027. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in the ICR, any public comments received, and other information related to this ICR. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the RCRA Information Center (see ADDRESSES above). This Docket Facility is open from 9: 00 a. m. to 4: 00 p. m. Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. It is recommended that the public make an appointment by calling (703) 603– 9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies are $0.15/ page 2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search, '' then key in the docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI, and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in A. 1 above. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late. '' EPA is not required to consider these late comments in formulating a final decision. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 36 Aug 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUN1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13AUN1 52719 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2002 / Notices below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e­ mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select `` Information Sources, '' `` Dockets, '' and `` EPA Dockets. '' Once in the system, select `` search, '' and then key in Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0027. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e­ mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E­ mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e­ mail) to rcradocket epa. gov, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0027. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's email system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e­ mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e­ mail system automatically captures your e­ mail address. E­ mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e­ mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in ADDRESSES. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By Mail. Send an original and two copies of their comments, referencing Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0027, to: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460– 001. 3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0027. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, from 9: 00 a. m. to 4: 00 p. m. Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e­ mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5303W), U. S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC 20460– 001, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0027. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. D. What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in? Pursuant to section 3506( c)( 2)( A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to: 1. Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility. 2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burdens of the proposed collections of information. In particular, for this ICR, EPA is soliciting information on the estimates for performing waste analyses as required in 40 CFR 264.13( a)( 1) and 40 CFR 265.13( a)( 1). 3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. 4. Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated or electronic collection technologies or other forms of information technology, e. g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Title: General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards, EPA ICR # 1571.07, OMB Control Number 2050– 0120, expires on December 31, 2002. Abstract: Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, requires that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develop standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) as may be necessary to protect human health and the environment. Subsections 3004( a)( 1), (3), (4), (5), and (6) specify that these standards include, but not be limited to, the following requirements: Maintaining records of all hazardous wastes identified or listed under subtitle C that are treated, stored, or disposed of, and the manner in which such wastes were treated, stored, or disposed of; Operating methods, techniques, and practices for treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste; Location, design, and construction of such hazardous waste treatment, disposal, or storage facilities; Contingency plans for effective action to minimize unanticipated damage from any treatment, storage, or disposal of any such hazardous waste; and VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 36 Aug 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUN1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13AUN1 52720 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2002 / Notices Maintaining or operating such facilities and requiring such additional qualifications as to ownership, continuity of operation, training for personnel, and financial responsibility as may be necessary or desirable. The regulations implementing these requirements are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, parts 264 and 265. The collection of this information enables EPA to properly determine whether owners/ operators or hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities meet the requirements of Section 3004( a) of RCRA. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Burden Statement: This proposed ICR is an estimate of the total respondent burden for all activities related to general facility operating requirements, record keeping requirements, contingency plan and emergency reporting requirements, releases from solid waste management units, closure/ post­ closure requirements, financial requirements, corrective action management unit requirements, and conditions applicable to all permits. The total burden to respondents as estimated in the proposed ICR for `` General Facility Standards (# 1571.07) '' is 719,059 hours per year, at a cost of $45,380,950 per year. This estimate was based on owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities complying with the information collection requirements set forth in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts B– H and by using an average hourly respondent labor cost (including overhead) of $108.00 for legal staff, $77.00 for managerial staff, $57.00 for technical staff, and $29.00 for clerical staff. EPA estimates the total number of respondents per year to be 2,724, which includes both permitted and interim status facilities. The number of respondents varies depending upon the category of each facility and the required activity. The annual public reporting burden and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 319 hours per respondent. For general facility operating standards, there is no associated reporting. The record keeping burden for general facility operating standards is estimated to average 119 hours per respondent per year. This estimate includes time for reading the regulations, preparing and submitting notices, collecting and documenting waste analysis data, and developing a waste analysis plan, inspection schedule, personnel training schedule, and construction quality assurance plan. For operating record requirements, the record keeping burden is estimated to average 131 hours per year. This burden includes time to collect and file information in the operating record. There is no associated reporting burden for these requirements. For contingency plan and emergency procedure requirements, there is no associated reporting burden. The record keeping burden is estimated to average one hour per respondent per year. For requirements covering releases from solid waste management units, the public reporting burden is estimated to average 1 hour per respondent per year. This estimate includes time to read the regulations and prepare and submit demonstrations. There is no associated record keeping burden for these requirements. For closure and post­ closure requirements, the public reporting burden is estimated to average 45 hours per respondent per year. This estimate includes time to read the regulations; prepare and submit plans, notices, demonstrations, certifications, and records; and make modifications to plans. The record keeping burden is estimated to average 1 hour per respondent per year. For financial requirements, the public reporting burden is estimated to average 16 hours per respondent per year. This estimate includes time to read the regulations and prepare and submit financial and liability assurance documentation. There is no associated record keeping burden for these requirements. For permit condition requirements, the public reporting burden is estimated to average 6 hours per respondent per year. This estimate includes time to read the regulations, and prepare and submit information requested by EPA, required by the permit, or required as a result of an incident that occurs at the facility. There is no associated record keeping burden for these requirements. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Dated: August 2, 2002. Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Director, Office of Solid Waste. [FR Doc. 02– 20453 Filed 8– 12– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7252– 9 ] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; 2003 Hazardous Waste (Biennial) Report AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are announcing our plan to submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): The 2003 Hazardous Waste Report, also known as the Biennial Report. Before submitting this ICR to OMB for review and approval, we are asking for comments on the information collection. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 15, 2002. ADDRESSES: EPA, Office of Solid Waste (5302W), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Burchard (703) 308– 8450, fax: (703) 308– 8433, burchard. robert@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Affected entities: Entities affected by this action are those which generate, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. Title: `` The 2003 Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report) '' EPA ICR No. 0976.10, OMB Control No. 2050– 0024. This ICR renews an on­ going information collection from hazardous waste generators and treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. This collection is done on a two year cycle, and is required by Sections 3002 and 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The information collected is collected via a mechanism known as the Biennial Report. The Biennial Report provides information on the quantities, type, and management of hazardous waste in the VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 36 Aug 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUN1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13AUN1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.019878

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0031-0108

Proposed Rule

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Burden Reduction Initiative; Proposed Rule

Thursday, January 17, 2002 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 260, et al. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Burden Reduction Initiative; Proposed Rule VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 11: 32 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm06 PsN: 17JAP2 2518 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 264, 265, 266, 268, 270, and 271 [ FRL 7123 9] RIN 2050 AE50 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Burden Reduction Initiative AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) proposes to reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) imposes on the states, the public, and the regulated community. The burden reduction ideas proposed today will have no anticipated impact on the protections for human health and the environment we have established. At the same time, our proposals will eliminate non­ essential paperwork. In a Federal Register `` Notice of Data Availability'' published June 18, 1999, we asked for comment on an initial set of burden reduction ideas. In today's action, we are proposing for rulemaking many of these ideas. DATES: Written comments must be received by April 17, 2002. ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on this proposed rule, you must send an original and two copies of the comments referencing Docket Number F 1999 IBRA FFFFF to: RCRA Information Center ( RIC), Office of Solid Waste ( 5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters ( EPA HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 0002; or, ( 2) if using special delivery, such as overnight express service: RIC, Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA 22202. You may also submit comments electronically following the directions in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. You may view public comments and supporting materials in the RIC. The RIC is open from 9 am to 4 pm Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review docket materials, we recommend that you make an appointment by calling 703 603 9230. You may copy up to 100 pages from any regulatory document at no charge. Additional copies cost $ 0.15 per page. For information on accessing an electronic copy of the data base, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, call the RCRA Hotline at 1 800 424 9346 or TDD 1 800 553 7672 ( hearing impaired). Callers within the Washington Metropolitan Area must dial 703 412 9810 or TDD 703 412 3323 ( hearing impaired). The RCRA Hotline is open Monday Friday, 9 am to 6 pm, Eastern Standard Time. For more information on specific aspects of this proposed rule, contact Mr. Robert Burchard at 703 308 8450, burchard. robert@ epa. gov, write him at the Office of Solid Waste, 5302W, U. S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Submittal of Comments You may submit comments electronically by sending electronic mail through the Internet to: rcradocket epamail. epa. gov. You should identify comments in electronic format with the docket number F 1999 IBRA FFFFF. You must submit all electronic comments as an ASCII ( text) file, avoiding the use of special characters or any type of encryption. The official record for this action will be kept in the paper form. Accordingly, we will transfer all comments received electronically into paper form and place them in the official record which will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record is the paper record maintained at the RIC as described above. We may seek clarification of electronic comments that are garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form. You should not electronically submit any confidential business information ( CBI). You must submit an original and two copies of CBI under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste ( 5305W), U. S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. If you do not submit comments electronically, we are asking prospective commenters to voluntarily submit one additional copy of their comments on labeled personal computer diskettes in ASCII ( text) format or a word processing format that can be converted to ASCII ( text). It is essential that you specify on the disk label the word processing software and version/ edition as well as the commenter's name. This will allow us to convert the comments into one of the word processing formats used by the Agency. Please use mailing envelopes designed to protect the diskettes. We emphasize that submission of diskettes is not mandatory, nor will it result in any advantage or disadvantage to any commenter. Accessing Electronic Data Background information materials for this Notice are available on the Internet. Follow the instructions below to access these materials electronically: WWW: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ data/ burdenreduction. FTP: ftp. epa. gov. Login: anonymous. Password: Your Internet address. Files are located in / pub/ epaoswer. Index I. Background and Purpose of Today's Proposed Rulemaking A. Why are We Reducing Burden? B. How is Burden Estimated? C. What is the Baseline for the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) Paperwork Requirements? D. What is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) Burden Reduction Initiative and What have We Done to Date? E. How Can I Influence EPA's Thinking on this Rule? II. Our Main Burden Reduction Proposals A. We Propose to Reduce the Reporting Requirements for Generators and Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities ( TSDFs) B. We are Proposing Weekly Hazardous Waste Tank Inspections C. We Propose to Allow Facilities the Opportunity to Adjust the Frequency of their Self­ Inspections D. We Propose Reducing the Burden of RCRA Personnel Training Requirements and Eliminating an Overlap with Occupational Safety and Health Administration Training Requirements E. We Propose to Further Eliminate and Streamline the Land Disposal Restrictions ( LDR) Paperwork Requirements III. Other Burden Reduction Proposals IV. How Would Today's Proposed Regulatory Changes be Administered and Enforced in the States? A. Applicability of Federal Rules in Authorized States B. Authorization of States for Today's Proposal C. Abbreviated Authorization Procedures V. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866 B. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 C. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks D. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 E. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA) F. Executive Order 13132 ( Federalism) G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation with Indian and Tribal Governments I. Paperwork Reduction Act J. Executive Order 13211 ( Energy Effects) VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 11: 32 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm06 PsN: 17JAP2 2519 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules Regulatory Language I. Background and Purpose of Today's Proposed Rulemaking A. Why Are We Reducing Burden? To meet the federal government­ wide goal established by the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA), we plan to reduce the burden imposed by our reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Burden is the time that a state employee, member of the regulated community, or private citizen spends generating and reporting information to us and keeping records. The PRA establishes a federal government­ wide goal of reducing burden 40 percent from the total burden imposed annually on September 30, 1995. B. How Is Burden Estimated? We estimate burden by first listing the activities undertaken to collect and organize information in response to our regulations, report the information, or keep it as records. For each activity, we then estimate the time in hours it takes an average respondent to complete the information request, taking into account differences such as facility size and amount of information required. Next, we verify these estimates through consultations with affected parties. These hour estimates are then multiplied by the number of people or entities expected to complete the information collection. The results of these analyses are the basis for our Information Collection Requests, which are published in the Federal Register. C. What Is the Baseline for the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) Paperwork Requirements? On September 30, 1995, the baseline for the PRA, the burden imposed by RCRA regulation was 12,600,000 hours per year. Forty per cent reduction from the baseline is 7,560,000 hours per year. This proposed rule will eliminate 929,000 hours. Coupled with reductions that have occurred, and reductions that are planned, we expect to reduce our burden by 47% from 1995. D. What Is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) Burden Reduction Initiative and What Have We Done to Date? There have already been substantial burden reduction efforts in implementing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA), such as for the Land Disposal Restrictions and Used Oil programs. We have already achieved reductions of close to five million burden hours. And there are other ongoing, proactive burden reduction efforts such as revisions to the Hazardous Waste Manifest system, including allowing manifests to be sent electronically, development of a standardized permit for selected RCRA facilities, and a major information system overhaul through the Waste Information Needs ( WIN) Initiative. The WIN Initiative is a multi­ year project which is reinventing RCRA information management. It operates as a partnership among EPA Headquarters, EPA Regions, and the states. Both information management experts and implementers of hazardous waste programs participate in the Initiative. The WIN Initiative began by identifying the information needed to carry out the activities of the RCRA program, assessing the reliability and accessibility of current information systems that support these activities, projecting future information needs, and analyzing what the needed information technologies will be. It is now implementing information change, starting with the Biennial Report, Notification, and part A permit application requirements. The standardized permit, which was proposed on October 12, 2001 ( 66 FR 52191), would be available to facilities that generate hazardous waste and then manage the waste in on­ site units such as tanks, containers, and containment buildings. The standardized permit would streamline the entire permitting process. Revisions to the Hazardous Waste Manifest include standardizing the content and appearance of manifest forms and allowing waste handlers to complete, send, and store manifest information electronically. Additionally, we have combined our two main databases of hazardous waste information ( the Biennial Report and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System RCRIS) into a new database, named `` RCRAInfo'', which will provide easier and faster access to the information we collect. These are part of the Agency's efforts to comprehensively reform and improve RCRA information management. This process has asked the questions: Who uses hazardous waste information, why do they need it, is the information useful as it is currently collected, and how can the quality and timeliness of the information be improved? Over the past three years, the RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative has reviewed and analyzed all RCRA reporting and recordkeeping requirements. We have developed ideas for eliminating or streamlining many of them. We obtained input from program offices at EPA Headquarters, the EPA Regions, and state experts on the validity of the ideas, and whether the ideas would detract from our mission to protect human health and the environment. This input was obtained through almost twenty intensive information gathering sessions and workgroup meetings. We also had the assistance of EPA's Office of Inspector General, which made field visits to see whether certain records required by regulation are kept and used by regulatory authorities. The ideas for the Land Disposal Restrictions changes we are proposing today came from a series of information gathering roundtables on the Land Disposal Restrictions program sponsored by the Agency that brought together EPA, state implementors, the regulated community, and environmental groups. Our ideas were first announced for comment in a June 18, 1999 Federal Register `` Notice of Data Availability'' ( 64 FR 32859). In the `` Notice'' and background documents ( which are available on the Internet), we included every burden reduction idea we considered. We received 36 comments, all of which were taken into consideration when developing today's proposal. Based on comments we received on the `` Notice'', we dropped a number of burden reduction ideas. Ideas were dropped when a commenter demonstrated a practical use for the information, or where they presented a specific example of how an idea would negatively impact human health and the environment. Based on these comments, we also added some additional ideas which appear in today's proposal. We discussed our burden reduction plans in public forums, including a national public meeting in April 2000, sponsored by the Office of Management and Budget on reinventing government, a national meeting of states sponsored by the Association of Territorial and Solid Waste Management Officials, several industry­ outreach roundtables, and a meeting with a coalition of environmental groups. At these forums, we invited discussion of the same questions we had posed in the `` Notice of Data Availability''. We received no specific information from meeting participants indicating that human health and the environment would be impaired if our burden reduction ideas were implemented. E. How Can I Influence EPA's Thinking on This Rule? We invite comment on all aspects of this proposal. We specifically want comment on: How will this proposal affect users of environmental VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 11: 32 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm06 PsN: 17JAP2 2520 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules information, particularly the public? Are any of the regulations we are proposing to eliminate crucial to protecting human health and the environment? What kinds of information do people need to protect public health and the environment, and how can they get it most efficiently? Most importantly, what information is actually used? Although a very broad range of information might be theoretically useful to regulators and the public, it is our understanding that much of the information we have required to be collected and reported is not accessed or used on a regular basis for protecting human health and the environment. At this point, twenty years into the RCRA program, we would like our information requirements to reflect demonstrated needs. We plan to implement the ideas in today's proposal in a final rulemaking, and your comments will play an important part in our decision­ making process. If you have any comments on this proposal, you must submit them even if you already submitted comments on the `` Notice of Data Availability.'' Today's proposed rule responds to the comments we received on the NODA, and we will assume that any concerns identified in the comments on the NODA have been addressed unless we hear otherwise. In developing this proposal, we tried to address the concerns of our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rule. We invite you to provide different views on options we propose, new approaches we haven't considered, new data, how this rule may effect you, or other relevant information. Your comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below: Explain your views clearly, and why you feel that way. Provide technical and cost data to support your views. If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate. Tell us which parts you support, as well as those that you disagree with. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. Offer specific alternatives. Refer your comments to specific sections of the proposal, such as the units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory sections. Submit your comments by the deadline in this Notice. Include your name, date, and docket number with your comments. II. Our Main Burden Reduction Proposals A. We Propose To Reduce the Reporting Requirements for Generators and Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities ( TSDFs) We require the submittal of 334 different types of notifications, reports, certifications, demonstrations, and plans from generators and TSDFs to show compliance with the RCRA regulations. We also ask for this information as part of applications for extensions, permits, variances, and exemptions. A study done by the Chemical Manufacturers Association showed that as with the other major environmental statutes implemented by EPA such as The Clean Air Act and The Clean Water Act RCRA imposes a large number of reporting requirements. When we crafted our regulations, we decided to collect as much information as possible about facility operations. Without prior experience as a guide, our philosophy was that it was better to collect information in all cases, knowing that we could eliminate information requirements later if they turned out to not be useful. Given that we now have 20 years of operating history in RCRA, we have decided to use this proposed rulemaking to step back and reevaluate based on actual experience whether this level of information collection is necessary. And if not, whether we can reduce paperwork while ensuring that public health and environmental protection continues. Doing so will ease some of the unnecessary bureaucratic controls we have established. Based on comments we received on the `` Notice of Data Availability,'' our own analysis ( which consisted of interviews with Agency experts, consulting with stakeholders, and professional judgement in weighing the qualitative costs and benefits of the ideas), and an analysis conducted by EPA's Office of Inspector General ( discussed above), we identified approximately one third of the 334 reporting requirements for elimination or modification. We developed two criteria for determining which reports to keep, cut, or modify, to the extent there was no indication from our outreach activities and analysis that protection of human health and the environment would be affected in any way: ( 1) Reporting should occur for information about the opening and closing of a facility, along with informational updates such as financial assurance updates and the Biennial Report submission, and, ( 2) reporting on the majority of the day­ today functions of a facility is unnecessary. Although oversight of hazardous waste facilities on a day­ today basis is important, many of the various notices now required are not used in assessing the protectiveness of facility operations, and some are simply redundant. One of the measures we used to determine this was whether the information was put into a database by regulatory authorities. The bulk of the reports we propose cutting or modifying are reports notifying the regulatory agency that some other regulatory requirement ( such as complying with a technical standard for the operation of a treatment unit) was performed. Other reports we propose to cut are instances when a facility has to notify the regulatory authorities twice about something that happened at the facility. Requiring a double notification is overly burdensome and does not appreciably improve protection of human health and the environment. Our proposal maintains facility accountability and responsibility. It still has a facility undertaking the basic environmentally protective activities that are in the regulations it just won't have to submit a report to the regulatory authority that each activity was completed. And, it will still have to record what happens at the facility in the operating record. Through this proposal, we hope to focus attention on those critical reports regulators really need to have to ensure protection of human health and the environment. We are not curtailing the right of regulatory agencies to request and receive any information. We are simply saying that facilities no longer have to send in many of the reports they currently have to submit on a regular basis. We are not cutting back the government's or the public's ability to know what is happening at a facility, and whether environmentally protective activities are still occurring, because a basic set of compliance information will still be at the facility ( in the facility's operating record). This information can be examined by regulatory authorities and then shared with the public. And, another set of information about a facility ( how much waste they generate and what is done with it) will still be readily accessible to the public via Agency Web sites and Web sites run by non­ Agency organizations such as the Right­ to­ Know Network ( www. rtknet. org). Many of the notices and reports we propose eliminating are obscure and only rarely needed to be sent to VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 11: 32 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm06 PsN: 17JAP2 2521 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules regulatory authorities. They are the kind of notices and reports that, based on our outreach and information gathering, are little, if at all, used by the public. Please review the regulatory language that is part of today's rulemaking for the specific changes we are proposing to existing regulatory requirements. If commenters believe that any of the notices or reports we are proposing to eliminate are necessary, they should provide specific examples of how the information has been used to address a human health or environmental problem. And, if commenters have a different way to identify which reports to eliminate or modify, they should let us know. The following chart contains all of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements we propose to eliminate or modify. The first column shows the requirement and what we propose to do with it. The second column provides the regulatory citation that implements the requirement. The Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) is a publication containing all federal regulations. EPA's regulations are in 40 CFR. We are interested in whether or not any of these items have an existing, specific, and demonstrable use to the public or regulators. In your comments, please provide specific examples of how this information is used, and whether it is stored in an accessible database. RCRA REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED FOR ELIMINATION OR MODIFICATION Requirement 40 CFR ( Code of Federal Regulations) citation Submit report on industry­ wide prevalence of the material production process: Eliminate Regulatory authorities can decide whether to give a variance from classification as a solid waste without this information. 260.31( b)( 2). Exclusion Submit one­ time notification for recycled wood­ preserving wastewaters and spent wood­ preserving solutions: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement. According to an EPA expert, this requirement now has limited use for regulators. Also, this proposed change does not affect the other, existing, protective regulatory requirements. 261.4( a)( 9)( iii)( E). Submit report estimating the number of studies and amount of waste to be used in treatability studies: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement, since this information is provided to the regulatory agency at a later date, meaning that the information has to be supplied by the facility twice ( an unnecessary duplication). Plus, according to EPA staff experts, these estimates are not usually accurate. 261.4( f)( 9). Exclusion Generator submit a one­ time comparable/ syngas fuel notice to the permitting agency: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement given the subsequent public notice regulatory requirements ( where this information is also submitted). Plus, we are not eliminating the overall regulatory requirements for burning, blending, generation sampling, etc. 261.38( c)( 1)( i)( A). Personnel training requirements training program: Eliminate the RCRA requirements, and have facilities follow Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards, which are more comprehensive. This is an area of overlap that has been identified in a comprehensive study of federal personnel training requirements by the General Accounting Office. 264.16( a)( 3). Personnel training requirements record job title: Eliminate based on comments from a state expert, we are recommending that these requirements be deleted. The rationale is that the job title doesn't necessarily correspond to the work the employee does, and has little bearing on whether the employee is capable of doing the job safely. 264.16( d)( 1). Personnel training requirements record job description: Eliminate based on comments from a state expert, we are recommending that these requirements be deleted. The rationale is that this requirement has little bearing on whether the employee is capable of doing the job safely. 264.16( d)( 2). Personnel training requirements record type and amount of training that will be provided: Eliminate based on comments from a state expert, we are recommending that these requirements be deleted. The rationale is that this requirement isn't necessarily a good indicator of whether an employee is capable of doing the job safely. 264.16( d)( 3). Contingency Plan Coordination with other plans: Modify Plan should be based on the One Plan guidance, which will eliminate the need to prepare multiple contingency plans for Agency requirements. 264.52( b). Emergency Procedures Notify Regional Administrator that facility is in compliance with 264.56( h) before resuming operations: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement. This is a notification to the regulatory Agency that the emergency coordinator has ensured that no incompatible waste is being treated at the site and that the emergency equipment is ready to use again. This emergency coordinator does not need to have this notification to ensure that these tasks are done. The environmentally protective activities are still in place, and are documented in the facility operating record, as well as documented by the emergency coordinator. 264.56( i). Operating record: Maintain operating record for facility Modify amount of time most of the information in operating records have to be kept three years instead of for the life of the facility. We are proposing this to standardize our record retention requirements. 264.73( b). Standards for Solid Waste Management Units Remove obsolete language ........................................................... 264.90( a)( 2). Detection Monitoring ( Permitted Facilities) Conduct and maintain ground­ water monitoring: Modify We plan to introduce flexibility by allowing sampling for a smaller subset of constituents from the Appendix IX list of constituents. This idea originated from state staff with field experience. 264.98( c). Detection Monitoring ( Permitted Facilities) Prepare and submit the notification of contamination: We are taking comment on eliminating this requirement ( but we are not proposing this in today's rule) this has been identified through our review of the regulations as a duplicative requirement. The owner/ operator must still sample groundwater wells for hazardous constituents ( this is required by regulation) and also submit a permit modification to the Regional Administrator that establishes a compliance monitoring program for the constituents. This should be sufficient to protect human health and the environment. 264.98( g)( 1). Detection Monitoring ( Permitted Facilities) Prepare and submit an engineering feasibility plan for corrective action if required: Modify Our review of the regulations identified this requirement as one that could be switched from having to send it to the regulatory authority to just keeping it as part of the facility operating record. Our rationale is that this information will be available at the facility for inspectors to see, and that the facility operator still has to undertake the environmentally protective actions described in the regulation. 264.98( g)( 5)( ii). VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 56 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 17JAP2 2522 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules RCRA REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED FOR ELIMINATION OR MODIFICATION Continued Requirement 40 CFR ( Code of Federal Regulations) citation Detection Monitoring ( Permitted Facilities) Prepare and submit notification of intent to make a demonstration: Modify make part of operating record instead of sending it to the regulatory authority. This information will be available at the facility for inspectors to see. Additionally, this kind of information is also provided to the regulatory authorities in the permit modification submitted under 264.98( g)( 6)( iii). 264.98( g)( 6)( i), ( ii). Compliance Monitoring ( Permitted Facilities) Prepare and submit notification of new constituent concentrations Modify number of wells, samples, and constituents will be determined on a case­ by­ case basis, instead of for all wells. This idea came from state experts, and is based on their field experience that sampling all wells can be unnecessary. 264.99( g). Compliance Monitoring ( Permitted Facilities) Prepare and submit notification of exceeded concentration limits: Eliminate this has been identified through our review of the regulations as a duplicative requirement, since this information is later included as part of a permit modification that must be submitted under 264.99( h)( 2). 264.99( h)( 1). Compliance Monitoring ( Permitted Facilities) Prepare and submit notification of intent to make a demonstration Eliminate this has been identified through our review of the regulations as a duplicative requirement, since the Regional Administrator will get the same information through the 264.99( i)( 3) permit modification. 264.99( i)( 1), ( 2). Closure ( Permitted Facilities) Submit semi­ annual corrective action report: Modify report only needs to be submitted annually, instead of semi­ annually. According to staff experts at the Agency, annual reports will be sufficient to ensure protection of human health and the environment. 264.113( e)( 5). Certification of Closure: We are taking comment on ( but we are not proposing in today's rule) whether a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager is capable of performing this certification. 264.115. Certification of Completion of Post­ Closure Care: Modify certification can be by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager, who will have sufficient education and skill to make this certification. 264.120. Containers Inspection frequency: Allow self­ inspection frequencies to be changed, on a case­ by­ case basis. Based on comments from states and the regulated community, we want to provide flexibility in inspections for well­ performing facilities. 264.174. Assessment of existing tank system's integrity: Modify assessment can be made by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager, who will have sufficient education and skill to do this certification. 264.191( a), ( b)( 5)( ii). Assessment of new tank system and components: Modify can be made by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager, who will have sufficient education and skill to do this certification. And, this assessment may be retained on­ site. 264.192( a), ( b). Containment and detection of releases: Remove obsolete language ...................................................................... 264.193( a), ( a)( 1) ( 5). Leak Detection System for Tanks: Eliminate need for demonstrations to the regulatory authorities, and make this requirement self­ implementing. The owner or operator is in the best position to make the determination as to what is the earliest practical time, based on the site characteristics. 264.193( c)( 3), ( c)( 4), ( e)( 3)( iii). Variance from Leak Detection Systems for Tanks: Eliminate need to obtain variance, and make this provision self­ implementing. The owner or operator can implement alternate design and operating practices as long as they follow the requirements of this section. 264.193( g), ( h). Tank Systems ( Permitted) Inspection frequency: Change frequency to weekly. Based on comments and the existence of substantial safety features required by regulation, this change will have little negative impact on human health and the environment. Also, inspections may be less frequent than weekly, as determined on a case­ by­ case basis by regulatory authorities. 264.195( b). Tank Systems ( Permitted) Notify EPA of release and submit report: Eliminate the existing regulatory requirements for cleanup and certification of the cleanup are adequately protective; this extra notification to the regulatory authorities is unnecessary. This information will be retained in the facility records. 264.196( d0( 1) ( 3). Tank Systems ( Permitted) Submit certification of completion of major repairs: Eliminate requirement to submit certification we do not ask for certifications to be submitted for other kinds of repairs; there is no special reason for this certification to be submitted. Also, the certification may be made by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 264.196( f). Surface Impoundments ( Permitted) Notify EPA in writing if flow rate exceeds action leakage rate ( ALR) for any sumps within 7 days: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as action is taken to stop leaks; action that is already required by regulation. We do not think regulatory authorities need to be notified in these cases. 264.223( b)( 1). Surface Impoundments ( Permitted) Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as action is taken to stop leaks, action that is already required by regulation. We do not think regulatory authorities need to be notified in these cases. 264.223( b)( 2). Surface Impoundments ( Permitted) Submit information to EPA each month the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as action is taken to stop leaks, action that is already required by regulation. We do not think regulatory authorities need to be notified in these cases. 264.223( b)( 6). Waste Piles ( Permitted) Installation of liners and leachate collection systems after January 29, 1992: Eliminate obsolete language. 264.251( c). Waste Piles ( Permitted) Notify EPA in writing of the exceedance amount of the leakage: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as action is taken to stop leaks, action that is already required by regulation. We do not think regulatory authorities need to be notified in these cases. 264.253( b)( 1). Waste Piles ( Permitted) Submit a written assessment to the RegionalAdministrator within 14 days of determination of leakage: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as action is taken to stop leaks, action that is already required by regulation. We do not think regulatory authorities need to be notified in these cases. 264.253( b)( 2). Waste Piles ( Permitted) Compile and submit information to EPA each month that the Action Leakage Rate ( ALR) is exceeded: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as action is taken to stop leaks, action that is already required by regulation. We do not think regulatory authorities need to be notified in these cases. 264.253( b)( 6). VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 56 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 17JAP2 2523 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules RCRA REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED FOR ELIMINATION OR MODIFICATION Continued Requirement 40 CFR ( Code of Federal Regulations) citation Land Treatment ( Permitted) Prepare and submit a notice of statistically significant increases in hazardous constituents below treatment zone: Eliminate a duplicative requirement since this information will be in the permit modification that has to be submitted if this event happens. The regulatory authorities do not need to be notified twice. 264.278( g)( 1). Land Treatment ( Permitted) Prepare and submit notice of intent to make a demonstration that other sources or error led to increases below treatment zone: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement since this information will be in the permit modification that has to be submitted if this event happens. The regulatory authorities do not need to be notified twice. 264.278( h)( 1), ( 2). Land Treatment ( Permitted) Certification of closure: We are taking comment on ( but not proposing in today's rule) whether a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager is capable of doing this certification. 264.280( b). Land Fills ( Permitted) Notify EPA if action leakage rate is exceeded within 7 days of determination: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as the procedures in the response action plan ( a response action plan is regulatorily required) are followed. 264.304( b)( 1). Land Fills ( Permitted) Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as the procedures in the response action plan are followed. Response action plans are required by regulation. 264.304( b)( 2). Land Fills ( Permitted) Submit information to EPA each month the Action Leakage Rate ( ALR) is exceeded: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as the procedures in the response action plan are followed. Response action plans are required by regulation. 264.304( b)( 6). Special Requirements for Bulk and Containerized Liquids: Remove obsolete language ........................................ 264.314( a)( 1), ( a)( 2), ( b), ( f). Incinerators ( Permitted) Submit notification of intent to burn hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, F027: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement since the facility is already permitted to burn this waste, and since there are already regulatory standards governing how the waste is burned. 264.343( a)( 2). Drip Pads ( Permitted) Submit written plan, as­ built drawings, and certification for upgrading, repairing and modifying the drip pad: Modify in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, these activities may also be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 264.571( a), ( b), ( c). Drip Pads ( Permitted) Evaluate drip pads: Modify in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer this evaluation may also be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 264.573 ( a)( 4)( ii), ( g). Drip Pads ( Permitted) Notify EPA of release and provide written notice of procedures and schedule for cleanup Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as response actions described in ( m)( 1)( i) ( iii) of this part are taken. Information relevant to the happenings at the drip pad will be retained in the facility record. 264.573( m)( 1)( iv). Drip Pads ( Permitted) EPA makes determination about removal of pad: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as response actions described in ( m)( 1)( i) ( iii) of this part are undertaken. Information relevant to the drip pad activities will be retained in the facility record. 264.573( m)( 2). Drip Pads ( Permitted) Notify EPA and certify completion of repairs: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as cleanup and repairs described in the regulations of this part are made. Information relevant to the drip pad activities will be retained in the facility record. 264.573( m)( 3). Drip Pads ( Permitted) Inspections: Modify in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, these inspections may be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 264.574( a). Process Vents ( Permitted) Submit semi­ annual report of control device monitoring events to the Region: Eliminate need to submit report an unnecessary requirement given the detailed recordkeeping required by 264.1035. The 264.1035 information will be retained on­ site for regulators to examine. 264.1036. Equipment Leaks ( Permitted) Submit notification to implement the alternative valve standard: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement since the relevant information will be retained in the facility record. 264.1061( b)( 1). Equipment Leaks ( Permitted) Submit notification to discontinue alternative valve standard: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement since there are standards that must be followed if the regular standards are going to be followed. Relevant information will be retained in the facility record. 264.1061( d). Equipment Leaks ( Permitted) Submit notification to implement alternative work practices for valves: Eliminate an unnecessary reporting requirement as long as standards are followed. Relevant information will be retained in the facility record for regulators to examine. 264.1062( a)( 2). Equipment Leaks ( Permitted) Submit a semi­ annual report with record of equipment, shutdowns, and control device monitoring events: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement. The 264.1064 recordkeeping requirements will provide adequate information. The 264.1064 information will remain on­ site for regulators to examine. 264.1065. Containment Buildings ( Permitted): Remove obsolete language ............................................................................. 264.1100. Containment Buildings ( Permitted) Obtain certification that building meets requirements: Modify in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, the certification may be made by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 264.1101( c)( 2). Containment Buildings ( Permitted) Notify EPA of condition that has caused a release and provide schedule for cleanup: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement since repair of containment building must occur anyway. Information about this situation will be available in the facility record for regulators to inspect. 264.1101( c)( 3)( i)( D). Containment Buildings ( Permitted) Notify EPA and verify in writing that the cleanup and repairs have been completed after a release: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement. EPA does not get involved in similar decisions about whether other parts of a facility need to be removed from service. Information about this situation will be available in the facility records for regulators to inspect. 264.1101( c)( 3)( ii), ( iii). Containment Buildings ( Permitted) Inspection frequency: Allow reduced inspection frequencies on a case­ bycase basis. This determination will be made by regulatory authorities based on past performance of the facility 264.1101( c)( 4). Purpose, Scope, and Applicability: Remove obsolete language .............................................................................. 265.1( b). Personnel Training Emergency response: Eliminate and replace with Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements, which are more comprehensive than the RCRA requirements. 265.16( a)( 3). VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 56 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 17JAP2 2524 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules RCRA REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED FOR ELIMINATION OR MODIFICATION Continued Requirement 40 CFR ( Code of Federal Regulations) citation Personnel Training Record job titles: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement from information we received from the field, the job title doesn't necessarily correspond to the work the employee does, and has little bearing on whether the employee is capable of doing the job safely. 265.16( d)( 1), ( 2). Personnel Training Description of type and amount of training each employee will receive: Eliminate from information we received from the field, this requirement is not necessarily a good indicator of whether an employee is capable of doing the job safely. 265.16( d)( 3). Contingency Plans Coordination with other plans: Modify Facilities should follow the One Plan guidance, which is designed to eliminate overlap between different regulatory requirements for contingency plans. This proposal has been endorsed by a recent General Accounting Office report on worker protection. 265.52( b). Emergency Procedures Notify Regional Administrator that facility is in compliance with 265.56( h) before resuming operations: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement. This is a notification to the regulatory Agency that the emergency coordinator has ensured that no incompatible waste is being treated at the site and that the emergency equipment is ready to use again. This emergency coordinator does not need to have this notification to ensure that these tasks are done. The environmentally protective activities are still in place, and are documented in the facility operating record, as well as documented by the emergency coordinator. 265.56( i). Operating Record Keep operating record for facility: Modify the amount of time most records have to be kept; three years instead of for the life of the facility. This will standardize the RCRA record retention time requirements eliminating confusion about how long records have to be kept. 265.73( b). Ground­ water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities) Submit alternate ground­ water monitoring plan: Modify no need to submit plan to Regional Administrator, it can be kept onsite where it will be available for regulators to inspect. 265.90( d)( 1). Ground­ water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities) Submit report: Modify no need to submit report to Regional Administrators. It can be kept on­ site, where it will be available for regulators to inspect. 265.90( d)( 3). Ground­ water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities) Submit notification of increased indicator parameter concentrations Modify no need to submit reports; this information will be noted as part of the groundwater quality assessment program. 265.93 ( c)( 1), ( d)( 1). Ground­ water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities) Submit information for ground­ water quality assessment plan: Modify no need to submit information. It may be maintained on­ site, where it will be available for regulators to inspect. 265.93( d)( 2). Ground­ water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities) Develop and submit ground­ water quality assessment reports Modify no need to submit these reports given other regulatory requirements in this part, which give detailed instructions on assessments and cleanups. 265.93( d)( 5), ( e), ( f). Ground­ water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities) Prepare and submit a quarterly report of concentrations of values of the drinking water suitability parameters: Modify report will be kept onsite, where it may be inspected by regulators. 265.94( a)( 2)( i). Ground­ water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities) Prepare and submit a report on indicator parameter concentrations and evaluations: Modify report will be kept onsite, where it may be inspected by regulators. 265.94( a)( 2)( ii). Ground­ water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities) Prepare and submit a report on ground­ water surface elevations Modify report will be kept onsite, where it may be inspected by regulators. 265.94( a)( 2)( iii). Ground­ water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities) Prepare and submit a report on the results of the groundwater quality assessment program: Modify report will be kept onsite, where it may be inspected by regulators 265.94( b)( 2). Closure ( Interim Status Facilities) Submit semi­ annual corrective action report: Modify according to Agency staff experts, regulators will have sufficient information if these reports are sent in annually instead of semiannually 265.113( e)( 5). Certification of Closure: We are taking comment on ( but we are not proposing in today's rule) whether a Certified HazardousMaterials Manager is capable of performing this certification. 265.115. Certify completion of post­ closure care: Modify in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer this certification may be made by a Certified Hazardous Materials Managers. 265.120. Container Inspection Frequency: Modify allow regulators to modify the self­ inspection frequency for well­ performing facilities on a case­ by­ case basis. 265.174. Assessment of Existing Tank System's Integrity: Modify in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, this assessment may be done by Certified Hazardous Materials Managers. 265.191( a), ( b)( 5)( ii). Design and Installation of New Tank Systems or Components assessment of structural integrity and acceptability for storing and treating waste: Modify in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, this assessment may be done by Certified Hazardous Materials Managers. 265.192( a). Design and Installation of New Tank Systems or Components assessment of tank installation: Modify in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, assessment may be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 265.192( b). Tank Systems ( Interim Status): Remove obsolete language ................................................................................... 265.193( a). Tank Systems ( Interim Status) Demonstrate to EPA that technology and site conditions do not allow detection of release within 24 hours: Eliminate this demonstration. Having a functional leak detection system capable of detecting a release within 24 hours or the earliest practicable time, coupled with the tank design requirements is adequately protective. 265.193( e)( 3)( iii). Tank Systems ( Interim Status) Obtain variance to use alternate tank design and operating practices: Eliminate the need to obtain a variance and make this self­ implementing. Records are to be kept on­ site describing the decisionmaking. 265.193( g)( 1), ( h). Tank Systems ( Interim Status): Allow reduced inspection frequencies on a case­ by­ case basis. This determination will be made by regulatory authorities based on past performance of the facility. 265.195( a). VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 56 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 17JAP2 2525 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules RCRA REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED FOR ELIMINATION OR MODIFICATION Continued Requirement 40 CFR ( Code of Federal Regulations) citation Tank Systems ( Interim Status) Notify EPA of release: Eliminate the existing regulatory requirements for cleanup and certification of the cleanup are adequately protective; this extra notification to the regulatory authorities is unnecessary. This information will be retained in the facility record. 265.196( d)( 1), ( d)( 2). Tank Systems ( Interim Status) Submit report describing releases: Eliminate the cleanup requirements in the regulations and the need to certify ( required by 265.196( f)) is sufficient to protect human health and the environment 265.196( d)( 3). Tank Systems ( Interim Status) Submit certification of completion of major repairs: Eliminate requirement to submit certification we do not ask for certifications to be submitted for other kinds of repairs; there is no special reason for this certification to be submitted. Also, this certification may be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 265.196( f). Surface Impoundments ( Interim Status): Remove obsolete language ..................................................................... 265.221( a). Surface Impoundments ( Interim Status) Submit the Response Action Plan to EPA: Eliminate Response Action Plans for other kinds of treatment units are not submitted to EPA. We are proposing that it is sufficient to keep this Plan on­ site. 265.223( a). Surface Impoundments ( Interim Status) Notify EPA in writing if flow rate exceeds action leakage rate for any sumps within 7 days: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement since the facility still has to address the leakage and record its response to the leakage in the facility record, which is available for inspection by regulators 265.223( b)( 1). Surface Impoundments ( Interim Status) Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement since the facility still has to address the leakage and record its response to the leakage in the facility record, which is available for inspection by regulators. 265.223( b)( 2). Surface Impoundments ( Interim Status) Compile and submit information to EPA each month the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement since information about the leak will be kept onsite, where it is available for inspection by regulators. 265.223( b)( 6). Waste Piles ( Interim Status) Submit the Response Action Plan to EPA: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement since other treatment units do not have to submit this plan. Removing this requirement will bring consistency to the regulations. 265.259( a). Waste Piles ( Interim Status) NotifyEPA in writing of the exceedance amount of the leakage: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as Response Action Plan is followed. Information about the facility's response to the leakage will be available in the facility's operating record. 265.259( b)( 1). Waste Piles ( Interim Status) Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as the Response Action Plan is followed Information about the facility's response to the leakage will be available in the facility's operating record. 265.259( b)( 2). Waste Piles ( Interim Status) Submit information to EPA each month that the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as the Response Action Plan is followed. Information about the facility's response to the leakage will be available in the facility's operating record. 265.259( b)( 6). Land Treatment ( Interim Status) Submit notification for food­ chain crops at land treatment facility: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as the other regulatory requirements in 265.276 are followed. Information about compliance with these other regulatory requirements will be in the facility operating record. 265.276( a). Landfills ( Interim Status) Remove obsolete language ............................................................................................ 265.301( a). Land Fills ( Interim Status) Submit the Response Action Plan to EPA: Eliminate requirement to submit plan. Developing a plan, keeping it onsite, and implementing it when necessary is sufficient. 265.303( a). Land Fills ( Interim Status) Notify EPA if action leakage rate is exceeded within 7 days of determination: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as the Response Action Plan is followed and information on adherence to the Plan is kept in the facility operating record, where it will be available for inspection by regulators 265.303( b)( 1). Land Fills ( Interim Status) Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as the Response Plan is followed and information on adherence to the Plan is kept in the facility operating record, where it will be available for inspection by regulators. 265.303( b)( 2). Land Fills ( Interim Status) Submit information to EPA each month the Action Leakage Rate ( ALR) is exceeded Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as the remediation required by regulation takes place, and information about the remediation is kept in the facility record. 265.303( b)( 6). Requirements for bulk and containerized liquids: Remove obsolete language ....................................................... 265.314( a), ( a)( 1), ( a)( 2), ( b), ( g). Drip Pads ( Interim Status) Assessment of Drip Pad, Submit written plan, as­ built drawings, and certification for upgrading, repairing and modifying the drip pad: Modify in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, certification may be made by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 265.441( a), ( b), ( c). Drip Pads ( Interim Status) Assessment of Drip Pad: Modify in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, assessment may be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 265.443( a)( 4)( ii), ( g). Drip Pads ( Interim Status) Notify EPA of release and provide written notice of procedures and schedule for cleanup: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as cleanup required by regulation takes place, and is recorded in the facility operating record, where it will be available for inspection by regulators. 265.443( m)( 1)( iv), ( 2). Drip Pads ( Interim Status) Notify Regional Administrator and certify completion of repairs: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as the required cleanup and repairs are made. 265.443( m)( 3). Drip Pads ( Interim Status) Inspection of liners: Modify in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, assessment may be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 265.444( a). Equipment Leaks ( Interim Status) Submit notification to implement the alternative valve standard: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as other regulatory requirements in 265.1061 are followed. 265.1061( b)( 1). VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 56 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 17JAP2 2526 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules RCRA REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED FOR ELIMINATION OR MODIFICATION Continued Requirement 40 CFR ( Code of Federal Regulations) citation Equipment Leaks ( Interim Status) Submit notification to discontinue alternative valve standard: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement. Owners or operators can decide which standard to meet without notifying the Agency. This information will be retained in the facility's operating record, where it will be available for inspection by regulatory authorities. 265.1061( d). Equipment Leaks ( Interim Status) Submit notification to implement alternative work practices for valves: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement. Owners or operators may use alternative work practice without notifying the Agency. This information will be kept in the facility operating record, which is available for regulatory authorities to inspect. 265.1062( a)( 2). Containment Buildings ( Interim Status) Notify EPA of intent to be bound by the regulations earlier than as specified in section 265.1100: Eliminate an obsolete requirement. 265.1100. Containment Buildings ( InterimStatus) Obtain certification that building meets design requirements: Modify in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, this certification can be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 265.1101( c)( 2). Containment Buildings ( InterimStatus) Notify EPA of release and provide written notice of procedures and schedule for cleanup: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement to notify regulatory authorities about a cleanup that must be done by regulation. Records of the cleanup will be in a facility's operating record, which is available for inspection by regulatory authorities. 265.1101( c)( 3)( i)( D). Containment Buildings ( Interim Status) Notify EPA and verify in writing that the cleanup and repairs have been completed: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as cleanup required by regulation takes place. This information will be maintained in the operating record, which is available for inspection by regulators 265.1101( c)( 3)( ii), ( iii). Containment Buildings Interim Status: Allow reduced inspection frequencies on a case­ by­ case basis. This determination will be made by regulatory authorities based on past performance of the facility. 265.1101( c)( 4). Boilers and Industrial Furnaces ( Permitted) Recordkeeping: Modify records only have to be kept for three years, making this record retention time consistent with other treatment units. Bringing consistency to record retention times will assist facilities in complying with our regulations. 266.102( e)( 10). Boilers and Industrial Furnaces ( Interim Status) Evaluation of data and making determinations: Modify in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, this evaluation can be made by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 266.103( b)( 2)( ii)( D). Boilers and Industrial Furnaces ( Interim Status) Periodic recertifications of compliance: Modify extend period of time from three to five years, which Agency field staff believe is sufficient for regulatory purposes. 266.103( d). Boilers and Industrial Furnaces ( Interim Status) Recordkeeping: Modify records only have to be kept for three years, making this record retention time consistent with other treatment units. Bringing consistency to record retention times will assist facilities in complying with our regulations. 266.103( k). Direct Transfer Equipment Assessment of equipment: Modify in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, this assessment can be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 266.111( e)( 2). Storage of Solid Waste Military Munitions Notification of loss or theft: Simplify notification process there is no need to notify the regulatory authorities twice. 266.205( a)( 1)( v). LDR Generator Requirements Generator waste determination: Eliminate a separate determination is unnecessary See discussion in proposed rule preamble. 268.7( a)( 1). LDR Generator Requirements Generator waste determination: Eliminate because we are eliminating 268.7( a)( 1), this record retention requirement is unnecessary. 268.7( a)( 6). LDR Treatment Facility Requirements Submit a recycling notice and certification to EPA: Modify keep information on­ site. See discussion in proposed rule preamble. 268.7( b)( 6). LDR Hazardous Debris Requirements Submit notification of claim that debris is excluded from definition of hazardous waste: Modify notification becomes one­ time and remains on­ site. See discussion in proposed rule preamble. 268.7( d)( 1). LDR Special Rules for Characteristic Wastes Submit one­ time notification: Modify a separate determination is unnecessary. See discussion in proposed rule preamble. 268.9( a). LDR Special Rules for CharacteristicWastes Submit certification: Modify keep information on­ site. See discussion in proposed rule preamble. 268.9( d). Part B Requirements for Tank Systems Submit written assessment of structural integrity: Modify in addition to an registered, independent professional engineer, this assessment may be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 270.16( a). Part B Requirements for Surface Impoundments Assessment of structural integrity: Modify in addition to a registered, independent professional engineer, this assessment may be made by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 270.17( d). B. We Are Proposing Weekly Hazardous Waste Tank Inspections We are proposing to reduce the selfinspection frequencies for hazardous waste tanks from daily to weekly. Tank regulations are found in 40 CFR 264.190 and 265.190. This proposal is based on three factors. First, other kinds of tanks are required to be inspected at frequencies less than daily. These tanks have to meet criteria for protecting human health and the environment similar to those for hazardous waste tanks. For example, in the Underground Storage Tank Program, tanks containing petroleum or hazardous substances are only required to be monitored for releases every thirty days. Oil tanks regulated under the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Program ( SPCC) are required to be frequently observed by operating personnel for signs of deterioration, leaks which might cause a spill, or accumulation of oil inside diked areas. It is up to the engineer who certifies the SPCC Plan how often these observations should occur. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 56 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 17JAP2 2527 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules Comments we received on the `` Notice of Data Availability,'' as well as the outreach we did, support going from a daily to weekly inspection frequency. Commenters and an expert on tank systems made the point that the integrity and safety of hazardous waste tanks would not be compromised by reducing the daily inspection requirement to a weekly frequency. Several commenters pointed out that hazardous waste storage tanks, which have secondary containment, are even more protectively designed than process tanks which handle the same chemicals. Additionally, the tanks are equipped with leak detection systems, and are subject to routine visual inspection by employees. Leak detection systems provide continuous surveillance for the presence of a leak or spill. Technically, they consist of wire grids, observation wells, and U­ tubes containing thermalconductivity or electrical­ resistivity sensors, or vapor detectors. Visual inspection is effective for aboveground or vaulted tanks, and for other tanks where access to potentially leaking parts is available. Visual monitoring can also be effective for the inspection of ancillary equipment. Upon detection of a leak, either through the leak detection system or visual observation, the owner or operator of the tank system must immediately stop the flow of hazardous waste, determine and rectify the cause of the leak, remove the waste, and contain releases to the environment. Finally, tanks are simpler to design, construct, and manage than units such as combustion units or land disposal units, and therefore require less oversight than these more complicated units for assessing that they are performing protectively. C. We Propose To Allow Facilities the Opportunity To Adjust the Frequency of Their Self­ Inspections For containers, containment buildings, and tanks ( in addition to moving their inspection frequency from daily to weekly), we are proposing to allow on a case­ by­ case basis decreased inspection frequencies ( from the frequency currently required by regulation). The regulations for containers are found in 40 CFR 264.170 and 265.170; containment buildings in 40 CFR 264.1100 and 265.1100; and tanks in 40 CFR 264.190 and 265.190. In all cases, inspections would have to occur at least monthly. Decreased inspection frequencies would be established on a site­ specific basis by the Directors of authorized states' hazardous waste programs, or by EPA. Considerations for decreasing inspection frequencies will be based on factors such as: a demonstrated commitment by facility management to sound environmental practices, demonstrations of good management practices over the years ( having a record of sustained compliance with environmental laws and requirements), demonstrated commitment to continued environmental improvement, demonstrated commitment to pubic outreach and performance reporting, the installation of automatic monitoring devices at the facility, and the chemical and physical characteristics of the waste being managed in the unit. States or EPA may also include a qualification that facilities must revert to the original inspection schedule if there are spills or releases. Several states and a coalition of environmental groups and trade unions commented that they do not support any decrease in inspection frequency because of concerns that if inspection frequencies were decreased, the amount of time between a leak and its discovery would increase. If the factors described above are taken into account when extending the inspection frequencies, there will be little or no increase in the likelihood of an undetected release. These decreased inspection frequencies should only be offered to the safest and best­ performing facilities. In addition, the proposed approach may reduce the likelihood of release by providing a financial incentive for companies to avoid releases in order to be approved for reduced inspection frequency. We also received comments from the states expressing concern over the added administrative burden in implementing case­ by­ case changes to inspection frequencies. We are not mandating that states offer these changes. We are only providing the option to states that are interested. Another group of commenters suggested that inspection frequency changes should be self­ implementing. For example, an inspection schedule should be deemed approved if EPA does not specifically deny the request in writing within 30 days. Where we were able to identify an across­ the­ board change, like tanks going to weekly inspections, we did so. We think beyond that, a case­ by­ case evaluation of facility conditions is still necessary. It is important that regulatory agencies make the decisions to decrease inspection frequencies. Thus, we are not proposing the self­ implementing option. D. We Propose Reducing the Burden of RCRA Personnel Training Requirements and Eliminating an Overlap With Occupational Safety and Health Administration Training Requirements We currently require facilities to train their employees in facility operations and emergency response procedures. We also require a written job description for each employee. And, we require training records for current employees to be kept until closure of the facility. These requirements are found in 40 CFR 264.16 and 265.16. The idea behind these regulations is that trained employees are safe employees, and will be able to prevent releases of hazardous waste to the environment. By working with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, we have developed an improved way of meeting these goals. During our research, we compared the personnel training requirements imposed by EPA under RCRA with those imposed by OSHA through their Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response regulation. Based on this analysis and comments received on the `` Notice of Data Availability,'' we discovered that there is really only one area of overlap. This overlap is emergency response training. A recent report from the General Accounting Office titled: `` Worker Protection, Better Coordination Can Improve Safety and Hazardous Materials Facilities'' independently reached the same conclusion about an overlap in these two sets of emergency response training requirements. We propose changing the RCRA regulations to have facilities comply with the OSHA regulations for emergency response training, and to drop the current RCRA requirements. The OSHA requirements are more extensive than the current RCRA requirements, and should therefore replace the RCRA requirements. We are also proposing eliminating the requirement that facilities include job titles and descriptions as part of their personnel records. Based on comments received from the `` Notice of Data Availability,'' we believe that requiring job descriptions provide little value in protecting human health and the environment. Often these job descriptions bear little resemblance to the work the employees do, and they have little relationship to whether an employee is trained properly. Finally, we are proposing to eliminate the regulatory requirement for a description of the training employees will receive. The facility inspections ensure adequate training simply VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 11: 32 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm06 PsN: 17JAP2 2528 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules documenting the employee( s) name( s) and date( s) of training is sufficient. E. We Propose To Further Eliminate and Streamline the Land Disposal Restrictions ( LDR) Paperwork Requirements, Existing LDR Paperwork Requirements The Land Disposal Restrictions ( LDR) are a major regulatory component of the RCRA program. In addition to establishing treatment standards for hazardous waste prior to land disposal, they require generators and TSDFs to determine if their waste needs to be treated before land disposal, submit demonstrations and petitions to EPA if applicable, and send notices and/ or certifications with shipments to TSDFs. Based on our review of the LDR paperwork requirements, as well as our conversations with the regulated community, states, and the public through a series of public forums, we have determined that a number of LDR requirements for waste determinations, notifications, and certifications could be eliminated without diminishing the protection of human health or the environment. Proposed Changes to LDR Paperwork Requirements Change 1: We Propose To Drop the § 268.7( a)( 1) Generator Waste Determination Requirement We propose to eliminate the need for generators to conduct the waste determination required by § 268.7( a)( 1). Section 268.7( a)( 1) requires a generator to determine if their hazardous waste must be treated prior to land disposal. This determination can be made either through testing or knowledge of the waste's properties and constituents. After consulting with staff with field experience, we concluded that a combination of several other requirements provide the same safeguards as the § 268.7( a)( 1) requirement. First, a determination of whether a waste is hazardous is required by § 262.11 ( which says that generators of solid waste must determine whether a waste is hazardous). This means a generator must know what properties and constituents are present in his waste for example, does it contain toxic constituents that cause it to exhibit the Toxicity Characteristic described in § 261.24? Some of this same information is used in the determination as to whether the waste must be treated to comply with the LDRs. Second, § 264.13( a)( 1) requires TSDFs to perform a general waste analysis to determine `` all of the information which must be known to treat, store, or dispose of the waste in accordance with this part and part 268 of this chapter'' ( emphasis added). Therefore, the owner or operator of a TSDF is already required to work with the waste generator to ensure that adequate information is available to comply with LDRs. Third, in § 268.40, hazardous waste is prohibited from land disposal unless it meets the requirements in the Table of Treatment Standards ( which requires knowledge of EPA hazardous waste code, waste constituents, wastewater and nonwastewater classification, and treatability group). These other determinations are sufficient to assure that a waste is properly characterized for achieving compliance with the LDRs. Therefore, we conclude that the § 268.7( a)( 1) determination is duplicative, and we propose to eliminate it. Change 2: We Propose To Modify the § 268.7( b)( 6) Recycler Notification and Certification Requirements Currently, treatment facilities must test their waste to determine whether it complies with LDR treatment standards. A one­ time notice containing this information must be sent to the disposal facility. The treatment facility must also send a one­ time notice to regulatory authorities that the treatment technology was operated properly. We originally thought that the regulating agency would review these reports to monitor what happens to this waste. Based on a recent analysis of actual state and Regional facility oversight of treatment and recycling facilities, we have found that this information is not routinely used for its intended purpose. Our informants suggested that it would be sufficient for this information to be available in the facility's files if any question arises as to whether adequate treatment occurred. Therefore, we are proposing that treatment and recycling facilities no longer send these notifications and certifications to EPA, as long as the information contained in them is kept in facility records. Change 3: We Propose To Modify the § 268.7( d) Hazardous Debris Notification Requirement Currently, generators or treatment facilities who claim that their hazardous debris is excluded from the definition of hazardous waste must send a one­ time notice of this claim to EPA, and keep a copy of the notice in their files. We established this requirement on the assumption that regulatory agencies would review the notices to make themselves aware that this treated debris was being sent to a nonhazardous waste landfill. We have been unable to verify that this information is routinely used for its intended purpose. Therefore, we are proposing that generators and treaters of excluded debris not send these notifications to EPA, as long as the information that would have been in the notifications is kept in facility records. Change 4: We Propose To Modify the § 268.9( a) Characteristic Waste Determination Requirement We propose to eliminate the need for a separate LDR waste determination for characteristic waste. As with the § 268.7( a)( 1) generator determinations above, the § 268.9( a) determinations are duplicated elsewhere. Generators are already required to determine whether they have a hazardous waste under § 262.11, and treaters are required to obtain a detailed chemical and physical analysis under § 264.13. Under § 268.40, hazardous waste is prohibited from land disposal unless it meets the requirements in the Table of Treatment Standards ( which requires knowledge of the EPA hazardous characteristic waste code, underlying hazardous constituents, wastewater/ nonwastewater classification, and treatability group). These other determinations are sufficient to assure a waste is properly characterized for achieving compliance with the LDRs and, therefore, protecting human health and the environment. Change 5: We Propose To Modify the § 268.9( d) Notification Requirement Under § 268.9( d), once a characteristic waste is treated so it is no longer characteristic, a one­ time notification and certification about this must be placed in the generator's or treater's files, and also sent to EPA. We continue to see value in parties knowing that they are receiving wastes that are still subject to land disposal restrictions, even though they no longer exhibit a characteristic. These records do not need to be sent to EPA, however, if they are kept on site in the facility's files. We have not been able to verify that this information, once sent to EPA, is routinely used. Therefore, we conclude based on the absence of such information from regulatory agencies, that its submission is not critical to overall protection of human health and the environment. And in the event of a question of compliance or enforcement action, it will be available in a facility's files. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 11: 32 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm06 PsN: 17JAP2 2529 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules III. Other Burden Reduction Proposals Boiler and Industrial Furnace Records To Be Kept 3 Years Owner/ operators of Boilers and Industrial Furnaces must conduct tests, such as performance tests for their continuous emissions monitors, and report the results to us. We propose to standardize the retention period for all records required to be kept by the Boilers and Industrial Furnaces to three years, bringing it in line with other RCRA recordkeeping retention periods. See 40 CFR 266.102 for the Boiler and Industrial Furnace regulations. Certified Hazardous Materials Managers Owners/ operators of hazardous waste facilities must certify that their treatment, storage, and disposal units are functioning properly. For example, tank systems for storing or treating hazardous waste must be certified by an independent, qualified, registered professional engineer that the tanks meet thickness and strength requirements. We propose to modify most of the RCRA certification requirements to allow a person who is a `` Certified Hazardous Materials Manager'' to make the certification. The Certified Hazardous Materials Manager Certification is accredited by the Council on Engineering and Scientific Specialties Board, which also accredits certified industrial hygienists, and certified safety professionals. The Certified Hazardous Materials Manager must have a combination of education and hands­ on work experience at a hazardous waste facility, pass a closed book examination, continue their professional education, and follow a code of ethics. The Agency was not aware of this discipline when most of the regulations were written that require engineers to do certifications. Most certification duties that an independent, qualified, registered professional engineer must perform can be carried out by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. General Facility Standards Are Streamlined and Updated When EPA originally developed the operating record requirements, we thought that records should routinely be kept for the life of the facility. Our reasoning was that in case an issue or problem came up about an earlier practice at a facility, the records would be available for examination. After many years of experience with RCRA, we are better able to distinguish records that must be kept for the life of the facility from those which can be discarded after some period of time without affecting protections of human health and the environment. As discussed below, information about what wastes are disposed at a facility, where the disposed waste is located, and information relevant for facility closure must be kept for the life of the facility. More routine information, such as whether certain notices were filed and records of inspections, can be discarded after three years. In the RCRA regulations, we have generally settled on three years as a reasonable time frame for keeping records. This is consistent with other Agency programs, such as the Toxics Substance Control Act and the Toxic Chemical Release Reporting Community Right to Know programs, that impose a three year record retention time in their regulations. We propose to modify a number of the § § 264.73 and 265.73 operating record requirements to require only a threeyear limit on keeping information. The following are proposed record retention times for each part of the operating record: § 264.73: ( b)( 1) Description and quantity of each hazardous waste received and what was done with it: Maintain until closure of the facility. ( b)( 2) The location of each hazardous waste: Maintain until closure of the facility. ( b)( 3) Records and results of waste analyses and waste determinations: Maintain for three years after entry into the operating record. ( b)( 4) Reports of implementation of contingency plan: Maintain for three years after entry into the operating record. ( b)( 5) Records of inspections: Maintain for three years after entry into the operating record. ( b)( 6) Monitoring, testing, and analytical data: Maintain until closure of the facility. ( b)( 7) § 264.12( b) notices: Maintain for three years after entry into the operating record. ( b)( 8) Closure estimates: Maintain in operating record until closure of the facility. ( b)( 9) Waste minimization certification: Maintain for three years after entry into the operating record. ( b)( 10) Records of quantities of waste placed in land disposal units under an extension to the effective date of any land disposal restriction: Maintain in operating record until closure of the facility. ( b)( 11) For off­ site treatment facility, notices and certifications from generator: Maintain for three years after entry into the operating record. ( b)( 12) For on­ site treatment facility, notices and certifications: Maintain for three years after entry into the operating record. ( b)( 13) For off­ site land disposal facility, notices and certifications from generator: Maintain for three years after entry into the operating record. ( b)( 14) For on­ site land disposal facility, notices and certifications: Maintain for three years after entry into the operating record. ( b)( 15) For off­ site storage facility, notices and certifications from generator: Maintain for three years after entry into the operating record. ( b)( 16) For on­ site storage facility, notices and certifications: Maintain for three years after entry into the operating record. ( b)( 17) Records required under § 264.1( j)( 13): Maintain for three years after entry into the operating record. We propose to similarly change the § 265.73 Operating Record requirements. Consolidation of Facility Contingency Plans Is Encouraged Owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities must have contingency plans in place to minimize hazards to human health and the environment from fires, explosions, or unplanned releases of hazardous waste. We received several comments on the `` Notice of Data Availability'' asking that we streamline or combine the various contingency plans required not only by EPA, but by other federal agencies too. EPA already allows combined plans. In 1996, EPA in conjunction with the Department of Transportation, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Labor issued the `` Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance.'' This Guidance provides a mechanism for consolidating the multiple contingency plans that facilities have to prepare to comply with various government regulations. Owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities should consider developing one contingency plan based on this Guidance. Facilities which adopt the `` Integrated Contingency Plan'' will minimize the duplication and costs associated with the preparation and use of multiple contingency plans. The use of a single plan per facility will also eliminate confusion for `` first responders'' ( for example, firemen) who often must decide which of the contingency plans is applicable to a particular emergency. And, the adoption of a standard plan should ease the burden of coordination with local emergency planning committees. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 11: 32 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm06 PsN: 17JAP2 2530 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules The `` Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance'' can be found in the June 5, 1996 Federal Register ( 61 FR 28641 28664) or on the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ swercepp/ p­ tech. htm. Today's proposals clarifies our regulations ( see 40 CFR 265.52) to say that combined plans are acceptable. We Propose To Streamline the Variance From Classification as a Solid Waste Procedure We have established provisions in our regulations to allow regulated entities to submit applications for variances, exclusions, petitions, and exceptions from certain RCRA requirements. To simplify one of these applications, we propose to eliminate the requirement that a petitioner for a variance from classification as a solid waste survey the industry­ wide prevalence of the material production process ( the requirement is found in 40 CFR 260.31( b)). In practice, we have found that we do not use this information in making decisions on these variances. A variance petitioner can continue to submit such information if they choose, but it will no longer be an application requirement. We Propose To Eliminate the Requirement for Treatability Study Reports We also propose to eliminate the requirement that facilities submit in their annual report under § 261.4( f)( 9) an estimate of the number of treatability studies and the amount of waste expected to be used in treatability studies in the upcoming year. Based on the observations of recipients ( EPA and state regulators), we have determined that these reports do not contribute to the protection of human health and the environment. Moreover, these annual forecasts are not necessarily accurate, and we obtain the precise information anyway in the annual report that is submitted. We Propose To Streamline Groundwater Monitoring Requirements Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities must implement a groundwater monitoring system to detect the presence of contaminants in the groundwater. If contamination is detected, monitoring must be performed. If the level of contamination exceeds the groundwater protection standard, corrective action must be undertaken. We propose to allow owners/ operators of facilities to report on the effectiveness of corrective action on an annual basis instead of the current semiannual basis. In combination with other forms of oversight by regulatory agencies, annual reporting will provide adequate information to ensure compliance. This proposed change makes sense because monitoring and cleaning up groundwater is almost always a multiyear or even multi­ decade effort. Semiannual reporting of data is not necessary for ensuring protection of human health and the environment. We are also proposing to allow groundwater monitoring plans and reports to be kept at a facility. And, we also propose to modify the § 264.99( g) requirement that facilities who are doing compliance monitoring conduct an annual Appendix IX analysis of all monitoring wells. Specifically, we propose allowing, on a case­ by­ case basis, sampling for a subset of the wells. Appendix IX analyses are costly at large facilities, and analyzing all wells does not necessarily contribute to protection of human health and the environment. This is especially the case if there are multiple units and wells at a facility, and only one unit shows signs of contamination. Also, monitoring for constituents that are not likely to be found at a site is not a good use of resources and does not increase the protection of monitoring programs. Therefore, we propose allowing, on a case­ by­ case basis, sampling for a subset of the Appendix IX constituents. These decisions will be based on regulatory agencies' judgement of what supports the protection of human health and the environment, as well as on the contaminant situation at a site. Biennial Report Changes Are Being Implemented Separately We are not making changes to the Biennial Report through this effort. Reform of the Biennial Report has already been started in the 2001 Biennial Report cycle. Changes made to the 2001 Biennial Report include streamlining the Biennial Report Source, Origin, Form, and Management codes; clarifying the types of waste to be reported; and removing some data elements. The 2001 Biennial Report forms and instructions are located on the Internet at: www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ data/ brs01/ forms. htm. Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping Changes Are Being Handled Separately In the `` Notice of Data Availability,'' we discussed allowing all RCRArequired documents to be kept and sent electronically. Since the publication of the `` Notice,'' the Agency has begun to develop a separate rulemaking ( the `` Cross­ Media Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule'') that will establish Agency­ wide standards for electronic reporting and recordkeeping. We are deferring our efforts in this area to the `` Cross­ Media Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping'' rulemaking. IV. How Would Today's Proposed Regulatory Changes Be Administered and Enforced in the States? A. Applicability of Federal Rules in Authorized States Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified states to administer the RCRA hazardous waste program within the state. Following authorization, the state requirements authorized by EPA apply in lieu of equivalent Federal requirements and become Federally enforceable as requirements of RCRA. EPA maintains independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. Authorized states also have independent authority to bring enforcement actions under state law. A state may receive authorization by following the approval process described in 40 CFR part 271. 40 CFR part 271 also describes the overall standards and requirements for authorization. After a state receives initial authorization, new Federal regulatory requirements promulgated under the authority in the RCRA statute which existed prior to the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments ( HSWA) do not apply in that state until the state adopts and receives authorization for equivalent state requirements. The state must adopt such requirements to maintain authorization. In contrast, under RCRA section 3006( g), ( 42 U. S. C. 6926( g)), new Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed pursuant to HSWA provisions take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized States. Although authorized states are still required to update their hazardous waste programs to remain equivalent to the Federal program, EPA carries out HSWA requirements and prohibitions in authorized states, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until EPA authorizes the state to do so. Authorized states are required to modify their programs only when EPA promulgates Federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than existing Federal requirements. RCRA section 3009 allows the states to impose standards more stringent than VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 11: 32 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm06 PsN: 17JAP2 2531 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules those in the Federal program. See also 40 CFR 271.1( i). Therefore, authorized states are not required to adopt Federal regulations, both HSWA and non­ HSWA, that are considered less stringent. B. Authorization of States for Today's Proposal Today's proposal affects many aspects of the RCRA program and would be promulgated pursuant to both HSWA and non­ HSWA statutory authority. Today's proposal would amend provisions in the RCRA regulations which were promulgated pursuant to HSWA. These provisions include, among others, the land disposal restrictions and the regulation of air emissions from hazardous waste facilities, which were promulgated pursuant to authority in sections 3004( m) and ( o) respectively, of RCRA. Therefore, when promulgated, the Agency would add the rule to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1( j), which identifies the Federal program requirements that are promulgated pursuant to the statutory authority that was added by HSWA. States may apply for final authorization for the HSWA provisions in Table 1, as discussed in the following section of this preamble. Other sections of today's proposal would be promulgated pursuant to non­ HSWA authority. The requirements in today's proposed rulemaking are equivalent to or less stringent than the existing provisions in the Federal regulations which they would amend. Therefore, States would not be required to adopt and seek authorization for this rulemaking. EPA would implement this rulemaking only in those States which are not authorized for the RCRA program, and will implement provisions promulgated pursuant to HSWA only in those states which have not received authorization for the HSWA provision that would be amended. This rule will provide significant benefits to EPA, states, and the regulated community, without compromising human health or environmental protection. Because this rulemaking would not become effective in authorized States until they adopted and are authorized for it, EPA will strongly encourage states to amend their programs and seek authorization for today's proposal, once it becomes final. C. Abbreviated Authorization Procedures EPA considers today's proposal to be a minor rulemaking and is proposing to add it to the list of minor or routine rulemakings in Table 1 to 40 CFR 271.21. Placement in this table would enable states to use the abbreviated procedures located in 40 CFR 271.21( h) when they seek authorization for today's proposed changes after they are promulgated. These abbreviated procedures were established in the HWIR­ media rulemaking ( see 63 FR 65927, November 30, 1998). EPA requests comment on this placement in Table 1 to 40 CFR 271.21. V. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866, [ 58 FR 51735 ( October 4, 1993)] the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; ( 2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this rule is a `` significant regulatory action'' because the rule raises novel legal or policy issues. As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record. B. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 Under Executive Order 12898, `` Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low­ Income Populations'' as well as through EPA's April 1995, `` Environmental Justice Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Action Agency Report'' and National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, EPA has undertaken to incorporate environmental justice into its policies and programs. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns, and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, bears disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities. EPA has considered the impacts of this proposed rulemaking on lowincome populations and minority populations and concluded that any risks resulting from the rule would be very small. The basic reason for this finding is that the current features of the RCRA program that protect human health and the environment would be preserved or enhanced under the proposal. As mentioned earlier, the proposal would eliminate or modify paperwork requirements that have been deemed unnecessary because they add little to the protectiveness of the regulations. Most of the paperwork requirements entail notices and reports that are obscure, inconsequential or infrequently submitted. In addition, the proposal would give facilities added flexibility in how they can comply with the regulations. For example, the proposal would let facilities choose between hiring a certified hazardous materials manager or licensed professional engineer to perform specified activities ( e. g., certifications). The proposal also would streamline certain requirements, such as contingency planning and personnel training, that are essential to a facility's protectiveness. Such flexibility and streamlining will make it easier for facilities to comply with the regulations. Despite eliminating a number of paperwork requirements based on interviews and comments, we leave intact the basic environmentally protective activities that facilities are currently undertaking. That is, we would require facilities to continue performing their technical activities, but require them to submit less information to us on their daily activities. Note, however, that the proposal would not curtail the right of regulatory agencies to request any of the information we are proposing to eliminate. Facilities must continue to keep on­ site records of their waste management activities and make them available to regulators when requested. As such, the rule would not limit regulators' or the public's ability to learn what is happening at a facility. In addition, basic information about a facility will still be readily accessible to the public via the Agency Web site and non­ Agency Web sites such as the `` Right to Know Network'' Web site ( www. rtknet. org). However, we specifically request comment on VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 11: 32 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm06 PsN: 17JAP2 2532 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules whether today's proposals in any way diminishes protection of human health and the environment. C. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: ( 1) Is determined to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The proposal would eliminate or modify paperwork requirements that have been deemed unnecessary because there is no evidence suggesting they contribute in a substantial way to the protectiveness of the regulations. In particular, we propose eliminating notices and reports that are redundant, inconsequential for compliance with technical requirements, or only rarely required to be sent in to regulatory authorities. Most of the reports we propose cutting or modifying are reports notifying the regulatory agency that some other regulatory requirement was performed. The proposal would leave intact the basic environmentally protective activities that facilities are currently undertaking. D. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (`` NTTAA''), Public Law 104 113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially­ applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. E. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA) The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: ( 1) A small business; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and ( 3) a small organization that is any not­ for­ profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives `` which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities''. 5 U. S. C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on small entities subject to the rule. Today's proposal is specifically intended to be deregulatory and to reduce, not increase, the paperwork and related burdens of the RCRA hazardous waste program. For businesses in general, including all small businesses, the proposed changes would reduce the labor time and other costs of preparing, keeping records of, and submitting reports to the Agency. The proposed rule, for example, would reduce the frequency by which businesses must conduct specified recordkeeping and reporting activities. It also would eliminate certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements altogether, i. e., in cases where the documents are little used by the public or regulators. In addition, the rule would eliminate redundancies between the RCRA regulations and other regulatory programs ( e. g., RCRA and OSHA requirements for personnel training), thereby streamlining facilities' compliance activities. Finally, the rule would provide increased flexibility in how waste handlers may comply with the regulations. For example, we would allow waste handlers to seek relief, on a case­ by­ case basis, from the inspection frequencies in the regulations. Facilities successfully demonstrating that the regulatory frequencies are not necessary ( e. g., because of site­ specific mitigating factors) would be granted a reduced inspection frequency by the Agency. We have therefore concluded that today's proposed rule will relieve regulatory burden for small entities. F. Executive Order 13132 ( Federalism) Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. As explained above, today's proposal eliminates or relaxes many of the paperwork requirements in the regulations. Because these changes are equivalent to or less VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 56 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 17JAP2 2533 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules stringent than the existing Federal program, States would not be required to adopt and seek authorization for them. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, we specifically solicit comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials. G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104 4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions by State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost­ benefit analysis, for proposed rules and final rules for which the Agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking if those rules contain `` Federal mandates'' that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. If a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. Under section 205, EPA must adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. EPA has determined that this rule will not result in the expenditure of $ 100 million or more by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in any one year because this is a burden reduction rulemaking which reduces costs. H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian and Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled `` Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' `` Policies that have tribal implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.'' This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. As explained above, today's proposal eliminates or relaxes many of the paperwork requirements in the regulations. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3( b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials. I. Paperwork Reduction Act We have prepared a document listing the information collection requirements of this proposed rule, and have submitted it for approval to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. We calculate the reporting and recordkeeping burden reduction for this rule as 929,000 hours and $ 120,000,000. Burden means total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. That includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. J. Executive Order 13211 ( Energy Effects) This proposed rule is not a `` significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' ( 66 FR 28355 ( May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 260 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 261 Comparable fuels, Syngas fuels, Excluded hazardous waste, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 264 Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds. 40 CFR Part 265 Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds, Water supply. 40 CFR Part 266 Energy, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 268 Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 270 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply. 40 CFR Part 271 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Indians­ lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply. Dated: December 20, 2001. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, it is proposed that title 40 of VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 56 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 17JAP2 2534 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules the Code of Federal Regulations be amended as follows: PART 260 HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL 1. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6921 6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939, and 6974. Subpart C Rulemaking Petitions § 260.31 [ Amended] 2. Section 260.31 is amended by removing paragraph ( b)( 2) and redesignating paragraphs ( b)( 3) through ( b)( 8) as ( b)( 2) through ( b)( 7). PART 261 IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 3. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6921, 6922, 6924( y), and 6938. Subpart A General § 261.4 [ Amended] 4. Section 261.4 is amended by removing paragraphs ( a)( 9)( iii)( E) and ( f)( 9); and redesignating paragraphs ( f)( 10) and ( f)( 11) as ( f)( 9) and ( f)( 10). 5. Section 261.38 is amended by removing the last sentence of paragraph ( c)( 1) introductory text and removing and reserving paragraph ( c)( 1)( i). PART 264 STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES 6. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6924, and 6925. Subpart B General Facility Standards 7. Section 264.16 is amended by revising paragraphs ( a)( 1), ( a)( 3) and ( d) to read as follows ( the Comment following paragraph ( a)( 1) is unchanged): § 264.16 Personnel training. ( a)( 1) Facility personnel must successfully complete a program of classroom instruction or on­ the­ job training that teaches them to perform their duties in a way that ensures the facility's compliance with the requirements of this part. * * * * * ( 3) The owner or operator of the facility shall ensure that all personnel potentially involved in emergency response at the facility: ( i) Have received training required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at 29 CFR 1910.120( p)( 8) or 1910.120( q) as applicable; and ( ii) Have been trained in all elements of the facility's contingency plan applicable to their roles in emergency response. * * * * * ( d) The owner or operator must maintain at the facility records documenting the training or job experience required under paragraphs ( a), ( b), and ( c) of this section that has been given to and completed by facility personnel. * * * * * Subpart D Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures 8. Section 264.52 is amended by revising paragraph ( b) to read as follows: § 264.52 Content of contingency plan. * * * * * ( b) If the owner or operator has already prepared a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures ( SPCC) Plan in accordance with part 112 of this chapter, or part 1510 of chapter V, or some other emergency or contingency plan, he need only amend that plan to incorporate hazardous waste management provisions that are sufficient to comply with the requirements of this part. The owner or operator should consider developing one contingency plan based on the National Response Team's Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance (`` One Plan'') which meets all regulatory requirements. * * * * * § 264.56 [ Amended] 9. Section 264.56 is amended by removing paragraph ( i) and redesignating paragraph ( j) as paragraph ( i). Subpart E Manifest System, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 10. Section 264.73 is amended by revising paragraphs ( b) introductory text, ( b)( 1), ( b)( 2), ( b)( 6), ( b)( 8), and ( b)( 10) to read as follows ( the Comment following paragraph ( b)( 2) is unchanged): § 264.73 Operating record. * * * * * ( b) The following information must be recorded, as it becomes available, and maintained in the operating record for three years after it is entered into the operating record unless noted otherwise as follows: ( 1) A description and the quantity of each hazardous waste received, and the method( s) and date( s) of its treatment, storage, or disposal at the facility. This information must be maintained in the operating record until closure of the facility; ( 2) The location of each hazardous waste within the facility and the quantity at each location. For all facilities, this information must include cross­ references to manifest document numbers if the waste was accompanied by a manifest. For disposal facilities, the location and quantity of each hazardous waste must be recorded on a map or diagram that shows each cell or disposal area. All of this information must be maintained in the operating record until closure of the facility. * * * * * ( 6) Monitoring, testing, or analytical data, and corrective action data where required by subpart F of this part and § § 264.19, 264.191, 264.193, 264.195, 264.222, 264.223, 264.226, 264.252 through 264.254, 264.276, 264.278, 264.280, 264.302 through 264.304, 264.309, 264.347, 264.602, 264.1034( c) through 264.1034( f), 264.1035, 264.1063( d) through 264.1063( i), 264.1064, and 264.1082 through 264.1090. All of this information must be maintained in the operating record until closure of the facility. * * * * * ( 8) All closure cost estimates, and for disposal facilities, all post­ closure cost estimates. This information must be maintained in the operating record until closure of the facility. * * * * * ( 10) Records of the quantities and date of placement for each shipment of hazardous waste placed in land disposal units under an extension to the effective date of any land disposal restriction granted pursuant to § 268.5 of this chapter, a petition pursuant to § 298.6 of this chapter, or a certification under § 268.8 of this chapter, and the applicable notice required by a generator under § 268.7( a) of this chapter. This information must be maintained in the operating record until closure of the facility. * * * * * 11. Section 264.90 is amended by revising paragraph ( a)( 2) to read as follows: § 264.90 Applicability. ( a) * * * ( 2) All solid waste management units must comply with the requirements in § 264.101. A surface impoundment, waste pile, land treatment unit, or landfill must comply with the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 11: 32 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm06 PsN: 17JAP2 2535 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules requirements of § § 264.91 through 264.100 in lieu of § 264.101 for purposes of detecting, characterizing and responding to releases to the uppermost aquifer. The financial assurance responsibility requirements of § 264.101 apply to all regulated units. * * * * * 12. Section 264.98 is amended by revising paragraphs ( c), ( g)( 5)( ii), ( g)( 6)( i), and ( g)( 6)( ii) to read as follows: § 264.98 Detection monitoring program. * * * * * ( c) The owner or operator must conduct and maintain records for a ground­ water monitoring program for each chemical parameter and hazardous constituent specified in their permit. The Regional Administrator, on a discretionary basis, may allow sampling for a site­ specific subset of constituents from the Appendix IX list of this part and other representative/ related waste constituents. The owner or operator must maintain a record of ground­ water analytical data as measured and in a form necessary for the determination of statistical significance under § 264.97( h). ( g) * * * ( 5) * * * ( ii) Note in the operating record whether this contamination was caused by a source other than the regulated unit or from an error in sampling, analysis, or evaluation; * * * * * ( 6) * * * ( i) Note in the operating record that statistically significant evidence of contamination was found; ( ii) Enter into the operating record a report demonstrating that a source other than a regulated unit caused the contamination, or that the contamination resulted from an error in sampling, analysis, or evaluation; * * * * * 13. Section 264.99 is amended: a. Revising paragraph ( g); b. Removing and reserving paragraph ( h)( 1); c. Removing paragraphs ( i)( 1) and ( i)( 2) and redesignating paragraphs ( i)( 3) and ( i)( 4) as ( i)( 1) and ( i)( 2). The revision reads as follows: § 264.99 Compliance monitoring program. * * * * * ( g) The owner or operator must analyze samples from monitoring wells at the compliance point. The number of wells and samples will be worked out on a case­ by­ case basis with the Regional Administrator. The specific constituents from Appendix IX of part 264 to be analyzed will also be worked out on a case­ by­ case basis with the Regional Administrator. This analysis must be done annually to determine whether additional hazardous constituents are present in the uppermost aquifer and, if so, at what concentration, pursuant to procedures in § 264.98( f). If the owner or operator finds Appendix IX constituents in the ground water that are not already identified in the permit as monitoring constituents, the owner or operator may resample within one month and repeat the Appendix IX analysis. If the second analysis confirms the presence of new constituents, the owner or operator must report the concentration of these additional constituents to the Regional Administrator within seven days after the completion of the second analysis and add them to the monitoring list. If the owner or operator chooses not to resample, then he or she must report the concentrations of these additional constituents to the Regional Administrator within seven days after completion of the initial analysis, and add them to the monitoring list. * * * * * 14. Section 264.113 is amended by revising paragraph ( e)( 5) to read as follows: § 264.113 Closure; time allowed for closure. * * * * * ( e) * * * ( 5) During the period of corrective action, the owner or operator shall provide an annual report to the Regional Administrator describing the progress of the corrective action. This report shall include all ground­ water monitoring data, and an evaluation of the effect of the continued receipt of non­ hazardous wastes on the corrective action. * * * * * 15. Section 264.120 is revised to read as follows: § 264.120 Certification of completion of post­ closure care. No later than 60 days after completion of the established post­ closure care period for each hazardous waste disposal unit, the owner or operator must submit to the Regional Administrator a certification that the post­ closure care period was done in accordance with the specifications in the post­ closure plan. The certification must be signed by the owner or operator and an independent registered professional engineer or Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. Documentation supporting the certification must be furnished to the Regional Administrator upon request until he releases the owner or operator from the financial assurance requirements for post­ closure care under § 264.145( i). Subpart I Use and Management of Containers 16. Section 264.174 is revised to read as follows: § 264.174 Inspections. At least weekly, or less frequently as determined by the Director, the owner or operator must inspect areas where containers are stored. In all cases, inspections must occur at least monthly. Director decisions about less frequent inspections will be based on an evaluation of the compliance record of a facility. The owner or operator must look for leaking containers and for deterioration of containers and the containment system caused by corrosion or other factors. Subpart J Tank Systems 17. Section 264.191 is amended by revising paragraphs ( a) and ( b)( 5)( ii) to read as follows ( the Note following paragraph ( b)( 5)( ii) is unchanged): § 264.191 Assessment of existing tank system's integrity. ( a) For each existing tank system that does not have secondary containment, the owner or operator must determine that the tank system is not leaking or is unfit for use. Except as provided in paragraph ( c) of this section, the owner or operator must obtain and keep an assessment reviewed and certified by an independent, qualified registered professional engineer or a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager attesting to the tank system's integrity. ( b) * * * ( 5) * * * ( ii) For other than non­ enterable underground tanks and for ancillary equipment, this assessment must include a leak test or other integrity examination that is certified by an independent, qualified registered professional engineer or a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager that addresses cracks, leaks, corrosion, or erosion. * * * * * 18. Section 264.192 is amended by revising paragraphs ( a) introductory text and ( b) introductory text to read as follows: § 264.192 Design and installation of new tank systems or components. ( a) Owners or operators of new tank systems or components must obtain and submit to the Regional Administrator, at the time of submittal of part B VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 11: 32 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm06 PsN: 17JAP2 2536 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules information, an assessment, reviewed and certified by an independent, qualified, registered professional engineer or a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager attesting that the tank system has sufficient structural integrity and is acceptable for the storing and treating of hazardous waste. The assessment must show that the foundation, structural support, seams, connections, and pressure controls ( if applicable) are adequately designed and that the tank system has sufficient structural strength, compatibility with the waste( s) to be stored or treated, and corrosion protection to ensure that it will not collapse, rupture, or fail. This assessment, which will be used by the Regional Administrator to approve or disapprove the acceptability of the tank system design, must include, at a minimum, the following information: * * * * * ( b) The owner or operator of a new tank system must ensure that proper handling procedures are adhered to in order to prevent damage to the system during installation. Prior to covering, enclosing, or placing a new tank system or component in use, an independent, qualified registered professional engineer or Certified Hazardous Materials Manager or independent, qualified installation inspector must inspect the system or component for the presence of any of the following items: * * * * * 19. Section 264.193 is amended: a. By revising paragraph ( a); b. By revising paragraphs ( c)( 3) and ( c)( 4); ( the Note following paragraph ( c)( 4) is unchanged); c. By revising paragraph ( e)( 3)( iii) ( the Note following paragraph ( e)( 3)( iii) is unchanged); d. By revising paragraph ( g) introductory text and paragraph ( g)( 1); e. By removing paragraph ( h) and redesignating paragraph ( i) as ( h). The revisions read as follows: § 264.193 Containment and detection of releases. ( a) Secondary containment must be provided for all existing and new tank systems and components. * * * * * ( c) * * * ( 3) Provided with a leak­ detection system that is designed and operated so that it will detect the failure of either the primary or secondary containment structure or the presence of any release of hazardous waste or accumulated liquid in the secondary containment system within 24 hours, or at the earliest practicable time; and ( 4) Sloped or otherwise designed or operated to drain and remove liquids resulting from leaks, spills, or precipitation. Spilled or leaked waste and accumulated precipitation must be removed from the secondary containment system within 24 hours, or in as timely a manner as is possible to prevent harm to human health and the environment. * * * * * ( e) * * * ( 3) * * * ( iii) Provided with a built­ in, continuous leak­ detection system capable of detecting a release within 24 hours, or at the earliest practicable time. * * * * * ( g) The owner or operator is not required to comply with the requirements of this section if he or she implements alternate design and operating practices and keeps records at the facility describing these practices. Such alternate design and operating practices, together with location characteristics, must prevent the migration of any hazardous waste or hazardous constituents into the ground water or surface water at least as effectively as secondary containment, during the active life of the tank system; or, in the event of a release that does migrate to ground or surface water, no substantial present or potential hazard will be posed to human health or the environment. New underground tank systems may not be exempted from the secondary containment requirements of this section. ( 1) The owner or operator who uses these alternate tank design and operating practices and who has a release must: ( i) Comply with the requirements of § 264.196 and ( ii) Decontaminate or remove contaminated soil to the extent necessary to: ( A) Enable the tank system to resume operation with the capability for the detection of releases at least equivalent to the capability it had prior to the release; and ( B) Prevent the migration of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents to ground or surface water. ( iii) If contaminated soil cannot be removed or decontaminated, the owner or operator must comply with the requirements of § 264.197( b). * * * * * 20. Section 264.195 is amended by revising paragraph ( b) to read as follows ( the Note following paragraph ( b) is unchanged): § 264.195 Inspections. * * * * * ( b) The owner or operator must inspect at least weekly, or less frequently as determined by the Director. In all cases, inspections must occur at least monthly. Director decisions about less frequent inspections will be based on an evaluation of the compliance record of a facility. * * * * * 21. Section 264.196 is amended by removing paragraph ( d); redesignating paragraphs ( e) and ( f) as paragraphs ( d) and ( e), respectively; and revising newly designated paragraph ( e) to read as follows: § 264.196 Response to leaks or spills and disposition of leaking or unfit­ for­ use tank systems. * * * * * ( e) Certification of major repairs. If the owner/ operator has repaired a tank system in accordance with paragraph ( d) of this section, and the repair has been extensive ( e. g., installation of an internal liner; repair of a ruptured primary containment or secondary containment vessel), the tank system must not be returned to service unless the owner/ operator has obtained a certification by an independent, qualified, registered, professional engineer or Certified Hazardous Materials Manager that the repaired system is capable of handling hazardous wastes without release for the intended life of the system. Subpart K Surface Impoundments 22. Section 264.223 is amended by removing paragraphs ( b)( 1), ( b)( 2) and ( b)( 6); redesignating paragraphs ( b)( 3) through ( b)( 5) as paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( b)( 3), respectively; and revising paragraph ( c) introductory text to read as follows: § 264.223 Response actions. * * * * * ( c) To make the leak and/ or remediation determinations in paragraphs ( b)( 1), ( 2), and ( 3) of this section, the owner or operator must: * * * * * Subpart L Waste Piles 23. Section 264.251 is amended by revising paragraph ( c) introductory text to read as follows: § 264.251 Design and operating requirements. * * * * * ( c) The owner or operator of each new waste pile, each lateral expansion of a waste pile unit, and each replacement of an existing waste pile unit must install two or more liners, and a leachate VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 56 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 17JAP2 2537 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules collection and removal system above and between the liners. * * * * * 24. Section 264.253 is amended by removing paragraphs ( b)( 1), ( b)( 2) and ( b)( 6); redesignating paragraphs ( b)( 3) through ( b)( 5) as ( b)( 1) through ( b)( 3), respectively; and revising paragraph ( c) introductory text to read as follows: § 264.253 Response actions. * * * * * ( c) To make the leak and/ or remediation determinations in paragraphs ( b)( 1), ( 2), and ( 3) of this section, the owner or operator must: * * * * * Subpart M Land Treatment § 264.278 [ Amended] 25. Section 264.278 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph ( g)( 1); removing paragraphs ( h)( 1) and ( h)( 2) and redesignating paragraphs ( h)( 3) and ( h)( 4) as ( h)( 1) and ( h)( 2). Subpart N Landfills 26. Section 264.304 is amended by removing paragraphs ( b)( 1), ( b)( 2) and ( b)( 6); redesignating paragraphs ( b)( 3) through ( b)( 5) as ( b)( 1) through ( b)( 3); and revising paragraph ( c) introductory text, to read as follows: § 264.304 Response actions. * * * * * ( c) To make the leak and/ or remediation determinations in paragraphs ( b)( 1), ( 2), and ( 3) of this section, the owner or operator must: * * * * * 27. Section 264.314 is amended by removing paragraph ( a) and redesignating paragraphs ( b) through ( f) as paragraphs ( a) through ( e) and by revising newly designated paragraphs ( a) and ( e) introductory text to read as follows: § 264.314 Special requirements for bulk and containerized liquids. ( a) The placement of bulk or noncontainerized liquid hazardous waste or hazardous waste or hazardous waste containing free liquids ( whether or not sorbents have been added) in any landfill is prohibited. * * * * * ( e) The placement of any liquid that is not a hazardous waste in a landfill is prohibited unless the owner or operator of the landfill demonstrates to the Regional Administrator, or the Regional Administrator determines that: * * * * * Subpart O Incinerators § 264.343 [ Amended] 28. Section 264.343 is amended by removing the last sentence of paragraph ( a)( 2). Subpart W Drip Pads 29. Section 264.571 is amended by revising paragraphs ( a), ( b), and ( c) to read as follows: § 264.571 Assessment of existing drip pad integrity. ( a) For each existing drip pad, the owner or operator must determine whether it meets all of the requirements of this subpart, except the requirements for liners and leak detection systems of § 264.573( b). The owner or operator must obtain an assessment reviewed and certified by an independent, qualified registered professional engineer or Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. The assessment must be updated and recertified annually until all upgrades, repairs, or modifications necessary to achieve compliance with the standards of § 264.573 are complete. ( b) The owner or operator must develop a plan for upgrading, repairing, and modifying the drip pad to meet the requirements of § 264.573( b). This plan must describe all changes to be made to the drip pad in sufficient detail to document compliance with the requirements of § 264.573. The plan must be completed no later than two years before the date that all repairs, upgrades, and modifications are complete. The plan must be reviewed and certified by an independent qualified registered professional engineer or a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. ( c) Upon completion of all upgrades, repairs, and modifications, the owner or operator must develop as­ built drawings for the drip pad together with a certification by an independent qualified registered professional engineer or a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager that the drip pad conforms to the drawings. * * * * * 30. Section 264.573 is amended by revising paragraphs ( a)( 4)( ii), ( g), and ( m)( 1)( iii) and removing paragraphs ( m)( 1)( iv) and ( m)( 3) and removing and reserving paragraph ( m)( 2) to read as follows: § 264.573 Design and operating requirements. ( a) * * * ( 4) * * * ( ii) The owner or operator must obtain and keep on file an assessment of the drip pad reviewed and certified by an independent, qualified, registered professional engineer or Certified Hazardous Materials Manager attesting to the results of the evaluation. The assessment must be reviewed, updated, and recertified annually. The evaluation must document the extent to which the drip pad meets the design and operating standards of this section, except for paragraph ( b) of this section. * * * * * ( g) The owner or operator must evaluate the drip pad to determine that it meets the requirements of paragraphs ( a) through ( f) of this section and must obtain a certification of this by an independent, qualified, registered professional engineer or a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager and maintain this certification on­ site. * * * * * ( m) * * * ( 1) * * * ( iii) Determine what steps must be taken to repair the drip pad and clean up any leakage from below the drip pad, and establish a schedule for accomplishing the repairs. Records that repairs were completed on schedule must be kept at the facility. * * * * * 31. Section 264.574 is amended by revising paragraph ( a) to read as follows: § 264.574 Inspections. ( a) During construction or installation, liners and cover systems ( for example, membranes, sheets, or coatings) must be inspected for uniformity, damage and imperfections. Immediately after construction or installation, liners must be inspected and certified to meet the requirements in § 264.573 by an independent, qualified registered professional engineer or a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. This certification must be maintained at the facility as part of the facility operating record. After installation, liners and covers must be inspected to ensure tight seams and joints and the absence of tears, punctures, or blisters. * * * * * Subpart AA Air Emission Standards for Process Vents § 264.1036 [ Removed and Reserved] 32. Remove and reserve § 264.1036. Subpart BB Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks § 264.1062 [ Amended] 33. Section 264.1061 is amended by removing paragraph ( b)( 1); redesignating paragraphs ( b)( 2) and ( b)( 3) as paragraphs ( b)( 1) and ( b)( 2), VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 17: 24 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 17JAP2 2538 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules respectively; and removing paragraph ( d). § 264.1062 [ Amended] 34. Section 264.1062 is amended by removing paragraph ( a)( 2) and redesignating paragraph ( a)( 1) as paragraph ( a). § 264.1065 [ Removed and Reserved] 35. Remove and reserve § 264.1065. Subpart DD Containment Buildings 36. Section 264.1100 is amended by revising the introductory text to read as follows: § 264.1100 Applicability. The requirements of this subpart apply to owners or operators who store or treat hazardous waste in units designed and operated under § 264.1101 of this subpart. The owner or operator is not subject to the definition of land disposal in RCRA section 3004( k) provided that the unit: * * * * * 37. Section 264.1101 is amended by revising paragraphs ( c)( 2), ( c)( 3)( i)( C) and ( c)( 4), removing paragraphs ( c)( 3)( i)( D) and ( c)( 3)( iii) and removing and reserving paragraph ( c)( 3)( ii) to read as follows: § 264.1101 Design and operating standards. * * * * * ( c) * * * ( 2) Obtain certification by an independent qualified registered professional engineer or Certified Hazardous Materials Manager that the containment building design meets the requirements of paragraphs ( a), ( b), and ( c) of this section. ( 3) * * * ( i) * * * ( C) Determine what steps must be taken to repair the containment building, remove any leakage from the secondary containment system, and establish a schedule for accomplishing the clean­ up and repairs. Records that repairs were completed on schedule must be kept at the facility. ( ii) [ Reserved] ( 4) Inspect and record in the facility's operating record at least once every seven days, or less frequently as determined by the Director, data gathered from monitoring and leak detection equipment as well as the containment building and the area immediately surrounding the containment building to detect signs of releases of hazardous waste. In all cases, inspections must occur at least monthly. Director decisions about less frequent inspections will be based on an evaluation of the compliance record of a facility. * * * * * PART 265 INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES 38. The authority citation for part 265 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6906, 6912, 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 6935, 6936, and 6937, unless otherwise noted. Subpart B General Facility Standards 39. Section 265.1 is amended by revising paragraph ( b) to read as follows ( the Comment following paragraph ( b) is unchanged): § 265.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability. * * * * * ( b) Except as provided in § 265.1080( b), the standards of this part, § § 264.552, 264.553, and 264.554 of this chapter apply to owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste and who have complied with the requirements for interim status under RCRA section 3005( e) and § 270.10 of this chapter. * * * 40. Section 265.16 is amended by revising paragraphs ( a)( 1) and ( a)( 3) and ( d) to read as follows: § 265.16 Personnel training. ( a)( 1) Facility personnel must successfully complete a program of classroom instruction or on­ the­ job training that teaches them to perform their duties in a way that ensures the facility's compliance with the requirements of this part. * * * * * ( 3) The owner or operator of the facility shall ensure that all personnel potentially involved in emergency response at the facility: ( i) Have received training required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at 29 CFR 1910.120( p)( 8) or 1910.120( q) as applicable; and ( ii) Have been trained in all elements of the facility's contingency plan applicable to their roles in emergency response. * * * * * ( d) The owner or operator must maintain at the facility records documenting the training or job experience required under paragraphs ( a), ( b), and ( c) of this section that has been given to and completed by facility personnel. * * * * * Subpart D Contingency Plans and Emergency Procedures 41. Section 265.52 is amended by revising paragraph ( b) to read as follows: § 265.52 Content of contingency plan. * * * * * ( b) If the owner or operator has already prepared a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures ( SPCC) Plan in accordance with part 112 of this chapter, or part 1510 of chapter V, or some other emergency or contingency plan, he need only amend that plan to incorporate hazardous waste management provisions that are sufficient to comply with the requirements of this Part. The owner or operator should consider developing one contingency plan based on the National Response Team's Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance ( One Plan) which meets all regulatory requirements. * * * * * 42. Section 265.56 is amended by removing paragraph ( i) and redesignating paragraph ( j) as paragraph ( i) 43. Section 265.73 is amended by revising paragraphs ( b) introductory text, ( b)( 1), ( b)( 2), ( b)( 6), ( b)( 8), and ( b)( 10) to read as follows ( the Comment following paragraph ( b)( 6) is unchanged): § 265.73 Operating record. * * * * * ( b) The following information must be recorded, as it becomes available, and maintained in the operating record for three years after it is entered into the operating record unless noted otherwise as follows: ( 1) A description and the quantity of each hazardous waste received, and the method( s) and date( s) of its treatment, storage, or disposal at the facility. This information must be kept in the operating record until closure of the facility; ( 2) The location of each hazardous waste within the facility and the quantity at each location. For all facilities, this information must include cross­ references to manifest document numbers if the waste was accompanied by a manifest. For disposal facilities, the location and quantity of each hazardous waste must be recorded on a map or diagram that shows each cell or disposal area. All of this information must be maintained in the operating record until closure of the facility; * * * * * ( 6) Monitoring, testing or analytical data, and corrective action where required by subpart F of this part and by VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 11: 32 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm06 PsN: 17JAP2 2539 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules § § 265.19, 265.90, 265.94, 265.191, 265.193, 265.195, 265.222, 265.223, 265.226, 265.255, 265.259, 265.260, 265.276, 265.278, 265.280( d)( 1), 265.302 through 265.304, 265.347, 265.377, 265.1034( c) through 265.1034( f), 265.1035, 265.1063( d) through 265.1063( i), 265.1064, and 265.1083 through 265.1090 of this part. All of this information must be maintained in the operating record until closure of the facility; * * * * * ( 8) Records of the quantities ( and date of placement) for each shipment of hazardous waste placed in land disposal units under an extension to the effective date of any land disposal restriction granted pursuant to § 268.5 of this chapter, monitoring data required pursuant to a petition under § 268.6 of this chapter, or a certification under § 268.8 of this chapter, and the applicable notice required by a generator under § 268.7( a) of this chapter. All of this information must be maintained in the operating record until closure of the facility. * * * * * ( 10) For an on­ site treatment facility, the information contained in the notice ( except the manifest number), and the certification and demonstration if applicable, required by the generator or the owner or operator under § 268.7 or § 268.8 of this chapter. All of this information must be maintained in the operating record until closure of the facility. * * * * * Subpart F Groundwater Monitoring 44. Section 265.90 is amended by revising paragraph ( d)( 1) and ( d)( 3) to read as follows: § 265.90 Applicability. * * * * * ( d) * * * ( 1) Within one year after [ the effective date of the final rule], develop a specific plan, certified by a qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer, which satisfies the requirements of § 265.93( d)( 3), for an alternate ground­ water monitoring system; * * * * * ( 3) Prepare a report in accordance with § 265.93( d)( 4); * * * * * 45. Section 265.93 is amended: a. By revising paragraph ( c)( 1); b. Redesignating paragraph ( d)( 1) as paragraph ( d) introductory text, and redesignating paragraphs ( d)( 2) through ( d)( 7) as ( d)( 1) through ( d)( 6), respectively; c. Revising newly designated paragraphs ( d) introductory text, ( d)( 1), ( d)( 2) introductory text, ( d)( 3) introductory text, ( d)( 4), ( d)( 5), ( d)( 6), and paragraph ( e) and ( f). The revisions read as follows: § 265.93 Preparation, evaluation and response. * * * * * ( c)( 1) If the comparisons for the upgradient wells made under paragraph ( b) of this section show a significant increase ( or pH decrease), the owner or operator must note this in the operating record. * * * * * ( d) If the analyses performed under paragraph ( c)( 2) of this section confirm a significant increase ( or pH decrease), the owner or operator must: ( 1) Develop a specific plan, based on the outline required under paragraph ( a) of this section and certified by a qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer, for a ground­ water quality assessment program at the facility. ( 2) The plan to be developed under § 265.90( d)( 1) or paragraph ( d)( 1) of this section must specify: * * * * * ( 3) The owner or operator must implement the ground­ water quality assessment program which satisfies the requirements of paragraph ( d)( 2) of this section, and, at a minimum, determine: * * * * * ( 4) The owner or operator must make his first determination under paragraph ( d)( 3) of this section as soon as technically feasible, and prepare a report containing an assessment of the ground­ water quality. This report must be kept in the facility operating record. ( 5) If the owner or operator determines, based on the results of the first determination under paragraph ( d)( 3) of this section, that no hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents from the facility have entered the ground water, then he may reinstate the indicator evaluation program described in § 265.92 and paragraph ( b) of this section. ( 6) If the owner or operator determines, based on the first determination under paragraph ( d)( 3) of this section, that hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents from the facility have entered the ground water, then he: ( i) Must continue to make the determinations required under paragraph ( d)( 3) of this section on a quarterly basis until final closure of the facility, if the ground­ water quality assessment plan was implemented prior to final closure of the facility; or ( ii) May cease to make the determinations required under paragraph ( d)( 3) of this section, if the ground­ water quality assessment plan was implemented during the postclosure care period. ( e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, any groundwater quality assessment to satisfy the requirements of paragraph ( d)( 3) of this section which is initiated prior to final closure of the facility must be completed in accordance with paragraph ( d)( 4) of this section. ( f) Unless the ground water is monitored to satisfy the requirements of paragraph ( d)( 3) of this section, at least annually the owner or operator must evaluate the data on ground­ water surface elevations obtained under § 265.92( e) to determine whether the requirements under § 265.91( a) for locating the monitoring wells continue to be satisfied. If the evaluation shows that § 265.91( a) is no longer satisfied, the owner or operator must immediately modify the number, location, or depth of the monitoring wells to bring the groundwater monitoring system into compliance with this requirement. 46. Section 265.94 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraphs ( a) introductory text, ( a)( 2), and ( b), to read as follows: § 265.94 Recordkeeping requirements. ( a) Unless the ground water is monitored to satisfy the requirements of § 265.93( d)( 3), the owner or operator must: * * * * * ( 2) Keep records of the following: ( i) During the first year when initial background concentrations are being established for the facility: concentrations or values of the parameters listed in § 265.92( b)( 1) for each ground­ water monitoring well. ( ii) Concentrations or values of the parameters listed in § 265.92( b)( 3) for each ground­ water monitoring well, along with the required evaluations for these parameters under § 265.93( b). The owner or operator must separately identify any significant differences from initial background found in the upgradient wells, in accordance with § 265.93( c)( 1). ( iii) Results of the evaluations of ground­ water surface elevations under § 265.93( f), and a description of the response to that evaluation, where applicable. ( b) If the ground water is monitored to satisfy the requirements of § 265.93( d)( 3), the owner or operator must keep records of the following: ( 1) Analyses and evaluations specified in the plan, which satisfies the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 11: 32 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm06 PsN: 17JAP2 2540 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules requirements of § 265.93( d)( 2), throughout the active life of the facility, and, for disposal facilities, throughout the post­ closure care period as well; and ( 2) Results of his or her ground­ water quality assessment program, which includes, but is not limited to, the calculated ( or measured) rate of migration of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents in the ground water. Subpart G Closure and Post­ Closure 47. Section 265.113 is amended by revising paragraph ( e)( 5) to read as follows: § 265.113 Closure; time allowed for closure. * * * * * ( e) * * * ( 5) The owner or operator must provide annual reports to the Regional Administrator describing the progress of the corrective action program. These reports must include ground­ water monitoring data and an analysis of the effect of continued receipt of nonhazardous waste on the effectiveness of the corrective action. * * * * * 48. Section 265.120 is revised as follows: § 265.120 Certification of completion of post­ closure care. No later than 60 days after the completion of the established postclosure care period for each hazardous waste disposal unit, the owner or operator must submit to the Regional Administrator a certification that the post­ closure care period for the hazardous waste disposal unit was performed in accordance with the specifications in the approved postclosure plan. The certification must be signed by the owner or operator and by an independent, qualified registered professional engineer or Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. Documentation supporting the certification must be furnished to the Regional Administrator upon request until he releases the owner or operator from the financial assurance requirements for post­ closure care under § 265.145( h). Subpart I Use and Management of Containers 49. Section 265.174 is revised to read as follows: § 265.174 Inspections. At least weekly, or less frequently as determined by the Director, the owner or operator must inspect areas where containers are stored. In all cases, inspections must occur at least monthly. Director decisions about less frequent inspections will be based on an evaluation of the compliance record of a facility. The owner or operator must look for leaking containers and for deterioration of containers and the containment system caused by corrosion or other factors. Subpart J Tank Systems 50. Section 265.191 is amended by revising paragraphs ( a) and ( b)( 5)( ii) to read as follows ( the Note following paragraph ( b)( 5)( ii) is unchanged): § 265.191 Assessment of existing tank system's integrity. ( a) For each existing tank system that does not have secondary containment meeting the requirements of § 265.193, the owner or operator must determine that the tank system is not leaking or is unfit for use. Except as provided in paragraph ( c) of this section, the owner or operator must obtain and keep an assessment reviewed and certified by an independent, qualified registered professional engineer or Certified Hazardous Materials Manager attesting to the tank system's integrity. * * * * * ( b) * * * ( 5) * * * ( ii) For other than non­ enterable underground tanks and for ancillary equipment, this assessment must be either a leak test, as described in paragraph ( b)( 5)( i) of this section, or an internal inspection and/ or other tank integrity examination certified by an independent, qualified registered professional engineer or Certified Hazardous Materials Manager that addresses cracks, leaks, corrosion, and erosion. * * * * * 51. Section 265.192 is amended by revising paragraphs ( a) introductory text and ( b) introductory text to read as follows: § 265.192 Design and installation of new tank systems or components. ( a) Owners or operators of new tank systems or components must ensure that the foundation, structural support, seams, connections, and pressure controls ( if applicable) are adequately designed and that the tank system has sufficient structural strength, compatibility with the waste( s) to be stored or treated, and corrosion protection so that it will not collapse, rupture, or fail. The owner or operator must obtain an assessment by an independent, qualified registered professional engineer or Certified Hazardous Materials Manager attesting that the system has sufficient structural integrity and is acceptable for the storing and treating of hazardous waste. This assessment must include the following information: * * * * * ( b) The owner or operator of a new tank system must ensure that proper handling procedures are adhered to in order to prevent damage to the system during installation. Prior to covering, enclosing, or placing a new tank system or component in use, an independent, qualified registered professional engineer or Certified Hazardous Materials Manager or independent, qualified installation inspector must inspect the system or component for the presence of any of the following items: * * * * * 52. Section 265.193 is amended: a. By revising paragraphs ( a); b. By revising paragraph ( e)( 3)( iii) ( the Note following paragraph ( e)( 3)( iii) is unchanged); c. By revising paragraphs ( g) introductory text and ( g)( 1); d. Removing paragraph ( h); e. Redesignating paragraph ( i) as ( h). The revisions read as follows: § 265.193 Containment and detection of releases. ( a) Secondary containment must be provided for all existing and new tank systems and components. * * * * * ( e) * * * ( 3) * * * ( iii) Provided with a built­ in, continuous leak­ detection system capable of detecting a release within 24 hours, or at the earliest practicable time. * * * * * ( g) The owner or operator is not required to comply with the requirements of this section if he or she implements alternate design and operating practices and keeps records at the facility describing these practices. Such alternate design and operating practices, together with location characteristics, must prevent the migration of any hazardous waste or hazardous constituents into the ground water or surface water at least as effectively as secondary containment, during the active life of the tank system; or, in the event of a release that does migrate to ground or surface water, no substantial present or potential hazard will be posed to human health or the environment. New underground tank systems may not be exempted from the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 56 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 17JAP2 2541 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules secondary containment requirements of this section. ( 1) The owner or operator who uses these alternate tank design and operating practices and who has a release must: ( i) Comply with the requirements of § 264.196 of this chapter and ( ii) Decontaminate or remove contaminated soil to the extent necessary to: ( A) Enable the tank system to resume operation with the capability for the detection of releases at least equivalent to the capability it had prior to the release; and ( B) Prevent the migration of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents to ground or surface water. ( iii) If contaminated soil cannot be removed or decontaminated, the owner or operator must comply with the requirements of § 264.197( b) of this chapter. * * * * * 53. Section 265.195 is amended by revising paragraph ( a) to read as follows ( the Note following paragraph ( a) is unchanged): § 265.195 Inspections. ( a) The owner or operator must inspect at least weekly, or less frequently as determined by the Director. In all cases, inspections must occur at least monthly. Director decisions about less frequent inspections will be based on an evaluation of the compliance record of a facility. * * * * * 54. Section 265.196 is amended by removing paragraph ( d); redesignating paragraphs ( e) and ( f) as paragraphs ( d) and ( e), respectively; and revising newly designated paragraph ( e), to read as follows ( the Note following newly designated paragraph ( e) is unchanged): § 265.196 Response to leaks or spills and disposition of leaking or unfit­ for­ use tank systems. * * * * * ( e) Certification of major repairs. If the owner/ operator has repaired a tank system in accordance with paragraph ( d) of this section, and the repair has been extensive ( e. g., installation of an internal liner; repair of a ruptured primary containment or secondary containment vessel), the tank system must not be returned to service unless the owner/ operator has obtained a certification by an independent, qualified, registered, professional engineer or Certified Hazardous Materials Manager that the repaired system is capable of handling hazardous wastes without release for the intended life of the system. * * * * * Subpart K Surface Impoundments 55. Section 265.221 is amended by revising paragraph ( a) to read as follows: § 265.221 Design and operating requirements. ( a) The owner or operator of each new surface impoundment unit, each lateral expansion of a surface impoundment unit, and each replacement of a surface impoundment unit must have two or more liners, and a leachate collection and removal system between the liners. The leachate collection and removal system must be operated in accordance with § 264.221( c) of this chapter, unless exempted under § 264.221( d), ( e), or ( f) of this chapter. * * * * * 56. The second section designated as § 265.223 is amended: a. By revising the first sentence of paragraph ( a); b. Removing paragraphs ( b)( 1), ( b)( 2), and ( b)( 6) and redesignating paragraphs ( b)( 3) through ( b)( 5) as paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( b)( 3), respectively; c. Revising paragraph ( c) introductory text. The revisions read as follows: § 265.223 Response actions. ( a) The owner or operator of surface impoundment units subject to § 265.221( a) must develop a response action plan. * * * * * * * * ( c) To make the leak and/ or remediation determinations in paragraphs ( b)( 1), ( 2), and ( 3) of this section, the owner or operator must: * * * * * Subpart L Waste Piles 57. Section 265.259 is amended: a. By revising the first sentence of paragraph ( a); b. Removing paragraphs ( b)( 1), ( b)( 2), and ( b)( 6) and redesignating paragraphs ( b)( 3) through ( b)( 5) as ( b)( 1) through ( b)( 3), respectively; and c. Revising paragraph ( c) introductory text. The revisions read as follows: § 265.259 Response actions. ( a) The owner or operator of waste pile units subject to § 265.254 must develop a response action plan. * * * * * * * * ( c) To make the leak and/ or remediation determinations in paragraphs ( b)( 1), ( 2), and ( 3) of this section, the owner or operator must: * * * * * Subpart M Land Treatment § 265.276 [ Amended] 58. Section 265.276 is amended by removing paragraph ( a) and redesignating paragraphs ( b) and ( c) as paragraphs ( a) and ( b), respectively. Subpart N Landfills 59. Section 265.301 is amended by revising paragraph ( a) to read as follows: § 265.301 Design and operating requirements. ( a) The owner or operator of each new landfill unit, each lateral expansion of a landfill unit, and each replacement of an existing landfill unit must install two or more liners and a leachate collection and removal system above and between the liners. The leachate collection and removal system must be operated in accordance with § 264.301( d), ( e), or ( f) of this chapter. * * * * * 60. Section 265.303 is amended: a. By revising the first sentence of paragraph ( a); b. Removing paragraphs ( b)( 1), ( b)( 2), and ( b)( 6) and redesignating paragraphs ( b)( 3) through ( b)( 5) as ( b)( 1) through ( b)( 3), respectively; and c. Revising paragraph ( c) introductory text. The revisions read as follows: § 265.303 Response actions. ( a) The owner or operator of landfill units subject to § 265.301( a) must develop a response action plan. * * * * * * * * ( c) To make the leak and/ or remediation determinations in paragraphs ( b)( 1), ( 2), and ( 3) of this section, the owner or operator must: * * * * * 61. Section 265.314 is amended by removing paragraphs ( a), redesignating paragraphs ( b) through ( g) as paragraphs ( a) through ( f), and revising newly designated paragraphs ( a) and ( f) introductory text to read as follows: § 265.314 Special requirements for bulk and containerized liquids. ( a) The placement of bulk or noncontainerized liquid hazardous waste or hazardous waste containing free liquids ( whether or not sorbents have been added) in any landfill is prohibited. * * * * * ( f) The placement of any liquid which is not a hazardous waste in a landfill is prohibited unless the owner or operator VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 11: 32 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm06 PsN: 17JAP2 2542 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules of the landfill demonstrates to the Regional Administrator or the Regional Administrator determines that: * * * * * Subpart W Drip Pads 62. Section 265.441 is amended by revising paragraph ( a), ( b), and ( c) to read as follows: § 265.441 Assessment of existing drip pad integrity. ( a) For each existing drip pad, the owner or operator must determine whether it meets the requirements of this subpart, except for the requirements for liners and leak detection systems of § 265.443( b). The owner or operator must obtain and keep an assessment of the drip pad, reviewed and certified by an independent, qualified registered professional engineer or Certified Hazardous Materials Manager attesting to the results of the evaluation. The assessment must be reviewed, updated, and recertified annually until all upgrades, repairs, or modifications necessary to achieve compliance with all the standards of § 265.443 are complete. ( b) The owner or operator must develop a plan for upgrading, repairing, and modifying the drip pad to meet the requirements of § 265.443( b), and submit the plan to the Regional Administrator no later than 2 years before the date that all repairs, upgrades, and modifications are complete. This plan must describe all changes to be made to the drip pad in sufficient detail to document compliance with the requirements of § 265.443. The plan must be reviewed and certified by an independent qualified registered professional engineer or a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. ( c) Upon completion of all repairs and modifications, the owner or operator must submit to the Regional Administrator or State Director the asbuilt drawings for the drip pad together with a certification by an independent qualified registered professional engineer or a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager attesting that the drip pad conforms to the drawings. * * * * * 63. Section 265.443 is amended by revising paragraphs ( a)( 4)( ii) and ( g) and removing paragraph ( m)( 1)( iv), removing and reserving paragraph ( m)( 2), and removing paragraph ( m)( 3) to read as follows: § 265.443 Design and operating requirements. ( a) * * * ( 4) * * * ( ii) The owner or operator must obtain and keep an assessment of the drip pad, reviewed and certified by an independent, qualified registered professional engineer or Certified Hazardous Materials Manager that attests to the results of the evaluation. The assessment must be reviewed, updated and recertified annually. The evaluation must document the extent to which the drip pad meets the design and operating standards of this section, except for paragraph ( b) of this section. * * * * * ( g) The drip pad must be evaluated to determine that it meets the requirements of paragraphs ( a) through ( f) of this section and a certification of this by an independent, qualified, registered professional engineer or a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager must be obtained and kept on­ site. * * * * * 64. Section 265.444 is amended by revising paragraph ( a) to read as follows: § 265.444 Inspections. ( a) During construction or installation, liners and cover systems ( e. g., membranes, sheets, or coatings) must be inspected for uniformity, damage and imperfections. Immediately after construction or installation, liners must be inspected and certified as meeting the requirements of § 265.443 by an independent, qualified registered professional engineer or a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. This certification must be maintained at the facility as part of the facility operating record. After installation, liners and covers must be inspected to ensure tight seams and joints and the absence of tears, punctures, or blisters. * * * * * Subpart BB Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks § 265.1061 [ Amended] 65. Section 265.1061 is amended by removing paragraph ( b)( 1); redesignating paragraphs ( b)( 2) and ( b)( 3) as paragraphs ( b)( 1) and ( b)( 2), respectively; and removing paragraph ( d). 66. Section 265.1062 is amended by removing paragraph ( a)( 2) and redesignating paragraph ( a)( 1) as paragraph ( a). Subpart DD Containment Buildings 67. Section 265.1100 is amended by revising the introductory text to read as follows: § 265.1100 Applicability. The requirements of this subpart apply to owners or operators who store or treat hazardous waste in units designed and operated under § 265.1101 of this subpart. The owner or operator is not subject to the definition of land disposal in RCRA section 3004( k) provided that the unit: * * * * * 68. Section 265.1101 is amended by removing paragraphs ( c)( 3)( i)( D), and ( c)( 3)( iii) and removing and reserving paragraph ( c)( 3)( ii); and revising paragraphs ( c)( 2), ( c)( 3)( i)( C), and ( c)( 4) to read as follows: § 265.1101 Design and operating standards. * * * * * ( c) * * * ( 2) Obtain and keep a certification by an independent, qualified registered professional engineer or Certified Hazardous Materials Manager that the containment building design meets the requirements of paragraphs ( a) through ( c) of this section. ( 3) * * * ( i) * * * ( C) Determine what steps must be taken to repair the containment building, remove any leakage from the secondary containment system, and establish a schedule for accomplishing the clean­ up and repairs. Records that repairs were completed on schedule must be kept at the facility. ( ii) [ Reserved] ( 4) Inspect and record in the facility's operating record at least once every seven days, or less frequently as determined by the Director data gathered from monitoring and leak detection equipment as well as the containment building and the area immediately surrounding the containment building to detect signs of releases of hazardous waste. In all cases, inspections must occur at least monthly. Director decisions about less frequent inspections will be based on an evaluation of the compliance record of a facility. * * * * * PART 266 STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES 69. The authority citation for part 266 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 1006, 2002( a), 3001 3009, 3014, 6905, 6906, 6912, 6921, 6922, 6924 6927, 6934, and 6937. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 11: 32 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm06 PsN: 17JAP2 2543 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules Subpart H Hazardous Waste Burned in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces 70. Section 266.102 is amended by revising paragraph ( e)( 10) to read as follows: § 266.102 Permit standards for burners. * * * * * ( e) * * * ( 10) Recordkeeping. The owner or operator must keep in the operating record of the facility all information and data required by this section for three years. * * * * * 71. Section 266.103 is amended by revising paragraphs ( b)( 2)( ii)( D), ( d), and ( k) to read as follows: § 266.103 Interim status standards for burners. * * * * * ( b) * * * ( 2) * * * ( ii) * * * ( D) When best engineering judgment is used to develop or evaluate data and make determinations, it must be done by an independent qualified, registered professional engineer or Certified Hazardous Materials Manager, and a certification of his or her determinations must be provided in the certification of precompliance. * * * * * ( d) Periodic recertifications. The owner or operator must conduct compliance testing and submit to the Director a recertification of compliance under provisions of paragraph ( c) of this section within five years from submitting the previous certification or recertification. If the owner or operator seeks to recertify compliance under new operating conditions, he/ she must comply with the requirements of paragraph ( c)( 8) of this section. * * * * * ( k) Recordkeeping. The owner or operator must keep in the operating record of the facility all information and data required by this section for three years. * * * * * 72. Section 266.111 is amended by revising paragraph ( e)( 2)( i) to read as follows: § 266.111 Standards for direct transfer. * * * * * ( e) * * * ( 2) Requirements prior to meeting secondary containment requirements. ( i) For existing direct transfer equipment that does not have secondary containment, the owner or operator shall determine whether the equipment is leaking or is unfit for use. The owner or operator shall obtain and keep on file at the facility a certified assessment from a qualified, registered professional engineer or Certified Hazardous Materials Manager that attests to the equipment's integrity. * * * * * Subpart M Military Munitions 73. Section 266.205 is amended by revising paragraph ( a)( 1)( v) to read as follows: § 266.205 Standards applicable to the storage of solid waste military munitions. ( a) * * * ( 1) * * * ( v) The owner or operator must provide notice to the Director within 24 hours from the time the owner or operator becomes aware of any loss or theft of the waste military munitions, or any failure to meet a condition of this section. * * * * * PART 268 LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS 74. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6921, and 6924. 75. Section 268.7 is amended by revising paragraphs ( b)( 6) and ( d)( 1); removing paragraphs ( a)( 1) and ( a)( 6); and redesignating paragraphs ( a)( 2) through ( a)( 5) as ( a)( 1) through ( a)( 4) and ( a)( 7) through ( a)( 10) as ( a)( 5) through ( a)( 8): § 268.7 Testing, tracking and recordkeeping requirements for generators, treaters, and disposal facilities. * * * * * ( b) * * * ( 6) Where the wastes are recyclable materials used in a manner constituting disposal subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 266.20( b) regarding treatment standards and prohibition levels, the owner or operator of a treatment facility ( i. e., the recycler) must, for the initial shipment of waste, prepare a one­ time certification described in paragraph ( b)( 4) of this section, and a one­ time notice which includes the information in paragraph ( b)( 3) of this section ( except the manifest number). The certification and notification must be placed in the facility's on­ site files. If the waste or the receiving facility changes, a new certification and notification must be prepared and placed in the on­ site files. In addition, the recycling facility must also keep records of the name and location of each entity receiving the hazardous wastederived product. * * * * * ( d) * * * ( 1) A one­ time notification, including the following information, must be prepared and placed in the facility's on site files. * * * * * 76. Section 268.9 is amended by revising paragraphs ( a) and ( d) introductory text to read as follows: § 268.9 Special rules regarding wastes that exhibit a characteristic. ( a) A generator of hazardous waste must determine, following the requirements of § 262.11 of this chapter, or if applicable, § 264.13 of this chapter, and including the ability to use knowledge of the waste, if the waste has to be treated before it can be land disposed. ( 1) This is done by determining if the hazardous waste meets the treatment standards in § § 268.40, 268.48, and 268.49. In addition, some hazardous wastes must be treated by particular treatment methods before they can be land disposed. These methods of treatment are specified in § 268.40, and are described in detail in § 268.42, Table 1. Wastes with required treatment methods do not need to meet concentration levels. ( 2) For purposes of this part 268, the waste will carry the waste code for any applicable listed waste ( 40 CFR part 261, subpart D). In addition, where the waste exhibits a characteristic, the waste will carry one or more of the characteristic waste codes ( 40 CFR part 261, subpart C), except when the treatment standard for the listed waste operates in lieu of the treatment standard for the characteristic waste, as specified in paragraph ( b) of this section. ( 3) If the generator determines that their waste displays a hazardous characteristic ( and is not D001 nonwastewater treated by CMBST, RORGS, or POLYM of § 268.42, Table 1), the generator must meet treatment standards for all underlying hazardous constituents ( as defined at § 268.2( i)) in the characteristic waste. * * * * * ( d) Wastes that exhibit a characteristic are also subject to § 268.7 requirements, except that once the waste is no longer hazardous, a one­ time notification and certification must be placed in the generators or treaters files. The notification and certification must be updated if the process or operation generating the waste changes and/ or if VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 11: 32 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm06 PsN: 17JAP2 2544 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules the subtitle D facility receiving the waste changes. * * * * * PART 270 EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM 77. The authority citation for part 270 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912, 6924, 6925, 6927, 6939, and 6974. 78. Section 270.16 is amended by revising paragraph ( a) to read as follows: § 270.16 Specific part B information requirements for tank systems. * * * * * ( a) An assessment by an independent, registered professional engineer or a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager of the structural integrity and suitability for handling hazardous waste of each tank system, as required under § § 264.191 and 264.192 of this chapter. * * * * * 79. Section 270.17 is amended by revising paragraph ( d) to read as follows: § 270.17 Specific part B information requirements for surface impoundments. * * * * * ( d) A certification by a qualified engineer or Certified Hazardous Materials Manager of the structural integrity of each dike. For new units, the owner or operator must submit a statement by a qualified engineer or a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager that construction will be completed in accordance with the plans and specifications. * * * * * PART 271 REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS 80. The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a) and 6926. 81. Section 271.1 is amended by adding the following entry to Table 1 in chronological order by date of publication in the Federal Register, to read as follows: § 271.1 Purpose and scope. * * * * * ( j) * * * TABLE 1. REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984 Promulgation date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date * * * * * * * [ Date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register ( FR)]. Office of Solid Waste Burden Reduction Project. [ FR page numbers] ....................... [ Date of X months from date of publication of final rule]. * * * * * * * 82. Section 271.21 is amended by adding the following entry to Table 1 in chronological order by date of publication in the Federal Register, to read as follows: § 271.21 Procedures for revision of State programs. * * * * * TABLE 1 TO § 271.21 Title of regulation Promulgation date Federal Register reference * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Burden Reduction Initiative * * * * * * * [ FR Doc. 02 191 Filed 1 16 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 56 Jan 16, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17JAP2. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 17JAP2

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.029410

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0050-0004

Notice

Agency Information Collection Activities: Continuing Collection; Comment Request; Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications and Special Permits

62465 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Notices Other# s UL00– 4,004, Homestake Mining Company H– 5. Omitted H– 6. Docket# P– 10455,021, JDJ Energy Company H– 7. Omitted H– 8. Docket# P– 2114,106, The Yakama Nation v. Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, WA Energy Projects— Certificates C– 1. Docket# CP02– 229,000, SG Resources Mississippi, L. L. C. Other# s CP02– 230,000, SG Resources Mississippi, L. L. C. CP02– 231,000, SG Resources Mississippi, L. L. C. C– 2. Omitted C– 3. Docket# CP02– 97,000, West Texas Gas, Inc. C– 4. Docket# CP02– 17,001, Texas Eastern Transmission, L. P. Other# s CP02– 45,001, Texas Eastern Transmission, L. P. C– 5. Docket# CP02– 44,001, Dominion Transmission, Inc. Other# s CP02– 46,001, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company CP02– 47,001, Dominion Transmission, Inc. and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company CP02– 47,002, Dominion Transmission, Inc. and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company CP02– 48,001, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company CP02– 53,001, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation and Dominion Transmission, Inc. C– 6. Docket# CP02– 32,001, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP C– 7. Docket# CP01– 422,002, Kern River Gas Transmission Company Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. 02– 25644 Filed 10– 4– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6717– 01– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7391– 8] Agency Information Collection Activities: Continuing Collection; Comment Request; Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications and Special Permits AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that EPA is planning to submit the following continuing Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications and Special Permits, EPA ICR No. 1573.06, OMB No. 2050– 0009, expires on March 31, 2003. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 6, 2002. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, through hand delivery/ courier, or electronically. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. The mailing address, referencing Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0050, is: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460– 001. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/ DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Comments may also be submitted electronically through the Internet to: rcra­ docket@ epa. gov. Comments in electronic format should also be identified by the Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0050. All electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Commenters should not submit any confidential business information (CBI) electronically. An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5303W), U. S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC 20460– 001. Hand deliveries must be brought to the Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/ DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Docket is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m. Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566– 1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Eberly by phone at (703) 308– 8645, by mail at the Office of Solid Waste (5303W), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460– 001, or by e­ mail at eberly. david@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: How Can I Get copies of the ICR Supporting Statement and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0050. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in the ICR, any public comments received, and other information related to this ICR. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center (see ADDRESSES above). This Docket Facility is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m. Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. It is recommended that the public make an appointment by calling (202) 566– 1742. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies are $0.15/ page. 2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search, '' then key in the docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI, and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in A. 1 above. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is VerDate Sep< 04> 2002 19: 16 Oct 04, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07OCN1. SGM 07OCN1 62466 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Notices that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late. '' EPA is not required to consider these late comments in formulating a final decision. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e­ mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select `` Information Sources, '' `` Dockets, '' and `` EPA Dockets. '' Once in the system, select `` search, '' and then key in Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0050. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e­ mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E­ mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e­ mail) to rcradocket epa. gov, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0050. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's email system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e­ mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e­ mail system automatically captures your e­ mail address. E­ mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e­ mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in ADDRESSES. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By Mail. Send an original and two copies of their comments, referencing Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0050, to: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460– 001. 3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/ DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0050. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m. Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e­ mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5303W), U. S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460– 001, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0027. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested In? Pursuant to section 3506( c)( 2)( A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to: 1. Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility. 2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burdens of the proposed collections of information. In particular, for this ICR, EPA is soliciting information on the estimates for performing waste analyses as required in 40 CFR 264.13( a)( 1) and 40 CFR 265.13( a)( 1). 3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. 4. Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who VerDate Sep< 04> 2002 19: 16 Oct 04, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07OCN1. SGM 07OCN1 62467 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Notices are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated or electronic collection technologies or other forms of information technology, e. g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities. Title: Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications and Special Permits, EPA ICR #1573.06, OMB No. 2050– 0009, expires on March 31, 2003. Abstract: Section 3005 of Subtitle C of RCRA requires treatment, storage or disposal (TSD) facilities to obtain a permit. To obtain the permit, the TSD must submit an application describing the facility's operation. There are two parts to the RCRA permit application— Part A and Part B. Part A defines the processes to be used for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes; the design capacity of such processes; and the specific hazardous wastes to be handled at the facility. Part B requires detailed site specific information such as geologic, hydrologic, and engineering data. In the event that permit modifications are proposed by the applicant or EPA, modifications must conform to the requirements under Sections 3004 and 3005. This ICR provides a comprehensive discussion of the requirements for owner/ operators of TSDFs submitting applications for a Part B permit or permit modification. The information collections contained in this ICR are divided into three sections: demonstrations and exemptions from requirements (40 CFR part 264), contents of the Part B application (40 CFR part 270), and permit modifications and special permits (40 CFR part 270). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. Burden Statement: The estimated average burden for renewing the existing Part B ICR is as follows: Demonstrations and Exemptions From Requirements Releases from regulated Units— 1.62 hours Demonstrations and Exemptions from Requirements— 9.67 hours Contents of the Part B Application Legal Review— 100.00 hours General Information— 0.00 hours Permit Application— 2.93 hours General Requirements— 0.09 hours General Facility Standards— 356.25 hours Financial Assurance— 19.35 hours Other Part B Requirements— 12.00 hours Ground Water Protection— 166.94 hours Solid Waste Management Units— 10.81 hours Specific Part B Information Requirements— 1,143.70 hours Schedules of Compliance— 0.65 hours Permit Modifications and Special Permits Permit Modifications— 47.35 hours Expiration and Continuation of Permits— 112.75 hours Special Forms of Permits— 59.54 hours Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Dated: September 26, 2002. Robert Springer, Director, Office of Solid Waste. [FR Doc. 02– 25420 Filed 10– 4– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [IL 215– 1; FRL– 7391– 9] Notice of Final Determination for the Carlton LLC, North Shore Power Plant, City of Zion, Lake County, IL AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of final action. SUMMARY: This notice announces that on February 28, 2001, the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) of the EPA dismissed a petition for review of a permit issued for the Carlton, Inc. North Shore Power Plant (Carlton) by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) pursuant to the regulations under Illinois' minor New Source Review (NSR) program. The EAB dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction to review the permit. DATES: The effective date for the EAB's decision is February 28, 2001. Judicial review of this permit decision, to the extent it is available pursuant to section 307( b)( 1) of the Clean Air Act, may be sought by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit within 60 days of October 7, 2002. ADDRESSES: The documents relevant to the above action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following address: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AR– 18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604. To arrange viewing of these documents, call Jorge Acevedo at (312) 886– 2263. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jorge Acevedo, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard (AR– 18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604. Anyone who wishes to review the EAB decision can obtain it at http:// www. epa. gov/ eab/ disk11/ carlton. pdf. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplemental information is organized as follows: A. What Action is EPA Taking? B. What is the Background Information? C. What did EPA Determine? A. What Action Is EPA Taking? We are notifying the public of a final decision by EPA's EAB on a permit issued by Illinois EPA pursuant to Illinois' minor NSR program. B. What Is the Background Information? On November 10, 2000, Illinois EPA issued a construction permit 99120057 to Carlton for the construction of either three General Electric (GE) frame 7FA simple cycle turbines with a nominal capacity of 187 megawatts each, or six GE Frame 7EA simple cycle turbines with a nominal capacity of 98.2 megawatts each. The proposed turbines would fire only natural gas and would be required to use dry low oxides of nitrogen combusters. On December 11, 2000, Verena Owen and the Lake County Conservation Alliance (LCCA) filed a petition for review stating that the proposed facility was not a minor source, but in fact a major source of Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Volatile Organic Materials, and Hazardous Air Pollutants and should be subject to the appropriate regulations. Illinois EPA filed a motion to dismiss the petition on January 5, 2001, in which it argued that the EAB lacked VerDate Sep< 04> 2002 19: 16 Oct 04, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07OCN1. SGM 07OCN1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.052381

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0050-0006

Supporting & Related Material

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST NUMBER 1573 "PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS" September, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. IDENTIFICATIONOFTHE INFORMATIONCOLLECTION .................. 1 1( a) TitleoftheInformationCollection ................................... 1 1( b) ShortCharacterization/ Abstract ..................................... 1 2. NEEDFORANDUSE OFTHECOLLECTION ............................. 4 2( a) Need/ Authorityfor theCollection.................................... 4 2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data .................................... 9 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA12 3( a) Nonduplication................................................. 12 3( b) PublicNoticeRequiredPriortoICRSubmissiontoOMB ................ 12 3( c) Consultations .................................................. 12 3( d) EffectsofLessFrequentCollection ................................. 12 3( e) GeneralGuidelines .............................................. 12 3( f) Confidentiality ................................................. 13 3( g) SensitiveQuestions.............................................. 13 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED .............. 14 4( a) Respondents/ SICCodes.......................................... 14 4( b) InformationRequested ........................................... 15 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED ­­ AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT .................. 78 5( a) AgencyActivities ............................................... 78 5( b) CollectionMethodologyandManagement ............................ 87 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility ........................................... 87 5( d) CollectionSchedule ............................................. 87 6. ESTIMATINGTHE BURDENANDCOSTOFTHE COLLECTION ............ 91 6( a) EstimatingRespondentBurden..................................... 91 6( b) EstimatingRespondentCosts ...................................... 91 (i) Estimating Labor Costs .................................... 91 (ii) Estimating Capital Costs ................................... 91 (iii) Estimating Operations and Maintenance (O& M) Costs ............ 91 6( c) EstimatingAgencyBurdenandCost................................. 91 6( d) EstimatingtheRespondentUniverseandTotalBurdenandCosts........... 92 6( e) BottomLineBurdenHoursandCostTables.......................... 117 (i) Respondent Tally ........................................ 117 (ii) The Agency Tally ........................................ 117 6( f) ReasonsforChangeinBurden .................................... 122 6( g) BurdenStatement.............................................. 122 1 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title And Number Of The Information Collection This ICR is titled "Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, and Special Permits," ICR number 1573. 1( b) Short Characterization The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, requires EPA to establish a national regulatory program to insure that hazardous wastes are managed in a manner protective of human health and the environment. Specifically, the statute requires EPA to promulgate regulations that establish performance standards and permitting requirements applicable to hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs). Section 3004 of Subtitle C establishes performance standards applicable to these facilities. Section 3005 requires EPA to promulgate regulations requiring these facilities to obtain a permit. In the event permit modifications are proposed by an applicant or EPA, modifications must conform to the requirements under Sections 3004 and 3005. The regulations implementing these requirements are codified at 40 CFR Parts 264 and 270. This ICR provides a comprehensive discussion of the requirements for owner/ operators of TSDFs submitting applications for a Part B permit or permit modification. The information collections contained in this ICR are divided into three sections: demonstrations and exemptions from requirements (40 CFR Part 264), contents of the Part B application (40 CFR Part 270), and permit modifications and special permits (40 CFR Part 270). Demonstrations and Exemptions from Requirements 40 CFR Part 264 contains minimum standards for TSDFs consisting of both administrative and technical requirements. Owner/ operators may obtain exemption from certain requirements by submitting demonstrations to EPA. In most cases, these demonstrations will be submitted along with the Part B application. Section 264.90 allows owner/ operators to submit a demonstration for exemption from the Subpart F requirements regarding releases to the uppermost aquifer. In addition, owner/ operators of tank systems, surface impoundments, waste piles, landfills, land treatment facilities and incinerators may apply for exemptions from certain technical requirements by submitting demonstrations under §§ 264.193, .221, .251, .272, .301 and .344, respectively. Contents of the Part B Application 40 CFR Part 270 contains requirements for owner/ operators submitting a Part B permit application. Section 270.1 allows owner/ operators of certain facilities closing by removal or decontamination to petition for an exemption from post­ closure permit requirements. Section 270.10 requires owner/ operators of certain facilities to provide information on the potential for 2 public exposure resulting from unit­ related releases. Part B of the permit application consists of the general and specific information requirements contained in §§ 270.14 through 270.29. These Part B information requirements reflect the standards promulgated in 40 CFR Part 264. Under §270.14( a), owner/ operators who can demonstrate that the information prescribed in Part B cannot be provided to the extent required may receive case­ by­ case allowances from EPA. General information requirements are outlined in §270.14. Sections 270.14( b)( 1)­( 14) require owner/ operators to provide information on compliance with general facility standards. Financial assurance information is required under §§ 270.15 ­ .18. Section 270.14( b)( 19) requires owner/ operators to submit a topographical map, and §270.14( b)( 21) covers special requirements for owner/ operators of land disposal facilities granted case­ by­ case extensions under §268.5 or petitions under §268.6. Information on ground­ water quality and monitoring programs for land disposal facilities is discussed under §§ 270.14( c)( 1)­( 8). Section 270.14( d) establishes Part B information requirements for solid waste management units. In addition to the general Part B information that must be submitted by all owner/ operators of TSDFs, there are unique information requirements related to the type of unit for which the owner/ operator is seeking a permit. The requirements under §§ 270.15 ­ .21 and .23 address specific requirements for the following types of units: containers, tank systems, surface impoundments, waste piles, incinerators, land treatment units, landfills, boilers and industrial furnaces, and miscellaneous units. Sections 270.24 and 270.25 apply to facilities with process vents or equipment subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 264/ 265, Subparts AA and BB, respectively. Section 270.26 applies to facilities with drip pads subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 264/ 265, Subpart W. Some owner/ operators may also be required to submit a schedule of compliance leading to compliance with RCRA and regulations as part of their application. The requirements for schedules of compliance are contained in §270.33. Permit Modifications and Special Permits Sections 270.40 through 270.42 address the requirements for permit modifications. Section 270.40 applies to owner/ operators transferring ownership or operational control of a facility. These owner/ operators must submit Class 1 permit modifications as well as a written agreement containing specific transfer information. Requirements for owner/ operators submitting permit modifications at the request of the Agency are contained in §270.41. Requirements for Class 1, 2, and 3 permit modifications submitted at the request of the permittee are contained in §270.42( a)­( c). Section 270.42( d) allows permittees to request that the Agency determine the classification for a specific modification. Sections 270.42( e) and (g) discuss requirements for temporary authorization and permit modifications for newly regulated wastes and units, respectively. 3 In 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart S, EPA promulgated regulations for corrective action management units (CAMUs). 40 CFR 264.552( d) requires owner/ operators to prepare and submit information that enables EPA to designate a CAMU. 4 Requirements for permit renewal are contained in §§ 270.50 and 270.51. In order to renew an expiring permit, owner/ operators must submit an application containing the information required under §270.14 and the applicable sections of §§ 270.15 through 270.29. Sections 270.60 and 270.62 through 270.65 address the requirements associated with special types of permits. These include permits by rule (§ 270.60); hazardous waste incinerator permits (§ 270.62); permits for land treatment demonstrations using field test or laboratory analyses (§ 270.63); interim permits for UIC wells (§ 270.64); and research, development and demonstration permits (§ 270.65). 5 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need And Authority For The Collection This section describes the need and authority for each type of information collection analyzed in this ICR. Demonstrations and Exemptions from Requirements Releases from Regulated Units and Specific Unit Requirements EPA promulgated a number of regulations in 40 CFR Part 264 providing owner/ operators the opportunity to submit demonstrations to exempt their facilities from certain requirements. In §264.90, EPA promulgated regulations allowing owner/ operators to obtain an exemption from the Subpart F requirements regarding releases into the uppermost aquifer. In §§ 264.193, .221, .251, .272, .301, and .344, EPA promulgated regulations outlining the requirements for owner/ operators petitioning to exempt units (tank systems, surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment, landfills, and incinerators) at their facilities from specific requirements. EPA needs this information to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of petitions for exemptions submitted by owner/ operators. These requirements insure that only facilities fully protective of human health and the environment are granted exemptions, and contribute to EPA's goal of preventing contamination of the environment from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal practices. Contents of the Part B Application General Information EPA promulgated regulations in §270.1( c)( 5) allowing owner/ operators of surface impoundments, land treatment units, and waste piles closing by removal or decontamination under Part 265 standards to petition the Regional Administrator for a determination that a post­ closure permit is not required. The owner/ operator will need to demonstrate that the particular unit does not require a post­ closure permit because its closure met the applicable Part 264 closure standards. Similar to the exemption provisions in CFR Part 264 (discussed in previous section), EPA needs this information to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of the claims made in the petitions for exemptions submitted by owner/ operators. These requirements contribute to EPA's goal of ensuring that hazardous waste management facilities are closed in a manner fully protective of human health and the environment. Permit Application Section 3019 of RCRA requires EPA to promulgate regulations requiring owner/ operators of facilities that store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste in a surface impoundment or landfill to submit information on the potential for the public to be exposed to hazardous wastes or 6 hazardous constituents through releases related to the unit (40 CFR §270.10( j)). EPA needs this information to comprehensively evaluate the potential risk posed by facilities seeking permits. This information aids EPA's in meeting its goal of ascertaining and minimizing risks to human health and the environment from hazardous waste management facilities. General Requirements, General Facility Standards, Financial Assurance, Ground­ Water Protection, Regulated Units, and Other Requirements RCRA Section 3005 requires EPA to promulgate regulations detailing informational requirements for owner/ operators submitting Part B permit applications. EPA promulgated these requirements in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 270: ° Section 270.14( a) allows owner/ operators to petition EPA for relief from submission of information prescribed in Part B on a case­ by­ case basis by demonstrating that such information cannot be provided to the extent required. ° Section 270.14( b)( 1)­( 14) requires owner/ operators of hazardous waste management facilities to submit information on compliance with general facility standards in their Part B permit applications. ° Sections 270.14 ­ .16 require owner/ operators of new facilities to submit detailed written estimates of the cost of facility closure and post­ closure care in accordance with the requirements of §§ 264.142( a) and 264.144( a), respectively. ° Sections 270.14 ­ .16 also require owner/ operators to establish and provide evidence of financial assurance for facility closure (§ 264.143) and post­ closure (§ 264.145). Owner/ operators can establish financial assurance with a number of financial instruments. ° Section 264.14( b)( 17) requires owner/ operators to document the amount of insurance meeting specifications detailed in §264.147( a) and, if applicable, §264.147( b), that are in effect before initial receipt of hazardous waste for treatment, storage, or disposal. ° Section 270.14( b)( 18) requires owner/ operators to provide proof of coverage by a State financial mechanism in compliance with §§ 264.149 or 264.150, where appropriate. Section 264.149 allows owner/ operators to use State­ required financial assurance mechanisms to meet §§ 264.143, 264.145, or 264.147 requirements. Section 264.150 requires owner/ operators to notify EPA when a State assumes legal responsibility or assures availability of funds for an owner/ operator's compliance with the closure, post­ closure care, or liability requirements of this part. ° Section 270.14( b)( 19) requires owner/ operators to provide a topographic map 7 showing a distance of 1000 feet around the facility. EPA also promulgated regulations in §270.14( b)( 21) requiring owner/ operators of land disposal facilities that have received approval for a case­ by­ case extension under §268.5 or a petition under §268.6 to submit a copy of the notice of approval for the extension or petition with their Part B permit application. ° Section 270.14( c)( 1) ­ (5) requires owner/ operators to submit additional information to EPA regarding protection of ground water when applying for a Part B permit. The information required includes information on site­ specific characteristics, and a ground­ water monitoring program as required under §264.97. The monitoring program must include sampling and analysis procedures, sampling intervals, and statistical methods to be used in evaluating ground­ water monitoring data. ° Section 270.14( c)( 6) requires that if the presence of hazardous constituents has not been detected in the ground water at the time of permit application, the owner/ operator must submit to EPA sufficient information, supporting data, and analyses to establish a detection monitoring program meeting the requirements of §264.98. This information includes information required by EPA to determine the parameters or constituents to be monitored under the detection monitoring program, as well as information for determining appropriate time periods for identifying contamination. ° Section 270.14( c)( 7) requires that if the presence of hazardous constituents has been detected in the ground water at the point of compliance at the time of the permit application, the owner/ operator must submit to EPA sufficient information, supporting data, and analyses to establish a compliance monitoring program meeting the requirements of §264.99. Section 264.99 requires owner/ operators to submit to EPA all information necessary to determine a reasonable time period for identifying significant evidence of increased contamination during compliance monitoring. ° Section 270.14( c)( 8) requires that if hazardous constituents have been measured in the ground water which exceed the concentration limits established under §264.94 Table 1, or if ground­ water monitoring conducted at the time of permit application under §§ 265.90 through 265.94 at the waste boundary indicates the presence of hazardous constituents from the facility in ground water over background concentrations, the owner/ operator must submit to EPA sufficient information, supporting data, and analyses to establish a corrective action program which meets the requirements of §264.100. ° Section 270.14( d) establishes Part B information requirements for solid waste management units. 8 EPA needs the various Part B permit information to evaluate the compliance of facilities with the permitting standards. These requirements contribute to EPA's goal of insuring that hazardous waste management facilities are operated in a manner fully protective of human health and the environment. 9 Specific Part B Information Requirements EPA promulgated regulations in 40 CFR Part 270 requiring owner/ operators to submit specific additional information for various units at their facilities. These requirements are specified for owner/ operators of facilities that perform the following activities: ° Store containers of hazardous waste (§ 270.15); ° Use tanks to store or treat hazardous waste (§ 270.16); ° Store, treated or dispose of hazardous waste in surface impoundments (§ 270.17); ° Store or treat hazardous waste in waste piles (§ 270.18); ° Incinerate hazardous waste (§ 270.19); ° Use land treatment to dispose of hazardous waste (§ 270.20); ° Dispose of hazardous waste in landfills (§ 270.21); ° Treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste in miscellaneous units (§ 270.23); ° Release organic emissions from process vents and leaks from equipment (§§ 270.24 and 270.25); and ° Collect, treat, or store hazardous waste on drip pads (§ 270.26). EPA needs this information to evaluate each of the facility units included in permit applications. This information contributes to EPA's goal of safe management of hazardous waste. Schedules of Compliance EPA promulgated regulations in §270.33 detailing informational requirements for owner/ operators developing schedules of compliance leading to compliance with the Act and regulations. EPA needs this information to determine whether schedules of compliance are reasonable. Permit Modifications and Special Permits Permit Modifications EPA promulgated regulations in 40 CFR Part 270 outlining procedures for modification and transfer of permits: 10 11 ° Compliance with Class 1 modification requirements and submittal of specific financial and contractual information before transferring ownership or operational control of a facility (§ 270.40( b)); ° Specified procedures for owner/ operators submitting permit modifications at the request of the Agency (§ 270.41); ° Specified procedures for owner/ operators applying for Class 1 permit modifications (§ 270.42( a)), and owner/ operators applying for Class 2 or 3 permit modifications (§ 270.42( b) ­ (c)); ° Specified procedures for owner/ operators requesting a classification of a permit modification (§ 270.42( d)); and ° Specified procedures for owner/ operators applying for temporary authorization (§ 270.42( e)), and for owner/ operators handling newly regulated wastes hazardous or managing waste in newly regulated units (§ 270.42( g)). EPA needs this information to comprehensively evaluate whether requests for modifications or transfer of ownership should be granted. The permit modification procedures contribute to EPA's goal of providing a role for the public in the permitting process. In general, these informational requirements aid in meeting EPA's goal of ascertaining and minimizing risks to human health and the environment from hazardous waste management facilities. In 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart S, EPA promulgated regulations for corrective action management units (CAMUs). EPA needs to collect information from facilities that are engaged in, or will be initiating, corrective action to effectively designate CAMUs. Expiration and Continuation of Permits EPA promulgated regulations in §§ 270.50 and 270.51 requiring owner/ operators to renew their Part B permit. In order to renew an expiring permit, owner/ operators must submit an application containing the information required under §270.14 and the applicable sections of §§ 270.15 through 270.29. The permit renewal process provides EPA with an opportunity to complete an extensive review of the facility permit to determine whether the terms of the permit continue to provide the most appropriate mechanism for protecting human health and the environment. Special Forms of Permits EPA promulgated regulations in §270.60 and §§ 270.62 through 270.65 creating additional forms of permits. Informational requirements are specified for these permits in the following sections: 12 ° Permits by rule (§ 270.60); ° Hazardous waste incinerator permits (§ 270.62); ° Permits for land treatment demonstrations using filed test or laboratory analyses (§ 270.63); ° Interim permits for UIC wells (§ 270.64); and ° Research, development, and demonstration permits (§ 270.65). EPA needs this information to comprehensively evaluate permit applications. These informational requirements contribute EPA's goal of ascertaining and minimizing risks to human health and the environment from hazardous waste management facilities. Interim Status Termination of Interim Status EPA promulgated regulations at 40 CFR Part 270, Subpart G covering interim status facilities. Section 270.73 requires land disposal facilities that become subject to permit requirements as a result of statutory or regulatory amendments to submit within 12 months a Part B permit application and a certification that the facility is in compliance with all applicable ground­ water monitoring and financial responsibility requirements. EPA needs this information to ensure that such facilities come under permit conditions and are operated in a manner protective of human health and the environment. 2( b) Practical Utility And Use And Users Of Data This section describes the users of the collected data and how the information will be used. Demonstrations and Exemptions from Requirements Releases from Regulated Units and Specific Unit Requirements EPA uses the information submitted by owner/ operators in their exemption petitions to evaluate these demonstrations fully. Owner/ operators of facilities must establish that they do not need to comply with the applicable requirements to be protective of human health and the environment. Contents of the Part B Application General Information 13 EPA uses the required information to fully evaluate petitions submitted by owner/ operators for their exemptions from post­ closure permit requirements. Owner/ operators of facilities must establish that the facility was closed in a manner protective of human health and the environment. Permit Application EPA uses information on exposure potential to minimize any risks to human health from hazardous waste management facilities. If EPA determines that a facility poses a substantial risk to human health, EPA may request that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry conduct a health assessment. General Requirements, General Facility Standards, Financial Assurance, Ground­ Water Protection, Regulated Units, and Other Requirements EPA uses the information requirements in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 270 for owner/ operators submitting Part B applications to evaluate compliance with various elements of the regulations. For example, the general facility standards informational requirements provide EPA with information demonstrating compliance with standards regarding the facility's contingency plan, the inspection schedule, and security procedures. EPA uses the financial assurance information requirements to evaluate the facility owner's financial ability to close the facility, to maintain the facility after closure, and to respond to any contingencies. Both EPA and the owner/ operators use the ground­ water protection information to evaluate the state of the underlying ground water, the adequacy of the monitoring program, and whether hazardous constituents are present in the ground water. Specific Part B Information Requirements EPA uses information regarding specific units at facilities to evaluate the adequacy of each unit to manage hazardous wastes. Additional information is required because each of the different types of hazardous waste management units presents different risks to the environment and consequently requires different standards. EPA reviews the submittals of each type of hazardous waste management unit to evaluate whether it is designed, built, and operated in a manner protective of human health and the environment. EPA uses the information required for process vents and equipment leaks to ensure compliance with air emissions standards. Schedules of Compliance Owner/ operators use schedules of compliance to develop a list of activities needed to come into compliance with the applicable regulations. EPA uses performance test plans and documentation of compliance to ensure that design and operating procedures are in accordance with air emissions standards. Permit Modifications and Special Permits 14 Permit Modifications EPA uses permit information to evaluate the initial permit applications and any subsequent requests for modifications. The public may also use draft EPA permit and permit modification determinations which incorporate data submitted by facilities to assess hazardous waste management facilities being developed in their communities. EPA reviews data collected from facilities undergoing or scheduled to undergo corrective action to designate CAMUs at the facility. Expiration and Continuation of Permits EPA uses permit renewal applications to ensure that the terms of the facility permit remain protective of human health and the environment. Special Forms of Permits EPA uses the information requirements for these permits to determine compliance with the regulations. EPA needs this information to comprehensively evaluate whether applicant facilities are protective of human health and the environment. Interim Status Termination of Interim Status EPA uses certifications collected from land disposal facilities to ensure that the facility can satisfy ground­ water monitoring and financial responsibility requirements and be operated in a manner protective of human health and the environment. 15 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Nonduplication There are no other Federal agencies with a permit program for hazardous waste facilities. Authorized States must modify their programs only after EPA promulgates Federal standards that are more stringent than the existing Federal standards. Section 3009 of RCRA allows States to impose standards more stringent than or in addition to those in the Federal program. In order to obtain authorization, a State must agree to have reporting requirements that are equivalent to EPA's requirements. Facilities in authorized States will need to maintain records and submit reports to comply only with the States' requirements; there is no parallel information submitted to EPA. 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EPA will issue a public notice in the Federal Register, and will provide a 60 day comment period. At the end of the public comment period, EPA will review the comments received in response to the notice and will address them as appropriate. 3( c) Consultations The burden hours and cost estimates for this ICR have been well established, and no additional consultations have been made. 3( d) Effects Of Less Frequent Collection EPA has sought to reduce the reporting frequency to the minimum that is necessary to ensure compliance with the rules. It would not be possible to collect this information less frequently and still assure that the requirements of permit regulations are met by owner/ operators. The reporting frequency is essential to assure that the effect of any changes in the permit contents are made known to EPA. 3( e) General Guidelines This ICR adheres to the guidelines stated in the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended, OMB's implementing regulations, EPA's Information Collection Request Handbook, and other applicable OMB guidance. 16 3( f) Confidentiality Section 3007( b) of RCRA and 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, which define EPA's general policy on public disclosure of information, contain provisions for confidentiality. EPA does not anticipate requesting any confidential information. 3( g) Sensitive Questions No questions of a sensitive nature are included in any of the information collection requirements. 17 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents and NAICS Codes The following is a list of NAICS codes associated with the facilities most likely to be affected by the Part B permit application and permit modifications under this ICR: 22132 Sewage Treatment Facilities 32411 Petroleum Refineries 32511 Petrochemical Manufacturing 32512 Industrial Gas Manufacturing 32551 Paint and Coating Manufacturing 32551 Paint and Coating Manufacturing 33271 Machine Shops 33422 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing 33633 Motor Vehicle Steering and Suspension Components (except Spring) Manufacturing 33634 Motor Vehicle Brake System Manufacturing 33635 Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Parts Manufacturing 42271 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals 44111 New Car Dealers 44711 Gasoline Stations with Convenience Store 44719 Other Gasoline Stations 48411 General Freight Trucking, Local 48421 Used Household and Office Goods Moving 48422 Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Local 56292 Materials Recovery Facilities 221111 Hydroelectric Power Generation 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation 221113 Nuclear Electric Power Generation 221119 Other Electric Power Generation 221121 Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control 221122 Electric Power Distribution 311942 Spice and Extract Manufacturing 323110 Commercial Lithographic Printing 323114 Quick Printing 325131 Inorganic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 325188 All Other Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 18 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product Manufacturing 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product Manufacturing 331311 Alumina Refining 332813 Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring 332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 333319 Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing 333999 All Other General Purpose Machinery Manufacturing 334418 Printed Circuit/ Electronics Assembly Manufacturing 334419 Other Electronic Component Manufacturing 336211 Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing 336312 Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing 336322 Other Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment Manufacturing 336322 Other Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment Manufacturing 336399 All Other Motor Vehicle Part Manufacturing 336399 All Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing 454311 Heating Oil Dealers 454312 Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Bottled Gas) Dealers 562111 Solid Waste Collection 562111 Solid Waste Collection 562112 Hazardous Waste Collection 562112 Hazardous Waste Collection 562119 Other Waste Collection 562119 Other Waste Collection 562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 562212 Solid Waste Landfills 562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators 562219 Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 811111 General Automotive Repair 4( b) Information Requested Demonstrations and Exemptions from Requirements Releases from Regulated Units (i) Data items: 40 CFR 264.90 allows owner/ operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste to obtain an exemption from the Subpart F requirements regarding releases into the uppermost aquifer. Owner/ operators must submit one of the following demonstrations to EPA in order to obtain an exemption: ° A demonstration that the unit meets the conditions of §§ 264.90( b)( 2) (i) ­ (vii); or 19 ° A demonstration, pursuant to §264.280( d), that the treatment zone of a land treatment unit that qualifies as a regulated unit does not contain levels of hazardous constituents that are above background levels of those constituents by an amount that is statistically significant, and that an unsaturated zone monitoring program meeting the requirements of §264.278 has not shown a statistically significant increase in hazardous constituents below the treatment zone during the operating life of the unit (264.90( b)( 3)) ; or ° A demonstration that there is no potential for migration of liquid from a regulated unit to the uppermost aquifer during the active life of the regulated unit (including the closure period) and the post­ closure care period specified under §264.117 (§ 264.90( b)( 4)). This demonstration must be certified by a qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer. (ii) Respondent activities: In order to provide these demonstrations, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare and submit the appropriate demonstration; ° If submitting a no­ migration demonstration under §264.90( b)( 4), obtain certification from a qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer; and ° File a copy of the demonstration at the facility. Specific Unit Requirements (1) Tank Systems (i) Data Items: Section 264.193 requires that certain tank systems, including all new tank systems, be equipped with a secondary containment system in order to prevent the release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents to the environment. Owner/ operators may obtain a variance from the secondary containment requirements of this section by submitting a notification and demonstration in accordance with §§ 264.193( h)( 1) and 264.193( g), respectively. Owner/ operators may also submit demonstrations for a variance from the 24­ hour leak detection requirements (§§ 264.193( c)( 3) and 264.193( e)( 3)( iii)) and the 24­ hour waste removal requirement (§ 264.193( c)( 4)). In addition, owner/ operators must submit information for an equivalent secondary containment device, where appropriate. Data items associated with these requirements include the following: 20 ° A notification of intent to conduct and submit a demonstration for a variance from the secondary containment requirements (§ 264.193( h)( 1)). The notification must include a description of the steps necessary to conduct the demonstration and a timetable for completing each of the steps; ° A demonstration that alternate design and operating practices, together with location characteristics, will prevent the migration of any hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituent into the ground water or surface water at least as effectively as secondary containment during the active life of the tank system. This demonstration must include the information required under §264.193( g)( 1)( i)­( iv); or ° A demonstration that in the event of a release that does migrate to ground water or surface water, no substantial present or potential hazard will be posed to human health or the environment. Because new tank systems cannot obtain exemption from the secondary containment requirements by submitting this demonstration, this ICR assumes that no respondents will submit this demonstration (§ 264.193( g)( 2)); ° For secondary containment systems (§ 264.193( c)( 3)) and double­ walled tanks (§ 264.193( e)( 3)( iii)), a demonstration that existing detection technologies or site conditions will not allow detection of a release within 24 hours; ° A demonstration that removal of the released waste or accumulated precipitation cannot be accomplished within 24 hours (§ 264.193( c)( 4)); ° A written description of an equivalent secondary containment device if such a device is to be used in lieu of those listed under §264.193( d)( 1) through (3); and ° Records of the assessments conducted in accordance with §§ 264.193( i) (1)­( 3) (§ 264.193( i)( 4)). This recordkeeping requirement is included in the General Facility Standards ICR (# 1571). (ii) Respondent activities: To comply with the requirements of this section, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare and submit the notification of intent to make a demonstration; ° Prepare and submit the demonstration under §264.193( g)( 1); 21 ° Prepare and submit the demonstration for exemption from the 24­ hour leak detection requirement; ° Prepare and submit the demonstration for exemption from the 24­ hour waste removal requirement; ° Prepare and submit a written description of the equivalent secondary containment device; and ° File copies of the demonstrations at the facility. (2) Surface Impoundments (i) Data items: 40 CFR 264.221 provides owner/ operators of surface impoundments with the opportunity to obtain an exemption from the liner and double liner requirements of §§ 264.221( a) and (c), respectively. An owner or operator of a leak detection system that is not located completely above the seasonal high table must submit a demonstration under §264.221( c)( 4). Owner/ operators may also obtain a waiver of the double liner requirements for any monofill under §264.221( e). In addition, owner/ operators of any replacement surface impoundment unit may submit information under §264.221( f) in support of an exemption from §264.221( c). Data items associated with the requirements of this section include the following: ° To obtain an exemption from the liner requirements of §264.221( a), a demonstration that alternative design and operating practices, together with location characteristics, will prevent the migration of any hazardous constituents into the ground water or surface water at any future time. This demonstration must contain the information required under §264.221( b)( 1)­( 4). Because all surface impoundments are now required to have double liners, this ICR assumes that no respondents will submit this demonstration; ° For a leak detection system that is not located completely above the seasonal high water table, a demonstration that the operation of the leak detection system will not be adversely affected by the presence of ground water, as required under §264.221( c)( 4); ° To obtain an exemption from the double liner and leachate collection and removal system requirements of §264.221( c), a demonstration that alternative design and operating practices, together with location characteristics, will prevent the migration of any hazardous constituent into the ground water or surface water at least as effectively as the double liner collection system (§ 264.221( d)); ° To obtain a waiver of the double liner requirement for monofills (§ 264.221( e)), the 22 owner/ operator must demonstrate to the EPA that: ­­ The monofill contains only hazardous wastes from foundry furnace emission controls or metal casting molding sand, and such wastes do not contain constituents which would render the wastes hazardous for reasons other than the toxicity characteristic; and ­­ The monofill possesses the following qualities: ° At least one liner for which there is no evidence that such liner is leaking; ° Located more than one quarter mile from an underground source of drinking water as defined in §144.3; and ° Complies with generally applicable ground­ water monitoring requirements for facilities with permits under RCRA section 3005( c); or ­­ The monofill is located, designed and operated so as to assure that there will be no migration of any hazardous constituent into ground water or surface water at any future time; and ° For a replacement surface impoundment unit for which an exemption from §264.221( c) is sought, information demonstrating that the unit was constructed in compliance with the design standards of RCRA sections 3004( o)( 1)( A)( i) and (o)( 5), and information supporting the claim that the liner is functioning as designed (§ 264.221( f)). (ii) Respondent activities: To comply with the requirements of this section, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare and submit the demonstration supporting an exemption from the liner requirement of §264.221( a); ° Prepare and submit the demonstration for the leak detection system (§ 264.221( c)( 4); ° Prepare the demonstration for exemption from the §264.221( c) double liner and leachate collection and removal system requirements (§ 264.221( d); ° Prepare and submit the demonstration for a waiver of the double liner requirements 23 for monofills; ° Prepare and submit the information supporting an exemption for a replacement unit; and ° File a copy of the demonstrations at the facility. (3) Waste Piles (i) Data items: 40 CFR 264.251( b) allows owner/ operators of existing waste piles to obtain an exemption from the liner and leachate collection system requirements of §264.251( a). 40 CFR 264.251( c)( 5) requires owner/ operators of a leak detection system that is not located completely above the seasonal high water table to demonstrate that the operation of the leak detection system will not be adversely affected by the presence of ground water. 40 CFR 264.251( d) allows owner/ operators of new waste pile units, lateral expansions, replacement units constructed after January 29, 1992 to obtain an exemption from the double liner and leachate collection system requirements of §264.251( c). In addition, owner/ operators of any replacement waste pile unit may submit information under §264.251( f) in support of an exemption from §264.251( c). Data items associated with the requirements of this section include: ° To obtain an exemption from the liner requirements of §264.251( a), a demonstration that includes the following information: ­­ Information regarding the nature and quantity of the wastes; ­­ The proposed alternative design and operation; ­­ The facility's hydrogeologic setting, including attenuative capacity and thickness of the liners and soils present between the pile and ground water or surface water; and ­­ All other factors that would influence the quality and mobility of the leachate produced and the potential for it to migrate to ground water or surface water. ° For owner/ operators of leak detection systems that are not located completely above the seasonal high water table, a demonstration that the operation of the leak detection system will not be adversely affected by the presence of ground water; ° To obtain an exemption from the double liner and leachate collection and removal system requirements of §264.251( c), a demonstration that alternative design and operating practices, together with location characteristics will: (1) prevent the 24 migration of any hazardous constituents into the ground water or surface water at least as effectively as the liners and leachate collection and removal systems; and (2) allow detection of leaks of hazardous constituents through the top liner at least as effectively; and ° For a replacement waste pile unit for which an exemption from §264.251( c) is sought, information demonstrating that the unit was constructed in compliance with the design standards of RCRA sections 3004( o)( 1)( A)( i) and (o)( 5), and information supporting the claim that the liner is functioning as designed (§ 264.251( f)). (ii) Respondent activities: To comply with the requirements of this section, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare and submit the demonstration supporting an exemption from the liner requirement of §264.251( a); ° Prepare and submit the demonstration for the leak detection system; ° Prepare and submit the demonstration for exemption from the double liner and leachate collection and removal system requirements of §264.251( c); ° Prepare and submit the information supporting an exemption for a replacement unit; and ° File a copy of the demonstration( s) at the facility. (4) Land Treatment (i) Data items: 40 CFR 264.272 requires owner/ operators of land treatment units to submit a treatment demonstration to EPA, prior to application of the waste to the treatment zone, showing that hazardous constituents in the waste can be completely degraded, transformed, or immobilized (§ 264.272( a)). In making this demonstration, the owner/ operator may use field tests, laboratory analyses, available data, or, in the case of existing units, operating data. (ii) Respondent activities: To comply with the requirements of this section, owner/ operators must perform the 25 following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare and submit the demonstration; and ° File a copy of the demonstration at the facility. (5) Landfills (i) Data items: 40 CFR 264.301 provides owner/ operators of landfills with the opportunity to obtain an exemption from the liner and/ or double liner and leachate collection and removal system requirements of §§ 264.301( a) and (c), respectively. 40 CFR 264.301( c)( 5) requires owner/ operators of a leak detection system that is not located completely above the seasonal high water table to demonstrate that the operation of the leak detection system will not be adversely affected by the presence of ground water. Owner/ operators may also obtain a waiver of the double liner requirements for any monofill under §264.301( e). In addition, owner/ operators of any replacement waste pile unit may submit information under §264.301( f) in support of an exemption from §264.301( c). Data items associated with the requirements of this section include the following: ° To obtain exemption from the liner requirements of §264.301( a), a demonstration that alternative design and operating practices, together with location characteristics, will prevent the migration of any hazardous constituents into the ground water or surface water at any future time (§ 264.301( b)). Because landfills are now required to have double liners, this ICR assumes that no respondents will submit this demonstration; ° For owner/ operators of leak detection systems that are not located completely above the seasonal high water table, a demonstration that the operation of the leak detection system will not be adversely affected by the presence of ground water (§ 264.301( c)( 5)); ° To obtain exemption from the double liner and leachate collection and removal system requirements of §264.301( c), a demonstration that alternative design and operating practices, together with location characteristics, will prevent the migration of any hazardous constituent into the ground water or surface water at least as effectively as the double liner collection system (§ 264.301( d)); and ° To obtain a waiver of the double liner requirement for a monofill (§ 264.301( e)), the owner/ operator must demonstrate to the EPA that: 26 ­­ The monofill contains only hazardous wastes from foundry furnace emission controls or metal casting molding sand, and such wastes do not contain constituents which would render the wastes hazardous for reasons other than the toxicity characteristic; and ­­ The monofill possesses the following qualities: ° At least one liner for which there is no evidence that such liner is leaking; ° Located more than one quarter mile from an underground source of drinking water as defined in §144.3; and ° Complies with generally applicable ground­ water monitoring requirements for facilities with permits under RCRA section 3005( c); or ­­ The monofill is located, designed and operated so as to assure that there will be no migration of any hazardous constituent into ground water or surface water at any future time; and ° For a replacement landfill unit for which an exemption from §264.301( c) is sought, information demonstrating that the unit was constructed in compliance with the design standards of RCRA sections 3004( o)( 1)( A)( i) and (o)( 5), and information supporting the claim that the liner is functioning as designed (§ 264.301( f)). 27 (ii) Respondent activities: To comply with the requirements of this section, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare and submit the demonstration for an exemption from the liner requirement of §264.301( a); ° Prepare and submit the demonstration for the leak detection system; ° Prepare and submit the demonstration for an exemption from the double liner and leachate collection and removal system requirements of §264.301( c); ° Prepare and submit the demonstration for a waiver of the double liner requirements for monofills; ° Prepare and submit the information supporting an exemption for a replacement unit; and ° File a copy of the demonstration( s) at the facility. (6) Incinerators (i) Data items: 40 CFR 264.344 requires that the period beginning with initial introduction of hazardous waste to the incinerator and ending with initiation of the trial burn not exceed a duration of 720 hours operating time for treatment of hazardous waste. However, EPA may extend the duration of this period once for up to 720 additional hours if the owner/ operator can demonstrate good cause for the extension. (ii) Respondent activities: To comply with the requirements of this section, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare and submit the demonstration; and ° File a copy of the demonstration at the facility. 28 Contents of the Part B Application General Information (i) Data items: Under 40 CFR 270.1( c)( 5), owner/ operators of surface impoundments, land treatment units, and waste piles closing by removal or decontamination under Part 265 standards who have not submitted a Part B application for a post­ closure permit may petition EPA for a determination that a post­ closure permit is not required because the closure meets the applicable Part 264 closure standards. The petition must include the following information: ° Data demonstrating that closure by removal or decontamination standards were met; or ° Data demonstrating that the unit closed under State requirements that met or exceeded the applicable Part 264 closure­ by­ removal standard. (ii) Respondent activities: Respondent activities associated with §270.1( c)( 5) include reading the regulations, developing and submitting the petition, and filing a copy of the petition at the facility. Permit Application (i) Data items: 40 CFR 270.10( j) requires that Part B permit applications submitted by owner/ operators of facilities that store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste in a surface impoundment or landfill be accompanied by information on the potential for the public to be exposed to hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents through releases related to the unit. The data items for this requirement include the following information: ° Potential for releases from both normal operations and accidents at the unit, including releases associated with transportation to or from the unit; ° The potential pathways of human exposure to hazardous wastes or constituents resulting from the releases described above; and ° The potential magnitude and nature of the human exposure resulting from such releases. (ii) Respondent activities: 29 Respondent activities associated with §270.10( j) include reading the regulations, collecting and submitting the required data, and filing the data at the facility. General Requirements (i) Data items: Under 40 CFR 270.14( a), owner/ operators may obtain from EPA relief from submission of information prescribed in Part B on a case­ by­ case basis by demonstrating that such information cannot be provided to the extent required. (ii) Respondent activities: Respondent activities associated with the demonstration submitted under §270.14( a) include reading the regulations, preparing and submitting the demonstration, and filing the demonstration at the facility. General Facility Standards (i) Data items: Under 40 CFR 270.14( b) (1)­( 14), owner/ operators of hazardous waste management facilities must submit in their Part B permit applications information on compliance with general facility standards. Data items required under these sections include the following: ° A general description of the facility (§ 270.14( b)( 1)); ° Chemical and physical analyses of the hazardous waste to be handled at the facility. At a minimum, these analyses should contain all the information that must be known to treat, store, or dispose of the wastes properly in accordance with Part 264 (§ 270.14( b)( 2)); ° A waste analysis plan describing the procedures that will be carried out to comply with §264.13( a). The plan should contain information required under §264.13( b) (1)­( 7) and, for off­ site facilities, the information required under §264.13( c) (§ 270.14( b)( 3)); ° A description of the security procedures and equipment required by §264.14, or a justification demonstrating the reasons for requesting a waiver of this requirement (§ 270.14( b)( 4)). To obtain a waiver, owner/ operators must demonstrate to EPA that: ­­ Physical contact with the waste, structures, or equipment within the active portion of the facility will not injure unknowing or unauthorized persons or 30 livestock which may enter the active portion of the facility; and ­­ Disturbance of the waste or equipment, by the unknowing or unauthorized entry of persons or livestock onto the active portion of a facility, will not cause a violation of the requirements of this part; ° A general inspection schedule, as required under §264.15( b), for monitoring equipment that is important in preventing, detecting, or responding to environmental or human health hazards (§ 270.14( b)( 5)). Where applicable, the inspection schedule should include the specific requirements in §§ 264.174, 264.193( i), 264.195, 264.226, 264.254, 264.273, 264.303 and 264.602, and should identify the types of problems that are to be investigated during the inspection; ° If an exemption from special equipment requirements is sought under §264.32, a demonstration that none of the hazards posed by waste handled at the facility could require the use of equipment required under §§ 264.32( a) through (d) (§ 270.14( b)( 6)); ° If an exemption from the aisle space requirements of §264.35 is sought, a demonstration that the aisle space is not needed to allow the unobstructed movement of personnel, fire protection equipment, spill control equipment, and decontamination equipment to any area of the facility operating in an emergency (§ 270.14( b)( 6)); ° A contingency plan as required under sections 264.51, 264.52 and 264.53( a). Data elements that should be included in this plan are listed below: ­­ A description of the arrangements agreed to by local police departments, fire departments, hospitals, contractors, and State and local emergency response teams to coordinate emergency services; ­­ An updated list of the names, addresses, and phone numbers (office and home) of all persons qualified to act as emergency coordinators; ­­ An updated list of all emergency equipment at the facility and the location, physical description, and capabilities of the emergency equipment. The contingency plan should also indicate where the emergency equipment will be required; and ­­ An evacuation plan for facility personnel where there is a possibility that evacuation may be necessary; ° A description of procedures, structures, or equipment used at the facility for the 31 following purposes: ­­ To prevent hazards in unloading operations; ­­ To prevent runoff from hazardous waste handling areas to other areas of the facility or environment, or to prevent flooding; ­­ To prevent contamination of water supplies; ­­ To mitigate effects of equipment failure and power outages; and ­­ To prevent undue exposure of personnel to hazardous waste; ° A description of precautions taken under §264.17 to prevent accidental ignition or reaction of ignitable, reactive, or incompatible wastes, including documentation demonstrating compliance with §264.17( c) (§ 270.14( b)( 9)). The documentation may be based on references to published scientific or engineering literature, data from trial tests, waste analyses, or the results of the treatment of similar wastes by similar treatment processes and under similar operating conditions; ° A description of traffic patterns, estimated volume, and control (§ 270.14( b)( 10)); ° Facility location information (§ 270.14( b)( 11)). At a minimum, the location information provided must include: ­­ An identification of the political jurisdiction in which the facility is proposed to be located; ­­ If the facility is proposed to be located in an area listed in Appendix VI of Part 264, a demonstration of compliance with the seismic standard as defined under §264.18( a). This demonstration may be made using either published geologic data or data obtained from field investigations carried out by the applicant; ­­ An identification of whether the facility is located within a 100­ year floodplain. The identification must include the following information: ° The source of data for the determination; ° A copy of the relevant Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) flood map, if used, or the calculations and maps used where an FIA map is not available; and ° An identification of the 100­ year flood level and any other special flooding factors which must be considered in designing, constructing, operating, or maintaining the facility to withstand 32 washout from a 100­ year flood; ­­ Facilities located in a 100­ year floodplain may submit a demonstration for exemption from design and operating standards under §264.18( b). The demonstration must establish the following: ° Procedures are in effect which will cause the waste to be removed safely, before flood waters can reach the facility, to a location where the wastes will not be vulnerable to flood waters; or ° For existing surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment units, landfills, and miscellaneous units, no adverse effects on human health or the environment will result if washout occurs; ­­ Owner/ operators of facilities located in the 100­ year floodplain that are not exempt from the design and operating standards under §264.18( b) must provide the following information: ° Engineering analysis to indicate the various hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces expected to result at the site as consequence of a 100­ year flood; and ° Structural or other engineering studies showing the design of operational units and flood protection devices at the facility and how these will prevent washout; or ° If applicable, a detailed description of procedures to be followed to remove hazardous waste to safety before the facility is flooded; ­­ Existing facilities not in compliance with §264.18( b) must provide a plan showing how the facility will be brought into compliance, along with a schedule for compliance; ° An outline of both the introductory and continuing training programs used to prepare persons to operate or maintain the facility in a safe manner as required to demonstrate compliance with §264.16, and a brief description of how training will be designed to meet actual job tasks in accordance with the requirements in §264.16( a)( 3) (§ 270.14( b)( 12)); ° A closure plan as required under §§ 264.112 and 264.197 (§ 270.14( b)( 13)). The closure plan must include the information required under §264.112( b) (1)­( 7). Owner/ operators must also submit a written post­ closure plan under §§ 264.118 and 264.197, where applicable, which contains the information required under §264.118( b) (1)­( 3). In addition, certain owner/ operators of tanks, surface impoundments, waste piles, and drip pads may also need to submit a contingent closure and contingent post­ closure plan under sections 264.197( c), 264.228( c), 264.258( c), and 264.575( c), respectively; and 33 ° For hazardous waste disposal units that have been closed, documentation that the post­ closure notices required under §264.119 have been filed (§ 270.14( b)( 14)). (ii) Respondent activities: In order to provide the data items listed above, respondents must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare a written description of the facility; 34 ° Collect the analytical information required under §270.14( b)( 2) and prepare a written report of the analyses conducted; ° Collect the data required in the waste analysis plan; ° Write the waste analysis plan; ° Prepare the description of security procedures and equipment; or ° Prepare a demonstration for a waiver of the security procedures and equipment requirements; ° Develop an inspection schedule; ° If applicable, prepare a demonstration for exemption from special equipment requirements; ° If applicable, prepare a demonstration for exemption from aisle space requirements; ° Collect the data required in the contingency plan; ° Write the contingency plan; ° Prepare the description of procedures, structures, or equipment; ° Prepare a description of precautions to prevent accidental ignition or reaction of ignitable, reactive, or incompatible wastes; ° Prepare a description of traffic patterns, estimated volume, and control; ° Compile and document the facility location information required under §270.14( b)( 11); ° If the facility is proposed to be located in an area listed in Appendix VI, prepare a demonstration of compliance with the seismic standard; ° For facilities in a 100­ year floodplain, prepare a demonstration for exemption from design and operating standards under §264.18( b); ° For facilities in a 100­ year floodplain that are not exempt from §264.18( b), prepare an engineering analysis and engineering studies; ° For facilities not in compliance with §264.18( b), a compliance plan and schedule of 35 compliance; ° Prepare outline of personnel training programs and description of training design; ° Write descriptions of the necessary closure activities; ° Estimate final closure; ° Write the closure schedule; ° Collect the necessary information for post­ closure requirements; ° Write the post­ closure plan; ° Prepare and submit documentation that post­ closure notices have been submitted; ° Submit the general facility standards information; and ° File a copy of the documentation at the facility. Financial Assurance (1) Cost Estimates for Closure and Post­ Closure Care (i) Data items: Sections 270.14( b)( 15) and (16) require owner/ operators to submit a detailed written estimate of the cost of facility closure and post­ closure care in accordance with the requirements of §§ 264.142( a) and 264.144( a), respectively. These estimates must include the following data items: ° A written estimate containing: ­­ The costs of final closure at the point in the facility's active life when the extent and manner of its operation would make closure the most expensive, as indicated by its closure plan (§ 264.142( a)( 1)); ­­ The annual cost of post­ closure monitoring and maintenance of the facility in accordance with the applicable post­ closure regulations specified in §264.144( a); ­­ The costs for tanks under §264.197( c)( 3), for surface impoundments under §264.228( c)( 2), for waste piles under §264.258( c)( 2), and drip pads under 36 §264.575( c)( 2), of contingent closure and post­ closure, if required; and 37 ° Costs to the owner or operator of hiring a third party to conduct closure or post­ closure care at the facility (or on­ site disposal costs, if owner/ operator can demonstrate that on­ site disposal capacity will exist at all times throughout the facility's life (§ 264.142( a)( 2)). (ii) Respondent activities: Since cost estimates for closure and post­ closure care are submitted with the Part B permit application, activities associated with developing the estimates are discussed in this ICR. However, prior to submitting a permit application, interim status facilities must prepare closure and post­ closure cost estimates under §§ 265.142 and 265.144, respectively. Therefore, preparation of the closure and post­ closure cost estimates for interim status facilities are discussed in the General Facility Standards ICR (# 1571). Owner/ operators will need to engage in the following activities in order to collect the data required by §§ 264.142 and 264.144: ° Read the regulations; ° Collect data; and ° Prepare the written cost estimates. (2) Financial Assurance for Closure and Post­ Closure Care (i) Data items: Sections 270.14( b) (15) and (16) also require owner/ operators to establish, and provide evidence of, financial assurance for facility closure (§ 264.143) and post­ closure care (§ 264.145). Because evidence of financial assurance is submitted with the Part B permit application, activities associated with obtaining financial assurance are discussed in this ICR. However, prior to submitting a Part B permit application, interim status facilities must prepare evidence of financial assurance for closure and post­ closure care under §§ 265.143 and 265.145, respectively. Therefore, the activities associated with preparing evidence of closure and post­ closure financial assurance for interim status facilities are discussed in the General Facility Standards ICR (# 1571). Several financial instruments may be used for the purpose of establishing financial assurance for closure and post­ closure care. These financial instruments include the following: ° Closure or post­ closure trust fund (§§ 264.143( a) and 264.145( a)); ° Surety bond guaranteeing payment into a closure or post­ closure trust fund (§§ 264.143( b) and 264.145( b)); 38 ° Surety bond guaranteeing performance of closure or post­ closure care (§§ 264.143( c) and 264.145( c)); ° Closure or post­ closure letter of credit (§§ 264.143( d) and 264.145( d)); ° Closure or post­ closure insurance (§§ 264.143( e) and 264.145( e)); and ° Financial test and corporate guarantee for closure or post­ closure care (§§ 264.143( f) and 264.145( f)). (ii) Respondent activities: In order to comply with the requirements concerning financial assurance for closure and post­ closure care, respondents must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; and ° Obtain and submit documentation of financial assurance. (3) Use of a Financial Mechanism for Multiple Facilities (i) Data items: Sections 264.143( h) and 264.145( h) specify that owner/ operators may use one of the above financial assurance mechanisms to meet the requirements of §§ 264.143 or 264.145 for more than one facility. In such cases, the owner/ operator must provide the following data items for each facility: ° EPA identification number, name, and address; and ° The amount of funds for closure or post­ closure care assured by the mechanism. (ii) Respondent activities: The information required under this section will be submitted with the information provided by the owner/ operator to establish one of the financial assurance mechanisms listed above. Therefore, this ICR assumes that any respondent activities related to the requirements of this section are already covered under the previous sections. (4) Liability Requirements Section 270.14( b)( 17) requires owner/ operators of new facilities to provide documentation showing the amount of insurance meeting the specification of §264.147( a) and, if applicable, §264.147( b), that the owner/ operator plans to have in effect before initial receipt of 39 hazardous waste for treatment, storage, or disposal. 40 (a) Coverage for Sudden or Nonsudden Accidental Occurrences (i) Data items: Section 264.147( a) requires owner/ operators of hazardous waste TSDFs, or a group of such facilities, to demonstrate financial responsibility for bodily injury and property damage to third parties caused by sudden accidental occurrences arising from operations at the facility or group of facilities. Section 264.147( b) requires owner/ operators of surface impoundments, landfills, and land treatment facilities managing hazardous wastes, or combinations of such facilities to demonstrate financial responsibility for bodily injury and property damage to third parties caused by nonsudden accidental occurrences rising from facilities' operations. In order to comply with these requirements, owner/ operators will need to gather the following data items: ° A liability insurance policy (§§ 264.147( a)( 1) and 264.147( b)( 1)), accompanied by a signed duplicate original of a Hazardous Waste Facility Liability Endorsement or a Certificate of Liability Insurance; ° Written evidence of passing a financial test or a written guarantee for liability coverage from the owner/ operator's parent corporation (§§ 264.147( a)( 2) and 264.147( b)( 2)); ° A letter of credit for liability coverage (§§ 264.147( a)( 3) and 264.147( b)( 3)); ° A surety bond for liability coverage (§§ 264.147( a)( 4) and 264.147( b)( 4)); ° A trust fund for liability coverage (§§ 264.147( a)( 5) and 264.147( b)( 5)); or ° A combination of insurance, financial test, guarantee, letter of credit, surety bond, and trust fund (§§ 264.147( a)( 6) and 264.147( b)( 6)). (ii) Respondent activities: To comply with the requirements of these sections, owner/ operators will need to perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; and ° Obtain and submit documentation of liability coverage using one of the financial instruments listed above. (b) Request for Variance (i) Data item: 41 Section 264.147( c) allow owner/ operators to obtain a variance from EPA if they can demonstrate that the levels of financial responsibility required for sudden and nonsudden accidental occurrences are not consistent with the degree and duration of risk associated with treatment, storage, or disposal at the facility or group of facilities. The data item for this demonstration is: ° A request for a variance submitted as part of the permit application under §270.14( b)( 17) for new facilities, or pursuant to the procedures for permit modification under §§ 270.41( a)( 5) and 124.5. This request may include technical and engineering information as deemed necessary by EPA. (ii) Respondent activities: Owner/ operators will need to engage in the following activities in requesting a variance: ° Read the regulations; and ° Prepare and submit the request for variance, including any technical or engineering information required by EPA. (c) Adjustments by the Regional Administrator (i) Data items: Section §264.147( d) allows EPA to adjust the level of financial responsibility required under §264.147 in order to protect human health and the environment. Respondents will need to furnish the following data items should EPA decide to make such a determination: ° Any information that EPA requests to determine whether cause exists for such adjustments of level or type of coverage; and ° If the Regional Administrator decides to adjust the level or type of coverage, the data elements necessary for a permit modification. The activities and estimated burden and cost associated with permit modifications are included under the section on permit modifications below. (ii) Respondent activities: Owner/ operators will need to engage in the following activities in order to satisfy the information collection requirements of this section: ° Read the regulations; and 42 ° Prepare and submit to EPA any requested information. 43 (5) Coverage by a State Financial Mechanism (i) Data items: Section 270.14( b)( 18) requires owner/ operators to provide proof of coverage by a State financial mechanism in compliance with §§ 264.149 or 264.150, where appropriate. Section 264.149 allows owner/ operators to use State­ required financial assurance mechanisms to meet §§ 264.143, 264.145, or 264.147 requirements. Section 264.150 requires owner/ operators to notify EPA when a State assumes legal responsibility or assures availability of funds for an owner/ operator's compliance with the closure, post­ closure care, or liability requirements of this part. Data items associated with these requirements include the following: ° A letter from the owner/ operator requesting the following: ­­ The State­ required mechanism be considered acceptable for meeting the requirements of this subpart; or ­­ The State's assumption of responsibility be considered acceptable for meeting the requirements of this subpart; ° Evidence of the establishment of a State­ required mechanism or a letter from the State describing the nature of the State's assumption of responsibility. Each of these data items should include the following information: ­­ The facility's EPA identification number, name, and address; and ­­ The amount of funds for closure or post­ closure care or liability coverage assured by the mechanism; and ° Any additional information required by EPA in order to make the determination. (ii) Respondent activities: Respondent activities associated with the requirements of §264.149 include the following: ° Read the regulations; ° Submit the letter from the owner/ operator; ° Submit written evidence of the establishment of a State­ required financial assurance mechanism or letter from the State describing the State's assumption of responsibility and including the information specified above; and ° Submit any additional information requested by EPA. 44 45 Other Requirements (1) Topographical Map (i) Data items: Section 270.14( b)( 19) requires owner/ operators to provide a topographic map showing a distance of 1000 feet around the facility. The map shall clearly show the following information: ° Map scale and date; ° 100­ year floodplain area; ° Surface waters including intermittent streams; ° Surrounding land uses; °Awindrose; ° Orientation of the map; ° Legal boundaries of the facility site; ° Access control; ° Injection and withdrawal wells both on­ site and off­ site; ° Buildings; treatment, storage, or disposal operations; or other structure; ° Barriers for drainage or flood control; and ° Location of operational units within the facility site, where hazardous waste is (or will be) treated, stored, or disposed (including equipment cleanup areas); (ii) Respondent activities: Respondents must perform the following activities in order to provide the topographic map: ° Read the regulations; ° Collect the necessary information; and ° Develop and submit the map. 46 47 (2) Case­ By­ Case Extensions and Petitions to Allow Land Disposal of a Waste Prohibited Under Subpart C of Part 268 (i) Data items: Under §270.14( b)( 21), owner/ operators of land disposal facilities that have received approval for a case­ by­ case extension under §268.5 or a petition under §268.6 must submit a copy of the notice of approval for the extension or petition with their Part B permit application. (ii) Respondent activities: The burden associated with developing the extension application or petition is addressed in Land Disposal Restrictions ICR (# 1353). To provide a copy of these documents for the Part B permit application, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; and ° Prepare and submit copy of the notice of approval. Ground­ Water Protection (1) General Ground­ Water Monitoring Requirements (i) Data items: Sections 270.14( c) (1)­( 5) require owner/ operators to submit additional information to EPA regarding protection of ground water when applying for a Part B permit. The information required includes information on site­ specific characteristics, and a ground­ water monitoring program as required under §264.97. The monitoring program must include sampling and analysis procedures, sampling intervals, and statistical methods to be used in evaluating ground­ water monitoring data. To fulfill the requirements of these sections, owner/ operators must submit the following data items: ° A summary of the ground­ water monitoring data obtained during the interim status period under §§ 265.90 through 265.94, where applicable (§ 270.14( c)( 1)); ° Identification of the uppermost aquifer and aquifers hydraulically interconnected beneath the facility property, including ground­ water flow direction and rate, and the basis for such identification (§ 270.14( c)( 2)); ° On the topographic map required under §270.14( b)( 19), a delineation of the following: ­­ The waste management area; 48 ­­ The property boundary; ­­ The proposed "point of compliance" as defined under §264.95; ­­ The proposed location of ground­ water monitoring wells as required under §264.97; and ­­ Identification of aquifers, as required above; ° A description of any plume of contamination that has entered the ground water from a regulated unit at the time the application is submitted (§ 270.14( c)( 4)). The description should: ­­ Delineate the extent of the plume on the topographic map required under §270.14( b)( 19); and ­­ Identify the concentration of each Appendix IX (40 CFR Part 264) constituent throughout the plume or identify the maximum concentrations of each Appendix IX constituent in the plume; ° A description of the proposed ground­ water sampling and analysis procedures as required under §264.97. At a minimum these procedures must include: ­­ Procedures and techniques for sample collection, sample preservation and shipment, analytical procedures, and chain of custody control (§ 264.97( d)); ­­ Sampling and analytical methods appropriate for ground­ water sampling and accurate measurement of hazardous constituents in ground­ water samples (§ 264.97( e)); and ­­ Procedures for determining the ground­ water surface elevation each time ground water is sampled (§ 264.97( f)); ° A statistical method to be used in evaluating ground­ water monitoring data for each hazardous constituent. The method specified will be one of those listed under §264.97( h)( 1) through (4), or another statistical test method submitted in accordance with §264.97( h)( 5). In specifying the type of statistical method to be used, the owner/ operator may also be required to supply the following information: ­­ Where practical quantification limits (pql's) are used, the pql must be submitted to EPA for approval; ­­ If a control chart approach is used to evaluate ground­ water monitoring data, the specific type of control chart and its associated parameter values 49 shall be submitted to EPA for approval; and 50 ­­ If a tolerance interval or a prediction interval is used to evaluate ground­ water monitoring data, the levels of confidence and, for tolerance intervals, the percentage of the population that the interval must contain shall contain must be submitted to EPA for approval; and ° A record of all ground­ water monitoring data collected in accordance with §264.97( g). This information must be recorded in the facility operating record. Therefore, the burden associated with this requirement is included in the General Facility Standards ICR (# 1571). (ii) Respondent activities: Respondents must perform the following activities to provide the information required in these sections: ° Read the regulations; ° Summarize ground­ water monitoring data obtained during the interim status period under §§ 265.90 through 265.94; ° Collect and document the hydrogeologic information required under §270.14( c)( 2); ° Add the required information to the topographical map required under §270.14( b)( 19); ° Prepare a description of plume contamination, where applicable; ° Develop a ground­ water sampling and analysis procedure; ° Determine the appropriate statistical method to be used; ° Submit the ground­ water monitoring program; and ° File copies of the submitted information on file at the facility. (2) Detection Monitoring Program (i) Data items: Section 270.14( c)( 6) requires that if the presence of hazardous constituents has not been detected in the ground water at the time of permit application, the owner/ operator must submit to EPA sufficient information, supporting data, and analyses to establish a detection monitoring program meeting the requirements of §264.98. This information includes data required by EPA 51 to determine the parameters or constituents to be monitored under the detection monitoring program, as well as information for determining appropriate time periods for identifying contamination. The information submitted should include the following items: ° Information required to determine the parameters or constituents to be monitored under the detection monitoring program, including: ­­ The types, quantities, and concentrations of constituents in wastes managed at the regulated unit; ­­ The mobility, stability, and persistence of waste constituents or their reaction products in the unsaturated zone beneath the waste management area; ­­ The detectability of indicator parameters, waste constituents, and reaction products in ground water; and ­­ The concentrations or values and coefficients of variation of proposed monitoring parameters or constituents in the ground­ water background; ° Detailed plans and an engineering report describing the proposed ground­ water monitoring system, in accordance with the requirements of §264.97; ° Background values for each proposed monitoring parameter or constituent, or procedures to calculate such values (§ 270.14( c)( 6)( iii)); ° A description of proposed sampling, analysis and statistical comparison procedures to be utilized in evaluating ground­ water monitoring data (§ 270.14( c)( 6)( iv)). The requirements associated with providing this information are discussed in the previous section on General Ground­ Water Monitoring Requirements; and ° Information required to determine a reasonable time period for identifying significant evidence of contamination, including information on the complexity of the statistical test and the availability of laboratory facilities for performing the analysis of ground­ water samples (§ 264.98( f)( 2)). [Note: If the owner or operator determines pursuant to paragraph (f) that there is statistically significant evidence of contamination for chemical parameters or hazardous constituents at any monitoring well at the compliance point, he or she must submit to EPA an application for a Class 2 or 3 permit modification to establish a compliance monitoring program under section 264.99. This activity is currently burdened in "Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Ground­ Water Monitoring: Final Amendments to the Rule", ICR #959.] (ii) Respondent activities: 52 To comply with the requirements of this section, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Compile the information required to determine monitoring parameters or constituents; ° Prepare the plans and engineering report describing the proposed ground­ water monitoring system; ° Establish background values for each proposed monitoring parameter or constituent, or procedures for determining such values; ° Compile the information required to determine a reasonable time period for identifying significant evidence of contamination; ° Submit the required information; and ° Maintain copies of all submitted information on file at the facility. (3) Compliance Monitoring Program (i) Data items: Section §270.14( c)( 7) requires that if the presence of hazardous constituents has been detected in the ground water at the point of compliance at the time of the permit application, the owner/ operator must submit to EPA sufficient information, supporting data, and analyses to establish a compliance monitoring program meeting the requirements of §264.99. Section 264.99 requires owner/ operators to submit to EPA all information necessary to determine a reasonable time period for identifying significant evidence of increased contamination during compliance monitoring. The information submitted to EPA should include the following items: ° A description of the wastes previously handled at the facility (§ 270.14( c)( 7)( i)); ° A characterization of the contaminated ground water, including concentrations of hazardous constituents (§ 270.14( c)( 7)( ii)); ° A list of hazardous constituents for which compliance monitoring will be undertaken in accordance with §§ 264.97 and 264.99 (§ 270.14( c)( 7)( iii)); ° Proposed concentration limits for each hazardous constituent, based on the criteria set forth in §264.94( a), including a justification for establishing any alternate concentration limits (§ 270.14( c)( 7)( iv)); 53 ° Detailed plans and an engineering report describing the proposed ground­ water monitoring system, in accordance with the requirements of §264.97 (§ 270.14( c)( 7)( v)); ° A description of proposed sampling, analysis and statistical comparison procedures to be used in evaluating ground­ water monitoring data (§ 270.14( c)( 7)( vi)). The requirements associated with providing this information are discussed in the previous section on General Ground­ Water Monitoring Requirements; ° Information necessary to determine a reasonable time period for identifying significant evidence of increased contamination, including information on the complexity of the statistical test and the availability of laboratory facilities for performing the analysis of ground­ water samples (§ 264.99( d)( 2)); and ° An engineering feasibility plan for a corrective action program necessary to meet the requirements of §264.100 (§ 270.14( a)). (ii) Respondent activities: Respondents must perform the following activities to provide the information required in this section: ° Read the regulations; ° Provide a description of wastes previously handled at the facility; ° Provide a characterization of contaminated ground water; ° Develop a list of hazardous constituents for which compliance monitoring will be undertaken in accordance with §§ 264.97 and 264.99; ° Develop proposed concentration limits for each hazardous constituent, and a justification for establishing any alternate concentration limits; ° Prepare plans and engineering report describing the proposed ground­ water monitoring system; ° Compile the information necessary to determine a reasonable time period for identifying significant evidence of increased contamination; ° Develop an engineering feasibility plan for corrective action; ° Submit the required information; and 54 ° Maintain copies of all submitted information on file at the facility. (4) Corrective Action Program (i) Data items: Section 270.14( c)( 8) requires that if hazardous constituents have been measured in the ground water which exceed the concentration limits established under §264.94 Table 1, or if ground­ water monitoring conducted at the time of permit application under §§ 265.90 through 265.94 at the waste boundary indicates the presence of hazardous constituents from the facility in ground water over background concentrations, the owner/ operator must submit to EPA sufficient information, supporting data, and analyses to establish a corrective action program which meets the requirements of §264.100. The information submitted should include the following: ° A characterization of the contaminated ground water, including concentrations of hazardous constituents; ° The concentration limit for each hazardous constituent found in the ground water as set forth in §264.94; ° Detailed plans and an engineering report describing the corrective action to be taken; ° A description of how the ground water monitoring program will demonstrate the adequacy of the corrective action; ° If applicable, a schedule for submittal of the information required in §§ 270.14( c)( 8)( iii) and (iv) in the permit. The owner/ operator must obtain written authorization from EPA prior to submittal of the complete permit application; and ° A demonstration that alternate concentration limits will protect human health and the environment. The demonstration should include the information listed under §270.14( c)( 8) (i)­( v). Owner/ operators that submit such a demonstration are not required to submit information to establish a corrective action program. Instead, these owner/ operators must submit sufficient information to establish a compliance monitoring program meeting the requirements of §264.99 and §270.14( c)( 6). (ii) Respondent activities: Respondents must perform the following activities to provide the information required in this section: ° Read the regulations; 55 ° Prepare a characterization of the contaminated ground water; ° Develop a concentration limit for each hazardous constituent; ° Prepare the detailed plans and engineering report describing corrective action; ° Prepare a description of how the ground­ water monitoring program will demonstrate the adequacy of the corrective action; 56 ° If applicable, prepare a schedule for submittal of the information required in §§ 270.14( c)( 8)( iii) and (iv) in the permit; ° If applicable, prepare a demonstration that alternate concentration limits will protect human health and the environment; ° Submit the required information; and ° File copies of the submitted information at the facility. Solid Waste Management Units (i) Data items: Section 270.14( d) establishes Part B information requirements for solid waste management units. Data items associated with these requirements are listed below: ° Information on each solid waste management unit, including the following: ­­ The location of the unit on the topographic map required under §270.14( b)( 19); ­­ Designation of the type of unit; ­­ General dimensions and structural description; ­­ When the unit was operated; and ­­ Specification of all wastes that have been managed at the unit, to the extent available; ° All available information pertaining to any release of hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents from such unit or units (§ 270.14( d)( 2)); and ° Results of sampling and analysis, where the Director ascertains that a RCRA Facility Assessment is necessary. (ii) Respondent activities: In order to provide the data items listed above, respondents must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; 57 ° Compile the information required for each solid waste management unit under §270.14( d)( 1); ° Compile information pertaining to any releases from the unit( s); ° Prepare and submit results of sampling and analysis; ° Submit the required information; and ° File copies of the submitted information at the facility. Specific Part B Information Requirements (1) Containers (i) Data items: 40 CFR 270.15 requires owner/ operators of facilities that store containers of hazardous waste to provide the following additional information: ° A description of the containment system to demonstrate compliance with §264.175 (§ 270.15( a)). This description must, at a minimum, include the following information: ­­ Basic design parameters, dimensions, and materials of construction; ­­ How the design promotes drainage or how containers are kept from contact with standing liquids in the containment system; ­­ Capacity of the containment system relative to the number and volume of containers to be stored; ­­ Provisions for preventing or managing run­ on; and ­­ How accumulated liquids can be analyzed and removed to prevent overflow; ° For storage areas that store containers holding wastes that do not contain free liquids, a demonstration of compliance with §264.175( c) (§ 270.15( b)). The demonstration must include: ­­ Test procedures and results or other documentation or information to show that the wastes do not contain free liquids; and 58 ­­ A description of how the storage area is designed or operated to drain and remove liquids or how containers are kept from contact with standing liquids; 59 ° Sketches, drawings, or data demonstrating compliance with §264.176 (location of buffer zone and containers holding ignitable or reactive wastes) and §264.177( c) (location of incompatible wastes), where applicable (§ 270.15( c)); and ° Where incompatible wastes are stored or otherwise managed in containers, a description of the procedures used to ensure compliance with §§ 264.177 (a) and (b), and 264.17 (b) and (c) (§ 270.15( d)). (ii) Respondent activities: To comply with the requirements of §270.15, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare a written description of the containment system; ° Prepare the no free liquids demonstration; ° Document compliance with §264.176 and §264.177; ° Provide a written description of procedures used to ensure compliance with §§ 264.177 (a) and (b), and 264.17 (b) and (c); ° Submit the required information; and ° File copies of the submitted information at the facility. (2) Tank Systems (i) Data items: 40 CFR 270.16 requires owner/ operators of facilities that use tanks to store or treat hazardous waste to provide the following additional information: ° An assessment of existing tank system's integrity (§ 270.16( a)). Section 264.191 requires that an owner/ operator of an existing tank system that does not have secondary containment meeting the requirements of §264.193 must provide a written assessment of their tank system's integrity. The assessment must include the information required under §264.191( b) (1)­( 5) and must be certified by an independent, qualified engineer in accordance with §270.11( d); or ° An assessment of new tank system's integrity (§ 270.16( a)). Section 264.192 requires owner/ operators of a new tank system or component to provide EPA with 60 a written assessment, in accordance with §270.11( d), attesting that the tank system has sufficient structural integrity and is acceptable for the storing and treating of hazardous waste. The assessment should include the information required under §264.192( a) (1)­( 5) and must be certified by an independent, qualified registered professional engineer; ° Dimensions and capacity of each tank (§ 270.16( b)); ° Description of feed systems, safety cutoff, bypass systems, and pressure controls (e. g., vents) (§ 270.16( c)); ° A diagram of piping, instrumentation, and process flow for each tank system (§ 270.16( d)); ° A description of materials and equipment used to provide external corrosion protection, as required under §264.192( a)( 3)( ii) (§ 270.16( e)); ° For new tank systems, a detailed description of how the tank system( s) will be installed in compliance with §264.192( b), (c), (d), and (e) (§ 270.16( f)); ° Detailed plans and description of how the secondary containment system for each tank system is or will be designed, constructed, and operated to meet the requirements of §264.193( a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) (§ 270.16( g)); ° A description of controls and practices to prevent spills and overflows, as required under §264.194( b) (§ 270.16( i)); and ° For tank systems in which ignitable, reactive, or incompatible wastes are to be stored or treated, a description of how operating procedures and tank system and facility design will achieve compliance with the requirements of §§ 264.198 and 264.199 (§ 270.16( j)). (ii) Respondent activities: To comply with the requirements of §270.16, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Conduct an assessment of the new or existing tank system; ° Write the assessment; ° Compile the information required under §270.16 (b)­( e); 61 ° Provide a description of tank system installation; ° Prepare a description of how the secondary containment system for each tank system is or will be designed, constructed, and operated to meet the requirements of §264.193( a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f); ° Prepare a description of controls and practices to prevent spills and overflows; ° Prepare a description of how operating procedures and tank system and facility design will achieve compliance with the requirements of §§ 264.198 and 264.199; ° Submit the required information; and ° File copies of the submitted information at the facility. (3) Surface Impoundments (i) Data items: 40 CFR 270.17 requires owner/ operators of facilities that store, treat or dispose of hazardous waste in surface impoundments to provide the following additional information: ° A list of the hazardous wastes places or to be placed in each surface impoundment (§ 270.17( a)); ° Detailed plans and an engineering report describing how the surface impoundment is or will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to meet the requirements of §264.221 (§ 270.17( b)). This submission must address the following items as specified in §264.221: ­­ The liner system; ­­ The double liner and leak (leachate) detection, collection, and removal system, if required; ­­ For a leak detection system located in a saturated zone, the system's design, operation, and location in relation to the saturated zone; ­­ The construction quality assurance plan (§ 264.19); ­­ Proposed action leakage rate; ­­ Response action plan; 62 ­­ Prevention of overtopping; and ­­ Structural integrity of dikes; ° A description of how each surface impoundment, including the liner and cover systems and appurtenances for control of overtopping, will be inspected in order to meet the requirements of §264.226( a) and (b) (§ 270.17( c)). This information should be included in the inspection plan submitted under §270.14( b)( 5); ° A certification by a qualified engineer which attests to the structural integrity of each dike, as required under §264.226( c) (§ 270.17( d)). For new units, the owner/ operator must submit a statement by a qualified engineer that he or she will provide such a certification upon completion of construction in accordance with the plans and specifications; ° A description of the procedure to be used for removing a surface impoundment from service, as required under §264.227( b) and (c) (§ 270.17( e)). This information should be included in the contingency plan submitted under §270.14( b)( 7); ° A description of how hazardous waste residues and contaminated materials will be removed from the unit at closure, as required under §264.228( a)( 1). For any wastes not to be removed from the unit upon closure, the owner/ operator must submit detailed plans and an engineering report describing how §264.228( a)( 2) and (b) will be complied with (§ 270.17( f)). This information should be included in the closure plan and, where applicable, the post­ closure plan submitted under §270.14( b)( 13); ° If ignitable or reactive wastes are to be placed in a surface impoundment, an explanation of how §264.229 will be complied with (§ 270.17( g)); ° If incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes and materials, will be placed in a surface impoundment, an explanation of how §264.230 will be complied with (§ 270.17( h)); and ° A waste management plan for EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, and F027 describing how the surface impoundment is or will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet the requirements of §264.231. This submission must address the following items as specified in §264.231: ­­ The volume, physical, and chemical characteristics of the wastes, including their potential to migrate through soil or to volatilize or escape into the atmosphere; 63 ­­ The attenuative properties of underlying and surrounding soils or other materials; ­­ The mobilizing properties of other materials co­ disposed with these wastes; and ­­ The effectiveness of additional treatment, design, or monitoring techniques. 64 (ii) Respondent activities: To comply with the requirements of §270.17, owner/ operator must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Develop plans and an engineering report describing how the surface impoundment will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained; ° Prepare a description of inspection procedures and incorporate the description into the inspection plan; ° Obtain a certification or statement from a qualified engineer; ° Prepare a description of procedures for removing the surface impoundment from service, and incorporate the description into the contingency plan; ° Prepare a description of how hazardous waste residues and contaminated materials will be removed from the unit at closure, and incorporate the description into the closure and post­ closure plans; ° Provide plans and an engineering report describing how §§ 264.228( a)( 2) and (b) will be complied with, and incorporate the description into the closure and post­ closure plans; ° Prepare an explanation of how §264.229 will be complied with for ignitable or reactive wastes; ° Prepare an explanation of how §264.230 will be complied with for incompatible wastes; ° Prepare a waste management plan for F­ wastes; ° Submit the required information; and ° File a copy of the required information at the facility. (4) Waste Piles (i) Data items: 40 CFR 270.18 requires owner/ operators of facilities that store or treat hazardous waste in waste piles to provide the following additional information: 65 ° A list of hazardous wastes placed or to be placed in each waste pile (§ 270.18( a)); ° If an exemption from §264.251 (liner and leachate collection requirements) or Subpart F of Part 264 (ground­ water monitoring) is sought as provided by §264.250( c) or §264.90( b)( 2), respectively, an explanation of how the standards of §264.250( c) will be complied with or detailed plans and an engineering report describing how the requirements of §264.90( b)( 2) will be complied with (§ 270.18( b)); ° Detailed plans and an engineering report describing how the pile is or will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to meet the requirements of §264.251 (§ 270.18( c)). This submission must address the following items: ­­ The liner system; ­­ The double liner and leak (leachate) detection, collection, and removal system, if required; ­­ For a leak detection system located in a saturated zone, the system's design, operation, and location in relation to the saturated zone; ­­ The construction quality assurance plan; ­­ Proposed action leakage rate; ­­ Response action plan; ­­ Control of run­ on and run­ off; ­­ Management of collection and holding units associated with run­ on and run­ off control systems; and ­­ Control of wind dispersal of particulate matter, where applicable; ° A description of how each waste pile, including the liner and appurtenances for control of run­ on and run­ off, will be inspected in order to meet the requirements of §264.254( a) and (b) (§ 270.18( d)). This information should be included in the inspection plan submitted under §270.14( b)( 5); ° If treatment is carried out on or in the pile, details of the process and equipment used, and the nature and quality of the residuals (§ 270.18( e)); ° If ignitable or reactive wastes are to be placed in a waste pile, an explanation of how the requirements of §264.256 will be complied with (§ 270.18( f)); ° If incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes and materials, will be placed in a waste pile, an explanation of how §264.257 will be complied with (§ 270.18( g)); 66 67 ° A description of how hazardous waste residues and contaminated materials will be removed from the waste pile at closure, as required under §264.258( a). For any waste not to be removed from the waste pile upon closure, the owner/ operator must submit detailed plans and an engineering report describing how §264.310( a) and (b) will be complied with (§ 270.18( h)). This information should be included in the closure plan and, where applicable, the post­ closure plan submitted under §270.14( b)( 13); and ° A waste management plan for EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, and F027 describing how a waste pile that is not enclosed (as defined in §264.250( c)) is or will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet the requirements of §264.259 (§ 270.18( i)). This submission must address the following items as specified in §264.259: ­­ The volume, physical, and chemical characteristics of the wastes to be disposed in the waste pile, including their potential to migrate through soil or to volatilize or escape into the atmosphere; ­­ The attenuative properties of underlying and surrounding soils or other materials; ­­ The mobilizing properties of other materials co­ disposed with these wastes; and ­­ The effectiveness of additional treatment, design, or monitoring techniques. (ii) Respondent activities: To comply with the requirements of §270.18, owner/ operator must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare a list of hazardous wastes placed or to be placed in each waste pile; ° If an exemption from §264.251 is sought, prepare an explanation of how §264.250( c) will be complied with; ° If an exemption under §264.90( b) is sought, prepare an engineering report describing how §264.90( b)( 2) will be complied with; ° Develop plans and an engineering report describing how the waste pile is or will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained; ° Prepare a description of inspection procedures and incorporate the description into the inspection plan; ° If applicable, describe the process and equipment used to treat the pile, and 68 identify the nature and quality of residuals; ° Prepare an explanation of how §264.256 will be complied with for ignitable or reactive wastes; ° Prepare an explanation of how §264.257 will be complied with for incompatible wastes; ° Prepare a description of hazardous waste residues and contaminated materials that will be removed from the pile at closure, and incorporate the description into the closure and post­ closure plans; ° Provide plans and an engineering report describing how §§ 264.310( a) and (b) will be complied with, and incorporate the description into the closure and post­ closure plans; ° Prepare a waste management plan for F­ wastes; ° Submit the required information; and ° File a copy of the required information at the facility. (5) Incinerators (i) Data items: 40 CFR 270.19, 270.62( b)( 2), and 270.62( b)( 6)­( 8) require owner/ operators of facilities that incinerate hazardous waste to provide the following additional information: ° When seeking an exemption under §264.340 (b) or (c) for ignitable, corrosive, or reactive wastes: ­­ Documentation that the waste is listed as a hazardous waste in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D solely because it is ignitable or corrosive, or both (§ 270.19( a)( 1)); or ­­ Documentation that the waste is listed as a hazardous waste in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D solely because it is reactive for characteristics other than those listed in §261.23( a) (4) and (5), and will not be burned when other hazardous wastes are present in the combustion zone (§ 270.19( a)( 2)); or ­­ Documentation that the waste is a hazardous waste solely because it possesses the characteristic of ignitability, corrosivity, or both, as determined by the tests for characteristics of hazardous waste under 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C (§ 270.19( a)( 3)); or ­­ Documentation that the waste is a hazardous waste solely because it 69 possesses the reactivity characteristics listed in §261.23( a) (1), (2), (3), (6), (7), or (8), and that it will not be burned when other hazardous wastes are present in the combustion zone (§ 270.19( a)( 4)); or ° A trial burn plan or the results of a trial burn, in accordance with §270.62 (§ 270.19( b)). The information required includes: ­­ A proposed trial burn plan. The plan must include the information listed under §270.62( b)( 2) (i)­( viii) (§ 270.19( b)); or ­­ The results of a trial burn, including certified documentation of the results of the trial burn (§ 270.62( b)( 6)) and certification that the trial burn has been carried out in accordance with the approved trial burn plan (§ 270.62( b)( 7)); and ­­ All data collected during any trial burn (§ 270.62( b)( 8)); or ° In lieu of a trial burn, the following information as required under §270.19( c): ­­ An analysis of each waste or mixture of wastes to be burned, including: ° Heat value of the waste in the form and composition in which it will be burned; ° Viscosity (if applicable), or description of physical form of the waste; ° An identification of any hazardous organic constituents listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VIII, which are present in the waste to be burned, except that the applicant need not analyze for constituents listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VIII which would reasonably not be expected to be found in the waste. The constituents excluded from the analysis must be identified and the basis for their exclusion stated; ° An approximate quantification of the hazardous constituents identified in the waste, within the precision produced by the analytical methods specified in "Test Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods"; and ° A quantification of those hazardous constituents in the waste which may be designated as Principal Organic Hazardous Constituents (POHCs) based on data submitted from other trial or operational burns which demonstrate compliance with the performance standards in §264.343. ­­ A detailed engineering description of the incinerator, including: ° Manufacturer's name and model number of incinerator, and type of incinerator; ° Linear dimension of incinerator unit including cross sectional area of combustion chamber; 70 ° Description of auxiliary fuel system; ° Capacity of prime mover; ° Description of automatic waste feed cutoff system( s); ° Stack gas monitoring and pollution control monitoring system; ° Nozzle and burner design; ° Construction materials; and ° Location and description of temperature, pressure, and flow indicating devices and control devices. ­­ A description and analysis of the waste to be burned compared with the waste for which data from operational or trial burns are provided to support the contention that a trial burn is not needed. The data should include those items listed in §270.19( c)( 1). This analysis should specify the POHCs which the applicant has identified in the waste for which a permit is sought, and any differences from the POHCs in the waste for which burn data are provided; ­­ The design and operating conditions of the incinerator unit to be used, compared with that for which comparative burn data are available; ­­ A description of the results submitted from any previously conducted trial burn( s) including: ° Sampling and analysis techniques used to calculate performance standards in §264.343; and ° Methods and results of monitoring temperatures, waste feed rates, carbon monoxide, and an appropriate indicator of combustion gas velocity (including a statement concerning the precision and accuracy of this measurement); ­­ The expected incinerator operation information to demonstrate compliance with §§ 264.343 and 264.345, including: ° Expected carbon monoxide level in the stack exhaust gas; ° Waste feed rate; ° Combustion zone temperature; ° Indication of combustion gas velocity; ° Expected stack gas volume, flow rate, and temperature; ° Computed residence time for waste in the combustion zone; ° Expected hydrochloric acid removal efficiency; ° Expected fugitive emissions and their control procedures; and ° Proposed waste feed cut­ off limits based on the identified significant operating parameters; ­­ Waste analysis data, including that submitted in §270.19( c)( 1), sufficient to allow EPA to specify as permit POHCs those constituents for which destruction and removal efficiencies will be required. 71 (ii) Respondent activities: To comply with the requirements of §270.19, owner/ operator must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare documentation for ignitable, corrosive, or reactive wastes as required under §270.19( a) (1)­( 4); or ° Prepare a trial burn plan; or ° Prepare a report on the results of a trial burn; or ° Prepare an analysis of each waste or mixture of wastes to be burned; ° Prepare a detailed engineering description of the incinerator; ° Prepare a description and analysis of the waste to be burned and compare the data with data collected from operational or trial burns are provided to support the contention that a trial burn is not needed; ° Document the design and operating conditions of the incinerator unit to be used compared with that for which comparative burn data are available; ° Prepare a description of the results submitted from any previously conducted trial burn( s); ° Compile the expected incinerator operation information to demonstrate compliance with §§ 264.343 and 264.345; ° Provide waste analysis data sufficient to allow EPA to identify permit POHCs; ° Submit the required information; and ° File a copy of the required information at the facility. (6) Land Treatment (i) Data items: 40 CFR 270.20 requires owner/ operators of facilities that use land treatment to dispose of hazardous waste to provide the following additional information: ° A description of plans to conduct a treatment demonstration as required under §264.272 (§ 270.20( a)). The description must include the following information: ­­ The wastes for which the demonstration will be made and the potential 72 hazardous constituents in the waste; ­­ The data sources to be used to make the demonstration; and ­­ Any specific laboratory or field test that will be conducted, including the information required under §270.20( a)( 3) (i)­( iv). ° A description of the land treatment program, as required under §264.271 (§ 270.20( b)). This information must be submitted with the plans for the treatment demonstration, and updated following the treatment demonstration. The land treatment program must address the following items: ­­ The wastes to be land treated; ­­ Design measures and operating practices necessary to maximize treatment in accordance with §264.273( a), including the information required under §270.20( b)( 2) (i)­( iv); ­­ Provisions for unsaturated zone monitoring, including the information required under §270.20( b)( 3) (i)­( vii); ­­ A list of hazardous constituents reasonably expected to be in, or derived from, the wastes to be land treated based on waste analysis performed pursuant to §264.13; and ­­ The proposed dimensions of the treatment zone; ° A description of how the unit is or will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in order to meet the requirements of §264.273 (§ 270.20( c)). This submission must address the following items: ­­ Control of run­ on; ­­ Collection and control of run­ off; ­­ Minimization of run­ off of hazardous constituents from the treatment zone; ­­ Management of collection and holding facilities associated with run­ on and run­ off control systems; ­­ Periodic inspection of the unit. This information should be included in the inspection plan submitted under §270.14( b)( 5); and ­­ Control of wind dispersal of particulate matter, if applicable; ° If food­ chain crops are to be grown in or on the treatment zone of the land treatment unit, a description of how the demonstration required under 73 §264.276( a) will be conducted (§ 270.20( d)). This submission should include the following information: ­­ Characteristics of the food­ chain crop for which the demonstration will be made; ­­ Characteristics of the waste, treatment zone, and waste application method and rate to be used in the demonstration; ­­ Procedures for crop growth, sample collection, sample analysis, and data evaluation; and ­­ Characteristics of the comparison crop including the location and conditions under which it was or will be grown; ° If food­ chain crops are to be grown, and cadmium is present in the land­ treated waste, a description of how the requirements of §264.276( b) will be complied with (§ 270.20( e)); ° A description of the vegetative cover to be applied to closed portions of the facility, and a plan for maintaining such cover during the post­ closure care period, as required under §264.280( a)( 8) and §264.280( c)( 2) (§ 270.20( f)). This information should be included in the closure plan and, where applicable, the post­ closure care plan submitted under §270.14( b)( 13); ° If ignitable or reactive wastes will be placed in or on the treatment zone, an explanation of how the requirements of §264.281 will be complied with (§ 270.20( g)); ° If incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes and materials, will be placed in or on the same treatment zone, an explanation of how §264.282 will be complied with (§ 270.20( h)); and ° A waste management plan for EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, and F027 describing how a land treatment facility is or will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet the requirements of §264.283 (§ 270.20( i)). This submission must address the following items as specified in §264.283: ­­ The volume, physical, and chemical characteristics of the wastes, including their potential to migrate through soil or to volatilize or escape into the atmosphere; 74 ­­ The attenuative properties of underlying and surrounding solids or other materials; ­­ The mobilizing properties of other materials co­ disposed with these wastes; and ­­ The effectiveness of additional treatment, design, or monitoring techniques. (ii) Respondent activities: To comply with the requirements of §270.20, owner/ operator must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare a description of plans to conduct a treatment demonstration; ° Prepare a description of a land treatment program; ° Prepare a description of how the unit is or will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained; ° If applicable, prepare a description of how the demonstration under §264.276( a) will be conducted; ° If applicable, prepare a description of how the requirements of §264.276( b) will be complied with; ° Prepare a description of the vegetative cover to be applied to closed portions of the facility and incorporate this information into the post­ closure care plan; ° Develop a plan for maintaining the vegetative cover during post­ closure care period and incorporate this plan into the post­ closure plan; ° Prepare an explanation of how §264.281 will be complied with for ignitable and reactive wastes; ° Prepare an explanation of how §264.282 will be complied with for incompatible wastes; ° Prepare a waste management plan for F­ wastes; ° Submit the required information; and ° File a copy of the required information at the facility. (7) Landfills 75 (i) Data items: 40 CFR 270.21 requires owner/ operators of facilities that dispose of hazardous waste in landfills to provide the following additional information: ° A list of the hazardous wastes placed or to be placed in each landfill or landfill cell (§ 270.21( a)); ° Detailed plans and an engineering report describing how the landfill is or will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to comply with the requirements of §264.301 (§ 270.21( b)). This submission must address the following items as specified in §264.301: ­­ The liner system and leachate collection and removal system (except for an existing portion of a landfill); ­­ The double liner and leak (leachate) detection, collection, and removal system, if required; ­­ For a leak detection system located in a saturated zone, the system's design, operation, and location in relation to the saturated zone; ­­ The construction quality assurance plan; ­­ Proposed action leakage rate; ­­ Response action plan; ­­ Control of run­ on and run­ off; ­­ Management of collection and holding facilities associated with run­ on and run­ off control systems; and ­­ Control of wind dispersal of particulate matter, where applicable; ° If an exemption from Subpart F of Part 264 is sought, as provided by §264.302( a), the owner/ operator must submit detailed plans and an engineering report explaining the location of the saturated zone in relation to the landfill, the design of a double­ liner system that incorporates a leak detection system between the liners, and a leachate collection and removal system above the liners (§ 270.21( c)); 76 ° A description of how each landfill, including the liner and cover systems, will be inspected in order to meet the requirements of §264.303 (a) and (b) (§ 270.21( d)). This information should be included in the inspection plan submitted under §270.14( b)( 5); ° Detailed plans and an engineering report describing the final cover which will be applied to each landfill or landfill cell at closure in accordance with §264.310( a), and a description of how each landfill will be maintained and monitored after closure in accordance with §264.310( b) (§ 270.21( e)). This information should be included in the closure and post­ closure plans submitted under §270.14( b)( 13); ° If ignitable or reactive wastes will be landfilled, an explanation of how the standards of §264.312 will be complied with (§ 270.21( f)); ° If incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes and materials will be landfilled, an explanation of how §264.313 will be complied with (§ 270.21( g)); ° If containers of hazardous waste are to be landfilled, an explanation of how the requirements of §264.315 or §264.316, as applicable, will be complied with (§ 270.21( i)); and ° A waste management plan for EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, and F027 describing how a landfill is or will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet the requirements of §264.317 (§ 270.21( j)). This submission must address the following items as specified in §264.317: ­­ The volume, physical, and chemical characteristics of the wastes, including their potential to migrate through soil or to volatilize or escape into the atmosphere; ­­ The attenuative properties of underlying and surrounding solids or other materials; ­­ The mobilizing properties of other materials co­ disposed with these wastes; and ­­ The effectiveness of additional treatment, design, or monitoring techniques. (ii) Respondent activities: To comply with the requirements of §270.21, owner/ operator must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; 77 ° Prepare a list of hazardous wastes places or to be placed in each landfill or landfill cell; ° Prepare plans and an engineering report describing how the landfill is or will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained; ° If applicable, prepare the plans and an engineering report required under §270.21( c); ° Prepare a description of how the landfill will be inspected, and incorporate this description into the inspection plan; ° Prepare plans and an engineering report describing the final cover which will be applied to each landfill or landfill cell at closure, and incorporate this description into the closure and post­ closure plans; ° Prepare a description of how each landfill will be maintained and monitored after closure, and incorporate this description into the closure and post­ closure plans; ° Prepare an explanation of how the standards of §264.312 will be complied with for ignitable or reactive wastes; ° Prepare an explanation of how §264.313 will be complied with for incompatible wastes; ° Prepare an explanation of how §264.315 or §264.316 will be complied with for landfilled containers of hazardous waste; ° Prepare a waste management plan for F­ wastes; ° Submit the required information; and ° File a copy of the required information at the facility. (8) Miscellaneous Units 40 CFR 270.23 requires owner/ operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste in miscellaneous units to provide the following additional information: ° A detailed description of the unit being used or proposed for use, including the following: ­­ Physical characteristics, materials of construction, and dimensions of the unit; ­­ Detailed plans and engineering reports describing how the unit will be located, designed, constructed, operated, maintained, monitored, inspected, and closed to comply with the requirements of §§ 264.601 and 78 264.602; and ­­ For disposal units, a detailed description of the plans to comply with the post­ closure requirements of §264.603; ° Detailed hydrologic, geologic, and meteorologic assessments and land­ use maps for the region surrounding the site that address and ensure compliance of the unit with each factor in the environmental performance standards of §264.601 (§ 270.23( b)); ° Information on the potential pathways of exposure of humans or environmental receptors to hazardous waste or hazardous constituents and on the potential magnitude and nature of such exposures (§ 270.23( c)); and ° For any treatment unit, a report on a demonstration of the effectiveness of the treatment based on laboratory or field data (§ 270.23( d)). (ii) Respondent activities: To comply with the requirements of §270.23, owner/ operator must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare a detailed description of the unit being used or proposed for use; ° Prepare hydrologic, geologic, and meteorologic assessments and land­ use maps; ° Compile information on the potential exposure pathways of humans or environmental receptors to hazardous waste or hazardous constituents and on the potential magnitude and nature of exposure; ° Prepare a report on a demonstration of the effectiveness of treatment; ° Submit the required information; and ° File a copy of the required information at the facility. (9) Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (i) Data items: Sections 270.24 and 270.25 require owner/ operators of facilities that have process vents subject to Subpart AA of Part 264 and/ or equipment subject to Subpart BB of Part 264 to provide EPA with additional information in their Part B application. Owner/ operators of facilities with process vents subject to Subpart AA must provide the following information: 79 ° For facilities that cannot install a closed­ vent system and control device to comply with Part 264 Subpart AA on the effective date that the facility becomes subject to the provisions of Parts 264 or 265 Subpart AA, an implementation schedule as specified in §264.1033( a)( 2) (270.24( a)); ° Documentation of compliance with the process vents standards in §264.1032. Documentation of compliance should include the information listed in §270.24( b)( 1)­( 3); ° Where an owner/ operator applies for permission to use a control device other than a thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic vapor incinerator, flare, boiler, process heater, condensator, or carbon adsorption system to comply with §264.1032, and chooses to use test data to determine the organic removal efficiency or the total organic compound concentration achieved by the control device, a performance test plan as specified in §264.1035( b)( 3) (§ 270.24( c)); and ° Documentation of compliance with §264.1033, that includes the information contained in §270.24( d)( 1)­( 5). Owner/ operators of facilities with equipment subject to Subpart BB must provide the following information: ° For each piece of equipment to which Subpart BB of Part 264 applies, provide the following information (§ 270.25( a)( 1)­( 6)): ­­ Equipment identification number and hazardous waste management unit identification; ­­ Approximate equipment locations within the facility; ­­ Type of equipment; ­­ Percent by weight total organics in the hazardous waste stream at the equipment; ­­ Hazardous waste state at the equipment; and ­­ Method of compliance with the standard; ° For facilities that cannot install a closed­ vent system and control device to comply with the provisions of Part 264 Subpart BB on the effective date that the facility becomes subject to the provisions of Parts 264 or 265 Subpart BB, an implementation schedule as specified in §264.1033( a)( 2) (§ 270.25( b)); ° Where an owner/ operator applies for permission to use a control device other than a thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic vapor incinerator, flare, boiler, process heater, condenser, or carbon adsorption system and chooses to use test data to determine the organic removal efficiency or the total organic compound 80 concentration achieved by the control device, a performance test plan as specified in §264.1035( b)( 3) (§ 270.25( c)); ° Documentation to demonstrate compliance with §264.1052 through §264.1059, which includes records required under §264.1064; and ° Documentation to demonstrate compliance with §264.1060, which includes the information contained in §270.25( e)( 1)­( 5). (ii) Respondent activities: To comply with the requirements of §§ 270.24 and 270.25, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Write and submit an implementation schedule; ° Prepare and submit documentation of compliance with process vent standards in §§ 264.1032 and 264.1033; ° Write and submit a performance test plan; ° Compile and submit equipment information; ° Prepare and submit documentation of compliance with §§ 264.1052 through §264.1059; and ° Prepare and submit documentation of compliance with §264.1060. (10) Drip Pads (i) Data items: 40 CFR 270.26( a)­( c) requires owner/ operators of facilities that use drip pads to collect, treat, or store hazardous waste to provide the following additional information: ° A list of hazardous wastes placed or to be placed on each drip pad; ° If an exemption is sought to 40 CFR Part 264, subpart F, as provided by §264.90, detailed plans and an engineering report describing how the requirements of §264.90( b)( 2) will be met. [This requirement has already been burdened in this ICR. See "Releases from Regulated Units"]; ° Detailed plans and an engineering report describing how the drip pad is or will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet the requirements of §264.573, including as­ built drawings and specifications. This submission must address the following items as specified in §264.571: 81 ­­ The design characteristics of the drip pad; ­­ The liner system; ­­ The leakage detection system; ­­ Practices designed to maintain drip pads; ­­ The associated collection system; ­­ Control of run­ on and run­ off to the drip pad; ­­ The interval at which drippage and other materials will be removed from the associated collection system and a statement demonstrating that the interval will be sufficient to prevent overflow onto the drip pad; ­­ Procedures for cleaning the drip pad at least once every seven days to ensure the removal of accumulated waste residues and other materials; ­­ Operating practices and procedures that will be followed to ensure that tracking of hazardous waste or waste constituents off the drip pad due to activities by personnel or equipment is minimized; ­­ Procedures for ensuring that, after removal from the treatment vessel, treated wood is held on the drip pad until drippage has ceased, including recordkeeping practices; ­­ Provisions for ensuring that collection and holding units associated with the run­ on and run­ off control systems are emptied or otherwise managed as soon as possible after storms to maintain design capacity of the system; ­­ Details of any treatment process used, and the nature and quality of the residuals; ­­ A description of how each drip pad will be inspected; ­­ A certification, signed by an independent, qualified registered professional engineer, stating that the drip pad design meets the requirements of §264.573( a)­( f); and ­­ A description of how hazardous waste residues and contaminated materials will be removed from the drip pad at closure. (ii) Respondent activities: To comply with the requirements of §270.26, the owner or operator must perform the 82 following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare and submit a list of hazardous wastes; and ° Develop and submit plans and an engineering report that include the items listed above. Schedules of Compliance (i) Data items: 40 CFR 270.33 requires owner/ operators to specify in the permit a schedule of compliance leading to compliance with the Act and regulations, where appropriate. Data items required under this section include the following: ° A schedule of compliance (§ 270.33( a)). The schedule must include the following information: ­­ A requirement for compliance as soon as possible; ­­ Interim requirements and the dates for their achievement, if the permit establishes a schedule of compliance which exceeds 1 year from the date of permit issuance; ­­ Interim dates for the submission of reports of progress toward completion of the interim requirements and a projected completion date, if the time necessary for completion of any interim requirement is more than 1 year and is not readily divisible into stages for completion; and ­­ A requirement that no later than 14 days following each interim date and the final date of compliance, the permittee shall notify EPA in writing of compliance or noncompliance with the interim or final requirements; ° If the permittee decides to cease conducting regulated activities at a given time within the term of a permit which has already been issued, an application for a permit modification that contains a new or additional schedule leading to timely cessation of activities (§ 270.33( b)( 1)). Permit modifications are discussed in the permit modification section of this ICR; ° If the decision to cease conducting regulated activities is made before issuance of a permit whose term will include the termination date, a schedule leading to termination which will ensure timely compliance with applicable requirements (§ 270.33( b)( 2)); ° If the permittee is undecided whether to cease conducting regulated activities, he or she may apply for a permit or submit an application for a permit 83 modification to establish two schedules of compliance. The two schedules shall contain information as outlined in §270.33( b)( 3) (i)­( iv). Permit modifications are discussed in the permit modification section of this ICR; and ° If the permittee decides to cease conducting regulated activities, written evidence of a firm public commitment to cease conducting regulated activities. (ii) Respondent activities: In order to comply with the requirements of §270.33, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Develop and submit a schedule of compliance; ° Develop and submit an alternative schedule of compliance under §270.33( b)( 2)); ° Develop and submit an application for two schedules of compliance; and ° Document and submit evidence of firm public commitment to cease conducting regulated activities. Permit Modifications and Special Permits Permit Modifications (1) Transfer of Permits (i) Data items: 40 CFR 270.40( b) explains that changes in the ownership or operational control of a facility may be made as a Class 1 modification with prior written approval of EPA. The requirements associated with applying for a Class 1 modification are discussed in this ICR under §270.42( a). In addition to the Class 1 modification requirements, owner/ operators must also submit the following information in order to transfer ownership or operational control of a facility: ° A written agreement containing a specific date for transfer of permit responsibility between the current and new permittees; and ° A demonstration that the new owner/ operator is complying with the requirements of Subpart H (financial requirements), within 6 months of the date of the change of ownership or operational control of the facility. The requirements associated with this demonstration are discussed in this ICR under §§ 270.14( b) (15) and (16). 84 (ii) Respondent activities: In complying with the requirements of this section, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; and ° Prepare and submit the written agreement. (2) Permit Modification at the Request of the Agency (i) Data items: EPA has the authority under §270.41 to modify any permit when certain causes for modification exist, including substantial alterations to the facility, new information not available at the time of permitting, new statutory requirements or regulations, and events over which the permittee has little or no control and for which there is no reasonable remedy. Facilities required to submit a Agency­ initiated permit modification will submit a Class 2 or Class 3 permit modification as described under §270.42. (ii) Respondent activities: In complying with the requirements for Agency­ initiated permit modifications, respondents must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare and submit the modification request; ° Prepare and submit proof of public notice; and ° File a record of the permit modification request at the facility. (3) Permit Modification at the Request of the Permittee (a) Class 1 Modifications (i) Data items: In making an application for a Class 1 permit modification under §270.42( a), owner/ operators must provide the following information: ° A notification to EPA concerning the permit modification within 7 calendar days after the change is put into effect (§ 270.42( a)( i)). The notice should specify the changes being made to the permit conditions or supporting documents referenced by the permit and must explain why these changes are necessary; 85 ° Applicable information required by §§ 270.13 through 270.21, 270.62, and 270.63 (§ 270.42( a)( i)); and ° A written notification of the modification to all persons on the facility mailing list and the appropriate units of State and local governments (§ 270.42( a)( ii)). This notification must be made within 90 calendar days after the change is put into effect. For the Class 1 modifications that require prior EPA approval, the notification must be made within 90 calendar days after EPA approves the request. (ii) Respondent activities: In complying with the requirements for Class 1 permit modifications, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare and submit the notification required under §270.42( a)( i); ° Prepare and submit the applicable information required by §§ 270.13 through 270.21, 270.62, and 270.63; ° Prepare and submit written notification to all persons on the mailing list and the appropriate units of State and local governments; and ° File a record of the permit modification request and supporting documents at the facility. (b) Class 2 and 3 Modifications (i) Data items: In making an application for a Class 2 or 3 permit modification under §270.42( b) or §270.42( c), respectively, owner/ operators must provide the following information: ° A modification request, submitted to EPA, that: ­­ Describes the exact change to be made to the permit conditions and supporting documents referenced by the permit; ­­ Identifies that the modification is a Class 2 modification; ­­ Explains why the modification is needed; and ­­ Provides the applicable information required by §§ 270.13 through 270.21, 270.62, and 270.63; 86 ° A written notification of the modification request to all persons on the facility mailing list and the appropriate units of State and local governments, and publication of the notice in a major local newspaper of general circulation. The notice must be mailed and published within 7 days before or after the date of submission of the modification request, and must contain the information listed in §270.42( b)( 2) (i)­( vi) or §270.42( c)( 2) (i)­( vi). In addition, the permittee must provide to EPA evidence of the mailing and publication; and ° A record of the permit modification request and supporting documents, placed in a location accessible to the public in the vicinity of the permitted facility. (ii) Respondent activities: In complying with the requirements for Class 2 or 3 permit modifications, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare and submit the modification request; ° Prepare and distribute a written notification of the modification request; ° Provide for newspaper publication of the notice; ° Prepare and submit to EPA proof of public notice; and ° File a record of the permit modification request and supporting documents. (c) Request for Classification of a Permit Modification (i) Data item: For modifications that are not explicitly listed in appendix I of section 270.42( d)( 1), the permittee may submit a Class 3 modification request, or he or she may request that the Director review the modification and classify it as a Class 1 or Class 2 modification. For such a request, the permittee must provide the Agency with the necessary information to support the requested classification. (ii) Respondent activities: To request a classification for a permit modification, the permittee must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; and ° Prepare and submit information to support the requested classification. (4) Temporary Authorizations 87 (i) Data items: In making an application for temporary authorization under 40 CFR 270.42( e), owner/ operators must supply the following information: ° A temporary authorization request containing the following information listed under §270.42( e)( 2)( ii) (A)­( C): ­­ A description of the activities to be conducted under the temporary authorization; ­­ An explanation of why the temporary authorization is necessary; and ­­ Sufficient information to ensure compliance with 40 CFR Part 264 standards; and ° A written notification of the temporary authorization request to all persons on the facility mailing list and to the appropriate units of State and local governments (§ 270.42( e)( 2)( iii). This notification must be made within 7 days of submission of the authorization request. (ii) Respondent activities: In complying with the requirements for temporary authorization, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare and submit a temporary authorization request; and ° Prepare and distribute notification of the temporary authorization request to all persons on the facility mailing list and to the appropriate units of State and local governments. (5) Newly Listed or Identified Wastes (i) Data items: 40 CFR 270.42( g) allows owner/ operators of facilities to continue to manage hazardous wastes listed or identified under Part 261, or to continue to manage hazardous waste in units newly regulated as hazardous waste management units if they meet specific conditions and submit the following information: ° A Class 1 permit modification on or before the date of the waste or unit becomes subject to the new requirement; ° A Class 2 or 3 permit modification request within 180 days of the effective date of the rule listing or identifying the waste, or subjecting the unit to RCRA Subtitle 88 C management standards; and ° In the case of land disposal units, a certification that the unit is in compliance with all applicable Part 265 ground­ water monitoring and financial assurance requirements 12 months after the effective date of the rule listing or identifying the waste, or subjecting the unit to RCRA Subtitle C management standards. (ii) Respondent activities: To comply with these requirements, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Submit a Class 1 permit modification; ° Submit a Class 2 or 3 permit modification request within 180 days of the effective date of the rule; and ° For land disposal units, submit a certification that the unit is in compliance with all applicable standards 12 months after the effective date of the rule. (6) Corrective Action Management Units (i) Data item: In 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart S, EPA promulgated regulations for corrective action management units (CAMUs). Section 264.552( d) requires owner/ operators to prepare and submit information to EPA, upon request, that enables EPA to designate a CAMU. Section 264.552( g) provides for owner/ operators of permitted facilities to modify their permit to incorporate a CAMU. (ii) Respondent activities: In order to comply with section 264.552( d), owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; and ° Prepare and submit information to enable EPA to designate a CAMU. 89 Expiration and Continuation of Permits (i) Data items: 40 CFR 270.50 explains that all RCRA permits must be renewed no later than 10 years after the date of issuance. Under §270.51, owner/ operators renewing an expiring permit must submit an application containing the information required under §270.14 and the applicable sections of §§ 270.15 through 270.29. (ii) Respondent activities: Owner/ operators submitting a Part B permit renewal application must perform the same activities as owner/ operators of new facilities submitting their first permit application, as described above. Special Forms of Permits (1) Permits By Rule 40 CFR 270.60 states that ocean disposal barges or vessels, injection wells, and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) will be deemed to have a RCRA permit if the conditions listed under §270.60 (a)­( c) are met. In complying with these sections, owner/ operators of POTWs or ocean disposal barges or vessels must submit all information required under §§ 264.11, 264.71, 264.72, 264.73( a) and (b)( 1), 264.75, and 264.76. In addition, owner/ operators of POTWs must submit the information required under §264.101. Owner/ operators of injection wells must also submit the information required under §264.101, as well as the information required under §270.14( d). The specific information requirements of these sections and the respondent burden associated with them are discussed in the Notification ICR (# 261), the Manifests ICR (# 801), the General Facility Standards ICR (# 1571), or in other sections of this ICR. (2) Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permits (i) Data items: 40 CFR 270.62 requires owner/ operators of hazardous waste incinerators to provide a proposed trial burn plan and trial burn results as part of the Part B permit application. Specific requirements associated with the proposed trial burn and its results are included in this ICR under the requirements for §270.19. In addition to these requirements, applicants for a hazardous waste incinerator permit must also submit the following information with their Part B application: ° For an extension of the operational period beyond 720 hours, a request demonstrating why good cause exists for such an extension (270.62( a)); ° A statement suggesting the conditions necessary to operate in compliance with the performance standards of §264.343 during the period following completion 90 of physical construction (§ 270.62( a)( 1)). This statement should include, at a minimum, restrictions on waste constituents, waste feed rates and the operating parameters identified in §264.345; ° A statement identifying the conditions necessary to operate in compliance with the performance standards of §264.343 during the period following completion of the trial burn period and prior to final modification of the permit conditions to reflect the trial burn results (§ 270.62( c)( 1)). The statement should include, at a minimum, restrictions on waste constituents, waste feed rates, and the operating parameters in §264.345; and ° A certification, in the form of a signature, on behalf of the applicant must be provided on all submissions by a person authorized to sign a permit application or report under §270.11 (§ 270.62( b)( 9). (ii) Respondent activities: In complying with the requirements of this section, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare and submit the extension request; ° Provide on all submissions the signature of a person authorized to sign a permit application or a report; and ° Prepare and submit the required statements. (3) Permits for Land Treatment Demonstrations Using Field Test or Laboratory Analyses (i) Data items: 40 CFR 270.63 allows owner/ operators to obtain a treatment demonstration permit for the purpose of meeting the requirements of §264.272. The permit may be issued either as a treatment or disposal permit covering only the field test or laboratory analyses, or as a two­ phase facility permit covering the field tests, or laboratory analyses, and design construction, operation and maintenance of the land treatment unit. When owner/ operators who have been issued a two­ phase permit have completed the treatment demonstration, they must submit the following information in accordance with §270.63( c): ° A certification, signed by a person authorized to sign a permit application report under §270.11, that the field tests or laboratory analyses have been carried out in accordance with the conditions specified in phase one of the permit for conducting such tests or analyses; and 91 ° All data collected during the field tests or laboratory analyses. This information must be submitted to EPA within 90 days of completion of those tests and analyses unless EPA approves a later date. (ii) Respondent activities: In complying with the requirements of this section, owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; ° Prepare and submit the certification; and ° Compile and submit the data collected during the field tests or laboratory analyses. (4) Interim Permits for UIC Wells 40 CFR 270.64 states that EPA may issue a permit to any Class I UIC well injecting hazardous wastes within a State in which no UIC program has been approved or promulgated. Any such permit shall apply and insure compliance with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart R. However, these Subpart R regulations have not yet been promulgated. Therefore, there are no activities associated with this section. (5) Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits (i) Data items: 40 CFR 270.65 allows EPA to issue a research, development, and demonstration permit for any hazardous waste treatment facility which proposes to utilize an innovative and experimental hazardous waste treatment technology or process for which permit standards for such experimental activity have not been promulgated under Part 264 or 266. Applicants for this type of permit must submit the same information required for a Part B permit, as discussed above. (ii) Respondent activities: Owner/ operators applying for a research, development, and demonstration permits must perform the same activities as owner/ operators applying for a Part B permit, as described above. 92 Interim Status Termination of Interim Status (i) Data item: 40 CFR section 270.73( d) states that interim status terminates 12 months after an existing land disposal facility comes under permit requirements resulting from statutory or regulatory amendments, unless the facility submits a Part B application before the 12­ month period expires and certifies that the facility is in compliance with all applicable ground­ water monitoring and financial responsibility requirements. The submittal of the Part B application has already been burdened in this ICR. (ii) Respondent activities: In order to comply with section 270.73( d), owner/ operators must perform the following activities: ° Read the regulations; and ° Prepare and submit the certification. 93 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED ­­ AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) AGENCY ACTIVITIES Demonstrations and Exemptions from Requirements Releases from Regulated Units Agency activities associated with demonstrations for the exemption of facility owner/ operators from Subpart F requirements regarding releases into the uppermost aquifer include reviewing and evaluating demonstrations, reviewing certifications (from qualified biologists or geotechnical engineers) of no­ migration demonstrations under §264.90( b)( 4), and entering the information into a data base. Specific Unit Requirements (1) Tank Systems Agency activities associated with tank system requirements include reviewing notifications of intent to make a demonstration, demonstrations under §264.193( g)( 1), demonstrations for exemption from the 24­ hour leak detection requirement and/ or the 24­ hour waste removal requirement, and written descriptions of equivalent secondary containment devices; and entering the information into a data base. (2) Surface Impoundments Agency activities associated with surface impoundment requirements include reviewing demonstrations for exemption from the double liner requirement (§ 264.221( d)), and demonstrations for a waiver of double liner requirements for monofills, and entering the information into a data base. (3) Waste Piles Agency activities associated with waste pile requirements include reviewing demonstrations for exemption from the liner and leachate collection system requirements of §264.251( b) and demonstrations for exemption from the double liner and leachate collection system requirements of §264.251( d), and entering the information into a data base. (4) Land Treatment Agency activities associated with land treatment requirements include reviewing and evaluating demonstrations and entering the information into a data base. 94 (5) Landfills Agency activities associated with landfill requirements include reviewing and evaluating demonstrations and entering the information into a data base. (6) Incinerators Agency activities associated with incinerator requirements include reviewing demonstrations and entering the information into a data base. Contents of the Part B Application General Information Agency activities associated with petitioning the Regional Administrator for a determination that a post­ closure permit is not required because the closure (of surface impoundments, land treatment units, and waste piles closing by removal or decontamination under Part 265 standards) meets applicable Part 264 closure standards include reviewing and approving petitions and entering the information into a data base. Permit Application Agency activities associated with the requirement that Part B permit applications submitted by owner/ operators of facilities that store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste in a surface impoundment of landfill be accompanied by information on the potential for the public to be exposed to hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents through releases related to the unit include reviewing the required data and entering the information into a data base. General Requirements Agency activities associated with demonstrations by owner/ operators to obtain allowance from Regional Administrators to submit information prescribed in Part B on a case­ by­ case basis include reviewing and approving demonstration and entering the information into a data base. General Facility Standards Agency activities associated with the requirement that owner/ operators of hazardous waste management facilities submit in their Part B permit applications information on compliance with general facility standards include reviewing the required information and entering it into a data base. Financial Assurance (1) Cost Estimates for Closure and Post­ Closure Care Agency activities associated with cost estimates for closure and post­ closure care 95 include reviewing written cost estimates and entering the information into a data base. Agency activities associated with post­ closure cost estimates for interim status facilities are discussed in the General Facility Standards (ICR #1571). (2) Financial Assurance for Closure and Post­ Closure Care Agency activities associated with the requirements for financial assurance for closure and post­ closure care include reviewing the documentation of financial assurance submitted by the respondent and entering the information into a data base. (3) Use of a Financial Mechanism for Multiple Facilities The information required under this section will be submitted with the information provided by the owner/ operator to establish financial assurance mechanisms. Therefore, this ICR assumes that any agency activities related to the requirements of this section are already covered under the previous sections. (4) Liability Requirements (a) Coverage for Sudden or Nonsudden Accidental Occurrences Agency activities associated with the establishment of liability coverage for sudden or nonsudden accidental occurrences include reviewing the information submitted and entering information into a data base. (b) Request for Variance Agency activities associated with allowing owners/ operators to obtain a variance from EPA include reviewing requests for variance, including any technical or engineering information required by EPA. (c) Adjustments by the Regional Administrator Agency activities associated with allowing the Agency to adjust the level of financial responsibility required under §264.147 to protect human health and the environment include reviewing any information requested by the Agency and, if the Agency decides to adjust the level or type of coverage, permit modifications. The Agency burden associated with permit modifications is discussed below under the section entitled "Permit Modifications." (5) Coverage by a State Financial Mechanism Agency activities associated with establishing coverage by State financial mechanisms include reviewing letters from owner/ operators, written evidence of the establishment of State­ required financial assurance mechanisms, or letters from the State describing the State's assumption of responsibility and including the information specified above, and any additional information requested by EPA. 96 Other Requirements (1) Topographical Map Agency activities associated with the requirement that owner/ operators must provide a topographical map include reviewing the topographical map. (2) Case­ By­ Case Extensions and Petitions to Allow Land Disposal of a Waste Prohibited Under Subpart C of Part 268 Agency activities associated with the requirement that owner/ operators of land disposal facilities that have received approval for a case­ by­ case extension under §268.5 or a petition under §268.6 submit a copy of the notice of approval for the extension or petition with their Part B permit application include reviewing the notice of approval. Ground­ Water Protection (1) General Ground­ Water Monitoring Requirements Agency activities associated with general ground­ water monitoring requirements include reviewing and approving the ground­ water monitoring program. (2) Detection and Monitoring Programs Agency activities associated with the requirement that owner/ operators develop a detection monitoring program if the presence of hazardous constituents has not been detected in the ground water at the time of permit application include reviewing all information submitted, and entering the information into a data base. (3) Compliance Monitoring Program Agency activities associated with the requirement that owner/ operators develop a detection monitoring program if the presence of hazardous constituents has been detected in the ground water at the point of compliance at the time of permit application include reviewing all information submitted, and entering the information into a data base. (4) Corrective Action Program Agency activities associated with the establishment of a corrective action program include reviewing all information submitted, and if applicable, reviewing schedules of information required in §§ 270.14( c)( 8)( iii) and (iv) in the permit and demonstrations that alternate concentration limits will protect human health and the environment. EPA will also enter the information into a data base. 97 Solid Waste Management Units Agency activities associated with Part B information requirements for solid waste management units include reviewing all required information and entering it into a data base. Specific Part B Information Requirements (1) Containers Agency activities associated with information requirements for owner/ operators of facilities that store containers of hazardous waste include reviewing written descriptions of containment systems, no free liquids demonstrations, documentation of compliance with §264.176 and §264.177, and written descriptions of procedures used to ensure compliance with §264.177( a) and (b), and 264.17( b) and( c); and entering the information into the data base. (2) Tank Systems Agency activities associated with information requirements for owner/ operators of facilities that use tanks to store or treat hazardous waste include reviewing assessments of new or existing tank systems, information required under §270.16( b)­( e), descriptions of tank system installations, descriptions of how the secondary containment system for each tank system is or will be designed, constructed, and operated, descriptions of controls and practices to prevent spills and overflows, and descriptions of how operating procedures and tank system and facility design will achieve compliance with the requirements of §§ 264.198 and 264.199; and entering the information into a data base. (3) Surface Impoundments Agency activities associated with information requirements for owner/ operators of facilities that store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste in surface impoundments include reviewing the following information: plans and engineering reports describing how surface impoundments will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained; descriptions of inspection procedures that are included in inspection plans; certifications or statements from qualified engineers; in contingency plans, descriptions of procedures for removing surface impoundments from service; in closure and post­ closure plans, descriptions of hazardous waste residues and contaminated materials that will be removed from the unit at closure and plans and engineering reports describing compliance with §§ 264.228( a)( 2) and (b); explanations of how §264.229 will be complied with for ignitable or reactive wastes; explanations of how §264.230 will be complied with for incompatible wastes; and waste management plans for F­ wastes. The Agency will also enter the information into a data base. (4) Waste Piles Agency activities associated with information requirements for owner/ operators of facilities that store or treat hazardous waste in waste piles include reviewing the following information: explanations of how §264.250( c) will be complied with if an exemption from 98 §264.251 is sought; engineering reports describing how §264.90( b)( 2) will be complied with if an exemption from Subpart F of Part 264 is sought; plans and engineering reports describing how the waste pile will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained; in inspection plans, descriptions of inspection procedures; if applicable, descriptions of processes and equipment used to treat piles, and descriptions of the nature and quantity of residuals; explanations of how §264.256 will be complied with for ignitable or reactive wastes; explanations of how §264.257 will be complied with for incompatible wastes; in post­ closure plans, descriptions of hazardous waste residues and contaminated materials to be removed from piles at closure; in closure and post­ closure plans, plans and engineering reports describing how §§ 264.310( a) and (b) will be complied with; and waste management plans for F­ wastes. The Agency will also enter the information into a data base. (5) Incinerators Agency activities associated with information requirements for owner/ operators of facilities that incinerate hazardous wastes include reviewing the following information: documentation for ignitable, corrosive, or reactive wastes as required under §270.19( a) (1)­( 4); trial burn plans; reports on results of trial burns; and information submitted in lieu of a trial burn. The Agency will also enter the information into a data base. (6) Land Treatment Agency activities associated with information requirements for owner/ operators of facilities that use land treatment to dispose of hazardous waste include reviewing the following information: descriptions of plans to conduct treatment demonstrations; descriptions of land treatment programs; descriptions of how the units are or will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained; if applicable, descriptions of how demonstrations under §264.276( a) will be conducted; if applicable, descriptions of how the requirements of §264.276( b) will be complied with; in post­ closure care plans, descriptions of vegetative cover to be applied to closed portions of facilities; in post­ closure plans, plans for maintaining vegetative cover during the post­ closure care period; explanations of how §264.281 will be complied with for ignitable and reactive wastes; explanations of how §264.282 will be complied with for incompatible wastes; and waste management plans for F­ wastes. The Agency will also enter the information into a data base. (7) Landfills Agency activities associated with information requirements for owner/ operators of facilities that dispose of hazardous waste in landfills include reviewing the following information: list of hazardous wastes in each landfill or landfill cell; plans and engineering reports describing how the landfill is or will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained; if applicable, plans and engineering reports required under §270.21( c); in inspection plans, descriptions of how landfills will be inspected; in closure and post­ closure plans, plans and engineering reports describing the final cover which will be applied to each landfill or landfill cell at closure; in closure and post­ closure plans, descriptions of how each landfill will be maintained and monitored after closure; explanations of how standards of §264.312 will be complied with for ignitable or reactive wastes; explanations of how §264.313 99 will be complied with for incompatible wastes; explanations of how §264.315 or §264.316 will be complied with for landfilled containers of hazardous waste; and waste management plans for F­ wastes. The Agency will also enter the information into a data base. (8) Miscellaneous Units Agency activities associated with information requirements for owner/ operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste in miscellaneous units include reviewing the following information: detailed descriptions of units being used or proposed for use; hydrologic, geologic, and meteorologic assessments and land­ use maps; information on the potential exposure pathways of humans or environmental receptors to hazardous waste or hazardous constituents and on the potential magnitude and nature of exposure; and reports on demonstrations of the effectiveness of treatment. The Agency will also enter the information into a data base. (9) Process Vents and Equipment Leaks Agency activities associated with the requirements for process vents and equipment leaks include reviewing implementation schedules, documentation of compliance with §§ 264.1052­. 1059, 264.1060, .1032 and .1033, performance test plans, and equipment information. The Agency will also enter the information into a data base. (10) Drip Pads Agency activities associated with the requirements for drip pads include reviewing lists of hazardous wastes placed or to be placed on each drip pad, reviewing plans and engineering reports, and entering the information into a data base. Schedules of Compliance Agency activities associated with the requirement that owner/ operators specify in permits a schedule of compliance leading to compliance with the Act and regulations, where appropriate, include reviewing the following information: schedules of compliance, alternative schedules of compliance under §270.33( b)( 2), applications for two schedules of compliance, and evidence of firm public commitment to cease conducting regulated activities. The Agency will also enter the information into a data base. Permit Modifications and Special Permits Permit Modifications (1) Transfer of Permits Agency activities associated with the transfer of permits includes reviewing written agreements and entering the information into a data base. 100 (2) Permit Modification at the Request of the Agency Agency activities associated with Agency­ initiated permit modifications include reviewing the modification request and entering the information into a data base. (3) Permit Modification at the Request of the Permittee (a) Class 1 Modifications Agency activities associated with applications for Class 1 permit modifications include reviewing notifications required under §270.42( a)( i), and applicable information required by §§ 270.13 through 270.21, 270.62, and 270.63, and entering the information into a data base. (b) Class 2 and 3 Modifications Agency activities associated with applications for Class 2 or 3 permit modifications include reviewing modifications requests and written notifications, and entering the information into a data base. (c) Request for Classification of a Permit Modification Agency activities associated with requests for classification of a permit modification include reviewing the information submitted in support of a request, making a determination on the request, and entering the information into a data base. (4) Temporary Authorizations Agency activities associated with applications for temporary authorization include reviewing temporary authorization requests and entering the information into a data base. (5) Newly Regulated Wastes and Units Agency activities associated with the requirement that to be authorized to continue managing wastes listed or identified under 40 CFR Part 261 owner/ operators of land disposal units certify that units are in compliance with all applicable Part 265 ground­ water monitoring and financial responsibility requirements include reviewing certifications. (6) Corrective Action Management Units EPA must review information submitted for the designation of a CAMU. Expiration and Continuation of Permits Agency activities associated with renewing existing permits include conducting the same activities as they would for initial permit applications. 101 Special Forms of Permits (1) Permits By Rule The specific information requirements and agency activities for this section are discussed in the Notification ICR (# 261), the Manifests ICR (# 801), the General Facility Standards ICR (# 1571), or in other sections of this ICR. (2) Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permits Agency activities associated with the requirement that owner/ operators of hazardous waste incinerators applying for permits submit information in addition to the trial burn plan include reviewing requests to extend the operational period, reviewing the required statements and certifications, and entering the information into a data base. (3) Permits for Land Treatment Demonstrations Using Field Test or Laboratory Analyses Agency activities associated with the requirement that owner/ operators who have been issued a two­ phase permit and have completed treatment demonstrations submit information in accordance with §270.63( c) include reviewing certifications and data collected during field tests or laboratory analyses, and entering the information into a data base. (4) Interim Permits for UIC Wells There are no Agency activities associated with this section. (5) Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits Agency activities associated with research, development, and demonstration permits for hazardous waste treatment facilities proposing to utilize innovative and experimental treatment technologies or processes for which permit standards for such experimental activity have not been promulgated under Part 264 or 266 conduct the same activities as they would for a Part B permit. Interim Status Termination of Interim Status Agency activities associated with interim status facilities include reviewing each certification that an interim status facility is in compliance with all applicable ground­ water monitoring and financial responsibility requirements. 102 5( b) COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT In collecting and analyzing the information required for Part B permit applications, permit modifications and special permits, EPA uses state­ of­ the­ art electronic equipment such as personal computers and applicable data base software, when appropriate. 5( c) SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY Some respondents will be small organizations. In certain cases they will be able to complete recordkeeping, reporting, and application requirements in less time than large organizations because their permits will not be as detailed, or they will not be required to conduct as many monitoring activities or submit as many reports because they have fewer activities requiring monitoring and reporting. However, a parallel does not always exist between the size of an organization and the amount of time needed to maintain records or submit reports. For example, a chemical landfill may be classified as a small business, but the facility employs numerous processes that necessitate a detailed application and supporting records and reporting. EPA has taken steps to minimize the burdens for all facilities whether they are small businesses or not. 5( d) COLLECTION SCHEDULE Demonstrations and Exemptions from Requirements Because the regulations do not provide a specific time frame for submitting exemption demonstrations, this ICR assumes that all demonstrations are submitted along with the Part B application. However, tank system owner/ operators must notify EPA of their intent to submit a demonstration for a variance from secondary containment as follows: ° For existing tank systems, at least 24 months prior to the date that secondary containment must be provided; and ° For new tank systems, at least 30 days prior to entering into a contract for installation. In addition, the demonstration for a variance must be completed within 180 days after notifying the Regional Administrator of an intent to conduct the demonstration. Contents of the Part B Application Owner/ operators of existing TSDFs may be required to submit their Part B application at any time after promulgation of Phase II. Owner/ operators may voluntarily submit their Part B application at any time. Owner/ operators of new TSDFs must submit their Part B application at least 180 days before physical construction is expected to commence. This ICR assumes that all information required under §270.14 through §270.29 is submitted along with the Part B application, with the following exceptions: 103 General Information Owners/ operators of surface impoundments, land treatment units, and waste piles closing by removal or decontamination under Part 265 standards may submit a petition to EPA for a determination that a post­ closure permit is not required. If the owner/ operator has not submitted a Part B application for a post­ closure permit, the owner/ operator may petition the EPA for a determination that a post­ closure permit is not required. If the owner/ operator has submitted a Part B application for a post­ closure permit, the owner/ operator may request a determination based on information contained in the application. The collection schedule for these activities will vary, but submissions should be made to EPA within a reasonable time frame. Financial Assurance (1) Cost Estimates for Closure and Post­ Closure Care Cost estimates and documentation of financial instruments for closure and post­ closure care must be submitted to EPA at least 60 days prior to the initial receipt of hazardous waste for treatment, storage, or disposal. Insurance documentation must be submitted within the same time frame. Respondents must also submit any requested information and permit modifications to EPA within a reasonable time, if EPA decides that an adjustment is necessary. Owner/ operators of new facilities must submit proof of coverage by a State financial mechanism to EPA at least 60 days before the date on which hazardous waste is first received for treatment, storage, or disposal. If a State assumes legal responsibility for a facility's compliance with the closure, post­ closure care, or liability requirements, the owner/ operator must submit evidence of this to EPA within a reasonable time. Permit Modifications and Special Permits Permit Modifications (1) Transfer of Permits Upon a change of ownership or operational control of a facility, the new owner/ operator must submit a revised permit application to EPA no later than 90 days prior to the scheduled change. When a transfer of ownership or operational control occurs, the old owner/ operator will comply with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart H until the new owner/ operator has demonstrated that he or she is complying with the requirements of that Subpart. The new owner/ operator must demonstrate compliance with Subpart H requirements within six months of the date of the change of ownership or operational control of the facility. (2) Permit Modification at the Request of the Agency Permit modifications made at the request of the Agency are submitted according to the time frame discussed below for permit modifications made at the request of the permittee. 104 (3) Permit Modification at the Request of the Permittee (a) Class 1 Modifications The permittee must notify EPA concerning the Class 1 modification by certified mail or other means that establishes proof of delivery within seven calendar days after the change is put into effect. The permittee must also send a notice of the modification to all persons on the facility mailing list within 90 calendar days after the change. For Class 1 modifications that require prior EPA approval, the notification must be made within 90 calendar days after EPA approves the request. (b) Class 2 and 3 Modifications The permittee must send a notice of the Class 2 or 3 modification request to all persons on the facility mailing list and publish the notice in a major newspaper of general circulation within seven days before or after the date of submission of the modification request. (c) Requests for Classification of a Permit Modification For permit modifications that are not specifically listed in appendix I of section 270.42, a permittee may submit information in support of a request for a Class 1 or Class 2 permit modification. The permittee must submit this information and receive the Agency's determination before making the modification. (4) Temporary Authorizations The permittee must send a notice regarding the temporary authorization request to all persons on the facility mailing list. This notification must be made within seven days of the submission of the authorization request. (5) Newly Listed or Identified Wastes The permittee is authorized to continue managing wastes listed or identified as hazardous waste if the owner/ operator submits a Class 1 modification request on or before the date on which the waste becomes subject to the new requirements. In the case of Class 2 and 3 modifications, owner/ operators must submit a complete permit modification request within 180 days after the effective date of the listing or the waste identification in order to maintain the permit authorization. (6) Corrective Action Management Units EPA collects information used to designate a CAMU for the purpose of implementing corrective action requirements under section 264.101 and RCRA section 3008( h). There is no specific collection schedule. 105 Special Forms of Permits (1) Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permits An owner or operator must submit a request for extension of the operational period if he or she believes that an incinerator unit requires more than 720 hours of operating time to bring it to the point of readiness for a trial burn. (2) Permits for Land Treatment Demonstrations Using Field Test or Laboratory Results Owners/ operators must submit a certification that the field tests or laboratory analyses have been carried out to EPA within 90 days of the completion of those tests or analyses, unless EPA approves a later date. Interim Status Termination of Interim Status An owner or operator of a land disposal facility that becomes subject to permit requirements must submit, within 12 months of becoming subject to regulation, a Part B application and a certification that the facility is in compliance with all applicable ground­ water monitoring and financial responsibility requirements. 106 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden EPA estimates annual respondent burden hours associated with all of the information collection requirements covered in this ICR in Exhibits 1 through 3. These exhibits detail the number of hours required to conduct each discrete information collection activity. Exhibit 4 provides the annual bottom­ line respondent burden associated with all information collection requirements included in this ICR. 6( b) Estimating Respondent Cost (i) Estimating Labor Costs EPA estimates an average hourly respondent labor cost (including overhead) of $90.00 for legal staff, $69.30 for managerial staff, $54.33 for technical staff, and $24.29 for clerical staff. These wage rates are used in Exhibits 1 through 3 to calculate the labor cost of each discrete information collection activity. Exhibit 4 provides provides the annual bottom­ line respondent labor cost associated with all information collection requirements included in this ICR. (ii) Estimating Capital Costs EPA estimates that facilities complying with Part 270 will incur capital costs associated with some of the respondent activities. These capital costs include the cost of purchasing equipment, such as file cabinets, photocopiers, and monitoring equipment. Exhibits 1 through 3 detail these costs, if any, for each discrete information collection activity. Exhibit 4 provides provides the annual bottom­ line respondent capital cost associated with all information collection requirements included in this ICR. (iii) Estimating Operations and Maintenance (O& M) Costs In complying with Part 270 requirements, facilities may incur operations and maintenance (O& M) costs associated with some respondent activities. O& M costs include mail submittalls, purchased materials costs, and certain lump­ sum purchased service costs. Exhibits 1 through 3 detail these costs, if any, for each discrete information collection activity. Exhibit 4 provides provides the annual bottom­ line respondent O& M cost associated with all information collection requirements included in this ICR. 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden And Cost Agency burden and cost estimates are presented in Exhibits 5 through 7. Based on the 1999 GS pay schedule, EPA estimates an average hourly labor cost of $60.42 for legal staff (GS­ 15, Step 1), $38.85 for managerial staff (GS­ 14, Step 4), $26.91 for technical staff GS12 Step 5), and $16.36 for clerical staff (GS­ 5, Step 1). To derive these hourly estimates, EPA divided the annual compensation estimates by 2,080, which is the number of hours in the Federal work­ year, and then multiplied the hourly rates by the standard government overhead 107 factor of 1.6. 6( d) Estimating The Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Table 1 presents the estimated annual universe of facilities subject to the various types of RCRA permitting requirements covered in this ICR. Table 2 presents the estimated annual univerise of facilities and units covered by RCR Part B permit applications. Table 3 presents the estimated annual universe estimates of facilities and units covered by a RCRA postclosure permit applications. Table 1 Estimated Annual Universe of Facilities Affected by RCRA Part B and Post­ Closure Permit Applications, Permit Modification, and Special Permit Requirements Description Number of Facilities PART B PERMIT APPLICATIONS Total facilities submitting Part B permit applications 62 Interim facilities submitting Part B permit applications 54 New facilities submitting Part B permit applications 8 POST­ CLOSURE PERMIT APPLICATIONS Facilities applying for post­ closure permits 33 PERMIT MODIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL TYPES OF PERMITS Permit transfers 10 Agency­ initiated modifications 4 Permittee­ initiated modifications (Class 1) 138 Permittee­ initiated modifications (Class 2 or 3) 48 Permit renewals 32 Facilities submitting RD& D permit applications 3 108 Table 2 Estimated Annual Universe of Facilities and Units Affected by RCRA Part B Permit Application Requirements Unit Type Number of Facilities Number of Units Containers 58 754 Tank Systems 51 1, 122 Incinerators 7 70 Land Disposal Units 31 397 Surface Impoundments 14 224 Waste Piles 4 16 Land Treatment Units 4 40 Landfills 9 117 Miscellaneous. Units 15 103 Drip Pads 1 4 Table 3 Estimated Annual Universe of Facilities and Units Affected by RCRA PostClosure Permit Application Requirements Unit Type Number of Facilities Number of Units Containers 31 403 Tank Systems 27 594 Incinerators 4 40 Land Disposal Units 16 205 Surface Impoundments 7 112 Waste Piles 2 8 Land Treatment Units 2 20 Landfills 5 65 Miscellaneous Units 8 55 Drip Pads 0 0 109 Demonstrations and Exemptions from Requirements Exhibit 1 details the universe of facilities affected by each discrete information collection activity associated with this group of requirements. In addition, Exhibit 1 presents the total burden and cost for each of these information collection activities based on this number of affected facilities and the burden and cost estimates developed under Sections 6( a) and 6( b). Below, EPA describes the assumptions used in estimating these specific universe numbers based on the overall universe estimates presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Releases from Regulated Units EPA estimates that two percent of the 31 facilities with land disposal units submitting a Part B permit application (approximately one facility) will submit a demonstration for exemption from the ground­ water monitoring requirements under this section. EPA anticipates that no facilities will submit a no­ migration demonstration under §264.90( b)( 4). Specific Unit Requirements (1) Tank Systems EPA estimates that five percent of the 51 facilities with tank systems submitting a Part B permit application (three facilities) will submit a demonstration under §264.193( g)( 1). In addition, EPA estimates that five percent of these facilities (three facilities) will submit demonstrations for exemption from the 24­ hour leak detection requirement, and that three facilities will also submit a demonstration for exemption from the 24­ hour waste removal requirement. EPA also estimates that three facilities will submit a written description of an equivalent containment device. (2) Surface Impoundments EPA estimates that one percent of the 14 facilities with surface impoundment units submitting a Part B permit application (approximately zero facilities) will submit the demonstrations for an exemption from the liner requirements of §264.221( a) and the double liner and leachate collection and removal system requirements of §264.221( c). In addition, EPA estimates that zero facilities will submit a demonstration for a waiver of the double liner requirements for monofills. EPA also estimates that 54 percent (approximately eight facilities) will submit a demonstration showing that the leak detection system will not be adversely affected by the presence of ground water, and that 50 percent (seven facilities) will submit a demonstration for an exemption for a replacement surface impoundment unit. (3) Waste Piles EPA anticipates that none of the facilities with waste piles submitting a Part B permit application will submit a demonstration for an exemption from the liner and leachate collection system requirements of §§ 264.251( a) and (c). EPA estimates that all four facilities will submit a demonstration showing that the leak detection system will not be adversely affected by the presence of ground water. EPA also estimates that 29 percent of the facilities (approximately 110 one facility) will submit a demonstration for an exemption for a replacement waste pile unit. (4) Land Treatment EPA does not anticipate that any facilities with land treatment units will submit a demonstration under §264.272 during the period covered by this ICR. (5) Landfills EPA estimates that none of the nine facilities with landfills submitting a Part B permit application will submit demonstrations for an exemption from the liner requirements of §264.301( a) and the double liner and leachate collection and removal system requirements of §264.301( c). EPA does not anticipate that any facilities with landfills will submit a demonstration for a waiver of the double liner requirements for monofills. EPA estimates that two thirds of the facilities with landfills (six facilities) will submit a demonstration showing that the leak detection system will not be adversely affected by the presence of ground water. EPA also estimates that one third of facilities with landfills (two facilities) will submit a demonstration for an exemption for a replacement landfill unit. (6) Incinerators EPA estimates that one percent of the seven facilities with incinerators submitting a Part B permit application (approximately zero facilities) will submit a demonstration under this section. 111 EXHIBIT 1 PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST DEMONSTRATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS FROM REQUIREMENTS Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs 90.00 $ 69.30 $ 54.33 $ 24.29 $ Leg. M gr. Tech. Cler. Respon. Labor Capital/ Respon. T otal To tal $90.00/ $69.30/ $54.33/ $24.29/ Hours/ Cost/ Startup O &M o r Hours/ Cost/ INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Hour Hour Hour Hour Year Year Cost Cost Activities Year Year RELEASES FROM REGULATED UNITS (264.90) Read the regulations ­ ­ 1.00 ­ 1. 00 54.33 $­ $­ $ 31 31 $1,684 Prepare and submit the appropriate demonstration 264.90( b) ­ 1. 00 16.00 2.00 19.00 987.16 $­ $ 8,000.00 $ 1 19 $8,987 Obtain certification for no­ migration demonstration ­ 0.50 1.00 0.50 2.00 101.13 $­ $ 340.00 $00$ 0 File a copy of the demonstration at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $1. 00 $­ $10$ 3 DEMONSTRATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS FROM REQUIREMENTS (264.193 ­ 264.344) Tank Systems (264.193) Read the regulations ­ ­ 1.00 ­ 1. 00 54.33 $­ $­ $ 3 3 $163 Prepare and submit the demonstration notification ­ 0.10 0.90 0.50 1.50 67.97 $­ $3. 00 $ 3 5 $213 Prepare and submit the demonstration under264.193( g)( 1) ­ 1.00 16.00 2.00 19.00 987.16 $­ $3. 00 $ 3 57 $2,970 Prepare and submit the demonstration from the 24­ hour leak detection requirement ­ 0. 50 8. 00 1. 50 10.00 505.73 $­ $3. 00 $ 3 30 $1,526 Prepare and submit the demonstration from the 24­ hour waste removal requirement ­ 0. 50 8. 00 1. 50 10.00 505.73 $­ $3. 00 $ 3 30 $1,526 Prepare and submit a written description of the equivalent secondary containment device ­ 0.50 8.00 1.50 10.00 505.73 $­ $3. 00 $ 3 30 $1,526 File a copy of the demonstrations at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $1. 00 $­ $ 15 2 $51 Sur face Impoundments (264.221) Read the regulations ­ ­ 1.00 ­ 1. 00 54.33 $­ $­ $ 14 14 $761 Prepare and submit the demonstrations for an exemption from the liner requirements of 264.221( a) ­ 1. 00 16.00 3.00 20.00 1,011.45 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Prepare and submit the demonstration for an exemption from the double liner and leachate collection system requirements of 264.221( c) ­ 1. 00 16.00 3.00 20.00 1,011.45 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Prepare and submit the demonstration that the leak detection system will not be adversely affected by the presence of ground water ­ 1. 00 16.00 3.00 20.00 1,011.45 $­ $3. 00 $ 8 160 $8,116 Prepare and submit the monofill waiver demonstration ­ 1. 00 16.00 3.00 20.00 1,011.45 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Prepare and submit the demonstration for exemption for replacement units ­ 0. 25 4. 00 0. 25 4. 50 240.72 $­ $3. 00 $ 7 32 $1,706 File a copy of the demonstrations at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $1. 00 $­ $ 15 2 $51 Waste Piles (264.251) Read the regulations ­ ­ 1.00 ­ 1. 00 54.33 $­ $­ $ 4 4 $217 Prepare and submit the demonstration for an exemption from the liner and leachate collection system requirements of 264.251( a) ­ 1. 00 16.00 3.00 20.00 1,011.45 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Prepare and submit the demonstration that the leak detection system will not be adversely affected by the presence of ground water ­ 1. 00 16.00 3.00 20.00 1,011.45 $­ $3. 00 $ 4 80 $4,058 Prepare and submit the demonstration for an exemption from the double liner and leachate collection system requirements of 264.251( c) ­ 1. 00 16.00 3.00 20.00 1,011.45 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Prepare and submit the demonstration for exemption for replacement units ­ 0. 25 4. 00 0. 25 4. 50 240.72 $­ $3. 00 $ 1 5 $244 File a copy of the demonstrations at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $1. 00 $­ $ 5 1 $17 Land Treatment (264.272) Read the regulations ­ ­ 1.00 ­ 1. 00 54.33 $­ $­ $ 4 4 $217 Prepare and submit the demonstration ­ 1.00 16.00 3.00 20.00 1,011.45 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 File a copy of the demonstration at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $1. 00 $­ $00$ 0 Subtotal Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 128 509 $34,036 112 EXHIBIT 1 (CONTINUED) PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST DEMONSTRATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS FROM REQUIREMENTS Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs 90.00 $ 69.30 $ 54.33 $ 24.29 $ Leg. Mgr. Tech. Cler. Respon. Labor Capital/ Respon. Total Total $90.00/ $69.30/ $54.33/ $24.29/ Hours/ Cost/ Startup O &M or Hours/ Cost/ INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Hour Hour Hour Hour Year Year Cost Cost Activities Year Year DEMONSTRATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS FROM REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED) (264.193 ­ 264.344) Landfills (264. 301) Read the regulations ­ ­ 1.00 ­ 1. 00 54.33 $­ $­ $ 9 9 $489 Prepare and submit the demonstration for an exemption from the liner requirements of 264.301( a) ­ 1. 00 16.00 3.00 20.00 1,011.45 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Prepare and submit the demonstration that the leak detection system will not be adversely affected by the presence of ground water ­ 1. 00 16.00 3.00 20.00 1,011.45 $­ $3. 00 $ 6 120 $6,087 Prepare and submit the demonstration for an exemption from the double liner and leachate collection and removal system requirements of 264.301( c) ­ 1. 00 16.00 3.00 20.00 1,011.45 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Prepare and submit the demonstration for a waiver of the double liner requirements for monofills ­ 1. 00 16.00 3.00 20.00 1,011.45 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Prepare and submit the demonstration for exemption for replacement units ­ 0. 25 4. 00 0. 25 4. 50 240.72 $­ $3. 00 $ 3 14 $731 File a copy of the demonstrations at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $1. 00 $­ $ 9 1 $31 Incinerators (264.344) Read the regulations ­ 0. 25 2. 00 ­ 2.25 125.99 $­ $­ $ 7 16 $882 Prepare and submit the demonstration for an extension of the pre­ trial burn period ­ 0. 50 8. 00 2. 00 10.50 517.87 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 File a copy of the demonstration at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $1. 00 $­ $00$ 0 Subtotal Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 34 160 $8, 220 113 Contents of the Part B Application Exhibit 2 details the universe of facilities affected by each discrete information collection activity associated with this group of requirements. In addition, Exhibit 2 presents the total burden and cost for each of these information collection activities based on this number of affected facilities and the burden and cost estimates developed under Sections 6( a) and 6( b). Below, EPA describes the assumptions used in estimating these specific universe numbers based on the overall universe estimates presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Legal Review EPA estimates that all facilities submitting either a Part B permit application (62 facilities) or a post­ closure permit application (33 facilities) will have legal counsel review the completed application prior to submittal to EPA, even though there is no regulatory requirement to do so. General Information Section 270.1( c)( 5) applies only to facilities with surface impoundments, land treatment units, and waste piles closing by removal or decontamination prior to November, 1984. Therefore, EPA estimates that no facilities will submit a petition under this section during the period covered by this ICR. Permit Application Section 270.10( j) applies only to Part B permit applications submitted by facilities that store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste in a surface impoundment or landfill. Therefore, 23 facilities (14 with surface impoundments and nine with landfills) will submit the information required under this section. General Requirements EPA estimates that one percent of the 62 facilities submitting a Part B permit application (approximately one facility) will submit a demonstration for relief from specific Part B information requirements under §270.14( a). General Facility Standards Based on previous experience, EPA makes the following estimates regarding the Part B requirements for general facility standards: ° All facilities submitting either a Part B permit application (62 facilities) or a postclosure permit application (33 facilities) will read the regulations, prepare a written description of the facility, and submit and file the general facility standards information; 114 ° All facilities submitting a Part B permit application (62 facilities) will collect the information required under Section 270.14( b)( 2). ° The burden associated with preparing the waste analysis plan, inspection schedule, contingency plan and personnel training programs for interim status facilities are covered in the General Facility Standards ICR. Therefore, this ICR covers only the burden for facilities submitting a Part B permit application (62 facilities). In addition, facilities will incur operations and maintenance costs to collect the data for the waste analysis plan, to write the plan, and to collect data for the contingency plan. ° One percent of the facilities submitting a Part B permit application (one facility) will submit a demonstration for a waiver of the security procedures and equipment requirements (§ 270.14( b)( 4)). EPA estimates that none of these facilities will receive a waiver; therefore, 62 facilities will prepare a description of security procedures and equipment requirements; ° One percent of the facilities submitting a Part B permit application (one facility) will submit a demonstration for an exemption from special equipment requirements; ° One percent of facilities submitting a Part B permit application (one facility) will submit a demonstration for an exemption from aisle space requirements under §270.14( b)( 6); ° Forty percent of the facilities submitting a Part B permit application (25 facilities) will submit information regarding ignitable, reactive, or incompatible wastes under §270.14( b)( 9); ° All facilities submitting a Part B permit application (62 facilities) will submit a description of traffic patterns, volume, and control, and compile and document facility location information; ° No facilities will prepare a demonstration of compliance with the seismic standard (§ 270.14( b)( 11)); ° EPA does not anticipate that any facilities submitting a post­ closure permit application are located in a 100­ year floodplain. Therefore, EPA does not anticipate that these facilities will submit an exemption demonstration. Consequently, all 33 facilities will prepare an engineering analysis and engineering studies; ° Five percent of the facilities submitting a Part B permit application (three facilities) will submit a compliance plan and schedule; ° All facilities submitting a Part B permit application (62 facilities) will submit a description of the necessary closure activities, a cost estimate for final closure, and a closure schedule; 115 ° All facilities with land­ based units submitting either a Part B permit application (31 facilities) or a post­ closure permit application for units that have lost interim status (16 facilities) will develop post­ closure plans; and ° No facilities will submit documentation that post­ closure notices have been filed under §264.119. Financial Assurance All facilities submitting either a Part B permit application (62 facilities) or a post­ closure permit application (33 facilities) must submit cost estimates for closure and post­ closure care. All respondents must also submit financial assurance information, with the exception of those using State financial mechanisms in lieu of the Federal mechanisms (one percent, or one facility). EPA does not anticipate that this facility will be required to submit additional information. EPA estimates that no facilities will be required by EPA to furnish additional information under the State assumption of responsibility requirements. All facilities with land disposal units submitting a Part B permit application (31 facilities) must also submit documentation of liability coverage. EPA estimates that one percent of facilities submitting a Part B permit application (one facility) will submit an application for variance from the financial responsibility requirements, but that none will obtain a variance. In addition, EPA estimates that one percent (one facility) will be required to submit additional information under §264.147( d). Other Requirements (1) Topographical Map All facilities submitting a Part B permit application (62 facilities) must submit a topographical map as required under §270.14( b)( 19). These facilities are expected to incur an operations and maintenance cost associated with developing and submitting the map. (2) Case­ By­ Case Extensions and Petitions to Allow Land Disposal of a Waste Prohibited Under Subpart C of Part 268 EPA estimates that none of the new facilities with land disposal units submitting a Part B permit application during the period of this ICR will submit an extension request or petition under this section. 116 Ground­ Water Protection (1) General Ground­ Water Monitoring Requirements All facilities with land disposal units submitting a Part B Permit Application (31 facilities) are required to develop a ground­ water sampling and analysis procedure and an appropriate statistical method. All facilities submitting post­ closure permit applications for land disposal units that have lost interim status (16 facilities) must summarize the interim status ground­ water monitoring data required under §270.14( c)( 1). EPA estimates that ten percent of these facilities (approximately 2 facilities) will submit information on plume contamination as required in §270.14( c)( 4). (2) Detection Monitoring, Compliance Monitoring, and Corrective Action Programs All facilities with land disposal units submitting a Part B permit application (31 facilities), as well as facilities submitting a post­ closure permit application for land disposal units that have lost interim status (16 facilities) are required to perform ground water monitoring. EPA estimates that, of these 47 facilities conducting ground­ water monitoring activities, 53 percent (25 facilities) will submit information to establish a detection monitoring program, ten percent (five facilities) will submit information to establish a compliance monitoring program, and 37 percent (17 facilities) will submit information to establish a corrective action program. EPA estimates that ten percent of the facilities submitting information to establish a corrective action program (approximately two facilities) will also submit a submittal schedule under §270.14( c)( 8)( iii)&( iv). EPA does not anticipate that any facilities will submit information on alternate concentration limits in their Part B permit applications. Solid Waste Management Units All facilities submitting either a Part B permit application or a post­ closure permit application (95 facilities) must submit information on solid waste management units. Based on previous experience, EPA estimates that the majority of these facilities will have already submitted this information while they were operating under interim status or in response to section 3007 letters. Therefore, EPA estimates that only 23 percent (22 facilities) will submit this information with their permit applications. Specific Part B Information Requirements (1) Containers All facilities with containers submitting a Part B permit application (58 facilities) must provide a description of the containment system for each unit (754 units) to demonstrate compliance with §264.175. EPA estimates that five percent of these units (38 units) store containers holding wastes that do not contain free liquids. Owner/ operators of these units will submit the information required under §270.15( b). EPA estimates that one percent of containers (8 units) hold ignitable or reactive waste, and that one percent of containers (8 117 units) hold incompatible wastes. Owner/ operators of these units will submit the appropriate information under §270.15( c) and (d). (2) Tank Systems All facilities with tank systems submitting a Part B permit application (51 facilities) must include an assessment of the integrity of each tank system (1, 122 units). In addition, these facilities must submit the information required under §§ 270.16( b)­( g) and (i). This includes a description of the secondary containment system, since EPA estimates that no units will be granted an exemption from the secondary containment requirements under §264.193( g). EPA estimates that the facilities with of five percent of these tank system units (56 units) will be required to submit information regarding ignitable, reactive, or incompatible wastes. (3) Surface Impoundments All facilities with surface impoundments submitting a Part B permit application (14 facilities) are subject to the requirements of §270.17( b)­( g) for these units (224 units). In addition, all facilities submitting a post­ closure permit application for surface impoundments that have lost interim status (7 facilities) are subject to these same requirements for their surface impoundment units (112 units). However, because post­ closure facilities will have submitted the plans, engineering report, and description of inspection procedures under interim status, the burden associated with these activities for post­ closure facilities is covered in the General Facility Standards ICR. Although facilities with surface impoundments submitting a Part B permit application will submit a description of procedures for removal from service and the description of hazardous waste residues and contaminated materials to be removed at closure for each unit (224 units), facilities submitting post­ closure permit applications for surface impoundments that have lost interim status will only need to submit this information for 10% of their units (nine units) because 90% will have already submitted closure plans containing this information. EPA does not estimate that any facilities will be required to submit information regarding ignitable and reactive wastes, incompatible wastes or incompatible wastes and materials. Furthermore, EPA also does not anticipate that any facilities will submit management plans for F­ wastes as required under §270.17( i). (4) Waste Piles All facilities with waste piles submitting a Part B permit application will submit the information required by §270.18 for each waste pile unit (16 units). However, the Agency does not anticipate that any facilities will seek an exemption from the liner and leachate collection requirements of 264.251 or the ground­ water monitoring requirements of Subpart F of Part 264. EPA also does not expect that any units will be used to handle ignitable, reactive, or incompatible wastes or F­ wastes. Additionally, facilities submitting a post­ closure permit application for waste pile units that have lost interim status are subject to these requirements. However, because this data will have been submitted under interim status for these units, the requirements are burdened in the General Facilities ICR. 118 (5) Incinerators All facilities with incinerators submitting a Part B permit application will submit a trial burn plan or results of a trial burn under §270.19( b), or information in lieu of a trial burn under §270.19( c) for each incinerator (70 units). EPA estimates that, for 60 percent of the incinerators (42 units), a trial burn plan or results of a trial burn will be submitted; and information in lieu of a trial burn will be submitted for 40 percent (28 units). EPA does not expect that the information required under §270.19( a) for ignitable, corrosive, or reactive wastes will be submitted for any of these units. (6) Land Treatment EPA estimates that, of the 4 facilities with land treatment units submitting a Part B permit application, none will submit the information pertaining to food­ chain crops (§ 270.20( d)&( e)), reactive wastes, incompatible wastes, or F­ wastes. In addition, each of the two facilities submitting post­ closure permit applications for land treatment units that have lost interim status will prepare a description and maintenance plan for the vegetative cover, and submit and file the required information for each unit (20 units). (7) Landfills All facilities with landfills submitting a Part B permit application (nine facilities) must submit the information required under §§ 270.21( a), (b), (d) and (e) for each landfill (117 units). Facilities submitting post­ closure permit applications for landfills that have lost interim status (5 facilities) must read the regulations, prepare plans and engineering reports describing the final cover, prepare descriptions of post­ closure maintenance and monitoring, and submit and file the required information for each landfill (65 units). EPA estimates that facilities submitting Part B permit applications will submit a demonstration for exemption from Subpart F requirements under §264.302( a) for one percent of their units (approximately one unit), and therefore will be required to prepare and submit the plans and engineering report described in §270.21( c) for this unit. EPA does not expect that any facilities will submit an explanation of compliance for ignitable and reactive wastes, incompatible wastes, or landfilled containers of hazardous waste. EPA also does not expect that any facilities will submit a waste management plan for F­ wastes in their Part B applications. (8) Miscellaneous Units All facilities with miscellaneous units submitting a Part B permit application (15 facilities) must submit the information required under §270.23( a)­( c) for each unit (103 units). EPA estimates that these facilities will provide a report on the effectiveness of their treatment methods under §270.23( d) for all 103 units and a demonstration of treatment effectiveness for 50 percent of the units (52 units). 119 (9) Process Vents and Equipment Leaks EPA estimates that no facilities submitting Part B permit applications during the period covered by this ICR will have process vents and equipment leaks subject to the requirements of Subpart AA or Subpart BB. (10) Drip Pads All facilities with drip pads submitting a Part B permit application (one facility) will prepare and submit the list of hazardous wastes and the plans and engineering report for each drip pad (four units). Schedules of Compliance EPA estimates that five percent of all facilities submitting a Part B permit application (three facilities) will submit a schedule of compliance with their Part B permit application. Of these facilities, one percent (approximately zero facilities) will submit an alternative schedule of compliance, and one percent (approximately zero facilities) will submit an application for two compliance schedules. EPA does not anticipate that any facilities will submit evidence of firm public commitment to cease conducting regulated activities. 120 EXHIBIT 2 PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST CONTENTS OF THE PART B APPLICATION Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs 90.00 $ 69.30 $ 54.33 $ 24.29 $ Leg. Mgr. Tech. Cler. Respon. Labor Capital/ Respon. Total Total $90.00/ $69.30/ $54.33/ $24.29/ Hours/ Cost/ Startup O &M or Hours/ Cost/ INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Hour Hour Hour Hour Year Year Cost Cost Activities Year Year Legal Review Review completed permit application 100.00 ­ ­ ­ 100.00 9,000.00 $­ $­ $ 95 9, 500 $855,000 General Information (270.1) Read the regulations ­ ­ 1.00 ­ 1. 00 54.33 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Develop and submit the petition for exemption from the postclosure permitting requirements ­ 0.25 4.00 0.50 4.75 246.79 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 File a copy of the petition at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $1. 00 $­ $00$ 0 Permit Application (270.10( j)) Read the regulations 1.00 ­ 1. 00 ­ 2.00 144.33 $­ $­ $ 23 46 $3,320 Collect and submit the required data 1.00 0.25 8.00 0.75 10.00 560.18 $­ $3. 00 $ 23 230 $12,953 File the data at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $1. 00 $­ $ 23 2 $79 General Requirements (270.14( a)) Read the regulations 1.00 1.00 0.25 ­ 2. 25 172.88 $­ $­ $ 1 2 $173 Prepare and submit the demonstration 1. 00 1. 00 4. 00 0. 50 6. 50 388.77 $­ $3. 00 $ 1 7 $392 File a copy of the demonstration at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $1. 00 $­ $10$ 3 General Facility Standards (270.14( b)( 1)­( 14)) Read the regulations ­ 0. 50 8. 00 ­ 8.50 469.29 $­ $­ $ 95 808 $44,583 Prepare a written description of the facility ­ 2. 00 15.00 2.00 19.00 1,002.13 $­ $ 3, 750.00 $ 95 1, 805 $451,452 Collect the analytical information required under270.14( b)( 2) and prepare a written report of the analyses conducted ­ ­ 40.00 2.00 42.00 2,221.78 $­ $ 11,650.00 $ 62 2, 604 $860,050 Collect the data required in the waste analysis plan ­ 10.00 90.00 9.00 109.00 5,801.31 $­ $ 4, 000.00 $ 62 6, 758 $607,681 Write the waste analysis plan ­ 10.00 60.00 9.00 79.00 4,171.41 $­ $ 1, 560.00 $ 62 4, 898 $355,347 Prepare a description of security procedures and equipment requirements ­ ­ 1. 50 0. 25 1. 75 87.57 $­ $­ $ 62 109 $5,429 Prepare a demonstration for an exemption from the security procedures and equipment requirements ­ ­ 0.50 0.50 1.00 39.31 $­ $­ $ 1 1 $39 Develop an inspection schedule ­ 8. 00 80.00 1.00 89.00 4,925.09 $­ $­ $ 62 5, 518 $305,356 Prepare demonstration for exemption from special equipment requirements ­ 0. 25 0. 50 0. 25 1. 00 50. 56 $­ $­ $ 1 1 $51 Prepare demonstration for exemption from aisle space requirements ­ 0. 25 0. 50 0. 25 1. 00 50. 56 $­ $­ $ 1 1 $51 Collect the data required in the contingency plan ­ ­ 5. 00 ­ 5.00 271.65 $­ $ 3, 250.00 $ 62 310 $218,342 Write the contingency plan ­ 4.00 30.00 5.00 39.00 2,028.55 $­ $ 1, 000.00 $ 62 2, 418 $187,770 Prepare the description of procedures, structures, or equipment ­ 2. 00 16.00 2.00 20.00 1,056.46 $­ $ 4, 600.00 $ 62 1, 240 $350,701 Prepare a description of precautions to prevent accidental ignition or reaction of ignitable, reactive, or incompatible wastes ­ 1. 00 9. 00 1. 00 11.00 582.56 $­ $ 2, 000.00 $ 25 275 $64,564 Prepare description of traffic patterns, volume, and control ­ 0. 10 1. 00 0. 15 1. 25 64. 90 $­ $­ $ 62 78 $4,024 Subtotal Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 943 36,611 $4,327,360 121 EXHIBIT 2 (CONTINUED) PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST CONTENTS OF THE PART B APPLICATION Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs 90.00 $ 69.30 $ 54.33 $ 24.29 $ Leg. Mgr. Tech. Cler. Respon. Labor Capital/ Respon. Total Total $90.00/ $69.30/ $54.33/ $24.29/ Hours/ Cost/ Startup O &M or Hours/ Cost/ INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Hour Hour Hour Hour Year Year Cost Cost Activities Year Year General Facility Standards (Continued) (270.14( b)( 1)­( 14)) Compile and document the facility location information ­ ­ 2.00 0.50 2.50 120.81 $­ $­ $ 62 155 $7,490 For facilities located in a Part 264, Appendix VI area, prepare demonstration of compliance with the seismic standard ­ 0.25 1.00 0.75 2.00 89.87 $­ $­ $00$ 0 For facilities located in a 100­ year floodplain, prepare demonstration for exemption from design and operating standards under 264.18( b) ­ 0. 25 4. 00 0. 75 5. 00 252.86 $­ $­ $00$ 0 For facilities located in a 100­ year floodplain, prepare engineering analysis and studies ­ 5. 00 44.00 6.00 55.00 2,882.76 $­ $ 13,800.00 $ 33 1,815 $550,531 Prepare compliance plan and schedule of compliance ­ 1. 00 4. 00 1. 00 6. 00 310.91 $­ $­ $ 3 18 $933 Prepare outline of personnel training programs and description of training design ­ 3.00 18.00 3.00 24.00 1,258.71 $­ $ 3,333.00 $ 62 1,488 $284,686 Write descriptions for the necessary closure activities ­ 2. 00 16.00 2.00 20.00 1,056.46 $­ $ 5,000.00 $ 62 1,240 $375,501 Estimate final closure cost ­ 1. 00 8. 00 1. 00 10.00 528.23 $­ $ 1,700.00 $ 62 620 $138,150 Write the closure schedule ­ 0.25 1.00 ­ 1. 25 71.66 $­ $­ $ 62 78 $4,443 Collect the necessary information for post­ closure requirements ­ 1. 00 12.00 7.00 20.00 891.29 $­ $­ $ 47 940 $41,891 Write the post­ closure plan ­ 1. 00 11.00 1.00 13.00 691.22 $­ $ 3,600.00 $ 47 611 $201,687 Prepare documentation that the post­ closure notices required under §264.119 have been filed ­ 0. 25 4. 00 0. 75 5. 00 252.86 $­ $ 2,500.00 $00$ 0 Submit the general facility standards information ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $­ $3. 00 $ 95 10 $516 File copies of all required documentation at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 50 0. 50 12. 15 $1. 00 $­ $ 95 48 $1,249 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE (270.14( b) (15)­( 16)) Cost Estimates for Closure and Post­ Closure Care (264.142 and 264.144) Read the regulations ­ ­ 1.00 ­ 1. 00 54.33 $­ $­ $ 95 95 $5,161 Collect data ­ ­ 5.00 1.00 6.00 295.94 $­ $­ $ 95 570 $28,114 Prepare and submit the written cost estimates ­ ­ 5.00 2.00 7.00 320.23 $­ $3. 00 $ 95 665 $30,707 Financial Assurance for Closure/ Post Closure Care( 264.143 and 264.145) Read the regulations ­ 0. 50 0. 50 ­ 1.00 61.82 $­ $­ $ 94 94 $5,811 Obtain and submit documentation of financial assurance ­ ­ 2.00 1.00 3.00 132.95 $­ $3. 00 $ 94 282 $12,779 Coverage for Sudden or Nonsudden Accidental Occurrences (264.147( a) and (b)) Read the regulations ­ 0. 50 0. 50 ­ 1.00 61.82 $­ $­ $ 31 31 $1,916 Obtain and submit documentation of liability coverage ­ ­ 2.00 1.00 3.00 132.95 $­ $3. 00 $ 31 93 $4,214 Request for Variance (264.147( c)) Read the regulations ­ 0. 10 0. 15 ­ 0.25 15.08 $­ $­ $ 1 0 $15 Prepare and submit request for variance 2.00 0.50 2.00 1.00 5.50 347.60 $­ $3. 00 $ 1 6 $351 Adjustments by the Regional Administrator (264.147( d) Read the regulations ­ 0. 10 0. 15 ­ 0.25 15.08 $­ $­ $ 1 0 $15 Prepare and submit to EPA any requested information ­ 0.50 1.00 0.50 2.00 101.13 $­ $3. 00 $ 1 2 $104 Coverage by a State Financial Mechanism (264.147( b)( 18) Read the regulations ­ 0. 10 0. 15 ­ 0.25 15.08 $­ $­ $ 1 0 $15 Submit letter from owner or operator 1. 00 0. 50 1. 00 0. 50 3. 00 191.13 $­ $3. 00 $ 1 3 $194 Submit written evidence of establishment of State­ required financial assurance mechanism or letter from the State describing assumption of responsibility ­ ­ 0.50 0.50 1.00 39.31 $­ $3. 00 $ 1 1 $42 Submit additional information requested by EPA ­ 0. 50 1. 00 0. 50 2. 00 101.13 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Subtotal Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 1,172 8,865 $1,696,515 122 EXHIBIT 2 (CONTINUED) PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST CONTENTS OF THE PART B APPLICATION Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs 90.00 $ 69.30 $ 54.33 $ 24.29 $ Leg. Mgr. Tech. Cler. Respon. Labor Capital/ Respon. Total Total $90.00/ $69.30/ $54.33/ $24.29/ Hours/ Cost/ Startup O & M or Hours/ Cost/ INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Hour Hour Hour Hour Year Year Cost Cost Activities Year Year OTHER PART B REQUIREMENTS (270.14( b)( 19), (21)) Topographical Map (270.14( b)( 19)) Read the regulations ­ ­ 0. 50 ­ 0. 50 27.17 $ ­ $ ­ $ 62 31 $1,685 Collect the necessary information ­ ­ 10.00 0. 25 10.25 549.37 $ ­ $ ­ $ 62 636 $34,061 Develop and submit the map ­ ­ 1. 00 0. 25 1. 25 60.40 $ ­ $ 20.00 $ 62 78 $4,985 Case­ by­ Case Extensions and Petitions to Allow Land Disposal of a Waste Prohibited Under Subpart C of Part 268 (270.14( b)( 21)) Read the regulations ­ ­ 0.15 ­ 0. 15 8. 15 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Prepare and submit copy of the notice of approval ­ 0. 10 0. 40 0. 10 0. 60 31.09 $ ­ $ 3. 00 $ 0 0 $0 GROUND­ WATER PROTECTION (270.14( c)( 1)­( 8)) General Ground­ Water Monitoring Requirements( 270.14( c) (1)­( 5)) Read the regulations ­ ­ 0. 50 ­ 0. 50 27.17 $ ­ $ ­ $ 47 24 $1,277 Summarize interim status ground­ water monitoring data ­ 4. 00 30.00 4. 00 38.00 2,004.26 $ ­ $ 12,000.00 $ 16 608 $224,068 Collect and document hydrogeologic information ­ 4. 00 25.00 4. 00 33.00 1,732.61 $ ­ $ 4, 000.00 $ 16 528 $91,722 Add required information to topographical map ­ ­ 2. 00 ­ 2. 00 108.66 $ ­ $ 10.00 $ 16 32 $1,899 Prepare a description of plume contamination ­ 1. 00 50.00 1. 00 52.00 2,810.09 $ ­ $ 16,000.00 $ 2 104 $37,620 Develop ground­ water sampling and analysis procedure ­ ­ 40.00 ­ 40.00 2,173.20 $ ­ $ 15,000.00 $ 31 1, 240 $532,369 Determine appropriate statistical method ­ ­ 3. 00 0. 50 3. 50 175.14 $ ­ $ ­ $ 31 109 $5,429 Submit the required information ­ ­ ­ 0. 50 0. 50 12.15 $ ­ $ 3. 00 $ 47 24 $712 File copies of the submitted information at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $ 1. 00 $ ­ $ 47 5 $161 Detection Monitoring Program (270.14( c)( 6)) Read the regulations ­ 0. 50 0. 50 ­ 1. 00 61.82 $ ­ $ ­ $ 47 47 $2,906 Compile information to determine monitoring constituents ­ ­ 6. 00 1. 00 7. 00 350.27 $ ­ $ 11,000.00 $ 25 175 $283,757 Prepare the plans and engineering report ­ 0. 50 10.00 1. 00 11.50 602.24 $ ­ $ 300.00 $ 25 288 $22,556 Establish background values ­ ­ 80.00 ­ 80.00 4,346.40 $ ­ $ 35,000.00 $ 25 2, 000 $983,660 Determine a reasonable time period for identifying contamination ­ ­ 2. 00 ­ 2.00 108.66 $­ $­ $ 25 50 $2,717 Submit the required information ­ ­ ­ 0. 50 0. 50 12.15 $ ­ $ 3. 00 $ 25 13 $379 File copies of the required information at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $ 1. 00 $ ­ $ 25 3 $86 Compliance Monitoring Program (270.14( c)( 7)) Read the regulations ­ 0. 50 0. 50 ­ 1. 00 61.82 $ ­ $ ­ $ 47 47 $2,906 Provide a description of wastes previously handled at the facility ­ 0. 50 1. 00 0. 50 2. 00 101.13 $­ $­ $ 5 10 $506 Provide characterization of contaminated ground water ­ 20.00 120.00 15.00 155.00 8,269.95 $ ­ $ 39,000.00 $ 5 775 $236,350 Develop list of hazardous constituents for compliance monitoring ­ 0. 50 3. 00 0. 50 4. 00 209.79 $­ $­ $ 5 20 $1,049 Develop proposed concentration limits and justification for alternate concentration limits ­ 2. 00 16.00 2.00 20.00 1,056.46 $­ $ 25,000.00 $ 5 100 $130,282 Prepare description and engineering report describing the proposed ground­ water monitoring system ­ 2. 00 16.00 2.00 20.00 1,056.46 $­ $­ $ 5 100 $5,282 Determine a reasonable time period for identifying increased contamination ­ ­ 2.00 ­ 2. 00 108.66 $­ $­ $ 5 10 $543 Develop an engineering feasibility plan for corrective action ­ 2. 00 80.00 2. 00 84.00 4,533.58 $ ­ $ 40,000.00 $ 5 420 $222,668 Submit the required information ­ ­ ­ 0. 50 0. 50 12.15 $ ­ $ 3. 00 $ 5 3 $76 File copies of the submitted information at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $1. 00 $­ $ 5 1 $17 Subtotal Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 728 7,481 $2,831,728 123 EXHIBIT 2 (CONTINUED) PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST CONTENTS OF THE PART B APPLICATION Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs 90.00 $ 69.30 $ 54.33 $ 24.29 $ Leg. M gr. Tech. Cler. Respon. Labor Capital/ Respon. T otal To tal $90.00/ $69.30/ $54.33/ $24.29/ Hours/ Cost/ Startup O &M o r Hours/ Cost/ INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Hour Hour Hour Hour Year Year Cost Cost Activities Year Year GROUND­ WATER PROTECTION (CONTINUED) (270.14( c)( 1)­( 8)) Corrective Action Program (270.14( c)( 8)) Read the regulations ­ 0. 50 0. 50 ­ 1.00 61.82 $­ $­ $ 47 47 $2,906 Provide characterization of the contaminated groundwater ­ 1. 00 20.00 3.00 24.00 1,228.77 $­ $ 50,000.00 $ 17 408 $870,889 Develop concentration limits ­ 1.00 20.00 ­ 21.00 1,155.90 $­ $ 25,000.00 $ 17 357 $444,650 Prepare detailed plans and engineering report for corrective action ­ 2. 00 8. 00 2. 00 12.00 621.82 $­ $ 5,000.00 $ 17 204 $95,571 Prepare description of how the ground­ water monitoring program will demonstrate the adequacy of the corrective action ­ 0.50 3.50 1.00 5.00 249.10 $­ $ 10,000.00 $ 17 85 $174,235 Prepare a schedule for submittal of information under 270.14( c)( 8)( iii) and (iv) ­ 0. 50 1. 00 0. 25 1. 75 95. 05 $­ $­ $ 2 4 $190 Prepare demonstration for alternate concentration limits ­ 2. 00 16.00 2.00 20.00 1,056.46 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Submit the required information ­ ­ ­ 0. 50 0. 50 12.15 $­ $3. 00 $ 17 9 $258 File copies of the submitted information at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $1. 00 $­ $ 17 2 $58 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS (270.14( d)) Read the regulations ­ 0. 10 0. 15 ­ 0.25 15.08 $­ $­ $ 95 24 $1,433 Compile information on solid waste management units ­ 0. 25 4. 00 0. 25 4. 50 240.72 $­ $­ $ 22 99 $5,296 Compile information on releases from the unit( s) ­ 0. 25 4. 00 0. 25 4. 50 240.72 $­ $­ $ 22 99 $5,296 Prepare results of sampling and analysis where the Director ascertains that a RCRA Facility Assessment is necessary ­ 1. 00 32.00 3.00 36.00 1,880.73 $ 5,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 22 792 $371,376 Submit the required information ­ ­ ­ 0. 50 0. 50 12.15 $­ $3. 00 $ 22 11 $333 File copies of the submitted information at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $1. 00 $­ $ 22 2 $75 SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS (270.15­.21, 270.23­.25) Containers (270.15) Read the regulations ­ 0. 25 0. 25 ­ 0.50 30.91 $­ $­ $ 58 29 $1,793 Prepare a written description of the containment system ­ 1. 00 4. 80 0. 40 6. 20 339.80 $­ $ 1,200.00 $ 754 4,675 $1,161,009 Prepare the no free liquids demonstration ­ ­ 1.50 ­ 1. 50 81.50 $­ $ 475.00 $ 38 57 $21,147 Document compliance with §§ 264.176 and 264.177 ­ 0. 30 2. 40 0. 20 2. 90 156.04 $­ $ 500.00 $ 8 23 $5,248 Provide a written description of procedures used to ensure compliance with §§ 264.177( a) and (b), and 264.17( b) and (c) ­ 1. 30 16.80 1.30 19.40 1,034.41 $­ $ 700.00 $ 8 155 $13,875 Submit the required information ­ ­ ­ 0. 50 0. 50 12.15 $­ $3. 00 $ 58 29 $879 File copies of the submitted information at the facility ­ ­ ­ 1. 00 1. 00 24.29 $­ $3. 00 $ 58 58 $1,583 Tank Systems (270.16) Read the regulations ­ 0. 25 0. 25 ­ 0.50 30.91 $­ $­ $ 51 26 $1,576 Conduct assessment of new or existing tank system ­ 2.00 8.00 1.00 11.00 597.53 $­ $ 1,500.00 $ 1,122 12,342 $2,353,429 Prepare and certify the assessment ­ 1. 00 4. 00 ­ 5.00 286.62 $­ $ 340.00 $ 1,122 5,610 $703,068 Compile information required under §270.16( c)­( e) ­ ­ 3.00 1.00 4.00 187.28 $­ $ 500.00 $ 1,122 4,488 $771,128 Provide a description of tank system installation ­ ­ 4.00 0.50 4.50 229.47 $­ $ 500.00 $ 1,122 5,049 $818,465 Prepare a description of the secondary containment system ­ 1. 00 5. 00 0. 40 6. 40 350.67 $­ $ 1,200.00 $ 1,122 7,181 $1,739,852 Prepare description of controls and practices to prevent spills and overflows ­ ­ 3.00 0.50 3.50 175.14 $­ $­ $ 1,122 3,927 $196,507 Prepare description of how operating procedures and tank system and facility design wi l l achieve compliance with the requirements of §§ 264.198 and 264.199 ­ 2. 00 15.00 2.00 19.00 1,002.13 $­ $ 700.00 $ 56 1,064 $95,319 Submit the required information ­ ­ ­ 0. 50 0. 50 12.15 $­ $3. 00 $ 51 26 $773 File copies of the submitted information at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $­ $3. 00 $ 51 5 $277 Subtotal Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 8,279 46,887 $9,858,494 124 EXHIBIT 2 (CONTINUED) PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST CONTENTS OF THE PART B APPLICATION H ours and Costs Per Respondent Per Ac tivity Total Hours and Costs 9 0 .00 $ 6 9 .30 $ 5 4 .33 $ 2 4 .29 $ Leg. M g r. Tech. Cler. R espon. Labor C apita l/ Respon. T otal To tal $90.0 0 / $69.3 0 / $54.3 3 / $24.2 9 / Hours / Cos t/ Startup O & M or Hours/ Cost/ INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Hour Hour H our H our Y ear Year Co st Co st A ctivities Y ear Y ear SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED) (270.1 5 ­.2 1 , 270.2 3 ­.2 5 ) Surface Impoundments (270.1 7 ) Read the re g u la tions ­ 0. 25 0. 25 ­ 0 .50 3 0 .91 $­ $­ $ 21 11 $649 Develop plans and en g inee ring rep o rt ­ 0 .50 2 0 .00 3 .00 2 3 .50 1 ,194.12 $­ $ 2 0 ,000.00 $ 224 5 ,264 $4 ,747,483 Prep a re description o f inspection p roced u res ­ ­ 6 .00 1 .50 7 .50 362.42 $­ $­ $ 224 1 ,680 $81,182 Obtain a certification o r sta tement from a q u a lified en g ineer ­ ­ 1 .00 0 .50 1 .50 6 6 .48 $­ $ 340.00 $ 224 336 $91,052 Develop a pump operating level ­ ­ 4 .00 ­ 4. 00 217.32 $­ $­ $ 224 896 $48,680 Prep a re a description o f p roced u res for removing the surface impoundme n t from service ­ 0 .50 6 .00 0 .50 7 .00 372.78 $­ $­ $ 235 1 ,645 $87,603 Prep a re a description o f haza rdous waste residues and co n tamin a ted materia ls to be removed from the u n it at closure ­ 0. 50 6. 00 0. 50 7. 00 372.78 $­ $­ $ 235 1 ,645 $87,603 Provide plans and en g inee ring rep o rt ­ 1 .00 1 6 .00 3 .00 2 0 .00 1 ,011.45 $­ $ 1,000.00 $ 224 4 ,480 $450,565 Prep a re explanation fo r ig n ita b le and reactive wastes ­ 1. 30 1 6 .80 1 .30 1 9 .40 1 ,034.41 $­ $ 700.00 $00$ 0 Prep a re explanation fo r incomp a tible wastes ­ 0. 50 8. 00 0. 50 9. 00 481.44 $­ $ 350.00 $00$ 0 Prep a re a waste management plan fo r F­ wastes ­ 0. 50 6. 00 0. 50 7. 00 372.78 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Submit the req u ired in fo rmation ­ ­ ­ 0. 50 0. 50 1 2 .15 $­ $3. 00 $ 21 11 $318 File copies of the submi tted information at the faci l i ty ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $­ $3. 00 $ 21 2 $114 Wa s te Piles (270.1 8 ) Read the re g u la tions ­ 0. 25 0. 25 ­ 0 .50 3 0 .91 $­ $­ $ 4 2 $124 Prep a re a list of haza rdous wastes p laced o r to be p laced in each waste p ile ­ ­ 1 .00 0 .25 1 .25 6 0 .40 $­ $­ $ 16 20 $966 Prep a re explanation of comp liance with 264.250( c) ­ ­ 3 .00 0 .50 3 .50 175.14 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Prep a re en g ineering rep o rt describing comp liance with 264.9 0 (b )( 2) ­ 0. 50 2 0 .00 3 .00 2 3 .50 1 ,194.12 $­ $ 8,000.00 $00$ 0 Develop plans and en g inee ring rep o rt describing waste p ile desig n , constructio n , operation and maintenance ­ 1. 00 9. 00 ­ 1 0 .00 558.27 $­ $ 1 6 ,600.00 $ 16 160 $274,532 Prep a re description o f inspection p roced u res and incorp o ra te description into the inspection plan ­ ­ 6. 00 1. 50 7. 50 362.42 $­ $­ $ 16 120 $5 ,799 Describe treatme n t p rocesses and e q u ipment, and identify the n a tu re and quan tity of resid u a ls ­ ­ 1 .00 0 .50 1 .50 6 6 .48 $­ $­ $ 16 24 $1 ,064 Prep a re explanation of comp liance with req u iremen ts fo r ig n ita b le or reactive wastes ­ 0 .25 3 .00 0 .25 3 .50 186.39 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Prep a re explanation of comp liance with 264.257 for incompatible wastes ­ 0. 25 3. 00 0. 25 3. 50 186.39 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Prep a re a description o f haza rdous waste residues and co n tamin a ted materia ls th a t will be removed from the p ile a t closu re, and incorp o ra te the description into the closure and post­ closu re plans ­ 0. 25 1. 00 0. 75 2. 00 89. 87 $­ $­ $ 16 32 $1 ,438 Provide plans and an en g ineering rep o rt describing compliance with 264.310( a ) and (b), and incorp o ra te the description into the closure and post­ closu re plans ­ ­ 3 .00 0 .50 3 .50 175.14 $­ $ 1 6 ,000.00 $ 16 56 $258,802 Prep a re waste manageme n t p lan for F­ wastes ­ 0 .50 6 .00 0 .50 7 .00 372.78 $­ $ 8,000.00 $00$ 0 Submit the req u ired in fo rmation ­ ­ ­ 0. 50 0. 50 1 2 .15 $­ $3. 00 $ 4 2 $61 File a copy o f the re q u ired in fo rmation a t the faci l i ty ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $­ $3. 00 $ 4 0 $22 Inc inerators (270.19 and 270.6 2 (b)) Read the re g u la tions ­ 0. 50 0. 50 ­ 1 .00 6 1 .82 $­ $­ $ 7 7 $433 Prep a re documentation for ig n ita b le , corrosive, or reactive w astes ­ 5. 00 2 0 .00 5 .00 3 0 .00 1 ,554.55 $­ $ 2 0 ,000.00 $00$ 0 Prep a re a trial b u rn plan ­ 2 0 .00 150.00 2 0 .00 190.00 1 0 ,021.30 $­ $ 3 8 ,750.00 $ 42 7,980 $2 ,048,395 Perfo rm the trial b u rn ­ 5 0 .00 200.00 5 0 .00 300.00 1 5 ,545.50 $­ $ 318,750.00 $ 42 1 2 ,600 $14,040,411 Docume n t results of a trial b u rn in acco rdance with 270.6 2 (b )( 6) and (8) ­ 2 0 .00 5 0 .00 2 0 .00 9 0 .00 4 ,588.30 $­ $ 112,500.00 $ 42 3,780 $4 ,917,709 Subtotal Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 1 ,894 4 0 ,753 $27,145,005 125 EXHIBIT 2 (CONTINUED) PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST CONTENTS OF THE PART B APPLICATION Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs 90.00 $ 69.30 $ 54.33 $ 24.29 $ Leg. Mgr. Tech. Cler. Respon. Labor Capital/ Respon. Total Total $90.00/ $69.30/ $54.33/ $24.29/ Hours/ Cost/ Startup O &M or Hours/ Cost/ INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Hour Hour Hour Hour Year Year Cost Cost Activities Year Year SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED) (270.15­. 21, 270.23­. 25) Incinerators (Continued) (270.19 and 270.62( b)) Prepare analysis of each waste or mixture of wastes to be burned ­ 10.00 50.00 5.00 65.00 3,530.95 $­ $ 30,000.00 $ 28 1, 820 $938,867 Prepare detailed engineering description of the incinerator ­ 4. 00 30.00 4. 00 38.00 2,004.26 $ ­ $ 17,500.00 $ 28 1, 064 $546,119 Prepare a description and analysis of the waste to be burned and make comparisons to support claim that trial burn is not needed ­ 5. 00 20.00 5.00 30.00 1,554.55 $­ $ 20,000.00 $ 28 840 $603,527 Document and compare the design and operating conditions of the incinerator ­ 5. 00 25.00 5.00 35.00 1,826.20 $­ $ 25,000.00 $ 28 980 $751,134 Prepare and submit results from previous trial burn( s) ­ 0. 50 0. 50 1. 00 2. 00 86.11 $ ­ $ 3. 00 $ 28 56 $2,495 Compile information on compliance with 264.343 and264.345 ­ 5. 00 20.00 5. 00 30.00 1,554.55 $ ­ $ 20,000.00 $ 28 840 $603,527 Provide waste analysis data to identify POHCs ­ 2. 50 20.00 2. 50 25.00 1,320.58 $ ­ $ 10,000.00 $ 28 700 $316,976 Submit the required information ­ ­ ­ 0. 50 0. 50 12.15 $ ­ $ 3. 00 $ 7 4 $106 File a copy of the required information at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $ ­ $ 3. 00 $ 7 1 $38 Land Treatment (270.20) Read the regulations ­ 0. 25 0. 25 ­ 0.50 30.91 $­ $­ $ 6 3 $185 Prepare treatment demonstration plans ­ 1. 00 10.00 2. 00 13.00 661.18 $ ­ $ ­ $ 40 520 $26,447 Prepare description of a land treatment program ­ 1. 00 16.00 3. 00 20.00 1,011.45 $ ­ $ ­ $ 40 800 $40,458 Prepare description of unit design, construction, operation and maintenance ­ 1. 00 5. 00 1. 00 7. 00 365.24 $­ $­ $ 40 280 $14,610 Prepare a description of how demonstration will be conducted ­ ­ 6. 00 1. 00 7. 00 350.27 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Prepare description of compliance with 264.276( b) ­ ­ 1. 00 0. 25 1. 25 60.40 $ ­ $ ­ $ 0 0 $0 Prepare description of vegetative cover and incorporate the description in to the post­ closure plan ­ ­ 1. 00 0. 50 1. 50 66.48 $­ $­ $ 60 90 $3,989 Develop maintenance plan for the vegetative cover and incorporate the plan into the post­ closure permit ­ ­ 0.50 0.25 0.75 33.24 $­ $ 1, 000.00 $ 60 45 $61,994 Prepare explanation of compliance with requirements for ignitable and reactive wastes ­­­­­ ­ $­ $ 700.00 $00$ 0 Prepare explanation of compliance with requirements ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ $ ­ $ 350.00 $ 0 0 $0 Prepare a waste management plan for F­ wastes ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ $ ­ $ 8, 000.00 $ 0 0 $0 Submit the required information ­ ­ ­ 0. 50 0. 50 12.15 $ ­ $ 3. 00 $ 6 3 $91 File a copy of the required information at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $ ­ $ 3. 00 $ 6 1 $33 Landfills (270. 21) Read the regulations ­ 0. 25 0. 25 ­ 0. 50 30.91 $ ­ $ ­ $ 14 7 $433 Prepare list of wastes placed or to be placed in each landfill or landfill cell ­ 0. 25 1. 00 0. 75 2. 00 89.87 $­ $­ $ 117 234 $10,515 Prepare plans and an engineering report describing landfill design, construction, operation and maintenance ­ 1. 00 20.00 3.00 24.00 1,228.77 $­ $ 25,000.00 $ 117 2,808 $3,068,766 Prepare plans and an engineering report under 270.21( c) ­ 1. 00 6. 00 1. 00 8. 00 419.57 $­ $ 8, 000.00 $ 1 8 $8,420 Subtotal Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 717 11,104 $6,998,730 126 EXHIBIT 2 (CONTINUED) PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST CONTENTS OF THE PART B APPLICATION Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs 90.00 $ 69.30 $ 54.33 $ 24.29 $ Leg. Mgr. Tech. Cler. Respon. Labor Capital/ Respon. Total Total $90.00/ $69.30/ $54.33/ $24.29/ Hours/ Cost/ Startup O &M or Hours/ Cost/ INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Hour Hour Hour Hour Year Year Cost Cost Activities Year Year SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED) (270.15­.21, 270.23­.25) Landfills (Continued) (270.21) Prepare description of how the landfill inspection procedures and incorporate this description into the inspection plan ­ 0. 25 1. 00 0. 75 2. 00 89. 87 $­ $­ $ 117 234 $10,515 Develop a pump operating level ­ ­ 4.00 ­ 4. 00 217.32 $­ $ 1,000.00 $ 117 468 $142,426 Prepare plans and engineering report describing the final cover, and incorporate this description into the closure and postclosure plans ­ 1. 00 16.00 3.00 20.00 1,011.45 $­ $ 350.00 $ 182 3,640 $247,784 Prepare a description of how each landfill will be maintained and monitored after closure, and incorporate this description into the closure and post­ closure plans ­ 0. 25 1. 00 0. 75 2. 00 89. 87 $­ $ 350.00 $ 182 364 $80,056 Prepare explanation of compliance for ignitable and reactive wastes ­ 0. 25 2. 00 0. 75 3. 00 144.20 $­ $ 700.00 $00$ 0 Prepare an explanation of compliance for incompatible wastes ­ 0. 25 2. 00 0. 75 3. 00 144.20 $­ $ 350.00 $00$ 0 Prepare explanation of compliance with landfilled containers of hazardous waste ­ 0. 25 1. 00 0. 75 2. 00 89. 87 $­ $ 350.00 $00$ 0 Prepare a waste management plan for F­ wastes ­ 0. 50 6. 00 0. 50 7. 00 372.78 $­ $ 8,000.00 $00$ 0 Submit the required information ­ ­ ­ 0. 50 0. 50 12.15 $­ $3. 00 $ 14 7 $212 File a copy of the required information at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $­ $3. 00 $ 14 1 $76 Miscellaneous Units (270.23) Read the regulations ­ 0. 50 0. 50 ­ 1.00 61.82 $­ $­ $ 15 15 $927 Prepare detailed description of unit or proposed unit ­ 1. 00 5. 00 0. 50 6. 50 353.10 $­ $ 1,200.00 $ 103 670 $159,969 Prepare hydrologic, geologic, and meteorologic assessments and land­ use maps ­ 1. 50 13.30 1.90 16.70 872.69 $­ $ 6,000.00 $ 103 1,720 $707,887 Compile and prepare information on potential exposure ­ 3. 80 30.00 3.80 37.60 1,985.54 $­ $ 15,000.00 $ 103 3,873 $1,749,511 Prepare report on demonstration of treatment effectiveness ­ 1.00 16.00 2.00 19.00 987.16 $­ $­ $ 52 988 $51,332 Submit the required information ­ ­ ­ 0. 50 0. 50 12.15 $­ $3. 00 $ 15 8 $227 File a copy of the required information at the facility ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $­ $3. 00 $ 15 2 $81 Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (270.24 and 270.25) Read the regulations ­ 0. 25 0. 25 ­ 0.50 30.91 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Write and submit an implementation schedule ­ 0. 25 1. 00 0. 25 1. 50 77. 73 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Prepare and submit documentation of compliance with process vent standards in 264.1032 and 264.1033 ­ 0. 50 16.00 2.00 18.50 952.51 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Write and submit a performance test plan ­ 1. 00 7. 00 2. 00 10.00 498.19 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Compile and submit equipment information ­ 0. 50 3. 00 0. 50 4. 00 209.79 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Prepare and submit documentation of compliance with 264.1052 through 264.1059 ­ 1. 00 16.00 2.00 19.00 987.16 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Prepare and submit documentation of compliance with 264.1060 ­ 0. 50 2. 00 0. 50 3. 00 155.46 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Drip Pads (270.26) Read the regulations ­ 0. 25 0. 25 ­ 0.50 30.91 $­ $­ $ 1 1 $31 Prepare and submit a list of hazardous waste placed or to be placed on each drip pad ­ 1. 00 6. 00 1. 00 8. 00 419.57 $­ $3. 00 $ 4 32 $1,690 Develop and submit plans and an engineering report describing the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of each drip pad ­ 1. 00 6. 00 1. 00 8. 00 419.57 $­ $ 16,600.00 $ 4 32 $68,078 Subtotal Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 1,041 12,055 $3,220,802 127 EXHIBIT 2 (CONTINUED) PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST CONTENTS OF THE PART B APPLICATION Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs 90.00 $ 69.30 $ 54.33 $ 24.29 $ Leg. Mgr. Tech. Cler. Respon. Labor Capital/ Respon. Total Total $90.00/ $69.30/ $54.33/ $24.29/ Hours/ Cost/ Startup O &M or Hours/ Cost/ INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Hour Hour Hour Hour Year Year Cost Cost Activities Year Year SCHEDULES OF COMPLIANCE (270.33) Read the regulations ­ 0. 25 0. 25 ­ 0.50 30.91 $­ $­ $ 62 31 $1,916 Develop and submit a schedule of compliance ­ 0.50 2.00 0.50 3.00 155.46 $­ $3. 00 $ 3 9 $475 Develop and submit alternative schedule of compliance ­ 0.50 2.00 0.50 3.00 155.46 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Develop and submit application for two compliance schedules ­ 0. 50 2. 00 0. 50 3. 00 155.46 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Document and submit evidence of firm public commitment to cease conducting regulated activities ­ 0. 50 1. 00 0. 50 2. 00 101.13 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Subtotal Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 65 40 $2, 391 128 Permit Modifications and Special Permits Exhibit 3 details the universe of facilities affected by each discrete information collection activity associated with this group of requirements. In addition, Exhibit 3 presents the total burden and cost for each of these information collection activities based on this number of affected facilities and the burden and cost estimates developed under Sections 6( a) and 6( b). Below, EPA describes the assumptions used in estimating these specific universe numbers based on the overall universe estimates presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Permit Modifications (1) Transfer of Permits In addition to the permit modifications discussed below, EPA estimates that ten facilities will submit the written agreement required to transfer ownership or operational control of a facility. (2) Permit Modification at the Request of the Agency EPA estimates that four facilities will be required to modify their permits at the request of the Agency. (3) Permit Modification at the Request of the Permittee EPA estimates that 138 facilities will submit information required under 270.13 through 270.21 and 270.63 for Class 1 modifications, and an additional 48 facilities will submit information required under 270.42( b) and (c) for Class 2 or 3 modifications. (4) Temporary Authorizations EPA estimates that 25 percent of the facilities seeking a Class 2 or Class 3 permit modification at their own request (12 facilities) will submit a request for temporary authorization under §270.42( e). (5) Newly Regulated Wastes and Units EPA does not estimate that any rules will regulate new wastes or units in the period covered by this ICR. (6) Corrective Action Management Units EPA estimates that no facilities will designate a corrective action management unit (CAMU). Therefore, no facilities will initiate modifications to their permits to incorporate the CAMU (264.552( g)). 129 Expiration and Continuation of Permits EPA estimates that 32 facilities will submit applications annually for permit renewal during the period covered by this ICR. Special Forms of Permits (1) Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permits All facilities with incinerators submitting a Part B permit application (7 facilities) must submit the information required under this section for each of the estimated 70 incinerator units located at those facilities. (2) Permits for Land Treatment Demonstrations Using Field Test or Laboratory Analyses All facilities with land treatment units submitting a Part B permit application (four facilities) must submit the information required under this section for each of the estimated 40 units located at those facilities. (3) Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD& D) Permits All facilities applying for a RD& D permit (three facilities) must submit the information required under this section. Interim Status Termination of Interim Status EPA does not expect there to be any regulatory or statutory amendments that would cause land disposal facilities to come under new permit requirements during the period covered by this ICR. Therefore, EPA does not expect any land disposal facilities to submit a certification. 130 EXHIBIT 3 PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST PERMIT MODIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL PERMITS Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs 90.00 $ 69.30 $ 54.33 $ 24.29 $ Leg. Mgr. Tech. Cler. Respon. Labor Capital/ Respon. Total Total $90.00/ $69.30/ $54.33/ $24.29/ Hours/ Cost/ Startup O &M or Hours/ Cost/ INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Hour Hour Hour Hour Year Year Cost Cost Activities Year Year PERMIT MODIFICATIONS (270.40 ­ .42) Transfer of Permits (270.40( b)) Read the regulations 0.50 0.10 0.15 ­ 0. 75 60.08 $­ $­ $ 10 8 $601 Prepare and submit the written agreement 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 3.00 198.61 $­ $3. 00 $ 10 30 $2,016 Permit Modifications at the Request of the Agency (270.41) Read the regulations 0.50 0.50 0.50 ­ 1. 50 106.82 $­ $­ $ 4 6 $427 Prepare and submit the modification request 1.00 1.00 16.00 2.00 20.00 1,077.16 $­ $3. 00 $ 4 80 $4,321 Prepare and submit proof of public notice ­ 0. 25 1. 00 0. 25 1. 50 77. 73 $­ $3. 00 $ 4 6 $323 File a record of the modification request ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $­ $3. 00 $ 4 0 $22 Permit Modifications at the Request of the Permittee (270.42( a)­( d)) Read the regulations for Class 1, 2, or 3permit modifications (270.42( a)) 2.00 1.00 1.00 ­ 4. 00 303.63 $­ $­ $ 186 744 $56,475 Prepare and submit the notification under 270.42( a)( i) ­ 0. 25 1. 00 0. 25 1. 50 77. 73 $­ $3. 00 $ 138 207 $11,141 Prepare and submit information required under 270.13 through 270.21, 270.62 and 270.63 for Class 1 modifications 1.00 1.00 8.00 2.00 12.00 642.52 $­ $3. 00 $ 138 1,656 $89,082 Prepare and submit written notification to the public and appropriate governments ­ 0. 25 1. 00 0. 25 1. 50 77. 73 $­ $3. 00 $ 138 207 $11,141 Prepare and submit the Class 2 or 3 modification 5.00 15.00 80.00 12.00 112.00 6,127.38 $­ $ 25,000.00 $ 48 5, 376 $1,494,114 Prepare and distribute written notification of the Class 2 or 3 modification request ­ 0. 25 1. 00 0. 25 1. 50 77. 73 $­ $­ $ 48 72 $3,731 Provide for newspaper publication of the notice ­ ­ 1.00 0.50 1.50 66.48 $­ $­ $ 186 279 $12,365 Prepare and submit proof of public notice ­ 0. 25 1. 00 0. 25 1. 50 77. 73 $­ $3. 00 $ 186 279 $15,016 File a record of the Class 1­ 3 modification requests ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 2. 43 $­ $3. 00 $ 186 19 $1,010 Prepare and submit information in support of a request for a classification of a permit modification (270.42( d)) ­ ­ 2. 00 ­ 2.00 108.66 $­ $3. 00 $ 186 372 $20,769 Temporary authorizations (270.42( e)) Read the regulations 0.50 0.10 0.15 ­ 0. 75 60.08 $­ $­ $ 12 9 $721 Prepare and submit temporary authorization request 1. 00 0. 50 6. 00 1. 00 8. 50 474.92 $­ $3. 00 $ 12 102 $5,735 Prepare and distribute notification of request ­ 0. 25 1. 00 0. 25 1. 50 77.73 $­ $­ $ 12 18 $933 Newly Regulated Wastes and Units (270.42( g)) Read the regulations ­ 0. 10 0. 15 ­ 0.25 15.08 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Submit the Class 1, 2 or 3 permit modification 1.00 1.00 16.00 2.00 20.00 1,077.16 $­ $ 1, 000.00 $00$ 0 Prepare and submit certification of compliance ­ ­ 0. 50 0. 25 0. 75 33.24 $­ $3. 00 $00$ 0 Permit Modifications for CAMU designation (264.552( d) and (g)) Prepare and submit information for designation of a CAMU and related permit modification 5.00 15.50 83.00 13.10 116.60 6,351.74 $­ $ 25,000.00 $00$ 0 EXPIRATION AND CONTINUATION OF PERMITS (270.50 ­ .51) Read the regulations 0.50 0.10 0.15 ­ 0. 75 60.08 $­ $­ $ 32 24 $1,923 Complete and submit the Part B renewal application 5.00 15.00 80.00 12.00 112.00 6,127.38 $­ $3. 00 $ 32 3, 584 $196,172 Subtotal Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 1,576 13,078 $1,928,038 131 EXHIBIT 3 (CONTINUED) PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST PERMIT MODIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL PERMITS Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs 90.00 $ 69.30 $ 54.33 $ 24.29 $ Leg. Mgr. Tech. Cler. Respon. Labor Capital/ Respon. Total Total $90.00/ $69.30/ $54.33/ $24.29/ Hours/ Cost/ Startup O &M or Hours/ Cost/ INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Hour Hour Hour Hour Year Year Cost Cost Activities Year Year SPECIAL FORMS OF PERMITS (270. 60, .62 ­ .65) Hazardous waste incinerator permits (270.62) Read the regulations ­ 0. 10 0. 50 ­ 0.60 34.10 $­ $­ $ 7 4 $239 Prepare and submit request for extension of operational period ­ 0. 25 1. 00 0. 25 1. 50 77.73 $­ $3. 00 $ 70 105 $5,651 Prepare certification of all submissions ­ ­ 0.50 0.10 0.60 29.59 $­ $ 350.00 $ 70 42 $26,571 Prepare and submit the required statements ­ 0. 50 1. 00 0. 25 1. 75 95.05 $­ $3. 00 $ 70 123 $6,864 Permits for land treatment demonstrations using field test or laboratory analyses (270.63) Read the regulations ­ 0. 10 0. 15 ­ 0.25 15.08 $­ $­ $ 4 1 $60 Prepare and submit the certification ­ 0. 50 ­ 0.50 1.00 46.80 $­ $ 350.00 $ 40 40 $15,872 Compile and submit the data collected ­ 0. 25 0. 50 0. 25 1. 00 50.56 $­ $3. 00 $ 40 40 $2,142 Research, development, and demonstration permits (270.65) Read the regulations ­ 0. 10 0. 50 ­ 0.60 34.10 $­ $­ $ 3 2 $102 Prepare and submit the permit application ­ 13.50 118.50 27.00 159.00 8,029.49 $­ $3. 00 $ 3 477 $24,097 INTERIM STATUS (270.70 ­ .73) Termination of interim status (270.73) Read the regulations ­ 0. 10 0. 15 ­ 0.25 15.08 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Prepare and submit certification that an interim status facility is in compliance with ground­ water monitoring and financial responsibility requirements ­ 2. 50 13.00 4.00 19.50 976.70 $­ $ 350.00 $00$ 0 Subtotal Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 307 834 $81,598 132 EXHIBIT 4 PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST SUMMARY Exhibit Title Annual Activities Annual Burden Annual Labor Cost Annual Capital/ Startup Cost Annual O& M Cost Total Annual Cost Exhibit 1 Demonstrations and Exemptions from Requirements 162 669 $34,079 $45 $8, 132 $42,256 Exhibit 2 Contents of the Part B Application 14,839 163,796 $8,951,046 $110,235 $47,019, 744 $56,081,025 Exhibit 3 Permit Modifications and Special Permits 1,883 13,078 $724,924 $0 $1,203, 114 $1, 928,038 Annual Total 16,884 177,543 $9,710,049 $110,280 $48,230, 990 $58,051,319 3­ Year Total 50,652 532,629 $29,130,147 $330,840 $144,692, 970 $174,153,957 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours And Cost Tables (i) Respondent Tally In Exhibit 4, EPA presents the total estimated annual respondent burden and cost for all paperwork requirements covered by this ICR. As shown in this exhibit, EPA estimates that this information collection will result in a total annual burden of approximately 177,543 hours and an annual cost of approximately $58,051,319. Over the three­ year period covered by this ICR, EPA estimates respondent burden of 532,629 hours, at a cost of approximately $174,153,957. (ii) Agency Tally Exhibits 5 through 7 list the Agency activities associated with this information collection, as well as the burden and costs associated with each. Exhibit 8 presents the total annual Agency burden and costs associated with paperwork requirements covered by this ICR. As shown in this exhibit, EPA estimates an annual Agency burden of 20,278 hours and a cost of $573,692. Over the three­ year period covered by this ICR, EPA estimates Agency burden of approximately 60,834 hours and $1,721,076. 133 EXHIBIT 5 PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS ESTI MATED ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN AND COST DEMONSTRATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS FROM REQUIREMENTS Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs 60.42 $ 38.35 $ 26.91 $ 16.36 $ Leg. Mgr. Tech. Cler. Respon. Labor Capital/ Respon. Total Total $60.42/ $38.35/ $26.91/ $16.36/ Hours/ Cost/ Startup O &M or Hours/ Cost/ INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Hour Hour Hour Hour Year Year Cost Cost Activities Year Year RELEASES FROM REGULATED UNITS (264.90) Review and evaluate demonstrations ­ ­ 5.00 ­ 5. 00 134.55 $­ $­ $ 1 5 $135 Review certification ­ ­ 0.20 ­ 0. 20 5. 38 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $10$ 2 DEMONSTRATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS FROM REQUIREMENTS (264.193 ­ 264.344) Tank Systems (264.193) Review the information submitted ­ ­ 5.00 ­ 5. 00 134.55 $­ $­ $ 15 75 $2,018 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $ 15 2 $25 Surface Impoundments (264.221) Review demonstrations for exemption ­ ­ 5.00 ­ 5. 00 134.55 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Review demonstration for adequacy of leak detection ­ ­ 5.00 ­ 5. 00 134.55 $­ $­ $ 8 40 $1,076 Review demonstrations for waiver ­ ­ 3.00 ­ 3. 00 80.73 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Review demonstration for replacement unit exemption ­ ­ 3.00 ­ 3. 00 80.73 $­ $­ $ 7 21 $565 Enter information into data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $ 15 2 $25 Waste Piles (264.251) Review and evaluate demonstrations ­ ­ 5.00 ­ 5. 00 134.55 $­ $­ $ 5 25 $673 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0.10 0.10 1.64 $­ $­ $51$ 8 Land Treatment (264.272) Review demonstrations ­ ­ 5.00 ­ 5. 00 134.55 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Landfills (264. 301) Review demonstration for adequacy of leak detection ­ ­ 5.00 ­ 5. 00 134.55 $­ $­ $ 6 30 $807 Review and evaluate demonstrations for exemption ­ ­ 5.00 ­ 5. 00 134.55 $­ $­ $ 3 15 $404 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $ 9 1 $15 Incinerators (264.344) Review demonstrations ­ ­ 5.00 ­ 5. 00 134.55 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Subtotal Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 90 217 $5, 753 134 EXHIBIT 6 PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS ESTI MATED ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN AND COST CONTENTS OF THE PART B APPLICATION Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs 60.42 $ 38.35 $ 26.91 $ 16.36 $ Leg. Mgr. Tech. Cler. Respon. Labor Capital/ Respon. Total Total $60.42/ $38.35/ $26.91/ $16.36/ Hours/ Cost/ Startup O &M or Hours/ Cost/ Hour Hour Hour Hour Year Year Cost Cost Activities Year Year GENERAL INFORMATION (270.1) Review and approve petitions ­ 0. 50 3. 00 ­ 3.50 99.91 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 50 0. 50 8. 18 $­ $­ $00$ 0 PERMIT APPLICATION (270.10( j)) Review required data ­ ­ 3.00 ­ 3. 00 80.73 $­ $­ $ 23 69 $1,857 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 50 0. 50 8. 18 $­ $­ $ 23 12 $188 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (270.14( a)) Review and approve demonstrations ­ 0. 25 0. 75 ­ 1.00 29.77 $­ $­ $ 1 1 $30 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $10$ 2 GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS (270.14( b) (1)­( 14)) Review required information ­ ­ 40.00 ­ 40.00 1,076.40 $­ $­ $ 95 3, 800 $102,258 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 3. 00 3. 00 49.08 $­ $­ $ 95 285 $4,663 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE (270.14( b) (15)­( 16)) Review financial estimates and instruments 4.00 1.00 16.00 ­ 21.00 710.59 $­ $­ $ 95 1, 995 $67,506 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0.25 0.25 4.09 $­ $­ $ 95 24 $389 OTHER PART B REQUIREMENTS (270.14( b) (19),( 21)) Review topographical map ­ ­ 2.00 ­ 2. 00 53.82 $­ $­ $ 62 124 $3,337 Review approved land disposal extensions/ petitions ­ ­ 1.00 ­ 1. 00 26.91 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $ 62 6 $102 GROUND­ WATER PROTECTION (270.14( c) (1)­( 8)) Review ground­ water monitoring program information ­ ­ 40.00 ­ 40.00 1,076.40 $­ $­ $ 47 1, 880 $50,591 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS (270.14( d)) Review all required information ­ ­ 24.00 ­ 24.00 645.84 $­ $­ $ 22 528 $14,208 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0.50 0.50 8.18 $­ $­ $ 22 11 $180 Review information submitted for a RCRA Facility Assessment ­ ­ 4.00 0.50 4.50 115.82 $­ $­ $ 22 99 $2,548 Subtotal Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 665 8,834 $247,859 135 EXHIBIT 6 (CONTINUED) PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS ESTI MATED ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN AND COST CONTENTS OF THE PART B APPLICATION Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs 60.42 $ 38.35 $ 26.91 $ 16.36 $ Leg. Mgr. Tech. Cler. Respon. Labor Capital/ Respon. Total Total $60.42/ $38.35/ $26.91/ $16.36/ Hours/ Cost/ Startup O &M or Hours/ Cost/ Hour Hour Hour Hour Year Year Cost Cost Activities Year Year SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS (270.15 ­ .21, 270.23 ­ .25) Containers (270.15) Review the submitted data ­ ­ 6.00 ­ 6. 00 161.46 $­ $­ $ 58 348 $9,365 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $ 58 6 $95 Tank Systems (270.16) Review the submitted data ­ ­ 16.00 ­ 16.00 430.56 $­ $­ $ 51 816 $21,959 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $ 51 5 $84 Surface Impoundments (270.17) Review the submitted data ­ ­ 40.00 ­ 40.00 1,076.40 $­ $­ $ 21 840 $22,604 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $ 21 2 $34 Waste Piles (270.18) Review the submitted data ­ ­ 40.00 ­ 40.00 1,076.40 $­ $­ $ 4 160 $4,306 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0.10 0.10 1.64 $­ $­ $40$ 7 Incinerators (270.19) Review the submitted data ­ ­ 80.00 ­ 80.00 2,152.80 $­ $­ $ 7 560 $15,070 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $ 7 1 $11 Land Treatment (270.20) Review the submitted data ­ ­ 40.00 ­ 40.00 1,076.40 $­ $­ $ 6 240 $6,458 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $ 6 1 $10 Landfills (270. 21) Review the submitted data ­ ­ 40.00 ­ 40.00 1,076.40 $­ $­ $ 14 560 $15,070 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $ 14 1 $23 Miscellaneous Units (270.23) Review the submitted data ­ ­ 60.00 ­ 60.00 1,614.60 $­ $­ $ 15 900 $24,219 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0.10 0.10 1.64 $­ $­ $ 15 2 $25 Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (270.24 & .25) Review the submitted data ­ ­ 6.00 ­ 6. 00 161.46 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $00$ 0 Drip pads (270.26) Review the submitted data ­ ­ 6.00 ­ 6. 00 161.46 $­ $­ $ 8 48 $1,292 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $ 8 1 $13 SCHEDULES OF COMPLIANCE( 270.33) Review the submitted data ­ 0.25 1.00 ­ 1. 25 36.50 $­ $­ $ 3 4 $110 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $30$ 5 Subtotal Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 374 4,495 $120,760 136 EXHIBIT 7 PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS ESTIMATED ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN AND COST PERMIT MODIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL PERMITS Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs 60.42 $ 38.35 $ 26.91 $ 16.36 $ Leg. Mgr. Tech. Cler. Respon. Labor Capital/ Respon. Total Total $60.42/ $38.35/ $26.91/ $16.36/ Hours/ Cost/ Startup O & M or Hours/ Cost/ INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Hour Hour Hour Hour Year Year Cost Cost Activities Year Year PERMIT MODIFICATIONS (270.40 ­ .42) Transfer of Permits (270.40( b)) Review written agreements 1. 00 0. 50 1. 00 ­ 2.50 106.51 $­ $­ $ 10 25 $1,065 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $ ­ $ ­ $ 10 1 $16 Permit Modifications at the Request of the Agency (270.41) Review the modification 20.00 1.00 40.00 ­ 61.00 2,323.15 $­ $­ $ 4 244 $9,293 Review the proof of public notice ­ 0. 25 1. 00 ­ 1. 25 36.50 $ ­ $ ­ $ 4 5 $146 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $40$ 7 Permit Modifications at the Request of the Permittee (270.42( a)­( d)) Review the Class 1 modification ­ 0. 25 1. 00 ­ 1. 25 36.50 $ ­ $ ­ $ 138 173 $5,037 Review the Class 2 or Class 3 modification 20.00 1.00 40.00 ­ 61.00 2,323.15 $­ $­ $ 48 2, 928 $111,511 Review the proof of public notice ­ 0.25 1.00 ­ 1. 25 36.50 $­ $­ $ 186 233 $6,789 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $ ­ $ ­ $ 186 19 $305 Review information submitted in support of a request for a modification classification, and make a determination (270.42( d)) ­ 0. 25 1. 00 ­ 1.25 36.50 $­ $­ $ 186 233 $6,789 Temporary Authorizations (270.42( e)) Review temporary authorization requests ­ 1. 00 6. 00 ­ 7.00 199.81 $­ $­ $ 12 84 $2,398 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 10 0. 10 1. 64 $­ $­ $ 12 1 $20 CAMU Requirements Review information for designation of a CAMU ­ 0. 25 1. 00 0. 10 1. 35 38.13 $­ $­ $00$ 0 EXPIRATION AND CONTINUATION OF PERMITS (270.50 ­ 270.51) Review the permit application ­ 1. 00 20.00 ­ 21.00 576.55 $­ $­ $ 32 672 $18,450 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0.10 0.10 1.64 $­ $­ $ 32 3 $52 SPECIAL FORMS OF PERMITS (270.61 ­ .65) Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permits (270.62) Review request to extend the operational period ­ 0.50 1.00 0.25 1.75 50.18 $­ $­ $ 70 123 $3,513 Review required statements and certifications ­ ­ 9. 00 ­ 9. 00 242.19 $ ­ $ ­ $ 140 1, 260 $33,907 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0. 01 0. 01 0. 16 $­ $­ $ 140 1 $22 Permits for Land Treatment Demonstrations Using Field Test or Laboratory Analyses (270.63) Review certifications ­ ­ 9. 00 ­ 9. 00 ­ $ ­ $ ­ $ 40 360 $0 Review data collected ­ ­ 5.00 ­ 5. 00 ­ $­ $­ $ 40 200 $0 Enter information into a data base ­ ­ ­ 0.10 0.10 ­ $­ $­ $808$ 0 Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD& D) Permits Review application for a RD& D permit ­ 1. 00 50.00 ­ 51.00 ­ $­ $­ $ 3 153 $0 Issue or deny a permit ­ 0. 50 1. 00 0. 50 2. 00 ­ $­ $­ $36$ 0 INTERIM STATUS (270.70 ­ .73) Termination of Interim Status (270.73) Review certification that an interim status facility is in compliance with ground­ water monitoring and financial responsibility requirements ­ 0. 50 10.00 ­ 10.50 ­ $­ $­ $00$ 0 Subtotal Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 1,380 6,732 $199,320 137 EXHIBIT 8 PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN AND COST SUMMARY Exhibit Title Annual Activities Annual Burden Annual Labor Cost Annual Capital/ Startup Cost Annual O& M Cost Total Annual Cost Exhibit 5 Demonstrations and Exemptions from Requirements 90 217 $5,753 $0 $0 $5,753 Exhibit 6 Contents of the Part B Application 1, 039 13,329 $368,619 $0 $0 $368,619 Exhibit 7 Permit Modifications and Special Permits 1,380 6,732 $199,320 $0 $0 $199,320 Annual Total 2,509 20,278 $573,692 $0 $0 $573,692 3­ Year Total 7,527 60,834 $1,721,076 $0 $0 $1,721,076 6( f) Reasons For Change In Burden The overall annual burden associated with the Part B requirements, 177,543 hours, represents an increase of 52,516 hours over the previous version of this ICR. This difference is due to the higher number of units associated with affected facilities, based on the current version of the RCRIS data base. EPA would note, however, that specific unit data in RCRIS are currently undergoing a detailed data quality review (which is expected to be completed around the end of 1999) and that the current universe of units in RCRIS associated with individual facilities is too high. Nonetheless, EPA decided to use the specific unit numbers from the current version of RCRIS. In doing so, EPA has likely overstated the estimated burden of the paperwork requirements covered by this ICR. These revisions do not reflect any change in the Part B requirements; they represent instead a more accurate representation of the respondent universe and the burden and costs that respondents will incur as a result of this information collection. 6( g) Burden Statement The average annual burden per respondent is presented below in Exhibit 9. These estimates are broken down by the type of requirement with which each facility must comply. EXHIBIT 9 PART B PERMIT APPLICATION, PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS AVERAGE ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN (BY TYPE OF REQUIREMENT) Type of Requirement Annual Reporting Burden Annual Record Keeping Burden Total Annual Burden Releases from Regulated Units 0.61 1.00 1.62 Demonstrations and Exemptions from Requirements 9.05 0.62 9.67 Legal Review ­ 100. 00 100.00 General Information Permit Application 2. 42 0. 51 2. 93 General Requirements 0.07 0.02 0.09 General Facility Standards 347.25 9.00 356.25 Financial Assurance 17.03 2.32 19.35 Other Part B Requirements 11.50 0.50 12.00 Ground Water Protection 163.24 3.70 166.94 Solid Waste Management Units 10.54 0.27 10.81 Specific Part B Information Requirements 1,122.76 20. 94 1, 143.70 Schedules of Compliance 0.15 0.50 0.65 Permit Modifications 43.42 3.93 47.35 Expiration and Continuation of Permits 112.00 0.75 112.75 Special Forms of Permits 59.04 0.50 59.54 Interim Status 138 DEMONSTRATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS FROM REQUIREMENTS CONTENTS OF THE PART B APPLICATION PERMIT MODIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL PERMITS Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Office of Policy Regulatory Information Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M St., S. W., Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number and OMB control number in any correspondence.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.060513

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0076-0019

Rule

Exclusion from the Definition of Solid Waste; Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, Final Rule

52617 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2002 / Rules and Regulations one or more distinct provisions of the direct final rule, we would publish a timely notice in the Federal Register specifying which provisions will become effective and which provisions will be withdrawn due to adverse comment. We subsequently received from one commenter adverse comments on six of the amendments: § 63.1501( c), which deferred the compliance date for new and reconstructed affected sources which are located at existing aluminum die casting, foundry, or extrusion facilities; and § 63.1505( c),( d),( e),( f), and (k), which deferred the compliance date for thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/ delacquering kilns/ decoating kilns, sweat furnaces and secondary aluminum processing units from the date on which performance testing was completed until the compliance date specified in § 63.1501. In light of the relationship between the sections which were commented on and some of the remaining amendments, and to avoid the possibility of confusion resulting from partial adoption of the amendments, we have decided to withdraw all amendments contained in the direct final rule. Accordingly, all amendments in the direct final rule are withdrawn as of August 13, 2002. We recognize the potential disruptive effect of this withdrawal action on affected facilities. Therefore, after considering the adverse comments, we intend to take final action on the accompanying proposed rule as soon as possible. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 7, 2002. Robert Brenner, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. 02– 20448 Filed 8– 12– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 260 [FRL– 7257– 7] Exclusion from the Definition of Solid Waste; Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is today granting a variance from EPA's hazardous waste requirements for certain materials reclaimed by the World Resources Company (WRC) from metal­ bearing sludges. This action responds to a petition submitted by WRC requesting that the Agency exclude from the definition of solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) its concentrate material that is partially reclaimed from metalbearing sludges and sold to smelters. In response to the petition, EPA published a Federal Register notice proposing to grant the variance on December 9, 1999 (64 FR 68968). EFFECTIVE DATE: This variance is effective August 13, 2002. ADDRESSES: Supporting materials for this variance are available for viewing in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The Docket Identification Number is F– 2002– WRCF– FFFFF. The RIC is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review docket materials, we recommend making an appointment by calling (703) 603– 9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket without charge. Additional copies cost $0.15 per page. The docket index and some supporting materials are available electronically. For information on accessing them, see the beginning of the Supplementary Information section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the RCRA/ Superfund/ EPCRA/ UST Call Center at (800) 424– 9346 (toll free) or TDD (800) 553– 7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, D. C. metropolitan area, call (703) 412– 9810 or TDD (703) 412– 3323. For more detailed information on specific aspects of this rulemaking, contact Ms. Marilyn Goode, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, MC 5304W, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308– 8800, electronic mail: goode. marilyn@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The index to the docket record and some supporting documents for this proposal are available on the Internet. Follow these instructions to access the information electronically: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ id/ index/ htm. The official record for this action will be kept in paper form. The official record is the paper record maintained at the RCRA Information Center, also referred to as the Docket, at the address provided in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document. Table of Contents I. Background A. Authority B. Summary of Petition 1. Applicability of the Variance 2. Description of WRC's Partial Reclamation Process II. Summary of the Agency's Final Decision III. Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Variance IV. Final Variances V. Effect of Variance in Arizona VI. Administrative Requirements I. Background A. Authority Under 40 CFR 260.30( c), facilities may petition EPA to exclude from the definition of solid waste material that has been reclaimed but must be reclaimed further before recovery is complete. To qualify for the exclusion, the material resulting from initial reclamation must be commodity­ like (even though it is not yet a commercial product, and has to be reclaimed further). Petitioners must provide sufficient information to EPA to allow the Agency to make a determination that the material is not a solid waste, pursuant to criteria set forth at 40 CFR 260.31( c). B. Summary of Petition Pursuant to 40 CFR 260.30( c), WRC submitted to EPA a petition for a variance from classification as solid waste for metal­ rich concentrate material produced at its facility in Phoenix, Arizona. WRC produces the concentrate primarily from sludges generated by electroplating operations. The sludges are rich in metals, and are generally classifed as hazardous wastes. WRC then sells the partially reclaimed material to primary smelters for metals extraction. Currently, the partially reclaimed material produced at the Phoenix facility is fully regulated as hazardous waste, must be managed and sold as hazardous waste, and off­ site shipments must be accompanied by a hazardous waste manifest. In support of its variance application, WRC provided data and information in its application about each of the factors listed in 40 CFR 260.31( c). 1. Applicability of the Variance At its Phoenix facility, WRC principally reclaims wastewater treatment sludges (F006) received from generators who conduct electroplating and metal finishing operations. From VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 14: 34 Aug 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13AUR1 52618 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2002 / Rules and Regulations these sludges, WRC `` produces'' a metalrich concentrate material. In addition, the facility also receives and partly reclaims hazardous wastes listed as F019 (wastewater treatment sludges from chemical conversion coating of aluminum) and D004 through D011 (characteristic hazardous wastes). WRC's petition, and the proposed exclusion addressed in this notice, pertain only to the metal­ bearing sludges listed as hazardous wastes F006 and F019 and partially reclaimed at WRC's Phoenix, Arizona facility. Other hazardous wastes managed by WRC at its Arizona facility and all hazardous wastes managed at other WRC facilities are not addressed in this decision and must continue to be managed as solid and/ or hazardous wastes in accordance with all applicable RCRA regulatory requirements. The Agency notes that sludges that are hazardous only because they exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste that are reclaimed are currently excluded from classification as solid waste pursuant to 40 CFR 261.2( c)( 3). Therefore, sludges that are reclaimed by WRC and designated as hazardous wastes D004 through D011 are not solid wastes. In addition, if these characteristic sludges are mixed with the listed metal­ bearing sludges covered by the variance prior to or during the reclamation process at WRC's Phoenix facility, the mixture will not be classified as a solid waste provided the mixture is sent off­ site for further reclamation and is handled in accordance with all the conditions of this variance. 2. Description of WRC's Partial Reclamation Process Operations at WRC's Phoenix facility are governed by a Consent Agreement and Consent Order (CA/ CO) executed by EPA Region IX, WRC, and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, hereafter referred to as `` ADEQ'' (see In the Matter of World Resources Company, EPA I. D. No. AZD980735500, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, September 3, 1996). The CA/ CO includes a requirement to submit an application for a treatment and storage permit to ADEQ. At the Arizona facility, WRC accepts F006 raw material (as well as other metal­ bearing sludges) that it judges to be acceptable for recycling based on laboratory and process testing of generated sludges. WRC prepares a waste profile for the wastestreams received from each generator, which includes physical descriptions and constituent content. The material is unloaded, examined, and sampled on receiving pads in a processing enclosure. WRC dries the received waste through evaporative processes. The material is spread out in a controlled area, mechanically furrowed, and periodically rotor­ tilled to facilitate drying. The physical characteristics of the material changes from a wet cohesive nonfree­ flowing mass into a granular free­ flowing form. The moisture content of the F006 received is reduced by one­ half. The entire processing area is located on a concrete pad which covers several acres, with a compacted native soil and flexible membrane liner underneath the pad. The F006 is then blended by mechanical mixing with other waste streams received from various generators to achieve concentrates that meet the contractual specifications (e. g, recoverable metals contents) of its customers. Other than water, WRC neither adds any materials to, nor removes any materials from the F006 and F019 metal­ bearing sludges that it receives from generators and processes. The resulting concentrate contains metal hydroxides and oxides of iron, aluminum and magnesium. WRC markets the concentrates as copper, nickel, and tin concentrates to smelters that recover various metals contained in these concentrates. II. Summary of the Agency's Final Decision For the reasons described below in our response to public comments, the Agency is today conditionally granting the petitioner's (WRC's) request for a variance from classification as solid waste for the metal concentrate partially reclaimed from materials listed as hazardous waste F006 and F019 received at its Arizona facility, which are sold to metal smelters after being partially reclaimed by WRC. The variance is granted subject to conditions that are very similar to those proposed in the Federal Register on December 9, 1999 (64 FR 68968), namely: (1) Metal­ bearing sludges F006 and F019 accepted by the facility from offsite and used in the production of the partially reclaimed concentrate materials must have a metals concentration level of no less than two percent on a dry weight basis, or an equivalent economic value in precious metals (e. g., gold, silver, platinum, or palladium). In addition, the facility may only process two shipments of listed sludge materials that do not meet the two percent metals concentration level from a single generator within a 14­ day time period before taking action to ensure that subsequent shipments will meet the minimum metal content. Specifically, WRC may not accept more than one non­ conforming shipment from a generator, unless the second nonconforming shipment is received within 14 days following the first event. Thereafter, WRC may not accept additional materials from that generator until WRC determines that the generator's subsequent sludge shipments will meet the minimum metal content requirements of this condition. (2) WRC shall provide to ADEQ an annual audit, performed by an independent third party mutually acceptable to WRC and ADEQ, to be completed within the six months following the end of each calendar year. The scope of the annual audit will cover WRC's concentrate shipments during the year to certify that all shipments were: (1) Made to metal smelting facilities; (2) documented and shipped in accordance with all applicable U. S. Department of Transportation regulations; and (3) documented to have reached the designated destination. (3) The partially reclaimed concentrate materials must have a concentration of no greater than 590 ppm total cyanide. Cyanide must be analyzed using method 9010 or 9012 found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods'', EPA Publication SW– 846, as incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, with a sample size of 10 grams and a distillation time of one hour and 15 minutes. (4) WRC must send a one­ time notification of the variance and its conditions to any foreign country where metal smelters accepting WRC concentrate are located. In addition, WRC must include on its Material Safety Data Sheet shipped with the concentrate a notification that the concentrate may contain up to 590 ppm cyanide and that low pH environments can result in the production of hydrogen cyanide gas. (5) To ensure that its customers handle the processed concentrates as valuable commodities in a manner that minimizes loss, WRC must place a provision stipulating no land placement of the materials in its contractual agreements with smelting facilities. (6) This conditional variance from classification as solid waste for the metal concentrate reclaimed from listed hazardous wastes F006 and F019 at WRC's Phoenix, Arizona facility takes effect at the point at which the concentrate is loaded for shipment. This conditional variance does not affect the regulatory status of any other hazardous wastes handled by WRC at the Phoenix facility. In addition, the variance does VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 10: 24 Aug 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13AUR1 52619 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2002 / Rules and Regulations not apply to or affect the regulatory status of any wastes managed at any other WRC facility. III. Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Variance 40 CFR 260.30 provides that the EPA Administrator may grant a variance from the classification of solid waste, on a case­ by­ case basis, for materials that have been reclaimed but must be reclaimed further before recovery is completed. Such a variance generally is contingent upon the material resulting from the initial reclamation being `` commodity­ like. '' When this variance is effective, the concentrates partially reclaimed from metal­ bearing sludges F006 and F019 that are shipped to smelters may travel without a hazardous waste manifest and will not be subject to any RCRA controls other than the conditions of this variance (listed above in this notice). Incoming hazardous waste received by WRC at the Phoenix facility is not covered by the variance and must be manifested and managed as a hazardous waste until shipped to smelters for further reclamation. EPA's rules at 40 CFR 260.31( c) specifies five criteria for evaluating whether a specific material qualifies for a `` partially reclaimed material'' variance from the definition of solid waste. In addition, 40 CFR 260.31( c)( 6) also allows EPA to consider `` other relevant factors'' when determining whether or not to grant a requested variance for materials that have been partially reclaimed. The criteria of 40 CFR 260.31( c) do not constitute separate legal thresholds, each of which must be met before EPA can grant a variance under this regulatory provision. Instead, EPA must consider all the criteria in their totality to determine whether the partially reclaimed concentrate is `` commodity­ like''. A strong demonstration that several criteria have been met may outweigh the fact that an applicant is weak in another area. Weighing all of the factors together, EPA has concluded that WRC's processed concentrates are more commodity­ like than waste­ like, and that it is reasonable to grant the variance. This section sets out EPA's findings, describes the principal comments concerning these findings, and gives EPA's responses to these comments. All other comments, and the Agency's responses, may be found in the record for this rulemaking (see RCRA Docket Number F– 2002– WRCF– FFFFF). A. Degree of Processing The first evaluation criterion (40 CFR 260.31( c)( 1)) is the degree of processing a material has undergone and the degree of further processing that is required for the material to be rendered `` commodity­ like. '' Materials that have undergone substantial processing to reclaim valuable or recyclable materials (but still must undergo a degree of further processing) generally satisfy this criterion. Materials that are still substantially `` waste­ like'' and that need a significant degree of further processing or `` treatment'' to be rendered `` commodity­ like'' may not satisfy the evaluation criterion. One commenter stated that the greater part of the processing is accomplished at the smelter rather than at the WRC facility and that WRC therefore does not meet the criteria for the variance. EPA agrees that this processing is not technically complicated. As discussed below, however, WRC has a sophisticated quality control program which allows it to blend sludges to meet smelter specifications. In fact, WRC has made a very strong showing that its processing adds substantial economic value to electroplating sludges. It takes in a material that has little or no market value (electroplaters pay WRC to take their sludges) and converts it into a material that smelters will buy (see the discussion of economic value in the following section of this notice). WRC also made a strong showing that it meets the fourth criterion, relating to a guaranteed end market for its reclaimed material. Weighing all the factors together, EPA has concluded that the amount of processing performed by WRC is sufficient to meet this criterion. Another commenter said that evaporation and blending represent the most minimal form of waste handling and should not be interpreted to constitute significant value­ added processing. This commenter stated that any electroplater would be able to obtain a variance for hazardous waste that has been evaporated in a 90­ day or other exempt unit, and any smelter would be able to accept it. Another commenter speculated that other 90­ day generators would dewater other wastes and claim partially­ reclaimed variances. EPA does not agree that any electroplater would be able to obtain a variance to dry sludges in onsite units. Although WRC's mechanical methods for sludge drying and blending may be technically simple, the company has a sophisticated quality control program used to ensure that the sludge from each generator meets contract specifications, and that the partially reclaimed material has also been formulated to meet purchaser specifications. The process involves a chemical analysis laboratory program and computer software programs which yield over 200,000 test results yearly to provide needed operational information to control WRC's recycling activities. These specifications and analyses also played a role in EPA's decision that the sludges undergo meaningful processing at WRC. EPA would not be likely to grant variances to electroplaters or other waste generators who could not show similarly strong indicators that they engaged in significant processing to create `` commodities. '' One commenter stated that using the value of services to generators as a measure for determining the degree of processing of a waste material does not appear in any regulation and is not discussed in any of the Agency's correspondence or guidance on this subject. EPA did not consider the value of services that WRC provides to generators in its evaluation of this criterion. Although WRC urged EPA to take into account the amount of money it spends to process each ton of sludge, and although it is true that WRC does derive some of its profit from fees paid by generators, EPA's decision is based on the fact that WRC's activities make its concentrate marketable to smelters as discussed elsewhere in this notice (see section B below). B. Economic Value of Material That Has Been Reclaimed The second evaluation criterion (§ 260.31( c)( 2)) requires an evaluation of the economic value of the material that has been reclaimed, but must be further reclaimed. This criterion is also useful in determining whether a material is indeed `` commodity­ like. '' To satisfy this criterion, petitioners must demonstrate that the initial reclamation process increases or contributes to the value of the material and that there is a market for the reclaimed material. Petitioners generally can demonstrate that this factor is met by providing sales information, including quantities of the material sold, additional demand for the material (if any), and the price paid for the material by purchasers. In the proposal, EPA stated that the processed concentrate that WRC produces has positive economic value and is purchased by smelters. EPA based this conclusion primarily on sales data provided by WRC for January 1994– June 1995. EPA found that this data showed that WRC in fact sold its partially reclaimed material to smelters and received a positive economic value (taking into account average transportation costs). One commenter stated that WRC and EPA have mis­ characterized the `` economic value'' of the concentrate. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 10: 24 Aug 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13AUR1 52620 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2002 / Rules and Regulations This commenter asserted that the true economic value of metal­ bearing sludges is determined by the value of the metals in the material at a given time, not by how much is spent to process the material or how much the processor charges for the material. The commenter asserted that, on this basis, WRC's process adds no value, because the amount of the metals in the sludges does not change. EPA agrees that the presence of the valuable metals in metal­ bearing sludges is one factor to be used in determining whether WRC's partially reclaimed concentrate is commodity­ like. However, EPA does not agree that WRC must increase the amount of metal to add value to the materials that it processes. There are other ways to make these metal­ bearing materials more valuable. WRC's services in aggregating sludges into larger volumes which smelters are willing to accept and in custom­ blending sludges to meet specific smelter specifications add significant value. The fact that WRC is able to sell processed concentrates to smelters (while few electroplaters are able to persuade smelters to accept unprocessed sludges, and most who do have to pay smelters to accept their sludges), demonstrates that WRC's services add value. One commenter questioned whether WRC would be able to claim positive economic value if it analyzed sales data for sludges that were reclaimed for common metals only. This commenter argued that the economic value would not be as high if only common metals were sold, instead of precious metals. Another commenter said that information in the record indicated that WRC's concentrate contained substantially lower levels of recoverable metals than virgin concentrates. In response to these comments, Agency points out that the regulatory criteria for granting a variance under 40 CFR 260.30( c) do not require the Agency to distinguish between the common metals and precious metals contained in WRC's partially reclaimed concentrate, if in fact the concentrate contains both kinds of metals. The Agency also disagrees that recoverable levels for many metals are lower in WRC's concentrate than those found in virgin concentrate. If in some cases the levels of metals are lower, smelters are nevertheless willing to pay for the concentrates, demonstrating that they have positive economic value. The commenter also pointed out that a significant portion of WRC's revenue comes from fees it charges generators, as opposed to the revenue received for selling its concentrate to smelters. The commenter believed that this fact is indicative of sham recycling. If the commenter means that WRC's operation is a `` sham'', the issue is not relevant to this variance. The sham recycling criteria help EPA distinguish facilities that engage in recycling that is not subject to RCRA regulation from facilities that engage in waste treatment that is subject to RCRA. WRC is not claiming that its operation is exempt from RCRA; therefore, the sham recycling criteria do not apply. Similarly, the commenter may be suggesting that smelters using WRC concentrates are engaged in waste treatment rather than recycling. EPA does not believe that the fees generators pay to WRC are relevant to the legitimacy of the smelters' processes. The argument might have relevance if WRC paid smelters to take its concentrates; however, the record shows that WRC sells its concentrates to smelters. Finally, the commenter may be suggesting that WRC's process adds so little value to the sludges that no variance is warranted, so that WRC concentrates should continue to be regulated as hazardous wastes during transportation and during storage at smelters. EPA disagrees. Data provided by WRC show that, during 1996– 1999, WRC made more money from selling concentrates to smelters than from charging fees to generators. WRC received approximately $0.59 from generator fees for every $1.00 it received in metal sales (after adjusting generator fees to eliminate charges for optional transportation services). This commenter also stated that EPA should not have used `` average'' transportation costs in assessing whether WRC received positive economic value for its concentrate. This commenter suggested that the Agency should require recordkeeping and auditing of WRC's records to ensure that each shipment generates a return. The commenter further suggested that EPA should assess the transportation cost of a single trip for each load, any administrative activities by the smelter, and smelter processing costs. These costs should then be compared to similar costs for `` as­ generated'' sludges shipped directly to smelters. The commenter also stated that EPA should determine monetary value to smelters of reducing sludge moisture content and blending sludges to meet smelter specifications. In response to these comments, the Agency notes that it is not feasible to evaluate the profitability of each and every shipment made by WRC to smelters. Such profitability will depend on several factors, such as the concentration of metals in a particular shipment, the price of the metals at the time, and freight costs. We do not believe that the regulatory criteria at 40 CFR 260.31( c) require the Agency to examine all of these factors with respect to each shipment. For this reason, EPA instead assessed the average cost of transportation over the period covered by the variance application. We believe that such averaged costs are sufficient to help us assess the economic value of WRC's concentrate. EPA believes that the record shows that smelters value the reduction of moisture content and the blending of sludges. Smelters will pay more for WRC's concentrates, which have undergone these steps, than they will pay for sludges marketed by electroplaters which have not been dried and blended. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, EPA does not need to determine precise values for each of these activities to make a finding on this issue. One commenter also stated that EPA's assertion that smelters are reluctant to accept F006 sludges directly from generators is not supported in the rulemaking record, and that at least one smelter takes `` as­ generated'' sludges directly from electroplaters. In response, the Agency notes that we did not intend to imply that smelters refuse to take sludges directly from electroplaters. Rather, EPA meant that WRC's concentrates are more attractive to smelters than sludges shipped directly from electroplaters. EPA believes that the concentrates are more attractive for two reasons. First, WRC's shipments are much larger than typical shipments from electroplaters. For example, in 1995 the average amount of F006 generated from an individual electroplater was 120 tons (see Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Rule for a 180­ Day Accumulation Time for F006 Wastewater Treatment Sludges, USEPA, Office Of Solid Waste, January 14, 2000). During the same year, WRC processed over 16,000 tons of F006 and related wastes for metal recovery (see Hazardous Waste Recycling in the United States: Summary Statistics and Trends for 1993– 1997, USEPA, Office of Solid Waste, June 7, 2001, p. 18). Larger shipments reduce transaction costs for smelters, and smelters will penalize for smaller lots (see Pollution Prevention and Control Technology for Plating Operations, George C. Cushnie Jr., 1994). They also allow for economies of scale in shipping and handling costs. Second, smelter personnel contacted by EPA indicated that they believe that WRC more consistently meets VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 10: 24 Aug 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13AUR1 52621 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2002 / Rules and Regulations specifications for metal content and impurities (see personal communication between Paul Borst, USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Bob Sippel, VicePresident for Recycling, Noranda Minerals, Inc., July 22– 24, 1996). C. Degree to Which Reclaimed Material Resembles Analogous Raw Material The third evaluation criterion (40 CFR 260.31( c)( 3)) is the degree to which the reclaimed material is like an analogous raw material. The partially reclaimed material should be similar to an analogous raw material or feedstock for which the material may be substituted in a production or reclamation process. In addition, the partially reclaimed material should not contain significant concentrations of hazardous constituents not found in an analogous raw material and that do not contribute to the value of the partially reclaimed material when used for its intended purpose. As explained in the proposal, EPA conducted an analysis comparing levels of the inorganic constituents and cyanide in the processed concentrates that WRC sells with levels of constituents in virgin ore concentrates. EPA found that, with the exception of cyanide, the levels of constituents in WRC's concentrates are generally comparable to the levels of constituents found in concentrates made from virgin ores. Also, EPA considered data showing that toxic organic constituents are not likely to be prevalent or present in more than trace amounts in F006 being recycled (see EPA's Metal Finishing F006 Benchmark Study, September 1998, p. 23, and letter (with attachment) from D. Daniel Chandler of Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry and Hoven to Paul Borst, USEPA, June 2, 1993)). To make WRC's concentrate more commodity­ like, EPA decided to limit the levels of cyanide that could be allowed. The 590 ppm total cyanide limit that we proposed is the current Universal Treatment Standard (UTS) for land disposal at 40 CFR 268.48 for total cyanide in hazardous wastes that are land disposed. This limit currently applies to any WRC concentrate that is stored on the land before smelting. In response to requests for clarification from two commenters, we are today stating that the limit refers to total cyanide, and we are adding the test method specified in 40 CFR 268.48. Some commenters did not believe that the limit set for cyanide in WRC's concentrate should be 590 ppm. One commenter argued that EPA should limit cyanides to the amount present in analogous `` virgin'' sources of metals. Another argued that the cyanide limit should be risk­ based, and asserted that EPA's assessment of risks did not ensure protection of human health and the environment. This criterion is intended to help EPA distinguish materials that are waste­ like from materials that are commodity­ like. Where EPA finds a constituent at higher levels in the partially reclaimed, wastederived material, it does not have to conduct a risk assessment and impose a condition based on limiting risks to human health and the environment (as demonstrated through some type of risk assessment). Rather, EPA need only ensure that the constituent levels are commodity­ like. Limiting constituent levels in the partially reclaimed material to levels in analogous virgin raw materials, as one commenter suggested, is an acceptable way to accomplish this. It is not, however, the only way. In this case, the analogous raw materials appear to have extremely low levels of cyanide. EPA is concerned that WRC might not be able to reduce cyanide levels in electroplating sludges to this level. EPA, however, is confident that WRC can meet the land disposal restriction level for cyanide, which currently applies while WRC's concentrates are classified as hazardous wastes. As previously stated, WRC makes strong showings for the second and fourth criteria of the variance, causing EPA to conclude that its concentrates are commodity­ like. Under these circumstances, EPA finds the 590 ppm limit to be sufficient to ensure that WRC's concentrates are more commodity­ like than waste­ like. In spite of the fact that it was not legally required, EPA conducted a screening analysis to determine whether land storage of concentrates with cyanides at this level would pose ground water risks. The analysis suggested that cyanide concentration would not exceed the federal drinking water standard for cyanide at a downgradient drinking water well if cyanide underwent hydrolysis. The screening analyis did show some potential for risk if cyanide did not hydrolize. One commenter challenged EPA's assumption that hydrolysis was likely to occur. The Agency made this assumption because the scientific literature shows that cyanide is often amenable to that process, since it tends to break down or dissociate if it comes in contact with water (see Kollig P. Heinz et. al, Environmental Fate Constants for Organic Chemicals Under Consideration for EPA's Hazardous Waste Identification Projects, Office of Research and Development, USEPA). Moreover, the screening analysis is likely to overestimate risks for several reasons. EPA conducted the screening assuming 200 to 300 metric tons of electroplating sludge stored outdoors, even though such sludge is usually stored indoors, with reduced likelihood of releases to groundwater, and even though volumes of concentrate at a single smelter at any one time are likely to be smaller. In addition, information available to the Agency indicate that WRC's metal concentrate is unlikely to remain in storage at a smelter for a long period of time. First, the cost and efficiency of the smelting process itself are negatively affected by water content; therefore, any stored materials are used as soon as possible to avoid inadvertent moistening by rainfall. Second, under the purchasing agreement, the smelter must pay WRC by a specified time after the concentrate is received, often before the material is fully unloaded. This practice would lead the smelter to assume the risk of metal price changes if the material is not used promptly. Consequently, it is difficult to conclude that the concentrates would pose unacceptable ground water risk even if hydrolysis occurred slowly or did not occur at all. The Agency also notes that the other conditions of this variance will protect against air inhalation risks from cyanide. For example, a Material Safety Data Sheet must accompany the concentrate with a notification that the concentrate may contain up to 590 ppm cyanide and that low pH environments can result in the production of hydrogen cyanide gas. Moreover, Department of Transportation regulations for hazardous materials will continue to apply to WRC's processed concentrates even after the RCRA exemption takes effect. In addition, the Agency notes that WRC is not seeking a variance for its own operations. Hazardous waste regulations will continue to apply to processed concentrates held at WRC's facility. One commenter questioned the validity of EPA's assessment of groundwater risks for cyanide, noting that EPA decided not to propose an `` exit'' level for hazardous wastes containing cyanide in the proposed hazardous waste identification rule (HWIR) due to technical concerns with predicting the fate of cyanide in the environment. However, for this variance EPA did not need to conduct a risk assessment. Moreover, the technical difficulties are less important in a simple groundwater screening analysis than in the complex, multipathway analysis conducted for the HWIR rule. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 10: 24 Aug 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13AUR1 52622 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Another commenter suggested that EPA should set a toxic­ along­ for­ theride limit for the cyanide in incoming sludges to WRC's facility, so that WRC would not be able to dilute high incoming cyanide concentrations to achieve specified concentration levels in the outgoing concentrate. RCRA regulations do not prohibit dilution during reclamation. While dilution is impermissible in the LDR program to avoid a treatment standard (see 40 CFR 268.3 generally), dilution is permissible when done to facilitate treatment (i. e, adding cement to stabilize waste). The type of dilution that may occur at WRC in drying and blending is analogous to that which takes place to facilitate treatment, since drying and blending makes metal concentrates smelter­ ready and amenable for high temperature metal recovery. Whatever cyanide dilution takes place in WRC's blending process is incidental to the main purpose of the blending, which is to ensure that the concentrates contain sufficient metal content to assure high process efficiency and limit contaminant concentrations of tramp constituents that may interfere with the smelting process. One commenter thought the limit for total organic hazardous constituents, including cyanides, should be 500 ppm, apparently because other organic hazardous constituents may be present in sludges received by WRC and because this value is the cutoff point for determining whether a smelter is burning solely for metal recovery, and thus eligible for an exemption to the current permitting rules for boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs) (see CFR 266.100( c)( 2)( i)). Another commenter believed that even the 500 ppm limit was not sufficiently protective, because it could create health risks if burning were conducted improperly, and the limit was not intended for use in a delisting or a variance. EPA established a 500 ppm limit for total organic constituents in secondary materials burned at smelters to distinguish smelters engaged in metals recovery from smelters engaged in the treatment of hazardous organic constituents. The limit is not risk­ based. Moreover, as stated earlier, EPA is not required to ensure that the concentrate will pose low risks before granting the variance. However, EPA has also found that unprocessed electoplating sludges typically contain very low levels of organics (except cyanide) that are well below the cutoff point for smelter metals recovery (see EPA's Metal Finishing F006 Benchmark Study, September 1998, p. 23, and letter (with attachment) from D. Daniel Chandler of Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry and Hoven to Paul Borst, USEPA, June 2, 1993)). EPA is imposing a limit for cyanide. Two commenters stated that EPA should evaluate risks presented by all toxic constituents potentially present in the waste, just as it does when considering delisting requests. One of these commenters suggested that EPA should set a `` toxics­ along­ for­ the­ ride'' threshold level for each toxic constituent in each incoming load of sludge that WRC receives, and that any level set for toxic constituents, including cyanide, should be risk­ based rather than technology­ based. In response, EPA notes that we found no need for limits on any other constituents to demonstrate that the processed concentrates are commoditylike The relevant test is the degree to which the concentrate resembles analogous raw materials. To determine whether WRC's concentrate is similar to analogous raw materials, we compared its inorganic constituents to inorganic constituents found in primary copper and nickel concentrates. We concluded that cyanide was the sole hazardous constituent that was not present in the analogous raw material that did not contribute to the value of the WRC concentrate when sent for metals recovery. Moreover, with the exception of cyanide, the Agency concluded that the Appendix VIII metals typically contained in WRC's concentrate are similar to those found in virgin ore concentrates. In addition, we note that commercial contracts under which smelters purchase WRC's concentrate typically specify limits on several such metals (such as lead or chromium) to ensure that levels do not interfere with the extraction process. As noted above, we also found that organic constituents are not found in significant amounts in unprocessed electroplating sludges. Therefore, EPA does not need to set limits for other constituents, either to ensure that WRC's concentrates are commodity­ like or to ensure that WRC does not engage in sham recycling. Some commenters suggested that EPA should place limits on Appendix VIII metals in incoming sludges at the WRC facility, at least for those metals in high concentrations that are not recovered and have no `` ore equivalency'' levels, such as chromium, cadmium or zinc. One commenter argued that recoverable metals could also be toxics­ along­ forthe ride if the receiving smelter does not in fact recover all of them. The Agency does not believe that such a limitation is necessary to ensure that WRC's concentrates resemble virgin ores. We did not find metals that are not present in virgin ores. We note that there are Appendix VIII metals at high concentrations in the analogous primary copper and nickel concentrates which are not recovered. Arsenic levels in primary copper concentrates are often present in levels as high as 3000 ppm and are not recovered. D. Extent to Which End Market Is Guaranteed Under the fourth evaluation criterion (40 CFR 260.31( c)( 4)), petitioners must demonstrate that an end market for the partially reclaimed material is guaranteed. Petitioners must demonstrate that there is a secure demand and long­ term market for the partially reclaimed material and that the chance of large quantities of the material being stockpiled due to insufficient demand is unlikely. If a petitioner cannot demonstrate that the material enjoys a consistent level of demand, with reasonable expectations for the same or greater level of demand once a variance is granted, there may be risk of the material being stockpiled or stored for a significant period of time in containers or other storage units that do not have to meet RCRA Subtitle C storage standards. Such situations may pose significant risks to human health or the environment. In the proposal, EPA found that WRC demonstrated that it has multi­ year contracts for the sale of its processed concentrates with at least four smelters, and that these smelters have excess capacity exceeding WRC's production capabilities. The record also shows that the smelters have been customers for significant periods of time; contracts with one smelter extend back to the 1970's. Even the most recent customers have had contracts since the middle 1990's. At the same time, however, to help ensure that concentrates meet their end market, EPA proposed to require that WRC ship concentrates only to metal smelting facilities, that WRC comply with DOT regulations regarding shipments of hazardous materials, and that WRC document that all shipments reached their designated destination. To assist in ensuring compliance with these shipping conditions, EPA also proposed to require WRC to provide an annual audit to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). The annual audit, conducted by an independent third party, must certify that all shipments of WRC's partially reclaimed concentrate were made to metal smelting facilities, were documented and shipped in accordance with all applicable U. S. Department of Transportation regulations, and were documented to have reached the VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 10: 24 Aug 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13AUR1 52623 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2002 / Rules and Regulations designated destination. EPA is retaining these conditions for the final variance. One commenter thought that there was insufficient information in the proposal and in EPA's supporting analyses to fully evaluate the underlying economics of WRC's business. This commenter suggested that at a minimum (emphasis supplied in the original comments) EPA should conduct an analysis covering the entire 17 years of WRC's operations, reviewing all contracts over this time period, the primary and secondary metals market over the same period, and any other regulatory or enforcement actions EPA or authorized states have taken with respect to F006 and F019 recycling, including all prior interpretations of the legitimacy of F006 and F019 recycling activities. In particular, the commenter stated that EPA should analyze WRC's 17 year history to determine if there had ever been a period when metals prices were so low that the concentrate could not be sold. This commenter also felt that EPA's position was weakened by the fact that WRC has contracts with foreign smelters. Another commenter expressed similar concerns about fluctuations in metal prices, fearing bankruptcies, abandonments, and `` stockpiling'' when minerals become less valuable. In response, EPA notes that the considerable amount of data submitted by WRC and available to the Agency from other sources have provided an accurate view of the nature of F006 recycling in general and of WRC's operations in particular. This information has been sufficient to allow the Agency to evaluate whether WRC's concentrate meets the regulatory criteria of 40 CFR 260.31( c). The Agency also believes that the existence of past fluctuations in commodity prices should not be a decisive or even strong consideration in evaluating variance applications under 40 CFR 260.30( c), especially since price fluctuations for these materials tend to be the rule rather than the exception. In addition, as noted above, WRC has numerous multi­ year, long­ term contracts in place, indicating that WRC's processed sludges remain valuable to smelters over time, even with changes in the values of the metals they contain. Moreover, we note that the variance does not apply to materials held at WRC prior to shipment. Storage there must comply with Subtitle C requirements. These requirements adequately address threats posed by materials `` stockpiled'' at WRC. With regard to the risks that a smelter might accept a shipment, but stockpile it at the smelting facility during a `` down'' market, we note that these materials are blended to specific smelter specifications, and smelters pay to receive them (often before the materials are processed). It therefore seems more likely that smelters will use them rather than store them for extended periods of time. These considerations are true for both domestic and foreign smelters. The Agency notes that in the proposal, the introductory paragraph to the variance language included a reference to metal concentrate sold to `` smelters or other metal recovery facilities'', although the proposed numbered variance conditions referred only to `` smelters'' (see 64 FR 68968 at 68972). Today's final notice limits the variance to WRC's metal concentrate that is sold to smelters, since the available data submitted in support of the variance concerns sales to smelters rather than to other kinds of facilities. One commenter opposed the requirement for an independent annual audit as an unnecessary expense and believed a statement signed by WRC would suffice. Two commenters believed that the audit should contain additional requirements, such as recordkeeping and evaluations of the management of WRC's concentrate at smelters, and one commenter suggested an audit every four months during the first two years. Some commenters were concerned that an independent audit would replace the role of a regulatory agency inspection. In response to these comments, EPA notes that the conditions of all variances under 40 CFR 260.30 are site­ specific in nature. This audit was proposed as a mutual agreement between ADEQ and WRC to satisfy both parties' concerns about compliance with the terms of the variance. An independent annual audit ensures an objective review of the company's operations, and provides information on how the material is handled after partial reclamation. However, the fact that an audit is required as a condition of this variance does not mean that similar audits would be considered appropriate for all such variances. The Agency does not believe that the additional requirements for increased recordkeeping, evaluation at smelters, and more frequent review suggested by some commenters are necessary to help regulators determine whether WRC has complied with these variance conditions. EPA also notes that nothing in this variance would legally affect or preclude inspections or review of WRC's operations by the regulatory authority. The State or EPA Region can conduct the number of inspections and reviews it believes necessary to ascertain compliance with conditions of the variance, as well as compliance with other RCRA requirements applicable to the facility. E. Handling To Minimize Loss The fifth evaluation criterion (40 CFR 260.31( c)( 5)) concerns the extent to which the partially reclaimed material is handled to minimize loss. Petitioners must demonstrate that the material is handled as if it were a valuable commodity and in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. In the proposal, EPA stated that the value of the concentrates and the contracts between WRC and both generators and smelters provide incentives for WRC to manage both the unprocessed sludges and the processed concentrates to prevent loss. EPA also noted that the processed concentrates will remain subject to Subtitle C storage regulations while held at WRC prior to shipment, because the variance will not take effect until the concentrates are loaded for shipment. Even after the RCRA variance takes effect, the concentrates will remain subject to DOT regulations for hazardous substances during shipment to smelters. The smelters' payments for the concentrates show that the smelters value them and have incentives to manage them carefully. The custom blending for each shipment also makes it more likely that smelters will value the concentrates and handle them appropriately. EPA, however, also proposed to impose a condition that prohibits land placement of WRC's concentrates because land storage has a high potential for loss, and because EPA does not believe that analogous concentrates derived from virgin materials are stored on the land. EPA also proposed to ensure that smelters received notice of this limitation by requiring WRC to restate the condition in all contracts with smelters. In our proposal, EPA described this limit in its discussion of the third criterion, the extent to which constituents in the partially reclaimed material resemble constituents in the analogous raw material. EPA is clarifying here that we are imposing this condition to ensure that WRC's customers handle the exempt material in a manner that will minimize loss. One commenter claimed that WRC's assertions that smelters handle concentrates to minimize loss are not a sufficient basis for EPA to make a conclusion about smelters' operations. EPA, however, is not basing its finding on this criterion on these assertions. Rather, EPA has independently evaluated the factors that would influence smelters' handling of these VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 10: 24 Aug 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13AUR1 52624 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2002 / Rules and Regulations materials, and concluded that the smelter payments, WRC's custom blending activities, and the risks to the smelters from prolonged storage make it likely that smelters will minimize losses. Moreover, the Agency is imposing a condition which provides that concentrates stored on the land will not be excluded under the variance. One commenter suggested that contracts between WRC and smelters could not be directly enforced by WRC, and that the Agency should therefore condition the variance on enforcement agreements between the smelters and ADEQ. EPA does not agree that enforcement agreements of the type suggested by the commenter are necessary to prevent land storage at smelters. The variance clearly makes land storage a violation of the variance conditions. Concentrates stored on the land would not be excluded from the definition of solid waste, and EPA and the State could take enforcement action if the storage did not comply with all applicable Subtitle C requirements. This commenter also suggested that EPA should promulgate a rule establishing management conditions at all metal recyclers and smelters. However, such a rule would far exceed the scope of our variance proposal. F. Additional factors In addition to the five evaluation factors discussed above, EPA may consider other relevant factors in determining whether or not to grant a variance from the definition of solid waste for materials that have been reclaimed but must be reclaimed further before recovery is complete (40 CFR 260.31( c)( 6)). These other factors may be raised by the petitioner, the Agency, or other interested parties. Such factors may be directly applicable to EPA's decision to grant a variance, or may be indirectly applicable, but relevant in assigning priorities for evaluating a particular petition. 1. Minimum Metals Content for Incoming Sludges In the proposal, EPA considered the possibility that WRC could engage in `` sham recycling'' by blending electroplating sludges with low metal concentrations into sludges with higher concentrations, and marketing the blended `` product'' to smelters. EPA was concerned that WRC's processing would be a form of treatment for sludges which would ultimately be disposed of in smelter wastes, without contributing any significant metal content to smelter products. To ensure that WRC would be engaged in legitimate recycling, the Agency proposed to require each incoming sludge to have a minimum content of either two percent of copper, nickel or tin (on a dry weight basis), or a precious metal content with monetary value equivalent to the copper, nickel or tin value. One commenter stated that no nonconforming shipments should be allowed, since this would be contrary to EPA's policy at other hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs). In response, the Agency notes that our proposal to allow a certain number of non­ conforming shipments does not affect the status of the incoming material as a hazardous waste. Such shipments would still be subject to all applicable Subtitle C requirements, as is the case with all other TSDFs. We are allowing WRC to accept a minimum number of shipments below the normal minimum metal content which will still be eligible for the variance because, as a practical matter, some shipments from generators will (albeit very infrequently) contain less than the desired metal content, and there is a possibility that this may not be discovered until processing of the shipment has begun. Some commenters questioned the use of a two percent dry weight limit for copper, nickel, or tin. One commenter stated that EPA should provide a broader discussion of the data which it used to require that the minimum copper, nickel, or tin content of a sludge arriving at WRC must be two percent dry weight in order for the dewatered sludge to be equivalent in quality to virgin ore feedstocks. This commenter appeared to believe that the levels of both base and precious metals in the incoming sludges should be the same as the levels found in virgin ore feedstocks sent to smelters. For example, this commenter questioned why economic value was used to determine equivalency of precious metals with base metals in incoming sludges, rather than expected virgin ore quality with respect to precious metals. The commenter stated that the value of gold per unit weight is approximately 5,000 times that of copper (based on current market prices). Therefore, the current economic equivalent of two percent copper (about 20,000 ppm) would be about 4 ppm gold, or about 0.09 troy ounce per ton. The commenter expressed doubt that ores containing such a low concentration of gold would be mined and smelted commercially. The commenter appeared to be suggesting that the required threshold level of precious metals in the incoming sludges be the same as the levels of such metals that smelters will accept in virgin ores. Two commenters stated that concentrate shipped by WRC to smelters can contain a significant moisture content (up to 50%). Therefore, according to these commenters, if the metal concentration in the incoming sludges were two percent on a dry weight basis, the actual concentration as shipped to the smelter would be below two percent. If feedstock equivalency required a copper concentration of at least 2.5 percent, the dry weight concentration in the sludge that WRC received would need to be at least four percent copper. In response to this comment, EPA notes that we did not intend to require incoming sludges at the WRC facility to be equivalent to virgin ore feedstocks with respect to metal content. The purpose of this proposed requirement was to establish a minimum metal threshold below which little recovery of metals would occur. After reviewing available literature and discussing this issue with smelter representatives, the Agency concluded that the two percent limit appears to be a `` smelter cutoff, '' meaning the lowest concentration of metal that a given smelter will allow through the gate on a dry weight basis (see memorandum from Paul Borst titled `` Analysis of Minimum Metal Content of Secondary Feedstocks Destined for Primary Smelting Operations in North America, '' May 7, 1999). The minimum metal content ensures that at least one smelter in North America would be able to receive and process all incoming sludges to the WRC facility. This condition on the variance ensures that secondary materials which have little or no recoverable metal may not be blended in with metal­ bearing secondary materials with higher metal content. The condition therefore prevents surrogate treatment and disposal of the secondary materials with little or no recoverable metal content. It is not necessary to require WRC's concentrates to contain as much metal as virgin ore concentrates. Similarly, with respect to the reduction of moisture content, even if significant moisture reduction of the incoming sludges occurs, WRC is still responsible for meeting the minimum metal content on a dry weight basis required under contract specifications for particular smelters. In addition, we note that moisture reduction tends to concentrate metals levels, rather than dilute them, as the commenter implied. It is therefore unnecessary to require higher metals levels in the incoming sludges to account for moisture reduction. Similarly, EPA is not aware of any smelters that refuse to give credit for precious metals in secondary materials VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 14: 34 Aug 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13AUR1 52625 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2002 / Rules and Regulations when their concentrations are lower than those considered acceptable for virgin ores, so long as the monetary values are equivalent. The Agency believes that it is reasonable to base minimum metal levels in the incoming sludges on smelter acceptance and pricing policies. Another commenter said that EPA's choice of a two percent minimum metal content level for incoming sludges or an equivalent value in precious metals to assure the `` legitimacy'' of WRC's operation is based on faulty and incomplete analysis. This commenter suggested that the required minimum metal content should account for transportation and storage costs incurred by smelters receiving WRC concentrate, as well as WRC's processing costs. The commenter also stated that the highest rather than the lowest smelter cutoff should be used in determining legitimate recovery of metals from incoming material to WRC. EPA does not agree that the highest smelter cutoff (i. e., the most stringent metal limit required by any smelter) is an appropriate number for the incoming limit on metals in the sludges. If other smelters are purchasing materials with lower metal concentrations and reclaiming metals from these materials, there appears no reason to conclude that this is not legitimate reclamation. Nor does the Agency agree that transportation and storage costs should affect which level of metals allows legitimate recycling to occur. Two commenters questioned how WRC would segregate its incoming loads into: (1) Sludges containing the required minimum levels of recoverable metals, and (2) sludges with lower levels of metals. EPA notes that the conditions of the variance do not absolutely prohibit WRC from receiving sludges with lower metal concentrations than those specified in the variance. However, listed sludges used in producing the concentrate that is eligible for the variance must conform to the minimum metals limit (except for two non­ conforming loads). Sludges not used for this purpose need not contain minimum levels of metals. The Agency does not believe it is necessary to specify in the variance a particular method for segregating the two types of sludges. EPA notes that many facilities manage different wastestreams, some of which are regulated under RCRA and some of which are excluded. For purposes of retaining the regulatory exclusion, it often may be important to segregate wastestreams. However, EPA does not specify in its regulations a particular procedure for conducting such segregation. Another commenter feared that waste streams containing recyclable levels of one metal could be diluted down to non­ recyclable levels when mixed with waste streams containing other metals. This commenter proposed an additional condition for the WRC variance that would be implemented according to the following example. The company receives a sludge that has three percent copper and five percent nickel, so that the sludge is above the two percent minimum metal threshold for both metals. Hypothetically, the company makes a business decision to blend this sludge with other nickel­ bearing sludges and ship the blended mixture to a nickel smelter for reclamation. The commenter is concerned that the copper in the original incoming shipment has been diluted below two percent and is nonrecoverable at the nickel smelter. The commenter believes that this procedure would constitute sham recycling. The condition that the commenter proposed would require that a nickel/ copper bearing sludge be only blended with other nickel/ copper­ bearing sludges and that the blend only be destined to a smelter or other recycling facility where both metals are recovered. EPA does not agree that recovering nickel values would constitute sham recycling merely because the copper in the sludge could be diluted and possibly not recovered. WRC's processing would make the concentrate marketable by increasing the nickel value. Without WRC's drying, blending, and consolidating operations, the electroplating sludge most likely would not go to a smelter for recovery for either copper or nickel. So long as WRC increased the concentration for one metal, EPA does not think the fact that it diluted a second metal shows that recycling is not legitimate. Moreover, EPA believes that many virgin ores contain multiple metals that smelters do not extract. 2. Exports and Imports One commenter noted that changing the regulatory status of the partially reclaimed material removes RCRA import and export requirements, thus taking away a safeguard designed to put foreign governments on notice that these materials are hazardous. This commenter suggested that if EPA grants the variance, it should continue to require compliance with these requirements. The same commenter was concerned that because WRC's facility is one of the top ten receivers of hazardous waste from Mexico, the granting of the variance may increase the flow of waste across the border, increasing the transportation risks inherent in long distance transport. The commenter believed that the variance could inadvertently discourage the development of much­ needed hazardous waste disposal and recycling facilities in Mexico by creating an incentive for shipping exempted waste from Mexico into the U. S. Finally, the commenter stated that EPA should evaluate whether waste shipments from Mexico are compatible with Mexican and other applicable international or bilateral agreements concerning these wastes. The Agency believes that the conditions of this variance are adequate to provide notice to foreign governments. The variance contains a requirement that WRC must send a onetime notification of the variance and its conditions to any country where metal smelters accepting WRC concentrates are located. WRC is also required to submit a Material Safety Data Sheet shipped with the concentrate and a notification that the concentrate may contain up to 590 ppm cyanide and that low pH environments can result in the production of hydrogen cyanide gas. EPA believes that this is sufficient notice to inform foreign governments of the nature of WRC's concentrate, and of the Agency's decision to exclude WRC's concentrate from the definition of solid waste. In addition, the Agency believes that the RCRA notification and consent requirements for imports and exports of hazardous waste are not necessary for materials that have been determined to resemble commodities more than wastes. We note that these requirements do not apply to any materials that are excluded from the definition of solid waste. With respect to imports from Mexico, EPA believes that the commenter's concerns are speculative. The commenter gives no data or detailed theory to back up its concern that shipments from Mexico will increase or that Mexico will fail to develop needed waste management capacity. The status under RCRA of shipments of F006 imported from Mexico will not be affected by this variance. In addition, even though the Agency believes that RCRA export requirements should not apply to commodity­ like materials, we note that this variance does not automatically affect the status of WRC's concentrate under foreign jurisdictions. If the concentrate is classified as a hazardous waste in a foreign jurisdiction, it would retain that status unless the appropriate regulatory authority in that jurisdiction decided to change the classification. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 14: 34 Aug 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13AUR1 52626 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2002 / Rules and Regulations IV. Final Variance The Agency is today conditionally granting the petitioner's (WRC's) request for a variance from classification as solid waste for the metal concentrate partially reclaimed from materials listed as hazardous waste F006 and F019 received at its Arizona facility, which are sold to metal smelters after being partially reclaimed by WRC. The variance is granted subject to the following conditions: (1) Metal­ bearing sludges F006 and F019 accepted by the facility from offsite and used in the production of the partially reclaimed concentrate materials must have a metals concentration level of no less than two percent on a dry weight basis, or an equivalent economic value in precious metals (e. g., gold, silver, platinum, or palladium). In addition, the facility may only process two shipments of listed sludge materials that do not meet the two percent metals concentration level from a single generator within a 14­ day time period before taking action to ensure that subsequent shipments will meet the minimum metal content. Specifically, WRC may not accept more than one non­ conforming shipment from a generator, unless the second nonconforming shipment is received within 14 days following the first event. Thereafter, WRC may not accept additional materials from that generator until WRC determines that the generator's subsequent sludge shipments will meet the minimum metal content requirements of this condition. (2) WRC shall provide to ADEQ an annual audit, performed by an independent third party mutually acceptable to WRC and ADEQ, to be completed within the six months following the end of each calendar year. The scope of the annual audit will cover WRC's concentrate shipments during the year to certify that all shipments were: (1) Made to metal smelting facilities; (2) documented and shipped in accordance with all applicable U. S. Department of Transportation regulations; and (3) documented to have reached the designated destination. (3) The partially reclaimed concentrate materials must have a cyanide concentration of no greater than 590 ppm and may not be placed on the land at metal smelting facilities. Cyanide must be analyzed using method 9010 or 9012 found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods'', EPA Publication SW– 846, as incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, with a sample size of 10 grams and a distillation time of one hour and five minutes. (4) WRC must send a one­ time notification of the variance and its conditions to any foreign country where metal smelters accepting WRC concentrate are located. In addition, WRC must include on its Material Safety Data Sheet shipped with the concentrate a notification that the concentrate may contain up to 590 ppm cyanide and that low pH environments can result in the production of hydrogen cyanide gas. (5) To ensure that its customers handle the processed concentrates as valuable commodities in a manner that minimizes loss, WRC must place a provision stipulating no land placement of the materials in its contractual agreements with smelting facilities. (6) This conditional variance from classification as solid waste for the metal concentrate reclaimed from listed hazardous wastes F006 and F019 at WRC's Phoenix, Arizona facility takes effect at the point at which the concentrate is loaded for shipment. This conditional variance does not affect the regulatory status of any other hazardous wastes handled by WRC at the Phoenix facility. In addition, the variance does not apply to or affect the regulatory status of any wastes managed at any other WRC facility. V. Effect of Variance in Arizona EPA notes that Arizona is authorized to administer and enforce the RCRA hazardous waste program pursuant to section 3006 of RCRA. Generally, when EPA grants a variance under 40 CFR 260.30, the variance would be automatically effective only in unauthorized States. However, there are two circumstances that make this variance effective in the State of Arizona. First, WRC, EPA Region IX and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) executed a Consent Agreement and Consent Order (CA/ CO) that finalized regulatory requirements for the WRC recycling facility at Phoenix. Under the CA/ CO, if EPA makes a favorable decision regarding WRC's petition for a variance, Arizona is obligated to `` honor and give legal effect to the variance determination within the State of Arizona. '' Second, Arizona's regulations at A. A. C. R18– 8– 260( J)( Supp. 98– 2) (which incorporates and modifies 40 CFR 260.30 entitled `` Variances from classification as a solid waste'') provides that `` any person wishing to submit a variance petition shall submit the petition, under this subsection, to EPA. Where the Administrator of EPA has granted a variance from classification as a solid waste under 40 CFR 260.30, 260.31, and 260.33, the Director shall accept the determination, provided the Director determines that the action is consistent with the policies and purposes of the HWMA'' (the Hazardous Waste Management Act underlying Arizona's authorized status). Since the Director has made such a determination, no further action will be necessary before the variance takes effect under state law upon promulgation by EPA. VI. Administrative Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a rule of general applicability and therefore is not a `` regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Because this action is a rule of particular applicability relating to a facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202, 204 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104– 4). Because the rule will affect only one facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in section 203 of UMRA, or communities of tribal governments, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). For the same reason, this rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12( c) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U. S. C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule, for purposes of 5 U. S. C. 804( 3). Dated: August 6, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. [FR Doc. 02– 20352 Filed 8– 12– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 10: 24 Aug 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13AUR1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.089733

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0076-0027

Supporting & Related Material

MEMORANDUM TO: 3848.241 file FROM: Craig Simons, DPRA DATE: November 1, 1999 SUBJ: Record of communication with Sun­ Glo Plating (Don). (727­ 546­ 8974) I called to ask about the minimum charge assumptions they experienced in handling F006– talking first with Andrew Pozin, who put me in touch with their environmental manager (Don). According to the 1995 BRS they generate about 15 tons per year of F006. While they used to recycle they do not do so currently– it is just not economical (hence they landfill the material). Back when they did recycle they paid a minimum fee– he said that our assumption of $1,350 would be about what they were paying. But basically they have quit because it is not economical. He felt that a change in the allowed accumulation time to 180/ 270 days would make the recycling more economical, making it much more practical to recycle. He noted the 90 day rule was very restricting to them. He did note that there were not any recyclers in Florida, which further hampered the ability to recycle economically, though a relaxation of the 90 waste accumulation time would be helpful.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.102667

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0076-0028

Supporting & Related Material

MEMORANDUM TO: 3848.241 file FROM: Craig Simons, DPRA DATE: October 29, 1999 SUBJ: Record of communication with Laurie Shields, American Nickeloid. (815­ 223­ 0373) I called to ask about the minimum charge assumptions they experienced in handling F006. According to the 1995 BRS they generate about 21 tons per year. They recycle at least part to Encycle. She noted they have reduced the amount generated substantially. Bottom line is they have the recycler pick up the material, and it costs $145 per tote (a cubic yard container). Encycle apparently has a milk run to pick up. She noted that they have some other material which is classified as D007 but face quite different charges for it. Basically to recycle it they pay what she termed as a full truck load price of $1000 (hence our assumptions regarding a$ 1350 minimum charge may not be far off).

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.104574

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0076-0029

Supporting & Related Material

MEMORANDUM TO: 3848.141 file FROM: Craig Simons, DPRA DATE: September 8, 1999 SUBJ: Record of communication with Larry Lecompte, Cyprus Miami (520­ 473­ 7080) I called regarding some of our assumptions in the F006 analysis. He was familiar with the proposed rule to extend the accumulation time for F006. I asked about the reality of our assumption regarding the minimum charge per load of $1350 (noting the basis for the cost). He explained the way they do it. They analyze the quality of shipments of each customer on a monthly basis to determine the expected quality of the material being received. They would then charge for that analytical cost, which might be $100 to $300. In addition they might have a handling charge for a minimum load– but they do not do it this way anymore. He noted that it was inefficient to have a very small partial load out in the line with the major loads of materials– takes too long, uses up too much space. Consequently they pretty much stick to full loads from preprocessors (not the word he used). Maybe 5­ 6 years ago they dealt directly with generators, but not really anymore. It was originally the intent to deal directly with generators, to reduce costs– but that has not really worked because of the frequently small shipments. Perhaps with the extension of the accumulation time, they would have more opportunity to deal directly with generators. I noted that we used an assumption that a representative recycling cost was in the range of $200 to $400 per ton– and asked if this seemed reasonable. He said perhaps years ago when they dealt with generators, but now dealing with the preprocessors their price would be in the range of $125 to $150 per ton. At first he noted this was a wet or dry price– and then, I thought said that most of the material they get is wet– although even at 55% moisture it is more like a solid. I asked if he had any feel for how much of the F006 goes directly to smelters– he noted there may be half of the material going directly (but I suspect he was speaking broader than F006, here). He noted that as far as he knew there were only 2 smelters taking F006– them and Noranda. He noted that the recycling material they get is a very small component of their total feedstock– perhaps 1%. And depending on how EPA addresses various issues, it can be a significant hassle.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.106424

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0076-0030

Supporting & Related Material

MEMORANDUM TO: 3848.241 file FROM: Craig Simons, DPRA DATE: November 1, 1999 SUBJ: Record of communication with Dan Jarvis, Eritech. (910­ 944­ 3355) I called to ask about the minimum charge assumptions they experienced in handling F006. According to the 1995 BRS they generate about 49 tons per year. They recycle at least part to World Resources. They have the recycler pick up the material, and consequently do not face any minimum charges. He said they are charged $300 per super sack. Their matierial contains large amounts of iron, about 20% copper and nickel. The recycler has several customers in the area, but he felt it would be a substantial cost savings if the material could be pickup in larger amounts. He noted that they frequently got only partial loads on their pickups in the area, increasing costs. However this he felt was incorporated into their charges. I told him some other generators indicated lower charges– about $150 per sack. He surmised that situation was the result of more valuable metals in the F006 than is typical with theirs.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.108560

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0076-0031

Supporting & Related Material

Facsimile Transmission from DPRA Incorporated 1300 N. 17 th St. Suite 950 FAX: (703) 524­ 9415 Rosslyn, VA 22209 Voice: (703) 522­ 3772 Date: July 10, 2002 Number of Pages: 3 (including cover page) To: Name: Andrew Neulander Company/ Agency: Finishing Co. FAX Number: 847­ 455­ 2627 Verification number: 2626 From: Name: Craig Simons DPRA Project/ Proposal No: Message: I have a contract with the EPA to assess the potential impacts associated with the EPA's proposed initiative to extend the accumulation period for F006 to 180 days (270 days in some instances) in order to increase the recycling of F006. Attached is the first page of the work order (which unfortunately is practically illegible because it has been faxed too many times). Our EPA client is Paul Borst at 703­ 308­ 0481. We did an initial analysis to estimate the potential cost savings to generators associated with this rule change, and are doing some followup work to confirm some of our initial assumptions. Foremost, we assumed that generators were typically required to pay minimum charges for recycling small quantities of F006. Explicitly, our assumption was that there was a minimum charge of $1350 levied by the recycler (pre­ processor or smelter). We have since found at least some cases where this is not true, but are trying to get a better assessment of what is actually happening. Secondly we were checking on our assumption that the charges for recycling generally ranged from $200 to $400 per ton depending on metal content (at least for larger quantities where the minimum charge was not an issue. I appreciate any help you can give me on this and will call you back.. Craig Simons

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.110461

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0076-0032

Supporting & Related Material

Record of Communications: 1. Paul A. Borst, U. S. E. P. A., Office of Solid Waste, (703) 308­ 0481, Date of Record, July 22, July 24, 1996, Contact: Bob Sippel, Vice­ President for Recycling, Noranda Minerals Inc., Toronto, Canada, (416) 982­ 7472. On Monday, July 22, Mr. Borst called Mr. Sippel in Canada regarding minimum copper content required in secondary materials received at Noranda's Horne copper smelter. Mr. Borst placed this call in conjunction with evaluation of a petition by World Resources Corporation before EPA to exclude electroplating sludge from the definition of solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Mr. Borst reminded Mr. Sippel of a prior conversation in which Mr. Sippel had indicated that secondary copper­ bearing materials received at Horne had to have a minimum of five to ten percent copper content (or equivalent precious metal value) on a dry weight basis to be received. Mr. Sippel confirmed that this was the correct range but wanted to confirm this with his plant manager at Horne. On Wednesday, July 24, Mr. Sippel contacted Mr. Borst in Virginia and clarified that in order to be acceptable to Noranda, a secondary material would have to have either a five percent minimum copper content on a dry weight basis, equivalent precious metal value or other processing value such as significant flux content. Mr. Borst questioned Mr. Sippel on the presence of silica in electroplating sludge and whether or not lime would be an appropriate fluxing agent at Horne. Mr. Sippel replied that silica was the typical fluxing material and that Noranda would not purchase lime (calcium hydroxide) as a flux. Mr. Borst and Mr. Sippel concluded the conversation by discussing the value of services provided to Noranda by World Resources Corporation. Mr. Sippel indicated that WRC created an infrastructure for electroplating sludge recycling that would be difficult to replicate if electroplaters sent their sludge directly to Noranda. 2. Paul A. Borst, U. S. E. P. A., Office of Solid Waste, (703) 308­ 0481, Date of Record, July 23, 1996, Contact: Andy Mollison, Manager of the Custom Feed Department, Falconbridge, Sudbury, Ontario, (705) 699­ 3915. Mr. Mollison returned Mr. Borst's call to Mike Humphries of Falconbridge, a Canadian nickel smelter. Mr. Mollison, Falconbridge's Manager of Custom Feeds, indicated to Mr. Borst that Falconbridge operated in Ontario under a certificate of approval issued by the Province that requires processing of significant metal values. Mr. Mollison said that in order for Falconbridge to receive a secondary material, it had to have a minimum of two to three percent nickel content on a dry weight basis. Mr. Mollison offered that this amount would cover the smelter's processing costs, but that generator would have to offer substantially higher levels of nickel, five to 10 percent, before the generator could expect to paid any cash.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.112555

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0076-0033

Supporting & Related Material

MEMORANDUM TO: 3848.241 file FROM: Craig Simons, DPRA DATE: November 1, 1999 SUBJ: Record of communication with Dearborn Brass (I did not get a name). (903­ 877­ 3468) I called to ask about the minimum charge assumptions they experienced in handling F006. According to the 1995 BRS they generate about 20 tons per year. They recycle at least part to World Resources (the 1995 BRS indicated that they went to Alpha Omega). They have the recycler pick up the material, and consequently do not face any minimum charges. He was somewhat hesitant to talk so I did not ask how much they had to pay. He did indicate that they got pickups several times per quarter– not sure why– possibly multiple waste streams. He did note that when they were taking the material to Alpha Omega they paid a transport charge (his terminology) of $400. He noted that Alpha Omega was only about 20­ 25 miles away.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.115425

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0076-0034

Supporting & Related Material

MEMORANDUM TO: 3848.141 file FROM: Craig Simons, DPRA DATE: September 10, 1999 SUBJ: Record of communication with Jerry Oldenwelder, Horseheads. (610­ 826­ 2111) I called regarding some of our assumptions in the F006 analysis. He was somewhat abrupt– not making for a long conversation. Not unfriendly, but... Regarding our assumptions on minimum loads, he said they did not deal with small loads. The material they get is primarily from preprocessors– and they do deal in supersacks– only bulk. Consequently he really could not address our assumption regarding the minimum load costs. (On the other hand when I asked him about recycling charges, he said they were very competitive with landfills– and since our minimum charge assumption is based on landfill charges, it may not be inappropriate– my conclusion, not his.) I noted that we assumed a charge for recycling of about $200 to $400 per ton. He said this was too high– they were more in line with landfill charges. They do not, however pay for metal values. He thought a charge of $100 to $200 per ton may be more in line.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.117901

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0076-0035

Supporting & Related Material

MEMORANDUM TO: 3848.141 file FROM: Craig Simons, DPRA DATE: September 9, 1999 SUBJ: Record of communication with Con Walker, Inco Ltd. (416­ 361­ 7801) I called regarding some of our assumptions in the F006 analysis and left a message. Con returned my call and was very willing to talk. I asked about the reality of our assumption regarding the minimum charge per load of $1350 (noting the basis for the cost). In short this is not the way they operate– but they generally have full loads and do not do very much recycling. The flash furnace they have at Coppercliff is very finicky and does not take variable feedstocks. The roaster at the Thompson facility is more amenable but they are operating at capacity with virgin materials. They do have a corporate philosophy to accept the nickel waste, but tend to work more with the reprocessors (he named World Resources and CA IBR). In taking shipments from these operations they have specs and tonnage specified and do not have a charge (I do not believe it is an issue– they get full loads, primarily). They are the second largest nickel operation– second only to Russia (he may have been speaking about Canada rather than their operations??). He said their own corporate image is a nickel mining smelting refining and marketing company. He noted that back a few years they dealt with a Michigan generator– American Bumper– and fished around for the old contract. In the contract it specified that they would pay American Bumper based on 90% of the assay value of the nickel and copper (they base contracts on the assumption that they only recover 90% of the targeted metals– in fact it is well higher that 90%, and this volume of metal is valued based on monthly average LME prices). They would charge American Bumper $130 per dry ton for smelting, and $1/ lb for refining the accountable (90% of assay) nickel and $0.22/ lb for refining copper. I did not get info on the typical nickel and copper content of the F006. (In short he thought our assumption of $200 to $400 per ton for recycling was accurate– but he did not realize that our estimates were net of the assay metal value. In other words it appears that our assumptions of the metal recycling cost– at least according to Inco, are too high). In their contracts they also have penalties for higher than expected "problem" metals– such as cadmium– chromium– selenium– lead.. At their Coppercliff facility they use less than 1% custom feedstock (recycled material). At Thompson they use slightly more. He noted that at Falconbridge– a subsidiary, they use about 10% custom feedstock, and an even higher percentage at Noranda. He noted that because of some of their operational quirks, they cause problems for individual generators. For instance in cold weather the flash furnace is even less tolerant of the custom feedstocks– and in these periods they could not accept F006 from American Bumper. He noted that they do not stockpile feedstock materials. He did think that the longer waste accumulation period would be a benefit and would actually increase recycling.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.120457

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0076-0036

Supporting & Related Material

MEMORANDUM TO: 3848.241 file FROM: Craig Simons, DPRA DATE: November 1, 1999 SUBJ: Record of communication with Progressive Circuits, Sacramento (Ed). (916­ 924­ 3532) I called to ask about the minimum charge assumptions they experienced in handling F006. According to the 1995 BRS they generate about 26 tons per year of F006– I was told that that has increased– they generate about a tote per week (a tote being a super sack). They do still recycle– the F) 006 has a significant copper. It goes to 21 st Century in NV. The material is picked up by 21 st Century– they basically ship every other moth. He said they pay a $75 charge for transport and about $275 per ton for recycling. He did not think landfilling was allowed. If the rule changed, they would undoubtedly reduce their costs, partly by using a different storage system (roll off bins instead of the super sacks). Basically the totes use up a lot of room and they have to ship before getting a full load. With an extension of the accumulation period, they would probably go to a roll off bin.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.124178

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0076-0037

Supporting & Related Material

MEMORANDUM TO: 3848.141 file FROM: Craig Simons, DPRA DATE: September 16, 1999 (9/ 29 followup) SUBJ: Record of communication with Bob Sippel, Noranda. (416­ 982­ 7472) I called regarding some of our assumptions in the F006 analysis and left a message. Bob returned my call and was very willing to talk. I asked about the reality of our assumption regarding the minimum charge per load of $1350 (noting the basis for the cost). He indicated it was quite logical and it is apparently what they do at Noranda. He said he would do some checking and will get back to me with their terms for minimum load sizes and charges. He did indicate that the $1350 per load minimum charge seemed a bit low. I also asked about the charges for recycling. He thought our assumption of $200 to $400 per ton was about right, but we needed to take into account the payments to the generator/ processor for the metal value. He was also going to get me some data on this. 9/ 29/ 99– finally got in touch with Bob again after playing phone tag etc. He said describing what would be the general terms for recycling F006 would be like describing the price of a car was–" it all depends..." In general, for run of the mill F006, they have a charge of $200 per ton, or a minimum charge of $2000 per lot. He noted a typical full load would be 20 tons (I assume metric, but did not get a clarification). All charges are on a delivered basis, and based on wet tons. For F006 with recoverable amounts of precious metals charges would be considerably higher, due to special handling. He noted that for the typical F006 they get, metal values might range from $500 to $700 per ton, which would be paid (on some basis) to the generator. (He implied that the terms would not specify paying the full value of the metal to the generator. I assume based on talks with others they would pay based on an assay value which might represent 90% of the total value of the metal.)

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.126968

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0076-0038

Supporting & Related Material

WORKGROUP REPORT: F006 BENCHMARKING STUDY September 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................... 3 I. BACKGROUND ...................................................... 8 A. What is the Common Sense Initiative? ................................ 8 B. The Metal Finishing Industry and Electroplating Wastewater Treatment Sludges ............................................................ 10 C. F006 Sludge Generation and Management ............................ 10 D. Basis for Listing F006­ Electroplating Wastewater Treatment Sludges as a RCRA Hazardous Waste in 1980 ......................................... 12 E. Reasons this Study was Conducted .................................. 16 F. Worker Health and Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 II. NATIONAL F006 BENCHMARKING STUDY APPROACH .................. 20 A. Overview ..................................................... 20 B. Methodology .................................................. 20 1. Regional Benchmarking Study ................................... 21 2. National Benchmarking Study ................................... 23 3. Statistical Analysis of the Regional and National Benchmarking Data ..... 23 4. Survey of Commercial Recyclers ................................. 24 5. Survey of Community Environmental Groups ....................... 24 III. RESULTS OF THE F006 BENCHMARKING STUDY ....................... 24 A. Summaries of Regional and National Benchmarking F006 Waste Characterization Data ......................................................... 24 1. Benchmarking Summary Tables .................................. 24 2. Statistical Analysis: Does this Data Come from "Typical" Metal Finishers? ....................................................... 24 3. Results of Commercial Recyclers and Citizen Group Surveys ............ 25 B. Detailed Results of the Regional and National Benchmarking Studies ........... 29 1. The Milwaukee Benchmarking Study .............................. 29 2. Chicago Benchmarking Study ................................... 47 3. Phoenix Benchmarking Study ................................... 64 4. Detailed Results of the National Benchmarking Study ................. 79 Appendix A: Summary of the 10 Issue Areas Identified for the Metal Finishing Sector ........... 99 Appendix B: F006 Management Contained in EPA's 1995 Biennial Report Database ........... 101 Appendix C: Observed F006 Handling Practices at Metal Finishing Facilities and List of Worker Health and Safety Regulations ................................................ 105 September 1998 2 F006 Benchmarking Study Appendix D: Checklist Used to Identify Pollution Prevention Technologies at Metal Finishing Facilities ................................................................. 114 Appendix E: Laboratory Analysis Information: Constituents, Methods, and Detection Limits Used in the Benchmarking Studies ............................................. 117 Appendix F: Regional Benchmarking Survey ......................................... 125 Appendix G: National Benchmarking Survey ......................................... 132 Appendix H: National Benchmarking Commercial Recyclers Survey ........................ 140 Appendix I: Responses to Citizen Group Phone Survey ................................. 143 Appendix J: Statistical "Representativeness" of the National Benchmarking Study ............. 146 Borst, Paul A. U. S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste. Recycling of Wastewater Treatment Sludges from 1 Electroplating Operations, F006. 1997. September 1998 3 F006 Benchmarking Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents current information about the metal finishing industry in the U. S., and is the result of a two year effort of the Metal Finishing workgroup of the Common Sense Initiative (CSI). The CSI was begun by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1994 to explore "cleaner, cheaper, and smarter" environmental strategies beyond those required by regulation. Using the special authorities of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), EPA brought together representatives from federal, state, and local governments, industry, community­ based and national environmental interest groups, environmental justice groups and organized labor to explore opportunities for managing environmental issues in new ways. Six industry sectors were chosen for the initial CSI efforts, including petroleum refining, automobile manufacturing, iron and steel production, electronics, printing and metal finishing. Overview of the Metal Finishing Industry and Hazardous Waste Management. Metal finishing refers to processes which deposit or "plate" a thin layer of metal and/ or apply an additional organic topcoat as an outer coating on products received from other manufacturing operations. Metal finishing is performed for either functional or decorative purposes and affects many products we use everyday. For example, hard chrome plating is a functional plating process that increases the hardness and durability of engine parts. Chrome plating automobile bumpers is an example of a decorative plating process. EPA estimated that there were approximately 13,400 metal finishing establishments in the United States. Of the total, approximately 10,000 metal finishing facilities are estimated to be "captive" shops contained inside a larger manufacturing operation. The balance of 3,400 metal finishing facilities are "job shops" or "independent" metal finishing operations that operate on a job­ specific contract basis. The total number of plating shops has decreased significantly since 1 the 1970's, mainly as a result of increasing regulations and competition. As in many manufacturing processes, some portion of the materials used in production or in the product itself are not totally captured as salable product, and exit the process in wastewater, solid waste, airborne emissions, scrap metal, or off­ spec products. Prior to 1980, there were no federal regulations covering the discharge or disposal of wastes from metal finishing operations, and the wastes, which contained metals as well as other substances, were often directly discharged to surface waters or disposed of in landfills or lagoons. In 1980, EPA issued the Nation's first hazardous waste management regulations, which "listed" sludges from electroplating wastewater treatment as a hazardous waste (F006), and set standards for the storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of these sludges. EPA simultaneously developed regulations that require metal finishers to significantly reduce or eliminate pollutants in wastewaters discharged to publically owned wastewater treatment systems Borst, Paul A. U. S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste. Recycling of Wastewater Treatment Sludges from 2 Electroplating Operations, F006. 1997. September 1998 4 F006 Benchmarking Study (final "pretreatment regulations were issued in 1986). As a result of the strengthening of the federal regulations, the metal finishing industry implemented many improvements in material use, production processes and waste management methods. Metals contained in F006 have commercial value if they are present in sufficient concentrations and if other analytes in the sludge are below levels which would interfere with the metal recovery process. There may be other materials contained in the sludge which do not interfere with metals recovery, but which could be hazardous if improperly managed. The economics of hazardous waste management is a strong determinant of whether metal finishers send sludges for land disposal or to recycling facilities. Estimates of the amounts of sludge that are recycled or land disposed vary widely. One source estimates that between 10 and 20 percent is recycled and between 80 and 90 percent is treated and land disposed. 2 Why was this study conducted? The CSI Metal Finishing Subcommittee focused on the metal finishing industry's belief that process improvements made by many metal finishers during the past 20 years have significantly changed the composition of the F006 material that was listed and regulated in 1980, and it is the industry's belief that modification of EPA's hazardous waste regulations for F006 could increase the metal finishing industry's ability to recover and recycle more commercially valuable metals from F006 than they currently recover, and simultaneously decrease the amount of metal finishing wastes disposed of in regulated landfills. In order to evaluate the current status of the industry, the Subcommittee formed a workgroup to complete a characterization of F006 and to report on the results as the foundation for any further discussions regarding potential modifications to F006 regulations. This report simply presents the data collected during the F006 Benchmarking Study as a foundation for further evaluation of F006. The CSI Workgroup did not attempt to analyze the data to determine the extent to which the characteristics of F006 have changed based on industry pollution prevention practices or other factors. In Phase 2 of this effort, the Workgroup will analyze the information presented in this report, and examine whether potential modifications of the current regulations applicable to F006 should be considered by EPA. Worker Health and Safety As part of the benchmarking study, the workgroup collected information on F006 handling practices, identified the potential hazards to workers, and described possible hazard control September 1998 5 F006 Benchmarking Study methods. In addition, the workgroup developed a list of the current worker health and safety regulations and policies that may apply to on­ site and off­ site management of F006. This information is presented in Appendix C of this report. Beyond this information, the workgroup did not attempt to complete a comprehensive review of worker health and safety issues associated with F006 management. As indicated above, in Phase II of this effort the workgroup will examine whether possible modifications of the current regulations for F006 should be considered based on the information in this study. As part of this effort, the workgroup will consider potential worker health and safety issues when examining possible regulatory changes for F006. The F006 Benchmarking Study Approach The workgroup focused on three analytical questions to guide its work on characterizing current practices in the metal finishing industry, and the composition and management of F006: 1) What are the characteristics of F006? 2) What can metal finishers do to make F006 more recyclable, while optimizing pollution prevention? What pollution prevention practices are in place at metal finishing facilities? 3) What are the environmental impacts of F006 recycling? While not an initial focus in this effort, the workgroup also examined worker health and safety impacts in this study. To answer these questions, the workgroup designed a five part "benchmarking study" to gather current information on the metal finishing industry. This approach carefully balances the need to gather detailed information from a diverse industry with funding and schedule limitations. The workgroup believes the study approach and the data presented in this report provide a very useful characterization of a cross section of "typical" metal finishing facilities and a strong sense for the environmental awareness of many metal finishing companies. The workgroup also recognizes that there are facilities in the metal finishing industry which do not fit within the range of activities and practices characterized in this report, and that discussion of the data presented in this report should take that into account. The workgroup also discussed the possibility that, despite the usefulness of the data gathered in the Benchmarking study, additional data might be needed if subsequent discussions of policy options and/ or regulatory options analysis warranted more data. The study components summarized below, which are discussed in detail in the report, include: A Regional Benchmarking Study that involved site visits to 29 metal finishing shops in three cities to gather detailed data on plating processes, pollution prevention practices, F006 chemical analysis and F006 handling and management practices; September 1998 6 F006 Benchmarking Study A National Benchmarking Study that used a mail survey to gather less detailed data on metal finishing operations, pollution prevention practices, F006 characteristics and management practices from a broad range of metal finishers; An Analysis of Statistical Representation to determine the extent to which the companies participating in the regional and national benchmarking studies represent the universe of metal finishers. A Commercial Recycling Company Mail Survey to gather data on the amount and chemical composition of F006 accepted for recycling by commercial recycling companies, and A Community Interest Group Phone Survey to assess whether community groups in the vicinity of commercial recycling companies believe those companies are good environmental and economic neighbors. Results of the National F006 Benchmarking Study The results of the five components of the study are presented in the main body of the report. The results of the Regional and National Benchmarking Studies are presented in summary form and in detail. The data describe the range of production, pollution prevention and waste management practices employed by the facilities studied and the present information about the quantity and composition of F006 wastes produced. For example, the minimum, mean, median, and maximum values of F006 laboratory analyses are provided in a format that allows the reader to compare regional and national data. Detailed data for each of the 29 facilities that participated in the Regional study, and detailed results from the National study are also presented. The workgroup's statistical analysis examined the extent to which the data gathered in the Regional and National Benchmarking studies represents the metal finishing universe, keeping in mind that the Regional and National Benchmarking studies were designed to give the workgroup descriptive data for facilities which operate the most commonly used metal finishing processes. The Benchmarking study was not designed to capture data on the full range of metal finishing operations. In short, the statistical analysis that was completed indicates that the Benchmarking Study results can not be assumed to statistically represent the entire metal finishing universe. This result does not diminish the value of the Benchmarking study data. The Benchmarking Study does provide substantial additional data characterizing the F006 wastestream and provides a sound starting point for further discussion. The workgroup was not able to obtain enough data to complete the commercial recycling study, therefore no results are presented. Results of the community group survey, which was designed to accompany the results of the commercial recycling survey, are summarized even though the commercial recycling study was not completed. The Appendices of this report contain further details supporting various aspects of the study. September 1998 7 F006 Benchmarking Study Project participants: The following people participated in this project: John Linstedt (Artistic Plating, Inc.), Diane Cameron (Natural Resources Defense Council), Bill Sonntag, Al Collins, and participating members of the American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society, National Association of Metal Finshers, and the Metal Finishing Suppliers Association, Andy Comai (United Auto Workers), Tom Wallin (Illinois EPA), Doreen Sterling (US EPA), Mike Flynn (US EPA), Jim Lounsbury (US EPA), Jeff Hannapel (US EPA) John Lingelbach (facilitator, Decisions and Agreements, LLC) and, the SAIC Contractor Support Team. September 1998 8 F006 Benchmarking Study I. BACKGROUND A. What is the Common Sense Initiative? In 1994, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Carol Browner, launched the Common Sense Initiative (CSI), describing it as a "fundamentally different system" to explore industry­ specific strategies for environmental protection. The program is designed to promote "cleaner, cheaper, and smarter" environmental performance, using a non­ adversarial, stakeholder consensus process to test innovative ideas and approaches. Six industry sectors were selected to participate in CSI: Petroleum Refining, Auto Manufacturing, Iron and Steel, Metal Finishing, Printing, and Computers and Electronics. In January of 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chartered the Metal Finishing Sector Subcommittee of the Common Sense Initiative under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Metal Finishing Subcommittee includes representatives of EPA Headquarters and Regional offices, the metal finishing industry and its suppliers, state government, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), national and regional environmental organizations, the environmental justice community, and organized labor. The CSI Metal Finishing Sector was challenged by Administrator Carol Browner to develop a consensus package of "cleaner, cheaper, and smarter" policy actions for the industry as a whole, based on the lessons learned from the Sector's projects and dialogue. Based on this challenge the Subcommittee established a workgroup to develop a strategic policy and program framework for the industry. The Metal Finishing Strategic Goals Program, designed by this multi­ stakeholder group, establishes a set of voluntary National Performance Goals for the industry that represent "better than compliance" environmental performance for metal finishers. The Metal Finishing Goals Program, summarized in Table 1, includes facility­ based numerical performance targets which track the CSI themes of cleaner, cheaper, and smarter performance. The goals program also includes a detailed Action Plan that addresses nine important issue areas (listed in Appendix A) for the metal finishing industry. By implementing the Action Plan, stakeholders provide incentives, create tools, and remove barriers for metal finishers to achieve the National Performance goals. Today's report presents the results of the first phase of the Waste Minimization and Recovery issue area. The Waste Minimization and Recovery Issue examines the metal finishing industry's belief that process improvements made by many metal finishers during the past 20 years have significantly changed the nature of the industry's wastewater treatment sludges, which are regulated as a hazardous waste known as F006 under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The metal finishing industry also believes that modification of EPA's hazardous waste regulations for F006 could increase the metal finishing industry's ability to recover more commercially valuable metals (contained in F006) than they currently recover, and simultaneously decrease the amount of metal finishing wastes disposed of in regulated landfills. September 1998 9 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 1: National Metal Finishing Performance Goals (By Year 2002) (1) Improved Resource Utilization (" Smarter") (a) 98% of metals ultimately utilized on product. (b) 50% reduction in water purchased/ used (from 1992 levels). (c) 25% reduction in facility­ wide energy use (from 1992 levels) (2) Reduction in Hazardous Emissions and Exposures (i. e.," Cleaner") (a) 90% reduction in organic TRI emissions and 50% reduction in metals emissions to air and water (from 1992 levels). (b) 50% reduction in land disposal of hazardous sludge and a reduction in sludge generation (from 1992 levels). (c) Reduction in human exposure to toxic materials in the facility and the surrounding community, clearly demonstrated by action selected and taken by the facility. Such actions may include, for example, pollution prevention, use of state­ of the­ art emission controls and protective equipment, use of best recognized industrial hygiene practices, worker training in environmental hazards, or participation in the Local Emergency Planning Committees. (3) Increased Economic Payback and Decreased Costs (" Cheaper") (a) Long­ term economic benefit to facilities achieving Goals 1 and 2. . (b) 50% reduction in costs of unnecessary permitting, reporting, monitoring, and related activities (from 1992 levels), to be implemented through burden reduction programs to the extent that such efforts do not adversely impact environmental outcomes. (4) Industry­ Wide Achievement of Facility Goals. (a) 80% of facilities nationwide achieve Goals 1 ­ 3. (5) Industry­ Wide Compliance with Environmental Performance Requirements. (a) All operating facilities achieve compliance with Federal, State, and local environmental performance requirements. (b) All metal finishers wishing to cease operations have access to a government sponsored "exit strategy" for environmentally responsible site transition. (c) All enforcement activities involving metal fishing facilities are conducted in a consistent manner to achieve a level playing field, with a primary focus on those facilities that knowingly disregard environmental requirements. Note: At facilities where outstanding performance levels were reached prior to 1992, the percentage­ reduction targets for Goals 1 (b) and (c), and 2 (a) and (b) may not be fully achievable, or the effort to achieve them may not be the best use of available resources. In these instances, a target should be adjusted as necessary to make it both meaningful and achievable. The group formed to address this issue is the Metal Finishing F006 Benchmarking Workgroup, comprised of representatives from the metal finishing, the recycling industry, environmental interests, organized labor, local government and the EPA. The workgroup has completed a two year effort to gather new information on the generation, characteristics and USEPA, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRY: Promoting 3 Environmental Protection in the Industrial Sector, Phase 1 Report. June 1994. Borst, Paul A. U. S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste. Recycling of Wastewater Treatment Sludges from 4 Electroplating Operations, F006. 1997. Kirk­ Othmer. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (4th ed.), 199­­ 888, v. 9 5 USEPA, Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste F006 Listing Background Document, p. 107. 6 September 1998 10 F006 Benchmarking Study management of electroplating wastewater treatment sludges (F006). The workgroup's approach and results are described in detail in the remainder of this report. B. The Metal Finishing Industry and Electroplating Wastewater Treatment Sludges EPA estimated that there were approximately 13,400 metal finishing establishments in the United States. Of the total, approximately 10,000 metal finishing facilities are estimated to be 3 "captive" shops where the metal finishing operation is contained inside a larger manufacturing operation. The balance of 3,400 metal finishing facilities are "job shops" or "independent" metal finishing operations. Job shops are usually small businesses that operate on a job­ specific contract basis. The total number of plating shops has decreased since the 1970's, mainly as a result of 4 increasing regulatory burden and competition. One source estimates that the number of metal finishers decreased to as low as 7,200 in 1992. 5 Metal finishing refers to processes which deposit or "plate" a thin layer of metal and/ or an additional organic topcoat as an outer coating on products received from other manufacturing operations. Metal finishing is performed for either functional or decorative purposes and affects many products we use everyday. A large percentage of all metal or metalized products require surface finishing before the product is ready for final use. Some examples of functional uses include: hard chrome plating to increase hardness and durability in engine parts; zinc plating to increase the corrosion resistance of fasteners; tin and silver plating electrical contacts in electrical distribution switches for electrical enhancement and corrosion resistance; and gold plating in high quality communications applications. Chrome plating automobile bumpers is an example of a decorative plating process. 6 Metal plating involves a sequence of steps, including metal surface preparation and cleaning, metal deposition, rinsing, and wastewater treatment. The electroplating step involves immersing an object into a solution of metal ions and applying an external reductive source. Control of the electrical current, solution temperature, pH, and solution chemistry determines the thickness of the deposit. Other forms of metal finishing and plating are used by some shops, e. g., electroless plating, however, they are not the focus of this study. Table 2, below, lists frequently used metals and their applications. C. F006 Sludge Generation and Management September 1998 11 F006 Benchmarking Study As in many manufacturing processes, some portion of the materials used in production or in the product itself are not totally captured as salable product, and exit the process in wastewater, solid waste, airborne emissions, scrap metal, or off­ spec products. Captive shops, which repeat the same plating operations over time, use a relatively homogeneous mix of Table 2. Frequently Used Metals and Their Applications Property/ Function Principal Plating Metals Decorative Chromium, copper, nickel, brass, bronze, gold, silver, platinum, zinc Corrosion resistance Nickel, chromium, electroless nickel, zinc, cadmium, copper, copper alloys, silver, tin, gold Wear, lubricity, hardness Chromium, electroless nickel, bronze, nickel, cadmium, silver, tin, metal composites Bearings Copper, bronze, silver, silver alloys, lead­ tin Joining, soldering, brazing, electrical Nickel, electroless nickel, electroless copper, copper, cadmium, gold, contact resistance, conductivity silver, lead­ tin, tin, cobalt Barrier coatings, anti­ diffusion, heat­ Nickel, cobalt, iron, copper, bronze, tin­ nickel, palladium treatment Electromagnetic shielding Copper, electroless copper, nickel, electroless nickel, zinc Paint/ lacquer base, rubber bonding Zinc, tin, chromium, brass Electroforming manufacturing Copper, nickel Electronics manufacturing Electroless copper, copper, electroless nickel, nickel, gold, palladium Dimensional buildup, salvage of worn parts Chromium, nickel, electroless nickel, iron, silver Source: Electroplating Engineering Handbook, 1996. chemicals and, consequently, generate a relatively contant mix of wastes. Job shops are more likely to change processes to meet the demand of a range of customers, which changes the mix of materials used to plate products and the mix and concentration of wastes generated. This difference in operations drives differences in the wastes generated by these shops. F006 sludge is formed by adding precipitation chemicals in electroplating wastewater treatment systems. The precipitation chemicals are used to remove toxic metals and other hazardous constituents from the wastewater, a large portion of which settle to the bottom as sludge. The sludge (F006) is a very wet metal hydroxide mixture that is removed from the treatment tank and usually "dewatered" in large presses, leaving a wet mud that is generally 25 percent solids by weight. Sludges are sometimes dried to further reduce moisture content and weight. The sludge is stored in containers, such as, "super sacks," or larger "roll off boxes," and is sent by truck or rail to RCRA permitted treatment and disposal facilities, or to hazardous waste Borst, Paul A. U. S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste. Recycling of Wastewater Treatment Sludges from 7 Electroplating Operations, F006. 1997. op. cit. 8 Prior to land disposal, F006 must be treated to meet the treatment standards specified in EPA's Land 9 Disposal Restrictions regulations, 40 CFR Part 268, to immobilize toxic constituents, mainly metals. Stabilization is one technology that may be utilized, however, other technologies may be used. The Biennial Reporting System is not designed to provide "treatment train" (e. g., stabilization followed by 10 landfilling) information. Therefore, in an effort to avoid double counting, these quantities were calculated from facilities reporting F006 management as either recycling or landfilling. In other words, the majority of the wastes go through some interim management steps (e. g., stabilization, blending) not accounted for in these calculations. It would be virtually impossible to account for the final management of sludge going through offsite treatment prior to final disposition. In this case, only about 25% of the volume generated is accounted for. September 1998 12 F006 Benchmarking Study permitted recycling facilities, which recover economically valuable metals from the sludge and land dispose the remaining material. The metals contained in F006 have commercial value if they are present in sufficient concentrations and if other analytes in the sludge are below levels which would interfere with the metal recovery process. There may be other materials contained in the sludge which do not interfere with metals recovery, but which could be hazardous if improperly managed. Recycling facilities generally blend F006 shipments from several generators to meet recycling specifications for a particular target metal in the sludge. Secondary smelting, which is the most frequently used recovery technology, "melts" a target metal (e. g., copper) from mixtures of F006, scrap copper, and other copper containing secondary materials. Often multiple metals are captured. Smelting wastes are generally land disposed. Estimates of the amounts of sludge that are recycled or land disposed vary widely. One source estimates that between 10 and 20 percent is recycled and between 80 and 90 percent of F006 is treated and disposed of through stabilization and placement in RCRA hazardous waste landfills. In 1993, the National Association of Metal Finishers estimated that approximately 15 to 7 20 percent of F006 is recycled for metal recovery. EPA's Biennial Reporting System (BRS) 8 indicates that 824 metal finishers which are large quantity (more than 1,000 kg/ month) generators of hazardous waste) recycled 282,000 tons of F006 in 1995, and 283 large quantity metal finishing generators treated and disposed of 99,000 tons of F006 in RCRA regulated landfills per 9 year. The results contained in today's report are inconclusive and do not narrow the wide variation in recycling estimates. These figures are explained in more detail in Appendix B. 10 D. Basis for Listing F006­ Electroplating Wastewater Treatment Sludges as a RCRA Hazardous Waste in 1980 In the early 1970's, the U. S. enacted legislation to reduce discharges of pollutants to U. S. waters. In subsequent years, EPA, States and local governments developed wastewater pretreatment regulations which require industry, including metal finishers, to significantly reduce or eliminate pollutants from their wastewater before sending their wastewater to publicly owned A solid waste may be classified as a hazardous wastes if: 1) it exhibits a characteristic for ignitability, 11 corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C), or 2) if, classified as a listed waste (40 CFR Subpart D). September 1998 13 F006 Benchmarking Study sewer treatment systems (40 CFR Part 413). Final Federal standards were promulgated July, 1986 (at 40 CFR §§ 413 and 433). Solid waste legislation in 1976, i. e., RCRA, required EPA to designate categories of industrial waste which are "hazardous," and to issue regulations which ensure safe generation, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of these wastes. Metal finishers were among the first industries to be regulated under the hazardous waste regulations in 1980. EPA "listed" the wastewater treatment sludges from certain electroplating operations as a hazardous waste (hazardous waste code F006) under Subtitle C of RCRA in 1980 based on a 11 variety of factors (45 F. R. 74884, November 12, 1980). Key to this decision were typically high levels of cadmium, nickel, hexavalent chromium and complexed cyanides in the sludge that could pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the environment if improperly managed. The Extraction Procedure Toxicity Characteristic (or EP) test used at that time (at 43 FR 58956­ 58957); and the ASTM distilled water leaching test, showed that these metals leached out of the sludge in significant concentrations, which increased the possibility of groundwater contamination if these wastes were improperly disposed. Leaching tests run by the American Electroplaters' Society (AES) under an EPA grant yielded cyanide leach concentrations of 0.5 to 170 mg/ l, cadmium levels of non­ detectable to 268 mg/ l, and chromium levels of 0.12 to 400 mg/ l. At that time, EPA also estimated that a majority of metal finishers discharged their wastewater to POTWs without treating the wastewater. The remainder discharged to waters of the U. S., on­ site lagoons, or surface impoundments. Based upon data collected from 48 facilities that did not treat their waste in 1976, EPA estimated that 20 percent disposed of their solid waste on­ site while 80 percent sent their solid waste off­ site for disposal in a municipal or commercial landfill. Prior to the issuance of RCRA hazardous waste regulations in 1980, there were no Federal requirements for management of metal finishing sludges. Disposal practices included landfilling, lagooning, drying beds and drum burial. These sites frequently lacked leachate and runoff control practices, which increased the risk of percolation of heavy metals and cyanides into soils, groundwater and surface waters. Numerous damage incidents (e. g., contaminated wells, destruction of animal life) attributable to improper electroplating waste disposal were reported, indicating that mismanagement was an actual, rather than a perceived or potential threat. The long term persistence of heavy metals in the environment increased the potential for risk. The data EPA used for its listing determination came from various sources. Some of the data was over 20 years old while other data used in the determination was current at that time. Tables 3a and 3b are taken from EPA's F006 listing regulatory support documents (1980). Table 3a summarizes the chemical composition of typical electroplating baths used in the 1970's. Table 3b summarizes information on heavy metal concentrations in sludges. September 1998 14 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 3a: Typical Electroplating Baths and Their Chemical Composition Plating Compound Constituents Concentration (g/ l) 1. Cadmium Cyanide Cadmium oxide 22.5 Cadmium 19.5 Sodium cyanide 77.9 Sodium hydroxide 14.2 2. Cadmium Fluoborate Cadmium fluoborate 251.2 Cadmium (metal) 94.4 Ammonium fluoborate 59.0 Boric acid 27.0 Licorice 1.1 3. Chromium Electroplate Chromic acid 172.3 Sulfate 1.3 Fluoride 0.7 4. Copper Cyanide Copper cyanide 26.2 Free sodium cyanide 5.6 Sodium carbonate 37.4 Rochelle salt 44.9 5. Electroless Copper Copper nitrate 15 Sodium bicarbonate 10 Rochelle salt 30 Sodium hydroxide 20 Formaldehyde (37%) 100 ml/ l 6. Gold Cyanide Gold (as potassium gold cyanide) 8 Potassium cyanide 30 Potassium carbonate 30 Depotassium phosphate 30 7. Acid Nickel Nickel sulfate 330 Nickel chloride 45 Boric acid 37 8. Silver Cyanide Silver cyanide 35.9 Potassium cyanide 59.9 Potassium carbonate 15.0 Metallic silver 23.8 Free cyanide 41.2 9. Zinc Sulfate Zinc sulfate 374.5 Sodium sulfate 71.5 Magnesium sulfate 59.9 Source: EPA F006 Listing Background Document, 1980 September 1998 15 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 3b: Heavy Metal Content for Chromium and Cadmium in Electroplating Sludges (Dry Weight ppm) Primary Plating Process Chromium Cadmium Segregated Zinc 200 <100 Segregated Cadmium 62,000 22,000 Zinc Plating and Chromating 65,000 1,100 Copper­ Nickel­ Chromium on Zinc 500 ND Aluminum anodizing (chromic process) 1,700 ND Nickel­ Chromium on steel 14,000 Multi­ process job 25,000 1,500 Electroless Copper on Plastic, Acid Copper, Nickel Chromium 137,000 ND Multi­ process with Barrel or Vibratory Finish 570 Printed Circuits 3,500 <100 Nickel­ Chromium on Steel 79,200 <100 Cadmium­ Nickel­ Copper on Brass and Steel 48,900 500 Source: EPA F006 Listing Background Document, 1980 Only certain metal finishing sludges were listed as hazardous wastes. Others studied were determined to not pose a substantial hazard. Regulated F006 includes: Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations except from the following processes: (1) sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc­ aluminum plating on carbon steel; (5) cleaning/ stripping associated with tin, zinc, and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching and milling of aluminum. (see 40 CFR 261.31) The promulgation of effluent guidelines for the metal finishing industry in 1986 significantly increased the quantities of wastewater treatment sludge generated. This increase occurred because the guidelines required metal finishers to treat their wastewater to remove or reduce pollutants prior to discharge to either a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) or directly to waters of the U. S. To comply with the effluent guidelines, metal finishers added iron, lime and other chemicals to precipitate out or destroy pollutants such as chrome, zinc, copper and cyanide. The precipitate formed F006 sludge, which was then filtered and managed in compliance with RCRA regulations. Current estimates of annual F006 generation in the United States range from 360,000 tons dry weight equivalent (F006 industry estimate) to 500,000 tons dry weight equivalent 1,252,072 Borst, Paul A. U. S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste. Recycling of Wastewater Treatment Sludges from 12 Electroplating Operations, F006. 1997. September 1998 16 F006 Benchmarking Study tons/ wet weigth (1989 EPA estimate). Most of this material is in the physical form of metal hydroxide sludges. 12 F006 is subject to the full set of RCRA hazardous waste regulations (e. g., manifesting burden, training, emergency response plans). Metal finishers are also subject to OSHA and EPA worker health and safety regulations to protect workers from the potential effects of any toxic materials or other hazards in the workplace. Appendix C provides a list of the worker health and safety regulations and their applicability to metal finishers. E. Reasons this Study was Conducted The metal finishing industry believed that many metal finishers have significantly changed the way they operate since 1980, and that the chemical makeup of F006 is more amenable to recycling than it was in 1980. The strengthening of wastewater pretreatment, hazardous waste management, and hazardous waste minimization requirements since 1980 have had a positive impact on materials used, improved process operations, and better waste management practices in the metal finishing. These improvements have reduced the pollutants contained in F006. The industry also believed that these changes may be substantial enough to warrant modification of regulatory controls. This report provides current information about the metal finishing industry in the U. S. and presents data characterizing F006. The metal finishing industry responded to the strengthening of wastewater and hazardous waste regulations with improvements in alternative plating chemistries, production management practices, equipment, and waste management technology. For example, the installation of countercurrent flow, spray rinsing and drag out reduction methods are examples of techniques that reduce wastewater volumes and the amount of metals and other chemicals used. Some metal finishing companies installed pollution prevention methods which are targeted at further reducing or eliminating the use of specific toxic materials. The most notable have been: the replacement of traditional cyanide­ based plating solutions (e. g., for zinc and copper plating) with alkaline­ based plating solutions; the substitution of trivalent chromium for highly toxic hexavalent chromium for some applications; and the replacement of some single metal systems with alloy systems (e. g., replacing cadmium with zinc­ nickel). In 1980, EPA published regulations which set standards for permitting hazardous waste land disposal facilities, and in 1988, EPA promulgated land disposal restrictions regulations which require metal finishers to treat F006 to meet the treatment standards specified in this rule. The rule requires F006 to be treated to immobilize toxic constituents, mainly metals. Stabilization is one technology that may be utilized, however, other technologies may be used. methods before disposing of the waste in landfills. The economics of waste disposal result in most F006 being land disposed rather than recycled because recycling is typically more expensive. This means potentially recoverable metals NCMS/ NAMF. Pollution Prevention and Control Technology for Plating Operations. 1994. 13 September 1998 17 F006 Benchmarking Study (i. e., those which are land disposed) are no longer available for commerce. Several of the more prominent metals (e. g., nickel and chromium) are strategic metals which are not available in the U. S. The results of a 1993 study by the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS) and the National Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF) show that 90 percent of the 318 facilities that responded (16% response rate of 1,971 facilities queried) use pollution prevention methods and benefitted from them. Water conservation and in process recycling techniques were noted to be more frequently used than chemical recovery. Approximately 60 percent of respondents attempted material substitution to reduce or eliminate one or more of the following materials: cadmium, chromium (hexavalent), cyanide, and chlorinated solvents. 13 Some metal finishers recover precious or other metals on site (the number of facilities that conduct on­ site recovery is not available). Other facilities ship F006 to recycling facilities to recover commercially valuable metals, or to RCRA permitted treatment and disposal facilities. Table 4 summarizes an array of pollution prevention measures that may be used in metal finishing operations. Worker Health and Safety As part of the benchmarking study, the workgroup collected information on F006 handling practices, identified the potential hazards to workers, and described possible hazard control methods. In addition, the workgroup developed a list of the current worker health and safety regulations and policies that may apply to on­ site and off­ site management of F006. This information is presented in Appendix C of this report. Beyond this information, the workgroup did not attempt to complete a comprehensive review of worker health and safety issues associated with F006 management. This report presents data collected during the F006 Benchmarking Study as a foundation for further evaluation of F006. The CSI Workgroup did not attempt to analyze the data to determine the extent to which the characteristics of F006 have changed based on industry pollution prevention practices or other factors. In Phase 2 of this efort, the Workgroup will analyze the information presented in this report, and examine whether potential modifications of the current regulations applicable to F006 should be considered by EPA. Table 4: Examples of Pollution Prevention Measures Method Pollution Prevention Benefits Improved Operating Practices Table 4: Examples of Pollution Prevention Measures Method Pollution Prevention Benefits September 1998 18 F006 Benchmarking Study Remove cadmium and zinc anodes from bath ° Eliminates cadmium/ zinc buildup causing decanting of when it is idle. Anodes baskets can be placed on solution due to galvanic cell set up between steel anode basket removable anode bars that are lifted from tank by and cadmium/ zinc anodes an overhead hoist ° Maintains bath within narrow Cd/ Zn concentration providing more predictable plating results Eliminate obsolete processes and/ or unused or ° Reduces risks associated with hazardous chemicals infrequently used processes ° Creates floor space to add countercurrent rinses or other P2 methods ° Creates safer and cleaner working environment Waste stream segregation of contact and non­ ° Eliminates dilution of process water prior to treatment which contact wastewaters can increase treatment efficiency ° Reduces treatment reagent usage and operating costs Establish written procedures for bath make­ up ° Prevents discarding process solutions due to incorrect and additions. Limit chemical handling to trained formulations or contamination personnel. Keep tank addition logs ° Improves plating solution and work quality consistency °Improves shop safety Install overflow alarms on all process tanks to ° Minimizes potential for catastrophic loss of process solution prevent tank overflow when adding water to make via overflow up for evaporative losses ° Prevents loss of expensive chemicals Conductivity and pH measurement instruments ° Identifies process solution overflows and leaks before total and alarm system for detecting significant loss occurs chemical losses ° Alerts treatment operators to potential upset condition ° Reduces losses of expensive plating solutions Control material purchases to minimize obsolete ° Reduces hazardous waste generation material disposal ° Reduces chemical purchases Use process baths to maximum extent possible ° Prevents discarding of solutions prematurely before discarding. Eliminate dump schedules. ° Reduces chemical costs Perform more frequent chemical analysis ° Chemical adjustments of baths will improve work quality Reduce bath dumps by using filtration to remove ° Extends bath life suspended solids contamination ° Reusable filter cartridges reduce solid waste generation ° Improves bath performance Deburring containment ° Segregates waste Ultrafiltration, oil removal ° Removes contaminants from cleaning wastes, promotes recycling Process/ Chemical Substitution Substitute cyanide baths with alkaline baths when ° Eliminates use of CN possible Substitute trivalent chromium for hexavalent ° Reduces/ eliminates use of hexavalent chromium chromium when product specifications allow. Table 4: Examples of Pollution Prevention Measures Method Pollution Prevention Benefits September 1998 19 F006 Benchmarking Study Eliminate use of cadmium plating if product ° Eliminates the use of cadmium specifications allow Eliminate cyanide copper ° Eliminates use of CN Introduce deposit substitutes: e. g., Zn­ Ni alloy ° Eliminates use of Cd replaces cadmium Drag­ Out Reduction Methods that Reduce Waste Generation Install fog rinses or sprays over process tanks to ° Can inexpensively recover a substantial portion of drag out remove drag out as rack/ part exits bath and does not require additional tankage Minimize the formation of drag out by: °Reduces pollutant mass loading on treatment processes, redesigning parts and racks/ barrels to avoid cup treatment reagent usage, and resultant sludge generation shapes, etc. that hold solution; properly racking ° May improve treatment operation/ removal efficiency parts; and reducing rack/ part withdraw speed ° Reduces chemical purchases and overall operating costs Introduction of barrel spray rinsing ° Reduces pollutant mass loading on treatment processes, treatment reagent usage, and resultant sludge generation Automation control ° Reduces process error and process waste Rinse Water Reduction Methods that Reduce Waste Generation Install flow restrictors to control the flow rate of ° Reduces water use and aids in reducing variability in water wastewater flow ° Very inexpensive to purchase and install Install conductivity or timer rinse controls to ° Coordinates water use and production when properly match rinse water needs with use implemented ° Provides automatic control of water use Use counter­ current rinse arrangement with two ° Major water reduction can be achieved to four tanks in series depending on drag out rate ° High impact on water bills ° May reduce the size of needed recovery/ treatment equipment Track water use with flow meters and ° Identifies problem areas including inefficient processes or accumulators. Keep logs on water use for personnel individual operations ° Helps management to determine cost for individual plating processes. Install pulsed spray rinsing ° Reduced wastewater generation Source: NCMS/ NAMF. Pollution Prevention and Control Technology for Plating Operations. 1994 USEPA, Office of Solid Waste. Quality Assurance Project Plan For the Metal 14 Finishing Industry. October, 1997. September 1998 20 F006 Benchmarking Study II. NATIONAL F006 BENCHMARKING STUDY APPROACH A. Overview The workgroup focused on three analytical questions to guide its work on characterizing current practices in the metal finishing industry, and the composition and management of F006: 1) What are the characteristics of F006? 2) What can metal finishers do to make F006 more recyclable, while optimizing pollution prevention? What pollution prevention measures are in place at metal finishing facilities? 3) What are the environmental impacts of F006 recycling? While not an initial focus in this effort, the workgroup also examined worker health and safety impacts in this study. The workgroup then designed a two year study methodology to address the three analytical objectives. The study methodology is discussed below. The technical work required for this study was completed by Science Applications International Corporation under contract to EPA. The contract work was managed by an EPA workgroup member working in close coordination with the workgroup. The workgroup monitored progress and critiqued results throughout the analysis process. B. Methodology The workgroup designed a five part "benchmarking" study approach to address the three analytical questions identified above. A Quality Assurance Project Plan was developed and approved for this study and is available in a separate report . The five portions of the study are 14 summarized below and discussed in more detail in the remainder of this section. The five study portions include: D. A "Regional Benchmarking Study" that involved site visits to 29 metal finishing shops in three cities to gather detailed data on plating processes, pollution prevention practices, F006 chemical analysis and F006 handling and management practices; E. A "National Benchmarking Study" that used a mail survey to gather less detailed data on metal finishing operations, pollution prevention practices, F006 characteristics and management practices from a broad range of metal finishers; September 1998 21 F006 Benchmarking Study C An analysis which evaluates the extent to which the regional and national benchmarking studies represent the universe of metal finishers. C A Survey of Commercial Recycling Companies to gather data on the amount of F006 recycled and the chemical composition of F006 accepted for recycling, and C A "Community Interest Group Phone Survey" to assess whether community groups in the vicinity of commercial recycling companies believe those companies are good environmental and/ or economic neighbors. Each of the above components of the study involved a series of analytical steps. The approach used to complete each study component is described below. The results are presented in Section III of this report. 1. Regional Benchmarking Study The workgroup developed a method for identifying and gathering information from metal finishing companies that are judged to be "typical" facilities in the metal finishing universe. The workgroup identified ten cities that are known to have high populations of metal finishing facilities. Milwaukee, Chicago, and Phoenix were chosen as cities which are representative of the metal finishing industry in terms of the processes they use and the industries they serve. The workgroup agreed on a list of criteria for selecting facilities, and tried to include, as much as possible, a balanced distribution of the following criteria in making facility selections: C Type of shop: captive/ job, C Size: number of employees, C Type of deposition process in use, C Pollution prevention technologies in use, C In­ house metal recovery technologies: ­­ counterflow rinse, ­­ ultrafiltration/ microfiltration, ­­ other ion exchanges, ­­ electrolytic metal recovery, ­­ electrodialysis, or ­­ reverse osmosis; and C F006 treatment technology: ­­ alkaline precipitation, ­­ offsite metals recovery, ­­ landfilling of F006, ­­ other. The workgroup developed additional information regarding the third criteria listed above, "type of deposition process in use. The workgroup identified five plating processes which are among the most frequently used processes in the metal finishing industry. Studying facilities that September 1998 22 F006 Benchmarking Study operate these processes would provide the workgroup with key information about these common processes. The five processes included: ­Zinc (Zn) plated on steel, ­Nickel (Ni)/ chromium (Cr) plated on steel, followed by plated on steel, ­Cu/ Ni/ Cr on non­ ferrous alloys, ­Cu plating/ stripping in the printed circuit industry, and ­Cr on steel. These five processes are among the 25 most common processes identified in the NCMS/ NAMF study (1994), and were the main criteria in selecting facilities in Milwaukee. Facility selection in Chicago began using the five processes, but resulted in a principal focus on facilities that operate copper/ nickel/ chromium electroplate on nonferrous processes, a plating process used by one­ half of Chicago platers. Facility selection in Phoenix focused on obtaining data from metal finishers that serviced the printed circuit board and aerospace industries. The workgroup identified a Point of Contact (POC) in each city. The POC and the workgroup identified 10 facilities and several alternates located in or near each of the three benchmarking cities that fit the criteria sought for each city and were willing to participate in the study. At their request, facilities remained anonymous to the workgroup throughout the selection and information gathering process. Facilities are identified as F1, F4, F11, etc. A facility selection table was completed for each city (see Section IV), and the workgroup made its selections based on the criteria discussed above. An overview of facility selection for each city is discussed below. Milwaukee: The POC gathered information on 15 facilities, from which the workgroup selected 10 facilities and three alternates. Each of the 10 facilities and three alternates was contacted to schedule a site visit for completing a profile of operations and waste sampling and analysis. Three of the 10 facilities were eliminated during the site visits because it was determined that their sludges are not F006, and the three alternates were added. The third alternate was subsequently eliminated because their sludge is excluded from the definition of F006. Consequently, only nine facilities were included in the Milwaukee benchmarking study. Chicago: The POC in Chicago identified 14 metal finishers willing to participate in the study, from which the workgroup selected 10 and three alternates. Each of the ten facilities and alternates was contacted to schedule site visits. Phoenix: The POC in Phoenix identified 13 metal finishers, from which the workgroup selected 10 facilities and three alternates. One facility was eliminated during the site visit because it plated every two months as a batch operation and no F006 sludge was available during the time of the study. An alternate site was added. A survey was mailed to each facility to gather basic data from facility records (Appendix F contains a copy of the Regional Benchmarking Survey). On­ site visits were completed to gather detailed data on metal finishing processes, pollution prevention practices, recycling practices, September 1998 23 F006 Benchmarking Study F006 quantities, and F006 handling and management practices (handling practices were recorded only in Chicago and Phoenix). The site visit information collection protocol is provided in Appendix D. In addition to gathering information on plating processes, pollution prevention methods, F006 generation quantities and F006 management, a total of 46 composite samples of F006 were collected from the 29 facilities and transported to an EPA certified laboratory for chemical analysis and quality assurance methods. Two samples of F006 sludge were collected at some facilities (selected at random) as spot checks for variability in chemical content. All samples were analyzed for total concentrations of metals, TCLP metals, and general chemistry analytes. Four of the samples collected in Milwaukee were also analyzed for total volatile and semivolatile organic constituents, and TCLP volatile and semivolatile organic constituents, but since the results of the organic analysis in Milwaukee showed nondetectable levels in nearly all cases, no further organics testing was completed in the remaining two cities. See Appendix E for a list of all chemicals analyzed. The laboratory results were reviewed for accuracy and completeness and provided to each facility for review and comment. 2. National Benchmarking Study The workgroup developed a survey for gathering data on metal finishing operations, pollution prevention practices, F006 characteristics and sludge management practices from a large sample of the universe of metal finishers. The data categories contained in the survey are similar to the regional benchmarking protocol, but less detailed. Appendix G contains the survey used for the National Benchmarking Study. Nearly 2,000 surveys were distributed by mail using the mailing list of NAMF and AESF, and by hand at a metal finishers national technical conference. 186 responses (9 percent) were received. The data was compiled into a computer data base. 3. Statistical Analysis of the Regional and National Benchmarking Data A chi­ squares analysis was completed to determine the extent to which the facilities included in the regional and national benchmarking studies represent the universe of metal finishers for demographic parameters. Benchmarking results were compared to the universe of F006 generators in the Dunn & Bradstreet and EPA 1995 Biennial Report national databases. The results are presented in Section III. 4. Survey of Commercial Recyclers The workgroup developed a survey to gather data from six commercial recycling companies believed to be representative of the commercial F006 recycling industry. The survey requested data on the amount and chemical composition of F006 they recycle. Few data were received. The results were inclusive and are not provided in this report. A copy of the Recyclers' Survey is contained in Appendix H. 5. Survey of Community Environmental Groups September 1998 24 F006 Benchmarking Study A "community interest group phone survey" was developed by the workgroup to make a preliminary assessment of whether ten community groups community groups in the vicinity of commercial recycling companies believe those companies are good environmental and/ or economic neighbors. In order to promote candid responses, the workgroup agreed that respondents could remain anonymous. Each group was asked the following questions: C Is the group aware of environmental impacts from the recycling facility? C Is the group aware of economic impacts from the recycling facility? C Is the facility considered a "good neighbor?" A summary of responses is provided in Section IV. Individual responses are provided in Appendix I. III. RESULTS OF THE F006 BENCHMARKING STUDY The Regional and National Benchmarking Studies produced a large body of current data concerning facility operations, pollution prevention activities, F006 generation and management, and F006 composition. Section A below presents summaries of the data. Section B presents the data in detail. A. Summaries of Regional and National Benchmarking F006 Waste Characterization Data 1. Benchmarking Summary Tables Table 5 summarizes the minimum, mean, median, and maximum analytical results for each chemical analyzed for each of the three cities. The values presented represent only clearly measurable laboratory results. Non­ detected samples (i. e., samples below laboratory detection limits) and samples detected but below the laboratory quantitation limit (below the limit for accurate chemical measurement) are not included. Table 6 compares same statistics for the three cities to F006 waste composition data received in the National Benchmarking Survey. Table 7 summarizes the results of the National Survey. 2. Statistical Analysis: Does this Data Come from "Typical" Metal Finishers? Statistical analyses are often used to determine the extent to which a sample selected from a population represents the larger population from a statistical perspective, require carefully designed sample selection and testing procedures, and are generally time consuming and expensive. Because of its specialized design (i. e., to provide the workgroup with a highly descriptive set of data from metal finishing facilities which run the most "typical" plating processes in the industry), the workgroup was limited in its abililty to compare Benchmarking data to other databases which contain information on the metal finishing universe. Notwithstanding the specialized design of the Benchmarking study, the workgroup completed a statistical comparison of Benchmarking results to two national databases which contain some information on the metal finishing universe. September 1998 25 F006 Benchmarking Study The analysis used a chi­ squares statistical method to compare the only three parameters (facility size and location, and the amount of F006 waste generated) contained in the benchmarking studies and in other national databases which contain information on metal finishing facilities, i. e., the Dun & Bradstreet (D& B) business/ economic database and EPA's 1995 Biennial Reporting System (BRS) database. The analysis results show that the facilities participating are not necessarily representative of the universe of metal finishers. It is possible that a larger number of participants in the Benchmarking Studies or a different mix of participants could have provided results that show a more direct relationship between Benchmarking and national data (D& B and BRS). This result does not diminish the value of the Benchmarking study. The Benchmarking Study provides substantial additional data characterizing the industry's wastestream and provides a sound starting point for further discussion. 3. Results of Commercial Recyclers and Citizen Group Surveys The workgroup received too few responses to the commercial recyclers survey to draw any conclusions. Responses to the citizen group brief phone interviews received nearly complete responses and revealed no significant adverse opinions regarding whether these facilities are perceived as good environmental and economic neighbors. The results of the citizen group phone survey is summarized Appendix I. September 1998 26 F006 Benchmarking Study This page and the next page become large fold out tables 5& 6. Pull this double sided page and insert tables 5/ 6 here. September 1998 27 F006 Benchmarking Study September 1998 28 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 7: F006 Analytical Data from the National Survey: Excludes non­ detects and includes only values above method quantitation limit. 70 of 186 respondents submitted characterization data. Constituent # of Reported Minimum Mean Median Maximum Detections Total Metals (mg/ kg) Aluminum (Al) 34 0.59 13,387.89 1,725.00 76,100.00 Antimony (Sb) 22 1.80 2,188.23 67.40 34,800.00 Arsenic (As) 35 2.00 489.67 10.00 8,780.00 Barium (Ba) 38 6.00 199.27 73.70 1,080.00 Beryllium (Be) 20 0.59 12.55 8.50 37.00 Bismuth (Bi) 7 2.10 50.86 29.00 398.00 Cadmium (Cd) 39 2.10 6,122.32 22.00 71,300.00 Calcium (Ca) 28 682.00 37,239.28 17,250.00 143,000.00 Chromium (Cr) 60 10.00 39,601.20 13,900.00 206,000.00 Copper (Cu) 51 33.60 55,474.35 10,620.00 631,000.00 Iron (Fe) 38 364.00 82,420.74 48,950.00 560,000.00 Lead (Pb) 47 5.00 5,754.10 346.00 175,000.00 Magnesium (Mg) 14 187.00 48,798.09 10,800.00 336,000.00 Manganese (Mn) 28 13.00 830.91 563.00 3,300.00 Mercury (Hg) 30 0.05 0.39 0.30 2.00 Nickel (Ni) 44 51.00 23,456.33 5,935.00 180,000.00 Selenium (Se) 35 1.900 7.86 6.50 16.60 Silver (Ag) 30 1.50 169.64 87.50 1,190.00 Sodium (Na) 9 25.00 18,458.37 11,000.00 89,200.00 Tin (Sn) 28 9.00 20,906.06 1,100.00 467,000.00 Zinc (Zn) 48 57.00 88,692.44 24,600.00 460,000.00 TCLP (mg/ l) Arsenic (As) 17 ND ND ND ND Barium (Ba) 16 0.26 1.29 1.45 2.20 Cadmium (Cd) 18 0.02 8.36 0.11 144.00 Chromium (Cr) 20 0.02 9.48 0.92 56.20 Lead (Pb) 18 0.06 113.97 0.13 1,630.00 Mercury (Hg) 15 0.001 0.005 0.005 0.011 Selenium (Se) 16 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 Silver (Ag) 17 0.01 0.67 0.06 3.80 General Chemistry (mg/ kg) Chloride (Cl) 20 64 8,035.09 2,225.00 70,100.00 Fluoride (F) 13 1.2 719.06 161.00 4,240.00 Chromium, hex 15 0.1 108.89 11.00 1,190.00 Cyanide, Total (CN) 25 0.8 692.47 114.50 3,920.00 Cyanide, Am (CN) 11 2.6 609.56 51.00 5,340.00 Percent Solids 13.5 37.65 30.80 94.10 September 1998 29 F006 Benchmarking Study B. Detailed Results of the Regional and National Benchmarking Studies This section provides the detailed results of data gathering for the Regional and National Benchmarking Studies. 1. The Milwaukee Benchmarking Study This section provides a detailed presentation of data gathered in the Milwaukee Benchmarking Study (MBS), including a characterization of plating processes, pollution prevention and recycling practices, F006 characteristics, and site specific variations in the generation and management of F006 for nine facilities in Milwaukee. Table 8 is the facility selection matrix used to select 10 facilities from 13 candidates. Table 9 presents information collected for each facility in the study. Table 10 summarizes the results of the laboratory analyses of F006 data and Table 11 presents detailed laboratory analysis results for each facility. Six of the nine facilities reported waste generation rates. The total reported waste quantity for Milwaukee is approximately 590.5 tons/ year. Four facilities reported landfilling their F006 waste while four facilities reported recycling their F006 wastes. One facility sent half of its F006 waste to landfills, and the other half to commercial recycling. Sixteen laboratory samples were gathered from nine facilities. Four of these samples were for organic chemicals. September 1998 30 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 8: Milwaukee Metal Finishing Facility Selection Matrix Selection Criteria Fac 1* Fac 2* Fac 3* Fac 4 Fac 5 Fac 6 Fac 7 Fac 8 Fac 9 (Selected) (Selected) (Alternate) (Selected) (Selected) (Selected) (Selected) Type: Captive/ Job Job Job Job Captive Job Captive Job Job Job Size 16 152 95 2000/ 20 50 900/ 30 160 35 180 Main Treatment Technology Alk/ PPT Other ­ Al Alk/ PPT Alk/ PPT Alk/ PPT Alk/ PPT Alk/ PPT Alk/ PPT Alk/ PPT reuse Off IX Treatment Technology CFR CFR EMR CFR CFR CFR CFR CFR Other Other CFR Vacuum & IX Evp. Onsite Recycle No No No 25% No No 60% No 95% Landfill 100% No 100% Yes Yes 5% 40% 100% 5% Main Mgmt. Method LF Recycle LF LF LF 95% Rec Recycle LF Recycle Finishing Processes Zn/ Fe Cu Zn/ Fe Zn/ Fe HCr Zn/ Fe Zn/ Fe HCr & EN Zn/ Fe NiCr HCr/ Al Cu/ Ni/ Cr Zn/ Br Cu/ Ni/ Cr/ F Cu/ Ni/ Cr Ni/ Cr Ni/ Cr e HCr Zn/ Fe * Eliminated because they do not generate F006. ED Electrodialysis Key: RO Reverse osmosis Alk/ PPT Alkaline precipitation Zn/ Fe Zinc electroplate on steel IX Ion exchanges Ni/ Cr Nickel chromium Electroplate on steel Ultra Ultrafiltration/ Microfiltration Cu/ Ni/ Cr Copper nickel chromium on nonferrous CFR Counterflow rinse Cu Copper/ PC bands EMR Electrolytic metal recovery HCr Hard chromium on steel September 1998 31 F006 Benchmarking Study Milwaukee Metal Finishing Facility Selection Matrix (cont.) Selection Criteria Fac 10* Fac 11 Fac 12 Fac 13 Fac 14 Fac 15 Fac 16 Fac 17 Fac 18 (Alternate) (Alternate) (Selected) (Selected) (Selected) (Selected) Type: Captive/ Job Job Job Job Job Job Captive Captive Captive Job Size 40 50­ 60 15 70 110 700/ 14 500/ 90 1550/ 37 35 Main Treatment Technology Alk/ PPT Alk/ PPT Offsite Offsite Alk/ PPT Alk/ PPT Alk/ PPT Alk/ PPT Alk/ PPT other other offsite Treatment Technology CFR other CFR Evap CFR CFR CFR other CFR EMR IX CFR CFR RO CFR IX IX IX Ultra IX EMR other other Other Onsite Recycle No Yes Yes Yes 95% Yes No Yes 20% Landfill Yes No No No 5% Yes Yes Yes 20% Main Mgmt. Method LF Recycle Recycle Recycle Recycle LF LF LF 80% Rec Finishing Processes Zn/ Fe Cu Ni Cr Zn Ni/ Cr Ni/ Cr Zn/ Fe Dupl Ni Ni/ Cr /Br Zn/ Fe HCr Ni Sn Ag Brite Ni Hex Cr * Eliminated because they do not generate F006. ED Electrodialysis Key: RO Reverse osmosis Alk/ PPT Alkaline precipitation Zn/ Fe Zinc electroplate on steel IX Ion exchanges Ni/ Cr Nickel chromium Electroplate on steel Ultra Ultrafiltration/ Microfiltration Cu/ Ni/ Cr Copper nickel chromium on nonferrous CFR Counterflow rinse Cu Copper/ PC bands EMR Electrolytic metal recovery HCr Hard chromium on steel September 1998 32 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 9: Facility­ Specific Information for Milwaukee Facilities Facility F4 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Nickel­ chrome on Aluminum 146 tons/ yr F1­ 01 ­ Sludge sample collected Zinc (non­ CN) on Steel directly from drop bin Decorative nickel­ chrome on Steel Landfill F1­ 02 ­ Sludge collected from supersack dated the previous month Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS Implementation of high temperature zinc baths to eliminate partial bath Total (mg/ kg) Total (mg/ kg) dumps Al ­ 31,200 Al ­ 17,300 Replaced hexavalent Cr with Trivalent Cr on decorative Cr line Sb ­ 5.5 Sb ­ 1.8 Elimination of all cyanide plating baths As ­ 9.9 As ­ 9.3 Substitution of chromate and dichromate seal with non­ chrome sealer Ba ­ 41.9 Ba ­ 34.3 Constant development of alternative plating technologies Be ­ ND Be ­ ND Filtration on nickel recovery unit Bi ­ 2.7 Bi ­ 3.3 Electrolytic dummying Cd ­ 7.5 Cd ­ 9.6 Precipitation and monitoring of spent plating solutions Ca ­ 24,800 Ca ­ 17,500 Uses purer anodes and bags Cr ­ 59,500 Cr ­ 64,900 Tooling attention/ maintenance on scrubbers Hex. Cr ­ 0.6 Hex. Cr ­ 0.6 Evaporation techniques on nickel portion of chrome line Cu ­ 130 Cu ­ 1,480 Chemical usage reduction through substitution ­ replaced hard chrome with Fe ­ 25,000 Fe ­ 27,700 decorative chrome Pb ­ 297 Pb ­ 366 Oil removal techniques Mg ­ 15,800 Mg ­ 17,400 DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION Hg ­ 2 Hg ­ ND Enhanced product hang times Ni ­ 19,900 Ni ­ 18,200 Uses wetting agents occasionally Se ­ 16.6 Se ­ 16 Drainage boards Ag ­ 267 Ag ­ 97.9 Strategic workpiece positioning Na ­ 8,360 Na ­ 21,700 Withdrawal and drainage time Sn ­ 404 Sn ­ 582 Diking Zn ­ 336,000 Zn ­ 335,000 RINSEWATER Counter­ current flow rinse systems for 1 plating line TCLP (mg/ l) TCLP (mg/ l) Flow restrictors done with weirs As ­ ND As ­ ND Use conductivity meters to monitor the quality of final rinses Ba ­ 0.3 Ba ­ 1.4 Reuse electrocleaner rinse water as dilute plating bath solution Cd ­ 0.04 Cd ­ 0.1 Reuse acid rinse waters for rinsing racks exiting soak cleaner Cr ­ 40.6 Cr ­ 56.2 Evaporative recovery of Ni rinse waters Pb ­ ND Pb ­ 0.1 Closed­ loop wastewater systems on Ni and Hex. Cr lines Hg ­ ND Hg ­ ND OTHER Ag ­ 0.05 Ag ­ ND Chemical inventory and control Conducts annual plant assessments and housekeeping Preventive maintenance systems Increased temperature of bath Product longevity through specification alteration F1 ­ 01 F1 ­ 02 Mn ­ 1,710 Mn ­ 399 CN ­ ND CN ­ ND Se ­ ND Se ­ ND September 1998 33 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 9 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Milwaukee Facilities Facility F5 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Zinc (non­ CN) on steel 42.5 tons/ yr F5­ 01 ­ Collected from sludge drier Cu/ Ni/ Cr on steel F5­ 02 ­ Collected from rolloff bin Nickel chrome on steel Recycle (Horsehead) accumulated ~1 month previously Nickel plating Hard chrome on steel Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTION Copper and nickel strips are sent out in liquid form for recycling reducing Total (mg/ kg) Total (mg/ kg) quantity of F006 Al ­ 3,690 Al ­ 1,710 Filtration, carbon treatment, replenishment, and electrolytic dummying for Sb ­ 67.4 Sb ­ 45 bath life extension As ­ 15.4 As ­ 18.3 Replaced cyanide zinc plating with zinc alkaline plating Ba ­ 843 Ba ­ 157 Planning to change to non­ cyanide copper plating in 1997. Be ­ 0.6 Be ­ 0.7 Oil removal techniques on pre­ cleaning line Bi ­ 2.1 Bi ­ 3.2 Chemical usage reduction through automated addition of brightener Cd ­ 9.6 Cd ­ 13.4 Product longevity through specification alteration Ca ­ 21,400 Ca ­ 23,200 Alternate stripping methodologies ­ replaced cyanide solution with non­ Cr ­ 92,000 Cr ­ 71,000 cyanide solution to strip nickel Hex. Cr ­ 0.6 Hex. Cr ­ 0.1 DRAG OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Fe ­ 92,100 Fe ­ 105,000 Mesh pad Mist eliminators on 2 of 3 chrome lines for drag­ out recovery Pb ­ 976 Pb ­ 556 Enhanced product hang times Mg ­ 13,000 Mg ­ 12,500 New plating barrel reduces drag out Mn ­ 1,200 Mn ­ 1,340 Increase drain time over process tanks Hg ­ 0.3 Hg ­ 0.26 Drag out tanks and counter­ current flow used where feasible. Ni ­ 104,000 Ni ­ 105,000 Increased withdrawal and drainage time Se ­ 10.6 Se ­ 11.5 Uses wetting agents Ag ­ 8.7 Ag ­ 3.4 Strategic workpiece positioning Na ­ 5,950 Na ­ 6,830 Spray rinses Sn ­ 429 Sn ­ 337 RINSEWATER CN ­ 700 CN ­ 900 Flow restrictors Spray rinsing on 1 line TCLP (mg/ l) TCLP (mg/ l) OTHER Ba ­ 1.7 Ba ­ 2.2 Tooling attention/ maintenance Cd ­ 0.05 Cd ­ 0.1 Waste collection plumbing alterations or improvements Cr ­ 27.2 Cr ­ 12.1 Diking Pb ­ ND Pb ­ ND Energy savings techniques Hg ­ ND Hg ­ ND Conducts annual plant assessments and plant housekeeping Se ­ ND Se ­ ND F5 ­ 01 F5 ­ 02 Cu ­ 39,900 Cu ­ 41,500 Zn ­ 126,000 Zn ­ 158,000 Ar ­ ND As ­ ND Ag ­ ND Ag ­ ND September 1998 34 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 9 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Milwaukee Facilities Facility F8 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Hard Chrome on Steel unreported F8­ 01 ­ Collected from supersack Landfill F8­ 02 ­ Collected from supersack dated that week dated the previous month Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTION Ion exchange resin system ­ echo­ tec Total (mg/ kg) Total (mg/ kg) DRAG OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Sb ­ 161 Sb ­ 110 Strategic workpiece positioning As ­ 5.5 As ­ 11.8 OTHER Be ­ ND Be ­ ND Annual plant assessments Bi ­ ND Bi ­ ND Diked tanks Cd ­ 10.1 Cd ­ 42.7 High efficiency lighting Ca ­ 67,400 Ca ­ 50,800 Plant Housekeeping Cr ­ 193,000 Cr ­ 91,500 Preventive Maintenance systems Hex. Cr ­ 0.4 Hex. Cr ­ 0.2 Installed waste collection hard piping to control chemicals Cu ­ 24,500 Cu ­ 41,100 Tooling maintenance once per year Fe ­ 110,000 Fe ­ 279,000 F8­ 01 F8­ 02 Al ­ 19,300 Al ­ 8,560 Ba ­ 83.4 Ba ­ 33.3 Pb ­ 858 Pb ­ 231 Mg ­ 9,710 Mg ­ 11,100 Mn ­ 1,360 Mn ­ 1,080 Hg ­ ND Hg ­ 1.2 Ni ­ 1,130 Ni ­ 744 Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Ag ­ ND Ag ­ ND Na ­ 19,600 Na ­ 49,400 Sn ­ 129 Sn ­ 96.3 Zn ­ 3,790 Zn ­ 9,610 CN ­ ND CN ­ ND TCLP (mg/ l) TCLP (mg/ l) As ­ ND As ­ ND Ba ­ 0.3 Ba ­ 0.7 Cd ­ 0.01 Cd ­ 0.3 Cr ­ 54.1 Cr ­ 12.8 Pb ­ 0.1 Pb ­ ND Hg ­ N D Hg ­ 0.005 Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Ag ­ ND Ag ­ ND September 1998 35 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 9 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Milwaukee Facilities Facility F9 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Chrome on aluminum 150 tons/ yr F9­ 01 ­ Collected from supersack Bright dip on brass loaded that day Copper, nickel, chrome on steel Recycle (Encycle/ Horsehead 97%) F9­ 02 ­ Collected by facility about 2 Hard chrome on steel Landfill (3%) weeks later Nickel chrome on nonferrous Zinc (non­ CN) on steel Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTION Eliminated cadmium plating line Total (mg/ kg) Total (mg/ kg) Replace some hexavalent chrome lines with trivalent chrome Al ­ 27,000 Al ­ 13,200 Utilizes filtration carbon treatment, replenishment, and electrolytic Sb ­ 5.4 Sb ­ 13.5 dummying for general bath life extension As ­ 4.8 As ­ 3.1 Uses precipitation, monitoring, carbonate agitation, and electrowinning on Ba ­ 298 Ba ­ 257 spent solutions Be ­ ND Be ­ ND Uses evaporative techniques on nickel plating bath Bi ­ 72.5 Bi ­ 31.5 Chemical usage reduction through automation and substitution Cd ­ 2.1 Cd ­ 17.3 Increased temperature of bath Ca ­ 87,000 Ca ­ 70,000 DRAG OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Hex. Cr ­ 29 Hex. Cr ­ 1,000 Drag out and counter­ current flow rinse systems Cu ­ 20,700 Cu ­ 15,000 Ion exchange systems Fe ­ 105,000 Fe ­ 80,800 Evaporation and Mesh pad mist eliminators for drag­ out recovery Pb ­ 439 Pb ­ 410 Spray rinsing and drag­ out tankage Mg ­ 44,300 Mg ­ 30,300 Enhanced product hang times Mn ­ 1,070 Mn ­ 1,170 Withdrawal and drainage time Hg ­ 0.35 Hg ­ 0.6 Uses wetting agents and drainage boards Ni ­ 14,800 Ni ­ 18,700 Spray rinses only on nickel boards Se ­ 1.9 Se ­ ND Utilizes strategic workpiece positioning Ag ­ 65 Ag ­ 230 RINSEWATER Sn ­ 1,100 Sn ­ 681 Implemented a strict control program for monitoring incoming water to each Zn ­ 67,200 Zn ­ 83,900 separate production line CN ­ 46 CN ­ 74 Company­ wide water conservation program (e. g., spray rinses, flow restrictors water meters, etc.) TCLP (mg/ l) TCLP (mg/ l) Use spent acid bath for pH adjustment in WWT As ­ ND As ­ ND Reuse treated wastewater in production lines Ba ­ 1.1 Ba ­ 0.8 Replaced solvent­ based washers with aqueous systems (increasing sludge Cd ­ ND Cd ­ ND generation) Cr ­ 0.9 Cr ­ 13.1 Flow restrictors Pb ­ ND Pb ­ ND OTHER Se ­ ND Se ­ 0.04 Use sludge dryer to reduce sludge volume and transportation costs Ag ­ ND Ag ­ ND Reduced cyanide use by 80% Conduct annual training for waste treatment operators on chemical use and how this affects sludge volumes Tooling attention/ maintenance Chemical inventory and control Waste collection plumbing alterations or improvements Diking Incorporated energy savings techniques Conducts annual plant assessments and housekeeping Uses preventive maintenance systems F9­ 01 F9­ 02 Cr ­ 28,200 Cr ­ 94,000 Na ­ 15,900 Na ­ 39,000 Hg ­ ND Hg ­ ND September 1998 36 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 9 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Milwaukee Facilities Facility F11 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Zinc (non­ CN) on steel unreported F11­ 01 ­ Collected from sludge drier Tin on non­ ferrous and steel F11­ 02 ­ Collected from supersack Nickel­ chrome plating Recycle (Encycle) dated the previous month Copper­ nickel on steel Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTION Eliminated cyanide cadmium plating Total (mg/ kg) Total (mg/ kg) Replaced zinc cyanide plating with zinc alkaline plating Al ­ 1,800 Al ­ 1,650 Spent alkaline baths are used for pH adjustment Sb ­ 14.2 Sb ­ 11.1 Oil removal techniques As ­ 13 As ­ 6.5 Chemical usage reduction through substitution Ba ­ 227 Ba ­ 159 Utilizes filtration, carbon treatment, replenishment, and electrolytic Be ­ ND Be ­ ND dummying Bi ­ 1.7 Bi ­ 1.8 DRAG OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Ca ­ 16,100 Ca ­ 14,800 Drag out recovery on chrome and nickel lines Cr ­ 31,100 Cr ­ 48,100 Enhanced product hang times Hex. Cr ­ 26 Hex. Cr ­ 0.4 Installed atmospheric evaporators on automatic chrome line for drag out Cu ­ 8,980 Cu ­ 11,300 recovery Fe ­ 58,800 Fe ­ 69,300 Wetting agents and drainage boards Pb ­ 527 Pb ­ 230 Strategic workpiece positioning Mg ­ 13,500 Mg ­ 13,700 Increase in withdrawal and drainage time Mn ­ 557 Mn ­ 707 RINSEWATER Ni ­ 180,000 Ni ­ 84,600 Counter­ current flow rinse systems Se ­ 7.3 Se ­ 5 Monitors solutions and uses purer anodes and bags Ag ­ 163 Ag ­ 657 Utilizes exit spray rinse Na ­ 22,700 Na ­ 84,300 Uses atmospheric and simple evaporation techniques Sn ­ 3,550 Sn ­ 8,070 Flow restrictors Zn ­ 129,000 Zn ­ 94,400 Conductivity controls CN ­ 16 CN ­ 6.6 OTHER TCLP (mg/ l) TCLP (mg/ l) Installed sludge drier to reduce sludge volume As ­ ND As ­ ND Train staff on causes of increase in hazardous waste production Ba ­1.3 Ba ­ 0.11 Tooling attention/ maintenance Cd ­ 0.1 Cd ­ 0.64 Chemical inventory and control Cr ­ 3.1 Cr ­ ND Waste collection alterations or improvements Pb ­ ND Pb ­ ND Diking Hg ­ ND Hg ­ ND Product longevity through specification alteration Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Energy saving techniques Ag ­ ND Ag ­ 0.08 Plant housekeeping and annual plant assessment Automatic leak detection system Preventive maintenance system F11 ­ 01 F11­ 02 Cd ­ 12.5 Cd ­ 7.3 Hg ­ ND Hg ­ 0.3 September 1998 37 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 9 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Milwaukee Facilities Facility F13 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Nickel chrome on steel 15 tons/ yr F13­ 01 ­ did not meet the regulatory Recycle (Inmetco) F13­ 02 ­ Collected from sludge definition of F006 supersack Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTION Oil removal and filtration techniques Total (mg/ kg) Promote product longevity through specification alteration Al ­ 311 Uses alternate stripping methodologies ­ switched from cyanide to non­ Sb ­ 0.6 cyanide stripping As ­ 2.3 Evaporation to concentrate plating by­ products Ba ­ 6 Substituted hexavalent chrome with trivalent chrome Be ­ ND Set up pilot line to evaluate a liquid addition agent for cleaning Bi ­ ND Require operators to log plating parameters daily which improves their Cd ­ ND control Ca ­ 855 Uses purer anodes and bags and fume suppressors Cr ­ 193 DRAG OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Cu ­ 33.6 Enhanced product hang times Fe ­ 3,350 Wetting agents Pb ­ 0.6 Air knives Mg ­ 355 Spray or fog rinses Mn ­ 3.8 Drainage boards Hg ­ ND Increased withdrawal and drainage time Ni ­ 76,000 Strategic workpiece positioning Se ­ ND RINSEWATER Na ­ 16,400 Other than cooling water and water used to process incoming water, this is a Sn ­ 9.0 zero discharge facility (from the process units) Zn ­ 6.1 Rinse water is recycled through filtration, carbon absorption in waste CN ­ 2.0 treatment section, replenishment and ion exchange Counter­ current flow rinse systems Utilizes electrocoagulation for cleaning (and reusing) rinse waters Flow restrictors Reverse osmosis utilized on incoming water OTHER Tooling attention/ maintenance, preventive maintenance systems Improved record keeping demonstrates areas to be considered for improvement Installed filter press and sludge drier to reduce sludge volume Chemical inventory and control Waste collection plumbing alterations or improvements Diking High efficiency lighting Conducts annual plant assessments and plant housekeeping F13­ 02 Hex. Cr ­ 0.5 Ag ­ ND September 1998 38 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 9 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Milwaukee Facilities Facility F14 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Zinc (CN) on Steel 196 tons/ yr F14­ 01 ­ Sludge from drier output Recycle (Horsehead 58%) Landfill (42%) Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS Separated the process chemistry and wastewater treatment departments Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) Cyanide bath carbonate freezing to prolong life Al ­2,320 As ­ ND Utilize bags on 1 chloride bath Sb ­ 2 Ba ­ 1.3 Oil removal techniques on 1 barrel As ­ 13.4 Cd ­ 0.03 DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION Be ­ ND Pb ­ ND Workpiece positioning Bi ­ND Hg ­ ND Increase dwell (rinse) cycles Cd ­ 3.9 Se ­ ND Wetting Agents Ca ­18,000 Ag ­ ND Prolonged withdrawal and drainage time Cr ­26,900 Drainage boards Hex. Cr ­ 2.6 RINSEWATER Fe ­ 194,000 Counter­ current flow rinse systems Pb ­ 64.8 Flow restrictors Mg ­ 9,990 Spray rinse and multiple rinses Mn ­ 979 Evaporators and filters on 3 of 4 baths Hg ­ ND Larger hole barrels Ni ­ 57.1 Use alkaline cleaner baths for wastewater pH adjustment Se ­ 5.7 Sludge dryer reduces volume by 65%. Ag ­ 4.4 Assessed source by source water use to eliminate major changes in flow Na ­ 3,830 which upsets WWT performance Sn ­ 19.5 Employed an environmental engineering company to assist in water control Zn ­ 277,000 and reduction. CN ­ 200 OTHER Eliminated several plating services: cadmium, nickel, hard chrome, tin, copper, and brass plating and aluminum anodizing Replacing CN baths with alkaline baths by end of 1997. Diking of all 4 production lines Plant Housekeeping Annual plant assessments Hazardous waste leak detection system Preventive maintenance system Installed waste collection hard plumbing on every machine F14 ­ 01 Ba ­29.2 Cr ­ 0.2 Cu ­ 54.6 September 1998 39 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 9 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Milwaukee Facilities Facility F16 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Nickel chrome on non­ ferrous 41 tons/ yr F16­ 01 ­ Collected from supersack Gold plating dated that day Landfill F16­ 02 ­ Collected by facility about 2 weeks later Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTION Filtration Total (mg/ kg) Total (mg/ kg) Improved SOPs by tracking water flow reducing the level of chrome in the Al ­ 3,940 Al ­ 1,210 hot rinse >90% Sb ­ 3.5 Sb ­ 2.7 Leak detection systems on plating bath As ­ 9.4 As ­ 7 Metals recovery system via ion exchange reclaims Cr and Ni from rinse Ba ­ 73.7 Ba ­ 24.5 waters Be ­ ND Be ­ ND Oil removal techniques on pre­ cleaning line Bi ­ 5.4 Bi ­ 2.2 DRAG OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Ca ­ 97,300 Ca ­ 105,000 Conductivity meters Cr ­ 13,800 Cr ­ 5,520 Rack design eliminates drag out Hex. Cr ­ 0.2 Hex. Cr ­ 0.1 Enhanced product hang times on pre­ cleaning line Cu ­ 13,600 Cu ­ 5,520 Wetting agents on chrome line Fe ­ 114,000 Fe ­ 189,000 Spray rinses and drainage boards Pb ­ 2,870 Pb ­ 778 RINSEWATER Mn ­ 671 Mn ­ 950 Counter­ current flow rinsing on plating and pre­ cleaning lines Hg ­ 0.4 Hg ­ ND Flow restrictors Ni ­ ND Ni ­ ND Spray rinsing on some pre­ cleaning lines Se ­ 30,700 Se ­ 16,800 Replaced solvent­ based washers with aqueous systems (increasing sludge Ag ­ 47.4 Ag ­ 20.2 generation) Na ­ 5,490 Na ­ 7,900 Continually searching for new environmentally safe cleaners Sn ­ 497 Sn ­ 50.8 OTHER CN ­ ND CN ­ ND Operators are certified and receive on­ going training Tooling attention/ maintenance TCLP (mg/ l) TCLP (mg/ l) Chemical inventory and control As ­ ND As ­ ND Diking Ba ­ 0.9 Ba ­ 0.2 Utilize high efficiency motors Cd ­ 0.03 Cd ­ ND Conduct annual plan assessments Cr ­ 14.5 Cr ­ 12.7 Ongoing plant housekeeping and chemical usage reduction Pb ­ 0.3 Pb ­ 1.3 Preventive maintenance systems Hg ­ 0.005 Hg ­ 0.01 Employ monitoring and utilize bags Se ­ ND Se ­ ND F16­ 01 F16­ 02 Cd ­ 1.3 Cd ­ 1.3 Mg ­ 10,400 Mg ­ 4,250 Zn ­ 14,200 Zn ­ 5,790 Ag ­ ND Ag ­ 0.04 September 1998 40 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 9 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Milwaukee Facilities Facility F17 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Zn (non­ CN) on steel unreported F17­ 01 ­ Collected from sludge drier Chrome on nonferrous F17­ 02 ­ Collected from supersack Copper­ nickel on nonferrous Landfill dated the previous month Copper­ nickel on steel Cadmium on steel Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTION Uses vapor recompression evaporation and carbonate removal system for Total (mg/ kg) Total (mg/ kg) recovery Al ­ 1,260 Al ­ 1,360 Employs filtration, carbon treatment, replenishment, and electrolytic Sb ­ 0.6 Sb ­ 0.6 dummying As ­ 3.8 As ­ 4.1 Utilizes cyanide bath carbonate freezing to extend life of solution Ba ­ 29.4 Ba ­ 43.5 Reduced 50% of cadmium to zinc Be ­ ND Be ­ ND Oil removal techniques on pre­ cleaning line Bi ­ ND Bi ­ ND Alternate stripping methodologies ­ formerly used cyanide based stripper; Cd ­ 39,300 Cd ­ 21,600 but now outsourced Ca ­ 141,000 Ca ­ 140,000 DRAG OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Hex. Cr ­ 19 Hex. Cr ­ 3.7 Uses stagnant rinse tanks or drag out tanks Cu ­ 21,900 Cu ­ 18,600 Drag out waters replace drag in waters or added back to plating bath Fe ­ 24,300 Fe ­ 17,400 Spray rinses and diking Pb ­ 221 Pb ­ 237 Enhanced product hang times Mg ­ 12,900 Mg ­ 12,300 Utilizes wetting agents and drainage boards Mn ­ 244 Mn ­ 199 Increased temperature bath, withdrawal and drainage time Hg ­ ND Hg ­ 0.12 RINSEWATER Se ­ 2.1 Se ­ 2.1 Segregate wastewater streams Ag ­ 0.5 Ag ­ 1.5 Counter­ current flow rinse systems Na ­ 11,700 Na ­ 17,700 Flow restrictors Sn ­ 11.2 Sn ­ 13.8 Conductivity meters Zn ­ 35,500 Zn ­ 44,600 Uses reverse osmosis (3 units) and atmospheric and vacuum distillation CN ­ 380 CN ­ 99 evaporation to recycle rinse waters Ion exchange for water delivered to plating baths TCLP (mg/ l) TCLP (mg/ l) OTHER Ba ­ 1.3 Ba ­ 1.1 Planning to re­ engineer the WWT to segregate the nickel sludge from the Cd ­ 13.3 Cd ­ 5.7 cadmium sludge to enable recycling of the nickel sludge to Encycle. Cr ­ ND Cr ­ ND Cadmium sludge will be landfilled. Pb ­ ND Pb ­ ND Chemical inventory and control Hg ­ ND Hg ­ ND Redesigned waste plumbing Se ­ 0.01 Se ­ ND Utilizes energy saving techniques Ag ­ ND Ag ­ ND Conducts annual plant assessments and weekly plant housekeeping Preventive maintenance systems and leak detection on reverse osmosis equipment F17­ 01 F17­ 02 Cr ­ 14,000 Cr ­ 9,250 Ni ­ 83,000 Ni ­ 35,100 As ­ ND As ­ ND September 1998 41 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 10: Overview of Milwaukee F006 Analytical Data: # of Samples Which Were: Not­ Detected; "C" values (i. e., Statistically Estimated Values Above Instrument Detection Limit, but Below Method Quantitation Limit); Above MethodQuantitation Limit Constituent # Samples # Non # Samples # Samples Above Method Detects Above Instrument Quantitation Limit Detection, Below Method Quantitation Total Metals Concentration (mg/ kg) Aluminum 16 0( 0%) 0( 0%) 16( 100%) Antimony 16 0( 0%) 6( 37%) 10( 63%) Arsenic 16 0( 0%) 2( 12%) 14( 88%) Barium 16 0( 0%) 3( 19%) 13( 81%) Beryllium 16 14( 87%) 0( 0%) 2( 13%) Bismuth 16 6( 37%) 3( 19%) 7( 44%) Cadmium 16 1( 6%) 2( 12%) 13( 82%) Calcium 16 0( 0%) 0( 0%) 16( 100%) Chromium 16 0( 0%) 0( 0%) 16( 100%) Copper 16 0( 0%) 0( 0%) 16( 100%) Iron 16 0( 0%) 0( 0%) 16( 100%) Lead 16 0( 0%) 1( 6%) 15( 94%) Magnesium 16 0( 0%) 0( 0%) 16( 100%) Manganese 16 0( 0%) 1( 6%) 15( 94%) Mercury 16 6( 37%) 4( 25%) 6( 37%) Nickel 16 2( 12%) 0( 0%) 14( 88%) Selenium 16 2( 12%) 0( 0%) 12( 75%) Silver 16 3( 37%) 1( 6%) 12( 75%) Sodium 16 0( 0%) 0( 0%) 16( 100%) Tin 16 0( 0%) 0( 0%) 16( 100%) Zinc 16 0( 0%) 1( 6%) 15( 94%) TCLP (mg/ l) Arsenic 16 16( 100%) 0( 0%) 0( 0%) Barium 16 0( 0%) 12( 75%) 4( 25%) Cadmium 16 4( 25%) 4( 25%) 8( 50%) Chromium 16 2( 12%) 0( 0%) 14( 88%) Lead 16 12( 75%) 0( 0%) 4( 25%) Mercury 16 13( 81%) 0( 0%) 3( 19%) Selenium 16 14( 87%) 1( 6%) 1( 6%) Silver 16 12( 75%) 3( 19%) 1( 6%) General Chemistry (mg/ kg) Chloride 16 0( 0%) 0( 0%) 16( 100%) Fluoride 16 0( 0%) 1( 6%) 15( 94%) Chromium, hexavalent 16 0( 0%) 0( 0%) 16( 100%) Total Cyanide 16 4( 25%) 0( 0%) 12( 75%) Amenable Cyanide 16 4( 25%) 0( 0%) 12( 75%) Percent Solids 16 0( 0%) 0( 0%) 16( 100%) September 1998 42 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 11: Analytical Data for the Milwaukee Facilities. Constituent CAS No. F1­ 01 F9­ 01 F16­ 01 F17­ 01 1 Volatile Organics ­ Method 8260A µg/ kg Acetone 67641 210 B 7,500 B 290 24 2­ Butanone 78933 J B 58 B 69 J 2­ Hexanone 591786 ND ND JB ND Benzene 71432 ND 53 J ND Chloroform 67663 J 6 ND ND Chlorobenzene 108907 ND J ND ND Trichloroethene 79016 ND ND J ND 4­ Methyl­ 2­ pentanone 108101 ND 16 64 ND Toluene 108883 J J 20 ND Ethylbenzene 100414 ND ND J ND m, p­ Xylenes 108383 / 106423 ND ND J ND o­ Xylene 95476 ND ND J ND Semivolatile Organics ­ Method 8270B µg/ kg bis( 2­ Ethylhexyl) phthalate 117817 59,000 55,000 180,000 28,000 Di­ n­ octylphthalate 117840 J ND ND ND Fluoranthene 206440 4,900 ND ND ND Phenanthrene 85018 4,600 ND ND ND Pyrene 129000 J ND ND ND Phenol 108952 3,600 3,600 ND ND Benzyl alcohol 100516 7,900 7,900 ND ND Notes: All results reported on a dry­ weight basis. 1. Facility F4's F006 samples were designated as F1. J Mass spectral data indicate the presence of a compound that meets the identification criteria for which the result is less than the laboratory detection limit, but greater than zero. B Analyte also detected in the associated method blank analysis. ND Non­ detect Volatiles analyzed for but not detected include: Chloromethane, Vinyl Chloride, Bromomethane, Chloroethane, Trichlorofluoromethane, 2­ Chloroethyl vinyl ether, 1,1­ Dichloroethene, Methylene Chloride, Carbon Disulfide, Vinyl Acetate, 1,1­ Dichloroethane, trans­ 1,2­ Dichloroethene, cis­ 1,2­ Dichloroethene, 1,1,1­ Trichloroethane, Carbon Tetrachloride, 1,2­ Dichloroethane, Benzene, 1,2­ Dichloropropane, Bromodichloromethane, cis­ 1,3­ Dichloropropene, trans­ 1,3­ Dichloropropene, 1,1,2­ Trichloroethane, Dibromochloromethane, Tetrachloroethene (PCE), Styrene, Bromoform, 1,1,2,2­ Tetrachloroethane, 1,3­ Dichlorobenzene, 1,4­ Dichlorobenzene, and 1,2­ Dichlorobenzene. Semivolatiles analyzed for but not detected include: bis( 2­ Chloroethyl) ether, 2­ Chlorophenol, 2,3­ Dichlorobenzene, 1,4­ Dichlorobenzene, 1,2­ Dichlorobenzene, 2­ Methylphanol, bis(( 2­ Chloroisopropyl) ether, 4­ Methyphenol, NNitroso di­ n­ propylamine, Hexachloroethane, Nitrobenzene, Isophorone, 2­ Nitrophenol, 2,4­ Dimethylphenol, bis( 2­ Chloroethoxy) methane, Benzoic acid, 2,4­ Dichlorophenol, 1,2,4­ Trichlorobenzene, Naphthalene, 4­ Chloroaniline, Hexachlorobutadiene, 4­ Chloro­ 3­ methylphenol, 2­ Methylnaphthalene, Hexachlorocyclopentadiene, 2,4,6­ Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5­ Trichlorophenol, 2­ Chloronaphthalene, 2­ Nitroaniline, Dimethylphthalate, Acenaphthylene, 2,6­ Dinitrotoluene, 3­ Nitroaniline, Acenaphthene, 2,4­ Dinitrophenol, 4­ Nitrophanol, 4­ Nitrophenol ,Dibenzofuran, 2,4­ Dinitrotoluene, Diethyphthalate, 4­ Chlorophenyl­ phenylether, Fluorene, 4­ Nitroaniline, 4,6­ Dinitro­ 2­ methylphenol, N­ Nitrosodiphenylamine, 4­ Bromophenyl­ phenylether, Hexachlorobenzene, Pentachloropheno, l Anthraoene, Carbazole, Di­ n­ butylphthalate, Butylbenzylphthalate, 3,3'­ Dichlorobenzidine, Benzo( a) anthracene, Chrysene, Din­ octylphthalate, Benzo( b) fluoranthene, Benzo( k) fluoranthene, Benzo( a) pyrene, Indeno( 1,2,3­ cd) pyrene, Dibenz( a, h) anthracene, and Benzo( g, h, f) perylene September 1998 43 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 11 (cont'd): Analytical Data for the Milwaukee Facilities. Constituent CAS No. F1­ 01 F1­ 02 F5­ 01 F5­ 02 F16­ 01 F16­ 02 F8­ 01 F8­ 02 1 Total Metals ­ Methods 6020, 7471 mg/ kg Aluminum 7429905 31,200 17,300 3,690 1,710 3,940 1,210 19,300 8,560 Antimony 7440360 C 5.5 C 1.8 67.4 45.0 C 3.5 C 2.7 161 110 Arsenic 7440382 C 9.9 C 9.3 15.4 18.3 9.4 7.0 C 5.5 11.8 Barium 7440393 C 41.9 C 34.3 843 157 73.7 C 24.5 83.4 C 33.3 Beryllium 7440417 ND ND C 0.59 C 0.69 ND ND ND ND Bismuth 7440699 C 2.7 C 3.3 C 2.1 3.2 5.4 C 2.2 ND ND Cadmium 7440439 7.5 9.6 9.6 13.4 C 1.3 C 1.3 10.1 42.7 Calcium 7440702 24,800 17,500 21,400 23,200 97,300 105,000 67,400 50,800 Chromium 7440473 59,500 64,900 92,000 71,000 13,800 5,520 193,000 91,500 Copper 7440508 130 1,480 39,900 41,500 13,600 5,320 24,500 41,100 Iron 7439896 25,000 27,700 92,100 105,000 114,000 189,000 110,000 279,000 Lead 7439921 297 366 976 556 2,870 778 858 231 Magnesium 7439954 15,800 17,400 13,000 12,500 10,400 4,250 9,710 11,100 Manganese 7439965 1,710 399 1,200 1,340 671 950 1,360 1,080 Mercury 7439976 2.0 ND C 0.33 C 0.26 C 0.40 ND ND C 1.2 Nickel 7440020 19,900 18,200 104,000 105,000 ND ND 1,130 744 Selenium 7782492 16.6 16.0 10.6 11.3 30,700 16,800 ND ND Silver 7440224 267 97.9 8.7 3.4 47.4 20.2 ND ND Sodium 7440235 8,360 21,700 5,950 6,830 5,490 7,900 19,600 49,400 Tin 7440315 404 582 429 337 497 50.8 129 96.3 Zinc 7440666 336,000 335,000 126,000 158,000 14,200 5,790 3,790 9,610 TCLP Metals ­ Methods 1311, 6010, 7470 mg/ L Arsenic 7440382 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Barium 7440393 C 0.26 1.4 C 1.7 2.2 C 0.9 C 0.2 C 0.3 B 0.7 Cadmium 7440439 C 0.04 0.07 C 0.05 0.08 C 0.03 ND C 0.01 0.3 Chromium 7440473 40.6 56.2 27.2 12.1 14.5 12.7 54.1 12.8 Lead 7439921 ND 0.11 ND ND 0.3 1.3 0.1 ND Mercury 7439976 ND ND ND ND 0.005 0.009 ND 0.005 Selenium 7782492 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Silver 7440224 C 0.05 ND ND ND ND C 0.04 ND ND Table 11 (cont'd): Analytical Data for the Milwaukee Facilities. Constituent CAS No. F1­ 01 F1­ 02 F5­ 01 F5­ 02 F16­ 01 F16­ 02 F8­ 01 F8­ 02 1 September 1998 44 F006 Benchmarking Study General Chemistry mg/ kg Chloride 16887006 2,400 13,000 1,000 1,200 2,200 190 8,800 8,000 Fluoride 16984488 300 1,600 82 120 61 120 48 17 Hex. Chromium 18540299 C 0.66 C 0.60 0.66 C 0.10 C 0.18 C 0.10 C 0.43 C 0.19 Total Cyanide 57125 ND ND 700 900 ND ND ND ND Amenable Cyanide E­ 10275 ** 12 ** 18 ** 2,700 ** 1,300 ND ND ND ND Percent Solids 14.8 16.5 43.5 45.9 25.1 31.3 19.9 18.8 Notes: All results reported on a dry­ weight basis 1. Facility F4's F006 samples were designated as F1. B Analyte also detected in the associated method blank analysis. C Reported value is less than the method quantitation limit (QL) but greater than the instrument detection limit (IDL). ** Reported value is the concentration of cyanide after chlorination. Since this value is greater than the total cyanide result, a value for the cyanide amenable to chlorination cannot be calculated. ND Non­ detect September 1998 45 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 11 (cont'd): Analytical Data for the Milwaukee Facilities. Constituent CAS No. F17­ 01 F17­ 02 F11­ 01 F11­ 02 F13­ 02 F14­ 01 F9­ 01 F9­ 02 Total Metals ­ Methods 6020, 7471 mg/ kg (cont.) Aluminum 7429905 1,260 1,360 1,800 1,650 311 2,320 27,000 13,200 Antimony 7440360 C 0.62 C 0.63 14.2 11.1 C 0.57 C 2.0 5.4 13.5 Arsenic 7440382 3.8 4.1 13.0 6.5 C 2.3 13.4 4.8 3.1 Barium 7440393 29.4 43.5 227 159 C 6.0 29.2 298 257 Beryllium 7440417 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Bismuth 7440699 ND ND C 1.7 C 1.8 ND ND 72.5 31.5 Cadmium 7440439 39,300 21,600 12.5 7.3 ND 3.9 2.1 17.3 Calcium 7440702 141,000 140,000 16,100 14,800 855 18,000 87,000 70,000 Chromium 7440473 14,000 9,250 31,100 48,100 193 26,900 28,200 94,000 Copper 7440508 21,900 18,600 8,980 11,300 33.6 54.6 20,700 15,000 Iron 7439896 24,300 17,400 58,800 69,300 3,350 194,000 105,000 80,800 Lead 7439921 221 237 527 230 C 0.59 64.8 439 410 Magnesium 7439954 12,900 12,300 13,500 13,700 355 9,990 44,300 30,300 Manganese 7439965 244 199 557 707 C 3.8 979 1,070 1,170 Mercury 7439976 ND C 0.12 ND C 0.29 ND ND 0.35 0.58 Nickel 7440020 83,000 35,100 180,000 84,600 76,000 57.1 14,800 18,700 Selenium 7782492 2.1 2.1 7.3 5.0 ND 5.7 1.9 ND Silver 7440224 C 0.52 1.5 163 657 ND 4.4 65.0 230 Sodium 7440235 11,700 17,700 22,700 84,300 16,400 3,830 15,900 39,000 Tin 7440315 11.2 13.8 3,550 8,070 9.0 19.5 1,100 681 Zinc 7440666 35,500 44,600 129,000 94,400 C 6.1 277,000 67,200 83,900 TCLP Metals ­ Methods 1311, 6010, 7470 mg/ L Arsenic 7440382 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Barium 7440393 C 1.3 C 1.1 C 1.3 C 0.7 C 0.4 C 1.3 C 1.1 C 0.8 Cadmium 7440439 13.3 5.7 0.06 0.11 ND C 0.03 ND ND Chromium 7440473 ND ND 3.1 0.64 1.9 0.2 0.9 13.1 Lead 7439921 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Mercury 7439976 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Selenium 7782492 0.08 ND ND ND ND ND ND C 0.04 Silver 7440224 ND ND ND C 0.08 ND ND ND ND Table 11 (cont'd): Analytical Data for the Milwaukee Facilities. Constituent CAS No. F17­ 01 F17­ 02 F11­ 01 F11­ 02 F13­ 02 F14­ 01 F9­ 01 F9­ 02 September 1998 46 F006 Benchmarking Study General Chemistry mg/ kg Chloride 16887006 5,500 13,000 690 30,000 17,000 2,700 12,000 23,000 Fluoride 16984488 C 0.7 1.2 99 48 120 250 200 1,400 Chromium, 18540299 19 C 3.7 26 0.43 0.50 2.6 29 1,000 hexavalent Total Cyanide 57125 380 99 16 6.6 2.0 200 46 74 Amenable Cyanide E­ 10275 ** 940 ** 180 3.0 3.3 ** 11 30 12 51 Percent Solids 65.9 77.4 38.2 54.9 54.1 37.7 74.3 69.1 Notes: * All results reported on a dry­ weight basis. B Analyte also detected in the associated method blank analysis. C Reported value is less than the method quantitation limit (QL) but greater than the instrument detection limit (IDL). ** Reported value is the concentration of cyanide after chlorination. Since this value is greater than the total cyanide result, a value for the cyanide amenable to chlorination cannot be calculated. ND Non­ detect September 1998 47 F006 Benchmarking Study 2. Chicago Benchmarking Study This section provides a detailed presentation of data gathered in the Chicago Benchmarking Study, including a characterization of plating processes, pollution prevention and recycling practices, F006 characteristics, and site specific variations in the generation and management of F006 for ten facilities in Milwaukee. Table 12is the facility selection matrix used to select 10 facilities from 13 candidates. Table 13 presents information collected for each facility in the study. Table 14 summarizes the results of the laboratory analyses of F006 data and Table 15 presents detailed laboratory analysis results for each facility. All Chicago facilities reported an annual quantity of waste generated. The total amount generated from all 10 facilities is approximately 1712 tons/ year. Nine of the facilities recycle their F006 waste. One facility landfills its F006 waste. Fifteen F006 laboratory samples gathered. September 1998 48 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 12: Chicago Metal Finishing Facility Selection Matrix Selection C7 C10 C11 C12 Criteria Alternate Alternate Alternate Eliminated C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C8 C9 C13 C14 Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Type: Job Job Job Job Job Job Job Job Job Job Job Job Job Job Captive/ Job Size 80 150 37 43 70 30 60 50 35 120 150 Main Alk/ Alk/ Alk/ Alk/ Alk/ Alk/ Alk/ Alk/ Alk/ Alk/ Alk/ Alk/ Alk/ Alk/ Treatment PPT PPT PPT/ IX PPT/ PPT PPT PPT PPT PPT PPT PPT PPT PPT PPT Technology Cr Treatment CFR CFR/ IX CFR CFR CFR/ IX CFR CFR CFR CFR CFR CFR CFR CFR CFR Technology Onsite No Yes Yes Electro­ Au/ Ag No No No Yes No Au/ Ag IX No Recycle winning Closed System System Landfill No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Main Recycle Recycle Recycle Recycle Reclaim Recycle LF LF Lf/ Recycle LF Reclaim LF Management Method Finishing Cu/ Ni/ Cr Cu/ Ni/ Cr CdCN Cu/ Ni/ Cr AuCN Cu/ Ni CdCN Cu/ Ni/ Cr Zn/ Fe CuCN/ Ni Cu/ Ni/ Cr Electro­ AuCN Zn( CN)/ Processes E­ Ni Zn( nCN)/ Zn( CN)/ AgCN Zn( nCN)/ Zn( nCN)/ Cu/ Ni/ Cr BrassCN E­ Ni polish AgCN Fe HCr Fe Fe Nickel Fe Fe E­ Ni HCr Zn Zn( nCN)/ Copper Zn/ Fe Zn( nCN)/ (nCN) Fe Fe SURVEY? Y N Y Y Y N N Y­ SAIC Y­ SAIC N Y­ SAIC Y N Y September 1998 49 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 13: Facility­ Specific Information for Chicago Facilities Facility C1 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Cu­ CN Cd­ CN 24 ­ 28 tons/ yr C1­ 01 ­ sludge collected from Cu­ Tin­ Zn Au­ CN supersack at drier output; slightly Bright dip of Cu alloy Ag­ CN Recycle (World Resources) warm; gray­ green color Ni/ Cr on steel Acid­ Cu Electroless Ni Chrome Tins Tin­ Ni Tin­ Zn Tin­ acid Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS C1 ­ 01 Filtration ­ E­ Ni, Ni, Cu, Cd, Au, Sn, Ag Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) Carbon treatment ­ occasional use for Ni/ as needed Al ­ 4,390 As ­ ND Replenishment ­ complete change for E­ Ni only/ soap dumped periodically Sb ­ ND Ba ­ ND Purified water ­ DI treated on­ site As ­ ND Cd ­ 1.0 Electrolytic dummying ­ as needed ­ Ni ­ primary Ba ­ 1,080 Cr ­ 2.8 Cyanide bath carbonate freezing ­ Na­ CN every winter, Cd Be ­ ND Pb ­ ND Precipitation ­ combined with bath filtration of carbon Bi ­ ND Hg ­ 0.001 Monitor pH daily Cd ­ 17,300 Se ­ ND Drag­ in Reduction ­ pre­ rinse with DI water Ca ­ 47,400 Ag ­ 3.8 High purity anodes (some tanks bagged) Cr ­ 83,000 Non­ chelated process chemistries in Tin­ Zn bath Hex. Cr ­ 1,190 Non­ CN process chemicals ­ approx. 1/ 3 of chemicals non­ CN Cu ­ 40,000 Solvent degreasing alternatives ­ mineral spirits and limited ultrasonic. Fe ­ 27,800 Alkaline Cleaners ­ skimming, chrome reducers Pb ­ 10,300 Have written procedures for bath make­ up and additions Mg ­ 51,100 Use process baths to maximum extent possible (no dump schedule) Mn ­ 332 Remove anodes from bath when they are idle Hg ­ ND Perform regular maintenance of racks/ barrels Ni ­ 98,800 Pre­ inspect parts to prevent processing of obvious rejects Se ­ ND DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Na ­ 22,100 Process Bath Operating Conc. ­ checked every other week Sn ­ 13,800 Process Bath Operating Temp. ­ automated; daily Zn ­ 17,100 Wetting agents ­ some CN ­ 1,800 Workpiece positioning Withdrawal and Drainage Time ­ manual (operators trained) Drainage boards between all baths returned to bath Drag­ out tanks on some tanks returned to bath Electrowinning on Au only Meshpad Mist Eliminators ­ chrome RINSE WATER Spray or Fog Rinse/ Rinse Water Agitation Increased Contact Time/ Multiple Rinses Countercurrent rinsing and flow restrictors Recycling/ Recovery of rinsewater Manually turning off rinsewater when not in use Air agitation in rinse tanks OTHER Established a formal policy statement with regard to P2 and control Established a formal P2 program Conduct employee education for P2 Establish a preventative maintenance program for tanks Ag ­ 280 September 1998 50 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 13 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Chicago Facilities Facility C2 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Mg Anodizing Gold­ CN ~347 tons/ yr C2­ 01 ­ Sludge from roll­ off bin; not Cu/ NiCr Electroless Ni dried; ambient temp. cool; Zn (nCN) on Fe Chromic acid Recycle (Horsehead) consistency of fudge; chunky; Cu plating (nCN) orange­ brown; moist Ag­ CN C2­ 02 ­ Sludge from drier; consistency of dirt; chocolate color Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS C2 ­ 01 C2­ 02 Filtration ­ some continuous Total (mg/ kg) Total (mg/ kg) Carbon treatment to remove organic contaminants on some baths Al ­ 45,900 Al ­27,900 Purified water ­ DI Sb ­ND Sb ­ ND Precipitation combined with filtration on certain baths As ­ND As ­ ND Monitoring ­ daily with on­ site lab Ba ­65 Ba ­ 76 Purer Anodes and Bags ­ depends on bath Be ­ND Be ­ ND Nonchelated Process Chemistries Bi ­ 66 Bi ­ 19 Non­ CN process chemicals except Au/ Ag Cd ­3,740 Cd ­ 4,440 Solvent Degreasing Alternatives including Hot alkaline cleaning and Ca ­32,900 Ca ­ 26,400 Electrocurrent Cr ­9,300 Cr ­ 18,700 Alkaline Cleaners including Skimming and Coalescer on barrel lines Hex. Cr ­ 53 Hex. Cr ­ 11 Acid Purification ­ Ion exchange removes metals Cu ­1,210 Cu ­ 1,600 DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Pb ­ 170 Pb ­ 161 Wetting Agents ­ required Mg ­161,000 Mg ­ 111,000 Workpiece positioning Mn ­1,240 Mn ­ 1,010 Withdrawal and Drainage Time Hg ­ ND Hg ­ ND Drainage boards between tanks Ni ­ 1,640 Ni ­ 7,390 Drag­ out tanks Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Ion Exchange chrome rinses (off­ site) Ag ­27 Ag ­ 88 RINSE WATER Sn ­1,270 Sn ­ 2,090 Increased Contact Time/ Multiple Rinses ­ manual rinse with DI water Zn ­62,000 Zn ­ 89,200 Countercurrent Rinsing ­ some but limited space for more CN ­ 3.3 CN ­ 0.8 Flow controls ­ Flow restrictors Recycle rinse water TCLP (mg/ l) TCLP (mg/ l) Recycle solvents via Safety Kleen As ­ND As ­ ND Fe ­ 29,500 Fe ­ 40,400 Na ­29,600 Na ­ 33,100 Ba ­ND Ba ­ ND Cd ­0.19 Cd ­ 0.16 Cr ­ 0.08 Cr ­ 0.09 Pb ­ ND Pb ­ ND Hg ­ND Hg ­ ND Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Ag ­ND Ag ­ ND September 1998 51 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 13 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Chicago Facilities Facility C3 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Cd­ CN ~90 tons/ yr C3­ 01S ­ Sludge from left filter Zn( non CN) on Steel press; mix of wet/ soft and wet/ hard Recycle (Horsehead) sludge; brown color; fudge consistency Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS C3 ­ 01S General Bath Life Extensions Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) Carbon Treatment ­ as needed Al ­597 As ­ND Monitoring ­ 3­ 4 times / day Sb ­ND Ba ­0.7 Housekeeping ­ 1 person in charge of bath chemistry As ­39 Cd ­1.57 Nonchelated Process Chemistries Ba ­167 Cr ­ ND Solvent Degreasing Alternatives ­ Hot Alkaline Cleaning and Electrocurrent Be ­ND Pb ­ ND Alkaline Cleaners ­ Skimming Bi ­ ND Hg ­ND DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION Ca ­30,200 Ag ­ND Process Bath Operating Concentration Cr ­10,700 Process Bath Operating Temperature ­ in the process of installing temp. Hex. Cr ­ 33 controls Cu ­86 Withdrawal and Drainage Time Fe ­ 156,000 Drainage Boards Pb ­ 581 Drag­ Out Tanks ­ Cd line has dead rinse and is returned to plating bath Mg ­27,200 RINSE WATER Hg ­ ND Improved Rinsing Efficiency ­ Countercurrent Rinsing Ni ­ 106 Flow Restrictors Se ­ ND Cd ­788 Se ­ ND Mn ­3,300 Ag ­ND Na ­8,200 Sn ­68 Zn ­262,000 CN ­ 3,240 September 1998 52 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 13 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Chicago Facilities Facility C4 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Cu/ Ni/ Cr on brass Zn­ CN ~73 tons/ yr C4­ 01S ­ Sludge from lugger box Cu (Alkaline) Cd­ CN under filter press: fudge consistency, Dull and Bright Ni Sn­ acid Recycle (Horsehead) cool, chocolate­ brown color, cake Ni/ Cr on steel formed into 1 ½ inch thick layers, Bright dip of Cu estimated at 75% water Zn phosphate Chromating of Al 60/ 40 (Sn/ Pb) solder Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS C4 ­ 01S Filtration on the Tin, Ni, and Cu baths Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) Carbon Treatment in the Ni and Cu baths Al ­41,000 As ­ND Replenishment Sb ­ND Ba ­ND Electrolytic Dummying for Ni, Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr As ­ND Cd ­1.26 Cyanide Bath Carbonate Freezing Ba ­715 Cr ­ ND Precipitation ­ occasionally on tins Be ­37 Pb ­ ND Monitoring ­ once/ wk at minimum Bi ­ ND Hg ­ND Purer Anodes and Bags Cd ­6,040 Se ­ ND Hexavalent for trivalent Chrome in clear chromate conversion coating Ca ­63,500 Ag ­ND Solvent Degreasing alternatives: hot alkaline cleaning, electrocurrent, & Cr ­50,800 ultrasonic Hex. Cr ­ 28 Alkaline Cleaners ­ skimming Cu ­9,940 Waste reduction study conducted Fe ­ 124,000 Pre­ inspect parts to prevent processing of obvious rejects Pb ­ 2,320 Perform regular maintenance of racks/ barrels Mg ­49,500 Remove anodes from bath when they are idle Mn ­1,690 Use process baths to maximum extent possible Hg ­ ND Have written procedures for bath make­ up and additions Ni ­ 11,300 Waste stream segregation of contact and non­ contact wastewaters Se ­ ND Strict chemical inventory control Ag ­110 Evaluation of recycling alternatives Na ­4,440 DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Zn ­176,000 Process Bath Operating Concentration and Temperature CN ­ 3,740 Wetting Agents ­ add to Ni baths Workpiece Positioning Withdrawal and Drainage Time and Boards Drag­ Out Tanks Electrowinning for Cd RINSE WATER Spray Rinse/ Rinse Water Agitation ­ some tin Countercurrent Rinsing ­ 2 and 3­ stage Recycle/ Recovery of Rinse Water Recycle/ Recovery of Solvents Eliminate rinsewaters to waste treatment Manually turning off rinsewater when not in use Flow restrictors OTHER Conduct employee education for P2 Housekeeping ­ QA manager controls bath chemistry Sn ­36,200 September 1998 53 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 13 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Chicago Facilities Facility C6 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Electroless Ni Ni ~15 tons/ yr C6­ 01 ­ Sludge from plant 1; sludge Cu­ CN Sn mixed with absorbent called Zn Ag­ CN Recycle (World Resources) Absorbex; black and greenish­ gray; Au­ CN sludge is 2 days old C6­ 02 ­ Sludge from superbag in plant 2; green/ gray and brown; clay consistency; sludge generated the previous week Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS C6 ­ 01 C6­ 02 Filtration ­ continuous Total (mg/ kg) Total (mg/ kg) Carbon Treatment ­ periodically Al ­5,350 Al ­ 1,740 Purified Water ­ for Ni Sb ­207 Sb ­ ND Electrolytic Dummying ­ for Ni As ­ND As ­ND Cyanide Bath Carbonate Freezing ­ annually Ba ­119 Ba ­ 54 Precipitation ­ periodically Be ­20 Be ­ 10 Monitoring ­ weekly to outside labs/ daily­ weekly internally Bi ­ ND Bi ­ 35 Housekeeping ­ lab controls bath chemistry Cd ­51 Cd ­ ND Purer Anodes and Bags ­ Silver 99.998%; Gold 99.999%; Nickel 98% Ca ­63,000 Ca ­ 13,000 Hexavalent Chrome Alternatives ­ Trivalent chrome for clear/ blue bright Cr ­698 Cr ­ 59,400 conversion coatings Hex. Cr ­ 7 Hex. Cr ­ 174 Solvent Degreasing Alternatives ­ Hot Alkaline Cleaning and Electrocurrent Cu ­37,500 Cu ­ 21,900 Alkaline Cleaners ­ Skimming Fe ­ 24,600 Fe ­ 47,000 DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Mg ­53,400 Mg ­ 6,100 Wetting Agents ­ present in formula from vendor Mn ­799 Mn ­ 746 Withdrawal and Drainage Time ­ Training Hg ­ ND Hg ­ ND Drainage Boards Ni ­ 77,100 Ni ­ 21,500 Drag­ Out Tanks (Dead Rinse) Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Electrowinning ­ Gold (periodic); Silver (continuous) Ag ­272 Ag ­ 32 Nickel drag out sent back to plating bath Na ­37,200 Na ­ 89,200 RINSE WATER Zn ­24,400 Zn ­ 81,400 Improved Rinsing Efficiency CN ­ 373 CN ­ 240 Spray Rinse/ Rinse Water Agitation (Air Spargers) Countercurrent Rinsing ­ 2­ stage TCLP (mg/ l) TCLP (mg/ l) Flow Restrictors As ­ND As ­ ND Pb ­ 326 Pb ­ 109 Sn ­9,740 Sn ­ 12,100 Ba ­ND Ba ­ ND Cd ­ND Cd ­ ND Cr ­ ND Cr ­ 0.08 Pb ­ ND Pb ­ ND Hg ­0.002 Hg ­ ND Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Ag ­ 0.29 Ag ­ ND September 1998 54 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 13 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Chicago Facilities Facility C7 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Plant 1: Plant 2: ~ 65 tons/ yr C7­ 01S ­ From supersack; reddishAg (CN) Sn (Dull) brown and some greenish­ gray, Cu­ CN Ni (Sulfamate) Recycle (World Resources) muddy/ clayey consistency Acid­ Sn Cu­ CN C7­ 02S ­ from supersack, big Electroless Ni Sn (Bright Acid) chunks, very hard but breakable, Cu­ acid Solder red­ brown, ambient temperature, smells like paint ­Plant 2 Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS C7 ­ 01S C7­ 02S Filtration ­ removes organics Total (mg/ kg) Total (mg/ kg) Carbon Treatment Al ­4,510 Al ­493 Purified Water ­ DI Sb ­ND Sb ­ ND Electrolytic Dummying As ­ND As ­ ND Precipitation Ba ­20 Ba ­ 27 Monitoring ­ at least weekly Be ­ND Be ­ ND Purer Anodes and Bags ­ 99.9% Bi ­ ND Bi ­54 Solvent Degreasing Alternatives ­ Hot Alkaline Cleaning and Electrocurrent Cd ­9 Cd ­ ND Alkaline Cleaners ­ Skimming for oil Ca ­11,000 Ca ­ 16,100 DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Hex. Cr. ­ ND Hex. Cr ­ ND Process Bath Operating Concentration Cu ­21,400 Cu ­ 23,800 Process Bath Operating Temperature Fe ­ 1,510 Fe ­ 131,000 Wetting Agents ­ in Brightener Pb ­ 47 Pb ­ 2,080 Workpiece Positioning Mg ­336,000 Mg ­ 242,000 Withdrawal and Drainage Time Mn ­103 Mn ­ 523 Silver rinse ­ Either electrowinning or electrodialysis Hg ­ ND Hg ­ ND RINSE WATER Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Spray Rinse/ Rinse Water Agitation ­ Air agitation Ag ­253 Ag ­ ND Countercurrent Rinsing ­ 2­ stage on most lines Na ­1,060 Na ­ 1,230 Flow Restrictors Sn ­9,680 Sn ­ 36,600 Cr ­161 Cr ­ 127 Ni ­ 27,100 Ni ­ 10,100 Zn ­1,070 Zn ­ 2,060 CN ­ 2,480 CN ­ 725 TCLP (mg/ l) TCLP (mg/ l) As ­ND As ­ ND Ba ­ND Ba ­ ND Cd ­ND Cd ­ ND Cr ­ ND Cr ­ ND Pb ­ ND Pb ­ ND Hg ­ND Hg ­ ND Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Ag ­0.07 Ag ­ ND September 1998 55 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 13 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Chicago Facilities Facility C8 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Zn plating ~135 tons/ yr C8­ 01 ­ Sludge from supersack at Acid Chloride continuous filter press; soft and Alkaline ­ non CN BFI landfill moist; waxy; green/ gray Chromating C8­ 02 ­ Sludge from batch tank filter press; clay consistency; green/ gray; outer layer has rust color probably due to iron oxidation. Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS C8 ­ 01 C8­ 02 Continuous Filtration Total (mg/ kg) Total (mg/ kg) Carbon Treatment ­ intermittently Al ­204 Al ­153 Replenishment ­ bleed off growth Sb ­ND Sb ­ ND Electrolytic Dummying ­ as needed As ­ND As ­ ND Monitoring ­ daily Ba ­58 Ba ­ 45 Purer Anodes and Bags ­ 99.99% Zinc Be ­ND Be ­ ND Hexavalent Chrome Alternatives ­ Trivalent clear chrome Bi ­ ND Bi ­ ND Nonchelated Process Chemistries Cd ­11 Cd ­ ND Non­ Cyanide Process Chemicals ­ Dropped Cyanide plating in 1993 Ca ­15,000 Ca ­ 4,040 Solvent Degreasing Alternatives: Hot alkaline cleaning and Electrocurrent Cr ­11,000 Cr ­ 59,000 Alkaline Cleaners ­ Skimming Hex. Cr ­160 Hex. Cr ­ 29 DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Fe ­ 24,600 Fe ­ 56,300 Process Bath Operating Concentration Pb ­ 30 Pb ­ 49 Process Bath Operating Temperature Mg ­10,800 Mg ­ 1,340 Wetting Agents Mn ­438 Mn ­ 569 Workpiece Positioning Hg ­ ND Hg ­ ND Withdrawal and Drainage Time Ni ­ 452 Ni ­ 257 Spray or Fog Rinses Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Drainage Boards Ag ­109 Ag ­ 112 Drag­ Out Tanks ­ plating baths Na ­10,400 Na ­ 56,400 Portion of drag out returned to plating bath Sn ­ND Sn ­ ND RINSE WATER CN ­ 3 CN ­ 285 Improved Rinsing Efficiency: Spray Rinse/ Rinse Water Agitation Countercurrent Rinsing where feasible TCLP (mg/ l) TCLP (mg/ l) Flow Restrictors As ­ND As ­ ND Cu ­401 Cu ­ 120 Zn ­460,000 Zn ­ 345,000 Ba ­ND Ba ­ 0.80 Cd ­0.02 Cd ­ ND Cr ­ 0.04 Cr ­ ND Pb ­ ND Pb ­ ND Hg ­ND Hg ­ ND Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Ag ­ND Ag ­ ND September 1998 56 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 13 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Chicago Facilities Facility C9 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Zn­ acid plating 230­ 300 tons/ yr C9­ 01 ­ Dried sludge from Cd­ acid plating supersack after sludge drier, warm, Cu/ Ni Recycle (Envirite) dark chocolate­ brown color, Chromating granular to powdery consistency Phosphating C9­ 02 ­ Sludge from a supersack dated the previous week, dry/ moist mix, reddish­ brown, chunky and powdery, ambient air temp Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS C9 ­ 01 C9­ 02 Filtration ­ Zn baths as needed Total (mg/ kg) Total (mg/ kg) Carbon Treatment ­ as needed Al ­298 Al ­311 Purified Water ­ DI for chromates Sb ­ND Sb ­ ND Precipitation ­ Fe removal in Zn baths, combined with filtration As ­ND As ­ ND Monitoring ­ daily Ba ­578 Ba ­ 789 Housekeeping ­ manager authorizes bath additions/ changes Be ­ND Be ­ ND Purer Anodes and Bags ­ min. 99.9% Bi ­ ND Bi ­ ND Hexavalent Chrome Alternatives ­ Trivalent chrome for clear chromates Cd ­ 27,600 Cd ­ 13,800 Nonchelated Process Chemistries Ca ­ 8,630 Ca ­ 17,000 Non­ Cyanide Process Chemicals ­ No CN Cr ­ 40,400 Cr ­ 32,200 Solvent Degreasing Alternatives: Hot alkaline cleaning and Electrocurrent Hex. Cr ­6 Hex. Cr ­11 DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION Fe ­ 185,000 Fe ­ 257,000 Wetting Agents Pb ­ 5 Pb ­ 9 Workpiece Positioning Mg ­2,120 Mg ­ 4,190 Withdrawal and Drainage Time Mn ­2,130 Mn ­ 2,950 Drainage Boards Hg ­ ND Hg ­ ND Drag out Tanks ­ on rinses only Ni ­ 707 Ni ­ 2,730 RINSE WATER Ag ­225 Ag ­ 173 Countercurrent Rinsing ­ 2 ­ 3­ stage Na ­7,840 Na ­ 11,600 Flow Restrictors Sn ­ND Sn ­ ND Recycle/ Recovery Rinse Water Zn ­115,000 Zn ­ 175,000 Cu ­ 388 Cu ­ 4,230 Se ­ ND Se ­ NA CN ­ 2.6 CN ­ 1.6 TCLP (mg/ l) TCLP (mg/ l) As ­ND As ­ ND Ba ­ND Ba ­ ND Cd ­144 Cd ­ 15.8 Cr ­ 0.14 Cr ­ 0.02 Pb ­ ND Pb ­ ND Hg ­ND Hg ­ ND Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Ag ­ND Ag ­ ND September 1998 57 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 13 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Chicago Facilities Facility C13 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Cu­ CN Ni 3 tons/ yr C13­ 01 ­ Sludge from filter press Au­ CN Ag­ CN bag; 30­ day old sludge; consistency Sn Recycle (United Refining) of cookies; chocolate­ brown in color Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTION C13 ­ 01 Filtration ­ as needed Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) Carbon Treatment ­ as needed (rarely) Al ­564 As ­ND Purified Water Sb ­90 Ba ­ND Electrolytic Dummying ­ Silver uses As ­ND Cd ­ND Monitoring ­ once a month/ weekly additions Ba ­143 Cr ­ ND Housekeeping ­ QC program to calculate usage Be ­7 Pb ­ ND Purer Anodes and Bags ­ Silver 99.99% Bi ­ ND Hg ­ 0.011 Solvent Degreasing Alternatives ­ Electrocurrent Cd ­22 Se ­ ND DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Cr ­73 Wetting Agents Hex. Cr ­4 Withdrawal and Drainage Time ­ Training Cu ­91,600 Drag­ Out Tanks (Dead Rinse) Fe ­ 69,000 Ion Exchange for Gold Pb ­ 189 Electrowinning for Silver ­ commercial unit Mg ­10,800 RINSE WATER Hg ­ ND Countercurrent Rinsing ­ 2­ stage for tin Ni ­ 9,010 Flow Restrictors Se ­ ND Recycling/ Recovery of Solvents (sent to off­ site recovery) Ag ­351 Ca ­83,900 Ag ­0.85 Mn ­343 Na ­1,420 Sn ­41,200 Zn ­3,590 CN ­ 3,310 September 1998 58 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 13 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Chicago Facilities Facility C14 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Zn­ CN 730 tons/ yr C14­ 01 ­ Sludge from the Zn­ Ni (CN) luggerbox; orange­ brown; dry; Zn Ni (Alkaline?) Recycle (Horsehead and Envirite) chunks the size of dimes and smaller. Carbonate from carbonate freezing of Ni bath combined with dewatered sludge sent to driers Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS C14 ­ 01 Filtration ­ continuous (paper/ cartridges) for alkaline­ Zn­ Ni and alkaline­ Zn Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) Purified Water ­ for some applications Al ­390 As ­ND Cyanide Bath Carbonate Freezing for Zn­ CN and Zn­ alkaline­ Ni Sb ­ND Ba ­ND Monitoring ­ daily or every­ other day As ­ND Cd ­0.06 Housekeeping ­ use assigned personnel for chemical additions Ba ­48 Cr ­ 0.02 Purer Anodes and Bags Be ­ND Pb ­ ND Hexavalent Chrome Alternatives ­ Cr in blue dip process Bi ­ ND Hg ­ND +3 Nonchelated Process Chemistries ­ no chelated cleaners Cd ­31 Se ­ ND Solvent Degreasing Alternatives ­ hot alkaline cleaning and electrocurrent Ca ­18,200 Ag ­ND (no solvents in process) Cr ­24,200 Alkaline Cleaners ­ Skimming grease and oil (investigating filtration and Hex. Cr ­18 centrifuging) Cu ­220 Stricter conformance with line preventative maintenance schedule Fe ­ 129,000 Stricter conformance with SPC procedures Pb ­ 149 Strict chemical inventory control Mg ­5,360 Perform routine bath analysis Mn ­858 Maintain bath analysis/ addition logs Hg ­ ND Have written procedures for bath make­ up and additions Ni ­ 128 Remove anodes from bath when they are idle Se ­ ND Regularly retrieve fallen parts/ racks from tanks Ag ­87 Perform regular maintenance of racks/ barrels Na ­16,500 Pre­ inspect parts to prevent processing of obvious rejects Sn ­ND Evaluate recycling alternatives Zn ­375,000 Research alternative plating technologies CN ­ 3,920 DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Process Bath Operating Concentration and Temperature ­ Daily Wetting Agents ­ rinsate chemicals; acid­ inhibitor in pickling acids Workpiece Positioning Withdrawal and Drainage Time Electrodialysis for black chromate RINSE WATER Spray Rinse/ Rinse Water Agitation Countercurrent Rinsing ­ 2­ stage in most processes Flow Restrictors Recycle rinse waters ­ treated wastewaters recycled as needed Drip shields between tanks Lower bath concentration Manually turning off rinsewater when not in use Establish a preventative maintenance program for tanks September 1998 59 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 14: Summary of Chicago F006 Analytical Data Constituent # Samples # Non Detects # Samples Above Method Quantitation Limit Total Metals Concentration (mg/ kg) Aluminum 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Antimony 15 13( 87%) 2( 13%) Arsenic 15 1( 7%) 14( 93%) Barium 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Beryllium 15 11( 73%) 4( 27%) Bismuth 15 11( 73%) 4( 27%) Cadmium 15 3( 20%) 12( 80%) Calcium 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Chromium 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Copper 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Iron 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Lead 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Magnesium 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Manganese 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Mercury 15 10( 67%) 5( 33%) Nickel 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Selenium 15 15( 100%) 0( 0%) Silver 15 2( 13%) 13( 87%) Sodium 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Tin 15 5( 33%) 10( 67%) Zinc 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) TCLP ( mg/ l) Arsenic 15 15( 100%) 0( 0%) Barium 15 14( 93%) 1( 7%) Cadmium 15 6( 40%) 9( 60%) Chromium 15 7( 47%) 8( 53%) Lead 15 15( 100%) 0( 0%) Mercury 15 12( 80%) 3( 20%) Selenium 15 15( 100%) 0( 0%) Silver 15 11( 7%) 4( 93%) General Chemistry (mg/ kg) Chloride 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Fluoride 15 5( 33%) 10( 67%) Chromium, hexavalent 15 2( 13%) 13( 87%) Total Cyanide 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Amenable Cyanide 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Percent Solids 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) September 1998 60 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 15: Detailed Chicago Analytical Data Constituent CAS No. C1­ 01 C2­ 01 C2­ 02 C3­ 01S C4­ 01S C6­ 01 C6­ 02 Total Metals ­ Methods 6010A, 7471A, 7060A, 7421, 7740 mg/ kg Aluminum 7429905 4,390 45,900 27,900 597 41,000 5,350 1,740 Antimony 7440360 ND ND ND ND ND 207 ND Arsenic 7440382 ND ND ND 39 ND ND ND Barium 7440393 1,080 65 76 167 715 119 54 Beryllium 7440417 ND ND ND ND 37 20 10 Bismuth 7440699 ND 66 19 ND ND ND 35 Cadmium 7440439 17,300 3,740 4,440 788 6,040 51 ND Calcium 7440702 47,400 32,900 26,400 30,200 63,500 63,000 13,000 Chromium 7440473 83,000 9,300 18,700 10,700 50,800 698 59,400 Copper 7440508 40,000 1,210 1,600 86 9,940 37,500 21,900 Iron 7439896 27,800 29,500 40,400 156,000 124,000 24,600 47,000 Lead 7439921 10,300 170 161 581 2,320 326 109 Magnesium 7439954 51,100 161,000 111,000 27,200 49,500 53,400 6,100 Manganese 7439965 332 1,240 1,010 3,300 1,690 799 746 Mercury 7439976 ND ND 0 ND 0 0 0 Nickel 7440020 98,800 1,640 7,390 106 11,300 77,100 21,500 Selenium 7782492 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Silver 7440224 280 27 88 ND 110 272 32 Sodium 7440235 22,100 29,600 33,100 8,200 4,440 37,200 89,200 Tin 7440315 13,800 1,270 2,090 68 36,200 9,740 12,100 Zinc 7440666 17,100 62,000 89,200 262,000 176,000 24,400 81,400 TCLP Metals ­ Methods 1311, 6010A, 7470A mg/ L Arsenic 7440382 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Barium 7440393 ND ND ND 0.7 ND ND ND Cadmium 7440439 1.0 0.19 0.16 1.57 1.26 ND ND Chromium 7440473 2.8 0.08 0.09 ND ND ND 0.08 Lead 7439921 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Mercury 7439976 0.001 ND ND ND ND 0.002 ND Selenium 7782492 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Silver 7440224 3.8 ND ND ND ND 0.29 ND Table 15: Detailed Chicago Analytical Data Constituent CAS No. C1­ 01 C2­ 01 C2­ 02 C3­ 01S C4­ 01S C6­ 01 C6­ 02 September 1998 61 F006 Benchmarking Study General Chemistry ­ Methods 300.0, 335.2, 335.1, 7195/ 6010A mg/ kg Chloride 16887006 2,720 7430 59,800 5,980 959 2,140 322 Fluoride 16984488 166 4210 1180 ND 96.5 128 347 Chromium, hex 18540299 1,190 53 11 33 28 7 174 Total Cyanide 57125 1,800 3.3 0.8 3,240 3,740 373 240 Amen. Cyanide E­ 10275 110 ** 6.2 ** 2.6 ** 4,940 ** 5,340 ** 471 ** 354 Percent Solids 57.0 13.5 44 15.3 14.7 25 30.3 Notes: * All results reported on a dry­ weight basis. ** Reported value is the concentration of cyanide after chlorination. Since this value is greater than the total cyanide result, a value for the cyanide amenable to chlorination cannot be calculated. ND = Not detected September 1998 62 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 15: Detailed Chicago Analytical Data Constituent CAS No. C7­ 01S C7­ 02S C8­ 01 C8­ 02 C9­ 01 C9­ 02 C13­ 01 C14­ 01 Total Metals ­ Methods 6010A, 7471A, 7060A, 7421, 7740 mg/ kg Aluminum 7429905 4,510 493 204 153 298 311 564 390 Antimony 7440360 ND ND ND ND ND ND 90 ND Arsenic 7440382 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Barium 7440393 20 27 58 45 578 789 143 48 Beryllium 7440417 ND ND ND ND ND ND 7 ND Bismuth 7440699 ND 54 ND ND ND ND ND ND Cadmium 7440439 9 ND 11 ND 27,600 13,800 22 31 Calcium 7440702 11,000 16,100 15,000 4,040 8,630 17,000 83,900 18,200 Chromium 7440473 161 127 11,000 59,000 40,400 32,200 73 24,200 Copper 7440508 21,400 23,800 401 120 388 4,230 91,600 220 Iron 7439896 1,510 131,000 24,600 56,300 185,000 257,000 69,600 129,000 Lead 7439921 47 2,080 30 49 5 9 189 149 Magnesium 7439954 336,000 242,000 10,800 1,340 2,120 4,190 10,800 5,360 Manganese 7439965 103 523 438 569 2,130 2,950 343 858 Mercury 7439976 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0 ND Nickel 7440020 27,100 10,100 452 257 707 2,730 9,010 128 Selenium 7782492 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Silver 7440224 253 ND 109 112 225 173 351 87 Sodium 7440235 1,060 1,230 10,400 56,400 7,840 11,600 1,420 16,500 Tin 7440315 9,680 36,600 ND ND ND ND 41,200 ND Zinc 7440666 1,070 2,060 460,000 345,000 115,000 175,000 3,590 375,000 TCLP Metals ­ Methods 1311, 6010A, 7470A mg/ L Arsenic 7440382 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Barium 7440393 ND ND ND 0.80 ND ND ND ND Cadmium 7440439 ND ND 0.02 ND 144 15.8 ND 0.06 Chromium 7440473 ND ND 0.04 ND 0.14 0.02 ND 0.02 Lead 7439921 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Mercury 7439976 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.011 ND Selenium 7782492 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Silver 7440224 0.07 ND ND ND ND ND 0.85 ND General Chemistry ­ Methods 300.0, 335.2, 335.1, 7195/ 6010A mg/ kg Chloride 16887006 421 594 11,300 70,100 2,380 7,250 2,380 1,270 Table 15: Detailed Chicago Analytical Data Constituent CAS No. C7­ 01S C7­ 02S C8­ 01 C8­ 02 C9­ 01 C9­ 02 C13­ 01 C14­ 01 September 1998 63 F006 Benchmarking Study Fluoride 16984488 42.4 17.5 ND ND 343 ND ND 416 Chromium, hex. 18540299 ND ND 160 29 6 11 4 18 Total Cyanide 57125 2,480 725 3 285 2.6 1.6 3,310 3,920 Amen. Cyanide E­ 10275 ** 4,050 ** 1,100 ** 4.3 285 ** 3.5 ** 3.1 250 830 Percent Solids 47.4 41.1 15.8 23.5 45.7 41.4 32.8 40.4 Notes: * All results reported on a dry­ weight basis. ** Reported value is the concentration of cyanide after chlorination. Since this value is greater than the total cyanide result, a value for the cyanide amenable to chlorination cannot be calculated. ND = Not detected September 1998 64 F006 Benchmarking Study 3. Phoenix Benchmarking Study This section provides a detailed presentation of data gathered in the Phoenix Benchmarking Study, including a characterization of plating processes, pollution prevention and recycling practices, F006 characteristics, and site specific variations in the generation and management of F006 for ten facilities in Phoenix. Table 16 is the facility selection matrix used to select 10 facilities from 13 candidates. Table 17 presents information collected for each facility in the study. Table 18 summarizes the results of the laboratory analyses of F006 data and Table 19 presents detailed laboratory analysis results for each facility. The 10 Phoenix facilities generate approximate 1428 tons of F006 per year. Eight facilities recycle their waste and two facilities send their waste to be landfilled. Fifteen F006 laboratory samples were gathered. September 1998 65 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 16: Phoenix Metal Finishing Facility Selection Matrix Selection Criteria P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6 P 7* P8 P 9 P 10 P 11 P 12* P13 Status Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Alternate Selected Selected Eliminated Selecte Alternate Selected d Type: Captive/ Job Captive Job Job Captive Captive Job Job Job Captive Job Job Job Captive Size 35 200 75 10 24 175 105 150 75­ 100 165 47 450 70 Treatment Technology CFR, IX, IX, CFR CFR, IX, CFR, ED CFR, CFR IX for Ag CF2, IX, MS CFR, MS, CFR, IX IX, MS ER Diagn. RO DOR DOR FM Onsite Recycle water water No No No Off­ spec No No water No IX closed Cu­ water in reuse process loop bearing drag­ out foil from IX; tanks EW Landfill No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Main Mgmt. Method Filter Press Filter Filter Filter Press Filter Filter Filter Press Filter Filter Filter Filter Filter Filter Press Press Press Press; Press Press Press Press Press Press Drier (not in use) Finishing Processes Cu, Ni, Au, Cr Cu­ CN Cu, Ag, Cu­ CN, Cu Cr, Ag, Cu­ foil, Anodize, E­ Cu; Cu/ Ag/ Cu, Tin, Acid­ Cu, HCl­ Cu Acid­ Cu, Tin Cd­ CN Cr, E­ Ni, strip, Ni, Cu on hard CR Chem­ Cu; black Ni Tin­ Pb, Tin, Tin­ etching Ni, AuAnodiz Anodiz, Etching, E­ steel/ Ni/ plating, Film­ Cr on oxide; Ni, Au­ Pb, Tin­ CN Phosphat. Cu/ Ag/ Ni, Ni Cr brass­ CN Ti, Al, Fe, Au­ CN; CN Ni, NiCC Ni Ni (produces Cr, Ag, Ni Ni Au( CN) Cu­ foil) * Facility operates as a metal finisher and not an electroplater but manages sludge as F006. Key: MS Material Substitution ER Electrowinning Ni/ Cr Nickel chromium Electroplate on steel Alk/ PPT Alkaline precipitation FM Flow Meter Cu/ Ni/ Cr Copper nickel chromium on nonferrous IX Ion exchanges DOR Drag­ Out Reduction Cu Copper/ PC bands Ultra Ultrafiltration/ Microfiltration CC Chrome conversions HCr Hard chromium on steel CFR Counterflow rinse Ni Nickel electroplating Cu­ CN Copper cyanide electroplating EMR Electrolytic metal recovery Au Gold electroplating Cd­ CN Cadmium cyanide electroplating ED Electrodialysis E­ Ni Electroless­ Nickel electroplating Ag Silver electroplating RO Reverse osmosis Zn/ Fe Zinc electroplate on steel September 1998 66 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 17: Facility­ Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities Facility P1 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Acid Cu Electroless Ni ~445 tons/ yr P1­ 01 ­ collected from roll­ off, Au­ CN Electroless Cu includes sludge generated from Tin­ Pb Recycle (World Resources) separate alkaline etch batch treatment press P1­ 02 ­ composite of sludge collected from two roll­ offs containing sludge. Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS P1 ­ 01 P1 ­ 02 Filtration Total (mg/ kg) Total (mg/ kg) Carbon treatment Al ­ 3,420 Al ­ 44,700 Bath replenishment Sb ­ ND Sb ­ ND Purified water ­ utilize Reverse Osmosis (RO) and Electrodialytic Removal As ­ 2 As ­ 8 (EDR) Ba ­ 6 Ba ­ 22 Electrolytic dummying Bi ­ ND Bi ­ ND Monitoring ­ 90% of baths changed via throughput ­ some constant Cd ­ ND Cd ­ ND feed/ bleed Ca ­ 15,100 Ca ­ 15,300 Housekeeping via checklists Cr ­ 10 Cr ­ 23 Drag­ in reduction ­ drip boards/ rack orientation Hex. Cr ­ ND Hex. Cr ­ ND Purer anodes and bags ­ currently using purest level per specifications Cu ­ 7,690 Cu ­ 28,100 Facility has explored electrowinning Cu Fe ­ 5,050 Fe ­ 4,020 Solvent degreasing alternatives ­ currently use alkaline/ aqueous Pb ­ 2,590 Pb ­ 194 DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Mn ­ 101 Mn ­ 288 Wetting agents ­ contained in some chemistries Hg ­ ND Hg ­ ND Workpiece positioning ­ some racks set at angle Ni ­ 3,080 Ni ­ 4,450 Withdrawal and drainage time ­ increased hang time Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Spray or fog rinses ­ all horizontal equipment Ag ­ 8 Ag ­ 22 Drainage boards ­ automated line equipped w/ drainage boards that move Na ­ 4,050 Na ­ 4,780 w/ racks Sn ­ 2,370 Sn ­ 1,710 Drag­ out tanks ­ replenish baths with drag­ out tanks Zn ­ 57 Zn ­ 190 Replenish plating baths with drag­ out tanks CN ­ ND CN ­ ND RINSEWATER TCLP (mg/ l) TCLP (mg/ l) Spray rinse/ rinse water agitation ­ air agitation in most cases As ­ ND As ­ ND Increased contact time/ multiple rinses Ba ­ ND Ba ­ ND Countercurrent rinsing Cd ­ ND Cd ­ ND Flow restrictors ­ horizontal flow sensors ­ flow restrictors on most rinses Cr ­ ND Cr ­ ND Conductivity­ actuated flow control ­ rinse after micro­ etch on oxide line Pb ­ 0.12 Pb ­ 0.08 Recycling of rinse water via a closed loop system for etch rinses Hg ­ ND Hg ­ ND Mg ­ 319,000 Mg ­ 245,000 Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Ag ­ ND Ag ­ ND September 1998 67 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 17 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities Facility P2 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Hard chrome Zinc ~40 tons/ yr P2­ 01 ­ collected directly from rollSulfuric acid phosphating off, brownish­ green mixed with a anodizing Manganese Recycle (World Resources) white and green layer chromic Acid phosphating anodizing Chromate Hard anodizing conversion Electroless Ni coatings Sulfamate Ni passivation Cd­ CN Cu­ CN Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS P2 ­ 01 Filtration ­ seals, anodize, sulfamate/ electroless Ni, Cu, Cd Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) Carbon Treatment on CN rinses, periodically on sulfamate nickel Al ­72,300 As ­ ND Replenishment ­ process tanks have drag­ out w/ replenishment of Cd, Cu, Sb ­ ND Ba ­ ND Cr, anodize As ­ 12 Cd ­ ND Purified Water ­ RO/ DI, not all rinse tanks use purified water Ba ­ 67 Cr ­ 0.1 Electrolytic Dummying ­ Woods Ni, strike, sulfamate Ni, Cr anodize, Cr Bi ­ 71 Pb ­ 0.12 plate, Cu Cd ­ 77 Hg ­ ND Precipitation ­ hard Cr ­ BaCl2 precipitates sulfate Ca ­15,800 Se ­ ND Monitoring ­ wet lab/ computerized cleaners­ chronological Cr ­ 25,700 Ag ­ ND Drag­ in Reduction ­ training on rinsing, minimum of 2 counterflow rinses Hex. Cr ­ 5 Purer Anodes and Bags ­ already employed (Cd 99.999%) ­ all highest grade Cu ­2,660 Ventilation/ Exhaust Systems ­ Cr scrubber reused for evaporation losses Fe ­ 13,600 Solvent Degreasing Alternatives ­ use vapor degreaser ­ not using Pb ­ 1,160 perchloroethylene, but instead a brominated solvent Mg ­ 198,000 Acid Purification ­ chromic acid purification (hard chrome). Uses EcoTech Mn ­ 116 system Hg ­ 0.3 DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Se ­ ND Process Bath Operating Concentration ­ chromic acid concentrations have Ag ­7 been looked at to reduce drag­ out ­ limitations due to specs Na ­ 15,800 Workpiece positioning ­ racking Sn ­171 Withdrawal and Drainage Time ­ spraying over bath Zn ­ 251 Spray or Fog Rinses over drag­ out tanks CN ­ ND Spent Plating Solutions ­ Replenishment RINSE WATER Spray Rinse/ RinseWater Agitation ­ air agitation in some tanks Increased Contact Time/ Multiple Rinses Countercurrent Rinsing Flow Restrictors in all cases Conductivity­ Actuated Flow Control ­ all rinses are conductivity/ pH controlled via lab Rinse Water ­ recycling/ recovery of CN rinses Ni ­ 4,480 September 1998 68 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 17 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities Facility P3 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Hard chrome Sulfamate Ni 37 tons/ yr P3­ 01 ­ taken from roll­ off, blueCu CN Electroless Ni greenish color Ag­ CN Bright Ni Recycle (Word Resources) P3­ 02 ­ taken from same roll­ off, Sulfuric anodizing sample collected from obviously Chrome anodizing different press load ­ brownish­ green in color Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS P3 ­ 01 P3 ­ 02 Filtration on all process tanks Total (mg/ kg) Total (mg/ kg) Carbon treatment used in regular filters Al ­ 76,100 Al ­ 74,500 Replenishment Sb ­ ND Sb ­ ND Purified water ­ RO/ DI As ­ 11 As ­ 12 Electrolytic Dummying ­ Ag/ Nickel baths Ba ­ 686 Ba ­ 371 Cyanide Bath Carbonate Freezing ­ precipitate AgCN from bath Bi ­ 19 Bi ­ 29 Precipitation ­ precipitate Al out of anodize bath Cd ­ 5 Cd ­ 30 Monitoring ­ most tanks weekly ­ either scheduled or monitored Ca ­ 35,300 Ca ­ 63,300 replacements Cr ­ 205,000 Cr ­ 118,000 Housekeeping ­ tank covers, clean anode/ cathode bars Hex. Cr ­ 8 Hex. Cr ­ 11 Drag­ in Reduction ­ Counter Flow rinses Cu ­ 5,670 Cu ­ 11,500 Purer Anodes and Bags ­ already using high purity Ni/ Cu/ Ag Fe ­ 6,450 Fe ­ 7,990 Hexavalent Chrome Alternatives ­ MILSPEC, etc. limits options Pb ­ 191 Pb ­ 500 Non­ cyanide Process Chemicals ­ MILSPEC limitations, also would need to Mg ­ 15,500 Mg ­ 30,300 redo permit to use these chemistries Mn ­ 183 Mn ­ 184 Solvent Degreasing Alternatives ­ used to use Vapor degreaser Hg ­ ND Hg ­ ND (perchloroethylene) switched ~1995 to aqueous­ based Ni ­ 4,400 Ni ­ 4,390 Alkaline Cleaners ­ skimming on semi­ aqueous cleaners (alkaline based) Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Acid Purification ­ chrome baths ­ constant ion exchange, after 8 days, baths Ag ­23 Ag ­ 1,190 are "dead" and are diluted by half and run through ion exchange, then Na ­15,600 Na ­ 19,800 evaporated to working concentration (can recover ~98% of original bath) Sn ­382 Sn ­ 182 DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY CN ­ 2.4 CN ­ 579 Wetting Agents ­ some tanks have agents (Cu, Ni, fume suppressant­ mist control) TCLP (mg/ l) TCLP (mg/ l) Workpiece Positioning ­ incorporated (optimization between drag­ out and As ­ ND As ­ ND throwing power) Ba ­ ND Ba ­ ND Withdrawal and Drainage Time ­ operator subjective (training) Cd ­ ND Cd ­ 0.02 Spray or Fog Rinses in chrome baths ­ RO water spray Cr ­ 0.92 Cr ­ 0.56 Drag­ out Tanks ­ Ag tanks, chromic anodize, 3 rinse on chrome tank, Pb ­ 0.06 Pb ­ND replenish bath Hg ­ 0.003 Hg ­ ND RINSE WATER Ag ­ ND Ag ­ ND Spray Rinse/ Rinse Water Agitation ­ some rinses have air agitation Increased Contact Time/ Multiple Rinses Countercurrent Rinsing Zn ­ 7,390 Zn ­ 29,100 Se ­ ND Se ­ ND September 1998 69 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 17 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities Facility P4 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Ni­ Cr on steel 85 tons/ yr P4­ 01 ­ collected directly from rollHard chrome on steel off, reddish­ brown in color Cu­ CN Subtitle C Landfill Sulfuric acid anodizing Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS P4 ­ 01 Replenishment on all tanks Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) Purified Water ­ DI water Al ­ 2,180 As ­ ND Electrolytic Dummying ­ hard chrome (regeneration automatically in tank) Sb ­ ND Ba ­ ND Monitoring once a week As ­ 10 Cd ­ ND Housekeeping ­ training for drag­ out, air drying Ba ­ 49 Cr ­ ND Ventilation/ Exhaust Systems Bi ­ ND Pb ­ ND Nonchelated Process Chemistries ­ segregate chelating chemistries, Cd ­ ND Hg ­ ND investigated material substitutions Ca ­15,700 Se ­ ND Solvent Degreasing Alternatives ­ all cleaning is aqueous based Cr ­ 5,680 Ag ­ ND DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Cu ­ 417 Wetting Agents ­ exploring with vendor Fe ­ 560,000 Workpiece Positioning Pb ­ 80 Withdrawal and Drainage Time ­ procedures set guideline Mg ­ 6,310 Drainage boards and drag­ out tanks Mn ­ 2,070 Drag­ out used as make­ up in baths Hg ­ ND RINSE WATER Se ­ ND Spray Rinse/ Rinse Water Agitation ­ air and water agitation Ag ­ ND Increased Contact Time/ Multiple Rinses Na ­ 6,700 Countercurrent Rinsing Sn ­ 38 Rinse Water ­ counterflow recycling/ recovery Zn ­ 258 Spent Process Baths ­ a portion of FeCl is used in Waste water treatment for CN ­ ND flocculation Hex. Cr ­ 75 Ni ­ 1,530 September 1998 70 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 17 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities Facility P5 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Hard chrome Sulfamate Ni 50 tons/ yr P5­ 01 ­ composited a variety of Cu­ CN Ag­ CN different press loads into a single Aluminum anodizing Subtitle C Landfill sample, colors ranged from dark brown to light brown to greenishbrown Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS P5 ­ 01 Filtration of most baths Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) Replenishment of most baths Al ­ 2,270 As ­ ND Purified Water ­ RO/ DI Sb ­ ND Ba ­ ND Electrolytic Dummying ­ hard chrome As ­ 160 Cd ­ ND Cyanide Bath Carbonate Freezing for all CN plating (CaCO drops out) Ba ­ 387 Cr ­ 1.06 3 Monitoring ­ wet chemistry ­ all changes are based on testing Bi ­ ND Pb ­ ND Housekeeping ­ designated bath maintenance person Cd ­ 806 Hg ­ ND Ventilation/ Exhaust Systems ­ scrubbers segregated as well Ca ­ 29,300 Se ­ ND Nonchelated Process Chemistries ­ segregated (electroless Ni) Cr ­ 206,000 Ag ­ ND Solvent Degreasing Alternatives ­ all cleaning aqueous based Hex. Cr ­ 77 Alkaline Cleaners ­ coalesce/ disk filter to remove contaminants Cu ­ 23,500 DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Pb ­ 377 Wetting Agents Mg ­ 31,300 Workpiece positioning Mn ­ 556 Withdrawal and Drainage Time ­ SOP's Hg ­ ND Air Knives ­ some used for drying Ni ­ 10,300 Spray or Fog Rinses ­ some drag­ out tanks have spray rinse Se ­ ND Drainage boards and drag­ out tanks Ag ­ 457 Sent back for replenishment of plating baths Na ­ 15,300 RINSE WATER Zn ­ 291 Spray Rinse/ Rinse Water Agitation ­ air agitation CN ­ 102 Increased Contact Time/ Multiple Rinses Countercurrent Rinsing Flow restrictors set at 5 gpm (timed) Spent Process Baths ­ copper alkaline strip recycled/ recovered off­ site at a smelter Solvents ­ oil based wax removal sent off site for fuel blending Fe ­ 35,200 Sn ­ 546 September 1998 71 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 17 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities Facility P6 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Cu sulfate ~590 tons/ yr P6­ 01 ­ "fresh" sludge sample from Hard chrome roll­ off currently in use( sludge Cyanide­ based brass Recycle (World Resources) dropped that day), sludge was a mixture of bluish and dark brown P6­ 02 ­ "old" sludge from hopper accumulated the previous week, appeared brownish Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS P6 ­ 01 P6 ­ 02 Filtration on all baths ­ cartridge, bags, and diatomaceous earth filters Total (mg/ kg) Total (mg/ kg) Carbon Treatment ­ electroforming Al ­ 511 Al ­ 233 Replenishment ­ continuous circulation Sb ­ 221 Sb ­ 153 Purified Water ­ RO As ­ 8,780 As ­ 5,600 Monitoring ­ on­ line XRF, wet lab Ba ­ 67 Ba ­ 11 Drag­ in Reduction ­ multiple rinses, squeegees Bi ­ ND Bi ­ ND Ventilation/ Exhaust Systems Cd ­3 Cd ­ ND Non­ cyanide Process Chemicals ­ looking at material substitutions Ca ­1,440 Ca ­ 1,980 Caustic Etch Solution Regeneration ­ plate­ out removes all copper Cr ­10,000 Cr ­ 7,820 Acid Purification ­ filtration Hex. Cr ­ 548 Hex. Cr ­ 466 DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Fe ­ 6,650 Fe ­ 2,670 Spray or Fog Rinses ­ some replenish to prior tank Pb ­ 19,800 Pb ­ 14,800 All Drag­ Out to Waste Water Treatment Mg ­ 1,320 Mg ­ 1,590 RINSE WATER Hg ­ ND Hg ­ ND Spray Rinse/ Rinse Water Agitation Ni ­ 99 Ni ­ 51 Increased Contact Time/ Multiple Rinses Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Flow Restrictors ­ some used but operators can adjust flow manually Ag ­3 Ag ­ ND Conductivity­ Actuated Flow Control Na ­ 60 Na ­ 25 Spent Process Baths ­ Recycling/ Recovery of electroforming bath ­ Solvent Sn ­ 3,570 Sn ­ 3,850 Extraction of copper off­ site Zn ­ 31,600 Zn ­ 24,600 Cu ­552,000 Cu ­ 463,000 Mn ­ 72 Mn ­ 24 CN ­ 169 CN ­ 127 TCLP (mg/ l) TCLP (mg/ l) As ­ ND As ­ ND Ba ­ ND Ba ­ ND Cd ­ 0.02 Cd ­ 0.03 Cr ­ ND Cr ­ ND Pb ­ 35.40 Pb ­ 39.80 Hg ­ ND Hg ­ ND Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Ag ­ ND Ag ­ ND September 1998 72 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 17 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities Facility P8 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Electroless Cu Acid Cu 64 tons/ yr P8­ 01 ­ sample collected directly Ni sulfamate Au­ CN from hopper, appeared brownish in Tin­ lead­ copper Recycle (World Resources) color and was dropped that day Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS P8 ­ 01 Filtration on acid Cu, Au, Ni, black oxide, pre­ cleaning lines Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) Carbon Treatment on acid Cu/ Sn­ Pb/ Au, Ni Al ­ 60,800 As ­ ND Purified Water ­ RO/ UV/ ion exchange ­ incoming water Sb ­ ND Ba ­ 1.5 Electrolytic Dummying ­ acid Cu primarily (Sn) As ­ 3 Cd ­ ND Monitoring ­ lab does chemical maintenance ­ computer controlled (staff Ba ­ 125 Cr ­ 0.02 monitors) Bi ­ ND Pb ­ 0.64 Housekeeping ­ drip trays, daily inspection Cd ­ ND Hg ­ ND Drag­ in Reduction ­ manual lines ­ training Ca ­ 9,710 Se ­ ND Ventilation/ Exhaust Systems ­ fume scrubbers on roof, ventilation on tanks Cr ­ 248 Ag ­ ND that are heated Hex. Cr ­ ND Alkaline cleaners ­ Filtration and Skimming Cu ­ 124,000 DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Pb ­ 3,610 Process Bath Operating Concentration ­ standard and well addressed Mg ­ 6,620 Process Bath Operating Temperature ­ already optimized Mn ­ 496 Air Knives and squeegee rollers Hg ­ 0.3 Spray or Fog Rinses Ni ­ 2,900 Drainage Boards ­ drip pads between tanks Se ­ ND Drag­ Out Tanks Ag ­ 835 RINSE WATER Sn ­ 14,700 Spray Rinse/ Rinse Water Agitation ­ air agitation on a few tanks Zn ­ 782 Countercurrent Rinsing ­ used in all processes CN ­ ND Flow restrictors isolated and operator controlled Spent Process Baths ­ ammonium hydroxide etching recycled off site Fe ­ 50,900 Na ­ 2,050 September 1998 73 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 17 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities Facility P9 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Copper sulfate 109 tons/ yr P9­ 01 ­ chelate sludge sampled Nickel sulfate directly from small hopper prior to Au immersion (CN) Recycle (World Resources) moving to final storage roll­ off Tin where commingled with non­ chelate Electrolytic Au (CN ) sludge Electroless nickel P9­ 02 ­ non­ chelate sludge sampled directly from final storage hopper avoiding chelate sludge (some minor mixing of the two occurred) Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS P9 ­ 01 P9 ­ 02 Particulate filtration Total (mg/ kg) Total (mg/ kg) Carbon treatment Al ­ 4,110 Al ­ 59 Replenishment Sb ­ 44 Sb ­ ND Purified Water ­ RO/ DI As ­ 26 As ­ 9 Electrolytic Dummying ­ Ni/ Cu Ba ­ 40 Ba ­ 9 Monitoring ­ AA testing, titrations, and microetch Cu testing Bi ­ 21 Bi ­ ND Housekeeping Cd ­ ND Cd ­ ND Drag­ in Reduction Ca ­ 6,880 Ca ­ 682 Purer Anodes and Bags are already implemented (function of industry) Cr ­ 100 Cr ­ 34 Ventilation/ Exhaust Systems Hex. Cr ­ ND Hex. Cr ­ 31 Nonchelated Process Chemistries ­ chelating chemistries are segregated Cu ­ 48,700 Cu ­ 631,000 Solvent Degreasing Alternatives ­ removed vapor degreaser Fe ­ 204,000 Fe ­ 364 Caustic Etch Solution Regeneration ­ Cu Ammonium chlorite recycled off Pb ­ 1,660 Pb ­ ND site Mg ­ 10,700 Mg ­ 230 DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Hg ­ ND Hg ­ ND Process Bath Operating Concentration ­ optimized Ni ­ 1,990 Ni ­ 10,800 Process Bath Operating Temperature ­ optimized Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Wetting Agents ­ Ni and Cu bath Ag ­ 38 Ag ­ 12 Workpiece Positioning ­ looking at positioning sheets at 10° drip angle Na ­ 36,900 Na ­ 41,600 Withdrawal and Drainage Time ­ automatic lines are programmed with dwell Sn ­ 37,200 Sn ­ 402 and rate of removal Zn ­ 389 Zn ­ 2.750 Air Knives and squeegees on conveyors CN ­ 9.1 CN ­ ND Spray or Fog Rinses Drainage Boards ­ used some in electrolytic gold and used in conveyors TCLP (mg/ l) TCLP (mg/ l) Drag­ Out Tanks As ­ ND As ­ ND Evaporation ­ Ni drag­ out replenished to Ni plate bath Ba ­ ND Ba ­ ND RINSE WATER Cr ­ ND Cr ­ ND Spray Rinse/ Rinse Water Agitation Pb ­ ND Pb ­ 0.08 Increased Contact Time/ Multiple Rinses Hg ­ ND Hg ­ ND Countercurrent Rinsing Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Flow Restrictors Ag ­ ND Ag ­ ND Conductivity­ Actuated Flow Control ­ used on large Cu­ Tin line Rinse Water ­ approximately 30 to 35% of total flow is recycled Spent Process Baths ­ Au recovered on site Mn ­ 191 Mn ­ 104 Cd ­ ND Cd ­ ND September 1998 74 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 17 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities Facility P11 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Acid Cu Ni sulfate ~4 tons/ yr P11­ 01 ­ sludge from supersack Tin­ Pb Acid Tin Au ­CN Recycle (World Resources) Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS P11 ­ 01 Filtration on all process baths Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) Carbon treatment on acid­ Cu quarterly and others periodically Al ­ 819 As ­ ND Replenishment of baths with drag­ out Sb ­ ND Ba ­ ND Purified water ­ use deionized water As ­ ND Cd ­ ND Electrolytic dummying periodically Ba ­ 17 Cr ­ ND Monitoring via wet lab (pH, titration); baths replaced based on sq. ft. plated Bi ­ ND Pb ­ 0.13 Drag­ in reduction ­ drain times/ dwell times Cd ­ND Hg ­ ND Segregate chelating process chemistries (magnesium sulfate used on a batch­ Ca ­11,400 Se ­ ND by­ batch basis) Cr ­ 119 Ag ­ ND Solvent degreasing alternatives ­ all cleaners are aqueous­ based Hex. Cr ­ ND Alkaline cleaners ­ resist strip is filtered Cu ­ 125,000 DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Pb ­ 6,080 Workpiece positioning ­ racks are coated Mg ­ 72,600 Optimize withdrawal and drainage time Mn ­ 2,080 Use squirt bottles for rinsing Au/ Ni solution back into bath Hg ­ ND Utilize Drag­ out tanks Ni ­ 1,030 Some drag­ out tanks are used to replenish hot plating baths Se ­ ND RINSE WATER Na ­ 13,400 Spray rinse/ rinse water agitation Sn ­ 131,000 Increased contact time/ multiple rinses Zn ­ 820 Countercurrent rinsing CN ­ ND Flow restrictors Conductivity­ actuated flow control Recycling/ recovery of rinse water ­ closed­ loop on metal­ bearing rinses Fe ­ 75,800 Ag ­ 14 September 1998 75 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 17 (cont'd): Facility­ Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities Facility P13 Plating Process F006 Quantity and Management Sample Description Copper (CN) Au­ CN ~4 tons/ yr P13­ 01 ­ "old" sample collected Ni from top of superbag, appeared dry, Recycle (World Resources) and dense P13­ 02 ­ "fresh" sample collected directly from small hopper under filter press Pollution Prevention Practices Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.) SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS P13 ­ 01 P13 ­ 02 Filtration Total (mg/ kg) Total (mg/ kg) Carbon Treatment for alkaline rinse Al ­ 1,370 Al ­ 2,860 Purified Water ­ DI system Sb ­ 34,800 Sb ­ 1,250 Electrolytic Dummying ­ Ni baths As ­ ND As ­ 10 Monitoring via in­ house lab ­ conductivity on rinse tanks, going to add Ba ­ 253 Ba ­ 198 turbidity monitor to alkaline rinse Bi ­ 398 Bi ­ 32 Housekeeping ­ process tanks are covered at end of the day and also replace Cd ­ ND Cd ­ 3 baths chronologically visually Ca ­ 2,690 Ca ­ 143,000 Drag­ in Reduction ­ spray rinses with double dipping Cr ­ 29 Cr ­ 170 Ventilation/ Exhaust Systems Hex. Cr ­ ND Hex. Cr ­ ND Nonchelated Process Chemistries ­ electrowinning helps, and add reducing Cu ­3,660 Cu ­ 6,430 agents Fe ­ 3,500 Fe ­ 17,100 DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION/ RECOVERY Mg ­ 187 Mg ­ 2,640 Workpiece Positioning ­ looking into new racks Mn ­ 13 Mn ­ 92 Withdrawal and Drainage Time ­ subject to plater on manual lines (Au racks Hg ­ 0.5 Hg ­ 0.4 are left to sit ~10 minutes) Ni ­ 2,420 Ni ­ 71,900 Spray or Fog Rinses ­ stagnant spray rinses (with water) Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Drag­ Out Tanks Ag ­ 113 Ag ­ 40 Electrowinning ­ Ni, Cu Na ­ 310 Na ­ 5,660 RINSE WATER Zn ­ 672 Zn ­ 357 Spray Rinse/ RinseWater Agitation ­ air agitation CN ­ ND CN ­ ND Increased Contact Time/ Multiple Rinses Countercurrent Rinsing TCLP (mg/ l) TCLP (mg/ l) Flow Restrictors ­ spray rinses As ­ ND As ­ ND Conductivity­ Actuated Flow Control ­ conductivity meters, but not controlled Ba ­ ND Ba ­ ND because generate too much water Cd ­ 0.1 Cd ­ ND Rinse Water ­ Ni rinse with ion exchange is recycled Cr ­ ND Cr ­ ND Pb ­ 175,000 Pb ­ 13,000 Sn ­ 467,000 Sn ­ 15,300 Pb ­ 1,630 Pb ­ 1.26 Hg ­ ND Hg ­ ND Se ­ ND Se ­ ND Ag ­ ND Ag ­ ND September 1998 76 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 18: Summary of Phoenix F006 Analytical Data: # of Samples Which Were: Not Detected; Above Method Quantitation Limit Constituent # Samples # Non Detects # Samples Above (%) (%) Method Quantitation Limit (%) Total Metals Concentration (mg/ kg) Aluminum 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Antimony 15 10( 67%) 5( 33%) Arsenic 15 2( 13%) 13( 87%) Barium 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Beryllium 0 0 0 Bismuth 15 9( 60%) 6( 40%) Cadmium 15 9( 60%) 6( 40%) Calcium 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Chromium 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Copper 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Iron 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Lead 15 1( 7%) 14( 93%) Magnesium 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Manganese 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Mercury 15 11( 73%) 4( 27%) Nickel 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Selenium 0 0 0 Silver 15 2( 13%) 13( 87%) Sodium 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Tin 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Zinc 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) TCLP (mg/ l) Arsenic 0 0 0 Barium 8 7( 87%) 1( 13%) Cadmium 15 11( 73%) 4( 27%) Chromium 15 10( 67%) 5( 33%) Lead 15 4( 27%) 11( 73%) Mercury 7 6( 86%) 1( 14%) Selenium 0 0 0 Silver 0 0 0 General Chemistry (mg/ kg) Chloride 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) Fluoride 15 1( 7%) 14( 93%) Chromium, hexavalent 15 7( 46%) 8( 54%) Total Cyanide 15 8( 54%) 7( 46%) Amenable Cyanide 15 1( 7%) 14( 93%) Percent Solids 15 0( 0%) 15( 100%) September 1998 77 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 19: Detailed Analytical Data for the Phoenix Facilities Constituent CAS No. P1­ 01 P1­ 02 P2­ 01 P3­ 01 P3­ 02 P4­ 01 P5­ 01 Total Metals ­ Methods 6010A, 7471A, 7060A, 7421, 7740 mg/ kg Aluminum 7429905 3,420 44,700 72,300 76,100 74,500 2,180 2,270 Antimony 7440360 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Arsenic 7440382 2 8 12 11 12 10 16 Barium 7440393 6 22 67 686 371 49 387 Beryllium 7440417 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Bismuth 7440699 ND ND 71 19 29 ND ND Cadmium 7440439 ND ND 77 5 30 ND 806 Calcium 7440702 15,100 15,300 15,800 35,300 63,300 15,700 29,300 Chromium 7440473 10 23 25,700 205,000 118,000 5,680 206,000 Copper 7440508 7,690 28,100 2,660 5,670 11,500 417 23,500 Iron 7439896 5,050 4,020 13,600 6,450 7,990 560,000 35,200 Lead 7439921 2,590 194 1,160 191 500 80 377 Magnesium 7439954 319,000 245,000 198,000 15,500 30,300 6,310 31,300 Manganese 7439965 101 288 116 183 184 2,070 556 Mercury 7439976 ND ND 0.3 ND ND ND ND Nickel 7440020 3,080 4,450 4,480 4,400 4,390 1,530 10,300 Selenium 7782492 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Silver 7440224 8 22 7 23 1,190 ND 457 Sodium 7440235 4,050 4,780 15,800 15,600 19,800 6,700 15,300 Tin 7440315 2,370 1,710 171 382 182 38 546 Zinc 7440666 57 190 251 7,390 29,100 258 291 TCLP Metals ­ Methods 1311, 6010A, 7470A mg/ L Arsenic 7440382 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Cadmium 7440439 ND ND ND ND 0.02 ND ND Chromium 7440473 ND ND 0.1 0.92 0.56 ND 1.06 Lead 7439921 0.12 0.08 0.12 0.06 ND ND ND Mercury 7439976 ND ND ND 0.003 ND ND ND Selenium 7782492 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Silver 7440224 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND General Chemistry ­ Methods 300.0, 335.2, 335.1, 7195/ 6010A mg/ kg Chloride 16887006 542 3,950 451 430 566 8,120 4,790 Fluoride 16984488 49.5 804 782 3,090 4,240 ND 161 Hex. Chromium 18540299 ND ND 5 8 11 75 77 Total Cyanide 57125 ND ND 1.1 2.4 579 ND 102 Amen. Cyanide E­ 10275 ** 13.3 ** 89.7 ** 8.4 ** 7 ** 809 ND ** 156 Percent Solids 60.1 30.1 27.3 27.8 20.9 28 28.5 Notes: ND ­ not detected *All results reported on a dry­ weight basis. ** Reported value is the concentration of cyanide after chlorination. Since this value is greater than the total cyanide result, a value for the cyanide amenable to chlorination cannot be calculated. September 1998 78 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 19 (con't): Detailed Analytical Data for the Phoenix Facilities Constituent CAS No. P6­ 01 P6­ 02 P8­ 01 P9­ 01 P9­ 02 P11­ 01 P13­ 01 P13­ 02 Total Metals ­ Methods 6010A, 7471A, 7060A, 7421, 7740 mg/ kg Aluminum 7429905 511 233 60,800 4,110 59 819 1,370 2,860 Antimony 7440360 221 153 ND 44 ND ND 34,800 1,250 Arsenic 7440382 8,780 5,600 3 26 9 ND ND 10 Beryllium 7440417 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Barium 7440393 67 11 125 40 9 17 253 198 Bismuth 7440699 ND ND ND 21 ND ND 398 32 Cadmium 7440439 3 ND ND ND ND ND ND 3 Calcium 7440702 1,440 1,980 9,710 6,880 682 11,400 2,690 143,000 Chromium 7440473 10,000 7,820 248 100 34 119 29 170 Copper 7440508 552,000 463,000 124,000 48,700 631,000 125,000 3,660 6,430 Iron 7439896 6,650 2,670 50,900 204,000 364 75,800 3,500 17,100 Lead 7439921 19,800 14,800 3,610 1,660 ND 6,080 175,000 13,000 Magnesium 7439954 1,320 1,590 6,620 10,700 230 72,600 187 2,640 Manganese 7439965 72 24 496 191 104 2,080 13 92 Mercury 7439976 ND ND 0.3 ND ND ND 0.5 0.4 Nickel 7440020 99 51 2,900 1,990 10,800 1,030 2,420 71,900 Selenium 7782492 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Silver 7440224 3 ND 835 38 12 14 113 40 Sodium 7440235 60 25 2,050 36,900 41,600 13,400 310 5,660 Tin 7440315 3,570 3,850 14,700 37,200 402 131,000 467,000 15,300 Zinc 7440666 31,600 24,600 782 389 2,750 820 672 357 TCLP Metals ­ Methods 1311, 6010A, 7470A mg/ L Arsenic 7440382 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Barium 7440393 ND ND 1.5 ND ND ND ND ND Cadmium 7440439 0.02 0.03 ND ND ND ND 0.1 ND Chromium 7440473 ND ND 0.02 ND ND ND ND ND Lead 7439921 35.4 39.8 0.64 ND 0.08 0.13 1,630 1.26 Mercury 7439976 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Selenium 7782492 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Silver 7440224 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND General Chemistry ­ Methods 300.0, 335.2, 335.1, 7195/ 6010A mg/ kg Chloride 16887006 1,630 1,490 590 2,250 24,000 4,110 64 905 Fluoride 16984488 ND ND 100 3,090 ND ND ND ND Hex. Chromium 18540299 548 466 ND ND 31 ND ND ND Total Cyanide 57125 169 127 ND 9.1 ND ND ND ND Amen. Cyanide E­ 10275 ** 359 ** 369 ** 3.9 ** 75.1 ** 20.8 ** 16.6 ** 14.7 ** 39.4 Percent Solids 27.5 29.3 34.4 34.9 27.2 45.2 94.1 41.1 Notes: ND ­ not detected *All results reported on a dry­ weight basis. ** Reported value is the concentration of cyanide after chlorination. Since this value is greater than the total cyanide result, a value for the cyanide amenable to chlorination cannot be calculated. September 1998 79 F006 Benchmarking Study 4. Detailed Results of the National Benchmarking Study Tables 20­ 32 present detailed results of the National Benchmarking Study. The data gathered is similar in type but is often less detailed than the data gathered in the Regional Benchmarking Study. Data categories include: metal finishing operations, pollution prevention practices, F006 characteristics and sludge management practices from a broad range of metal finishers (Appendix G contains the survey instrument). The survey was distributed by mail to member companies of NAMF and AESF, and at a metal finishers national technical conference (SURFIN 97). In all, nearly 2,000 surveys were distributed. One hundred eighty­ six (186) responses were received and compiled into a computer data base. A variety of firms responded. The number of employees of respondents ranged from 4 to 7,250 with an average of 229. The survey question number is indicated in the summaries below in [brackets]. a. Characterization of the Survey Respondents Average number of employees responding: 229 Maximum number of employees responding: 7,250 Minimum number of employees responding: 4 A total of 186 surveys were received. Number of respondents to this question: 171 / 186 = 92 % b. Product and Waste Stream Characterization [C1] Respondents reported product weight using different units: Average of the responses reported in cubic yards : 60,867 tons Average of the responses reported in barrel loads: 150,000 barrel loads Number of responses to this question: 88 / 186 = 47% c. Total quantity of F006 waste generated in 1996 [C4] Average of reponses reported in tons: 1016 tons Number of responses to this question: 161 / 186 = 87% d. F006 segregation [C2] Facilities reporting that F006 wastes are combined in the wastewater: 139 Facilities reporting that F006 wastes are process­ specific: 22 Number of responses to this question: 161 / 186 = 87% e. Cyanide sludge segregation [C3] Facilities reporting that cyanide­ bearing F006 sludges are segregated: 33 Facilities reporting that cyanide­ bearing F006 sludges are not segregated: 151 Number of responses to this question: 184 / 186 = 99% f. Quantity of F006 waste generated by process [C5] Respondents reported generating an average 1,016 tons of F006 sludge annually. As noted in the statistical analysis section, larger companies tended to respond more than smaller companies. A summary of F006 sludge generated by groups of plating processes is provided in Table 20. Table 21 presents the estimates of process­ September 1998 80 F006 Benchmarking Study specific F006 waste generation for 1996. The quantities assume that all units are equivalent (e. g., cubic yards and dry tons). Table 20: Summary of F006 Sludge Generation by Plating Category Plating Category Quantity (dry tons) Mixed Acids 118750.47 Anodizing 19.05 Bright Dip of Copper/ alloy 74.82 Cadmium 6373.50 All Chrome 55467.93 Cleaner 122.65 All Copper 7419.35 All Cyanide 8328.32 All Electroless Nickel 14.88 All Ion Exchange 14.42 All Nickel 23019.36 Silver Plate 75.65 Stainless Electropolish 68.63 Tin 51.45 All Zinc 15938.36 Table 21. Process­ Specific F006 Waste Generation for 1996 Facility Process Quantity Measure 027 Not available 1.00 Cubic Yards 064 Not available 30.30 Dry Tons 022 Not available Dry Tons 016 Not available 0.56 Dry Tons 016 Not available 0.14 Dry Tons 078 ABS/ Steel Chromium plating 78.47 Dry Tons 123 acid 80.00 Cubic Yards 037 acid batch treat 0.13 Dry Tons 090 acid copper 6.04 Dry Tons 037 acid rinses 26.50 Dry Tons 083 acid­ alkali wastewater 118388.00 Dry Tons 145 acid­ chloride zinc 90.00 Dry Tons 075 acid/ alkaline 141.84 Long Tons 023 acid/ alkaline rinses 17.97 Metric Tons 001 alum treating 8.00 Dry Tons 036 anodizing 0.50 Cubic Yards 148 anodizing 1.00 Cubic Yards 146 anodizing 7.50 Dry Tons 144 sulfuric acid anodizing 0.05 Dry Tons 174 Sulfuric Anodize/ Hardcoat 2.00 Dry Tons 144 bright dip of copper/ alloys 6.00 Dry Tons 035 black oxide 25.00 Cubic Yards 112 brass plating 0.50 Dry Tons Table 21. Process­ Specific F006 Waste Generation for 1996 Facility Process Quantity Measure September 1998 81 F006 Benchmarking Study 138 brass waste treatment 40.60 Dry Tons 057 bright dip of copper/ alloy 0.13 Dry Tons 156 bright dip of copper/ alloy 2.60 Dry Tons 155 bronze line cleaner side overflowing rinse 10.00 Dry Tons 027 cadmium 1.00 Cubic Yards 026 barrel cadmium 3126.00 Dry Tons 173 cadmium 1.00 Dry Tons 066 cadmium 26.00 Cubic Yards 057 cadmium plating 0.50 Dry Tons 120 cadmium plating 14.00 Dry Tons 114 cadmium and other processes 14.00 Dry Tons 133 cyanide cadmium plating 55.00 Cubic Feet 026 rack cadmium 3126.00 Dry Tons 119 chelate 20.00 Dry Tons 048 chromating 3.22 Dry Tons 119 chrome 15.00 Dry Tons 096 chrome 8.10 Dry Tons 075 chrome 54.75 Long Tons 065 chrome anodize 1.50 Dry Tons 080 chrome hydroxide 55.70 Dry Tons 183 chrome plate 10245.00 Dry Tons 038 chrome plating 1.00 Dry Tons 051 chrome plating 10.92 Dry Tons 059 chrome plating and chromating 61.00 Cubic Yards 082 chrome plating and chromating 43.75 Dry Tons 023 chrome rinses 5.39 Metric Tons 134 chrome rinses 46.50 Dry Tons 085 chrome/ nickel 155.50 Dry Tons 054 chromic anodize 16.00 Dry Tons 174 chromic anodize 0.25 Dry Tons 090 chromium 9.98 Dry Tons 058 chromium 0.99 Dry Tons 083 chromium contaminated wastewater 35687.00 Dry Tons 049 hard chrome 7508.00 Dry Tons 046 hard chrome 7.38 Dry Tons 034 hard chrome 7.00 Dry Tons 039 hard chrome plating 1500.00 Cubic Feet 174 Conversion Coating 0.25 Dry Tons 148 conversion coatings 2.00 Cubic Yards 156 Chromate conversion on aluminum 1.75 Dry Tons 116 cleaner tank bottoms 0.15 Dry Tons 141 cleaning 5.00 Dry Tons 104 cleaning (soap and acid); aluminum cleaning 10.00 Dry Tons 004 cleaning rinses 93.50 Dry Tons 185 batch treats( cleaners & Microetch) 14.00 Dry Tons Table 21. Process­ Specific F006 Waste Generation for 1996 Facility Process Quantity Measure September 1998 82 F006 Benchmarking Study 110 copper nickel plating 75.00 Dry Tons 042 copper 5.51 Dry Tons 021 copper & brass 2.60 Dry Tons 112 copper nickel chrome plating on non ferrous 40.00 Dry Tons 112 copper nickel chrome plating on steel 0.50 Dry Tons 183 copper plate 657.00 Dry Tons 061 copper plate 40.00 Dry Tons 036 copper plate 0.50 Cubic Yards 057 copper plating 0.13 Dry Tons 082 copper plating 27.50 Dry Tons 136 copper, nickel, chromium on steel 23.00 Dry Tons 145 copper­ nickel­ chrome 9.00 Dry Tons 053 copper/ ni/ chrome on ABS 140.00 Dry Tons 027 copper/ nickel/ chrome 2.00 Cubic Yards 016 copper/ nickel/ chrome 6.30 Dry Tons 049 copper/ nickel/ chrome 6000.00 Dry Tons 170 copper/ nickel/ chrome decorative plating 42.00 Cubic Yards 157 copper/ nickel/ chrome plating on plastic 300.00 Dry Tons 014 Cu, Ni, Cr 23.50 Dry Tons 137 Cu/ Ni/ Cr on non­ ferrous 5.55 Dry Tons 090 cyanide copper 4.03 Dry Tons 147 cyanide copper plating on zinc die cast 0.24 Dry Tons 086 cyanide copper/ cyanide brass 15.00 Cubic Yards 083 cyanide contaminated wastewater 7930.00 Dry Tons 123 cyanide 200.00 Cubic Yards 119 cyanide 7.50 Dry Tons 075 cyanide 52.26 Long Tons 010 cyanide bearing rinse waters 1.37 Dry Tons 031 Cyanide destruction 3.70 Dry Tons 085 cyanide processes 93.30 Dry Tons 023 cyanide rinses 8.99 Metric Tons 134 cyanide rinses 11.00 Dry Tons 037 cyanide rinses 3.45 Dry Tons 029 misc cyanide wastes 16.75 Dry Tons 055 electroless nickel 1.10 Dry Tons 048 electroless nickel and gold plating 12.88 Dry Tons 038 electroless nickel plating 0.90 Dry Tons 140 hot dip galv 21.00 Dry Tons 117 ion exchange 10.14 Dry Tons 050 ion exchange regen 4.28 Dry Tons 038 iron plating 1.75 Dry Tons 041 lead plating 14.85 Cubic Yards 019 Mn & zinc phosphate 7.00 Dry Tons 137 Ni/ Cr on steel 9.25 Dry Tons 096 nickel 0.90 Dry Tons Table 21. Process­ Specific F006 Waste Generation for 1996 Facility Process Quantity Measure September 1998 83 F006 Benchmarking Study 042 nickel 63.31 Dry Tons 035 nickel 10.00 Cubic Yards 021 nickel 2.00 Dry Tons 173 nickel 2.00 Dry Tons 050 nickel 6.42 Dry Tons 090 nickel 8.42 Dry Tons 010 nickel bearing­ acid/ alkali rinses 3.00 Dry Tons 036 nickel plate 3.00 Cubic Yards 183 nickel plate( incl. Electroless Nickel) 684.00 Dry Tons 004 nickel plating 25.00 Dry Tons 038 nickel plating 0.40 Dry Tons 033 nickel plating 3.00 Dry Tons 082 nickel plating 37.50 Dry Tons 059 nickel plating 60.00 Cubic Yards 146 nickel plating 0.50 Dry Tons 047 nickel plating 3.00 Dry Tons 065 nickel plating 1.00 Dry Tons 175 nickel plating 21.00 Dry Tons 051 nickel plating 10.49 Dry Tons 012 nickel plating (all types) 30.25 Dry Tons 147 nickel plating on zinc die cast 0.21 Dry Tons 029 nickel plating treatment 11.92 Dry Tons 132 nickel, silver, chrome, tin, and E­ coat 1.00 Dry Tons 054 nickel/ chrome 10.00 Dry Tons 026 automatic nickel/ chrome 18756.00 Dry Tons 173 nickel/ chrome 0.50 Dry Tons 100 nickel/ chrome plating 1.00 Dry Tons 105 nickel/ chrome plating 23.69 Dry Tons 073 nickel/ chromium plating 7.05 Dry Tons 080 nickel/ copper hyd. 51.80 Dry Tons 071 nickel chromium plating 55.00 Dry Tons 026 barrel nickel 3126.00 Dry Tons 146 passivation 2.00 Dry Tons 066 phosphate 100.00 Cubic Yards 183 Silver Plate 71.00 Dry Tons 111 silver plating operations 2.65 Long Tons 148 silver, tin, electroless nickel 2.00 Cubic Yards 105 stainless electropolish 3.38 Dry Tons 144 stainless steel passivation 0.25 Dry Tons 180 Steel 65.00 Dry Tons 141 stripping 5.00 Dry Tons 021 tin 0.30 Dry Tons 019 tin plating 1.00 Dry Tons 004 tin plating 50.00 Dry Tons 041 tin/ lead plating 0.15 Cubic Yards Table 21. Process­ Specific F006 Waste Generation for 1996 Facility Process Quantity Measure September 1998 84 F006 Benchmarking Study 071 titanium 5.00 Dry Tons 014 zinc 20.00 Dry Tons 084 zinc 15.00 Dry Tons 072 zinc 224.00 Dry Tons 071 zinc 20.00 Dry Tons 066 zinc 126.00 Cubic Yards 027 zinc 1.00 Cubic Yards 021 zinc 76.50 Dry Tons 180 zinc 5.00 Dry Tons 042 zinc 206.44 Dry Tons 148 zinc and cadmium plating 15.00 Cubic Yards 095 zinc cyanide 1.00 Dry Tons 104 zinc cyanide plating and chromate conversion 30.00 Dry Tons 094 zinc electroplating 300.00 Cubic Yards 125 zinc electroplating, zinc nickel alloy electropl. 575.00 Cubic Yards 109 zinc electrotherapy on steel 148.00 Dry Tons 080 zinc hydroxide 57.30 Dry Tons 137 zinc on steel 18.50 Dry Tons 136 zinc on steel 19.50 Dry Tons 144 zinc phosphate 0.05 Dry Tons 061 zinc plate 70.00 Dry Tons 008 zinc plating 5507.20 Dry Tons 140 zinc plating 175.00 Dry Tons 003 zinc plating 5507.20 Dry Tons 065 zinc plating 25.00 Dry Tons 001 zinc plating 5.00 Dry Tons 132 zinc plating 19.00 Dry Tons 082 zinc plating 16.25 Dry Tons 004 zinc plating 150.00 Dry Tons 045 zinc plating 1040.00 Cubic Yards 070 zinc plating 80.00 Cubic Yards 105 zinc plating 40.62 Dry Tons 059 zinc plating 235.00 Cubic Yards 019 zinc plating 300.00 Dry Tons 048 zinc plating 144.90 Dry Tons 100 zinc plating 11.40 Dry Tons 035 zinc plating 200.00 Cubic Yards 012 zinc plating (all types) 60.50 Dry Tons 088 zinc plating on steel 155.00 Dry Tons 120 zinc plating on steel 140.00 Dry Tons 156 zinc plating on steel 83.00 Dry Tons 145 zinc­ phosphate 1.00 Dry Tons 098 ZnNi alloy plating & chromating of Zn & ZnNi 7.00 Dry Tons 102 chloride zinc on steel 23.00 Cubic Yards 118 all zinc plating 84.00 Cubic Yards September 1998 85 F006 Benchmarking Study g. On­ site recycling techniques prior to discharge [C6] Number of responses to this question: 36/ 186 = 19% On­ site recycling techniques that were mentioned by more than one company: ° Electrowinning ° Counter flow rinsing ° Drag out rinses returned to plating tank ° Electrodialysis ° Evaporation ° Precipitation Metals that are recovered: brass, cadmium, chrome, copper, nickel, gold, silver. Table 22 contains individual responses. Table 22. On­ Site Recycling Techniques Facility Description Quantity Measure 023 BEWT Chemelec Unit, Reverse Cn Stip, Jaynor Units 1.70 Dry Tons 018 brass 0.10 Dry Tons 018 cadmium 0.10 Dry Tons 075 cadmium electrowinning 0.25 Dry Tons 001 chrome recovery 2.00 Dry Tons 110 chromic acid through demineralizes 50.00 Dry Tons 018 copper 0.15 Dry Tons 160 copper grinding swarf 2.50 Dry Tons 157 Corning Evaporators for Chrome Drag­ out 75.00 Dry Tons 038 counter flow rinsing chrome plate 1.00 Dry Tons 038 counter flow rinsing nickel plating 0.75 Dry Tons 141 drag out rinses 1.00 Dry Tons 095 drag out tanks used for tank replenishment 1.00 Cubic Yards 098 drag out from plating tanks returned to bath 6.50 Dry Tons 106 electrodialysis of rinsewater 0.25 Dry Tons 124 electroless nickel directly reduced 0.05 Dry Tons 168 electrowinning of gold solutions 500.00 Dry Tons 168 electrowinning of silver solutions 3000.00 Dry Tons 168 electrowinning of solder and tin solutions 1.00 Dry Tons 010 electrowinning­ plating cells 0.06 Dry Tons 116 evaporating recovery 0.20 Dry Tons 180 evaporators 30.00 Dry Tons 180 ion exchangers 10.00 Dry Tons 138 metal recovery systems 3.50 Dry Tons 075 nickel evaporation 0.75 Dry Tons 055 nickel plate out from electroless nickel solution 0.05 Dry Tons 157 nickel precipitation as carbonate 35.00 Dry Tons 008 precipitation, filtration, & drying 5507.20 Dry Tons 160 re­ sell copper turnings 7.50 Dry Tons Table 22. On­ Site Recycling Techniques Facility Description Quantity Measure September 1998 86 F006 Benchmarking Study 041 reclaim tanks (dead rinse) used some solution 104.00 Cubic Feet 009 silver electrowinning 0.25 Dry Tons 093 silver reclaim using plate out unit 0.08 Dry Tons 163 six Eco­ tec ion exchange units 4.20 Dry Tons 055 sulfuric acid reclamation from anodize tank Dry Tons 155 use rinse water from plating side for bath makeup 1.40 Dry Tons 034 washdown from fume scrubbers returned to tank 1.00 Dry Tons h. Off­ site recycling companies [C7] Number of respondents: 15/ 186 = 8% The following processes were used to recycle F006 wastes: ° Blending ° High temperature incineration ° Hydro metallurgical ° Pyrometallurgical ° Smelting ° Thermo concentration and compounding Off­ site recycling companies: ° World Resources Corp ° Horsehead Resource Development Corp ° Encycle/ Texas Inc ° 21 Century EMI st ° Republic Environmental Table 23 contains individual responses. Table 23. Off­ Site Recycling Techniques Facility Process Quantity Measure Name Location 023 Blending 47.00 Cubic Yards World Resources Pottsville, PA 136 high temp incineration 42.50 Dry Tons Horsehead Chicago, Il 070 high temp incineration 60.00 Cubic Yards Horsehead Chicago, IL 014 high temp incineration 43.50 Dry Tons Horsehead Chicago, IL 137 Hydro Metallurgical 37.00 Dry Tons Encycle/ Texas Inc Corpus Christi, TX 134 Pyrometallurgical 61.80 Dry Tons Horsehead Chicago, IL 075 Pyrometallurgical 248.84 Dry Tons World Resources Pottsville, PA 050 Pyrometallurgical 14.85 Dry Tons 21st century EMI Fernly, NV 043 Pyrometallurgical 13.20 Dry Tons World Resources Phoenix, AZ 020 Pyrometallurgical 36.00 Dry Tons Republic Environmental Hamilton, Ontario 008 Pyrometallurgical 5507.20 Dry Tons World Resources Phoenix, AZ Table 23. Off­ Site Recycling Techniques Facility Process Quantity Measure Name Location September 1998 87 F006 Benchmarking Study 003 Pyrometallurgica 22.00 Long Tons World Resources Pheonix, AZ 051 smelting 22.40 Dry Tons World Resources Phoenix, AZ 031 thermo concentration and 18.53 Dry Tons World Resources Phoenix, AZ compounding 024 thermo concentration and 55.00 Dry Tons World Resources Phoenix, AZ compounding i. Management methods for F006 wastes [C8] Number of responses: 57 Management methods: ° Incineration ° Neutralization ° Recycling ° Solidification ° Stabilization, landfilling ° Subtitle C landfill Receiving facilities: ° Envirite ° Chemical Waste Management ° Wayandot Landfill ° Peoria Disposal ° LWD ° LESI ° Cynochem ° USPCI ° Envotech ° Cycle Chem ° Stablex Canada ° Northland Environment ° Heritage Environmental ° Phillips Environmental ° Threamionic ° Chief Supply ° Romic Environmental Table 24 contains individual responses. Table 24. Waste Management Methods F006 Wastes Mgt Facility Quantity Measure Name Location delisted facility 002 26.00 Cubic Yards Envirite Thomaston, CT delisted facility 170 42.00 Cubic Yards Wayandot Landfill Carey, OH 43316 delisted facility 115 24.00 Cubic Yards Envirite Canton, OH delisted facility 125 575.00 Cubic Yards Envirite of Illinois Harvey, IL delisted facility 052 320.20 Dry Tons Envirite Corporation Canton, OH delisted facility 066 100.00 Dry Tons Envirite incineration 029 16.75 Dry Tons LWD Calventy City, KY incineration 133 55.00 Cubic Feet Cynochem Detroit, MI neutralization 152 4850.00 gal Cyanokem Detroit, MI recycle 063 274.50 Dry Tons recycle 179 35.01 Dry Tons World Resource Co. Pheonix, AZ Solidification 100 11.50 Dry Tons Envirite Corp. Canton, OH Solidification 108 28.00 Dry Tons Envotech (EQ) Belleville, MI Table 24. Waste Management Methods F006 Wastes Mgt Facility Quantity Measure Name Location September 1998 88 F006 Benchmarking Study Solidification 098 7.00 Dry Tons Envirite Canton, OH Stabilization & 048 154.00 Dry Tons Stablex Canada, Inc. Blainville, Quebec, fixation Canada Stabilization, 065 1.50 Dry Tons Heritage­ nickel sludge Indianapolis, IN landfilling Stabilization, 090 311.95 Dry Tons Heritage Environmental Indianapolis, IN landfilling Stabilization, 065 25.00 Dry Tons Heritage­ zinc hydroxide sludge Indianapolis, IN landfilling Stabilization, 065 1.00 Dry Tons Heritage­ chrome sludge Indianapolis, IN landfilling Stabilization, 064 30.30 Dry Tons Envirite Corp. Canton, OH landfilling Subtitle C Landfill 083 2.20 Dry Tons Stablex Canada Subtitle C Landfill 004 293.00 Dry Tons Stablex Canada Inc., solidification Canada and C landfill Subtitle C Landfill 005 11.50 Dry Tons Stablex Canada Inc. Canada Subtitle C Landfill 093 20.00 Cubic Yards Envirite Canton, OH Subtitle C Landfill 026 38100.00 Dry Tons Envirite Canton, OH Subtitle C Landfill 041 3.00 Dry Tons Envirite Corp. Harvey, IL Subtitle C Landfill 071 44.00 Dry Tons Threamionic Canada Subtitle C Landfill 054 29.00 Dry Tons Romic Environmental Subtitle C Landfill 074 131.00 Dry Tons Chemical Waste Management Fort Wayne, IN (Adams Center) Subtitle C Landfill 071 36.00 Dry Tons Stablex Canada Subtitle C Landfill 062 12.00 Dry Tons Heritage Env. Service Charlotte, NC Subtitle C Landfill 066 146.00 Dry Tons Peoria Disposal Subtitle C Landfill 034 8.00 Dry Tons Waste Management Indiana Subtitle C Landfill 157 227.00 Dry Tons Heritage Environmental Indianapolis, IN Subtitle C Landfill 063 30.50 Dry Tons Subtitle C Landfill 179 62.21 Dry Tons Stablex Quebec, Canada Subtitle C Landfill 165 50.60 Dry Tons LESI ­ Lone Mt Waynoka, OK Subtitle C Landfill 164 863.00 Dry Tons LESI ­ Lone Mt. Waynoka, OK Subtitle C Landfill 163 1330.00 Dry Tons LESI ­ Lone Mt Facility Waynoka, OK Subtitle C Landfill 162 505.00 Dry Tons LESI ­ Lone Mt. Waynoka, OK Subtitle C Landfill 161 945.00 Dry Tons USCPI ­ Laidlaw Lone Mountain, OK Subtitle C Landfill 113 58.00 Dry Tons Envirosafe Services of Idaho, Inc. Boise, ID Subtitle C Landfill 041 11.00 Dry Tons Heritage Environmental Ser. Indianapolis, IN Subtitle C Landfill 094 300.00 Cubic Yards hydroxide sludge non­ hazardous So. Elgin, IL Subtitle C Landfill 157 73.00 Dry Tons USPCI Lone Mountain, OK Subtitle C Landfill 155 320.00 Dry Tons USPCI Lone Mountain Oklahoma Subtitle C Landfill 151 9.35 Dry Tons Envirite Corp. North Canton, OH Subtitle C Landfill 147 0.60 Dry Tons Cycle Chem Elizabeth, NJ Subtitle C Landfill 146 10.00 Dry Tons Northland Environmental Providence, RI Subtitle C Landfill 134 4.90 Dry Tons Chemical Waste Management Inc Menomonee Falls, WI Table 24. Waste Management Methods F006 Wastes Mgt Facility Quantity Measure Name Location September 1998 89 F006 Benchmarking Study Subtitle C Landfill 132 20.00 Dry Tons Envirite of Ohio Canton, OH Subtitle C Landfill 131 4.10 Dry Tons chromic, muratic acid NV Subtitle C Landfill 119 64.00 Dry Tons Phillips Environmental Canada Subtitle C Landfill 118 84.00 Cubic Yards Envirite Corporation Canton, OH Subtitle C Landfill 156 87.35 Dry Tons USPCI Lone Mountain, OK 73860 thermal treatment 029 4.53 Dry Tons Northeast Environmental Wompsville, NY thermal treatment 029 6.03 Dry Tons Chief Supply Haskl, OK j. Exported Waste [C9] Ten respondents reported exporting their F006 wastes, the responses are presented in Table 25 The other 174 respondents are not exporting F006 waste. Table 25. Export Quantities of F006 Facility No. Exported Waste (dry tons) 004 293.0 005 11.5 009 32.0 048 154.0 071 80.0 083 2.2 114 39 119 64 169 30 179 64.7 k. Wastewater Treatment [C10] Table 26 summarizes the number of respondents who are conducting wastewater treatment prior to discharge. Table 26. Facilities Conducting Wastewater Treatment Prior to Discharge PROCESS NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS ANSWERING "YES" Waste stream segregation 92 Hexavalent chrome reduction 119 Cyanide oxidation 69 Neutralization, flocculation, clarification, effluent polishing 143 Sludge blending to achieve desired concentration 20 l. Plating Operations [B] September 1998 90 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 27 summarizes responses to question B, "what type of plating operations are conducted by your facility?". Table 27. Types of Plating Conducted by Respondents PROCESS NUMBER OF NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS ANSWERING "YES" ANSWERING "NO" Zinc plating on steel 92 92 Zinc plating on steel ­ cyanide 23 161 Zinc plating on steel – non­ cyanide 57 127 Nickel chromium 82 102 Copper/ nickel/ chrome 62 122 Copper plating/ stripping 7 177 Hard chromium 36 148 Copper plating 85 99 Tin 57 127 Cadmium 45 139 Sulfuric acid 45 139 Silver 56 128 Gold 48 136 Bright dip 56 128 Other 95 89 m. Pollution Prevention Waste Minimization Activities [E] The respondents were asked to complete a checklist of 59 individual waste minimization techniques broken into three main categories (i. e., reduce drag out losses, reduce rinse water, and various operating practices). Table 28 presents the total number of positive responses for each of 59 waste minimization technique broken into three main categories (i. e. reduce drag out losses, reduce rinse water, and various operating practices). Three groups of facilities were identified: small, medium, and large. Each group contained an equal number of facilities (i. e., 61) to enable a comparison of techniques by facility size. Based on the analysis, it appears as though facility size is not a deciding factor in determining the number or type of waste minimization techniques implemented. This may be because the techniques included in the survey are relatively low cost and easy to implement. Larger facilities may be able to afford more sophisticated waste minimization improvements (e. g., process changes) that were not included in the survey. Table 29 identifies pollution prevention measures by technique. Table 28: Summary of Techniques Used by Facility Size* Technique (< 30 employees) (> 31 and < 65 employees) (> 65 employees) Small Facilities Medium Facilities Large Facilities Reduce drag­ out losses Total 182 175 232 Allow rack/ part to drip over plating tank 33 27 38 Using drag­ out rinse tanks and returning 27 30 33 chemicals to the process bath Drip shields between tanks 18 22 29 Reduce rinse water use Total 151 166 285 Flow restrictors 26 39 58 Countercurrent rinses 30 38 61 Manually turn­ off rinse waters 22 28 47 Air agitation in rinse tanks 22 22 37 Various operating practices 586 659 781 Total Training and programs subtotal 120 114 152 Table 28: Summary of Techniques Used by Facility Size* Technique (< 30 employees) (> 31 and < 65 employees) (> 65 employees) Small Facilities Medium Facilities Large Facilities September 1998 91 F006 Benchmarking Study Conduct employee education 21 22 30 Establish preventive maintenance program 15 22 28 Use specifically assigned personnel 27 35 40 Procedures subtotal 200 213 271 Perform routine bath analysis 34 33 41 Maintain bath analysis logs 33 33 39 Use process baths to maximum 29 30 31 Have written procedures 25 28 37 F006 volume reduction subtotal 58 88 86 Sludge dewatering 28 47 50 Closed loop recycling 16 15 10 Use control method 6 14 10 Inspections / maintenance subtotal 60 66 73 Perform regular maintenance of 26 24 29 racks/ barrels Pre­ inspect parts 22 23 24 Research / evaluations subtotal 60 73 91 Evaluation of recycling alternatives 16 21 27 Increase drain time 19 20 22 Research of alternative plating technologies 13 18 21 Elimination / Replacement / Substitutions 88 105 108 subtotal Eliminate obsolete processes 20 19 22 Replace cyanide based plating 14 21 23 Eliminate plating service 16 17 1 * number of positive responses by facility Table 9.0 summarizes the results of the responses to each of the 59 individual techniques. September 1998 92 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 29. Pollution Prevention Benefits by Technique Technique Number of Number of Number of P2 BENEFIT "Yes" "No" Manual Vs. Responses Responses Automatic 1 = low success, 5 = high success Responses 1 2 3 4 5 Reduce Drag­ out Losses Using drag­ out rinse tanks and 87 94 Manual: 57 3 4 17 20 27 returning chemicals to the process Automatic: 22 bath Using drip tanks and returning 36 145 Manual: 27 3 0 10 8 6 chemicals to the process bath Automatic: 6 Reducing speed of rack/ part 63 118 Manual: 43 5 9 20 11 6 withdrawal Automatic: 20 Allowing rack/ part to drip over 96 85 Manual: 63 3 10 33 19 15 plating tank Automatic: 33 Using a drag­ in/ drag­ out 40 141 Manual: 26 3 2 8 6 10 arrangement (i. e., use of same Automatic: 14 rinse tank before and after plating also referred to as a double­ dip or double­ use rinse) Fog or spray rinses installed over 36 145 Manual: 21 1 2 6 9 7 process bath Automatic: 12 Air knives that blow off drag­ out 16 165 Manual: 1 1 1 3 7 3 Automatic: 15 Drip shields between tanks 66 115 Manual: 34 3 5 18 15 16 Automatic: 52 Lower bath concentration 35 146 Not applicable 2 5 14 6 4 Increasing solution temperature 13 168 Not applicable 4 0 4 4 0 (reduces viscosity) Using a wetting agent (reduces 48 133 Not applicable 5 1 18 13 4 viscosity) Positioning work piece to minimize 65 116 Not applicable 2 2 17 13 20 solution holdup Other, specify 4 3 Not applicable 0 0 0 1 2 Reduce Rinse Water Use Manually turning off rinse water 73 108 Not applicable 4 8 20 10 20 when not in use Table 29. Pollution Prevention Benefits by Technique Technique Number of Number of Number of P2 BENEFIT "Yes" "No" Manual Vs. Responses Responses Automatic 1 = low success, 5 = high success Responses 1 2 3 4 5 September 1998 93 F006 Benchmarking Study Conductivity or pH rinse controls 22 159 Not applicable 1 2 8 4 3 Timer rinse controls 24 157 Not applicable 1 4 3 8 5 Flow restrictors 103 78 Not applicable 1 3 17 26 21 Counter current rinses 113 68 Not applicable 0 3 13 26 33 Spray rinses 59 122 Not applicable 2 4 9 15 11 Air agitation in rinse tanks 73 86 Not applicable 1 3 20 17 20 Use flow meters/ accumulators to 23 136 Not applicable 1 0 8 3 5 track water use at each rinse tank or plating line Reactive rinsing or cascade rinsing 22 136 Not applicable 1 1 2 5 9 Other, specify 7 4 Not applicable 0 0 0 1 2 Various Operating Practices Training and Programs Established a formal policy 60 99 Not applicable 11 6 11 12 11 statement with regard to pollution prevention and control Established a formal pollution 64 95 Not applicable 7 6 23 6 12 prevention program Conduct employee education for 73 86 Not applicable 4 9 22 13 12 pollution prevention Establish a preventive maintenance 66 93 Not applicable 2 6 22 14 13 program for tanks Use specifically assigned personnel 99 60 Not applicable 2 6 12 24 34 for chemical additions Procedures Stricter conformance with Line 31 127 Not applicable 3 1 7 9 7 Preventive Maintenance Schedule Stricter conformance with SPC 26 133 Not applicable 3 2 8 6 5 Procedures Waste stream segregation of 38 121 Not applicable 0 1 8 8 16 contact and non contact wastewater Table 29. Pollution Prevention Benefits by Technique Technique Number of Number of Number of P2 BENEFIT "Yes" "No" Manual Vs. Responses Responses Automatic 1 = low success, 5 = high success Responses 1 2 3 4 5 September 1998 94 F006 Benchmarking Study Strict chemical inventory control 59 100 Not applicable 4 4 12 11 20 Perform routine bath analyses 99 60 Not applicable 0 2 17 30 32 Maintain bath analyses/ addition 96 63 Not applicable 2 6 24 19 28 logs Have written procedures for bath 83 76 Not applicable 3 4 19 22 22 make­ up and additions Use process baths to maximum 83 76 Not applicable 0 3 13 24 26 extent possible (no dump schedule) Remove anodes from bath when 36 123 Not applicable 2 1 9 6 11 they are idle (e. g., cadmium, zinc) Regularly retrieve fallen 80 79 Not applicable 3 2 30 12 20 parts/ racks from tanks F006 Volume Reduction Methods Closed­ loop recycling 34 124 Not applicable 2 0 1 3 9 Use control method for adding 29 130 Not applicable 1 2 6 5 8 water to process tanks Sludge dewatering (Vacuum filter, 113 46 Not applicable 0 0 10 17 37 Solid bowl centrifuge, Imperforate basket centrifuge, belt filter press, Recessed plate filter press, sludge drying beds, sludge lagoons, sludge dryers, etc.) Install overflow alarms on process 19 140 Not applicable 3 0 6 3 5 tanks Install other spill/ leak detection 15 144 Not applicable 3 0 1 3 5 system, specify Inspections / Maintenance Perform regular maintenance of 73 86 Not applicable 3 8 24 20 7 racks/ barrels Pre­ inspect parts to prevent 64 95 Not applicable 1 7 14 16 15 processing of obvious rejects Waste Reduction Study conducted 48 111 Not applicable 2 5 14 14 7 Research / Evaluation Table 29. Pollution Prevention Benefits by Technique Technique Number of Number of Number of P2 BENEFIT "Yes" "No" Manual Vs. Responses Responses Automatic 1 = low success, 5 = high success Responses 1 2 3 4 5 September 1998 95 F006 Benchmarking Study Evaluation of recycling alternatives 59 100 Not applicable 4 7 16 13 8 Increasing drain time over process 55 104 Not applicable 4 7 16 13 8 tanks Research of alternative plating 51 108 Not applicable 6 7 10 6 13 technologies Development of tracking system 19 140 Not applicable 4 0 7 1 3 for monitoring flow from different areas Monitoring of incoming water with 26 133 Not applicable 3 0 4 6 4 strict control program Two separate labs for process 2 157 Not applicable 0 0 1 1 0 chemistry Elimination / Replacement / Substitutions Eliminate obsolete processes 57 102 Not applicable 1 2 16 14 14 and/ or unused or infrequently used processes Replace cyanide­ based plating 56 103 Not applicable 3 2 6 7 24 solution with alkaline­ based solutions Elimination of rinse waters to 25 134 Not applicable 3 2 4 5 3 waste treatment (nickel, chrome) Substitution of chromate and 2 157 Not applicable 0 0 2 0 0 dichromate sealer with nonchromate sealer Elimination of plating services 48 111 Not applicable 1 3 7 8 15 (cadmium, tin, nickel, copper, brass, and hard chrome) Elimination of vapor degreasing 46 113 Not applicable 1 1 4 3 29 Implementation of a multi­ stage 30 129 Not applicable 2 1 3 5 14 cyanide destruct system Elimination of chelated cleaners 34 125 Not applicable 0 1 5 9 10 Other, specify 5 6 Not applicable 0 0 0 3 3 Table 29. Pollution Prevention Benefits by Technique Technique Number of Number of Number of P2 BENEFIT "Yes" "No" Manual Vs. Responses Responses Automatic 1 = low success, 5 = high success Responses 1 2 3 4 5 September 1998 96 F006 Benchmarking Study E ­ Additional 3 156 Not applicable n/ a n/ a n/ a n/ a n/ a September 1998 97 F006 Benchmarking Study n. Waste Minimization Techniques by Generating Process Table 30 summarizes the types of waste minimization techniques reported by facilities that conducted only one type of plating. The four processes were selected for analysis because they are most representative of the plating industry and the most problematic from a regulatory perspective. A handful of facilities only performed tin plating, bright dip, and sulfuric acid anodizing. Table 30. Summary of Waste Minimization Techniques TECHNIQUE NICKEL COPPER CHROME ZINC CADMIUM Reduce drag­ out losses 55 47 23 62 30 Reduce rinse water use 67 52 25 78 36 Training and programs subtotal 53 41 21 78 28 Procedures subtotal 52 43 20 55 26 F006 volume reduction subtotal 68 52 33 54 36 Inspections / maintenance subtotal 42 34 15 72 23 Research / evaluations subtotal 41 34 13 45 20 Elimination / Replacement / Substitutions 54 41 20 63 26 Various operating practices 310 245 122 159 Total o. Impact of Waste Minimization Projects on Wastewater Discharge Rates [E2] Number of positive responses: 63 Number of negative responses: 156 p. Recycle and Recovery Technologies [E3] Table 31 summarizes the use of recycle and recovery technologies. Table 31. Summary of Recycling and Recovery Technologies TECHNIQUE Number of Positive Responses Number of Negative Responses Electrodialysis 7 152 Electrowinning 26 133 Evaporator 39 120 Ion flotation 1 158 Ion exchange 28 131 Mesh pad mist eliminator/ recycle 15 144 Reverse osmosis 8 151 Ultrafiltration 5 154 Other 11 2 q. Solution Maintenance Techniques [E4] Table 32 summarizes the solution maintenance techniques. Table 32. Summary of Solution Maintenance Techniques TECHNIQUE # of Positive Responses # of Negative Responses Acid retardation 1 158 Carbon treatment (batch) 46 113 Carbon treatment (continuous) 40 119 Table 32. Summary of Solution Maintenance Techniques TECHNIQUE # of Positive Responses # of Negative Responses September 1998 98 F006 Benchmarking Study Dummying of metal contaminants 56 103 Electrodialysis for inorganic 56 155 contaminants Carbonate freezing 24 135 Filtration, in­ tank 53 106 Filtration, external 51 108 High pH treatment 16 143 Precipitation 20 139 Liquid/ Liquid extraction 2 157 Microfiltration 1 158 Ultrafiltration 1 158 Other, specify 0 1 September 1998 99 F006 Benchmarking Study Appendix A: Summary of the 10 Issue Areas Identified for the Metal Finishing Sector September 1998 100 F006 Benchmarking Study Issue 1. Operational Flexibility Industry performance leaders would receive operational flexibility (i. e., less burdensome permitting, monitoring, and reporting requirements) in recognition of their good performance and as an incentive to seek the ambitious performance goals. Issue 2: Waste Minimization and Recovery The first phase of this project was a bench marking analysis of F006 constituents, using national and regional sampling data. The data generated in the bench marking study will be used by the RCRA Project Team to develop and assess options for reducing barriers to pollution prevention and on­ site and off­ site metal recovery requirements. Issue 3: Reporting and Right­ to­ Know This project applies business process reengineering techniques to examine federal, state, and local reporting requirements for metal finishers across all environmental media. Issue 4: Compliance Tools and Assistance This project is designed to overcome barriers to improved compliance and pollution prevention by combining pollution prevention assistance and enforcement relief policies as an incentive for improved environmental performance by metal finishers. Issue 5: Research and Technology The National Metal Finishing Environmental R& D Plan is a customer­ oriented R& D strategy for risk characterization, exposure assessment, and technology transfer for metal finishers, communities, and other stakeholders. Issue 6: Industrial Pretreatment The POTW Pretreatment Project is designed to identify ways to improve the capabilities of POTW manage their industrial users by reducing mass pollutant loadings without limiting industry activity, and to provide the most effective POTW with increased managerial flexibility to achieve higher environmental quality at lower cost. Issue 7: Environmentally Responsible Site Transition This project develops a government sponsored "exit strategy" for metal finishers who wish to get out of the business that reduces future contaminated "orphan industrial sites." Issue 8: Enforcement for Chronic Non­ Complier This project develops a sector­ based, targeted enforcement program for government at all level to identify chronic non­ complier and take appropriate action against them. Issue 9: Access to Capital This project focuses on developing innovative approaches for improving access to capital for metal finishers and electronics firms. September 1998 101 F006 Benchmarking Study Appendix B: F006 Management Contained in EPA's 1995 Biennial Report Database September 1998 102 F006 Benchmarking Study Waste Management Facilities: This appendix lists the names of hazardous waste landfill facilities contained in EPA's 1995 Biennial Report that reported accepting and /or managing F006 waste. The table includes the quantities of F006 waste managed by each facility, the facility's EPA ID, and the number of shipments the facility received. Table 1: F006 Waste Managed in Landfills Number of RCRA large quantity generators (greater than 1000kg/ month) who sent F006 waste off­ site to a RCRA landfill in 1995 = 283 Volume of F006 generated on­ site and shipped off­ site to a landfill = 80,298.370 tons Volume of F006 generated on­ site and managed in a landfill on­ site = 18,782.832 tons (2 facilities, not including TSDs) Total volume generated and managed in landfills = 99,081.202 tons Landfills that Accept/ Manage F006 Waste, by State: Number EPA ID Company Managed On­ site On­ site Rcvd Form Qty "Generated" Qty Rcvd & # of & Managed Shpmts GM/ WR 1 ALD000622464 Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 496.179 15 WR 2 CAD000633164 Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. 94.800 4 WR 3 CAT000646117 Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 260.000 GM 4 COD991300484 Highway 36 Land Development Co. 4,319.438 7 GM, WR 5 IDD073114654 Envirosafe Services of Idaho 138.955 20 WR 6 ILD000805812 Peoria Disposal Co. 5,208.628 GM 7 IND016584641 Midwest Steel Division 17,308.400 GM 8 IND078911146 Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 118.300 3,015.950 34 GM, WR 9 IND980503890 Heritage Environmental Services, Inc. 68,213.625 1 WR 10 KSD057889313 Ashland Chemical Co. 1.800 1 WR 11 LAD000777201 Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 44,939.950 45 WR 12 MID000724831 Michigan Disposal Waste Treatment 43,259.000 GM 13 MID048090633 Wayne Disposal Site #2 Landfill 45,070.380 9 WR 14 NJD002385730 E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. Inc. 10,030.000 GM 15 NYD049836679 CWM Chemical Services 60.170 4 WR 16 OHD045243706 Envirosafe Services of Ohio Inc. 236.490 13,558.665 54 GM, WR 17 OKD065438376 U. S. Pollution Control Inc. 3,403.746 17 WR 18 ORD089452353 Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 121.602 3,810,086.0 20 GM, WR 19 SCD070375985 Laidlaw Env. Svs. of SC Inc. 0.530 2,843.1 491 GM, WR 20 TND980847024 Excel TSD Inc. 1.310 GM 21 TXD069452340 Texas Ecologists, Inc. 1,800.2 3 WR 22 UTD982598898 Envirocare of Utah 4,431.8 7 WR 23 UTD991301748 USPCI Grassy Mountain Facility 6,859.9 7 WR 24 WAD041337130 Boeing ­ Auburn 115,193.0 2 WR 25 WAD041585464 Boeing Commercial Airplane Group WR Everett Totals 78,018.7 47,026.0 2 GM = Reported on Biennial Report GM form: identifies generators who manage F006 in an onsite landfill. WR = Reported on WR form: identifies off­ site facilities that receive and manage F006 in a landfill. September 1998 103 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 2 lists recycling facilities contained in EPA's 1995 Biennial Report that reported accepting and/ or managing F006 waste in 1995. The table includes the quantities of F006 waste managed by each facility, the facility's EPA ID, the number of shipments the facility received, recovery system used, and a system description. Table 2: F006 Waste Managed by Metals Recovery Number of generators who send F006 waste off­ site to metals recovery = 824 Volume of F006 generated on­ site and shipped off­ site for metals recovery = 64,670.462 tons Volume of F006 generated on­ site and managed on­ site by metals recovery = 217,292.304 tons (9 facilities) Therefore, total volume of F006 generated and managed by metals recovery = 281,962.766 tons Quantities and Number of Facilities/ Streams that Shipped F006 Off­ site for Metals Recovery System System Description Qty Shipped Off­ site # of Facilities # of Streams M011 High temperature metals recovery 18,252.113 159 179 M012 Retorting 295.301 4 12 M013 Secondary smelting 11,958.071 74 89 M014 Other metals recovery for reuse (iron exchange, etc.) 16,707.303 278 320 M019 Metals recovery ­ type unknown 17,457.674 309 370 Totals 64,670.462 824 970 September 1998 104 F006 Benchmarking Study Metals Recovery Facilities that Accept/ Manage F006 Waste Number EPA ID Company Managed On­ site Managed On­ site Shpmts Rcvd System Description Form Qty Generated & Qty Rcvd & # of Recovery System GM/ WR 1 CAD981695729 Pacific Circuit Services 74.000 M014 Other metals recovery for reuse GM 2 CAT000612150 Engelhard West, Inc. 25.314 M011 High temp. metals recovery GM 3 COD082657420 Schlage Lock Company 0.616 M014 Other metals recovery for reuse GM 4 ILD005087630 United Refining & Smelting Co. 87.186 2 M011 High temp. metals recovery WR 5 ILD984766279 Hydromet Environmental Inc. 138.880 3 M014 Other metals recovery for reuse WR 6 LAD058472721 Amax Metals Recovery Inc. 27.300 3 M014 Other metals recovery for reuse WR 7 MID047153077 Production Plated Plastics, Inc. 192,351.977 M014 Other metals recovery for reuse GM 8 MID981099435 Lacks ­ Airplane 24,603.837 M014 Other metals recovery for reuse GM 9 NYD001325661 Lea Ronal Inc. 0.864 1 M011 High temp. metals recovery WR 10 NYD086225596 AT& T Nassau Metals 0.741 4 M011 High temp. metals recovery WR 11 OHD061614673 Dayton Water Systems 57.700 17 M014 Other metals recovery for reuse WR 12 PAD087561015 Inmetco Inc. 4,839.448 97 M011 High temp. metals recovery WR 13 RID062309299 Hallmark Healy Group Inc. 207.745 M013 Secondary smelting GM 14 RID063890214 Boliden Metech Inc. 95.120 3 M014 Other metals recovery for reuse WR 15 RID981886104 Gannon & Scott Inc. 1.455 4 M011 High temp. metals recovery WR 16 TXD008117186 Encycle/ Texas, Inc. 7,938.630 244 M014 Other metals recovery for reuse WR 17 TXD072181969 Metal Coatings Corp. 5.930 M011 High temp. metals recovery GM 18 TXD981514383 Alpha Omega Recycling Inc. 15.460 1,028.440 67 M014 Other metals recovery for reuse GM, WR 19 WID006129522 Krueger International 7.425 M014 Other metals recovery for reuse GM Totals 217,292.304 14,215.763 445 GM = Reported on Biennial Report GM form: identifies generators who manage F006 in an onsite landfill. WR = Reported on WR form: identifies off­ site facilities that receive and manage F006 in a landfill. September 1998 105 F006 Benchmarking Study Appendix C: Observed F006 Handling Practices at Metal Finishing Facilities and List of Worker Health and Safety Regulations September 1998 106 F006 Benchmarking Study Description of F006 Generation and Handling at Metal Finishing Facilities Diagram 1 presents a generic F006 waste generation and handling process. Electroplating process wastewaters are treated through multiple processes to form a slurry/ precipitate. The slurry/ precipitate is sent to a filter press where excess water is separated by the filter press. The moist F006 drops from the filter press to a cart, supersack, roll­ off box or to a sludge drier. When used a sludge drier reduces the amount of water in the sludge and reduces its volume. After drying or in the moist state, the F006 is either taken away by a recycler or hazardous materials handler to its final destination. Diagram 1­ Generic Flow Diagram of F006 After Wastewater Treatment to Final Storage* Filter Press Luggerbox, Cart Superbag or Filterbag Sludge Drier Roll­ off Box Sludge Drier Superbags Hopper Superbags Drum Superbags Precipitator Roll­ off Box Roll­ off Box *Flow diagram generated from Chicago ESVs conducted during CSI Project 10/ 97 Filter Press Superbags Drum Superbags Superbags Drum Roll­ off Box (Plate/ Frame or Bag) September 1998 107 F006 Benchmarking Study September 1998 108 F006 Benchmarking Study Health and Safety Regulations and Guidelines This section provides a list of worker and safety regulations, policies, guides and operating procedures which may apply to on­ site and off­ site management of F006 waste. All of OSHA General Industry Standards are applicable. In addition, OSHA Construction Industry Standards would be applicable to construction activities at these facilities. Table 1 ­ List of Regulations, Policies, and Guidelines Agency/ Organization Title of Regulation Location of Regulation EPA Personnel Training 40 CFR §262.34( a)( 4) and 40 CFR §265.16 Preparedness and Prevention 40 CFR §265, Subpart C Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures 40 CFR §265, Subpart D Use and Management of Containers 40 CFR §265, Subpart I Best Management Practices for Pollutant 40 CFR §125.104 Dischargers OSHA Walking­ Working Surfaces 29 CFR §1910.22 Guarding floor & wall openings & holes 29 CFR §1910.23 Fixed Industrial Stairs 29 CFR §1910.24 Fixed Ladders 29 CFR §1910.27 Scaffolds 29 CFR §1910.28 Means of Egress 29 CFR §1910.37 Emergency Action Plan Implementation 29 CFR §1910.38( a) Fire Prevention Plan Implementation 29 CFR §1910.38( b) Powered Platform Operation 29 CFR §1910.66 Ventilation 29 CFR §1910.94 Hearing Conservation 29 CFR §1910.95 Flammable and Combustible Liquids 29 CFR §1910.106 Dip Tanks Containing Flammable or Combustible 29 CFR §1910.108 Liquids Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous 29 CFR §1910.119 Chemicals OSHA (cont.) Hazardous Waste Operations (HAZWOPER) 29 CFR §1910.120 Training Personal Protective Equipment 29 CFR §1910.132 Eye & Face Protection 29 CFR §1910.133 Respirator Requirements 29 CFR §1910.134 Table 1 ­ List of Regulations, Policies, and Guidelines Agency/ Organization Title of Regulation Location of Regulation September 1998 109 F006 Benchmarking Study Head Protection 29 CFR §1910.135 Electrical Protective Devices 29 CFR §1910.137 Sanitation 29 CFR §1910.141 Confined Space 29 CFR §1910.146 Lockout/ Tagout 29 CFR §1910.147 Medical Services & First Aid 29 CFR §1910.151 Fire Extinguisher Use 29 CFR §1910.157 Fixed Extinguishing Systems 29 CFR §1910.160 Air Receivers 29 CFR §1910.169 Materials Handling 29 CFR §1910.176 Powered Industrial Trucks (Forklift Operations) 29 CFR §1910.178 Overhead and Gantry Cranes 29 CFR §1910.179 Machines, General Requirements 29 CFR §1910.212 Mechanical Power Presses 29 CFR §1910.217 Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Equipment, 29 CFR §1910.242 General Welding, Cutting, Brazing ­ Definitions 29 CFR §1910.251 Welding, Cutting, Brazing ­ General Requirements 29 CFR §1910.252 Electrical Systems 29 CFR §1910.301 Air Contaminants (PELs) 29 CFR §1910.1000 Inorganic Arsenic 29 CFR §1910.1018 Lead 29 CFR §1910.1025 Cadmium 29 CFR §1910.1027 Hazard Communication 29 CFR §1910.1200 OSHA (cont.) Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in 29 CFR §1910.1450 Laboratories DOT HAZMAT Transport Training 49 CFR §173 ACGIH* Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) Guidelines only in "1996 TLVs and BEIs" *ACGIH (TLVs) are not legally enforceable F006 Handling Practices That May be Used to Minimize Potential Hazards September 1998 110 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 2 summarizes F006 handling practices observed at Milwaukee, Chicago, and Phoenix metal finishing facilities. This table represents observed practices not recommended best management practices. Table 2 ­ F006 Handling Activities Observed in Regional Benchmarking Study Work Activity Potential Hazard Hazard Control Method Paddling wet F006 sludge cake Skin exposure to sludge, Personal Protective Equipment (eye from the filter press into a ingestion hazard, Physical body protection, gloves, respirator, non slip boots), lugger box, cart, or drum damage, slip hazard, possible ergonomics Training dust hazard Replacing worn or damaged Skin exposure to sludge, Personal Protective Equipment (eye filter cloths in the filter press. ingestion hazard, Physical protection, gloves, respirator), Training, damage to body appendages if Means of locking out filter press press is activated Shoveling dried F006 sludge Inhalation of metal dust Personal Protective Equipment (eye into supersacks, luggerboxes, particles, Skin exposure to dust, protection, gloves, respirator), Training on or drums. ingestion hazard, Physical lifting lifting hazards, confined space entry Shoveling dried F006 sludge Inhalation of metal dust Personal Protective Equipment (eye into a roll­ off box particles, Skin exposure to dust, protection, gloves, respirator), ergonomic ingestion hazard, Physical lifting training on lifting activities hazards Manually moving cart or Inhalation of metal dust, skin Personal Protective Equipment (eye lugger box to supersack or exposure, ingestion hazard, protection, gloves, respirator), ergonomic roll­ off box Physical hazard training Operation of overhead crane to Physical hazard of falling objects, Personal Protective Equipment transport cart or lugger box to Crane failure, Inhalation of metal Training on crane operation, crane inspection roll­ off box dust program Opening/ closing a roll­ off box Inhalation of metal dust particles, Forklift Training, Personal Protective manually or with a forklift Skin exposure to dust, ingestion Equipment, Standard Operating Procedures hazard, Forklift operation safety (SOPs) hazards, Physical lifting damage Changing the filter to the sludge Inhalation of metal dust particles, Personal Protective Equipment (eye protection, drier. Skin exposure to dust, ingestion gloves, respirator), Training, means of locking hazard, drier lock­ out out drier to prevent accidental operation Any work activity in the sludge Inhalation of metal dust particles, Personal Protective Equipment (respirator, eye drier room. Skin exposure to dust, ingestion protection, hearing protection) hazard, noise exposure, eye hazard Sampling the F006 sludge (wet Inhalation of metal dust particles, Personal Protective Equipment (eye protection, or dry) Skin exposure to dust, ingestion gloves, respirator) hazard Table 2 ­ F006 Handling Activities Observed in Regional Benchmarking Study Work Activity Potential Hazard Hazard Control Method September 1998 111 F006 Benchmarking Study Housekeeping Inhalation of metal dust particles, Personal Protective Equipment (eye protection, (i. e., cleaning roll­ off box) Skin exposure to sludge or dust, gloves, respirator) ingestion hazard, Physical lifting Means of locking­ out Filter press hazards, Slip/ trip/ fall hazards, Discharge of F006 while cleaning the inside of the roll­ off box, confined space entry Any work activity in noisy areas Noise exposure Personal Protective Equipment (hearing (wastewater treatment pumps) protection) Forklift operation a lugger box, Forklift operation safety hazards Forklift Training, Personal Protective drum, or bag. Equipment (respirator), Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) "Wet" sludge as the term is used here is that sludge produced after the filter press which constitutes about 25­ 60 % solids. "Dry" sludge is produced by the sludge drier and constitutes about 90% solids. Personal Protective Equipment Guidance The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is the government agency responsible for performing health and safety studies and making health and safety recommendations. NIOSH has recommended personal protective equipment and sanitary measures for handling specific chemicals and substances. Table 3 is extracted from the NIOSH "Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards" recommending protective equipment and sanitary measures for specific chemicals and substances commonly found in F006 waste. This is not an all inclusive list, for example, respirators were not addressed. These recommendations supplement general work practices (e. g., no eating, drinking, or smoking where chemicals are used.) Table 3 ­ NIOSH Recommended Personal Protection and Sanitation Contaminant Skin: Eyes: Wash Skin: Remove Change Provide: Clothing: Clothing: Aluminum N. R. N. R. N. R. N. R. N. R. Antimony Prevent skin Prevent eye When When wet or Daily contact contact contaminated contaminated Arsenic Prevent skin Prevent eye When When wet or Daily Eyewash, contact contact contaminated contaminated Quickdrench and daily Barium Prevent skin Prevent eye When When wet or Daily chloride/ nitrate contact contact contaminated contaminated (ASRA) Beryllium Prevent skin Prevent eye Daily When wet or Daily Eyewash contact contact contaminated Contaminant Skin: Eyes: Wash Skin: Remove Change Provide: Clothing: Clothing: September 1998 112 F006 Benchmarking Study Bismuth as Prevent skin Prevent eye When When wet or N. R. Eyewash, telluride doped contact contact contaminated contaminated Quickdrench with selenium sulfide Cadmium N. R. N. R. Daily N. R. Daily Chlorine Frostbite Frostbite N. R. N. R. N. R. Frostbite protection Chromium N. R. N. R. N. R. N. R. N. R. Chromium III Prevent skin Prevent eye When When wet or N. R. contact contact contaminated contaminated Cobalt Prevent skin N. R. When When wet or Daily contact contaminated contaminated Copper Prevent skin Prevent eye When When wet or Daily contact contact contaminated contaminated Cyanide Prevent skin Prevent eye When When wet or Daily contact contact contaminated contaminated Iron N. R. N. R. N. R. N. R. N. R. Lead Prevent skin Prevent eye Daily When wet or Daily contact contact contaminated Manganese N. R. N. R. N. R. N. R. N. R. Mercury Prevent skin N. R. When When wet or Daily contact contaminated contaminated Nickel Preven skin N. R. When When wet or Daily contact contaminated/ contaminated daily Platinum N. R. N. R. N. R. N. R. Daily Platinum Prevent skin Prevent eye When When wet or Daily (soluble salts) contact contact contaminated contaminated Selenium Prevent skin N. R. When When wet or N. R. contact contaminated contaminated Silver Prevent skin Prevent eye When When wet or Daily contact contact contaminated contaminated Sodium Prevent skin Prevent eye When When wet or Daily Eyewash, hydroxide contact contact contaminated contaminated Quickdrench Sulfur dioxide Frostbite Frostbite N. R. When wet or N. R. Frostbite contaminated protection Tin N. R. N. R. N. R. N. R. N. R. Contaminant Skin: Eyes: Wash Skin: Remove Change Provide: Clothing: Clothing: September 1998 113 F006 Benchmarking Study Vanadium Prevent skin Prevent eye When When wet or Daily contact contact contaminated contaminated Zinc N. R. N. R. N. R. N. R. N. R. Notes: Skin ­ Recommends the need for personal protective equipment Eyes ­ Recommends the need for eye protection. Wash skin ­ Recommends when workers should wash the spilled chemical from the body in addition to normal washing. Remove ­ Advises workers when to remove clothing that has accidentally become wet or significantly contaminated. Change ­ Recommends whether the routine changing of clothing is needed. Provide ­ Recommends the need for eyewash fountains and/ or quick drench facilities. These recommendations supplement general work practices (e. g., no eating, drinking, or smoking where chemicals are used.) N. R. ­ No recommendation specified References ACGIH. 1996 Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1996. Cushnie, Jr., George. Pollution Prevention and Control Technology for Plating Operations. Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, 1994. EPA. Development Document for Existing Source Pretreatment Standards for the Electroplating Point Source Category. EPA 440/ 1­ 79/ 003, Washington, D. C.: Environmental Protection Agency, August 1979. NIOSH. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94­ 116. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1997. OSHA Regulations (Standards ­ 29 CFR) ­ Part 1910 Occupational Safety and Health Standards, http:// www. osha­ slc. gov/ OshStd_ toc/ OSHA_ Std_ toc_ 1910. html September 1998 114 F006 Benchmarking Study Appendix D: Checklist Used to Identify Pollution Prevention Technologiesat Metal Finishing Facilities September 1998 115 F006 Benchmarking Study P2 Technology T T Comment 1. SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS General Bath Life Extension C C Filtration C C Carbon Treatment C C Replenishment C C Purified Water C C Electrolytic Dummying C C Cyanide Bath Carbonate Freezing C C Precipitation C C Monitoring C C Housekeeping C C Drag­ in Reduction C C Purer Anodes and Bags C C Ventilation/ Exhaust Systems Hexavalent Chrome Alternatives Trivalent chrome Non­ chrome conversion coatings Nonchelated Process Chemistries Continuous filtration Non­ cyanide Process Chemicals Solvent Degreasing Alternatives Hot alkaline cleaning Electrocurrent Ultrasonic Alkaline Cleaners Filtration (Micro/ Ultra) Skimming Coalescer Caustic Etch Solution Regeneration Acid Purification Ion Exchange 2. DRAG­ OUT REDUCTION C C Process Bath Operating Concentration and Temperature C C Wetting Agents P2 Technology T T Comment September 1998 116 F006 Benchmarking Study C C Workpiece Positioning C C Withdrawal and Drainage Time C C Air Knives C C Spray or Fog Rinses C C Plating Baths C C Drainage Boards C C Drag­ Out Tanks 3. DRAG­ OUT RECOVERY C C Evaporation C C Ion Exchange C C Electrowinning C C Electrodialysis C C Reverse Osmosis C C Meshpad Mist Eliminators 4. RINSE WATER Improved Rinsing Efficiency C C Spray Rinse/ Rinse Water Agitation C C Increased Contact Time/ Multiple Rinses C C Countercurrent Rinsing Flow Controls C C Flow Restrictors C C Conductivity­ Actuated Flow Control Recycling/ Recovery C C Rinse Water C C Spent Process Baths C C Solvents September 1998 117 F006 Benchmarking Study Appendix E: Laboratory Analysis Information: Constituents, Methods, and Detection Limits Used in the Benchmarking Studies September 1998 118 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 1. Volatile Organic Target Analytes Method 8260A CONSTITUENT TARGET DETECTION LIMIT (F Fg/ Kg) Chloromethane 5 Vinyl Chloride 5 Bromomethane 5 Chloroethane 10 Trichlorofluoromethane 5 Acetone 10 2­ Chloroethyl vinyl ether 20 1,1­ Dichloroethene 5 Methylene Chloride 5 Carbon Disulfide 5 Vinyl Acetate 10 1,1­ Dichloroethane 5 2­ Butanone 10 trans­ 1,2­ Dichloroethene 5 cis­ 1,2­ Dichloroethene 5 Chloroform 5 1,1,1­ Trichloroethane 5 Carbon Tetrachloride 5 1,2­ Dichloroethane 5 Benzene 5 Trichloroethene (TCE) 5 1,2­ Dichloropropane 5 Bromodichloromethane 5 4­ Methyl­ 2­ pentanone 10 2­ Hexanone 10 cis­ 1,3­ Dichloropropene 5 trans­ 1,3­ Dichloropropene 5 1,1,2­ Trichloroethane 5 Toluene 5 Table 1. Volatile Organic Target Analytes Method 8260A CONSTITUENT TARGET DETECTION LIMIT (F Fg/ Kg) September 1998 119 F006 Benchmarking Study Dibromochloromethane 5 Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 5 Chlorobenzene 5 Ethylbenzene 5 m, p­ Xylenes 5 o­ Xylene 5 Styrene 5 Bromoform 5 1,1,2,2­ Tetrachloroethane 5 1,3­ Dichlorobenzene 5 1,4­ Dichlorobenzene 5 1,2­ Dichlorobenzene 5 September 1998 120 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 2. Semivolatile Organic Target Analytes Method 8270B ­ Solid Samples CONSTITUENT TARGET DETECTION LIMIT (F Fg/ Kg) Phenol 660 bis( 2­ Chloroethyl) ether 660 2­ Chlorophenol 660 2,3­ Dichlorobenzene 660 1,4­ Dichlorobenzene 660 Benzyl alcohol 1300 1,2­ Dichlorobenzene 660 2­ Methylphanol 660 bis(( 2­ Chloroisopropyl) ether 660 4­ Methyphenol 660 N­ Nitroso­ di­ n­ propylamine 660 Hexachloroethane 660 Nitrobenzene 660 Isophorone 660 2­ Nitrophenol 660 2,4­ Dimethylphenol 660 bis( 2­ Chloroethoxy) methane 660 Benzoic acid 3300 2,4­ Dichlorophenol 660 1,2,4­ Trichlorobenzene 660 Naphthalene 660 4­ Chloroaniline 1300 Hexachlorobutadiene 660 4­ Chloro­ 3­ methylphenol 1300 2­ Methylnaphthalene 660 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 660 2,4,6­ Trichlorophenol 660 2,4,5­ Trichlorophenol 660 2­ Chloronaphthalene 660 Table 2. Semivolatile Organic Target Analytes Method 8270B ­ Solid Samples CONSTITUENT TARGET DETECTION LIMIT (F Fg/ Kg) September 1998 121 F006 Benchmarking Study 2­ Nitroaniline 3300 Dimethylphthalate 660 Acenaphthylene 660 2,6­ Dinitrotoluene 3300 3­ Nitroaniline 3300 Acenaphthene 660 2,4­ Dinitrophenol 3300 4­ Nitrophanol 3300 4­ Nitrophenol 660 Dibenzofuran 660 2,4­ Dinitrotoluene 660 Diethyphthalate 660 4­ Chlorophenyl­ phenylether 660 Fluorene 660 4­ Nitroaniline 3300 4,6­ Dinitro­ 2­ methylphenol 3300 N­ Nitrosodiphenylamine 660 4­ Bromophenyl­ phenylether 660 Hexachlorobenzene 660 Pentachlorophenol 3300 Phenanthrene 660 Anthraoene 660 Carbazole 660 Di­ n­ butylphthalate 660 Fluoranthene 660 Pyrene 660 Butylbenzylphthalate 660 3,3'­ Dichlorobenzidine 1300 Benzo( a) anthracene 660 Table 2. Semivolatile Organic Target Analytes Method 8270B ­ Solid Samples CONSTITUENT TARGET DETECTION LIMIT (F Fg/ Kg) September 1998 122 F006 Benchmarking Study bis( 2­ Ethylhexyl) phthalate 660 Chrysene 660 Din­ octylphthalate 660 Benzo( b) fluoranthene 660 Benzo( k) fluoranthene 660 Benzo( a) pyrene 660 Indeno( 1,2,3­ cd) pyrene 660 Dibenz( a, h) anthracene 660 Benzo( g, h, f) perylene 660 September 1998 123 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 3. Target Analytes: Metals and other Inorganics SW­ 846 Target Detection Limits 1 Analyte Method( s) Solid mg/ kg Aluminum 6020 10 Antimony 6020 1 Arsenic 6020 2 Barium 6020 10 Beryllium 6020 1 Bismuth 6020 1 Cadmium 6020 1 Calcium 6020 100 Chromium 6020 2 Copper 6020 1 Iron 6020 10 Lead 6020 0.6 Magnesium 6020 100 Manganese 6020 3 Mercury 7471 0.1 Nickel 6020 1 Selenium 6020 1 Silver 6020 1 Sodium 6020 100 Tin 6020 1 Zinc 6020 4 Chloride SM 300.0 NR Fluoride SM 340.2 NR Cyanide (total and amenable) 9010 NR Hexavalent chromium 3060A/ 7196A NR S))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Notes: 1 The target detection limits provided are for reference purposes. The actual method detection limits are sample dependent and may vary as the sample matrix varies. NR ­ Not required, best achievable limit by laboratory to be used. September 1998 124 F006 Benchmarking Study Table 4. TCLP Compliance Criteria Analyte Methods Target Quantitation Limits mg/ L 1 Metals Arsenic 6020 5.0 Barium 6020 100. Cadmium 6020 1.0 Chromium 6020 5.0 Lead 6020 5.0 Mercury 7470 0.2 Selenium 6020 1.0 Silver 6020 5.0 S))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Q Notes: 1. All methods are SW­ 846 3rd Ed. September 1998 125 F006 Benchmarking Study Appendix F: Regional Benchmarking Survey September 1998 126 F006 Benchmarking Study EPA's CSI Survey of 10 Milwaukee Platers Instructions The National Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF) is member of Environmental Protection Agency's Common Sense Initiative (CSI) metal finishing sector workgroup and is participating in the data gather effort focusing on hazardous waste regulatory issues has identified the need to compare the characteristics of F006 wastes generated today with F006 wastes generated at the time of the listing under RCRA (1980). The following survey will be used to evaluate the chemical content of F006 generated by 10 metal finishing facilities from Milwaukee. This information will be used to characterize F006, evaluate the processes generating F006 and the level of pollution prevention practiced, and determine the recyclability of F006. Please note that this survey should be completed using available information or best engineering judgement and that you are not required to generate any new data. Confidentiality: If you believe that some parts of the information supplied by your are commercially sensitive, you may claim protection for your data. However it will be extremely difficult for the workgroup to use any data that is considered confidential in determining the F006 recyclability. If you believe your information to be sensitive, it may be blinded in order for the workgroup to develop a final report. Return the completed survey within 10 days from date of receipt to: William (Bill) Sonntag NAMF 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 408 Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (202) 965­ 5190 Fax: (202) 965­ 4037 The survey may also be submitted to the EPA contractor during the engineering site visit and sampling effort. For technical assistance, call Kristy Allman, SAIC at (703) 318­ 4766. Response may be typed or handwritten neatly. Use additional paper as needed. A. Corporate and Facility Information Parent Corporation Name of Company/ Affiliate Address of Corporation Headquarters Street City State Zip Name of Facility Address of Facility (if different from above) Street City State Zip RCRA Hazardous Waste Generator ID Number: POTW/ NPDES Permit Number: PSD Permit Number: Name( s) of personnel to be contacted for additional information pertaining to this questionnaire Name Title Telephone September 1998 127 F006 Benchmarking Study Type of Facility: Job shop Captive shop Number of Employees: B. Process Flow Diagram The purpose of this question is to provide the workgroup with an overview of the plating operations and understanding of how the various plating operations are linked together, and the flow of wastewaters to the waste water treatment plant (WWTP) generating the F006 sludge. The workgroup is most interested in the following commonly used processes: C zinc plating on steel C nickel/ chromium plating on steel C copper/ nickel/ chromium plating on non­ ferrous substrates (zinc, brass, ABS) C copper plating/ stripping in the printed circuit industry C hard chromium plating on steel C cadmium plating Please provide a general process block flow diagram for each these plating processes that identifies basic plating operation. This should contain general information on feedstocks, plating solutions, waste generation, etc. Please provide a brief written description of the plating process. This should include: C Feed stock, intermediate, or product storage C Waste management units C Waste storage and shipping equipment C Production output C Waste generation C Plating sequence, solutions, and substrates C. Wastewater Treatment Plant Flow Diagram Please provide a brief description of the treatment process wastewaters go through to remove metals and other toxic substances prior to discharge. Please discuss the following steps and equipment used (as applicable): C waste stream segregation C hexavalent chrome reduction C cyanide oxidation C neutralization, flocculation, clarification, effluent polishing C sludge dewatering and drying C sludge blending to achieve desired concentration C sludge storage and duration D. F006 Quantity Generated and Management Methods D. 1. What was the total product weight produced by your facility in 1995? Long Tons or Surface area (Circle one) D. 2. Is the F006 generated at your facility process­ specific or is it combined in the wastewater treatment plant? D. 3. What was the total quantity of F006 generated in 1995? Dry tons D. 4. Estimate the quantity of F006 generated from each process in 1995? Process Quantity (dry tons) September 1998 128 F006 Benchmarking Study D. 5. Please provide a description of any onsite recycling of your F006. Please estimate the quantities (dry tons) recycled or recovered. D. 6. Please provide the name, location, brief process description (e. g., pyrometallurgical) and quantity (dry tons) for all F006 sludge that is sent offsite for recycling/ metals recovery. D. 7. Please provide the name, location, management method (e. g., Subtitle C landfill) and quantity (dry tons) for all F006 sludge that is sent offsite for disposal. D. 8. What is the quantity of F006 sludge disposed of onsite? Dry tons D. 9. What was the quantity exported outside the U. S. in 1995? Dry tons E. F006 Waste Characterization Please provide waste characterization analytical data sheets for your F006 sludge. Submit both Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and total compositional data when possible. Please provide characterization information (if available) for pH, reactive cyanide, specific gravity, and phase distribution. Please be sure your facility name and F006 sludge sample identification is clearly marked on each page or provide it in the top right hand corner of the analytical data sheet with any additional information you may wish to provide. Please provide any specifications required by recyclers. F. Pollution Prevention/ Waste Minimization Activities Briefly please respond to each of the following questions concerning your present or past pollution prevention/ waste minimization (P2) activities. Please remember it is just as important to document your failures as well as your successes in conducting P2. F. 1. What types of equipment changes or equipment layouts have you implement in conducting P2? F. 2. Describe how you have improved operating practices including operator training. F. 3. Describe any material substitution or elimination you have implemented to make your F006 less toxic or more recyclable. F. 4. Describe your water­ use (e. g., flow restriction, drag out) reduction program or policy and any addition P2 measures conducted at your facility not mentioned before. September 1998 129 F006 Benchmarking Study F. 5. Describe any closed­ loop recycling conducted by your plating operation. F. 6. Please describe how your facility's use of pollution prevention has (or has not) affected the quantities and/ or quality of F006 sludge generated at your facility. F. 7. Do you have any documentation where P2 was implemented and subsequently partially or completely abandoned in favor of reclamation. If so can you provide EPA with a copy of the documentation and briefly describe it below. F. 8. Please describe any industrial trends affecting your metal finishing facility or the metal finishing industry as a whole and/ or the generation of F006 sludge. F. 9. Please describe any economic barriers and/ or incentives to conducting P2. Please describe the principle economic factors that have lead to your facility's current practices. F. 10. Please describe any regulations that affect P2, recycling and sludge treatment/ management decisions. September 1998 130 F006 Benchmarking Study September 1998 131 F006 Benchmarking Study September 1998 132 F006 Benchmarking Study Appendix G: National Benchmarking Survey and Instructions September 1998 133 F006 Benchmarking Study Call for Data as Part of EPA's CSI Instructions The National Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF), American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers (AESF), and Metal Finishing Sciences Association (MFSA) are members of the Environmental Protection Agency's Common Sense Initiative (CSI) metal finishing sector workgroup and are participating in the data gathering effort focusing on hazardous waste regulatory issues and has identified the need to compare the characteristics of F006 wastes generated today with F006 wastes generated at the time of the listing under RCRA (1980). The following survey will be used to characterize F006, evaluate the processes generating F006 and the level of pollution prevention practiced, and determine the recyclability of F006. Please note that this survey should be completed using available information or best engineering judgement and that you are not required to generate any new data. F006 is defined as "Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations except from the following processes: (1) Sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc­ aluminum plating on carbon steel; (5) cleaning/ stripping associated with tin, zinc, and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching and milling of aluminum." (40 CFR §261.31) Return the completed survey as soon as possible but not later than 30 days after receipt of this survey to: Christian Richter NAMF/ AESF/ MFSA 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 408 Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (202) 965­ 5190 Fax: (202) 965­ 4037 Response may be typed or handwritten neatly. A. CORPORATE AND FACILITY INFORMATION Parent Corporation Name of Company/ Affiliate Address of Corporation Headquarters Street City State Zip Name of Facility Address of Facility (if different from above) Street City State Zip RCRA Hazardous Waste Generator ID Number: POTW/ NPDES Permit Number: PSD Permit Number: State or Local environmental permits: Name( s) of personnel to be contacted for additional information pertaining to this data Name Title Telephone Type of Facility: Job shop Captive shop September 1998 134 F006 Benchmarking Study Number of Employees: B. METAL FINISHING OPERATIONS What type of plating operations are conducted by your facility? Specify cyanide­ versus non­ cyanide­ based plating. zinc plating on steel CN Non­ CN nickel/ chromium plating on steel copper/ nickel/ chromium plating on non­ ferrous substrates (zinc, brass, ABS) copper plating/ stripping in the printed circuit industry hard chromium plating on steel Copper plating tin (acid) plating cadmium plating sulfuric acid anodizing silver plating gold plating bright dip of copper/ alloy Other,( specify): C. F006 QUANTITY GENERATED AND MANAGEMENT METHODS C1. What was the total product weight produced by your facility in 1996? (Long Tons/ Cubic yards/ Cubic feet) Please circle appropriate units. C2. Is the F006 generated at your facility process­ specific or is it combined in the wastewater treatment plant? C3. Are cyanide­ bearing F006 sludges segregated from non­ cyanide F006? Yes / No C4. What was the total quantity of F006 generated in 1996? (Dry Tons/ Cubic yards/ Cubic feet) Please circle appropriate units. C5. Estimate the quantity of F006 generated from each process in 1996? Process Quantity (Specify units) C6. Please provide a description of any onsite recycling of your metals prior to discharge to wastewater treatment. Please estimate the quantities (Dry Tons/ Cubic yards/ Cubic feet) recycled or recovered. September 1998 135 F006 Benchmarking Study Description of any onsite recycling Quantity recycled or recovered C7. Please provide the name, location, and quantity (Dry Tons/ Cubic yards/ Cubic feet) for all F006 sludge that is sent offsite for recycling/ metals recovery. Name Location Quantity C8. Please provide the name, location, management method (e. g., Subtitle C landfill) and quantity (dry tons) for all F006 sludge that is sent offsite for disposal. Name Location Management Quantity Method C9. What was the quantity exported outside the U. S. in 1996? Dry tons C10. Please check any of the wastewater treatment process used to remove metals and other toxic substances prior to discharge. Please discuss the following steps and equipment used (as applicable): waste stream segregation hexavalent chrome reduction cyanide oxidation neutralization, flocculation, clarification, effluent polishing sludge blending to achieve desired concentration D. F006 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION Please provide waste characterization analytical data sheets for your F006 sludge. Submit both Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and total compositional data when possible. Please provide characterization information (if available) for pH, reactive cyanide, specific gravity, and phase distribution. Please be sure your facility name and F006 sludge sample identification is clearly marked on each page or provide it in the top right hand corner of the analytical data sheet with any additional information you may wish to provide. Please provide any specifications required by recyclers. E. POLLUTION PREVENTION/ WASTE MINIMIZATION ACTIVITIES E1. Check the techniques used at your site. If requested, indicate whether the technique is automated or manual. The pollution prevention benefits from the techniques you use (1= low success, 5= high success). If the rating is 1 or 2, September 1998 136 F006 Benchmarking Study indicate below what problems were encountered. Also, use the space below or other sheets to describe any innovative methods or to provide additional information. Reduce Drag­ Out Losses By: P2 Benefit Using drag­ out rinse tanks and returning chemicals to the process bath 9 Manual or 9 Automatic Using drip tanks and returning chemicals to the process bath 9 Manual or 9 Automatic Reducing speed of rack/ part withdrawal 9 Manual or 9 Automatic Allowing rack/ part to drip over plating tank 9 Manual or 9 Automatic Using a drag­ in/ drag­ out arrangement (i. e., use of same rinse tank before and after plating also referred to as a double­ dip or double­ use rinse) 9 Manual or 9 Automatic Fog or spray rinses installed over process bath 9 Manual or 9 Automatic Air knives that blow off drag­ out 9 Manual or 9 Automatic Drip shields between tanks 9 Manual or 9 Automatic Lower bath concentration Increasing solution temperature (reduces viscosity) Using a wetting agent (reduces viscosity) Positioning work piece to minimize solution holdup Other, specify Reduce Rinse Water Use By: P2 Benefit Manually turning off rinse water when not in use Conductivity or pH rinse controls Timer rinse controls Flow restrictors Countercurrent rinses Spray rinses Air agitation in rinse tanks Use flow meters/ accumulators to track water use at each rinse tank or plating line Reactive rinsing or cascade rinsing Other, specify September 1998 137 F006 Benchmarking Study Various Operating Practices: P2 Benefit Training and Programs: Established a formal policy statement with regard to pollution prevention and control Established a formal pollution prevention program Conduct employee education for pollution prevention Establish a preventative maintenance program for tanks Use specifically assigned personnel for chemical additions Procedures: Stricter conformance w/ Line Preventive Maintenance Schedule Stricter conformance w/ SPC Procedures Waste stream segregation of contact and noncontact wastewater Strict chemical inventory control Perform routine bath analyses Maintain bath analyses/ addition logs Have written procedures for bath make­ up and additions Use process baths to maximum extent possible (no dump schedule) Remove anodes from bath when they are idle (e. g., cadmium, zinc) Regularly retrieve fallen parts/ racks from tanks F006 Volume Reduction methods: Closed­ loop recycling Use control method for adding water to process tanks Sludge Dewatering­ (Vacuum filter, Solid bowl centrifuge, Imperforate basket centrifuge, belt filter press, Recessed plate filter press, sludge drying beds, sludge lagoons, sludge dryers, etc.) Install overflow alarms on process tanks Install other spill/ leak detection system, specify _________________________________ Inspections/ Maintenance: Perform regular maintenance of racks/ barrels Pre­ inspect parts to prevent processing of obvious rejects Waste Reduction Study conducted Research/ Evaluations: Evaluation of recycling alternatives Increasing drain time over process tanks Various Operating Practices: P2 Benefit September 1998 138 F006 Benchmarking Study Research of alternative plating technologies Development of tracking system for monitoring flow from different areas Monitoring of incoming water with strict control program Two separate labs for process chemistry and wastewater treatment Elimination/ Replacement/ Substitutions: Eliminate obsolete processes and/ or unused or infrequently used processes Replace cyanide based plating solution with alkaline­ based solutions Elimination of rinse waters to waste treatment (nickel, chrome) Substitution of chromate and dichromate seal with non chrome sealer Elimination of plating services (cadmium, tin, nickel, copper, brass and hard chrome) Elimination of vapor degreasing Implementation of a multi­ stage cyanide destruct system Elimination of chelated cleaners Other, specify Other, specify Additional Information (attach other sheets, if necessary): ______________________________________ E. 2. Has the implementation of pollution prevention reduced your wastewater discharge rate? 9 Yes 9 No If yes, approximately how many gallons per day average have you reduced your flow by using pollution prevention? ______________________ gpd eliminated (base year = 19__) E. 3. Recycle and Recovery Technologies ­ Check each technology that you have used in the past or currently use, indicate the type of process bath to which the technology is applied. Technology Process Bath Technology is Applied to Electrodialysis Electrowinning Evaporator Ion flotation Ion exchange Mesh pad mist eliminator/ recycle Reverse osmosis Ultrafiltration Technology Process Bath Technology is Applied to September 1998 139 F006 Benchmarking Study Other* E. 4. Solution Maintenance Techniques Check the techniques that you presently use and indicate the type of process bath to which the techniques applied. Use the space below to describe any innovative methods or to provide additional information. Technology Process Bath Technology is Applied to Acid retardation Carbon treatment (batch) Carbon treatment (continuous) Dummying of metal contaminants Electrodialysis for inorganic contaminants Carbonate freezing Filtration, in­ tank Filtration, external High pH treatment Precipitation Liquid/ Liquid extraction Microfiltration Ultrafiltration Other, specify Other, specify Other, specify Additional Information:________________________________________________________________________ September 1998 140 F006 Benchmarking Study Appendix H: National Benchmarking Commercial Recyclers Survey September 1998 141 F006 Benchmarking Study EPA's CSI Survey of Recyclers of F006 Instructions The National Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF), American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers (AESF), and Metal Finishing Sciences Association (MFSA) are members of Environmental Protection Agency's Common Sense Initiative (CSI) metal finishing sector workgroup and are participating in the data gathering effort focusing on hazardous waste regulatory issues. The workgroup has identified the need to compare the characteristics of F006 wastes generated today with F006 wastes generated at the time of the listing under RCRA (1980). The following survey will be used to characterize F006, evaluate the F006 recycling processes, and determine the recyclability of F006. Please note that this survey should be completed using available information or best engineering judgement and that you are not required to generate any new data. Return the completed survey within 30 days from date of receipt to: William (Bill) Sonntag NAMF/ AESF/ MFSA 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 408 Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (202) 965­ 5190 Fax: (202) 965­ 4037 For technical assistance, please call Kristy Allman at (703) 318­ 4766. Response may be typed or handwritten neatly. Use additional paper, as needed. A. CORPORATE AND FACILITY INFORMATION Parent Corporation Name of Recycling Company/ Affiliate Address of Recycling Company Headquarters Street City State Zip Address of Facility (if different from above) Street City State Zip RCRA Hazardous Waste Generator ID Number: POTW/ NPDES Permit Number: PSD Permit Number: State and local environmental permits: Name of person to be contacted for additional information pertaining to this questionnaire Name Title Telephone Manner of Handling F006: Hydrometallugical % Pyrometallurgical % Blender/ Broker % Other, specify (%) Number of Employees: The CSI workgroup is attempting to characterize the F006 sludge based on 1995 data. If data for 1995 is 15 not available, other recent time frames will be useful. Please clearly mark the date or time frame on the data sheets. September 1998 142 F006 Benchmarking Study B. PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM B. 1 On a separate sheet of paper, please provide brief description of your process and, if possible, a process flow diagram that identifies basic metal recovery methods. This should include general information including process steps, feeds, products, and the emissions and wastes from the recycling process. This should include: C Feed stocks, intermediates, and/ or products C Process steps C Waste management units C production output C emissions and waste generation points C. F006 QUANTITIES C. 1. What was the volume of all the materials processed by your facility in 1995? Long tons 15 C. 2. What was the volume of F006 sludge processed by your facility in 1995? Dry tons 1 D. F006 CHARACTERIZATION D. 1. Please provide analytical data for F006 evaluated in 1995 . If this represents a large quantity of data, you may 1 present a subset focusing on either more complete analytical scans or on a more recent time period (i. e., the last month). If the data is confidential, you may present a range, with the average and number of data points. If available, please provide the broader pre­ approval scans, typically examining a broader spectrum of constituents, rather than the more cursory screening analyses typically performed on each load of newly received F006. When available, submit both Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and total concentration data. Please be sure your facility name, and F006 sludge sample is clearly identified on each page or provide it in the top right hand corner of the analytical data sheet with any additional characteristic information you may wish to provide. If you have any questions, you may call the technical assistance line. D. 2. Please provide a copy or descriptions of the specification for the F006 sludge must meet for your facility to accept it for recycle. Use additional paper if necessary. D. 3. Explain any undesirable physical or chemical characteristics F006 might possess making it unacceptable to you facility. Use additional paper if necessary. EVALUATION OF F006 E. 1. How does your facility establish the value of F006 (i. e., how do you determine what your company will charge or pay for F006)? Please list the specific metals or combination of metals, or contaminants which affect your valuations. (Please respond in less specific terms if specific termination is considered proprietary.) Use additional paper if necessary. September 1998 143 F006 Benchmarking Study Appendix I: Responses to Citizen Group Phone Survey September 1998 144 F006 Benchmarking Study Individual responses are summarized below. Question #1: Is the Group Aware of Environmental Impacts from the Recycling Facility? NO NO. "Not in the past 6 years. No known violations. Involved in moving waste from one state to another­­ some question concerning whether it is "sham recycling" or not." NO NO COMMENT. The environmental group technically no longer exists. NO NO. "They generally try to make env. laws easier, through political influence. They also operate a superfund site." NO NO UNKNOWN. "Never heard of the company." Question #2: Is the Group Aware of Economic Impacts from the Recycling Facility? NO NO. "They are the largest waste recycler in this state, but mostly imported from other states." NO NO COMMENT. The environmental group technically no longer exists. YES. "Positive impact, always in the business pages of the newspaper." NO NO. "Provides a good service for local companies." NO UNKNOWN. "Never Heard of the company." Question #3: Is the facility considered a "Good Neighbor?" UNKNOWN NO. "They spread the waste on the ground to dry it." UNKNOWN. "Have heard little about this facility, it is 50 miles away." NO COMMENT. The environmental group technically no longer exists. YES. "Have no information to say they are a bad neighbor." NO. "Don't trust them." YES. "They make an effort to get involved in informing the community on what they do." Question #3: Is the facility considered a "Good Neighbor?" September 1998 145 F006 Benchmarking Study YES. "They received an environmental award and, we have participated with them on voluntary P2 committees and projects." UNKNOWN. "Never heard of the company." September 1998 146 F006 Benchmarking Study Appendix J: Statistical "Representativeness" of the National Benchmarking Study ¯ Y j ' 1 N j j k Y jk , S j ' 1 N j j k (Y jk & ¯ Y j ) 2 September 1998 147 F006 Benchmarking Study Statistical "Representativeness" of the National Benchmarking Study A chi­ square analysis was performed to determine whether there is a difference in the distribution of sample proportions for D& B, BRS and "national" databases over the different regions. C Summary of results of comparison of the National sample with the Dun & Bradstreet extract A chi­ square analysis was performed to compare the National sample and the D & B extract (Primary SIC code of 3471) on the number of data points for each of the ten EPA regions. Results of the test showed that they are statistically different ( p­ value ­ 0.003. Please refer to Table 1 of Attachment 1 ). The difference can be attributed to the difference in percentages of the number of facilities in the National sample and the D & B extract for EPA regions 4, 5, and 6. The D & B extract had nearly 30% of the data points as against 42% in the National sample for region 5. The National sample had 5.78 % (region 4), 1.16% (region 6) of the data points as against 9.84% (region 4) and 7.43% (region 6) in the D & B. The difference in size of the National sample (173) and the D & B (4147) was an important issue for the significant p­ value of 0.03%. If the National sample is used to produce any national estimate, there should be caveats for the differences mentioned above for EPA region 4, 5, and 6. The National and the D& B extract were also compared on the basis of mean number of employees per facility. It was found that the means for the National sample were consistently higher than the corresponding means in the D & B ( Please refer to table 2 of Attachment 1). This shows that relatively larger facilities in terms of manpower volunteered for the National sample. Hence, any national estimate from this sample must come with a caveat indicating a potential bias problem. For 9 degrees of freedom, the P value of 25.22 is significant beyond both 5% and 1% levels. 2 Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the sample proportions for D& B and "national' databases. Note, however, that due to small sample sizes in the "national" database, the results could be more informative after collapsing several regions in larger strata. 2. In this section, a statistical method for testing the difference between average number of employees from the D& B and "national" databases is described. Histograms and normal probability plots applied to the total number of employees suggest that the characteristic of interest (# of employees) is distributed more lognormally than normally. Therefore, the log­ transformed version was used in all calculations. Assuming that the D& B database covers almost all facilities of interest, the true mean and true standard deviation for each region can be approximated by Since N is large enough and S is known, we can use normal approximation to test the differences j j between the true (D& B) mean, Y, and the sample (" national") mean, y . In this case the test statistic j j is given by z j ' | ¯ y j & ¯ Y j | S j , j ' 1, 2, ÿ, 10 September 1998 148 F006 Benchmarking Study C Summary of results of comparison of the National sample with the BRS sample Results of the chi­ square test performed to compare the National sample and the BRS sample are similar to the results of comparison of the National sample and the D & B extract. In fact, with a precision of 0.1%, we conclude that the distribution of sample points by region in the National sample is significantly different from the distribution of sample points by region in the BRS sample. The difference can be attributed to the difference in percentages of the number of facilities in the national sample and the BRS sample for EPA regions 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9. Comparing the average F006 discharge for each region in the national sample and in the BRS sample, we found that, in general, there are no significant differences for most regions in these two samples. Only two regions (region 1 and region 5) out of ten in the National sample discharged significantly more F006 than the corresponding regions in the BRS sample. Note also that there were no samples taken from region 8 in the National survey. C Comparison of the Regional Benchmarking Sampling data to the National Survey data The results of the test for all 10 groups along with the corresponding p­ values are attached. In order to compare the responses from the ALLDATA sample and the NATIONAL sample, we examine how much the mean and distribution of each analyte from the ALLDATA sample differ from those from the NATIONAL sample. The table below summarizes the results of statistical tests performed to compare the two samples. It contains p­ values for the analytes that are in both ALLDATA and NATIONAL samples. P­ values less than 0.05 indicate a statistically significant difference between the responses from the ALLDATA sample and the NATIONAL sample for a particular analyte. From this table we conclude that the reported values are significantly different for Amenable Cyanide, Magnesium, Selenium, Total Cyanide, and Zinc from the TOTAL group. The results for other analytes do not show significant differences between the two samples under study. September 1998 149 F006 Benchmarking Study TCLP METALS TOTAL METALS ANALYTE P­ VALUE ANALYTE P­ VALUE BARIUM 0.0691 ALUMINUM 0.1407 CADMIUM 0.5960 AMENABLE CYANIDE 0.0084 CHROMIUM 0.0517 ANTIMONY 0.3772 LEAD 0.3126 ARSENIC 0.2715 MERCURY 0.1071 BARIUM 0.6320 SILVER 0.4097 BERYLLIUM 0.3729 BISMUTH 0.2239 CADMIUM 0.3766 CALCIUM 0.1183 CHLORIDE 0.4763 CHROMIUM 0.1502 CHROMIUM, HEXA 0.2812 COPPER 0.1159 FLUORIDE 0.1477 IRON 04179 LEAD 0.6072 MAGNESIUM 0.0044 MANGANESE 0.3262 MERCURY 0.2802 NICKEL 0.2023 SELENIUM 0.0365 SILVER 0.2741 SODIUM 0.6743 TIN 0.2546 TOTAL CYANIDE 0.0319 ZINC 0.0146

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.134033

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0076-0042

Supporting & Related Material

1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VARIANCE FOR WORLD RESOURCES COMPANY Summary of Proposal and Response to Comments 40 CFR 260.30 provides that the EPA Administrator may grant a variance from the classification of solid waste, on a case­ by­ case basis, for materials that have been reclaimed but must be reclaimed further before recovery is completed. Such a variance generally is contingent upon the material resulting from the initial reclamation being "commodity­ like." When this variance is effective, the concentrates partially reclaimed from metal­ bearing sludges F006 and F019 that are shipped to smelters may travel without a hazardous waste manifest and will not be subject to any RCRA controls other than the conditions of this variance (listed above in this notice). Incoming hazardous waste received by WRC at the Phoenix facility is not covered by the variance and must be manifested and managed as a hazardous waste until shipped to smelters for further reclamation. EPA's rules at 40 CFR 260.31( c) specifies five criteria for evaluating whether a specific material qualifies for a "partially reclaimed material" variance from the definition of solid waste. In addition, 40 CFR 260.31( c)( 6) also allows EPA to consider "other relevant factors" when determining whether or not to grant a requested variance for materials that have been partially reclaimed. The criteria of 40 CFR 260.31( c) do not constitute separate legal thresholds, each of which must be met before EPA can grant a variance under this regulatory provision. Instead, EPA must consider all the criteria in their totality to determine whether the partially reclaimed concentrate is "commodity­ like". A strong demonstration that several criteria have been met may outweigh the fact that an applicant is weak in another area. Weighing all of the factors together, EPA has concluded that WRC's processed concentrates are more commodity­ like than waste­ like, and that it is reasonable to grant the variance. This section sets out EPA's findings, describes the principal comments concerning these findings, and gives EPA's responses to these comments. All other comments, and the Agency's responses, may be found in the record for this rulemaking (see RCRA Docket Number F­ 2002­ WRCF­ FFFFF). A. Degree of Processing The first evaluation criterion (40 CFR 260.31( c)( 1)) is the degree of processing a material has undergone and the degree of further processing that is required for the material to be rendered "commodity­ like." Materials that have undergone substantial processing to reclaim valuable or recyclable materials (but still must undergo a degree of further processing) generally satisfy this criterion. Materials that are still substantially "waste­ like" and that need a significant degree of further processing or "treatment" to be rendered "commodity­ like" may not satisfy the evaluation criterion. 2 One commenter stated that the greater part of the processing is accomplished at the smelter rather than at the WRC facility and that WRC therefore does not meet the criteria for the variance. EPA agrees that this processing is not technically complicated. As discussed below, however, WRC has a sophisticated quality control program which allows it to blend sludges to meet smelter specifications. In fact, WRC has made a very strong showing that its processing adds substantial economic value to electroplating sludges. It takes in a material that has little or no market value (electroplaters pay WRC to take their sludges) and converts it into a material that smelters will buy (see the discussion of economic value in the following section of this notice). WRC also made a strong showing that it meets the fourth criterion, relating to a guaranteed end market for its reclaimed material. Weighing all the factors together, EPA has concluded that the amount of processing performed by WRC is sufficient to meet this criterion. Another commenter said that evaporation and blending represent the most minimal form of waste handling and should not be interpreted to constitute significant value­ added processing. This commenter stated that any electroplater would be able to obtain a variance for hazardous waste that has been evaporated in a 90­ day or other exempt unit, and any smelter would be able to accept it. Another commenter speculated that other 90­ day generators would dewater other wastes and claim partially­ reclaimed variances. EPA does not agree that any electroplater would be able to obtain a variance to dry sludges in onsite units. Although WRC's mechanical methods for sludge drying and blending may be technically simple, the company has a sophisticated quality control program used to ensure that the sludge from each generator meets contract specifications, and that the partially reclaimed material has also been formulated to meet purchaser specifications. The process involves a chemical analysis laboratory program and computer software programs which yield over 200,000 test results yearly to provide needed operational information to control WRC's recycling activities. These specifications and analyses also played a role in EPA's decision that the sludges undergo meaningful processing at WRC. EPA would not be likely to grant variances to electroplaters or other waste generators who could not show similarly strong indicators that they engaged in significant processing to create "commodities." One commenter stated that using the value of services to generators as a measure for determining the degree of processing of a waste material does not appear in any regulation and is not discussed in any of the Agency's correspondence or guidance on this subject. EPA did not consider the value of services that WRC provides to generators in its evaluation of this criterion. Although WRC urged EPA to take into account the amount of money it spends to process each ton of sludge, and although it is true that WRC does derive some of its profit from fees paid by generators, EPA's decision is based on the fact that WRC's activities make its concentrate marketable to smelters as discussed elsewhere in this notice (see section B below). B. Economic Value of Material That Has Been Reclaimed The second evaluation criterion (§ 260.31( c)( 2)) requires an evaluation of the economic value of the material that has been reclaimed, but must be further reclaimed. This criterion is also 3 useful in determining whether a material is indeed "commodity­ like." To satisfy this criterion, petitioners must demonstrate that the initial reclamation process increases or contributes to the value of the material and that there is a market for the reclaimed material. Petitioners generally can demonstrate that this factor is met by providing sales information, including quantities of the material sold, additional demand for the material (if any), and the price paid for the material by purchasers. In the proposal, EPA stated that the processed concentrate that WRC produces has positive economic value and is purchased by smelters. EPA based this conclusion primarily on sales data provided by WRC for January 1994­ June 1995. EPA found that this data showed that WRC in fact sold its partially reclaimed material to smelters and received a positive economic value (taking into account average transportation costs). One commenter stated that WRC and EPA have mis­ characterized the "economic value" of the concentrate. This commenter asserted that the true economic value of metal­ bearing sludges is determined by the value of the metals in the material at a given time, not by how much is spent to process the material or how much the processor charges for the material. The commenter asserted that, on this basis, WRC's process adds no value, because the amount of the metals in the sludges does not change. EPA agrees that the presence of the valuable metals in metal­ bearing sludges is one factor to be used in determining whether WRC's partially reclaimed concentrate is commodity­ like. However, EPA does not agree that WRC must increase the amount of metal to add value to the materials that it processes. There are other ways to make these metal­ bearing materials more valuable. WRC's services in aggregating sludges into larger volumes which smelters are willing to accept and in custom­ blending sludges to meet specific smelter specifications add significant value. The fact that WRC is able to sell processed concentrates to smelters (while few electroplaters are able to persuade smelters to accept unprocessed sludges, and most who do have to pay smelters to accept their sludges), demonstrates that WRC's services add value. One commenter questioned whether WRC would be able to claim positive economic value if it analyzed sales data for sludges that were reclaimed for common metals only. This commenter argued that the economic value would not be as high if only common metals were sold, instead of precious metals. Another commenter said that information in the record indicated that WRC's concentrate contained substantially lower levels of recoverable metals than virgin concentrates. In response to these comments, Agency points out that the regulatory criteria for granting a variance under 40 CFR 260.30( c) do not require the Agency to distinguish between the common metals and precious metals contained in WRC's partially reclaimed concentrate, if in fact the concentrate contains both kinds of metals. The Agency also disagrees that recoverable levels for many metals are lower in WRC's concentrate than those found in virgin concentrate. If in some cases the levels of metals are lower, smelters are nevertheless willing to pay for the concentrates, demonstrating that they have positive economic value. The commenter also pointed out that a significant portion of WRC's revenue comes from fees it charges generators, as opposed to the revenue received for selling its concentrate to 4 smelters. The commenter believed that this fact is indicative of sham recycling. If the commenter means that WRC's operation is a "sham", the issue is not relevant to this variance. The sham recycling criteria help EPA distinguish facilities that engage in recycling that is not subject to RCRA regulation from facilities that engage in waste treatment that is subject to RCRA. WRC is not claiming that its operation is exempt from RCRA; therefore, the sham recycling criteria do not apply. Similarly, the commenter may be suggesting that smelters using WRC concentrates are engaged in waste treatment rather than recycling. EPA does not believe that the fees generators pay to WRC are relevant to the legitimacy of the smelters' processes. The argument might have relevance if WRC paid smelters to take its concentrates; however, the record shows that WRC sells its concentrates to smelters. Finally, the commenter may be suggesting that WRC's process adds so little value to the sludges that no variance is warranted, so that WRC concentrates should continue to be regulated as hazardous wastes during transportation and during storage at smelters. EPA disagrees. Data provided by WRC show that, during 1996­ 1999, WRC made more money from selling concentrates to smelters than from charging fees to generators. WRC received approximately $0.59 from generator fees for every $1.00 it received in metal sales (after adjusting generator fees to eliminate charges for optional transportation services). This commenter also stated that EPA should not have used "average" transportation costs in assessing whether WRC received positive economic value for its concentrate. This commenter suggested that the Agency should require recordkeeping and auditing of WRC's records to ensure that each shipment generates a return. The commenter further suggested that EPA should assess the transportation cost of a single trip for each load, any administrative activities by the smelter, and smelter processing costs. These costs should then be compared to similar costs for asgenerated sludges shipped directly to smelters. The commenter also stated that EPA should determine monetary value to smelters of reducing sludge moisture content and blending sludges to meet smelter specifications. In response to these comments, the Agency notes that it is not feasible to evaluate the profitability of each and every shipment made by WRC to smelters. Such profitability will depend on several factors, such as the concentration of metals in a particular shipment, the price of the metals at the time, and freight costs. We do not believe that the regulatory criteria at 40 CFR 260.31( c) require the Agency to examine all of these factors with respect to each shipment. For this reason, EPA instead assessed the average cost of transportation over the period covered by the variance application. We believe that such averaged costs are sufficient to help us assess the economic value of WRC's concentrate. EPA believes that the record shows that smelters value the reduction of moisture content and the blending of sludges. Smelters will pay more for WRC's concentrates, which have undergone these steps, than they will pay for sludges marketed by electroplaters which have not been dried and blended. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, EPA does not need to determine precise values for each of these activities to make a finding on this issue. One commenter also stated that EPA's assertion that smelters are reluctant to accept F006 sludges directly from generators is not supported in the rulemaking record, and that at least one smelter takes "as­ generated" sludges directly from electroplaters. In response, the Agency notes 5 that we did not intend to imply that smelters refuse to take sludges directly from electroplaters. Rather, EPA meant that WRC's concentrates are more attractive to smelters than sludges shipped directly from electroplaters. EPA believes that the concentrates are more attractive for two reasons. First, WRC's shipments are much larger than typical shipments from electroplaters. For example, in 1995 the average amount of F006 generated from an individual electroplater was 120 tons (see Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Rule for a 180­ Day Accumulation Time for F006 Wastewater Treatment Sludges, USEPA, Office Of Solid Waste, January 14, 2000). During the same year, WRC processed over 16,000 tons of F006 and related wastes for metal recovery (see Hazardous Waste Recycling in the United States: Summary Statistics and Trends for 1993­ 1997, USEPA, Office of Solid Waste, June 7, 2001, p. 18). Larger shipments reduce transaction costs for smelters, and smelters will penalize for smaller lots (see Pollution Prevention and Control Technology for Plating Operations, George C. Cushnie Jr., 1994). They also allow for economies of scale in shipping and handling costs. Second, smelter personnel contacted by EPA indicated that they believe that WRC more consistently meets specifications for metal content and impurities (see personal communication between Paul Borst, USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Bob Sippel, Vice­ President for Recycling, Noranda Minerals, Inc., July 22­ 24, 1996). C. Degree To Which Reclaimed Material Resembles Analogous Raw Material The third evaluation criterion (40 CFR 260.31( c)( 3)) is the degree to which the reclaimed material is like an analogous raw material. The partially reclaimed material should be similar to an analogous raw material or feedstock for which the material may be substituted in a production or reclamation process. In addition, the partially reclaimed material should not contain significant concentrations of hazardous constituents not found in an analogous raw material and that do not contribute to the value of the partially reclaimed material when used for its intended purpose. As explained in the proposal, EPA conducted an analysis comparing levels of the inorganic constituents and cyanide in the processed concentrates that WRC sells with levels of constituents in virgin ore concentrates. EPA found that, with the exception of cyanide, the levels of constituents in WRC's concentrates are generally comparable to the levels of constituents found in concentrates made from virgin ores. Also, EPA considered data showing that toxic organic constituents are not likely to be prevalent or present in more than trace amounts in F006 being recycled (see EPA's Metal Finishing F006 Benchmark Study, September 1998, p. 23, and letter (with attachment) from D. Daniel Chandler of Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry and Hoven to Paul Borst, USEPA, June 2, 1993)). To make WRC's concentrate more commodity­ like, EPA decided to limit the levels of cyanide that could be allowed. The 590 ppm total cyanide limit that we proposed is the current Universal Treatment Standard (UTS) for land disposal at 40 CFR §268.48 for total cyanide in hazardous wastes that are land disposed. This limit currently applies to any WRC concentrate that is stored on the land before smelting. In response to requests for clarification from two commenters, we are today stating that the limit refers to total cyanide, and we are adding the test method specified in 40 CFR 268.48. Some commenters did not believe that the limit set for cyanide in WRC's concentrate should be 590 ppm. One commenter argued that EPA should limit cyanides to the amount 6 present in analogous "virgin" sources of metals. Another argued that the cyanide limit should be risk­ based, and asserted that EPA's assessment of risks did not ensure protection of human health and the environment. This criterion is intended to help EPA distinguish materials that are waste­ like from materials that are commodity­ like. Where EPA finds a constituent at higher levels in the partially reclaimed, waste­ derived material, it does not have to conduct a risk assessment and impose a condition based on limiting risks to human health and the environment (as demonstrated through some type of risk assessment). Rather, EPA need only ensure that the constituent levels are commodity­ like. Limiting constituent levels in the partially reclaimed material to levels in analogous virgin raw materials, as one commenter suggested, is an acceptable way to accomplish this. It is not, however, the only way. In this case, the analogous raw materials appear to have extremely low levels of cyanide. EPA is concerned that WRC might not be able to reduce cyanide levels in electroplating sludges to this level. EPA, however, is confident that WRC can meet the land disposal restriction level for cyanide, which currently applies while WRC's concentrates are classified as hazardous wastes. As previously stated, WRC makes strong showings for the second and fourth criteria of the variance, causing EPA to conclude that its concentrates are commoditylike Under these circumstances, EPA finds the 590 ppm limit to be sufficient to ensure that WRC's concentrates are more commodity­ like than waste­ like. In spite of the fact that it was not legally required, EPA conducted a screening analysis to determine whether land storage of concentrates with cyanides at this level would pose ground water risks. The analysis suggested that cyanide concentration would not exceed the federal drinking water standard for cyanide at a downgradient drinking water well if cyanide underwent hydrolysis. The screening analyis did show some potential for risk if cyanide did not hydrolize. One commenter challenged EPA's assumption that hydrolysis was likely to occur. The Agency made this assumption because the scientific literature shows that cyanide is often amenable to that process, since it tends to break down or dissociate if it comes in contact with water (see Kollig P. Heinz et. al, Environmental Fate Constants for Organic Chemicals Under Consideration for EPA's Hazardous Waste Identification Projects, Office of Research and Development, USEPA). Moreover, the screening analysis is likely to overestimate risks for several reasons. EPA conducted the screening assuming 200 to 300 metric tons of electroplating sludge stored outdoors, even though such sludge is usually stored indoors, with reduced likelihood of releases to groundwater, and even though volumes of concentrate at a single smelter at any one time are likely to be smaller. In addition, information available to the Agency indicate that WRC's metal concentrate is unlikely to remain in storage at a smelter for a long period of time. First, the cost and efficiency of the smelting process itself are negatively affected by water content; therefore, any stored materials are used as soon as possible to avoid inadvertent moistening by rainfall. Second, under the purchasing agreement, the smelter must pay WRC by a specified time after the concentrate is received, often before the material is fully unloaded. This practice would lead the smelter to assume the risk of metal price changes if the material is not used promptly. Consequently, it is difficult to conclude that the concentrates would pose unacceptable ground water risk even if hydrolysis occurred slowly or did not occur at all. 7 The Agency also notes that the other conditions of this variance will protect against air inhalation risks from cyanide. For example, a Material Safety Data Sheet must accompany the concentrate with a notification that the concentrate may contain up to 590 ppm cyanide and that low pH environments can result in the production of hydrogen cyanide gas. Moreover, Department of Transportation regulations for hazardous materials will continue to apply to WRC's processed concentrates even after the RCRA exemption takes effect. In addition, the Agency notes that WRC is not seeking a variance for its own operations. Hazardous waste regulations will continue to apply to processed concentrates held at WRC's facility One commenter questioned the validity of EPA's assessment of groundwater risks for cyanide, noting that EPA decided not to propose an "exit" level for hazardous wastes containing cyanide in the proposed hazardous waste identification rule (HWIR) due to technical concerns with predicting the fate of cyanide in the environment. However, for this variance EPA did not need to conduct a risk assessment. Moreover, the technical difficulties are less important in a simple groundwater screening analysis than in the complex, multipathway analysis conducted for the HWIR rule. Another commenter suggested that EPA should set a toxic­ along­ for­ the­ ride limit for the cyanide in incoming sludges to WRC's facility, so that WRC would not be able to dilute high incoming cyanide concentrations to achieve specified concentration levels in the outgoing concentrate. RCRA regulations do not prohibit dilution during reclamation. While dilution is impermissible in the LDR program to avoid a treatment standard (see 40 CFR Part 268.3 generally), dilution is permissible when done to facilitate treatment (i. e, adding cement to stabilize waste). The type of dilution that may occur at WRC in drying and blending is analogous to that which takes place to facilitate treatment, since drying and blending makes metal concentrates smelter­ ready and amenable for high temperature metal recovery. Whatever cyanide dilution takes place in WRC's blending process is incidental to the main purpose of the blending, which is to ensure that the concentrates contain sufficient metal content to assure high process efficiency and limit contaminant concentrations of tramp constituents that may interfere with the smelting process. One commenter thought the limit for total organic hazardous constituents, including cyanides, should be 500 ppm, apparently because other organic hazardous constituents may be present in sludges received by WRC and because this value is the cutoff point for determining whether a smelter is burning solely for metal recovery, and thus eligible for an exemption to the current permitting rules for boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs) (see CFR 266.100( c)( 2)( i)). Another commenter believed that even the 500 ppm limit was not sufficiently protective, because it could create health risks if burning were conducted improperly, and the limit was not intended for use in a delisting or a variance. EPA established a 500 ppm limit for total organic constituents in secondary materials burned at smelters to distinguish smelters engaged in metals recovery from smelters engaged in the treatment of hazardous organic constituents. The limit is not risk­ based. Moreover, as stated earlier, EPA is not required to ensure that the concentrate will pose low risks before granting the 8 variance. However, EPA has also found that unprocessed electoplating sludges typically contain very low levels of organics (except cyanide) that are well below the cutoff point for smelter metals recovery (see EPA's Metal Finishing F006 Benchmark Study, September 1998, p. 23, and letter (with attachment) from D. Daniel Chandler of Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry and Hoven to Paul Borst, USEPA, June 2, 1993)). EPA is imposing a limit for cyanide. Two commenters stated that EPA should evaluate risks presented by all toxic constituents potentially present in the waste, just as it does when considering delisting requests. One of these commenters suggested that EPA should set a "toxics­ along­ for­ the­ ride" threshold level for each toxic constituent in each incoming load of sludge that WRC receives, and that any level set for toxic constituents, including cyanide, should be risk­ based rather than technology­ based. In response, EPA notes that we found no need for limits on any other constituents to demonstrate that the processed concentrates are commodity­ like. The relevant test is the degree to which the concentrate resembles analogous raw materials. To determine whether WRC's concentrate is similar to analogous raw materials, we compared its inorganic constituents to inorganic constituents found in primary copper and nickel concentrates. We concluded that cyanide was the sole hazardous constituent that was not present in the analogous raw material that did not contribute to the value of the WRC concentrate when sent for metals recovery. Moreover, with the exception of cyanide, the Agency concluded that the Appendix VIII metals typically contained in WRC's concentrate are similar to those found in virgin ore concentrates. In addition, we note that commercial contracts under which smelters purchase WRC's concentrate typically specify limits on several such metals (such as lead or chromium) to ensure that levels do not interfere with the extraction process. As noted above, we also found that organic constituents are not found in significant amounts in unprocessed electroplating sludges. Therefore, EPA does not need to set limits for other constituents, either to ensure that WRC's concentrates are commodity­ like or to ensure that WRC does not engage in sham recycling. Some commenters suggested that EPA should place limits on Appendix VIII metals in incoming sludges at the WRC facility, at least for those metals in high concentrations that are not recovered and have no "ore equivalency" levels, such as chromium, cadmium or zinc. One commenter argued that recoverable metals could also be toxics­ along­ for­ the­ ride if the receiving smelter does not in fact recover all of them. The Agency does not believe that such a limitation is necessary to ensure that WRC's concentrates resemble virgin ores. We did not find metals that are not present in virgin ores. We note that there are Appendix VIII metals at high concentrations in the analogous primary copper and nickel concentrates which are not recovered. Arsenic levels in primary copper concentrates are often present in levels as high as 3000 ppm and are not recovered. D. Extent To Which End Market is Guaranteed Under the fourth evaluation criterion (40 CFR 260.31( c)( 4)), petitioners must demonstrate that an end market for the partially reclaimed material is guaranteed. Petitioners must demonstrate that there is a secure demand and long­ term market for the partially reclaimed material and that the chance of large quantities of the material being stockpiled due to insufficient demand is unlikely. If a petitioner cannot demonstrate that the material enjoys a consistent level of demand, with reasonable expectations for the same or greater level of demand once a variance 9 is granted, there may be risk of the material being stockpiled or stored for a significant period of time in containers or other storage units that do not have to meet RCRA Subtitle C storage standards. Such situations may pose significant risks to human health or the environment. In the proposal, EPA found that WRC demonstrated that it has multi­ year contracts for the sale of its processed concentrates with at least four smelters, and that these smelters have excess capacity exceeding WRC's production capabilities. The record also shows that the smelters have been customers for significant periods of time; contracts with one smelter extend back to the 1970's. Even the most recent customers have had contracts since the middle 1990's. At the same time, however, to help ensure that concentrates meet their end market, EPA proposed to require that WRC ship concentrates only to metal smelting facilities, that WRC comply with DOT regulations regarding shipments of hazardous materials, and that WRC document that all shipments reached their designated destination. To assist in ensuring compliance with these shipping conditions, EPA also proposed to require WRC to provide an annual audit to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). The annual audit, conducted by an independent third party, must certify that all shipments of WRC's partially reclaimed concentrate were made to metal smelting facilities, were documented and shipped in accordance with all applicable U. S. Department of Transportation regulations, and were documented to have reached the designated destination. EPA is retaining these conditions for the final variance. One commenter thought that there was insufficient information in the proposal and in EPA's supporting analyses to fully evaluate the underlying economics of WRC's business. This commenter suggested that at a minimum (emphasis supplied in the original comments) EPA should conduct an analysis covering the entire 17 years of WRC's operations, reviewing all contracts over this time period, the primary and secondary metals market over the same period, and any other regulatory or enforcement actions EPA or authorized states have taken with respect to F006 and F019 recycling, including all prior interpretations of the legitimacy of F006 and F019 recycling activities. In particular, the commenter stated that EPA should analyze WRC's 17 year history to determine if there had ever been a period when metals prices were so low that the concentrate could not be sold. This commenter also felt that EPA's position was weakened by the fact that WRC has contracts with foreign smelters. Another commenter expressed similar concerns about fluctuations in metal prices, fearing bankruptcies, abandonments, and "stockpiling" when minerals become less valuable. In response, EPA notes that the considerable amount of data submitted by WRC and available to the Agency from other sources have provided an accurate view of the nature of F006 recycling in general and of WRC's operations in particular. This information has been sufficient to allow the Agency to evaluate whether WRC's concentrate meets the regulatory criteria of 40 CFR §260.31( c). The Agency also believes that the existence of past fluctuations in commodity prices should not be a decisive or even strong consideration in evaluating variance applications under 40 CFR §260.30( c), especially since price fluctuations for these materials tend to be the rule rather than the exception. In addition, as noted above, WRC has numerous multi­ year, longterm contracts in place, indicating that WRC's processed sludges remain valuable to smelters over time, even with changes in the values of the metals they contain. 10 Moreover, we note that the variance does not apply to materials held at WRC prior to shipment. Storage there must comply with Subtitle C requirements. These requirements adequately address threats posed by materials "stockpiled" at WRC. With regard to the risks that a smelter might accept a shipment, but stockpile it at the smelting facility during a "down" market, we note that these materials are blended to specific smelter specifications, and smelters pay to receive them (often before the materials are processed). It therefore seems more likely that smelters will use them rather than store them for extended periods of time. These considerations are true for both domestic and foreign smelters. The Agency notes that in the proposal, the introductory paragraph to the variance language included a reference to metal concentrate sold to "smelters or other metal recovery facilities", although the proposed numbered variance conditions referred only to "smelters" (see 64 FR 68968 at 68972). Today's final notice limits the variance to WRC's metal concentrate that is sold to smelters, since the available data submitted in support of the variance concerns sales to smelters rather than to other kinds of facilities. One commenter opposed the requirement for an independent annual audit as an unnecessary expense and believed a statement signed by WRC would suffice. Two commenters believed that the audit should contain additional requirements, such as recordkeeping and evaluations of the management of WRC's concentrate at smelters, and one commenter suggested an audit every four months during the first two years. Some commenters were concerned that an independent audit would replace the role of a regulatory agency inspection. In response to these comments, EPA notes that the conditions of all variances under 40 CFR 260.30 are site­ specific in nature. This audit was proposed as a mutual agreement between ADEQ and WRC to satisfy both parties' concerns about compliance with the terms of the variance. An independent annual audit ensures an objective review of the company's operations, and provides information on how the material is handled after partial reclamation. However, the fact that an audit is required as a condition of this variance does not mean that similar audits would be considered appropriate for all such variances. The Agency does not believe that the additional requirements for increased recordkeeping, evaluation at smelters, and more frequent review suggested by some commenters are necessary to help regulators determine whether WRC has complied with these variance conditions. EPA also notes that nothing in this variance would legally affect or preclude inspections or review of WRC's operations by the regulatory authority. The State or EPA Region can conduct the number of inspections and reviews it believes necessary to ascertain compliance with conditions of the variance, as well as compliance with other RCRA requirements applicable to the facility. E. Handling to Minimize Loss The fifth evaluation criterion (40 CFR 260.31( c)( 5)) concerns the extent to which the partially reclaimed material is handled to minimize loss. Petitioners must demonstrate that the material is handled as if it were a valuable commodity and in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. 11 In the proposal, EPA stated that the value of the concentrates and the contracts between WRC and both generators and smelters provide incentives for WRC to manage both the unprocessed sludges and the processed concentrates to prevent loss. EPA also noted that the processed concentrates will remain subject to Subtitle C storage regulations while held at WRC prior to shipment, because the variance will not take effect until the concentrates are loaded for shipment. Even after the RCRA variance takes effect, the concentrates will remain subject to DOT regulations for hazardous substances during shipment to smelters. The smelters' payments for the concentrates show that the smelters value them and have incentives to manage them carefully. The custom blending for each shipment also makes it more likely that smelters will value the concentrates and handle them appropriately. EPA, however, also proposed to impose a condition that prohibits land placement of WRC's concentrates because land storage has a high potential for loss, and because EPA does not believe that analogous concentrates derived from virgin materials are stored on the land. EPA also proposed to ensure that smelters received notice of this limitation by requiring WRC to restate the condition in all contracts with smelters. In our proposal, EPA described this limit in its discussion of the third criterion, the extent to which constituents in the partially reclaimed material resemble constituents in the analogous raw material. EPA is clarifying here that we are imposing this condition to ensure that WRC's customers handle the exempt material in a manner that will minimize loss. One commenter claimed that WRC's assertions that smelters handle concentrates to minimize loss are not a sufficient basis for EPA to make a conclusion about smelters' operations. EPA, however, is not basing its finding on this criterion on these assertions. Rather, EPA has independently evaluated the factors that would influence smelters' handling of these materials, and concluded that the smelter payments, WRC's custom blending activities, and the risks to the smelters from prolonged storage make it likely that smelters will minimize losses. Moreover, the Agency is imposing a condition which provides that concentrates stored on the land will not be excluded under the variance. One commenter suggested that contracts between WRC and smelters could not be directly enforced by WRC, and that the Agency should therefore condition the variance on enforcement agreements between the smelters and ADEQ. EPA does not agree that enforcement agreements of the type suggested by the commenter are necessary to prevent land storage at smelters. The variance clearly makes land storage a violation of the variance conditions. Concentrates stored on the land would not be excluded from the definition of solid waste, and EPA and the State could take enforcement action if the storage did not comply with all applicable Subtitle C requirements. This commenter also suggested that EPA should promulgate a rule establishing management conditions at all metal recyclers and smelters. However, such a rule would far exceed the scope of our variance proposal. F. Additional factors In addition to the five evaluation factors discussed above, EPA may consider other relevant factors in determining whether or not to grant a variance from the definition of solid waste for materials that have been reclaimed but must be reclaimed further before recovery is 12 complete (40 CFR 260.31( c)( 6)). These other factors may be raised by the petitioner, the Agency, or other interested parties. Such factors may be directly applicable to EPA's decision to grant a variance, or may be indirectly applicable, but relevant in assigning priorities for evaluating a particular petition. 1. Minimum Metals Content for Incoming Sludges In the proposal, EPA considered the possibility that WRC could engage in "sham recycling" by blending electroplating sludges with low metal concentrations into sludges with higher concentrations, and marketing the blended "product" to smelters. EPA was concerned that WRC's processing would be a form of treatment for sludges which would ultimately be disposed of in smelter wastes, without contributing any significant metal content to smelter products. To ensure that WRC would be engaged in legitimate recycling, the Agency proposed to require each incoming sludge to have a minimum content of either two percent of copper, nickel or tin (on a dry weight basis), or a precious metal content with monetary value equivalent to the copper, nickel or tin value. One commenter stated that no non­ conforming shipments should be allowed, since this would be contrary to EPA's policy at other hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs). In response, the Agency notes that our proposal to allow a certain number of non­ conforming shipments does not affect the status of the incoming material as a hazardous waste. Such shipments would still be subject to all applicable Subtitle C requirements, as is the case with all other TSDFs. We are allowing WRC to accept a minimum number of shipments below the normal minimum metal content which will still be eligible for the variance because, as a practical matter, some shipments from generators will (albeit very infrequently) contain less than the desired metal content, and there is a possibility that this may not be discovered until processing of the shipment has begun. Some commenters questioned the use of a two percent dry weight limit for copper, nickel, or tin. One commenter stated that EPA should provide a broader discussion of the data which it used to require that the minimum copper, nickel, or tin content of a sludge arriving at WRC must be two percent dry weight in order for the dewatered sludge to be equivalent in quality to virgin ore feedstocks. This commenter appeared to believe that the levels of both base and precious metals in the incoming sludges should be the same as the levels found in virgin ore feedstocks sent to smelters. For example, this commenter questioned why economic value was used to determine equivalency of precious metals with base metals in incoming sludges, rather than expected virgin ore quality with respect to precious metals. The commenter stated that the value of gold per unit weight is approximately 5, 000 times that of copper (based on current market prices). Therefore, the current economic equivalent of two percent copper (about 20,000 ppm) would be about 4 ppm gold, or about 0.09 troy ounce per ton. The commenter expressed doubt that ores containing such a low concentration of gold would be mined and smelted commercially. The commenter appeared to be suggesting that the required threshold level of precious metals in the incoming sludges be the same as the levels of such metals that smelters will accept in virgin ores. Two commenters stated that concentrate shipped by WRC to smelters can contain a 13 significant moisture content (up to 50%). Therefore, according to these commenters, if the metal concentration in the incoming sludges were two percent on a dry weight basis, the actual concentration as shipped to the smelter would be below two percent. If feedstock equivalency required a copper concentration of at least 2. 5 percent, the dry weight concentration in the sludge that WRC received would need to be at least four percent copper. In response to this comment, EPA notes that we did not intend to require incoming sludges at the WRC facility to be equivalent to virgin ore feedstocks with respect to metal content. The purpose of this proposed requirement was to establish a minimum metal threshold below which little recovery of metals would occur. After reviewing available literature and discussing this issue with smelter representatives, the Agency concluded that the two percent limit appears to be a "smelter cutoff," meaning the lowest concentration of metal that a given smelter will allow through the gate on a dry weight basis (see memorandum from Paul Borst titled "Analysis of Minimum Metal Content of Secondary Feedstocks Destined for Primary Smelting Operations in North America," May 7, 1999). The minimum metal content ensures that at least one smelter in North America would be able to receive and process all incoming sludges to the WRC facility. This condition on the variance ensures that secondary materials which have little or no recoverable metal may not be blended in with metal­ bearing secondary materials with higher metal content. The condition therefore prevents surrogate treatment and disposal of the secondary materials with little or no recoverable metal content. It is not necessary to require WRC's concentrates to contain as much metal as virgin ore concentrates. Similarly, with respect to the reduction of moisture content, even if significant moisture reduction of the incoming sludges occurs, WRC is still responsible for meeting the minimum metal content on a dry weight basis required under contract specifications for particular smelters. In addition, we note that moisture reduction tends to concentrate metals levels, rather than dilute them, as the commenter implied. It is therefore unnecessary to require higher metals levels in the incoming sludges to account for moisture reduction. Similarly, EPA is not aware of any smelters that refuse to give credit for precious metals in secondary materials when their concentrations are lower than those considered acceptable for virgin ores, so long as the monetary values are equivalent. The Agency believes that it is reasonable to base minimum metal levels in the incoming sludges on smelter acceptance and pricing policies. Another commenter said that EPA's choice of a two percent minimum metal content level for incoming sludges or an equivalent value in precious metals to assure the "legitimacy" of WRC's operation is based on faulty and incomplete analysis. This commenter suggested that the required minimum metal content should account for transportation and storage costs incurred by smelters receiving WRC concentrate, as well as WRC's processing costs. The commenter also stated that the highest rather than the lowest smelter cutoff should be used in determining legitimate recovery of metals from incoming material to WRC. EPA does not agree that the highest smelter cutoff (i. e., the most stringent metal limit required by any smelter) is an appropriate number for the incoming limit on metals in the sludges. If other smelters are purchasing materials with lower metal concentrations and reclaiming metals 14 from these materials, there appears no reason to conclude that this is not legitimate reclamation. Nor does the Agency agree that transportation and storage costs should affect which level of metals allows legitimate recycling to occur. Two commenters questioned how WRC would segregate its incoming loads into: (1) sludges containing the required minimum levels of recoverable metals, and (2) sludges with lower levels of metals. EPA notes that the conditions of the variance do not absolutely prohibit WRC from receiving sludges with lower metal concentrations than those specified in the variance. However, listed sludges used in producing the concentrate that is eligible for the variance must conform to the minimum metals limit (except for two non­ conforming loads). Sludges not used for this purpose need not contain minimum levels of metals. The Agency does not believe it is necessary to specify in the variance a particular method for segregating the two types of sludges. EPA notes that many facilities manage different wastestreams, some of which are regulated under RCRA and some of which are excluded. For purposes of retaining the regulatory exclusion, it often may be important to segregate wastestreams. However, EPA does not specify in its regulations a particular procedure for conducting such segregation. Another commenter feared that waste streams containing recyclable levels of one metal could be diluted down to non­ recyclable levels when mixed with waste streams containing other metals. This commenter proposed an additional condition for the WRC variance that would be implemented according to the following example. The company receives a sludge that has three percent copper and five percent nickel, so that the sludge is above the two percent minimum metal threshold for both metals. Hypothetically, the company makes a business decision to blend this sludge with other nickel­ bearing sludges and ship the blended mixture to a nickel smelter for reclamation. The commenter is concerned that the copper in the original incoming shipment has been diluted below two percent and is non­ recoverable at the nickel smelter. The commenter believes that this procedure would constitute sham recycling. The condition that the commenter proposed would require that a nickel/ copper bearing sludge be only blended with other nickel/ copper­ bearing sludges and that the blend only be destined to a smelter or other recycling facility where both metals are recovered. EPA does not agree that recovering nickel values would constitute sham recycling merely because the copper in the sludge could be diluted and possibly not recovered. WRC's processing would make the concentrate marketable by increasing the nickel value. Without WRC's drying, blending, and consolidating operations, the electroplating sludge most likely would not go to a smelter for recovery for either copper or nickel. So long as WRC increased the concentration for one metal, EPA does not think the fact that it diluted a second metal shows that recycling is not legitimate. Moreover, EPA believes that many virgin ores contain multiple metals that smelters do not extract. 2. Exports and Imports One commenter noted that changing the regulatory status of the partially reclaimed material removes RCRA import and export requirements, thus taking away a safeguard designed to put foreign governments on notice that these materials are hazardous. This commenter suggested that if EPA grants the variance, it should continue to require compliance with these 15 requirements. The same commenter was concerned that because WRC's facility is one of the top ten receivers of hazardous waste from Mexico, the granting of the variance may increase the flow of waste across the border, increasing the transportation risks inherent in long distance transport. The commenter believed that the variance could inadvertently discourage the development of much­ needed hazardous waste disposal and recycling facilities in Mexico by creating an incentive for shipping exempted waste from Mexico into the US. Finally, the commenter stated that EPA should evaluate whether waste shipments from Mexico are compatible with Mexican and other applicable international or bilateral agreements concerning these wastes. The Agency believes that the conditions of this variance are adequate to provide notice to foreign governments. The variance contains a requirement that WRC must send a one­ time notification of the variance and its conditions to any country where metal smelters accepting WRC concentrates are located. WRC is also required to submit a Material Safety Data Sheet shipped with the concentrate and a notification that the concentrate may contain up to 590 ppm cyanide and that low pH environments can result in the production of hydrogen cyanide gas. EPA believes that this is sufficient notice to inform foreign governments of the nature of WRC's concentrate, and of the Agency's decision to exclude WRC's concentrate from the definition of solid waste. In addition, the Agency believes that the RCRA notification and consent requirements for imports and exports of hazardous waste are not necessary for materials that have been determined to resemble commodities more than wastes. We note that these requirements do not apply to any materials that are excluded from the definition of solid waste. With respect to imports from Mexico, EPA believes that the commenter's concerns are speculative. The commenter gives no data or detailed theory to back up its concern that shipments from Mexico will increase or that Mexico will fail to develop needed waste management capacity. The status under RCRA of shipments of F006 imported from Mexico will not be affected by this variance. In addition, even though the Agency believes that RCRA export requirements should not apply to commodity­ like materials, we note that this variance does not automatically affect the status of WRC's concentrate under foreign jurisdictions. If the concentrate is classified as a hazardous waste in a foreign jurisdiction, it would retain that status unless the appropriate regulatory authority in that jurisdiction decided to change the classification G. Other Issues Raised By Commenters 1. Effect of the Variance in Other States One commenter asked about the effect of the variance in states which WRC's concentrate would have to pass through in order to reach a smelter. In response, we note that this variance is a variance from the federal definition of solid waste. States with authorized programs may sometimes have more stringent requirements than the federal requirements under RCRA. This variance therefore would not relieve WRC from the obligation to consult with "pass through" states to ascertain their requirements with respect to manifesting. 2. WRC Compliance History/ Permitting 16 One commenter stated that WRC has a poor compliance history, and that there is little reason to believe in the facility's future compliance with any conditions in the exemption. This commenter also was concerned that WRC has not bermed its Arizona facility, and has had at least one washout due to heavy rains. The commenter believed that EPA should wait until the TSD permitting process was complete before finalizing the proposed variance. This would ensure that a waste analysis plan is in place, that each incoming load is checked and nonconforming shipments are rejected. The permit would also allow public participation with regard to the management of the materials to minimize loss. In response, the Agency notes that WRC's compliance with all environmental regulations has always been closely monitored by EPA and ADEQ. We have confidence that this oversight will continue after the variance is granted. All operations at WRC's Phoenix facility are governed by a Consent Agreement and Consent Order (CA/ CO) executed by EPA Region 1X, WRC, and ADEQ (see In the Matter of World Resources Company, EPA ID No. AZD980735500, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, September 3, 1996). The CA/ CO includes a requirement to submit an application for a treatment and storage permit to ADEQ. Issuance of the permit will allow full public participation with respect to the management of the facility under RCRA. In the meantime, the CA/ CO requires compliance with section R18­ 8­ 265 of the Arizona Administrative Code, which incorporates the requirements of 40 CFR Part 265. In addition, although not directly relevant to RCRA compliance, the facility operates under a Groundwater Quality Protection Permit issued by ADEQ and an air quality permit issued by Maricopa County, Arizona. EPA believes that these requirements are adequate to protect human health and the environment until a treatment and storage permit is issued. 3. Enforcement of the Variance Conditions One commenter stated that EPA did not provide enforcement options in the record when a condition of the variance is violated. This commenter said that in order for the conditions to be meaningful, it must be clearly stated and understood that if a condition is violated, the waste will lose its exemption status and thus all hazardous waste requirements will apply to the materials and all responsible parties will be found in violation of both the exemption and the applicable standards of RCRA. In response, the Agency notes that if any of the variance conditions are violated, appropriate remedies will be decided by the regulatory authorities, as is the case with all violations of conditions for exclusions from the definition of solid or hazardous waste. 4. CBI Issues One commenter claimed that important information was withheld from the public because WRC claimed that it was confidential business information. Under 40 CFR part 2, EPA must protect such information from disclosure unless it determines that the information is not in fact entitled to protection or, under RCRA, unless it determines that its release is necessary to a proceeding. The commenter first argued that variance seekers should never be entitled to claim CBI for data submitted to support claims for variance. This commenter viewed a variance is as a privilege; therefore variance seekers are required to share all relevant data with the public. 17 EPA does not agree that variance seekers must reveal business secrets to competitors. EPA's CBI rules in 40 CFR part 2 do not prohibit CBI claims in data submitted to support a variance. Nor do EPA's requirements for partially reclaimed variances in 40 CFR part 260 inform applicants that they may not claim CBI protection for information submitted to support a variance. EPA may use discretion to determine whether commenters actually need to see an applicant's data. In this case, as explained below, EPA decided that public review of the data that WRC claimed as CBI was not necessary. Therefore, EPA withheld it it. EPA did not need to determine whether the data were in fact CBI. The commenter also claims that withholding data claimed as CBI makes it impossible for it to evaluate the basis for EPA's findings for three of variance criteria. EPA disagrees, as explained below. i) Second variance criterion ­ value of material after it has been reclaimed. EPA agrees with the commenter that the relevant test is the market value of material before and after WRC processes it. The commenter claims that the record does not show that EPA looked at this factor. However, EPA did perform this comparison. The preamble to proposal states that "the Agency notes that WRC's concentrate has considerably higher value than `as­ generated' F006 sludges." Non­ CBI record materials show that electroplaters pay WRC to take their unprocessed sludges, while WRC sells the processed sludges. Only the dollar amounts have been withheld. See, e. g. WRC petition, non­ CBI version, p. A­ 2. The commenter does not need to see the actual dollar figures removed from this page, or the extrapolated data from actual contracts that EPA examined to corroborate WRC's petition. The commenter also claims that EPA must compare the costs and revenues associated with electroplaters who send sludges directly to smelters with the costs and revenues associated with WRC's business. EPA disagrees. Whether WRC makes more money or less money than an electroplater who manages to sell sludge to a smelter is irrelevant. What matters is whether WRC increases the value of the material that it receives. Moreover, EPA did make a non­ quantitative comparison of the two types of operations. EPA found that "many smelters are reluctant" to take F006 sludges directly from electroplating operations (see Pollution Prevention and Control Technology for Plating Operations, George C. Cushnie, Jr., 1994). In contrast, EPA found that WRC has stable, long­ term sales relationships with its "customer" smelters. Data in Table 4­ 1 in WRC's application, indicate that contracts have been in place with one smelter since the 1970's and that the newest have been in place since the mid­ 1990's. This data is available to the public. Moreover, EPA found that WRC has "multi­ year" contracts with these smelters (although it withheld the precise number of years involved). These factors indicate that WRC's drying and blending activities, plus its larger shipments, make the processed sludges more valuable to smelters than unprocessed sludges. The commenter does not need to see WRC's contracts to evaluate these findings, as they involve no exercise of discretion on EPA's part, and there would be no additional value to notice and comment on this issue. ii). Fourth criterion ­ guaranteed end market 18 The commenter expresses concern that mineral markets are volatile, with occasional bankruptcies and abandonments. They fear that materials processed by WRC will end up "stockpiled" when the minerals they contain become less valuable. EPA does not understand how examination of the material withheld as CBI would improve the commenter's ability to address this issue. If a smelter is financially unstable, a contract with WRC would not be likely to significantly improve stability. If the commenter is really arguing that EPA should not grant a variance to a secondary material where the market for that material is volatile, EPA disagrees (although the Agency might in an extreme case use variability in value as an indicator that a recycling process is a "sham"). In addition, as noted above, EPA found that WRC's contracts were "long­ term" and "multi­ year." The non­ CBI petition shows that all of the current contracts have been in place since at least 1993, which indicates that WRC's processed sludges remain valuable to smelters over time, even with changes in the value of the metals that they contain. The commenter need not review individual contracts to confirm this. Even more importantly, materials held at WRC's facility will not be covered by the variance. Instead, Subtitle C requirements continue to apply even to processed sludges stored at WRC prior to loading for shipment. This protects human health and the environment if WRC closes, or if processed material is still at WRC when a smelter closes. It is true that materials sent to smelters could be stored at those smelters without Subtitle C controls. However, WRC blends these materials to specific smelter specifications and smelters pay to obtain them; smelters also run risks of deterioration due to moisture or unanticipated changes in metals prices if the materials are not processed quickly. Hence it is more likely that smelters will use them quickly than store them for long periods of time. iii) Fifth criterion ­ handled to minimize loss EPA has looked at the dollar value of the materials WRC sells to smelters. It shared with the public WRC's statement that it receives payments from the smelters, with only the actual dollar values masked. EPA does not agree that the commenter needs to see the actual dollar amounts to comment on this issue. EPA does not have a rule or policy establishing a specific threshold value that sales must meet. Moreover, EPA notes that publicly available data submitted by WRC indicates that the value of the processed material is not trivial. The total value of recovered metals contained in shipments made during 18 months in 1994 and 1995 was $3,051,851. (WRC variance application at 2­ 2). The commenter's concerns might have more merit if EPA was basing its findings on this criterion on dollar value alone. However, in this proceeding EPA has also examined the manner in which WRC, transporters and smelters actually handle the sludges. At WRC, both unprocessed sludges and processed sludges remain subject to Subtitle C controls. These ensure that the materials will be handled carefully to prevent loss. Processed sludges become exempt only when WRC loads them on a transport vehicle. Prior to transport, loading of all the concentrate is performed by trained employees. Trucks and rail cars are only loaded if they are "sift­ proof" and in "good repair" under DOT regulations. Once loaded, they 19 are tarped to prevent losses during transit. DOT regulations for hazardous substances continue to apply to transportation, ensuring that the processed sludges will be handled carefully during transportation. All of the information regarding handling at WRC and during transportation is in the non­ CBI record. Moreover, to encourage smelters to handle these materials carefully, EPA is requiring WRC to place a clause in each contract with a smelter which indicates that the smelter agrees not to store the materials on the land. 5. Five Year Limit In its December 9, 1999 proposal, the Agency had proposed limiting the variance to five years. One commenter requested an explanation for this limitation. EPA proposed the limit because the variance would be the first one granted to this company, and a five­ year limit would require the regulatory authority to evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of the variance and, if appropriate, propose and take final agency action to renew it. At this time, EPA also could terminate the variance or change the conditions of the variance if appropriate. However, EPA has reconsidered this proposed limit and decided not to finalize it as proposed. EPA has the discretion to terminate the variance at any time if its conditions are violated, or if changed circumstances render the variance unnecessary or inappropriate. Therefore, it is not necessary to require EPA to conduct an evaluation after five years and to take new administrative action if it wishes to allow the variance to continue.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.176629

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2000-0054-0685

Rule

Federal Register Notice: Zinc Fertilizers Made from Recycled Hazardous Secondary Materials, Final Rule

48393 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations PART 52—[ AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq. Subpart MM— Oregon 2. Section 52.1970 is amended by adding paragraph (c)( 137) to read as follows: § 52.1970 Identification of plan. * * * * * (c) * * * (137) On May 31, 2001, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality requested the redesignation of Medford to attainment for carbon monoxide. The State's maintenance plan, base/ attainment year emissions inventory, and the redesignation request meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Oregon Administrative Rules 340– 204– 0090, as effective March 27, 2001. PART 81—[ AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq. 2. In § 81.338, the table entitled `` Oregon— Carbon Monoxide, '' the entry for Medford Area, Jackson County is revised to read as follows: * * * * * § 81.338 Oregon. * * * * * OREGON— CARBON MONOXIDE Designated Area Designation Classification Date 1 Type Date 1 Type ******* Medford Area: September 23, 2002 ...................... Attainment ................. Jackson County (part). ******* 1 This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted. * * * * * [FR Doc. 02– 18584 Filed 7– 23– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 261, 266, 268 and 271 [FRL– 7248– 3] RIN 2050– AE69 Zinc Fertilizers Made From Recycled Hazardous Secondary Materials AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is today finalizing regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) that apply to recycling of hazardous secondary materials to make zinc fertilizer products. This final rule establishes a more consistent regulatory framework for this practice, and establishes conditions for excluding hazardous secondary materials that are used to make zinc fertilizers from the regulatory definition of solid waste. The rule also establishes new product specifications for contaminants in zinc fertilizers made from those secondary materials. DATES: This final rule is effective July 24, 2002, except for the amendment to 40 CFR 266.20( b), which eliminates the exemption from treatment standards for fertilizers made from recycled electric arc furnace dust. The effective date for that provision in today's final rule is January 24, 2003. ADDRESSES: Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing in the RCRA Docket Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public make an appointment by calling 703– 603– 9230. The index and some supporting materials are available electronically. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on accessing them. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the RCRA Hotline at 800– 424– 9346 or TDD 800– 553– 7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call 703– 412– 9810 or TDD 703– 412– 3323. For more detailed information on specific aspects of this rulemaking, contact Dave Fagan, U. S. EPA (5301W), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308– 0603, or e­ mail: fagan. david@ epamail. epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Regulated Entities Entities potentially regulated by this action are expected to include manufacturers of zinc fertilizers, and the generators of hazardous secondary materials who will supply zinc­ bearing feedstocks to those manufacturers. Some intermediate handlers, such as brokers, who manage hazardous secondary materials may also be affected by this rule. B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. RCRA– 2000– 0054. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the OSWER Docket, 1235 Jefferson Davis Hwy, 1st Floor, Arlington, VA 22201. You may copy up to 100 pages from any docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15 each. 2. Electronic Access You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48394 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified above. Once in the system, select `` search, '' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. The index of comments received and supporting materials for this rulemaking are available from the RCRA Information Center. The official record for this action is in paper form. EPA has transferred all comments received electronically into paper form and has placed them in the official record, which also includes all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record is the paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document. EPA's responses to the major comments received on this rulemaking are presented in the preamble to this final rule; other comments are addressed in a separate `` Response to Comments'' document which is also part of the official record for this rulemaking. The contents of today's action are listed in the following outline: I. Statutory Authority II. Background A. What Is the purpose of today's final rule? B. Who will be affected by today's final rule? C. How were public comments on the proposal considered by EPA? D. How does this final rule compare to the proposal? E. Why does EPA believe this is the best approach for regulating this recycling practice? III. Detailed description of today's final rule A. Applicability B. Removal of exemption for fertilizers made from electric arc furnace dust (K061) C. Conditional exclusion for hazardous secondary materials used to make zinc fertilizers 1. Applicability 2. Conditions to the exclusion 3. Other provisions 4. Implementation and enforcement 5. Response to comments D. Conditional exclusion for zinc fertilizers made from excluded hazardous secondary materials 1. Hazardous constituent levels for excluded zinc fertilizers 2. Limits on metal contaminants 3. Limit on dioxins IV. Mining wastes used to make fertilizers V. State fertilizer regulatory programs VI. State authority A. Applicability of Federal RCRA Rules in Authorized States B. Authorization of States for Today's Proposal VII. Administrative Assessments A. Executive order 12866 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et. seq. C. Paperwork Reduction Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Federalism— Applicability of Executive Order 13132 F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Risks and Safety Risks H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 I. Executive Order 12898 J. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) K. Congressional Review Act I. Statutory Authority These regulations are promulgated under the authority of sections 3001, 3002, 3003, and 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U. S. C 6921, 6922, 6923 and 6924. II. Background A. What Is the Purpose of Today's Final Rule? Today's final rule puts in place a new, more coherent system for regulating the practice of manufacturing zinc fertilizers from hazardous secondary materials, and establishes conditions under which such materials can be recycled to produce fertilizers without the materials or the fertilizers being regulated as hazardous wastes. The rule, which was proposed on November 28, 2000 (65 FR 70954), is the Agency's response to concerns expressed by public interest groups, citizens, industry and state environmental agencies with regard to the RCRA regulations that have previously applied to this practice. We believe that these new regulations will create a more consistent and comprehensive regulatory framework for such recycling activities, will make industry more accountable for those activities, will establish more appropriate limits on contaminants in zinc fertilizers made from hazardous secondary materials, and in general will promote safe, beneficial recycling in the zinc fertilizer industry. EPA wishes to emphasize that today's regulatory action addresses only one aspect of the larger issue of contaminants in fertilizers. Fertilizers made from recycled hazardous wastes (which are the only types of fertilizers subject to regulation under EPA's RCRA authorities) represent a very small segment­ less than one half of one percent— of the total fertilizer market. To our knowledge, virtually all of these are zinc micronutrient fertilizers. Currently, less than half of all zinc fertilizers on the market are made from such recycled materials. In any case, EPA's studies of contaminants in fertilizers have indicated that the great majority of fertilizers are safe when used properly. This general finding is consistent with similar studies done by states such as Washington and California. Because fertilizers are generally safe, EPA sees no compelling reason to launch a broad new federal regulatory program to address fertilizer contaminants generally (such regulatory authority is potentially available under the Toxic Substances Control Act). This is not to say, however, that there is no need at all to regulate fertilizer contaminants. A wide range of fertilizers and soil amendments, including many products that are not made from recycled wastes, contain appreciable levels of heavy metal contaminants. In addition, EPA's fertilizer studies concluded that a few of these products may contain contaminants at levels approaching those which could pose unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. There is also the potential for tainted feedstocks to be introduced into the market unknowingly, particularly when such materials are imported into the country from unknown sources. A recent incident in the Pacific Northwest involving imported shipments of zinc sulfate material with extremely high cadmium levels is evidence that such problems can occur (see Washington Department of Ecology fact sheet at http:// www. ecy. wa.. gov/ pubs/ 004025. pdf). Traditionally, state agriculture agencies have had responsibility for regulating the content of fertilizers, and in recent years several states (so far, Washington, Texas and California) have developed comprehensive programs to control contaminants in fertilizers and soil amendments. We believe that these state programs have been largely successful, and the Agency supports further state efforts in this area. Additional discussion of state fertilizer regulations and how they relate to this VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48395 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations RCRA rulemaking is presented in section V. of this preamble. B. Who Will Be Affected by Today's Final Rule? We expect that the primary impact of this rule will be on manufacturers of zinc fertilizer products who have an interest in using hazardous secondary materials as feedstocks, and the generators who supply them. We expect that a number of manufacturers who have heretofore been avoiding the use of hazardous wastes will use the exclusion in today's rule to begin using materials such as zinc­ rich dusts from brass foundries and fabricators as substitutes for other feedstocks. The generators of those materials are thus expected to benefit from this rule. The Agency is aware that the last manufacturer of K061 derived fertilizer (Frit Industries of Ozark, Alabama) has already begun the transition to use of alternative feedstock materials. Nucor Steel, the K061 generator that has been Frit Industries' supplier, is likewise switching to other recycling or disposal options. More detailed discussion of the impacts of this rule is presented in section VII. A of this preamble, and in the economic impact analysis document that has been prepared for this rulemaking. C. How Were Public Comments on the Proposal Considered by EPA? EPA received more than 600 comments on the proposal during the formal comment period, which closed on February 26, 2001. The Agency also received a number of letters, cards and emails commenting on the proposal after the comment period, and these comments have been entered into the docket for this rulemaking. In addition, more than seventy individuals made oral statements at the public hearing on the proposal, which was held in Seattle, WA on November 29, 2001. Those statements have been recorded in the transcript of that hearing, which is also in the docket. At the hearing a substantial number of written comments were also submitted to the Agency, and have been included in the docket as well. In total, nearly 1000 comments were received on the proposed rule. EPA has reviewed each comment on the proposal that was submitted. The major substantive comments that were received, and the Agency's response to them, are discussed in following sections of today's preamble. Other comments (with EPA's responses) are set out in a separate Response to Comments document. Where many commenters expressed similar or identical views on certain issues, these have been consolidated in the document, and the Agency has prepared a collective response to them. The Response to Comments document has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. D. How Does This Final Rule Compare to the Proposal? In today's final rule EPA is promulgating the same basic regulatory approach that was outlined in the November 28, 2000 proposal. To summarize, today's rule: Removes the exemption from land disposal restrictions (LDR) treatment standards for zinc fertilizers made from electric arc furnace dust, or K061; and Establishes a conditional exclusion from the RCRA regulatory definition of solid waste for hazardous secondary materials that are legitimately recycled to make zinc micronutrient fertilizers; and Establishes conditions (chiefly concentration limits for certain heavy metals and dioxins) under which zinc fertilizers produced from hazardous secondary materials are not classified as solid wastes, and hence are not subject to RCRA subtitle C regulation. Although EPA has finalized the same basic regulatory approach that was outlined in the November 28, 2000 proposed rule, several substantive revisions have been made in response to comments received. The following is a summary of these changes, which are discussed in more detail in following sections of this preamble: Applicability. The final rule clarifies how the new product specification contaminant limits will apply to zinc fertilizers made from regulated (i. e., non­ excluded) hazardous wastes. In short, such fertilizers will need to comply with the existing, applicable land disposal restrictions (LDR) treatment standards for the hazardous wastes the fertilizers contain. Manufacturers of such fertilizers may, however, choose to meet the new, more stringent contaminant limits, if they wish. Intermediate handlers. Under today's final rule, intermediate handlers (e. g., brokers) of excluded materials will be eligible for the same exclusion as generators, provided they choose to meet the same conditions for reporting, record keeping and storage of excluded materials that apply to generators of such materials. The proposed rule did not contain any provisions specifically addressing intermediate handlers. Additional testing. Today's final rule provides for additional sampling and analysis of fertilizer products in cases where processes or feedstock materials are changed in ways that could significantly affect contaminant levels in the fertilizers. One­ time notice. Two changes have been made to the condition for one­ time notices that generators will need to submit to EPA or to authorized state agencies. One change eliminates the need to provide certain potentially proprietary information in the notices (e. g., estimated quantities of material to be shipped to specific manufacturers). The other change will require that facilities identify in the one­ time notice when they intend to begin managing materials under the terms of the conditional exclusion. Certifications. The final rule eliminates the proposed condition that each shipment of excluded material to another state be accompanied by a certification that the receiving state is authorized to administer the conditional exclusion in this regulation. Unit Closure. The final rule includes a provision clarifying that storage units which have previously stored hazardous wastes, and that subsequently will only store excluded materials according to these regulations, will not be subject to RCRA closure requirements. Limits for nickel and arsenic. The proposed level for arsenic has been lowered in this final rule, and the proposed level for nickel has been eliminated. Storage in supersacks. The proposed condition that would have prohibited outside storage of excluded secondary materials in non­ rigid `` supersack'' containers has been revised to allow the use of these types of containers outdoors, provided they are managed within units (e. g., on concrete pads) that have containment systems to prevent releases from leaks, spills or precipitation events. E. Why Does EPA Believe This Is the Best Approach for Regulating This Recycling Practice? EPA's main objectives for this rulemaking are to: Establish a more consistent, more comprehensive, and more protective regulatory framework for this recycling practice; and Establish more appropriate limits on contaminants in recycled zinc fertilizers that effectively distinguish fertilizer products from wastes by adopting limits that are already found in commercial fertilizers, which can be achieved with well­ demonstrated manufacturing techniques, and that are protective; and Encourage legitimate recycling by streamlining regulatory restrictions on the management of hazardous secondary materials used to make zinc fertilizers, VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48396 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 1 Sham recycling is waste treatment or disposal occurring under the guise of recycling. United States v. Marine Shale Processors, 81 F. 3d 1361, 1365 (5th Cir. 1996). Sham recycling occurs, for example, `` if extra materials are added to [the material to be recycled] that provide no benefit to the industrial process * * *. '' American Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 216 F. 3d 50, 58 (D. C. Cir. 2000). EPA has frequently noted factors that are likely to be relevant in determining whether sham recycling is occurring. See United States v. Marine Shale Processors, 81 F. 3d at 1365 nn. 3 and 4 (compiling Federal Register citations). These include: (a) Whether the secondary material is ineffective or only marginally effective for the claimed use (i. e., does not contribute a significant element to the recycled product or to the recycling process); (b) whether the secondary material is used in excess of the amount needed; and (c) whether the secondary material is handled in a manner consistent with its use as a substitute for an industrial feedstock (i. e., to guard against loss). while making industry more accountable for its recycling activities. EPA believes that the regulatory approach in today's final rule is the best means of achieving these objectives, for several reasons. We expect it to be environmentally beneficial by removing regulatory anomalies and making zinc fertilizers cleaner— for example, by halting production of K061­ derived zinc fertilizers with relatively high contaminant levels (see section III. B. of this preamble). A further environmental benefit will be recovery of large volumes of valuable zinc, rather than landfilling this resource. The rule will also enhance the ability of regulatory agencies to effectively monitor this recycling practice, while removing unnecessary regulatory disincentives on legitimate recycling. We also believe that the new contaminant limits in this rule are reasonable and are consistent with the environmental objectives stated above, and can be (and are being) easily achieved by industry using relatively simple, economically viable, existing manufacturing practices. These levels thus reasonably demarcate products from wastes. While EPA believes that this final rule provides an appropriate balance of conditions and incentives, a large proportion of the more than 1000 total comments we received expressed a clear preference for a more stringent regulatory approach. Most of these comments were received in the form of emails, post cards, form letters and oral statements made at the public hearing. In general, these commenters expressed support for a regulatory approach similar to the option in the preamble identified as `` Maintain current UCD requirements, with additional reporting, record keeping and testing requirements for all hazardous waste derived fertilizers'' (see 65 FR 70964– 5, November 28, 2000). Under this type of approach, the current hazardous waste regulatory structure would be maintained and made more stringent by requiring lower limits on a wider range of potential fertilizer contaminants, greatly expanded testing requirements, labeling of hazardous waste derived fertilizer products, and much more indepth reporting of environmental and manufacturing data. Many commenters suggested in addition that there should be a complete prohibition on the use of any dioxin­ containing hazardous wastes to make fertilizers. Such a regulatory approach would likely result in a complete elimination of hazardous secondary materials as a source of zinc to make fertilizers, since it would perpetuate existing regulatory disincentives (e. g., RCRA permit requirements, as explained further in this preamble) and substantially increase compliance costs. To avoid these regulatory disincentives, manufacturers would almost certainly use alternative feedstock materials (which would likely contain the same or similar contaminants as are found in hazardous wastes) to make fertilizers. The resulting fertilizers would be largely unregulated, since they would not be subject to EPA's RCRA regulatory system, and only a few states presently regulate fertilizer contaminants under other legal authorities. Therefore, by eliminating the use of hazardous wastes in fertilizer manufacture, contaminant levels in some fertilizers could actually increase, which we do not believe is a desirable environmental result (not to mention the energy and other resources conserved by avoiding treatment and disposal of zinc­ bearing secondary materials). As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA has found that a wide variety of zinc­ bearing materials— including hazardous wastes— can be safely and legitimately processed and recycled into high­ quality zinc fertilizer products by using relatively simple, existing manufacturing techniques. In other words, the quality of the end fertilizer product depends almost entirely on the manufacturing process, rather than on the type of feedstock material that is used. EPA did not receive any comments on the proposal that presented technical or scientific information to challenge these findings, and we therefore have no reason to believe that high­ purity zinc fertilizers made from recycled hazardous wastes are any different in composition or risk potential from those made from other types of materials. (See proposed rule at 65 FR at 70959 n. 2 discussing the similarity of hazardous constituent levels in zinc fertilizers made from hazardous wastes and from other materials). Given that high purity zinc fertilizers made from hazardous secondary materials are essentially identical to those made from other types of feedstock materials, we see no environmental reason for increasing regulatory restrictions over such products. We believe that today's rule provides the proper balance of protections and incentives for this recycling practice without the need for additional, more prescriptive regulatory controls. The Agency therefore chose not to adopt the more stringent regulatory approach (described above) that was advocated by many commenters. We also received a number of comments that simply decried the practice of using hazardous waste to make fertilizers, claiming that it creates serious threats to human health, the food supply, and the environment. None of these commenters, however, offered any specific evidence of such threats, or any concrete information indicating that hazardous wastes are being indiscriminately added to fertilizers as a way of disposing of them. It is important to note that any such acts would be considered `` sham'' recycling of hazardous waste, which is illegal. 1 Further, EPA's studies of contaminants in fertilizers have not found evidence to support such serious concerns. We do not wish to minimize the potential for adverse health effects from exposure generally to toxic chemicals such as heavy metals. We believe, however, that with regard to fertilizers, much of this concern is apparently misplaced, and may have resulted from unsubstantiated speculations and exaggerated claims of risk that have appeared in the media and elsewhere. We hope that this final rule, and the record of evidence that supports it, will help to allay unnecessary public fears with regard to fertilizers made from recycled hazardous wastes. III. Detailed Description of Today's Final Rule A. Applicability Today's rule establishes a new regulatory framework for legitimate recycling of `` hazardous secondary materials'' in the manufacture of zinc micronutrient fertilizers. A secondary material is a sludge, by­ product, or spent material. See 50 FR at 616 n. 4 (Jan. 4, 1985). A hazardous secondary material is a secondary material that would be a hazardous waste (i. e., is listed or exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste) if it is first a solid waste. Hazardous secondary materials are presently classified as hazardous wastes when recycled to produce VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48397 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations fertilizers. See 65 FR at 70958– 59, explaining the `` use constituting disposal'' provisions in EPA's hazardous waste recycling rules. However, EPA is referring to these materials in this preamble as `` secondary materials'' or `` hazardous secondary materials, '' rather than as `` hazardous wastes, '' since today's rule excludes them from being defined as wastes provided that certain conditions are followed. The rule will potentially apply to manufacturers of zinc fertilizers who use (or wish to use) hazardous secondary materials as ingredients in their production processes, and to the generators and any intermediate handlers who supply those materials to the manufacturers. The rule will not directly affect any zinc fertilizers that are made from non­ hazardous materials (`` secondary'' or otherwise), nor will it change the current regulatory requirements for non­ zinc fertilizers made from hazardous wastes. A full explanation of the regulatory requirements for hazardous waste fertilizer recycling that have been in effect prior to today's action is presented in the preamble to the proposed rule (see November 28, 2000, 65 FR at 70956). It should be noted that today's final rule creates two separate conditional exclusions­ an exclusion from regulation for the hazardous secondary materials used in zinc fertilizer manufacture, and an exclusion for the fertilizer products that are made from these materials. The exclusion for hazardous secondary materials will potentially be available to those parties who handle such materials prior to recycling (i. e., the secondary material generators, any intermediate handlers, and the fertilizer manufacturers). The exclusion provided for the finished zinc fertilizer products will only apply to fertilizer manufacturers, since they are solely responsible for ensuring that their products meet the specifications in today's rule. To reiterate, today's final rule will not apply to any fertilizers other than zinc fertilizers that are made from recycled hazardous secondary materials. Thus, if a manufacturer were to use hazardous waste as an ingredient in a non­ zinc fertilizer, the manufacturer would not be eligible for the conditional exclusion in today's rule, and will need to comply with applicable hazardous waste management requirements [see existing § 266.20( b)]. Effective Dates. Except for one provision, today's rule will become effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. The exception is the provision in the rule that amends § 266.20( b), removing the exemption from treatment standards for fertilizers made from recycled K061. The effective date for that provision will be January 23, 2002. The RCRA statute establishes six months as the usual effective date for Subtitle C rules (see RCRA section 3010 (b)), though the Agency may provide for a shorter or immediate effective date in the case of regulations with which the regulated community does not need six months to come into compliance, as determined by the Admininstrator. Since today's final rule is essentially deregulatory in nature (with the exception noted above), we see no reason to delay its effective date. Thus, except for the provision that removes the exemption for K061 derived fertilizers, today's rule will be effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. One commenter (Frit Industries) requested an extended (nine month) effective date for removing the exemption from treatment standards for K061 fertilizers. We note that there is no provision in the RCRA statute for such extended effective dates. In addition, the commenter has had ample notice of the Agency's intent to finalize this provision, and has been aware of the Agency's schedule for completing this regulatory action. Thus, we believe the commenter has had sufficient notice of this action. Once this provision of the rule becomes effective, sales of K061 derived fertilizers by manufacturers to other parties will not be permitted, unless those fertilizers can meet the specifications for exclusion in today's rule. Assuming they cannot meet the exclusion specifications, remaining manufacturer inventories of K061 fertilizers after the effective date will need to be managed in accordance with applicable hazardous waste regulations. As a practical matter, however, inventories of K061 (or other) fertilizers that have already entered commerce (i. e., have been sold and shipped to other parties) before the effective date will not be affected. Thus, fertilizer dealers and others who may have unsold stocks of K061 fertilizers after this rule's effective date will not be affected, provided the fertilizers were sold and shipped by the manufacturer prior to the effective date. It is our intent to hold manufacturers of K061 fertilizers (and any other affected fertilizers) responsible for ensuring that noncompliant products do not enter commerce after the effective date of this rule. B. Removal of Exemption for Fertilizers Made from Electric Arc Furnace Dust (K061) Today's rule eliminates the provision in § 266.20 that has exempted zinc fertilizers made specifically from electric arc furnace dust (K061) from having to meet applicable land disposal restrictions (LDR) treatment standards (i. e., the treatment standards for K061). This exemption was originally promulgated in the `` First Third'' LDR rulemaking (August 17, 1988, 52 FR 31138), based on a determination by EPA that fertilizers made from K061 had metal contaminant levels comparable to those of substitute zinc fertilizers (including those made from nonhazardous waste feedstocks), and that the use of K061 fertilizers did not appear to pose significant risks (see 53 FR 31164, August 17, 1998). However, in recent years zinc fertilizers of much higher purity (e. g., zinc sulfate monohydrate, or ZSM fertilizers) have become widely available, and K061 derived zinc fertilizers now have among the highest contaminant (i. e., hazardous constituent) levels of any zinc fertilizers. Thus, EPA believes that the original basis for the K061 exemption is no longer valid, and sees no reason why these fertilizer products should not have to meet the same contaminant limits as other fertilizers made from recycled hazardous wastes (or be excluded from regulation in the same way as other such fertilizers). Response to Comments. Numerous commenters expressed support for a complete ban on the use of K061 in fertilizer manufacture, often citing the relatively high levels of dioxins in K061 fertilizers compared to other fertilizer products. Others urged a ban on the use of all `` dioxin laden wastes'' to make fertilizer. A few commenters opposed removing the current LDR exemption for K061 derived fertilizers. EPA chose not to ban the use of K061 to make zinc fertilizers, for several reasons. Most importantly, we believe that with the promulgation of today's rule the issue of dioxins in K061 derived fertilizers will effectively become moot, largely because the new rules will in all likelihood eliminate the use of K061 to make zinc oxysulfate fertilizers. Oxysulfate is a type of zinc fertilizer that is typically made by simply mixing zinc­ bearing material (e. g., K061) with sulfuric acid. There is typically no processing step to remove contaminants— whatever impurities are in the feedstock material will usually remain in the finished product. Such products will be unable to meet the new exclusion levels in today's rule, or the VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48398 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations applicable LDR standards. Thus, we do not expect this type of fertilizer to be produced after the effective date of today's regulations. At the same time, it is possible to remove the contaminants in K061 to make a different type of fertilizer, such as high­ purity ZSM fertilizer, which can satisfy the conditional exclusion levels. Most of the zinc in K061 is bound with iron in a zinc ferrite compound that is relatively insoluble and, at normal temperatures, cannot be effectively digested with acids to precipitate and filter out contaminants such as lead and other metals. However, it has been demonstrated that raw K061 can be first processed in high­ temperature furnaces to form a zinc oxide material that can then easily be made into ZSM. Such thermal treatment, combined with subsequent manufacturing processes, is likely to destroy most or nearly all dioxins present in K061. The agency thus sees no dioxin­ related reason to prohibit this use of K061. Further discussion of dioxins in hazardous waste derived fertilizers is presented in section III. D. 3 of this preamble. A few comments were received that opposed removing the current exemption from LDR treatment standards for K061 derived zinc fertilizers. These commenters did not, however, challenge the Agency's logic for eliminating the exemption, but rather argued that EPA has no legal jurisdiction to regulate these fertilizers at all, based on recent court decisions. EPA rejects these arguments, for the reasons discussed later in this preamble. C. Conditional Exclusion for Hazardous Secondary Materials Used To Make Zinc Fertilizers In this final rule, EPA has created a `` conditional exclusion'' from the RCRA definition of solid waste for hazardous secondary materials (which would otherwise be classified as hazardous wastes, as explained above) that are used as ingredients to make zinc micronutrient fertilizers. As mentioned previously, this feature of the final rule is consistent with the proposal, though a few specific changes have been made, as explained below. The conditional exclusion provided in today's rule is an exclusion only from the RCRA subtitle C regulations, and not from the emergency, remediation and information­ gathering sections of the RCRA statute [sections 3004( u), 3007, 3013, and 7003]. This is consistent with the principle already codified for other excluded secondary materials— that the exclusion is only from RCRA regulatory provisions, and not from these statutory authorities. See § 261.1( b). EPA is restating this principle here in the interests of clarity, not to reopen the issue. The legal basis for the distinction of the Agency's authority under these provisions is that they use the broader statutory definition of solid waste (and hazardous waste as well) and so need not (and should not) be read as being limited by the regulatory definition. See, for example, 50 FR at 627. See also Connecticut Coastal Fishermen's Assn. v. Remington Arms, 989 F. 2d 1305, 1313– 15 (2d Cir. 1993) (EPA may permissibly ascribe different definitions to the term `` solid waste'' for regulatory and statutory purposes). Today's conditional exclusion is intended to remove many of the regulatory disincentives that to date have discouraged legitimate recycling in the zinc fertilizer industry. Previously, hazardous wastes that were recycled to make fertilizers were subject to the full suite of hazardous waste regulatory requirements, including the requirement to obtain a RCRA permit for storage of wastes prior to fertilizer production. This permitting requirement in particular has dissuaded a number of fertilizer manufacturers from using valuable secondary materials as feedstocks, since RCRA permits can be time and resource­ intensive to obtain and maintain, and a number of alternative materials are readily available that are not subject to subtitle C regulation, either because they are not hazardous (i. e., are not listed and do not exhibit a characteristic), or are raw materials. By allowing companies to manage these hazardous secondary materials in accord with the conditions which are established in today's final rule, EPA expects that the rate of legitimate recovery of zinc values in these materials will increase considerably, which should be environmentally beneficial and result in lower costs to farmers for zinc fertilizers. Once this rule becomes effective, those who wish to begin managing hazardous secondary materials according to the conditional exclusion will first need to notify EPA or the authorized state of their intent to do so. This will provide overseeing agencies information as to who will be operating under this alternative regulatory system, when they will start, and the type of materials involved. In EPA's view, for this particular recycling practice, this is the minimum information needed to ascertain that legitimate recycling of the zinc­ bearing materials will occur, and by whom. The other conditions that must be met to use and maintain the conditional exclusion address the proper storage of materials prior to recycling, and documentation of all offsite shipments of excluded materials. In addition, fertilizer manufacturers will need to submit an annual report to the overseeing agency that identifies the type, quantity and origin of all excluded materials that were used in the previous year. Again, EPA believes that for this recycling practice, these conditions are needed to assure that the materials will be recycled legitimately. 1. Applicability Several changes have been made to the final rule with regard to its applicability. For one, the final rule has been modified with regard to how it applies to intermediate handlers who act as brokers or middlemen between generators and fertilizer manufacturers. The proposed regulatory language did not specify any requirements or conditions specifically for intermediate handlers, though EPA discussed the issue and solicited comments on it in the preamble (65 FR at 70962– 3). Several commenters observed that the use of intermediate handlers in this industry is not uncommon, with one commenter suggesting that in the final rule an intermediate handler should have the same responsibilities as a manufacturer who uses the conditional exclusion. The conditions in the final rule for excluding hazardous secondary materials are intended to reflect normal, responsible practices for management of valuable material commodities, rather than waste management. Since intermediate handlers may be an integral part of the management chain for these materials prior to recycling, we believe it is reasonable to also establish conditions for them. If intermediate handlers had no responsibilities for maintaining the excluded status of materials they receive, the materials could potentially be mixed or consolidated with other materials, or could in some other way lose their regulatory identity and escape the chain of custody that provides accountability to the government and the public to ensure that these materials are being handled in way that is consistent with the handling of a valuable commodity. They also could simply be stored haphazardly and create the types of damage associated with improper management of discarded materials, as has occurred in past damage incidents within the zinc fertilizer recycling industry (records of these damage cases are in the docket for this rulemaking). EPA sees no reason to prohibit excluded materials from being shipped through intermediate handlers, since they may provide a useful service to VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48399 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations both generators and manufacturers in this industry. Moreover, use of such middle­ men is relatively common in the industry, and so is consistent with the idea of an exclusion conditioned to conform to industry commercial practice. However, their use must not compromise the protections that have been built into this conditional exclusion. We believe that intermediate handlers have incentives for managing conditionally excluded materials that are very similar to the generators', and thus should have similar responsibilities (i. e., any exclusion for intermediate handlers should be conditioned in the same manner as for generators). The final rule therefore specifies that intermediate handlers who wish to use the conditional exclusion must meet the same set of conditions that apply to the generators of the materials [see § 261.4( a)( 20)( ii)]. In effect, any intermediate handler who elects to receive conditionally excluded materials and wishes to maintain their excluded status under the terms of today's rule would need to provide prior notice to the appropriate regulatory agency, store the materials in accordance with the conditions in the rule, and meet all other conditions that would otherwise apply to the generator of the material. Alternatively, it is possible that an intermediate handler might choose not to use the conditional exclusion, in which case any excluded materials received by the handler would lose their excluded regulatory status. 2. Conditions to the Exclusion In general, the conditions established in today's final rule for storage and documentation of excluded material are designed to reflect normal fertilizer industry handling practices for zincbearing feedstock materials. They are the same basic conditions that were proposed for establishing and maintaining a regulatory exclusion for hazardous secondary materials used to make zinc fertilizers, with several relatively minor changes. Under this rule, in order to begin managing hazardous secondary materials that will be used to make zinc fertilizers without being subject to the current hazardous waste regulatory system, the responsible party (i. e., the secondary material generator, the fertilizer manufacturer or an intermediate handler) must initially notify the appropriate regulatory agency that he or she intends to begin doing so, and must then meet the conditions set out in this regulation. These conditions address proper storage of the excluded secondary material, notification of regulatory agencies, and documenting and maintaining records of any off­ site shipments of such material. Fertilizer manufacturers who wish to use the conditional exclusion will also need to submit an annual report to EPA or the authorized state agency on the types, origins and quantities of excluded materials used in the previous year. The storage conditions in today's rule are based on normal industry practices for storing zinc­ bearing feedstock materials used to make fertilizers, and thus are analogues to the hazardous constituent specification levels for the fertilizers, which likewise are drawn from existing industry practice. The conditions generally serve to prevent these materials from being discarded via wholesale release into the environment. The conditions also reflect the fact that zinc fertilizer feedstock materials are typically valued commodities, and are thus stored so as to prevent releases or other losses of the material. EPA's review of feedstock storage practices by zinc fertilizer manufacturers indicated, for example, that bulk feedstock materials are usually stored outdoors in hoppers or other types of tanks, while indoor storage is typically in supersack containers or in piles. We are not aware of any zinc fertilizer manufacturer currently storing feedstock materials in ways that readily allow dispersal via wind or precipitation runoff (e. g., open, outdoor piles). See the memorandum `` Industry Storage Practices, '' in the docket for this rulemaking. Thus, we believe that the conditions in today's rule reflect this industry's feedstock storage practices, and thus reasonably serve to demarcate valuable feedstocks from wastes. EPA has made several changes from the proposed rule to the specific conditions that must be met in order to be eligible for the exclusion. These changes address outside storage of material in supersack containers, initial notifications to regulatory agencies, certifications for off­ site shipments of excluded material, and enforcement of the conditions, as discussed in more detail below. Outdoor storage in supersack containers. Supersacks are flexible, woven resin containers designed to hold approximately one ton of dry material, and are commonly used by generators, manufacturers and others to store various types of solid zinc fertilizer feedstock materials. Several commenters objected to the proposed condition that would have allowed only indoor storage of excluded materials in this type of container, asserting that such a restriction could be a hardship for smaller facilities that may not have sufficient indoor storage capacity, and that with a few simple safeguards supersacks can be safely and reliably used to store this type of material out of doors. EPA agrees with the commenters' assertions that outdoor storage of excluded material in supersack containers can be safe and does not automatically indicate the material is being discarded, and therefore should be allowed under certain conditions. We are unaware of any environmental damage cases associated with storage of zinc fertilizer feedstock materials in supersack containers. The final rule therefore specifies that storage of excluded material in non­ rigid containers (e. g., supersacks) will be allowed outdoors, as long as they are kept closed and are in sound condition, and are managed within storage units (e. g., on concrete pads) that can contain, drain and allow removal of leaks, spills, and accumulated precipitation, and can prevent run­ on into the unit. These conditions are intended to assure management commensurate with the secondary material's classification as a valuable feedstock, rather than as a waste. Put another way, the conditions assure both that the material is being managed comparably to other material inputs used in fertilizer manufacture, and that the secondary materials will not be discarded via haphazard management that allows wholesale environmental release of the material, so becoming `` part of the waste disposal problem''. American Mining Congress v. EPA, 824 F. 2d 1177, 1193 (D. C. Cir. 1987); Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 298 F. 3d 1047, 1056 n. 6 (D. C. Cir. 2000). One­ time notice. Under the proposed rule, generators would have had to identify in their one­ time notices to regulatory agencies the estimated annual quantities of excluded materials that they expected to ship to each fertilizer manufacturer. Some commenters objected to this condition on the grounds that such information would be speculative, commercially sensitive, and of questionable use to regulatory agencies. EPA agrees, largely for the reasons offered by the commenters, and has removed this element of the one­ time notice condition from the final rule. Certification. The proposed rule specified that generators using the conditional exclusion in today's rule would need to ensure that each shipment of excluded material off­ site to another state was accompanied by a certification stating that the receiving state is authorized to administer the provisions of this rule. The implication VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48400 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations of this proposed provision was that outof state shipments of excluded material would only have been allowed if the receiving state had adopted and obtained authorization from EPA to implement these rules. Several commenters objected to this provision, arguing that shipments to states not authorized for this rule should be allowed, provided the materials are managed as hazardous wastes once they enter the receiving state. EPA agrees with these commenters, and has removed this certification provision from the final rule language. 3. Other Provisions Burden of Proof. The proposed rule contained a provision stating that in an enforcement action, the burden of proof in establishing conformance with the conditions in § 261.4( a)( 20) shall be on the generator, intermediate handler or manufacturer claiming the exclusion. One commenter correctly noted that this provision is redundant with the provision in § 261.2( f), which also addresses assigning burdens of proof (both the burden of going forward and the ultimate burden of persuasion, see 50 FR at 642) when conditional exclusions are involved. The proposed provision has therefore been deleted from the final rule. Unit Closure. Today's final rule specifies that storage units (e. g., tanks and containers) used only to store zincbearing hazardous wastes before a conditional exclusion takes effect (i. e., before the facility owner/ operator submits the one­ time notice provided under § 261.4( a)( 20)( ii)( B)), and that will be used thereafter only to store secondary material excluded under today's rule, will not be subject to the closure requirements of 40 CFR part 264 (for units at permitted facilities) or Part 265 (for units at interim status facilities). This provision is intended to address situations where units such as tanks that have been used to store hazardous wastes would be required under the existing regulations to go through RCRA closure before storage of the excluded material could commence. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the existing regulations require closure of units within 90 days of receiving the final volume of hazardous waste (see § 264.113( a) and § 265.113( a)). In the case of facilities affected by today's rule, this would mean that for units such as tanks that have been storing zinc­ bearing hazardous wastes, the owner/ operator would need to remove all waste residues and other contamination from the unit, in order for the unit to then commence storing the identical material under the terms of the conditional exclusion. We believe that requiring closure under these circumstances would serve little, if any environmental purpose, and today's rule explicitly provides that in these situations storage units will not be subject to RCRA closure requirements. Although these storage units will not be required to undergo closure according to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations, when the use of such a unit for this purpose is ultimately discontinued for some reason, the Agency expects that owner/ operators will take common­ sense steps to decontaminate and decommission the unit. We encourage owner/ operators in these situations to consult with regulatory agencies as to the best way to ensure that such units and their surroundings are cleaned up properly. EPA wishes to emphasize that relieving storage units from closure requirements in these situations will not relieve facility owner/ operators of their responsibility to respond to any releases from such units during their operational life. As explained elsewhere in this preamble, not responding to such releases could be considered an act of illegal disposal under RCRA, and could thus be subject to enforcement action under RCRA section 3008( a), which could impose penalties, as well as require any necessary cleanup actions. The conditional exclusion also will not affect a facility owner/ operator's corrective action obligations under RCRA section 3004( u) or section 3008( h). If necessary, other federal or state remedial authorities may also be used to address such releases. We also note that the facilities operating under the terms of today's conditional exclusion will remain subject to regulatory oversight by authorized states and EPA, and as such we expect that environmental conditions at these facilities will continue to be scrutinized by regulatory personnel. Another consideration for not requiring RCRA closure in today's rule is that storage in land­ based units (e. g., outdoor piles) will not be allowed under the conditional exclusion. Generally, landbased units are more likely to have releases and are often more difficult to remediate. We thus believe, for the reasons cited above, that eliminating the closure requirement for storage units at facilities affected by today's rule will not compromise environmental protections at these facilities. 4. Implementation and Enforcement Implementation. The preamble to the proposed rule discussed and requested comments on several issues relating to implementation of this rule once it takes effect (65 FR at 70966– 70967). These issues addressed the potential regulatory consequences of the rule on permitted and interim status RCRA facilities, and how the rule would be enforced. EPA has not made any specific regulatory changes in the final rule to address these issues, since we believe they can be satisfactorily resolved by the following explanation. One key issue has to do with the effects of the rule on facilities that currently have RCRA permits or interim status, and are managing hazardous wastes that will become conditionally excluded under this rule. Under one scenario, a facility that manages a variety of hazardous waste materials, including some that become excluded under this rule, would be affected only to the extent that certain units or procedures at the facility would no longer be subject to hazardous waste regulations. A somewhat different scenario could involve a facility whose hazardous wastes all become conditionally excluded from regulation when this rule takes effect (i. e., the facility no longer operates any hazardous waste management units). One idea discussed in the proposal was to amend the current regulations to automatically terminate permit conditions, permits and/ or interim status at facilities where hazardous waste management units or activities become de­ regulated under today's rule. This could eliminate the need for regulatory agencies to process permit modifications or administratively terminate permits or interim status for those facilities. One state agency commenting on the proposal argued, however, for maintaining a government role in managing these facility transitions, asserting that automatically terminating permit conditions would not provide adequate oversight over facilities in these situations. Although cases like this are expected to be relatively few in number (perhaps only one facility in the nation will potentially be able to have its RCRA permit terminated because of this rule), we agree with the state agency commenter that making the transition to non­ permitted status may not be entirely straightforward, especially when such facilities are undergoing cleanup actions under RCRA authorities. Thus, we concur that there should be some regulatory agency oversight in changing a facility's permit or interim status obligations under these regulations, and today's rule does not contain any regulatory provision for automatically terminating permits, permit conditions or interim status at VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48401 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 2 EPA promulgated the rules requiring products placed on the land which are produced from hazardous wastes to meet LDR requirements in 1988, which rules also contained the provision exempting K 061­ derived zinc fertilizers from this requirement. 53 FR at 31212 (August 17, 1988). There were likewise no challenges to these rules raising the question of EPA's jurisdiction to adopt the provisions. facilities affected by this final rule. We believe that making these changes at affected facilities can be done efficiently under current authorized state administrative procedures for modifying or terminating a facility's RCRA permit or interim status. Another potential implementation issue that could arise has to do with ensuring cleanup of historic contamination problems at facilities that may no longer need permits or interim status once the conditional exclusion takes effect. An example might be a facility with a RCRA operating permit that is working to remediate ground water contamination under the conditions of the permit. While the facility's operating permit may no longer be needed (since it is no longer actively managing hazardous waste), the owner/ operator's obligations to remediate the contamination problems at the facility would not be affected by a change in the facility's operating status. In these situations, the authorized states would have the flexibility to address the facility's cleanup obligations by either maintaining in effect the corrective action­ related provisions of the permit, or by using alternative federal or state enforcement mechanisms that may be available. Enforcement. The exclusion in today's rule for hazardous secondary materials (§ 261.4( a)( 20)) will take effect once a generator, intermediate handler or manufacturer provides notice to the appropriate regulatory agency of his/ her intent to begin using the exclusion. There is no requirement for the regulatory agency to formally approve or otherwise act on such notices, though some state agencies may wish to do so. The party claiming the conditional exclusion will be responsible for maintaining the exclusion by ensuring that all of the conditions are met. In the event that a condition is not met, the facility owner/ operator will need to remedy the situation as soon as possible in order not to jeopardize the exclusion. Should there be any questions as to whether the facility has properly maintained its exclusion, it will be the responsibility of the owner/ operator to demonstrate that the conditions have been and are being met. See section 261.2( f), discussed earlier. If necessary, the overseeing regulatory agency may use RCRA inspection and information collection authorities to assist in establishing whether or not a facility is meeting the exclusion conditions. Facilities that claim the exclusion but fail to meet one or more of its conditions may be subject to enforcement action. For example, if a facility claiming the conditional exclusion failed to store secondary material in accordance with one or more of the conditions, the facility would in effect automatically lose its exclusion, and EPA or an authorized state agency could take enforcement action (under RCRA section 3008( a)), since the facility would likely then be violating hazardous waste regulatory requirements. In these situations a range of specific enforcement actions might be taken. In less serious cases the facility might simply be required to promptly remedy the situation, though fines or other penalties could also be assessed if appropriate. In especially serious cases the facility could be ordered to obtain a RCRA permit and comply with all applicable hazardous waste regulations. As a general matter, if a facility fails to meet a condition of the exclusion it will not necessarily affect the regulatory status of the secondary material at other facilities. For example, if a fertilizer manufacturer's facility were to lose its exclusion, the facility generating the secondary material would typically be allowed to retain its exclusion, provided that he or she continues to meet the applicable conditions. In such a case, the manufacturer would need to be in compliance with applicable hazardous waste regulations in order to accept any further shipments of excluded (or nonexcluded material from a generator. With regard to enforcement, it should also be noted that the conditional exclusion in today's rule will not affect a facility owner/ operator's obligation to promptly respond to and remediate any releases of excluded secondary material that may occur at the facility. An accident, for example, could rupture or otherwise damage a tank or container, causing spillage of material onto soils. If such released material were not cleaned up promptly, the owner/ operator would be subject to enforcement action for illegal disposal of waste. See § 264.1( g)( 8)( iii). Today's conditional exclusion will not affect the rights of concerned citizens to bring to regulators' attention any circumstance that might aid authorities in their monitoring and enforcement efforts. A concerned citizen also may file a suit under RCRA section 7002 against a party for violations that may result from failure to meet any of the conditions in this rule. Moreover, imminent and substantial endangerment provisions under Section 7003 of RCRA will continue to apply to conditionally excluded secondary materials as a safeguard, since those materials remain a statutory solid waste. Thus, EPA or an authorized State can act in the unlikely event of circumstances which may endanger human health or environment. 5. Response to Comments EPA received a number of comments addressing the general issue of whether or not a conditional exclusion from hazardous waste regulations is appropriate in the context of this rulemaking. One set of commenters presented arguments contending that EPA has no legal jurisdiction at all under RCRA to establish conditions or otherwise regulate hazardous secondary materials that are recycled to make zinc fertilizers. On the other hand, a substantial number of commenters expressed support for EPA continuing to regulate these materials as hazardous wastes, and called for adding a number of new, more stringent regulatory controls and restrictions over these waste materials. With respect to comments challenging EPA's authority to classify hazardous secondary materials used as ingredients in fertilizer as solid wastes at all, EPA notes first that this issue has been longsettled and was not reopened in this rule. EPA's rules classifying hazardous secondary materials used in a manner constituting disposal— which includes use as fertilizers, or as ingredients in fertilizers— were promulgated in 1985. 50 FR at 664, 666– 67. These use constituting disposal rules were never challenged. 2 EPA did not reopen the issue of jurisdiction for comment in this proceeding. 65 FR at 70959 n. 2. Thus, EPA believes that these comments are untimely. In the event that response is considered necessary, however, EPA believes that it has ample jurisdiction to classify hazardous secondary materials used to produce zinc fertilizers as solid wastes. We also note that the following discussion applies to authority over uses constituting disposal as defined in section 261.2( c)( 1), and does not deal with, or apply to, any other type of recycling. First, the generator of the hazardous secondary material is an unrelated entity getting rid of its secondary materials to a different industry sector. Thus, when one entity takes a secondary material for which it has no continuing use and transfers it to an unrelated entity, the materials can be viewed as discarded by that first entity. VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48402 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 3 Commenters argued that API I was not on point because EPA there had compelled recovery of K 061 by establishing a treatment standard mandating metals recovery, and so had simply forced the recycling of material that would otherwise be disposed of, so that the material could be regarded as `` discarded''. Although it is correct that the opinion states that K061 was subject to a treatment standard of mandatory metal reclamation, 906 F. 2d at 741, it is incorrect that steel mills were otherwise disposing of their electric arc furnace dust, or that EPA had through its treatment standard converted a disposed­ of waste into a recycled secondary material. Metals reclamation of K 061 was widespread at the time EPA adopted the treatment standard, and EPA based the standard on this wellestablished existing practice. See 53 FR 11742, 11752 (April 8, 1988) (high temperature metal recovery currently in use by at least four domestic facilities to recover zinc from K061, and the proposed treatment standard is taken from measurements from one of those existing operations). It also should be noted that the recycling practice at issue in API I is arguably more continuous than the types of practices involved in this rulemaking. When electric arc furnace dust is smelted for zinc recovery, it is captured as a dust by steel mill baghouses, conveyed to a storage bin at the mill (usually by conveyor belt, but sometimes pneumatically), and then shipped directly by truck or rail to the purchasing smelter. Typical storage time at the generating steel mill is two days or less, due to limited storage bin capacity. In contrast, storage times at generators of secondary materials used eventually as a zinc source for fertilizer often is up to 90 days. These generators also often deal through intermediary brokers who find an end use for the secondary material. 4 Since dioxin is a chemical contaminant, and is not itself a waste, section 3004 (l) thus states that use of contaminated used oil which is recycled via use as a dust suppressant— an example of a use constituting disposal— is prohibited. Congress, by placing this prohibition within section 3004 (which applies only to solid and hazardous wastes) could take this action only if it considered this form of recycling to involve a solid waste. It also bears mention that use of used oil contaminated with dioxin as a dust suppressant is not per se a type of sham recycling. Dioxins bind tenaciously with soils, and so contribute to the dust suppression use. The Congressional prohibition in section 3004 (l) thus applies to a form of recycling, not to illicit disposal. Note also that today's rule deals (in part) with the issue of dioxin contamination in the secondary materials used to produce zinc fertilizers. See Owen Electric Steel Co., v. EPA, 37 F. 3d 146, 150 (4th Cir. 1994) EPA properly classified secondary material as a solid waste `` because the slag is sold to others for use in roadbed construction, it is not `destined for beneficial reuse or recycling in a continuous process by the generating industry itself ', quoting AMC I, 824 F. 2d at 1186 (emphasis in original). See generally American Petroleum Institute v. EPA (`` API II''), 216 F. 3d 50 , 58 (D. C. Cir. 2000); Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 208 F. 3d 1047, 1059– 60 (D. C. Cir. 2000); American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 906 F. 2d 729, 741 (D. C. Cir. 1990) 3 ; Specialty Steel Mfrs. Assn v. EPA, 27 F. 3d 642, 646 (D. C. Cir. 1994). Recycling via land application is a further indication of discarding. As EPA has stated years ago, `` Use constituting disposal involves as a practical matter the disposal of wastes. The wastes are being gotten rid of by placing them directly on the land. '' 53 FR at 31198; see also 48 FR at 14484 (April 4, 1983) (`` these practices are virtually the equivalent of unsupervised land disposal''). When placed on the land, hazardous secondary materials and the hazardous constituents they contain (few, if any, of which contribute to the recycling activity) could escape via all conceivable exposure pathways— air, runoff, leaching, even (as here) foodchain uptake. Such activities can certainly be viewed as discarding that is `` part of the waste disposal problem. '' The statute supports this position. See RCRA section 3004 (l) (use of `` waste or used oil or other material, which is contaminated with dioxin or any hazardous waste * * * for dust suppression or road treatment is prohibited'') 4 ; H. R. Rep. No. 198, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. at 46, 67– 68 (hazardous waste­ derived products that are placed on the land are to be the special object of EPA scrutiny in implementing subtitle C); see also Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 208 F. 3d 1047, 1059– 60 (recycling via uses constituting disposal pose even greater potential risks than conventional land disposal, and thus justify stricter regulation). As the Agency concluded in 1988 (in another determination that was never challenged), `` To say that Congress did not intend to control these use constituting disposal situations under RCRA is to say that Congress had no intention of controlling such damage incidents as the Times Beach dioxin spreading incident where a group of communities were rendered uninhabitable as a result of use of a distillation botto[ m] mixed with used oil as a dust suppressant. No credible reading of the statute would authorize this type of conduct. '' 53 FR at 31198. Indeed, some of the fertilizers addressed by today's rule contain dioxin, which comes from the hazardous secondary materials used as a source of zinc. EPA does not consider it plausible that Congress prohibited the use of dioxincontaining secondary materials as dust suppressants, but denied EPA the authority to even consider the question of dioxin­ containing hazardous secondary materials used as fertilizers— the more potentially harmful practice given the possibility of food chain contamination. EPA notes, in addition, that many of the conditions in today's rule serve to demarcate legitimate recycling. The hazardous constitutent levels for fertilizers, for example, are drawn from typical levels in commercial zinc micronutrient fertilizers. To the extent that fertilizers contain non­ nutritive hazardous constituents which come from hazardous secondary materials in concentrations significantly in excess of these levels, the recycling practice can be viewed as simply discarding those materials and constituents. American Petroleum Inst. II, 216 F. 3d at 58. This is not to say that EPA lacks discretion to classify some hazardous secondary materials, and products derived therefrom, which are used in a manner constituting disposal as not being solid wastes. The facts justifying such discretion here (stated broadly) are (a) the usefulness of the materials as a source of zinc for fertilizer; (b) the similarity of hazardous constituent levels in hazardous and non­ hazardous feedstock materials, and the fact that zinc fertilizers made from hazardous secondary materials are indistinguishable from those made from non­ hazardous materials, and are processed identically (see, e. g. 46 FR at 44971 (Aug. 8, 1981) (EPA's first announcement of the principle that identity of waste­ derived and non­ waste derived products justifies cessation of RCRA regulation); and (c) management practices commensurate with the idea that the secondary materials are being managed as a valuable commodity rather than as a waste. The conditions adopted in today's rule are designed to assure that this fact pattern actually occurs, and (as noted above) are further designed to assure that legitimate rather than sham recycling occurs. As mentioned previously, a number of commenters did not support a regulatory exclusion of any kind for hazardous secondary materials used to make fertilizers, and instead favored maintaining and expanding the current hazardous waste regulatory controls over these materials. Among the suggestions for increased regulatory controls were greatly enhanced reporting by waste generators, middlemen and fertilizer manufacturers with regard to all shipments of hazardous wastes, including reporting on the composition of both the wastes that are used and of the fertilizers that are produced from those wastes. These additional reports would be required as part of the RCRA biennial reporting system (see § 262.41). More thorough testing for a wider range of hazardous constituents was also suggested, as was labeling of fertilizer packaging to indicate that the fertilizer was made from hazardous waste. As discussed earlier, we believe that maintaining RCRA regulatory controls over all hazardous secondary materials VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48403 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations used to make zinc fertilizer is counterproductive in that it discourages legitimate, safe recycling of these valuable materials, and can actually encourage production of fertilizers with higher contaminant levels . Adding further regulatory requirements would almost certainly ensure that this recyling practice would be eliminated completely, which we do not believe would be beneficial environmentally. With regard specifically to requiring additional testing of wastes and materials, the commenters did not supply any data to demonstrate why such additional testing is necessary, or any evidence indicating that fertilizers which meet today's exclusion levels are likely to contain meaningful levels of contaminants other than those for which we have established limits. EPA thus sees no reason to impose such additional requirements without a clear rationale for doing so. With regard to commenters who supported labeling of hazardous waste derived fertilizer products, we note that there is no legal authority under RCRA to impose such a labeling requirement on products that are made from legitimately recycled hazardous wastes or conditionally excluded secondary materials. We also question the appropriateness of requiring such labels, since they would likely unnecessarily stigmatize products that are identical in composition to fertilizers made from other types of materials. D. Conditional Exclusion for Zinc Fertilizers Made From Excluded Hazardous Secondary Materials As mentioned previously, today's rule finalizes the same basic approach as was proposed with regard to setting conditional limits on contaminants in zinc fertilizers made from recycled hazardous secondary materials. This rule therefore establishes specific limits on heavy metals and dioxins that may be contained in these zinc fertilizers (the limits serving as the means for distinguishing wastes from fertilizer products under the conditional exclusion), and sets conditions for sampling, analysis and recordkeeping to verify compliance with these limits (i. e., to verify that excluded recycling is occurring). In effect, these conditions must all be met in order for zinc fertilizers made from hazardous secondary materials to be considered products, rather than wastes. 1. Hazardous Constituent Levels for Excluded Zinc Fertilizers Today's rule establishes a new set of product specification limits for contaminants in zinc fertilizers made from hazardous secondary materials. Zinc fertilizers that meet these specification limits will in effect be considered products, rather than wastes. The new exclusion limits in today's final rule address five metal contaminants— i. e., metals coming from zinc­ containing hazardous secondary materials that are both non­ nutritive and toxic (lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and chromium)— and dioxins (likewise non­ contributing). In absolute terms, the exclusion limits for the five metals are numerically higher than the LDR treatment standards for those metals (i. e., the `` universal treatment standards'' specified at § 268.48). However, direct comparisons between the two sets of limits are difficult to make. This is because the LDRs are measured according to a leachate extraction procedure (the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure, or TCLP— see § 261.24), while the new exclusion levels are expressed as total concentrations. Since the leachability of metal constituents varies according to a number of factors, it is difficult to predict the relationship between TCLPmeasured levels vs. total concentration levels with any degree of certainty. To illustrate, the new exclusion level for lead in a 20% zinc fertilizer formulation would be 56 ppm, while the universal treatment standard for lead is 0.75 ppm (milligrams per liter). If in this case the tested sample contained 56 ppm total lead, the TCLP result could be either higher than 0.75 ppm, or lower if the lead was in (for example) a relatively insoluble compound form. The exclusion limit for dioxins in today's rule is more stringent than the LDR standards, since dioxins are typically not `` underlying constituents'' subject to treatment in the secondary materials that are likely to be excluded under today's rule (i. e., secondary materials that exhibit a hazardous characteristic— see § 268.40( e)). Because of this, and in light of the uncertainties inherent in comparing LDR standards for metals with the new exclusion levels, EPA considers today's exclusion levels to be generally more stringent than the LDR standards. The product specifications in today's rule must be met for any zinc fertilizer that is made from excluded secondary materials. In this sense the two exclusions are linked— a manufacturer who uses the exclusion for hazardous secondary materials must meet the new, more stringent exclusion levels for the zinc fertilizers he or she produces. The LDR standards will continue to apply to any non­ zinc fertilizer that is made from recycled hazardous waste. It is possible under some circumstances that a zinc fertilizer manufacturer might choose not to use the conditional exclusion for hazardous secondary materials, and instead use fully regulated hazardous wastes as feedstock materials. This might happen, for instance, if the manufacturer has already obtained a RCRA permit and made the necessary investments to comply with hazardous waste regulations. In such a case the LDR standards would apply to the hazardous waste derived fertilizers. Such a manufacturer would have the option, however, of meeting the generally more stringent product specifications in today's rule if there were some incentive (e. g., a marketing advantage) to do so. To reiterate, today's conditional exclusions apply only to zinc fertilizers and the secondary materials used to produce them. Thus, if hazardous wastes are used to make non­ zinc fertilizers, both the wastes and the fertilizers will be subject to applicable hazardous waste regulations (see § 262.20( a)). 2. Limits on Metal Contaminants Table 1 presents the final limits on five metal contaminants in zinc fertilizers that are made from hazardous secondary materials: TABLE 1.— LIMITS ON METAL CONTAMINANTS Metal Constituent Maximum allowable total concentration in fertilizer, per unit (1%) of zinc content Arsenic ...................... 0.3 ppm Cadmium ................... 1.4 ppm Chromium .................. 0.6 ppm Lead .......................... 2.8 ppm Mercury ..................... 0.3 ppm As noted in the table, these limits are expressed as total concentrations of the metal in the fertilizer product. The alternative of establishing limits based on a different type of test procedure, such as the TCLP used in the RCRA program to identify hazardous wastes, was not supported by any of the commenters on the proposal (one obvious reason being that satisfying a leach test would normally mean that the material is unusable as a fertilizer, since the nutritive metal would be bound up along with the hazardous constitutents). It should also be noted that the limits are tied to the percentage of zinc in the fertilizer. This is primarily because the zinc content of fertilizers varies widely. If the limits were not tied to the percentage of zinc in the product, it is possible that manufacturers could VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48404 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations comply with the limits simply by lowering the zinc content of the product, in effect diluting the contaminants with other ingredients. 55 FR at 70969. These limits on metals are based on the levels of contaminants in commercial zinc fertilizers that have been well demonstrated as technically and economically practical, by using sound, relatively simple manufacturing techniques. They thus are reasonable levels for demarcating products from wastes. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, a widely­ marketed zinc fertilizer formulation known as zinc sulfate monohydrate, or ZSM, was used as the basis for developing these limits. 55 FR at 70969. EPA has made three substantive changes in finalizing the conditional limits for metal contaminants. One change was made in response to a commenter who suggested that additional sampling and testing for metal contaminants should be required whenever a change in manufacturing processes or ingredients is made that could significantly affect the amounts of contaminants in the fertilizer product. The Agency has added this condition to the final rule, since we believe it to be a reasonable precaution that prudent manufacturers would likely take in the normal course of production, even without such a regulatory provision. As such, we believe it a reasonable condition to demarcate products from wastes and to assure that legitimate recycling occurs. Another substantive change that has been made to the proposed limits on metal contaminants is that the final rule does not include a limit for nickel. Several commenters expressed the view that the proposed limit on nickel (1.4 ppm per percent of zinc in the fertilizer) was unnecessary from an environmental perspective, in that nickel is generally less toxic than the five other metal contaminants, and EPA's background data did not reveal especially high levels of nickel in any of the fertilizer products that were studied [see `` Background Document on Fertilizer Use, Contaminants and Regulation'' (EPA 747– R– 98– 003, January, 1999)]. Some of these commenters also opined that setting a limit on nickel in the context of this EPA rulemaking could create an unnecessary and unwarranted perception that exposure to nickel generally poses serious human health and/ or environmental risks. EPA agrees that nickel is generally less toxic to humans than metals such as lead, cadmium, arsenic and others, and we acknowledge that our review of fertilizer contaminant data did not identify any fertilizer product with nickel at levels that could pose significant health or ecological risks. Further, the processing and filtering steps that are required to manufacture high­ purity zinc fertilizers (such as ZSM fertilizers) remove nickel along with other metal contaminants. It is therefore highly unlikely that fertilizers which meet the RCRA contaminant limits for other metals (lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and chromium) would contain elevated levels of nickel. Given that excessive levels of nickel are unlikely in zinc fertilizers that meet the limits for the other five metals in today's rule, and given the relatively lower toxicity of nickel as compared with those metals, the Agency is persuaded that specifying a limit for nickel in today's final rule would serve no real environmental or regulatory purpose. We have therefore removed the limit for nickel in today's final rule. The third change that has been made to the proposed limits for metals is that the final conditional limit for arsenic has been lowered, from 0.6 ppm per unit of zinc, to 0.3 ppm. This change was made in response to a commenter who questioned the validity of certain data that were used to derive the numerical limit for arsenic. Specifically, the commenter noted that the proposed limit appeared to be based on test results that represented analytical detection limits, rather than actual measured levels of arsenic in tested fertilizers. Our further review of the data confirmed this to be the case, and we have therefore established an arsenic limit that more accurately reflects what we believe to be the actual levels of arsenic in ZSM fertilizers. Response to comments. EPA received comments reflecting a wide range of viewpoints (in addition to those described above) regarding the proposed limits on metals in recycled zinc fertilizers. One group of commenters questioned the Agency's legal authority to establish any limits at all on contaminants in these fertilizers, arguing that recent court decisions have narrowed the scope of EPA's regulatory jurisdiction over this type of hazardous waste recycling (an issue addressed earlier in this preamble). Some of these commenters also argued that, legal issues aside, it is unnecessary to set any limits on fertilizer contaminants, since EPA's own studies have concluded that fertilizers are generally safe when used properly. Other commenters expressed the view that the technology­ based limits (i. e. conditional levels reflecting demonstrated fertilizer production process capabilities) as proposed were unnecessarily stringent from a risk perspective, and that any such contaminant limits should be risk­ based (i. e., set at levels that are `` safe, '' based on an assessment of potential risks to humans and ecosystems). Some of these commenters further suggested that the risk­ based guidelines for metal contaminants in fertilizers that were recently adopted by the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO) (see http:// aapfco. org/ SUIP25Aug08. htm) could be used for this purpose. Other commenters expressed the view that the proposed limits for metals were not stringent enough, and should be set at the lowest levels that can be technically achieved. Some of these commenters further suggested that limits should be set for additional metals (e. g., selenium, vanadium, beryllium, antimony). One commenter further argued that the limit on chromium should apply only to the more toxic, hexavalent form of chromium, rather than to total chromium as proposed. EPA chose not to use risk­ based limits in this final rule, primarily because we continue to believe that technologybased limits are more appropriate in the context of this rulemaking. Our rationale for using technology­ based limits for metals in fertilizers— viz. as explained above, establishing a specification based on contaminant levels found in normal commercial fertilizers in order to reasonably distinguish products from wastes— was explained in detail in the preamble to the proposal, and many commenters supported the approach. Given that today's rule is an exclusion of these materials from being solid wastes, rather than an exclusion from being a hazardous waste (which would more naturally call for a risk­ based justification), EPA continues to believe that this approach is reasonable. We did not receive any comments persuading us that the use of technology­ based limits in the context of this rulemaking is inappropriate, technically difficult or unduly burdensome for industry. Moreover, developing risk­ based limits for zinc fertilizers would be a highly complex and resource intensive undertaking, and risk­ based limits might actually allow contaminant levels in fertilizers to increase substantially, which we do not believe is an environmentally desirable result. To illustrate, Table 2 compares today's exclusion levels with AAPFCO's recommended standards (which were developed from risk assessment studies) for five metals in micronutrient fertilizers, assuming a 35.5% zinc content that is typical for zinc sulfate monohydrate fertilizers: VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48405 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 2.— COMPARISON OF RCRA EXCLUSION LEVELS WITH AAPFCO RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES Metal RCRA Exclusion Levels (ppm) AAPFCO Guideline (ppm) Arsenic .............. 10.7 3,976 Cadmium .......... 49.7 2,947 Chromium ......... 21.3 No limit Lead .................. 99.4 16,437 Mercury ............. 10.7 213 It should be noted that the AAPFCO recommended standards listed in Table 2 were based primarily on a risk assessment study commissioned by The Fertilizer Institute (an industry trade organization). As with other similar risk assessments, including EPA's (`` Estimating Risk from Contaminants Contained in Agricultural Fertilizers, '' September 1, 1999; Web site address www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ recycle/ fertiliz/ risk/ report. pdf), a number of simplifying assumptions and models were used to address data gaps and other uncertainties inherent in that analysis. EPA does not necessarily accept or dispute the validity of the AAPFCO recommended levels as accurate indicators of potential risks; any such technical judgment would of necessity have to be based on additional data and more rigorous analysis. We note, however, that the general findings of EPA's risk assessment did not differ dramatically from those of the TFIsponsored study. In any case, we simply wish to underscore the point that any risk­ based standards for fertilizer contaminants, including those adopted by AAPFCO, have a considerable uncertainty factor associated with them. The comparison in Table 2 indicates that risk­ based limits for zinc fertilizers are likely to be far higher than the levels of contaminants that are now found in many commonly marketed products. At best, therefore, risk­ based standards would have very little effect in terms of actually limiting the amounts of toxic metals in fertilizer products. In fact, as noted already, such standards could allow contaminant levels in zinc fertilizers to increase substantially over current levels. From an environmental perspective, and in light of the public policy debate that has recently taken place over fertilizer contamination, we believe such a result to be inappropriate from an environmental and public policy perspective. In EPA's view, regulatory efforts to control contaminants in fertilizers should be focused mainly on ensuring that fertilizers remain relatively clean, rather than allowing fertilizers to become increasingly contaminated to the point where they may begin to pose unacceptable human health or ecological risks. More importantly for the purposes of this rulemaking, riskbased levels are inappropriate as a measure of distinguishing zinc fertilizer products from wastes, since they bear no relation to the levels that are found in currently marketed zinc fertilizers, and therefore bear no relation to the question of whether the waste­ derived fertilizers should be viewed as being or containing waste. As for the comment suggesting that it is unnecessary to place any limits on contaminants in fertilizers because EPA's studies indicate fertilizers are generally safe, we disagree. In our view, it would be difficult, if not unconscionable, to assure the public and other stakeholders as to the safety and legitimacy of using hazardous secondary materials— i. e., what otherwise are hazardous wastes— to make fertilizers without having any means of limiting contaminants in the resulting fertilizer products. Moreover, opportunities for sham recycling obviously would become rife under such an approach. Some commenters expressed support for EPA's proposal to use technologybased limits for metals in recycled zinc fertilizers, but suggested that lower limits can and should be achieved. One industry commenter agreed, noting that his company consistently produces pharmaceutical grade zinc sulfate monohydrate with lower contaminant levels than those proposed, and that other companies could meet similar levels. EPA does not question the assertion that lower contaminant levels than those proposed are technically achievable through the use of more refined (and more expensive) manufacturing processes. However, it is not the Agency's intent to set these limits at the very lowest levels that can be technically achieved. Cf. 63 FR at 33784– 33785 (June 19, 1998) (explaining a similar benchmark approach for establishing levels to distinguish products from waste fuels based on comtaminant levels found in normal fossil fuels, rather than the very `` cleanest'' or `` dirtiest'' fossil fuels). The Agency's fertilizer risk assessment indicates that the proposed limits are considerably below levels that we estimate (albeit roughly) to be safe for humans and ecosystems. Thus, the actual environmental benefit to be gained from more stringent limits would likely be negligible. Further, we find highly questionable the notion that there would be any real public benefit in requiring zinc fertilizers to be suitable for pharmaceutical use, or that such exceptional purity (necessary for such a specialized use) is a reasonable means of demarcating fertilizer products from wastes. Finally, setting stricter limits in this rule would almost certainly force most manufacturers to either raise prices for finished zinc fertilizer products, or avoid regulatory requirements altogether by simply switching to alternative feedstock materials that are unregulated by RCRA. We see little if any benefit in either outcome. We have therefore not adjusted the final limits for metals in response to these comments. Some commenters expressed the view that this rule should set limits for additional metals such as selenium, vanadium, beryllium, antimony and others, citing the possibility that potentially harmful levels of such metals could occur in zinc fertilizers. These commenters did not, however, provide any data to establish that elevated levels of such metals occur in ZSM products (or any other types of fertilizers), or that the purification techniques used in manufacturing ZSM would fail to remove these metals. We note, too, that the data we have reviewed to date on fertilizer contaminants did not indicate the presence of elevated levels of such additional contaminants in zinc fertilizers or any other fertilizer products. We are therefore not persuaded that there is any real need to set limits on additional metals in this rule, and the final rule addresses only the five metal constituents listed above. A few commenters questioned the proposed limit on chromium (0.6 ppm per unit of zinc), contending that it would be unnecessarily stringent since it does not differentiate between the hexavalent and trivalent forms of chromium, and only the hexavalent form is a potential threat to human health. One commenter also stated that there is no basis or precedent in RCRA to establish controls on the less toxic forms of chromium. That commenter argued further that new fertilizer manufacturing techniques under development may be unable to meet the proposed limit if it applied to total chromium, but could presumably meet that level if it applied only to the hexavalent form. EPA does not dispute that the potential adverse health effects from exposure to hexavalent chromium are considerably greater than for trivalent chromium, although we do not agree with the commenter's assertion that RCRA controls only apply to hexavalent chromium. As one example, the listing VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48406 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations of chromium as a `` hazardous constituent'' in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 does not distinguish between the hexavalent and trivalent forms. Similarly, the `` land disposal restrictions'' treatment standard for chromium (see § 268.48) applies to total chromium. There are a number of other examples, as well. We acknowledge, however, that some regulatory provisions of RCRA do make risk distinctions between hexavalent and trivalent chromium. One example is the exemption from the definition of hazardous waste for certain wastes that, upon specific demonstration, are shown to contain only trivalent chromium (see § 261.4( b)( 6)). The proposed limit for total chromium (0.6 ppm per unit of zinc) represents the level that has been demonstrated as readily achievable in ZSM fertilizers, including a small margin to account for variabilities in the manufacturing process. The commenter who proposed applying the limit only to hexavalent chromium did not question EPA's assertion that this level can be easily achieved in ZSM products, but instead referred to an unspecified `` advanced technology'' for making zinc fertilizer that is not designed to remove these contaminants. We note that the commenter did not supply any description of this advanced process, or submit any data to substantiate the claim that this technology would be unable to meet the proposed limit for total chromium. In fact, it is unclear from the commenter's discussion that this unspecified technology has been actually used in full­ scale manufacture of zinc fertilizers. We also note that there is little, if any, available ZSM analytical data that differentiates between the different forms of chromium, although the basic chemical properties of chromium suggest that the presence of hexavalent chromium in ZSM fertilizers is likely to be relatively rare. In any case, it is certainly not EPA's intent in this rule to stifle development of new technologies for legitimate recycling in the fertilizer industry. However, without additional data and/ or considerably more substantiation of the commenter's claims it is difficult for the Agency to conclude that the proposed limit on chromium is inappropriate or will otherwise be a hardship for zinc fertilizer manufacturers. The final limit on (total) chromium is therefore unchanged from the proposal. 3. Limit on Dioxins Today's rule finalizes the proposed limit of eight (8) parts per trillion of dioxins in zinc fertilizers, as measured according to the `` toxicity equivalence'' or TEQ method (see `` Estimating Exposures to Dioxin­ like Compounds'' (EPA publication #600/ 6– 88/ 005 Ca)). The eight part per trillion limit is based on EPA's estimate of average national background levels of dioxins in soils (see EPA report `` Estimating Exposure to Dioxin­ Like Compounds, Review Draft'' (EPA/ 600/ 6– 88/ 000Ca; June 1994)). EPA has included dioxins in its list of priority `` persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic'' (PBT) chemicals that are of particular concern environmentally and are the focus of new control strategies being developed by EPA. Further information on the Agency's overall strategy for addressing PBTs can be found on our Web site (see www. epa. gov/ pbt. htm). Significant levels of dioxins (in the hundreds of parts per trillion range) have been found in zinc oxysulfate fertilizers made from K061 hazardous wastes. EPA's fertilizer risk assessment concluded that exposure to dioxins in fertilizers at these levels is unlikely to pose unacceptable risks, based on currently available dioxin health effects information. However, available data on dioxin levels in fertilizers are admittedly very limited, so it is possible that dioxin levels in some fertilizer products could be higher than the current data suggest. It is also possible that, when finished, the Agency's ongoing reassessment of dioxin health effects could conclude that even more aggressive measures to control this class of PBT compounds are warranted. Because of these uncertainties, and because EPA is committed generally to a multifaceted national strategy aimed at reducing PBTs in the environment, we believe it is appropriate and prudent to limit dioxins in fertilizers in today's final rule. Moreover, given the presence of dioxins in at least some of the hazardous secondary materials used to produce zinc fertilizers, the extreme health risks associated with dioxins, and the fact that they contribute nothing to the efficacy of fertilizer products, some limit on dioxins is necessary for distinguishing product fertilizers from wastes, and to guard against sham recycling. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA chose to use a `` background'' approach to setting a limit for dioxins in zinc fertilizers primarily because we do not have sufficient data on dioxin levels in zinc fertilizers to establish a technologybased limit, which would be consistent with the approach used in this rulemaking to set limits for metals. The limited data that are available on dioxin concentrations in zinc sulfate monohydrate (the zinc fertilizer formulation used to develop the technology­ based limits for metals) indicate dioxin levels of approximately one part per trillion (TEQ) or less. We did not receive any additional data from commenters with regard to dioxin levels in ZSM products, nor did any commenters offer persuasive evidence that the 8 ppt limit would be technically or economically difficult for ZSM producers to achieve in their products. Thus, we believe that the 8 ppt limit can be (and is being) easily achieved by industry, should not impose any significant economic burden on zinc fertilizer manufacturers, and serves as a reasonable level for distinguishing fertilizer products from wastes. Response to comments. Many of the commenters on the proposal cited the need to limit dioxins in fertilizers as one of their primary concerns with regard to this rulemaking. Most of these commenters argued for either a more stringent limit than was proposed (e. g., a technology­ based limit), or a complete ban on the recycling of any dioxincontaining waste material to make fertilizers. Some commenters suggested that a limit based on average national soil background levels would be appropriate only if it were based on `` pre­ industrial'' background levels (which would presumably be lower than eight parts per trillion). In contrast, a number of other commenters opposed setting any limit on dioxins in this rule, arguing that it would increase costs to industry and would have little or no net environmental benefit. Other commenters suggested that if a limit on dioxins in fertilizer is established it should be risk­ based, rather than based on national background soil levels. One commenter suggested that a dioxin limit of 100 parts per trillion would be more reasonable and appropriate than the proposed limit, though the basis for that specific limit was not provided. None of the commenters who argued for more stringent limits on dioxins in this rule offered any scientific evidence establishing an environmental need for such additional controls, or questioning EPA's basic risk findings with regard to dioxins in zinc fertilizers. In addition, it is likely that more stringent limits would raise costs for this rule considerably. We see no reason to impose such additional costs without a convincing environmental rationale for doing so; thus, we chose not to adopt more stringent controls for dioxins in this final rule. We disagree with the commenters who questioned the need for any limit on dioxins in this rule. As explained above, we believe that a limit on dioxins VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48407 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations is appropriate as part of the Agency's broader strategy to control PBT chemicals in the environment, and should moreover have minimal cost impacts on industry. We also believe that a limit on dioxins in this rule is useful in distinguishing products from wastes, and in guarding against sham recycling of dioxin­ containing secondary materials (dioxin being a non­ contributing hazardous constituent in fertilizers). We do not agree with the commenters who suggested using a riskbased approach to setting limits on dioxins in this rule, for reasons similar to those in the preceding discussion of risk­ based levels for metal contaminants. A risk­ based limit on dioxins would likely be much higher than the actual levels of dioxins in highquality zinc fertilizer, or the national soil background level of eight parts per trillion. Thus, a risk­ based limit on dioxins would likely allow dioxin levels in these fertilizer products to increase greatly, to the point where they could pose unacceptable risks. EPA does not believe this to be a desirable environmental result, particularly in light of the current scientific uncertainty over the health effects of dioxins. We also chose not to adopt a limit of 100 parts per trillion, as was suggested by one commenter. That commenter did not offer any scientific, technical or economic basis for this particular limit, nor did the commenter offer any evidence to refute our assumption that the eight ppt limit would be easily achievable by manufacturers of highquality zinc fertilizers. We thus see no reason to adopt this higher, alternative limit for dioxins in this rule. IV. Mining Wastes Used To Make Fertilizers In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA discussed and requested comment as to the regulatory status of certain fertilizers that are made from mining wastes which exhibit a hazardous characteristic (e. g., are toxic when tested according to the TCLP, cited earlier). One particular iron fertilizer product, which is widely marketed to consumers through retail outlets under the name `` Ironite, '' has been identified as being made from such material. This product is notable for containing approximately 4400 parts per million of arsenic— to our knowledge, the highest arsenic levels of any fertilizer, by several orders of magnitude. At issue is the fact that the hazardous mining wastes used to make Ironite are presently exempt from regulation as hazardous wastes, under the so­ called Bevill exemption in the RCRA statute (section 3001( b)( 3)( A)( ii)). In the proposed rule we invited comment as to whether EPA should undertake a regulatory initiative to remove the current exemption for this type of fertilizer. Most of the commenters on the proposed rule supported the idea of regulating Ironite (and other similar fertilizers, though we are not aware of any) under the same set of regulations that apply to hazardous waste derived fertilizers. Several commenters, in fact, expressed strong concerns as to the potential adverse health effects of Ironite, particularly acute effects that could result from direct ingestion (e. g., by children) of Ironite products. Some of these commenters also questioned the validity of the studies that have been cited by the Ironite Products Company as demonstrating the safety of their products. One commenter, however (the American Mining Association), disputed the idea that Ironite is unsafe, suggesting that EPA's actual motive in this regard is to `` backdoor'' its way into narrowing the scope of the Bevill exemption. These commenters also cited the argument made by others that EPA has no legal authority at all to regulate hazardous wastes that are recycled to make fertilizers, let alone mining wastes that are specifically exempt from hazardous waste regulations. EPA continues to believe that concerns regarding exposure to arsenic in Ironite products are worthy of serious consideration, particularly since it is a widely marketed consumer product intended for use by home gardeners and others. As such, the potential for misuse and/ or accidental exposure (especially to children) cannot be discounted. At the same time, however, we recognize that there are technical issues associated with estimating risks from exposure to contaminants in Ironite that merit further study before the Agency can reach any definitive conclusions as to the potential risks of the product. For example, there has been some controversy regarding the bioavailability of the arsenic and lead compounds in Ironite and Ironiteamended soils. EPA's Office of Solid Waste is partnering with EPA's Office of Research and Development and EPA's Region 8 Office to further evaluate the potential human health and environmental risks that may occur from the use of Ironite fertilizer. We expect that these efforts will provide the Agency with a much clearer sense of the environmental implications of Ironite use, and whether or not there is a need to pursue regulatory action to impose RCRA controls. The Agency will be coordinating this effort with state environmental and public health agencies and others who may have conducted similar studies or may have supporting analyses underway. Preliminary results of EPA's evaluation should be available in calendar year 2003. We hope to announce the Agency's follow­ up regulatory strategy with regard to specific mining wastederived fertilizers, such as Ironite, subsequently. V. State Fertilizer Regulatory Programs Virtually all States have regulatory programs for fertilizers, which are usually administered by state agricultural agencies. Traditionally, the primary focus of these regulatory programs has been to ensure that fertilizers are accurately classified and labeled, and meet manufacturers' plant nutrient claims. Until quite recently, state regulatory programs did not explicitly address the issue of controlling contaminants such as heavy metals in fertilizer products. In 1998 the State of Washington enacted legislation to create this country's first comprehensive system for regulating fertilizer contaminants. A key feature of Washington's program is a publicly accessible internet website containing data on all fertilizers registered in the State of Washington, including data on levels of non­ nutrient metals in each registered product. This database can be accessed at http// www. wa. gov/ agr/ pmd/ fertilizers. The States of Texas and California have also recently established regulatory programs for fertilizer contaminants, and a number of other states are likewise considering regulatory initiatives in this area. EPA supports state efforts to regulate contaminants in fertilizers. EPA regulates only a small fraction of the fertilizers currently on the market (one half of one percent or less) under its RCRA authorities. The potential certainly exists, however, for contaminant problems in other types of fertilizers. For example, cadmium levels in certain phosphate fertilizers (which typically are not waste derived) have been the subject of some concern recently by researchers, state regulators and others. We believe that the State of Washington's fertilizer regulatory program has been highly successful in controlling, and in a number of cases reducing, contaminants in fertilizer products sold in that state, and we thus encourage other states to develop similar programs. VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48408 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 5 In Aug. 17, 1988, through a rule promulgated pursuant to HSWA, EPA imposed treatment standards prior to land application on all other commercial fertilizers containing recyclable waste, except for those derived from K061 (53 FR 31198, 31202). Today's rule simply extends the application of treatment standards to K061 derived fertilizers. VI. State authority A. Applicability of Federal RCRA Rules in Authorized States Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified states to administer the RCRA hazardous waste program within the state. Following authorization, the state requirements authorized by EPA apply in lieu of equivalent federal requirements and become federally enforceable as requirements of RCRA. EPA maintains independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. Authorized states also have independent authority to bring enforcement actions under state law. A state may receive authorization by following the approval process described in 40 CFR part 271. Part 271 of 40 CFR also describes the overall standards and requirements for authorization. After a state receives initial authorization, new Federal regulatory requirements promulgated under the authority in the RCRA statute which existed prior to the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) do not apply in that state until the state adopts and receives authorization for equivalent state requirements (this does not, however, preclude a state from adopting and implementing such new regulations under state law only, prior to being authorized for them). The state must adopt such requirements to maintain authorization. In contrast, under RCRA section 3006( g), (42 U. S. C. 6926( g)), new Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed pursuant to HSWA provisions take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized States. Although authorized states are still required to update their hazardous waste programs to remain equivalent to the Federal program, EPA carries out HSWA requirements and prohibitions in authorized states, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until EPA authorizes the state to do so. Authorized states are required to modify their programs only when EPA promulgates Federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than existing Federal requirements. RCRA section 3009 allows the states to impose standards more stringent than those in the Federal program. See also 40 CFR 271.1( i). Therefore, authorized states are not required to adopt Federal regulations, either HSWA or nonHSWA that are considered less stringent. B. Authorization of States for Today's Proposal Today's rule is promulgated pursuant in part to HSWA authority and in part to non­ HSWA authority. The conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for hazardous secondary materials used in zinc fertilizers is promulgated pursuant to non­ HSWA authority, and is also less stringent than the current Federal requirements. Therefore, States will not be required to adopt and seek authorization for the conditional exclusion. EPA will implement the exclusion only in those States which are not authorized for the RCRA program. EPA believes, however, that this final rulemaking has considerable merit, and we thus strongly encourage States to amend their programs and become federally authorized to implement these rules. The elimination of the exemption from LDR treatment standards for K061 derived fertilizers is promulgated pursuant to RCRA section 3004( g), a HSWA provision. 5 Therefore, the Agency is adding this rule to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1( j), which identifies the Federal program requirements that are promulgated pursuant to HSWA and take effect in all States, regardless of their authorization status. Table 2 in 40 CFR 271.1( j) is modified to indicate that these requirements are selfimplementing Until the States receive authorization for these more stringent HSWA provisions, EPA will implement them. Once authorized States adopt an equivalent rule and receive authorization for such rule from EPA, the authorized state rule will apply in that State as the RCRA Subtitle C requirement in lieu of the equivalent federal requirement. VII. Administrative Assessments A. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), the Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to formal review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and to the requirements of the Executive Order, which include assessing the costs and benefits anticipated as a result of the proposed regulatory action. The Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, the Agency has determined that today's proposed rule is a significant regulatory action because this proposed rule contains novel policy issues. As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are documented in the docket to today's proposal. EPA's economic analysis suggests that this rule is not economically significant under Executive Order 12866. Detailed discussions of the methodology used for estimating the costs, economic impacts and the benefits attributable to today's rule for regulatory modifications to the definition of solid waste for zinccontaining hazardous waste­ derived fertilizers, followed by a presentation of the cost, economic impact and benefit results, may be found in the background document: `` Economic Analysis for Regulatory Modifications to the Definition of Solid Waste For ZincContaining Hazardous Waste­ Derived Fertilizers, Notice of Final Rulemaking, '' which is in the docket for today's final rule. Methodology. To estimate the cost, economic impacts to potentially affected firms and benefits to society from this rulemaking, we analyzed data from zinc micronutrient producers, firm financial reports, trade associations and chemical production data. The Agency has used both model facilities and actual facilities in analyzing the effects of this proposed regulation. To estimate the incremental cost or cost savings of this rule making, we reviewed baseline management practices and costs of potentially affected firms. The Agency has modeled the most likely post­ regulatory scenario resulting from this action (e. g., shifts to non­ hazardous fertilizer feedstocks, shifting from zinc oxysulfate to zinc sulfate monohydrate production) and the estimated cost of complying with it. VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48409 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations The difference between the baseline management cost and the postregulatory cost is either the incremental cost or cost savings resulting from the rulemaking. To estimate the economic impact of today's rule, we compared the incremental cost or cost savings of the rule with model firm sales. The Agency has also considered the ability of potentially affected firms to pass compliance costs on in the form of higher prices. To characterize the benefits of today's rule, we evaluated available data and presented a qualitative assessment of benefits including ecological benefits and protection of natural resources such as groundwater. Results. Volume. Data reviewed by the Agency indicates that there are 3 to 4 zinc micronutrient producers, one zinc producer, one steel mill, and 23 brass fume dust generators (ingot makers, mills, and foundries) potentially affected by today's rule. Although the exact amount of hazardous waste used in zinc micronutrient fertilizer production on annual basis varies from year to year, in 1997, data indicate that approximately 46,000 tons of hazardous waste were used in the production of zinc micronutrient fertilizer. The principal hazardous waste feedstocks were tire ash, electric arc furnace dust (K061) and brass fume dust from ingot makers, mills and foundries. Costs. For the part of today's rule pertaining to zinc micronutrient fertilizers, we estimate the total annual cost savings from today's proposal to be $2.14 million for all facilities. Costs savings for different groups are summarized in Table 1. TABLE 1.— ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL COSTS AND COST SAVINGS BY FACILITY CATEGORY Potentially affected facility Incremental annual costs (cost savings) (1999$) Zinc Oxysulfate Producers ($ 0.49 million). Zinc Sulfate Monohydrate Producers ($ 0.75 million). Primary Zinc Producers ($ 1.0 million). Steel Mill ................... $1.5 million. Brass Fume Dust Generators. ($ 1.4 million). Total ....................... ($ 2.14 million). Costs and cost savings to zinc oxysulfate producers are estimated from either shifting production to zinc sulfate monohydrate or shifting to nonhazardous sources of oxysulfate feedstocks. Zinc sulfate monohydrate producers and primary zinc producers are estimated to realize cost savings from shifting brass fume dust currently used in animal feed production to fertilizer production. Under current zinc sulfate markets, fertilizers are sold at a higher price than animal feed. One steel mill that has generated baghouse dust used in fertilizer manufacturing is expected to incur additional costs from having to shift their dust from fertilizer production to land disposal. And brass fume dust generators (mills, ingot makers, foundries) are estimated to incur cost savings from shifting their dust from zinc reclamation and animal feed to fertilizer production. Economic Impact Results. To estimate potential economic impacts resulting from today's rule, we use a first order economic impacts measure: the estimated incremental costs or cost savings of today's rule as a percentage of affected firms sales. Because of data limitations, EPA was unable to obtain profit information for potentially affected firms. For two zinc oxysulfate producers the estimated impact of the rule is 1.42 percent in incremental costs for one firm and 0.64 percent in cost savings for the other. Two zinc sulfate monohydrate producers are estimated to realize cost savings of 0.1 and 15 percent of revenue. For the primary zinc producer, the rule is estimated to result in cost savings equal to 1 percent of firm sales. More detailed information on this estimate can be found in the economic analysis placed into today's docket. Benefits Assessment. Because EPA did not use any risk assessments of current or projected metals and dioxin concentrations in zinc fertilizers in the development of this rulemaking, the Agency cannot make any quantitative conclusions about the risk reduction from today's final rule. To estimate the benefits resulting from today's rule, EPA looked at available literature and records regarding hazardous waste feedstocks used to make zinc micronutrient fertilizers. The data suggest that today's rule will reduce loading of toxic non­ nutritive constituents to the soil. Two zinc oxysulfate samples produced from hazardous waste and analyzed by the State of Washington had dioxin concentrations between 17 and 42 times background level (`` Final Report Screening Survey for Metals and Dioxins in Fertilizer Products and Soils in Washington State, '' Washington State Department of Ecology, April 1999, Figures 1– 1 and 1– 2). In addition, the zinc oxysulfate manufacturing process does not remove any of the lead or cadmium from the feedstock material. If promulgated, today's proposal would reduce annual loadings of these metals to the soil. In addition, today's proposal may reduce natural resource damage and contamination to groundwater. EPA is aware of at least two damage incidents caused by land placement of hazardous waste prior to fertilizer production that resulted in contamination of either groundwater or surrounding surface water bodies adjacent to the site. (`` Report of RCRA Compliance Inspection at American Microtrace Corporation, '' US EPA Region VII, December 4, 1996, Editorial, The Atlanta Journal/ Constitution, April 11, 1993). Today's proposal may increase non­ use values for these environmental amenities as well. The Agency also believes that this rule has the potential for reducing what may be considered low probability but high consequence adverse human health or environmental impact if contamination from hazardous secondary material used in fertilizer production should, because of geological conditions such as karst terrain, reach a major population drinking water source or sensitive environmental location. This rule should lessen the chances of this type of event even though the probabilities of such occurrences and the magnitude of any impacts are not known. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et. seq. The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has fewer than 1000 or 100 employees per firm depending upon the SIC code the firm primarily is classified; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not­ for­ profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48410 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, we have determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives `` which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities'' (5 U. S. C. 603 and 604). Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. There is one small entity incurring incremental costs and offsetting increased revenues resulting from this rulemaking. This firm is Frit Inc, a zinc oxysulfate fertilizer producer. Frit has one facility co­ located onsite with Nucor Steel's Norfolk, Nebraska facility. Frit has been producing zinc oxysulfate fertilizer from Nucor's baghouse dust (K061, a listed hazardous waste). As result of this rulemaking, Frit will no longer be able to make zinc oxysulfate from Nucor's dust. This is due to both the removal of the exemption of K061 derived fertilizer's from LDR requirements and metal limits on zinc fertilizers made from hazardous secondary materials. EPA understands that Frit is ceasing operations at the Norfolk, Nebraska facility. In the economic analysis of the proposed rulemaking, EPA had modeled Frit switching from zinc oxysulfate to zinc sulfate monohydrate at Nucor's facility as the most cost­ effective postregulatory alternative. In public comment on the proposed rulemaking, The Fertilizer Institute, a trade association of which Frit is a member, commented that EPA's economic analysis had not accounted for costs of switching and operating from zinc oxysulfate to zinc sulfate monohydrate. Although EPA agrees with some of The Fertilizer Institute's comments and disagrees with others (for more information see the Response to Comments document to today's rulemaking), when EPA reevaluated two possible alternative regulatory responses for Frit to this rulemaking (1. switching from zinc oxysulfate to zinc sulfate monohydrate, and 2. switching from hazardous secondary sources to nonhazardous secondary sources), we determined that switching to nonhazardous sources of zinc­ bearing secondary materials would be more cost­ effective for Frit than switching its production to ZSM. This is because although it costs more to purchase nonhazardous zinc­ bearing secondaries, the fertilizers produced from the nonhazardous sources are sold at a higher price due to lower nonnutritive mineral content (i. e. lead and cadmium). Because Frit is ceasing operations at the Nucor site, EPA has modeled the firm consolidating its operations at another company facility to produce zinc oxysulfate from nonhazardous sources. EPA has estimated that Frit's costs for nonhazardous feedstocks will increase by $2.9 million. Also, Frit should realize increased revenues of $3.4 million that offset these costs and increase profit by $0.49 million. Thus, Frit should not be significantly impacted by this rule even though it will be required to incur additional costs when substituting to nonhazardous sources. Moreover, EPA does not believe that one regulated entity constitutes a substantial number of small entities in the zinc micronutrient industry. There are several other firms producing zinc micronutrient fertilizers, some of them small businesses. As discussed below, this rule will benefit many of these firms. It is also likely that even in the absence of this rulemaking that opportunities to market K061 derived fertilizers would become more limited in response to decreased consumer demand for fertilizers with high nonnutritive mineral content. EPA notes that there is currently a market trend away from zinc fertilizers with high heavy metal content (see www. chemexpo. com/ news/ newsframe. cfm? framebody=/ news/ profile. cfm as obtained April 12, 2002 for zinc sulfate). Therefore, it is likely that even in the absence of this rulemaking, the market for zinc fertilizers with relatively high heavy metal content, such as K061­ derived zinc oxysulfate, is declining in favor of cleaner zinc fertilizers. And in the past 3 years, there has been a trend away from using K061 in fertilizer production. Two of the three firms that had used K061 in 1997 in zinc oxysulfate production had ceased using this hazardous feedstock prior to EPA's proposed fertilizer rulemaking. EPA also notes that this rulemaking will assist many small businesses that either generate hazardous zinc­ bearing secondary feedstocks or use those feedstocks in fertilizer production by opening up markets for these materials including brass dust, tire ash, and zinc oxides from steel waste. Brass foundries, brass mills, and brass ingot makers are examples of the types of small business generators likely to benefit from today's final rule. The Agency has received favorable public comments from trade associations representing small business generators of hazardous zinc­ bearing secondaries. Other small business producers of zinc sulfate monohydrate such as Big River Zinc, and Madison Industries will benefit from increased supplies of zinc­ bearing secondaries. For more information, please refer to the background document entitled `` Economic Analysis for Regulatory Modifications to the Definition of Solid Waste For Zinc­ Containing Hazardous Waste­ Derived Fertilizers, Notice of Final Rulemaking, '' which was placed in the docket for today's final rule. For the reasons discussed above, I hereby certify that this rule will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this final rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1189. XX). A copy of this ICR may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPIA Regulatory Information Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260– 2740 and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., SW.; Washington, DC 20460, by e­ mail at farmer. sandy@ epamail. epa. gov, or by calling (202) 260– 2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the Internet at http:/ /www. epa. gov/ icr. EPA has finalized the following conditions for reporting and recordkeeping by generators and manufacturers: The rule requires generators to submit a one­ time notice to the EPA Regional Administrator (or the state Director in an authorized state) and to maintain all records of all shipments of excluded hazardous secondary materials for a minimum of three years As a condition of the exclusion, manufacturers will be required to submit a one­ time notice, retain for a minimum of three years VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48411 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations records of all shipments of excluded hazardous secondary materials that were received by the zinc fertilizer manufacturer during that period, and submit an annual report identifying the types, quantities and origins of all such excluded materials that were received by the manufacturer in the preceding year. The manufacturer will also be required to perform sampling and analysis of the fertilizer product to determine compliance with the contaminant limits for metals no less than every six months, and for dioxins no less than every twelve months. Additional testing will be required when changes to processes or feedstock materials are made that could significantly alter the composition of the fertilizer products. These conditions replace the current hazardous waste regulatory requirements for reporting and recordkeeping, and are designed to improve the accountability system, and government oversight capabilities, over the handling of secondary materials used to make zinc fertilizers. EPA estimates that the total annual respondent burden for the new paperwork requirements in the rule is approximately 61 hours per year and the annual respondent cost for the new paperwork requirements in the rule is approximately $12,653. However, in addition to the new paperwork requirements in the rule, EPA also estimated the burden and cost savings that generators and manufacturers could expect as a result of no longer needing to comply with the existing RCRA hazardous waste information collection requirements for the excluded materials. This cost savings of $21,149 minus the $12,653 cost for the new paperwork requirements will result in an overall cost savings $8,496. The net cost to EPA of administering the rule was estimated at approximately $244 per year. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104– 4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA must prepare a written analysis, including a cost­ benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost­ effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of § 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under § 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials to have meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, because this rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments. EPA also has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In addition, as discussed above, the private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202, 203, and 205 of UMRA. E. Federalism— Applicability of Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. '' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. '' Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. Section 4 of the Executive Order contains additional requirements for rules that preempt State or local law, even if those rules do not have federalism implications (i. e., the rules will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government). Those requirements include providing all affected State and local officials notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the development of the regulation. If the preemption is not based on express or implied statutory authority, EPA also must consult, to the extent practicable, with appropriate State and local officials regarding the conflict between State law and Federally protected interests within the agency's area of regulatory responsibility. This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48412 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Executive Order 13132. This rule directly affects primarily zinc micronutrient producers and generators of hazardous wastes used in zinc fertilizer production. There are no State and local government bodies that incur direct compliance costs by this rulemaking. And State and local government implementation expenditures are expected to be less than $500,000 in any one year (for more information, please refer to the background document entitled `` Federalism Analysis (Executive Order 13132) for Zinc­ Containing Hazardous Waste­ Derived Fertilizers, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Substantial Direct Effects'', August 2000). Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. This rule preempts State and local law that is less stringent for these zincbearing hazardous wastes. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U. S. C. 6901 to 6992k, the relationship between the States and the national government with respect to hazardous waste management is established for authorized State hazardous waste programs, 42 U. S. C. 6926 (section 3006), and retention of State authority, 42 U. S. C. 6929 (section 3009). Under section 3009 of RCRA, States and their political subdivisions may not impose requirements less stringent for hazardous waste management than the national government. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled `` Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications. '' This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments, nor would it impose substantial direct compliance costs on them. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Risks and Safety Risks The Executive Order 13045, entitled `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children; and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered. This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this rule present a disproportionate risk to children. EPA's fertilizer risk assessment modeled a number of pathways by which farmers and their children could be exposed to metals and dioxins in fertilizer products applied at recommended rates and frequencies. Exposure was modeled through both direct and indirect pathways. The direct pathways considered were the inhalation pathway, including inhalation of windblown emissions, and from emissions during product application and tilling. Direct ingestion of soils amended with fertilizers was also modeled. The indirect exposure pathways considered were ingestion of plants (vegetables, fruits, and root vegetables) grown on soils amended with fertilizer products containing metals and dioxins, ingestion of beef and dairy products produced on land amended with these products, and ingestion of home­ caught fish from a stream adjacent to the farmer's agricultural field. EPA's fertilizer risk assessment used a probabilistic methodology to estimate incremental lifetime cancer and noncancer risks to farmers and farm children. The general conclusion of the risk assessment was that fertilizers generally do not pose harm to human health or the environment. Since today's final rule is expected to reduce the overall levels of contaminants in zinc fertilizers made from hazardous secondary materials, the Agency expects that the impacts of this rule on childrens' health will be positive, albeit relatively small. H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (`` NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104– 113, section 12( d) (15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rule establishes a conditional exclusion for zinc fertilizers based on contaminant levels for metals and dioxins. After considering alternatives, EPA has determined that it would be impractical and inappropriate to use voluntary consensus standards in this rulemaking, for the reasons discussed in more detail in in Section III. D of this preamble. I. Executive Order 12898 EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all populations in the United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income bears disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and that all people live in safe and healthful environments. In response to Executive Order 12898 and to concerns voiced by many groups outside the Agency, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response formed an Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of environmental justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop an overall strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER Directive No. 9200.3– 17). Today's rule pertains to hazardous wastes used in zinc micronutrient production, and is intended to reduce risks of excluded hazardous secondary materials, and benefit all populations. As such, this rule is not expected to cause any disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or lowincome communities versus nonminority or affluent communities. Excluded hazardous secondary materials will be subject to protective conditions regardless of where they are generated and regardless of where they may be managed. Although the Agency understands that the exclusion may affect where these wastes are managed in the future, the Agency's decision to conditionally exclude these materials is VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48413 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations independent of any decisions regarding the location of waste generators and the siting of waste management facilities. Today's rule will reduce loadings of toxic non­ nutritive constituents to the soil, and will ensure proper management of secondary materials at affected facilities. EPA believes that these provisions of the rule will benefit all populations in the United States, including low­ income and minority communities. J. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) This rule is not a `` significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This rule applies to a discrete sector of the economy and potentially adversely affects fewer than 20 firms. This rule reduces regulatory burden and creates markets for hazardous zinc­ bearing secondary materials. It thus does not adversely affect energy supply, distribution or use. K. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a `` major rule'' as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2). This rule will be effective on July 24, 2002, except for the amendment to 40 CFR 266.20( b), which eliminates the exemption from treatment standards for fertilizers made from recycled electric arc furnace dust. The effective date for that provision in today's final rule is January 24, 2003. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 261 Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 266 Environmental protection, Energy, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 268 Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 271 Environmental proteciton, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 15, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 261— IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6921, 6922, 6924( y), and 6938. Subpart A— General 2. Section 261.4 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)( 20) and (a)( 21) to read as follows: § 261.4 Exclusions. (a) * * * (20) Hazardous secondary materials used to make zinc fertilizers, provided that the following conditions specified are satisfied: (i) Hazardous secondary materials used to make zinc micronutrient fertilizers must not be accumulated speculatively, as defined in § 261.1 (c)( 8). (ii) Generators and intermediate handlers of zinc­ bearing hazardous secondary materials that are to be incorporated into zinc fertilizers must: (A) Submit a one­ time notice to the Regional Administrator or State Director in whose jurisdiction the exclusion is being claimed, which contains the name, address and EPA ID number of the generator or intermediate handler facility, provides a brief description of the secondary material that will be subject to the exclusion, and identifies when the manufacturer intends to begin managing excluded, zinc­ bearing hazardous secondary materials under the conditions specified in this paragraph (a)( 20). (B) Store the excluded secondary material in tanks, containers, or buildings that are constructed and maintained in a way that prevents releases of the secondary materials into the environment. At a minimum, any building used for this purpose must be an engineered structure made of nonearthen materials that provide structural support, and must have a floor, walls and a roof that prevent wind dispersal and contact with rainwater. Tanks used for this purpose must be structurally sound and, if outdoors, must have roofs or covers that prevent contact with wind and rain. Containers used for this purpose must be kept closed except when it is necessary to add or remove material, and must be in sound condition. Containers that are stored outdoors must be managed within storage areas that: (1) have containment structures or systems sufficiently impervious to contain leaks, spills and accumulated precipitation; and (2) provide for effective drainage and removal of leaks, spills and accumulated precipitation; and (3) prevent run­ on into the containment system. (C) With each off­ site shipment of excluded hazardous secondary materials, provide written notice to the receiving facility that the material is subject to the conditions of this paragraph (a)( 20). (D) Maintain at the generator's or intermediate handlers's facility for no less than three years records of all shipments of excluded hazardous secondary materials. For each shipment these records must at a minimum contain the following information: (1) Name of the transporter and date of the shipment; (2) Name and address of the facility that received the excluded material, and documentation confirming receipt of the shipment; and (3) Type and quantity of excluded secondary material in each shipment. (iii) Manufacturers of zinc fertilizers or zinc fertilizer ingredients made from excluded hazardous secondary materials must: (A) Store excluded hazardous secondary materials in accordance with the storage requirements for generators and intermediate handlers, as specified in paragraph (a)( 20)( ii)( B) of this section. (B) Submit a one­ time notification to the Regional Administrator or State Director that, at a minimum, specifies the name, address and EPA ID number of the manufacturing facility, and identifies when the manufacturer intends to begin managing excluded, zinc­ bearing hazardous secondary materials under the conditions specified in this paragraph (a)( 20). VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48414 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations (C) Maintain for a minimum of three years records of all shipments of excluded hazardous secondary materials received by the manufacturer, which must at a minimum identify for each shipment the name and address of the generating facility, name of transporter and date the materials were received, the quantity received, and a brief description of the industrial process that generated the material. (D) Submit to the Regional Administrator or State Director an annual report that identifies the total quantities of all excluded hazardous secondary materials that were used to manufacture zinc fertilizers or zinc fertilizer ingredients in the previous year, the name and address of each generating facility, and the industrial process( s) from which they were generated. (iv) Nothing in this section preempts, overrides or otherwise negates the provision in § 262.11 of this chapter, which requires any person who generates a solid waste to determine if that waste is a hazardous waste. (v) Interim status and permitted storage units that have been used to store only zinc­ bearing hazardous wastes prior to the submission of the one­ time notice described inparagraph (a)( 20)( ii)( A) of this section, and that afterward will be used only to store hazardous secondary materials excluded under this paragraph, are not subject to the closure requirements of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265. (21) Zinc fertilizers made from hazardous wastes, or hazardous secondary materials that are excluded under paragraph (a)( 20) of this section, provided that: (i) The fertilizers meet the following contaminant limits: (A) For metal contaminants: Constituent Maximum Allowable Total Concentration in Fertilizer, per Unit (1%) of Zinc (ppm) Arsenic ...................................... 0.3 Cadmium .................................. 1.4 Chromium ................................. 0.6 Lead .......................................... 2.8 Constituent Maximum Allowable Total Concentration in Fertilizer, per Unit (1%) of Zinc (ppm) Mercury ..................................... 0.3 (B) For dioxin contaminants the fertilizer must contain no more than eight (8) parts per trillion of dioxin, measured as toxic equivalent (TEQ). (ii) The manufacturer performs sampling and analysis of the fertilizer product to determine compliance with the contaminant limits for metals no less than every six months, and for dioxins no less than every twelve months. Testing must also be performed whenever changes occur to manufacturing processes or ingredients that could significantly affect the amounts of contaminants in the fertilizer product. The manufacturer may use any reliable analytical method to demonstrate that no constituent of concern is present in the product at concentrations above the applicable limits. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that the sampling and analysis are unbiased, precise, and representative of the product( s) introduced into commerce. (iii) The manufacturer maintains for no less than three years records of all sampling and analyses performed for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a)( 21)( ii) of this section. Such records must at a minimum include: (A) The dates and times product samples were taken, and the dates the samples were analyzed; (B) The names and qualifications of the person( s) taking the samples; (C) A description of the methods and equipment used to take the samples; (D) The name and address of the laboratory facility at which analyses of the samples were performed; (E) A description of the analytical methods used, including any cleanup and sample preparation methods; and (F) All laboratory analytical results used to determine compliance with the contaminant limits specified in this paragraph (a)( 21). PART 266—[ AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for Part 266 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 1006, 2002( a), 3001– 3009, 3014, 6905, 6906, 6912, 6921, 6922, 6924– 6927, 6934, and 6937. Subpart C— Recyclable Materials Used in a Manner Constituting Disposal 4. Section 266.20 is amended by removing the last two sentences of paragraph (b), and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 266.20 Applicability. * * * * * (d) Fertilizers that contain recyclable materials are not subject to regulation provided that: (1) They are zinc fertilizers excluded from the definition of solid waste according to § 261.4( a)( 21) of this chapter; or (2) They meet the applicable treatment standards in subpart D of Part 268 of this chapter for each hazardous waste that they contain. PART 268— [AMENDED] 5. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6921, and 6924. Subpart D— Treatment Standards § 268.40 [Amended] 6. Section 268.40 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (i). PART 271— REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS 7. The authority citation for Part 271 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), and 6926. 8. In § 271.1( j), tables 1 and 2 are amended by adding the following entries in chronological order by date of publication to read as follows: § 271.1 Purpose and scope. * * * * * (j) * * * TABLE 1.— REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984 Promulgation date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date ******* July 15, 2002 ................................ Elimination of LDR Treatment Standards Exemption for K061­ Derived Fertlizers. July 24, 2002, FR cite ................... January 24, 2003. VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1 48415 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1.— REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984— Continued Promulgation date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date ******* TABLE 2.— SELF IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984 Effective date Self­ implementing provision RCRA citation Federal Register reference ******* January 24, 2003 .......................... Elimination of LDR Treatment Standards Exemption for K061 Derived Fertilizers. 3004( g)( 6) ..................................... July 24, 2002, FR cite. ******* [FR Doc. 02– 18405 Filed 7– 23– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 15 and 18 [ET Docket No. 98– 80; FCC 02– 157] Conducted Emission Limits AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; correction. SUMMARY: On July 10, 2002 (67 FR 45666), the Commission published final rules in the Federal Register, which amended the rules for Conducted Emission Limits. This document contains a correction to the effective date of that rule which was inadvertently published incorrectly. DATE: Effective August 9, 2002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anh Wride, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418– 0577, TTY (202) 418– 2989, e­ mail: awride@ fcc. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Communications Commission published a document amending parts 15 and 18 in the Federal Register of July 10, 2002, (67 FR 45666). This document corrects the Federal Register as it appeared. In FR Doc. 02– 17264 published on July 10, 2002, (67 FR 45666), the Commission is correcting the `` DATES: Effective August 9, 2002 of the Commission's rules to reflect the correct DATES: Effective September 9, 2002.'' In rule FR Doc. 02– 17264 published on July 10, 2002 (67 FR 45666) make the following correction: On page 45666, in the third column correct Dates: Effective August 9, 2002 to read as DATES: Effective September 9, 2002. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. 02– 18626 Filed 7– 23– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6712– 01– P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CC Docket No. 98– 67; DA 02– 1490] Request for Comment on Petition for Clarification on the Provision of and Cost Recovery for Captioned Telephone as an Improved Voice Carry­ Over Service for Telecommunications Relay Services AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; request for comments on petition for clarification. SUMMARY: This document seeks public comment on a petition requesting clarification of the Commission's rules on telecommunications relay services (`` TRS'') with respect to the provision and reimbursement of captioned telephone, an enhanced voice carry­ over service (published at 65 FR 38432, June 21, 2000.) See Petition for Clarification Provision of and Cost Recovery for CapTel, An Enhanced VCO Service, CC Docket No. 98– 67 filed April 12, 2002 on the behalf of Ultratec, Inc. This document also seeks public comment on Ultratec, Inc. 's request for clarification that certain TRS mandatory minimum standards do not apply to this service. DATES: Interested parties may file comments in this proceeding no later than July 26, 2002. Reply comments may be filed no later than August 12, 2002. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Jackson, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418– 2247 (voice), (202) 418– 7898 (TTY), or e­ mail at dljackso@ fcc. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: When filing comments, please reference CC Docket No. 98– 67. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to <http:// www. fcc. gov/ e­ file/ ecfs. html>. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of the proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e­ mail. To get filing instructions for e­ mail comments, commenters should send an e­ mail to ecfs@ fcc. gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, `` get form <your e­ mail address>. '' A sample form and directions will be sent in reply. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of the proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first­ class or overnight U. S. Postal Services mail VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 16: 35 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYR1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYR1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.195036

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2000-0054-0686

Supporting & Related Material

1 1 EPA'S PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR ZINC FERTILIZERS MADE FROM RECYCLED HAZARDOUS WASTES 2 3 4 5 __________________________________________ 6 7 8 PART A PUBLIC HEARING 9 EPA HEARING November 29, 2001 10 11 12 13 ­ ­ 14 15 16 BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, pursuant to the Washington 17 Rules of Civil Procedure, the hearing of the 18 Environmental Protection Agency in re: Proposed 19 Regulations for zinc fertilizers made from recycled 20 hazardous wastes was taken before Cassandra E. Ellis, a 21 Certified Shorthand Reporter, and a Notary Public for 22 the State of Washington, on November 29, 2001, 23 commencing at the hour of 1: 00 p. m., the proceedings 24 being reported at Town Hall, 1119 8th Avenue, Seattle, 25 Washington. 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 USEPA HEADQUARTERS 3 DAVID FAGAN 4 SPECIAL ASSISTANT 5 5301 W 6 Washington, D. C. 20460 7 (703) 308­ 0603 8 Appearing on Behalf of the Director of Solid Waste 9 . 10 EPA REGION 10 11 JACKSON FOX 12 HEARING OFFICER 13 1200 6th Avenue 14 Seattle, Washington 98101 15 (206) 553­ 1073 16 Appearing on Behalf of the Seattle EPA Office, 17 Region 10 18 . 19 EPA REGION 10 20 JEANNE O'DELL 21 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT COORDINATOR 22 1200 6th Avenue 23 Seattle, Washington 98101 24 (206) 553­ 1073 25 Appearing on Behalf of the Seattle EPA Office, 3 1 Region 10 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 10 . 11 . 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18 . 19 . 20 . 21 . 22 . 23 . 24 . 25 . 4 1 Seattle, Washington; 2 Thursday, November 29, 2001 3 1: 00 p. m. 4 MR. FOX: Hello, everyone, I'm Jackson 5 Fox. I'm regional counsel for EPA Region 10, and also 6 the hearing officer for this hearing. 7 It's my responsibility to insure that 8 the hearing is run properly and that anybody who chooses 9 to provide testimony this afternoon has the opportunity 10 to do so. 11 First, I would like to introduce Ms. 12 Cassandra Ellis, over here on my left. She's the court 13 reporter, and because she's taking down everything 14 that's said please speak fairly slowly and clearly so 15 that she can get your words verbatim. 16 This hearing is being held on November 17 29th, 2001, at the Town Hall here in Seattle. The 18 purpose of this public hearing is to receive public 19 comments on EPA's proposed regulations for recycling of 20 hazardous wastes in the manufacture of zinc in 21 fertilizers. 22 These proposed regulations, which were 23 developed by the Office of Solid Waste, at EPA 24 headquarters, were published in the federal register on 25 November 28th, 2000. 5 1 Public notice of this hearing was 2 published in the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post 3 Intelligencer on November 16th, 2001. 4 This public hearing has been called 5 with two objectives in mind. We would like to give all 6 interested parties an opportunity to express their views 7 on the proposed regulations, and we are interested in 8 obtaining as much relevant new information as possible 9 to assist the agency in developing the final ruling. 10 As Mr. Fagan mentioned previously the 11 agency received a substantial number of written comments 12 during the initial comment period that ended on February 13 26th of this year. 14 This hearing is an additional 15 opportunity to offer comments on the proposal. The 16 comments received at this hearing will become part of 17 the formal, administrative record for this rule making. 18 We will take both oral and written 19 comments here this afternoon. If you want to provide 20 oral testimony you will need to put your name on the 21 sign­ in sheet, which I have here now. Those who wish 22 to make a statement will be called in the order they 23 signed in. The only exceptions for this are for 24 individuals who represent government agencies who will 25 be allowed to speak first. 6 1 If you would like to provide written 2 comments this afternoon we have comment sheets you can 3 fill out at the registration table. When you've 4 completed your written comments you can either place 5 them in the box provided at the registration table or 6 leave them with Ms. O'Dell, that's Jeanne, who was 7 talking earlier. 8 If you don't want to make a 9 statement, but want to be put on EPA's mailing list for 10 the final rule, you can indicate that on the comment 11 sheet. 12 The oral and written comments received 13 at this hearing will be reviewed by EPA and will be 14 responded to fully in the final rule document. 15 Now, let's get started with the 16 hearing. If there's anybody in the audience who wishes 17 to testify, but has not yet signed up to do so, please 18 sign up at the registration table. You can do that 19 now. 20 Testimony will be limited to three 21 minutes, and I have a timer here. Given this limitation 22 you may need to summarize your comments and perhaps 23 submit additional comments, in writing, for the record. 24 I will call each speaker up to the 25 microphone. As you begin your testimony please state 7 1 your name clearly for the record, and include the 2 organization you represent, if any. To insure that 3 everyone has an opportunity to testify please limit your 4 comments to three minutes. 5 I have a ­­ a little card that tells 6 you when you have 30 second left, so I will hold that 7 up so you can see that you better wind down. 8 To keep things moving I will also 9 call out the name of the following speaker, the one on 10 deck, and so if you're the one on deck please move up 11 into the front so you can assume a position by the 12 microphone right after the previous ­­ the speaker 13 before you. 14 In the interests of time, if you have 15 testimony that is similar to a previous speaker's 16 testimony, you may wish to simply state that you support 17 and want to second what was said previously. Make sure 18 you identify the name of the speaker with whom you 19 agree. 20 Before we begin with testimony I would 21 like to emphasize that the specific purpose of this 22 hearing is to receive comments on this regulatory 23 proposal developed by EPA. 24 While you may have concerns or views 25 on other issues, and I have heard that some of you do, 8 1 that relate in some other way to fertilizers please 2 focus your comments on this particular proposed rule. 3 I also appreciate that there are some 4 strong feelings and different points of view among some 5 of you in the room. We are not here to resolve those 6 difference, but rather to receive input on this 7 important matter. 8 I hope we can have a civil proceeding 9 and be respectful of the various points of view that 10 will be expressed this afternoon. 11 So, with that, let's get started. 12 The first speaker is Greg Sorlie. 13 MR. SORLIE: Is using this microphone 14 okay? 15 MR. FOX: That's fine. 16 MR. SORLIE: So, audience is to my 17 back today. I will look to you because you have the 18 card. My name's Greg Sorlie. I'm a manager for the 19 hazardous waste program at the State's Department of 20 Ecology. I'm here to testify in favor of this proposal. 21 The governor, in February, wrote a 22 letter to EPA expressing his support for the steps you 23 are moving forward on, and I wanted to quickly summarize 24 the points made in that letter. 25 First, the reason why we ­­ we think 9 1 this rule is at least the first step in the right 2 direction is that it eliminates the KO61 exception of 3 the steel milled fluid dust, which is what Washington 4 State did a couple of years ago. 5 And we think that closing that 6 regulatory loophole and having an even playing field for 7 the rest of the country makes a lot of sense. 8 We also like the fact that these are 9 technology based standards. We originally had supported 10 risk based standards, but it's our understanding given 11 the current risk models used by EPA is that they could 12 actually allow more metals and contaminants in, and that 13 didn't make sense to us, especially if the industry can 14 meet these lower amounts. 15 Thirdly, dioxin, we are very pleased 16 to see that there are some dioxin standard here. We 17 just have not seen that from the federal government 18 before we had done testing here in Washington in our 19 fertilizers. We did find them, in some cases, to be 20 very high. 21 So this non­ degradation standard that 22 you've proposed, we think, is a good step and we would 23 like to see that stay in the rule. 24 And, lastly, mining wastes, the 25 proposed rule eliminates the exclusion for ­­ that 10 1 exempts mining waste. We did not adopt that in 2 Washington, years ago, it's called the bevel amendment. 3 We haven't seen any adverse impacts to our agricultural 4 community or soil because of that not being here. 5 And we think that, again, this is an 6 even playing field. We've done that in Washington, it 7 should be done elsewhere. 8 A couple of other reasons why we 9 think at least that this step going forward makes sense, 10 when the law in Washington was passed we required 11 testing of fertilizers that were by producers. 12 And in one case we found that a zinc 13 fertilizer that was tested had very high amounts of 14 cadmium in it, this is from an offshore source, 15 thousands of thousands of parts per million of cadmium. 16 And once we found that we kind of 17 blew the whistle. And with EPA's assistance that was 18 taken off the market all across the country. 19 And had that not happened it would 20 have been here now. So I think this points out the 21 example of having these kinds of standards in place. 22 And in Washington we also have about 23 50 fertilizers now that were either denied registration 24 or reconfigured because we have some standards in place 25 and we're much better off because of that. 11 1 So, again, we would like to support 2 this. We are concerned that what's being proposed could 3 be weakened. We would just like to encourage EPA to 4 have the most stringent standards as we go through this 5 process. 6 And, finally, Oregon Department of 7 Equality has asked me to indicate in a letter that was 8 submitted that they also support moving head in getting 9 something on the books to have some regulatory control. 10 Thank you. 11 MR. FOX: Thank you. And I broke one 12 of my own rules immediately by not calling the on deck 13 speaker. The next speaker is Catherine Roper. And 14 following Catherine will be Elizabeth Gentala. 15 MS. ROPER: Thank you. My name is 16 Catherine Roper. I represent the Well Mind Association 17 of Seattle. I'm also a member of the Green Party. The 18 Well Mind Association is an educational organizational 19 focusing on the nutritional and environmental causes of 20 mental and emotional illness. We provide advocacy, 21 information and referral. 22 Among other factors documented in 23 research we have found that food allergies, multiple 24 chemical sensitivity, impaired immune function, fibrosis, 25 nutritional imbalance and toxicity are important causes 12 1 of most so­ called mental disorders. 2 We request that the EPA, together with 3 the FDA, label toxic waste, what it is, poison. We 4 request that dumping of hazardous waste that is poison 5 on the farms be stopped immediately. Laws requiring 6 labeling have been finessed by powerful companies. 7 The Well Mind Association requests 8 that the EPA protect our environment by taking all 9 action necessary to begin a soil cleanup program, 10 beginning with outlawing toxic waste and fertilizer. 11 Soil is the start of the food chain. 12 Poisoning people is a crime, whether it's done by a 13 company or an individual. 14 The book, Faithful Harvest, by Duff 15 Wilson, lists toxins found in soil and fertilizer. 16 Doctors can list the heavy metals found in their 17 patients in ever increasing amounts, in reference to 18 your presentation perhaps you put down percentages, but 19 I think what doctors are finding in people's bodies are 20 witness that they are finding their ways into their 21 bodies no matter what percentages you're finding. 22 Well Mind has found that successful 23 treatment of so­ called mental illness often starts with 24 detoxification, if this step is skipped and a person is 25 medicated the toxic load becomes serious. 13 1 There's no such thing as a deficiency 2 of Prozac or Ritalin. However, over seven billion is 3 spent, seven billion dollars, is spent each year on 4 antidepressants. 5 According to the US Center of Disease 6 Control over seven million children are on Prozac and 7 Ritalin. When food doesn't nourish and heal drugs sell. 8 The April issue of the Townsend Letter 9 for patients and doctors gives the behavioral 10 abnormalities associated with various heavy metal 11 toxins. 12 Mercury: Social deficits, social 13 withdrawal. 14 Arsenic, copper, lead, mercury: 15 Depression, mood swings, flat affect, impaired facial 16 recognition. 17 Mercury: Schizoid tendency, 18 hallucinations delirium. 19 Copper, mercury: Suicidal behaviors. 20 Aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, copper, 21 lead, mercury, thallium: Chronic fatigue syndrome, 22 weakness, malaise. 23 Lead, mercury: Attention deficit 24 disorder, lacks eye contact. 25 And I have three pages of the effects 14 1 of heavy metal. You can do the research, and that's 2 very important as part of what you're doing. 3 However, we see in people that are 4 coming to us and are seen by the doctors that they are 5 collecting these heavy metals in their bodies. 6 So you can do the research, and I 7 appreciate everything you're doing, and I agree with 8 anything he said before in terms of the Department of 9 Ecology, but please, and I'll submit this list to you, 10 there's a lot of people are picking up this. And we 11 are all going to be toxic waste sites if Congress 12 doesn't take even more action. 13 So, tell us what we can do to reach 14 Congress, too. Thank you. 15 MR. FOX: Thank you. Next is 16 Elizabeth Gentala, on deck is Steve Erickson. 17 MS. GENTALA: I'm Elizabeth Gentala, 18 with Well Mind Association. I ­­ I am in favor of what 19 the previous spokes people said, but my concern is that 20 though a small amount of toxic metals and other toxins 21 are allowed that these could accumulate in the soil. 22 I happen to be a gardener, even if 23 I'm a bit disabled, and I am concerned that I should 24 could be able to eat food that doesn't have toxic 25 materials in it. 15 1 But we're finding toxins now in our 2 rivers, besides our ­­ our soils. And I don't know how 3 we're going to reduce all of these toxins that ­­ so 4 that we can have healthy people, because we ­­ the 5 the toxic minerals and chemicals are producing a lot 6 more disabled people. 7 We're finding illnesses that should be 8 coming ­­ be arriving when you're an adult that in 9 children. And so that's my concern is that we don't have 10 toxins that are ­­ are increasing in all of the ­­ the 11 soils and the waters. 12 MR. FOX: Thank you. Steve Erickson 13 on deck Jon Stier. 14 MS. ERICKSON: Thank you. I'm Steve 15 Erickson. I do not have a group affiliation, and I am 16 responding only to the presentation, so I'm perhaps not 17 as organized as I should be, but I recognize the 18 distinction between the roles of Congress and the roles 19 of EPA. 20 However, I would hope that the public 21 can cause Congress to give a primary interest to the 22 greater good over the economic interests of small 23 segments of society. 24 Besides, a personal opinion, I believe 25 that the recognition of hazardous, hazardous wastes 16 1 should cause us to, as you try to do, promote recycling, 2 but to keep it out of the food chain. 3 I detected an incongruity between two 4 statements that you made on regulation. One was, if I 5 quoted you hopefully correctly, that you don't intend to 6 regulate hazardous waste if industry makes, quote, 7 unquote, common sense approaches, versus another comment 8 that ­­ that what the key, quote, unquote, the key to 9 this is the good, strong state regulation. 10 Now, I do recognize the difference 11 between federal and state regulation. However, I feel 12 that EPA does have a regulatory rule ­­ role to play 13 for two reasons: One, in this area of products and 14 food chain that they typically and normally do cross 15 state borders, if not national borders. And then, 16 secondly, as a personal philosophy I believe that third 17 party, namely government, is needed as a regulatory 18 agent to assure the ­­ the common good is, indeed, met. 19 Another belief of mine is that, and I 20 would hope that Congress would accept this and hope that 21 EPA would, that public policy should be predicated on 22 the avoidance of risk and not waiting for the 23 requirement of scientific provability of risk. 24 The item that I did not understand, 25 and I'm not asking for an explanation here, but was how 17 1 this would ­­ the heavy metals would be tied to zinc, 2 your statement, to lower the zinc to lower the heavier 3 metals, and how you could necessarily presume that the 4 zinc level would be indicative of the other metals. 5 And, as a final conclusion, I ­­ I do 6 support your proposals in that they are increasing 7 regulatory influence over what already exists. 8 However, I don't feel they're adequate 9 for the purposes, as I mentioned. 10 And I thank you for your time. 11 MR. FOX: Lauren Braden. On deck 12 Melinda Gladstone. 13 MR. TAKARO: My name is Tim Takaro. 14 Steve has agreed to let me take his place and he will 15 take mine later in the testimony. 16 I am a physician, faculty at the 17 University of Washington in the School of Public Health 18 and Medicine. I am representing the Washington 19 Physicians for Social Responsibility today. 20 However, my research interests are in 21 genetics, susceptibility, profusion, in part, on metals 22 and susceptibilities to metals. I also am very 23 interested in occupational exposures. And so, in 24 addition to being concerned about children and the 25 general public, I am concerned about workers who may be 18 1 exposed during the processing of these toxic wastes. 2 The proposed rule does not go far 3 enough to protect children and other susceptible 4 individuals. While science has been the foundation of my 5 career I have grown to recognize more and more the 6 limits of our science. 7 And it is very clear to me that 8 despite the safety factors that have been built into 9 much of our regulations these safety factors do not 10 address all of the uncertainty that remains in our 11 science. 12 It is important that we recognize a 13 manifestation of this uncertainty and that all of the 14 regulation almost invariably has levels being driven 15 down over time by science. 16 You rarely see a protective level 17 raised in ­­ in the history of regulation. Although 18 that does occur it's an extremely rare event. 19 And there is a lesson here. We ­­ we 20 must recognize that in the limits of our science we may 21 be risking the future generations. And we may, in fact, 22 be endangering our own health, particularly for those 23 individuals who are susceptible. 24 For this reason we supported 25 Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the 19 1 National Organization, the precautionary principal, this 2 is a very simple idea, better safe than sorry when you 3 don't know everything. 4 And we certainly don't know everything 5 about genetic susceptibility. We only recently have a 6 rough draft of the human genome. And it is incumbent 7 upon us to slow down, use common sense approaches, and 8 not endanger future generations. 9 I would bring just one example to the 10 floor today, based on the Washington Survey of 11 Fertilizers, in 1995. One of the constituents is 12 beryllium. Beryllium is a highly toxic metal, very 13 clearly can cause disease at the regulated levels, and 14 this is why the Department of Energy and EPA and OSHA 15 have been reviewing this particular standard. 16 Beryllium is present in much of these 17 toxins. A single exposure can produce disease in 18 susceptible individuals. These people, of course, don't 19 know who they are. That means that we need to protect 20 the entire population. 21 And, in doing so, I think we should 22 be following precautionary principals, it doesn't make 23 sense to use toxic wastes in materials that are going to 24 go into our soils, accumulate in the soils, have 25 multiple exposures, perhaps have synergistic effects 20 1 that we don't understand. Toxic waste makes no sense 2 being placed back on the soils. 3 Use of the background level as some 4 kind of standard also doesn't make a lot of logistical 5 sense at ­­ okay, background, that's what we have to 6 live with. So why would you want to increase anything 7 over that background. 8 Their regulations usually follows a 9 single compound, and that's not the way the real world 10 works, particularly it's not the way these toxic waste 11 deposits are. They're multiple compounds with multiple 12 effects, some of them synergistic. 13 Thank you. 14 MR. FOX: Who do you speak on behalf 15 of. 16 MR. TAKARO: Washington Physicians for 17 Social Responsibilities. 18 MR. FOX: And whose position did you 19 take on. 20 MR. STIER: He took mine. I'm Jon 21 Stier, and I'm going to take Lauren Braden's position, 22 because she had to go. I think she had a doctor's 23 appointment. 24 MR. FOX: All right. After Jon is 25 Melinda Gladstone. 21 1 MR. STIER: Thank you. So, my name's 2 Jon Stier. I'm an attorney with the National 3 Environmental Law Center in Seattle, and I represent the 4 Sierra Club and the Washington Toxic's Coalition in the 5 lawsuit that resulted in today's modest ruling that's 6 the reason we're going forward here today. 7 My clients have already submitted 8 detailed comments on the proposed rule, some of it okay, 9 some of it not so okay. 10 And so I just would like to take a 11 minute or two to just step back and look at some policy 12 issues. 13 Turning toxic waste into fertilizer 14 not only poses a health threat as described in Duff 15 Wilson's excellent new book, a faithful harvest, but 16 it's a bad environmental policy, as well. 17 And EPA's waste to fertilizers 18 loopholes offer polluting industries a cheap waste 19 disposal option. Why where is it cheap, because if EPA 20 regulated these wastes as the hazardous substances that 21 they really are then they would have to be disposed of 22 in specially built hazardous waste landfills, away from 23 people and far away from the food supply. 24 But instead, with EPA's blessing, the 25 polluters give away or sell their waste to fertilizer 22 1 makers claiming the waste has plant nutrients in it, but 2 ignoring the lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, the 3 dioxins and other industrial poisons that make them 4 hazardous wastes in the first place. 5 They then profit by trafficking the 6 wastes to unwitting farmers and consumers. By making 7 toxic waste disposal in plant food cheap and even 8 profitable this twisted system discourages investment 9 into cleaner technologies. 10 This contradicts a cardinal purpose of 11 our hazardous waste laws, which is to retain, reduce and 12 prevent pollution. 13 The original idea of industrial waste 14 recycling was to reuse chemicals in a closed­ loop 15 manufacturing process, not to dump those chemicals into 16 the stream of commerce, and certainly not onto the food 17 supply. 18 It is a gross distortion of our 19 hazardous waste laws to use recycling as a pretext for 20 cheap toxic waste dumping, all the more so given the 21 known health risks posed by the chemicals involved, some 22 of which, like dioxin and lead, have no safe exposure 23 levels. 24 Look, folks, we got lead out of house 25 paint, we got led out of gasoline, by forcing those 23 1 industries to invent cleaner products and cleaner 2 manufacturing processes. We should do the same with the 3 industries that, today, dump their waste down the 4 fertilizer loopholes. 5 What's worse, consumers and farmers 6 today have no meaningful choice, whatsoever. Washington 7 State maintains an obscure web site that lists some 8 levels of some contaminants in some fertilizers, but in 9 reality most people won't ever know about that web site. 10 The contaminants and their levels must 11 be listed right on the labels so consumers can 12 comparison shop right at the store and so farmers can 13 take informed steps to protect themselves if they choose 14 to use these contaminated products. 15 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds, Jon. 16 MR. STIER: We do have a right to 17 know. To EPA I say the following things with respect 18 to this rule: Keep toxic waste out of our food supply 19 by banning toxic wastes in fertilizers, especially 20 wastes containing dioxin. 21 As an interim step, adopt stringent 22 standards for metals and fertilizers, and close 23 loopholes that give special treatment to mining waste 24 and steel mill waste. 25 All fertilizers should be fully 24 1 labeled with the actual levels of contaminants. And EPA 2 should establish a comprehensive tracking system for all 3 waste going into fertilizers. 4 Once we've gotten toxic waste out of 5 fertilizers EPA should support standards for all 6 fertilizers based on keeping our nation's soils clean 7 for future generations. 8 Turning toxic wastes into fertilizers 9 is a bang your head against the wall stupid idea, it is 10 unfathomable that we should actually have to explain 11 that to our government. Thank you. 12 MR. FOX: Melinda Gladstone, David to 13 follow. 14 MS. GLADSTONE: My name is Melinda 15 Lark Gladstone. And, Dave, I am a green zealot. 16 My testimony represents the values and 17 believes of Green Wings, the Environmental Group, 18 Whidbey Environmental Action Network, Pilchuck Audubon 19 Society, and Northwest Ecopsychology Institute. 20 I speak for friends and colleagues who 21 could not attend today, and I am also a voice for the 22 natural world and our home planet. 23 The health of the individual is 24 inextricably linked to the health of our earth. 25 Thank you Patty Martin, thank you Duff 25 1 Wilson, thank you Washington Toxic's Coalition, thank 2 you members of the Environmental Protection Agency, and 3 thank you for the person or persons who made the 4 decision to hold this important national meeting in the 5 City of Seattle. 6 The City of Seattle has an 7 international reputation as a place of protest, power 8 and change making. EPA, I say to you, We The People 9 will take to the streets if our voices are not heard 10 today. 11 My commitment to drive three hours to 12 speak for three minutes brings me to the essence of why 13 I am here. I am angry. I am outraged. I am fighting 14 for my life, fighting against an agency whose original 15 purpose was to offer protection. I am fighting against 16 the legality of allowing corporations to place hazardous 17 wastes covertly in fertilizers used to grow our food. 18 This is a life and death matter to me. 19 In an age of terrorism I find the 20 terrorists alive and well within our own borders. 21 In an age of terrorism EPA is 22 eliminating personal freedoms, freedom to know, for 23 example, specifically what the contents of a fertilizer 24 contains, what is in the food supply, water, soil, 25 etcetera, and freedom to self protect. Poisoning the 26 1 food supply is non­ consensual battery. 2 I reiterate, I am speaking for myself 3 and those who were unable to attend today. We are 4 fighting for our lives, our health, and our quality of 5 life. 6 Health and quality of life is measured 7 by degrees. Does our world end with a bang or a 8 whimper. I, for one, will not allow myself to be a 9 victim due to decisions made by governmental agency. 10 Environmental Protection Agency, I am 11 requesting an immediate ban of dioxin in all 12 fertilizers. 13 Environmental Protection Agency, admit 14 you are unaware of the extent of the systemic damages 15 being done to the human health and the health of the 16 natural world. 17 Environmental Protection Agency, 18 create stringent standards, especially for thorough 19 labeling for industrial wastes added to fertilizers. 20 I ask the people in the audience, 21 those of you who are concerned about our collective 22 health, to continue to awaken and educate all friends, 23 colleagues, neighbors, coworkers and extended family 24 members. Let your outrage be your motivation. 25 Hazardous wastes covertly placed in 27 1 fertilizers are an issue that will not go away. 2 I, We The People, want disclosure and 3 change now. EPA, I say to you, get the led out and put 4 the "P", for protection, back in EPA. 5 Thank you for the opportunity to 6 speak. 7 MR. FOX: Next is David Gladstone, 8 after David is Bruce Bzura. 9 MR. GLADSTONE: My name is David 10 Gladstone. I also drove three hours to speak for a 11 very short period of time. 12 I've been listening to what Dave, what 13 you had to say, and to some of the speakers, and I've 14 read some material in the past. 15 This is one of those issues that, 16 again, you just have to step back from and take a close 17 look at what's really going on. 18 If, indeed, these fertilizers 19 represent less than one half of one percent of all the 20 fertilizers in the United States why screw around. Why 21 take the risk. The precautionary principal, which has 22 been espoused all over the world relative to issues just 23 like this, says wait a minute, our lives are at stake, 24 our health's at stake. Don't mess around with this. 25 Ban all these fertilizers. 28 1 And if you can't go that far at least 2 ban dioxin and require labeling. Don't lighten the load 3 for these companies. There's no reason to take away 4 their responsibility to get rid of any hazardous wastes 5 that they produce. It's a very simple issue. 6 And don't kowtow to the company's in 7 Washington that have these huge lobbying budgets to 8 spend money to try and soften the standards. 9 At least take the standards that you 10 have, tighten them up, get rid of dioxin and label them. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. FOX: Bruce. And after Bruce is 13 Aisling Kerins. 14 MR. BZURA: Dave, I agree with you 15 fully on the need to recycle hazardous waste, if it's 16 done properly. I think it's very important to recycle it 17 rather than put it in a dump or on land. 18 But you stated in your proposals here 19 that the regulations are unnecessarily strict, and that, 20 I don't agree with. 21 If they're so strict then why are you 22 allowing such high levels of various heavy metals. The 23 example I used before was lead. You're proposing a 24 hundred parts per million lead when you know that 25 technology is available and economical to make a much 29 1 purer product. 2 As I stated before, you know you can 3 manufacture less than five parts or even less than two 4 parts per million lead. 5 So I just want to say that I believe 6 in recycling hazardous wastes. If you're going to 7 recycle it, though, make the best possible product with 8 it that is environmentally safe. 9 MR. FOX: Okay. Ms. Aisling here? 10 Christina Logsdon? 11 MS. LOGSDON: I meant to sign up for 12 the evening. 13 MR. FOX: What? 14 MS. LOGSDON: I meant to sign up for 15 the evening. I think we weren't aware that it was a 16 sign in sheet for speaking. 17 MR. FOX: All right. Sarahjoy 18 VanBoven. 19 MS. VANBOVEN: That's me. 20 MR. GLADSTONE: You get two for one. 21 MS. VANBOVEN: Hi, sorry for the 22 disruptive, happy child. Yeah, I just wanted to say 23 that this rule is really obvious to me, it seems like 24 it should have been done a while ago, it touches on 25 what we call civilized behavior as in: You don't shit 30 1 where you eat. And most animals really understand that. 2 And so I was hoping we could, you know, even have the 3 sense of most horses and dogs to do that. 4 But the mining companies and steel 5 mill corporations are trying to force us to put their 6 toxic wastes on our food crops and yards, and thus 7 turning our fields and our yards into toxic dumps, and 8 maybe eventually into super fund sites. 9 So that sounds a little ridiculous to 10 me, you know, rather than take care of it and deal with 11 it themselves, at their expense, they want us to do it. 12 And they are going to fight you guys all the way, 13 because they make a lot of money doing this, selling 14 this to us. 15 And if they have to put on labeling, 16 I mean no one in their right mind is going to go put 17 dioxins in their garden, that's just not feasible. 18 So if you do the labeling they are 19 going to be upset, because they're going to lose a lot 20 of money. And so, yeah, and it's hazardous waste for a 21 reason. I mean, it's hazardous, that's why we call it 22 hazardous waste. So that seems really obvious to me, as 23 well. 24 So it seems obvious in anyone with 25 good sense, you know, that you don't put dioxins on your 31 1 food stuffs, but the corporations are just stupid with 2 greed and they're just ­­ they ­­ they aren't people. 3 They don't have families, they don't have friends, and 4 corporations don't get sick. I mean, their main goal is 5 to make money. 6 And that's why we have organizations 7 like your organization, which is supposed to help 8 protect people from this ideology of straight money, we 9 need more money, we need to grow bigger and let's see 10 how much we can sell. 11 And so ­­ I mean your job as an 12 organization, as I see it, is to protect us from these 13 machines of money making machines. I mean, they're not 14 people. They don't have, like, long­ term CEO's or 15 anything that are even responsible. 16 They're just ­­ so ­­ so I would ask 17 that you, you know, say no to this stupidity and enact 18 this law. I think, you know, I agree with a lot of 19 other people here that all toxins should be banned from 20 fertilizers, period. But, you know, if that's not 21 possible, which it is possible, but ­­ so I would like 22 to ask you, the EPA, to be an agent of protection for 23 the environment and for all who depend upon it, namely 24 myself, as well as you and your coworkers depend upon 25 the cleanliness of our food, and so I would ask that 32 1 you take this step in the right direction. 2 MR. FOX: Next is Tim Takaro, 3 followed by Cassie Marshall, is Tim here. 4 THE AUDIENCE: Tim spoke earlier. 5 MR. FOX: Oh, he did. Cassie 6 Marshall. 7 MR. FOX: Following Cassie is Holly 8 Forrest. 9 MS. MARSHALL: Hi, my name is Cassie 10 Marshall, and I came here today ­­ I also made a three 11 hour trip to come here today, because ­­ because I just 12 happened to stumble across this information, actually 13 through Duff Wilson's book, primarily. Thank you for 14 that information. 15 And ­­ and my feeling is that the 16 general public isn't aware of this issue at all. And 17 I'm always ­­ I've always been concerned about food 18 safety issues, and I've fought hard on other battles, 19 but this was news to me and that was scary to me, 20 because most people just aren't aware of it. 21 And I guess we're kind of placing our 22 trust in the system that we will be protected from these 23 kind of things. 24 And it's shaken my trust a little 25 bit, I guess, that just this was allowed to happen, you 33 1 know, accidentally, intentionally, whatever, that it is 2 a problem and a danger. 3 I think that the practice of calling 4 hazardous waste or of the practice of turning it into 5 fertilizer or calling that recycling is just not quite 6 right. 7 You know, most people associate 8 recycling with the good use, with the good reuse of 9 something, and ­­ and toxic wastes being reapplied 10 somewhere else doesn't seem to me like most people would 11 think that is a good use of it, to reuse it in any way. 12 Sorry, I wasn't quite ready to come 13 up here. 14 I would just say that, you know, most 15 people would say that applying lead, cadmium, arsenic, 16 dioxins to our food crop is not good recycling. 17 It seems to me from the information 18 that I have, which I admit is limited, that the 19 industries that create these wastes have found that it 20 is so much cheaper to pay the fertilizer companies to 21 take these materials and to dispose of them safely. 22 And so our need for a better tracking 23 and regulating of these by­ products is ­­ is ­­ is very 24 big. We really do need this. 25 The part that I found disturbing in 34 1 Mr. Wilson's book was how I think he calls it the magic 2 silo effect. A hazardous waste is transported into 3 into an area, and all of the sudden it becomes a 4 fertilizer product, and it's no longer regulated by any 5 of the restrictions that hazardous waste is required to 6 ­­ to ­­ how it's required to be handled. And that's 7 kind of a scary thought, it is the same hazardous waste, 8 it's just called a different name and allowed to be 9 applied that it really scares me, it really bothers me. 10 I'm the mother of two young daughters, 11 and it scares me for the future. I have a lot of fear 12 about this actually killing our farm land, our ­­ the 13 precious land that we, you know, we ­­ we need to be 14 feeding our future generations. This really, really 15 frightens me. 16 After kind of being ­­ becoming a 17 little bit informed about this I did a little ­­ a 18 little looking into some things. 19 And I found that the mostly empty box 20 of fertilizer in my garage that I had used to plant 21 flowers with my daughter, and she was really young at 22 the time and I can remember her putting it into the 23 flower bowls, and I looked it up and it has 16 times 24 the background levels of cadmium levels in it. 25 And, you know, reading what cadmium 35 1 can do, especially exposure in young children, just 2 really frightened me. 3 So I'm just here as a concerned 4 parent, and I am just urging you to ban all the toxic 5 waste in any fertilizer products just to protect us. 6 I totally agree with the comments made 7 by the Washington Toxic Coalition spokesperson, and the 8 Physicians for Social Responsibility, I would like those 9 to be supported in my ­­ my testimony, also. 10 And just ­­ just to keep working to 11 get these dangerous things out of our system. 12 Thank you. 13 MR. FOX: Holly Forrest, next is Lisa 14 Ramirez. 15 MS. FORREST: Hi, I'm Holly Forrest, 16 and up till this point the most hazardous waste that 17 I've had to deal with has been this one and her 18 brother's diapers, but the reason that I'm here today is 19 because I'm aghast that hazardous wastes are in 20 fertilizer, fertilizer that's not just put on grass, but 21 on our food. 22 And one thing I do want to start off 23 with, though, is thanking you for holding this hearing, 24 because I'm happy that the EPA plans to regulate certain 25 fertilizers made from hazardous waste. 36 1 I am a member of Sierra Club in 2 Southwest Washington, in Vancouver. So, like Cassie, I 3 traveled three hours for three minutes and will have a 4 three hour drive back. Fortunately, this one is a good 5 traveller. 6 When I told family and friends what I 7 was doing today, where I was going, they thought that I 8 was joking. 9 The notion that fertilizer's used to 10 grow our food as a dumping ground for toxic substances 11 is so bizarre. Physicians and scientists will give and 12 have given you detailed information about the harms of 13 this practice. 14 I am here to support and reinforce 15 that the EPA regulate this or, as my Dad would say, 16 make them knock it off. 17 I am here as a daughter, a wife, a 18 mother, a friend and a citizen, to tell you that I want 19 protection from the greed that threatens our health. 20 In this time of growing economic 21 uncertainty it is not acceptable that we reduce 22 regulations, rather, I think we need to maintain or even 23 increase it in order to protect that which is so much 24 more important than our wealth, and that is our health. 25 Each evening I am thankful for the 37 1 fact that my family is healthy, but when I hear about 2 practices like this I wonder how much longer they're 3 going to be healthy. 4 Going specifically to what you have 5 proposed and what you are suggesting doing I would like 6 to make a few specific comments. 7 First, I'm glad to see that you have 8 several things in your proposal, the technology based 9 limits on metals and zinc fertilizer made from hazardous 10 waste. 11 I maybe should even preface that by 12 saying that ultimately I think the solution is to ban 13 hazardous waste in fertilizer, but let's deal with what 14 you're talking about. 15 Certainly a prohibition on wastes from 16 dioxin polluting industries that are being used for 17 fertilizer, the elimination of the loopholes that 18 provide for special treatment for steel mill waste when 19 it's used for fertilizer, as well as the mining waste, 20 and full reporting and tracking, including product 21 labeling of the use of hazardous waste in fertilizer. 22 Ultimately, you've heard a lot of good 23 comments from a number of people. And I certainly 24 support Cassie's and the folks that she supported, but I 25 ­­ I just would encourage you to keep that protection 38 1 up, because far more than being afraid of getting on a 2 hijacked plane I'm concerned about what happens when I 3 go to the grocery store and when I prepare meals for my 4 family. 5 So I'm counting on your agency to 6 protect our families. 7 Thank you. 8 MR. FOX: Okay. Next is Lisa 9 Ramirez, following her is Nancy Dickeman. 10 MS. RAMIREZ: Hi, I'm Lisa Ramirez. 11 I am here on behalf of Friends of the Earth. Friends 12 of the Earth is a national, non­ profit environmental 13 organization. We have over 20,000 members nationwide. 14 And I'm here representing everyone. 15 I would also like to second the 16 comments made by Toxic Coalition, Sierra Club, and the 17 Physicians for Social Responsibility, and thank you for 18 giving us the opportunity to speak, as well as thanking 19 everyone that came out today, especially the people that 20 made a six hour round trip journey, that is incredible 21 so, I'm just going to keep this short. 22 Friends of the Earth is just calling 23 on the EPA to ban all toxic waste in fertilizer, to 24 require labeling of all fertilizer contents, and require 25 fertilizers to be ecologically safe. 39 1 When we find toxins like lead, 2 cadmium, arsenic, dioxin in our food supply we know this 3 is a problem. And it's shameful where this problem is 4 stemming from. And it is shameful that we're allowing 5 polluting industries to put short term profit ahead of 6 human safety and environmental health. 7 Now it's time to end this cycle that 8 not only allows toxic waste to show up in our food 9 disposal, but also encourages it, as a cheap means of 10 disposal for these polluting corporations. 11 We can't allow ­­ we can't continue 12 to allow corporations to turn their toxic by­ products 13 into fertilizers and clean out their smoke stacks on our 14 farms. It's ridiculous that I even have to say this. 15 What good is a pollution control 16 device on a smoke stack if we just end up spreading it 17 all over our agricultural fields. I don't see the point 18 in that. 19 Maybe this industry should find ways 20 to perhaps even eliminate all of the pollution that 21 they're emitting, but in the meantime, we just can't 22 continue putting our children at risk by exposing them 23 to the toxins that they eat, every time they eat. And 24 we can't continue to harm the environment by 25 irresponsibly dumping toxins on our fields. 40 1 So, again, we have to support the 2 precautionary principle, obviously that should be 3 applied here, we have to ban toxic wastes in 4 fertilizers, require labeling of all fertilizer 5 contents, and to require fertilizers to be ecologically 6 safe. 7 Thank you very much. 8 MR. FOX: Nancy Dickeman, Troy Prouty 9 is next. 10 MS. DICKEMAN: Hi, I'm Nancy Dickeman. 11 I'm with the Environment and Health Committee for 12 Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, and I'm 13 also speaking as a parent and for myself. 14 I believe it is imperative that 15 industries are stopped from using our fields as dumping 16 grounds for their toxic waste, this is not a form of 17 recycling, it is paying industry to allow them to 18 dispose of their toxins into our farmlands, our food, 19 and into our bodies. 20 These wastes, including dioxin and 21 arsenic, are associated with serious health problems. 22 Dioxin, linked to cancers and other illnesses, has 23 recently been found to be far more hazardous than we 24 thought, hazardous in minuscule amounts. 25 I'm requesting that the EPA strengthen 41 1 and enforce regulations prohibiting toxic wastes in 2 fertilizers. There is no acceptable reasons to allow 3 these toxic wastes to jeopardize the health of anyone in 4 this country, it is time to prohibit the practice now. 5 Thank you. 6 MR. FOX: Troy Prouty, and Sally 7 Goodwin is next. 8 MR. PROUTY: Hi. Yes, sir, my name 9 is Troy Prouty, and on this proposal the only main 10 question I had I would prefer no hazardous waste at all, 11 but that's not going to happen, and I see this loophole, 12 conditional exclusion, and there's ­­ Dave, I listened 13 to you speak, and conditional exclusion can mean 14 anything. 15 And knowing that companies have 16 influence over our government I would kind of question 17 having that loophole in any type of a proposal. So I 18 just wanted to make that statement clear. 19 Thank you. 20 MR. FOX: Sally Goodwin. Jeanne 21 Shank is after Sally. 22 MS. GOODWIN: Hello, I'm Sally 23 Goodwin. I'm a family doctor, and I would like to 24 speak for the public health for my patients and for my 25 family. I'm concerned that steel mills, paper mills and 42 1 other major polluting industries are turning their waste 2 into fertilizer, which is spread onto food producing 3 lands. 4 I urge the EPA to take leadership in 5 guiding health promoting regulations. Public policies 6 should promote public health, not wait until risk is 7 manifest or overwhelming. 8 I'm glad that the EPA has decided to 9 tighten regulations with certain fertilizers made from 10 hazardous waste, but the proposed rule does not go far 11 enough, especially when we focus on public health and 12 the protection of our children. 13 I urge you to strengthen the proposed 14 fertilizer rule in the following ways: Keep toxic waste 15 out of our food supply by banning toxic waste in 16 fertilizer, especially wastes containing dioxin; as an 17 interim step, adopt stringent standards for metals and 18 fertilizers, and close loopholes that give special 19 treatment to mining waste and steel mill waste; all 20 fertilizers should be fully labeled with the actual 21 levels of contaminants; and EPA should establish a 22 comprehensive tracking system for all wastes going to 23 fertilizer. 24 I encourage you to follow the 25 precautionary principal and look critically at possible 43 1 dangers. The American people want and expect the EPA to 2 regulate and to protect. Sending this dilemma to the 3 states is only going to complicate the situation. 4 MR. FOX: Thank you. Jeanne Shank. 5 MS. SHANK: Hi. Before I begin, you 6 talked about the percentages of one half of one percent 7 was what you were using for the amount of micronutrient 8 hazardous fertilizer, I think. 9 On your web site for the EPA it 10 stated one­ tenth of one percent, and that ­­ so my 11 calculations go with that. So, actually, it would 12 probably be higher. Anyway. 13 I wanted to thank you for providing 14 us with an opportunity to comment on this most important 15 issue. I firmly believe a total ban on hazardous waste 16 being added to fertilizer is the only intelligent 17 direction to take. 18 Common sense tells us we must protect 19 the environment where we produce our food. We all have 20 to eat. 21 As of now we are treating our 22 farmlands as a dumping ground for dangerous materials 23 that are considered too hazardous for the landfills. 24 In a conversation with the EPA last 25 week I was informed that the amount of fertilizers 44 1 contained ­­ containing recycled hazardous waste was 2 insignificant, just one­ tenth of one percent of the 110 3 billion pounds of fertilizers supplied annually on 4 commercial fields and orchards in the US. 5 I did the math. One­ tenth of one 6 percent of 110 billion pounds is 110 million pounds of 7 dangerous fertilizer, that sounds significant to me. 8 The EPA claims that the ­­ excuse me 9 ­­ the EPA claims that the proposed regulations will 10 save the industry seven million dollars a year. I think 11 that number pales when compared to the future health 12 care costs from illness and disease related to exposure 13 and ingestion of these recycled hazardous materials. 14 Didn't we learn anything from the environmental 15 destruction we caused when we embraced DDT decades ago. 16 A paragraph from the EPA background 17 report on fertilizer use contaminants and regulations, 18 July 1999, executive summary reads, and I quote, and 19 this is from the 395 page report, and I read it all: 20 To simplify calculations, soil type and chemical nature, 21 plant uptake, leaching, erosion and other removal 22 mechanisms, were not considered in these calculations. 23 All input of heavy metals was assumed 24 to remain with the soil and is therefore presumed to be 25 an overstatement of soil metals over a long period of 45 1 time, end of quote. 2 This means there's actually less 3 amounts of heavy metals from applied fertilizers 4 remaining in the soil than when first applied due to, 5 and I'll use your three standards: Plant uptake, and 6 that means some of the hazardous materials have left the 7 soil and are now in our food chain. Leaching, some of 8 the hazardous materials have left the soil and are 9 heading into our ground water. Erosion, some of the 10 hazardous materials have left the soil, via irrigation, 11 run off, and are in our local water ways or they have 12 left the soil through field cultivation and are being 13 distributed into the air we breathe. 14 I feel, since we are not able to 15 completely control these toxic substances once we 16 release them onto the ground, that is reason enough not 17 to allow them to be mixed in with the fertilizers that 18 cover so much of our farmlands. 19 Thank you. 20 MR. FOX: Thank you. All right. 21 Everyone who's signed up has had an opportunity to 22 speak, is there anyone else who would like to speak who 23 has not yet signed up? Okay, come forward. 24 MR. DUIM: My name's Larry, and I've 25 had a lot of contact with these products all my life. 46 1 I was raised on a farm in Eastern Washington, where we 2 got products from such places as Bay Zinc, over in 3 Yakima, who took toxic sludge and converted it into 4 fertilizer. 5 One of the places that creates sludge 6 is in Whatcom County, that place is up north there, it's 7 called ­­ let me get my notes here, I'm sorry about 8 this ­­ but it's very poisonous. 9 And toxic waste sludge that they 10 produce it actually eats the tires off of the heavy 11 equipment, this stuff is so toxic. And we all have it 12 in us now, because it's in all the food that we eat. 13 We raise peas, corn, carrots, all 14 these things you find on the produce shelf have these 15 chemicals on them now. And they've assimilated into the 16 produce. 17 I have been detoxing now for years 18 trying to get this stuff out of my system. Well, I 19 found that there are certain products out there on the 20 market that can actually help you detox these things out 21 of your system. 22 One of the things I found that works 23 really well, and this is for everybody, I highly 24 recommend this, it's the essential oils. Lavender 25 actually eats these products right out of your system. 47 1 Gary Young is one of the largest 2 producers of essential oils, of pure essential oils, in 3 the country. I highly recommend it. This guy can ­­ he 4 uses a ­­ a spectral analysis to make sure these are of 5 the highest quality essential oils. Therefore, they 6 actually do the job. They're not poisonous. They 7 actually eat the poisons. 8 So if anybody's interested I can hook 9 them up with a direct dealer for Gary Young, and I 10 highly recommend it. It's helping me. I'm sweating 11 right now because the toxins are sweating out of me just 12 with the use of essential oils. 13 So that's all I have to say. Thanks. 14 MR. FOX: Okay. Is there anyone else 15 who would like to speak? Well, thank you all for 16 coming and giving your remarks and comments. And this 17 meeting is now adjourned. 18 (Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned 19 at 3: 00 p. m.) 20 . 21 . 22 . 23 . 24 . 25 .

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.225448

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2000-0054-0687

Supporting & Related Material

1 1 EPA'S PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR ZINC FERTILIZERS MADE FROM RECYCLED HAZARDOUS WASTES 2 3 4 5 ____________________________________________ 6 7 8 PART B PUBLIC HEARING 9 EPA HEARING November 29, 2001 10 11 12 13 ­ ­ 14 15 16 17 BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, pursuant to the Washington 18 Rules of Civil Procedure, the hearing of the 19 Environmental Protection Agency in re: Proposed 20 Regulations for zinc fertilizers made from recycled 21 hazardous wastes was taken before Cassandra E. Ellis, a 22 Certified Shorthand Reporter, and a Notary Public for the 23 State of Washington, on November 29, 2001, commencing at 24 the hour of 6: 00 p. m., the proceedings being reported at 25 Town Hall, 1119 8th Avenue, Seattle, Washington. 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 USEPA HEADQUARTERS 3 DAVID FAGAN 4 SPECIAL ASSISTANT 5 5301 W 6 Washington, D. C. 20460 7 (703) 308­ 0603 8 Appearing on Behalf of the Director of Solid Waste 9 EPA REGION 10 10 . 11 JACKSON FOX 12 HEARING OFFICER 13 1200 6th Avenue 14 Seattle, Washington 98101 15 (206) 553­ 1073 16 Appearing on Behalf of the Seattle EPA Office, 17 Region 10 18 EPA REGION 10 19 . 20 JEANNE O'DELL 21 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT COORDINATOR 22 1200 6th Avenue 23 Seattle, Washington 98101 24 (206) 553­ 1073 25 Appearing on Behalf of the Seattle EPA Office, 3 1 Region 10 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 10 . 11 . 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18 . 19 . 20 . 21 . 22 . 23 . 24 . 25 . 4 1 Seattle, Washington; 2 Thursday, November 29, 2001 3 6: 00 p. m. 4 MR. FOX: Good evening, I am Jackson 5 Fox, and I'm the official hearing officer for the ­­ for 6 your presentations tonight. 7 It is my responsibility to insure that 8 this hearing is run properly and that everybody who 9 chooses to provide testimony has an opportunity to do 10 so. 11 First of all, I would like to 12 introduce Cassandra Ellis, who's the court reporter. 13 And she'll be transcribing all of your comments. So 14 please speak clearly and loudly enough, and slowly 15 enough, for her to do that. 16 This hearing is being held on November 17 29th, 2001, at the Town Hall, here in Seattle. The 18 purpose of the public meeting is to receive public 19 comments on EPA's proposed regulations for recycling of 20 hazardous wastes in the manufacture of zinc fertilizers. 21 These proposed regulations, which were 22 developed by the office of solid waste at EPA 23 headquarters, were published in the federal register on 24 November 28th, 2000. 25 Public notice of this hearing was 5 1 published in the Seattle Times and the Seattle 2 Post­ Intelligencer on November 16th, 2001. 3 This public hearing has been called 4 with two objectives in mind. We would like to give all 5 interested parties an opportunity to express their views 6 on the proposed regulations, and we are interested in 7 obtaining as much relevant, new information as possible, 8 to assist the agency in developing the final rule. 9 The sign­ in sheet, which you signed at 10 the registration table and I now have, is with me. 11 Those who wish to make a statement will be called in 12 the order they signed in. We have one person who we've 13 put ahead for ­­ for important reasons. So the first 14 speaker will be the second speaker. 15 The only exceptions are for those 16 kinds of individuals and also individuals who represent 17 governmental agencies. And they will be allowed to 18 speak first. 19 If you would like to provide written 20 comments this evening we have comment sheets you can 21 fill out at the registration table. When you have 22 completed the written comments you can either place them 23 in the box provided at the registration table or leave 24 them with Ms. O'Dell. 25 If you don't want to make a 6 1 statement, but want to be put on EPA's mailing list for 2 the final rule, you can indicate that on the comment 3 sheet. 4 The oral and written comments received 5 at this hearing will be reviewed by EPA and will be 6 responded to fully in the final rule document. 7 Let us now get started with the 8 public testimony. If there is anybody in the audience 9 who wishes to testify, but is not yet signed up to do 10 so, please sign up out front at the registration table. 11 Testimony will be limited to three 12 minutes. Given this limitation you may need to summarize 13 your comments and perhaps submit additional comments, in 14 writing, for the record. 15 I will call each speaker up to the 16 microphone. As your ­­ as you begin your testimony 17 please state your name clearly for the record and 18 include the organizations you represent, if any. 19 To insure everybody has an opportunity 20 to testify please limit your comments to three minutes. 21 If you run over your allotted time I will ask you to 22 conclude your remarks. I will also warn you when you 23 have 30 seconds left, with a card that I have somewhere, 24 right here. So when you see that, you've got 30 25 seconds to go. 7 1 Also, to keep things moving, I will 2 also call out the name of the ­­ the following speaker. 3 The ­­ the on­ deck speaker. And if you're the on­ deck 4 speaker come on up and sit up front so that we don't 5 have to wait for you to wend your way through the 6 audience. 7 In the interest of time if you have 8 testimony that is similar to a previous speaker's 9 testimony you may wish to simply state that you support 10 and want to second what was said previously and please 11 identify the speaker with whom you agree. 12 Before we begin with testimony I would 13 like to emphasize that the specific purpose of this 14 hearing is to receive comments on this regulatory 15 proposal that EPA has developed. 16 While you may have concerns or views 17 on other issues that relate in some way to fertilizers, 18 and I know many of you do, please, I ask you, to focus 19 your comments on the particular proposed rule. 20 Last, I understand there may be some 21 strong feelings and different points of view regarding 22 the proposed regulations. 23 We are not here tonight to resolve 24 these different points of view, but rather to receive 25 input on this important matter. 8 1 I hope we can have a civil proceeding 2 and be respectful of the various points of view that 3 will be expressed this evening. 4 The first speaker will be Nancy 5 Morris, to be followed by Sean Wallacer (phonetic). 6 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Question? 7 MR. FOX: Yes. 8 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Could you 9 name the two following speakers, rather than just one, 10 so that we have a little more time to be ready? 11 MR. FOX: Sure, I will be happy to do 12 that. The third speaker is Ed Mattell. 13 MS. MORRIS: Hello, I'm Nancy Morris, 14 one of many thousands of individuals who suffer from an 15 immune disorder that was induced by toxic chemical 16 exposures. 17 I wish that what I say tonight would 18 immediately cause the EPA to put a stop to the use of 19 industrial waste fertilizers on our lands, here and 20 abroad, but I know from what I've observed in the past 21 by EPA's inability to act on other environmental crises 22 that this will probably not happen. 23 I can't believe the absurdity of using 24 industrial waste as a fertilizer, it is unbelievable 25 that the EPA feels that this practice can be regulated 9 1 in some way, instead of banned outright. This is a 2 practice in which there is no compromise, it must be 3 stopped now. 4 The scientific data is out there, far 5 more than is needed to make the necessary decisions. 6 The various industries wanting the EPA to cater to them 7 are made up of individuals who do not care about the 8 health of the people and integrity of our lands, but 9 only short­ term gain for themselves. 10 The EPA does not have the resources 11 to watchdog them effectively and regulate what they will 12 do. Even if you list a toxic waste on a package label, 13 instead of how it is now as an ingredient, how will the 14 general consumer evaluate this information? 15 People are not going to look at 16 labels and decide, oh, my child can have a little heavy 17 metal today along with the already dangerously high 18 levels of the dioxin, along with numerous pesticides on 19 the food, along with all the other chemicals and toxic 20 things we are exposed to on a daily basis. 21 And truly understand how this may 22 impact our lives and that of our more vulnerable 23 children consumers, in general, are not toxicologists. 24 It is the job of the EPA to protect 25 those who can not speak for themselves, children, 10 1 infants, our wildlife and our future generations. 2 One of every six children suffers from 3 learning disorders in our nation. Heavy metal toxicity 4 is known to lower I. Q. 's and interfere with immune 5 response in children. 6 We are outraged by the rising rates 7 of cancer in children, which is the biggest killer of 8 children under 14, asthma is just the beginning, and 9 other immune diseases, too, are on the rise. 10 There is enough information out there 11 to strongly indicate that this may be a factor of toxic 12 exposure in our daily lives over time to industrial 13 waste, dioxin, cadmium, lead, pesticides, the list goes 14 on. 15 What risk assessment will the EPA use 16 to determine how industrial waste will be made into 17 fertilizer, will it be based on demands of industry? In 18 all honesty the EPA does not have the right to assume 19 these risks of exposure to toxic waste for all of us. 20 Industry does not have the right to 21 assume this risk based on technicalities and loopholes 22 in the law. The EPA will never be able to assess the 23 damage that continues due to industrial wastes in 24 fertilizer would cause. Just 25 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds, Nancy. 11 1 MS. MORRIS: Just as the EPA has not 2 been able to assess the damage caused by many 3 pesticides, they are unable to regulate them until it is 4 too late, it has become too complex for the EPA or 5 anyone. 6 So we want a ban on the use of 7 industrial waste as a form of fertilizer. If the EPA 8 does not do this there will be tragic consequence for us 9 now and in the future. 10 MR. FOX: Hold on a second. The next 11 speaker is Sean Wallacer. 12 MS. WALLACER: Yes. 13 MR. FOX: And following her is Ed 14 Mattell and then Steve Gerritson. Go ahead. 15 MS. WALLACER: My name is Sean 16 Wallacer. The goal of RPRA as clearly expressed by 17 Congress is to protect public health and welfare from 18 improper waste disposal and promote reduction, recycling 19 and reuse of waste materials as a secondary purpose. 20 EPA does not protect human health and 21 welfare when it allows improper waste disposal, such as 22 land disposal of hazardous materials. 23 Therefore, the elements we need to 24 concentrate on what is hazardous material, what's 25 impacting human health, and what's improper disposal. 12 1 The heavy metals and dioxin substances 2 in fertilizers are hazardous materials. Particularly 3 mercury, arsenic, cadmium and lead have been studied 4 extensively and their carcinogenic mutagenic effects on 5 humans and animals are well documented. 6 Several metals and dioxin are also 7 PBT's (phonetic) which are so well recognized as 8 hazardous that they are specifically addressed on the 9 international level with the POPS treaty, the binational 10 level through the BINS treaty, the federal level with 11 EPA's PBT tragedy, and at the state level through the 12 Washington PBT strategy. 13 PBT strategies are consistent in their 14 adoption of precautionary principal's position that once 15 a substance has been identified as a PBT, a preference 16 for a safer alternative is created, that presumption can 17 only be overcome by sufficiently counter dealing 18 technical, economic or social circumstances, which we do 19 not have in the current situation. 20 Because these substances are hazardous 21 and through the precautionary principal the presumption 22 is against their use unless safer alternatives don't 23 exist, then continued disposal of these hazardous 24 materials into the food chain must be improper disposal. 25 Farmers defend the practice of 13 1 hazardous fertilizers because the practice is sold to 2 them by way of a false trade­ off, just like with 3 pesticides, where if you want the beneficial pest 4 control of the chemical you have to accept the risks of 5 the chemical. 6 Now farmers are told if you want the 7 beneficial aspects of the fertilizer you have to take 8 the bad chemicals along with it, but that's a false 9 trade­ off. 10 Hazardous substances in fertilizers 11 are not the substances that provide the beneficial plant 12 nutrients. There are fertilizer alternatives. 13 And in a recent study conducted at 14 the University of California Davis, on water solubility 15 of zinc fertilizers, shows the most contaminated 16 fertilizers had the lowest water solubility even from 17 local levels where the zinc is available to crops at a 18 beneficial level. 19 Therefore, if the zinc is not 20 available to promote benefit to the crop it's not 21 beneficial recycling, and the waste ­­ of waste and 22 violates the requirement of recycled material to be an 23 effective substitute for a commercial product. 24 Since non­ hazardous, more effective 25 substitutes are available in the market to continue to 14 1 support this form of sham recycling through regulations 2 with the force of law and is arbitrary and capricious. 3 A technology based standard, as 4 proposed, is inappropriate when there is risk to human 5 health and welfare in the environment. 6 EPA, in its proposed rule, made a 7 tentative decision based on relatively small risks shown 8 by three risk assessments. The broad new regulatory was 9 not necessary. 10 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds. 11 MS. MORRIS: However, those risk 12 assessments relied upon were deeply flawed. And the 13 Washington study was not even a risk assessment and 14 should not have been relied upon for that purpose. 15 Particular to this rule I agree, yes, 16 remove the exemption though KO61; remove the exemption 17 from mining waste; ban all dioxin in fertilizers of any 18 kind, including the primary nutrients; no to the 19 proposed changes to the tracking system; and yes, add a 20 comprehensive labeling and tracking system. 21 The public has a right to know what's 22 in the food we eat. 23 MR. FOX: Next is Ed Mattell, to be 24 followed by Steve Gerritson, and then Bruce Herbert. 25 MR. MATTELL: My name is Ed Mattell, 15 1 and thank you for being here, and thank you for chairing 2 this and giving us a chance to speak. 3 I don't have a prepared statement. I 4 was a worker hired as a temporary laborer in Burlington, 5 Washington, for a subsidiary of Land O'Lakes and 6 Farmer's Co­ op. 7 Many other workers in four days of 8 handling this safe fertilizer looked like something out 9 of the X­ files. 10 One of the problems we had was 11 spontaneous hemorrhaging. The fellow I was working next 12 to began bleeding profusely from the gums and nose, and 13 began to pass out. 14 All the workers did pass out from 15 this powder. I did run off of I­ 5 on the way home from 16 work, unconscious on the side of the road. I carried 17 this one gentleman out of the warehouse. We could not 18 stop the bleeding. Eventually, other symptoms developed 19 and we've been having problems. Now, that was in the 20 end of March beginning of February of last year. 21 I don't have a prepared statement, but 22 I found I believe I have some inconsistencies with some 23 statements I've heard today from official sources. 24 I have a focus draft from the 25 Washington State Department of Ecology, this is dated 16 1 for April, July of year 2000. There was a problem, it 2 said, because the cadmium that was found in the 3 fertilizer, the powders we are working in, were 4 exceptionally high levels, up to 20 percent cadmium. 5 This turned out to be radioactive, 6 with a half life of at least 30 years, in humans. The 7 cadmium does not occur in concentrations of natural ore. 8 These are artificially put there. 9 However ­­ and this is the Department 10 of Ecology stating this ­­ "However, it is not clear if 11 the zinc sulfate was deliberately contaminated or not." 12 I use the word deliberately. I tried 13 to get more information on that, it was withheld from 14 me. After the trade towers explosion I hold that 15 suspect. 16 Dioxin was tested because the previous 17 studies said that the dioxin levels are sometimes 18 associated with waste. However, since the glow dioxin 19 levels it is inconclusive whether the product was waste 20 product or not, that was inconsistent. 21 The gentleman here also stated the EPA 22 was unaware of any of the things going on, and yet in 23 the Washington State Department of Ecology report, EPA 24 Office of Energies Relations, Energy Relations, this is 25 the company that distributes this to England, Canada and 17 1 other countries, they had to spin control a May 23rd, 2 year 2000 New York Times article. 3 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds. 4 MR. MATTELL: And an unpublicized 5 government investigation found as much as 1.3 million 6 pounds of this contaminated material came into the US. 7 We were never given protection. We were never warned. 8 The warehouse was shut down and hermetically sealed, for 9 over a year it was radioactive. 10 I have colored pictures of the 11 substances that they were rebagged. The stuff came from 12 China and we were in the process of taking it out of 13 the Chinese bags and putting it in unmarked bags, where 14 it was going to go after that, I don't know. 15 All but me, I still have physical 16 problems, all the other workers are still horribly sick. 17 Anybody has any questions, it's not my opinion, I have 18 government reports. I'd be glad to share these with the 19 people here. 20 Thank you. 21 MR. FOX: Next is Steve Gerritson, to 22 be followed by Bruce Herbert and then Erika Schreder. 23 MR. GERRITSON: Thank you. Good 24 evening, my name is Steve Gerritson. I'm chair of the 25 Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club. 18 1 Because of the importance of this 2 issue to the club I've been authorized by our national 3 board to speak on behalf of the more than 650,000 4 members of the club throughout the United States. 5 In addition, the Sierra Club has 6 submitted more extensive written comments on the docket 7 for the record. 8 Let me be very clear, the Sierra Club 9 opposes the use of secondary hazardous wastes in zinc 10 fertilizers because of the risks they pose to human 11 health. 12 Contaminants that have been found in 13 these wastes include mercury, cadmium, arsenic chromium, 14 lead and dioxins, all of which have been linked to 15 endometriosis and a host of lesser, but equally serious, 16 impacts. 17 When fertilizers containing toxic 18 substances are used on agricultural lands and in 19 vegetable gardens there's a risk that these toxins will 20 be taken up by the plants, eventually to be eaten by 21 humans or animals. 22 Because these toxins are persistent in 23 the environment they may pause before ending up in 24 humans. Animals grown for food, for example cows and 25 chickens, can concentrate these toxins in their tissues. 19 1 Fertilizers used by consumers on lawns 2 and gardens also pose a threat. A recent study by the 3 University of Washington found that children who play in 4 areas where pesticides and fertilizers have been used 5 have traces of these in their blood and urine. One 6 hundred percent of the children tested had these traces. 7 In addition, fertilizers often end up 8 in ground water and can contaminate sediments in lakes 9 and streams, where they end up in fish and wild fowl. 10 Once deposited in the soil these 11 toxins can also become airborne through windy, 12 agricultural lands, where a significant percentage of 13 topsoil is lost every year due to wind erosion, in fact, 14 the Department of Ecology is about to conduct a year 15 long study of the problems of arsenic and lead in our 16 soil. 17 Arsenic and lead are endemic in 18 agricultural soils. I don't think we should be putting 19 more on them when we're trying to figure out how to get 20 it out. 21 For these reasons the Sierra Club 22 strongly recommends a zero tolerance for these toxic 23 materials and fertilizers, at a minimum we recommend 24 that EPA consider the following: An absolute 25 prohibition on the use of any waste that tests positive 20 1 for dioxins or other PBT's 2 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds. 3 MR. Gerritson: Thank you. ­­ The 4 institution of strict technology based limits for any 5 toxic contaminants in waste; and removal of harmful 6 components before their use in fertilizers; removal of 7 the loopholes that allow the use of hazardous wastes 8 from steel mills and mining operations; institution of a 9 testing and labeling requirement so that the public will 10 have sufficient information to make informed choices; 11 and real sanctions for violations. 12 The risk to public health for exposure 13 to these toxins are high. The solution is relatively 14 simple. Reduce the risk by banning these substances from 15 use on fertilizers on a national basis. 16 While Washington has a strong law 17 prohibiting this, some of the other states don't. And, 18 in fact, many states have rules that say no more 19 stringent regulations than EPA promulgates. 20 I can go to the grocery store here in 21 Washington, buy potatoes in Idaho, I might as well be 22 living in Idaho. So let's do it on a national basis. 23 Thank you. 24 MR. FOX: Next is Bruce Herbert, 25 followed by Erika Schreder, and then Laune Velenano. 21 1 MR. HERBERT: Good evening, I'm Bruce 2 Herbert, and I'm president of New Ground Investment 3 Services, which is a registered investment advisory firm 4 here in Seattle, and we're also associated with the 5 national organization called the Interface Center on 6 Corporate Responsibility, whose members control over 110 7 billion dollars in investment assets. 8 So, and I do want to express the 9 appreciation of having this hearing and the opportunity 10 to be heard, I think this does not give nearly an 11 adequate enough voice to the people of the nation on 12 this issue. 13 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: That's right. 14 MR. HERBERT: I do come from a 15 investment perspective, and I want to say that no 16 investor or company in their right mind should put 17 themselves in the position of placing a monetary value 18 on health, human life or environmental integrity. 19 And you mentioned earlier in the 20 comments that the ­­ one of the purposes here was to 21 try to take care of the contaminant problem, in our view 22 as investors, and long term investors, we feel the only 23 way to do that is really to have a zero level of 24 tolerance. 25 It is imperative we apply the 22 1 precautionary principle, and if a company wants to use 2 something that is hazardous, let them prove that it's 3 safe rather than ­­ than the other way around. 4 So, I have four things: I really 5 feel we need to keep toxic waste out of our food 6 supply, and that we particularly ban it in fertilizer, 7 especially wastes that contain dioxin, and adopt 8 stringent standards for metals and fertilizers, and 9 close any loopholes that allow special industries to get 10 around that. 11 We feel all fertilizers should be 12 labeled exactly as to their contents what the actual 13 levels of contaminants are, and that we should establish 14 comprehensive tracking systems for all of the wastes 15 that go into fertilizer, of course, this should abide to 16 all manner of things, but we're talking about fertilizer 17 here. I have a concern that political expediency will 18 not allow those conditions to be met. 19 Related to slide 25, the conditions 20 for exclusion, there was a suggestion that records be 21 kept for three years. We feel quite strongly that with 22 the ­­ with a compound whose effects are 23 multi­ generational the level of record keeping threat 24 should be significantly higher, perhaps 25 multi­ generational, as well. 23 1 Thank you very much. 2 MR. FOX: All right. I've been 3 advised that I mispronounced the names. Erika Schreder, 4 is that correct? 5 MS. SCHREDER: Erika Schreder. 6 MR. FOX: All right. I'm reading 7 their signatures, that's the problem. 8 MS. SCHREDER: I know we didn't do a 9 very good job signing in, Yoram Bauman and myself are 10 with the staff scientists with the Washington Scientific 11 Coalition working for the protection of public health in 12 the environment. 13 And ever since we found out that 14 industries were getting rid of their waste by putting 15 them into fertilizer we've been working to stop this 16 practice. 17 We're glad the EPA has acknowledged 18 this practice and is conducting this rule making. And 19 we really appreciate you coming here to take our 20 comments tonight. 21 This here, the toxic coalition, 22 together with the University of California, at Davis, 23 conducted our own testing of fertilizers, blended 24 fertilizers that contained zinc, to determine which have 25 the greatest contamination with heavy metals and dioxin. 24 1 Second, we looked at the solubility of 2 the zinc in those fertilizers and whether it was 3 actually effective in providing nutrients to plants, 4 because solubility is a critical test of effectiveness 5 for zinc fertilizers. 6 Our results support our long­ time 7 position that EPA must ban the practice that allows 8 industries to turn their waste into fertilizers, 9 starting with wastes that contain dioxin, such as steel 10 mill waste. 11 FRIT (phonetic) steel mill waste was 12 the zinc fertilizer that was the most contaminated with 13 heavy metals and dioxin, this product also had, by far, 14 the lowest solubility of zinc of any of the products 15 that we tested. 16 The other five zinc fertilizers were 17 greater than 90 percent, but FRIT was only 38 percent 18 soluble, which is below the level considered necessary 19 to provide zinc to plants. 20 With this information we challenge 21 EPA, which asserts that the physical and chemical 22 characteristics of zinc in raw materials are similar, 23 and we ask that you review our report, which we brought 24 to EPA's attention to determine whether this is 25 legitimate or whether it's sham recycling. 25 1 According to EPA's main considerations 2 are, one, whether the material truly has value as a raw 3 material and, two, whether the recycling process is 4 likely to release hazardous constituents that are 5 different from or greater than the processing of an 6 analogous raw material. 7 Our testing makes it clear that the 8 use of steel mill waste fertilizer is sham recycling, it 9 does not provide zinc in any form that's usable by 10 plants, and it is much more contaminated with heavy 11 metals and dioxin than other forms. Steel mill wastes 12 to be sold to farmers and gardeners is sham recycling. 13 EPA's proposed limits put in place for 14 some heavy metals made from hazardous waste. While we 15 support EPA moving forward with setting interim measures 16 they don't go far enough. 17 First, EPA's limits for metals must be 18 based on the cleanest fertilizer that industry can 19 produce. 20 Our testing shows that several 21 fertilizers have metal levels well below the limits 22 proposed by EAP, in terms of whether there are natural 23 become metals in soil there is no safe levels of lead 24 and arsenic is a known carcinogen. EPA must prevent 25 these metals from building up in our food. 26 1 And because numerous dioxin sources 2 have already resulted in levels of dioxin in the 3 environment that can harm human health EPA must take 4 even stronger reaction to stop any waste from a dioxin 5 generated in industry from going into fertilizer. 6 Finally, we also looked at a product 7 known as ironite, which you talked about, which is made 8 from mining waste and is packaged and sold as a huge 9 fertilizer with more levels of metals than in any of the 10 fertilizers we tested, but today this product is still 11 allowed for sale because federal regulations exempt 12 fertilizers made from mining waste. 13 We need to put an end to this 14 loophole and stop fertilizer companies from putting our 15 health at risk by selling contaminated mining waste as 16 fertilizer. 17 Thank you very much. 18 MR. FOX: Next is Laune Velenano 19 followed by Yoram Bauman next, and then followed by 20 Darrell Merrell. 21 MS. VELENANO: My name is Lori 22 Velenano, and I am the policy see director for the 23 Washington Toxic Services for whom I am making my 24 comments tonight. . 25 First, we're opposed to EPA allowing 27 1 hazardous wastes in fertilizer. We feel they are there 2 to protect lives. We feel it's important in order to 3 make it easier for companies to recycle hazardous wastes 4 and to fertilize it. 5 We are opposed to this for several 6 reasons: One is the industry's environmental track 7 record does not warrant a relaxation to handling 8 hazardous wastes. 9 Over the years we have found numerous 10 examples of fertilizer companies and other companies 11 that generate wastes. A few examples include Washington 12 State 1999, Bay Zinc Company, a manufacturer of 13 hazardous waste paid $308,035,000 for filling and 14 improper heavy metals. 15 Arkansas, FRIT Industry, a hazardous 16 fertilizer maker, with contaminate tested cadmium and 17 chromium, in 1979, had 81,000 gallons of contaminated 18 nails run off from their site to a local creek. 19 Nation­ wide, Friends of the Earth 20 completed a list of EPA steel companies. The 21 compilation showed that between 1990 and `94 there were 22 over 50 actions taken against steel companies by EPA for 23 environmental violations, many of these involved 24 handling of hazardous waste include K061. People should 25 not be allowed to handle these wastes without permits. 28 1 We also can't forget the example that 2 brought us all here today, Cenex, in Quincy, Washington, 3 which disposed of sludges from its fertilizer ponds on 4 farmer's fields. 5 None of these actions warrant special 6 and weaker sanctions, just the opposite. We request EPA 7 take a much closer look at the players and their ability 8 to protect the environment and public instead of making 9 it easier for these companies to recycle toxic waste 10 into fertilizer. 11 The second reason we're opposed to 12 relax the requirements generator and fertilizer makers 13 is that current permit and reporting requirements 14 provide critical public accountabilities, facility 15 corrective action and inspections are removed, this 16 provides the public with less information, less 17 oversight, and less protection. 18 While it's true that guaranty 19 requirements as demonstrated above are good, it does not 20 make sense for EPA to loosen the requirements. Instead, 21 EPA should be tightening standards for these facilities 22 and increasing enforcement. 23 EPA needs higher manifesting and 24 reporting for the binary reporting system, and it should 25 require shipment of waste to be reported to the 29 1 appropriate agency. 2 This proposal flies in the face of 3 Congress's intent to insure hazardous wastes from cradle 4 to grave, it also limits the public access to the 5 information. 6 Right now public at least has access 7 to the binary reporting database, both electronically 8 and in electronic form. We need more information about 9 this practice, not less. 10 We support EPA's alternative proposal 11 of current hazardous waste requirements, with additional 12 reporting, record keeping, and testing requirements, and 13 labels for all hazardous waste fertilizer. 14 The EPA proposal knows very little 15 about the extent of the turning fertilizer, but at the 16 same time they say only zinc fertilizers are being made 17 from hazardous waste. 18 Clearly, EPA is not doing an adequate 19 job of figuring out the extent of this practice. That's 20 why we need to expand the current reporting system 21 obtaining this information and provide it to the public. 22 We want this information to be 23 available to the public both in hard copy form and a 24 searchable electronic database. 25 More importantly, labels would 30 1 indicate whether a fertilizer is made from hazardous 2 waste and would list the ingredients. The public has a 3 right to know. 4 Finally, although EPA claims little 5 knowledge about this practice, we do know they have 6 known about it for a long time, in fact, we have a list 7 from 199 ­­ 1979 put together by EPA that lists the 8 types of wastes being used for fertilizer, it ranges to 9 exposing plastic waste, fly ash, leather tank waste 10 mining operations, smelting and petroleum refining 11 waste. 12 What we don't know is what impact 13 this practice has had on our health and environment 14 because EPA has only followed up on a few. 15 We, the public, are finally getting an 16 opportunity to have a say on whether farms and garden 17 should be waste dumps. After all these years we are 18 saying no. EPA should ban toxic waste in fertilizer 19 now. 20 Thanks. 21 MR. FOX: Next is Yoram Bauman, 22 followed by Darrell Merrell, and then Richard Bender. 23 MR. BAUMAN: I am a graduate student 24 in the economics program at the University of 25 Washington. I'm here tonight because of the food and 31 1 farming network. I have some written comments that 2 support many of the notes that people have made 3 previously, so I will submit those elsewhere. 4 I would like to make five comments, 5 real quick. The first one is that the network 6 Washington sustainable food and farming network 7 represents, among our members, a significant portion of 8 the food chain here in Washington State. So that 9 includes farmers, farm workers, producers, groups like 10 Small Planet Foods, includes food co­ ops, like PCC, 11 groups that represent consumers, environmental groups, 12 some faith based groups are also among our members. 13 Second point I would like to make is 14 that that portion of the food chain is sort of leading 15 a larger trend towards sustainability in that food 16 chain. The size of sales in farmer's market have 17 doubled in the last five years, in Washington State 18 organic growers in this state in the last five years 19 shows a clear trend nationally towards organics. 20 And that leads to my third point, 21 which is the government sort of needs to, and the EPA 22 needs to move forward in following that trend that 23 people are heading towards that came out clearly during 24 the USDA hearing on organic standards thousands of 25 comments opposing GMO's sewage sludge radiation and 32 1 going towards organic foods, and it's coming out tonight 2 in this hearing. So I would encourage the EPA to ­­ to 3 follow the ­­ the trends towards sustainability in 4 agriculture. 5 The fourth point has to do with 6 economics. Since I am an economics student I have strong 7 opinion that this proposed cursory cost benefit 8 analysis, if you'll look at the potential costs, it 9 includes human health costs, what happens if materials 10 get out of the tracking system, unknown other costs. 11 The benefits are simply the difference 12 in what you gain from using hazardous waste as 13 fertilizer versus finding other sources of those 14 fertilizers. So recycling, in and of itself, is not 15 economically a tremendous benefit if there are available 16 substitutes. And I'm sure there are for zinc 17 fertilizers. 18 The final point I would just like to 19 make is that, as I understand it, the rules only apply 20 to zinc fertilizers, to zinc micronutrients, and my 21 concern is I would like to know what's happening to the 22 hazardous waste that's being produced in the US. I 23 don't just want to know what's in zinc fertilizers. I 24 would like to know if some of it is going into other 25 kinds of fertilizers, as well. 33 1 And so I would encourage the EPA to 2 extend the mandate of the rule to include all of those 3 different types of fertilizers to the extent that what 4 we're trying to do is figure out what's happening to 5 hazardous waste in the United States. 6 And what happens in five years with 7 fertilizer that is being produced with hazardous waste 8 and if the EPA has to come to town and have another 9 hearing then I will hold the EPA and the two of you 10 gentleman personally responsible for providing pizza. 11 MR. FOX: Next is Darrell Merrell, 12 followed by Richard Bender, and then Charlene Bender. 13 MR. MERRILL: My name's Darrell 14 Merrell. 15 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Hi Darrell. 16 MR. MERRILL: Hi. On my small farm 17 in Tulsa, Oklahoma, I grow garden fresh lettuce, 18 tomatoes and other various vegetables and open 19 pollinated vegetables. 20 I am here at my own expense, because 21 I am a concerned citizen. I figure this three minutes 22 cost me about $400 a minute. 23 I've studied these proposals countless 24 hours, preparing written statements of what I should say 25 here tonight. And since attending this afternoon's 34 1 meeting I basically scrapped all of those. 2 I'm also founder of the Garlic Life's 3 Symposium and festival in Tulsa. We just had our third 4 annual international symposium, three days of experts 5 from all over the United States, Universities in the 6 United States, Germany, Israel, Canada. 7 This year we are holding an issues 8 forum in conjunction with this forum to discuss these 9 very things we are discussing tonight, an issues forum 10 with two days of top speakers from all over the country 11 talking about the issues of the day and what we need to 12 do about them, and invited representatives from EPA to 13 give a presentation. 14 I didn't know ­­ I studied this 15 issue, the issues of agriculture in the United States 16 for several years, finding the hazardous ­­ toxic, 17 hazardous waste was being added to fertilizers was a new 18 one on me. I didn't learn about it until October the 19 16th of this year, when I purchased this book. 20 I think probably over half of us in 21 this room didn't know about it. I've talked to over 22 500 people since I have learned of this book, and only 23 two had ever heard of it. They happened to be college 24 professors here in Seattle, Washington and remembered 25 Duff Wilson's articles. Here, it may be public 35 1 knowledge, but it sure was low key public knowledge. 2 And I don't want to be adversarial. 3 I think the folks at the EPA are in the same boat we 4 are. You're good people. We're good people. We breathe 5 the same air. We drink the same water and we eat the 6 same food. We're all in this boat together. 7 Now, I want to look my ­­ I want to 8 look my children and my grandchildren in the eye and say 9 I love you from the bottom of my heart, and I'm trying 10 to do everything within my power to make this world a 11 safe and healthy place for you. 12 I wish the people at the EPA would 13 take that into consideration. 14 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds, Richard 15 (sic). 16 MR. MERRILL: I've studied this, to 17 the average person it's gobbledygook, smoke and mirrors, 18 I'm sorry. 19 My proposal is none of the proposals 20 should be adopted. I propose that you, the EPA, hold a 21 series of meetings all across the United States, in 22 every state of the United States, to discuss an EPA 23 proposal to ban all toxic hazardous waste in 24 fertilizers. 25 I also propose that if the EPA says 36 1 they can not afford it, we, the people, in Tulsa, 2 Oklahoma, will provide you an auditorium, if you can't 3 afford it we will pay your expenses from Washington, DC, 4 to come down and give a presentation. We will pay your 5 expenses while you're there, your meals, food, lodging. 6 We will even tuck you in to bed at night if you need. 7 Let's cooperate, for the good of "We 8 The People," everyone in the United states, because this 9 is simply wrong. 10 The corporations of the world, of the 11 United States, have us all by the throat, and we need 12 to shake them loose. And We, The People, need to 13 regain our sovereignty. It's up to us. 14 MR. FOX: The next speaker is Richard 15 Bender, to be followed by Charlene Bender, and then 16 Goldie Caughlan. 17 MR. BENDER: My name is Richard 18 Bender, and I want to say simply, but clearly, that I 19 support the position of the Washington Toxic Coalition 20 and that I hope that you will listen carefully to what 21 they have to say and incorporate their message into your 22 thoughts as you move forward with this. 23 MR. FOX: Next is Charlene Bender, 24 followed by Goldie Caughlan, followed by ­­ I'm not sure 25 what this says ­­ it looks like Roger Herbst. 37 1 MS. BENDER: I'm Charlene Bender. 2 I'm not very scientifically minded, but I do feel very 3 emotional about this issue. 4 I grew up in a super site, a super 5 fund site, that is. Beginning in 1931, a company 6 located just two blocks from my house produced a waste 7 material called thorium mill toluenes (phonetic). Until 8 the mid `60s some of these materials were used as fill 9 in low lying areas all over our town. 10 Since then EPA has directed that the 11 33 million dollars cleanup of my town be done, 12 excavating and removing over 100,000 cubic yards of 13 contaminated soil, which was then shipped to Utah for, 14 quote, safekeeping. 15 Little did we know that our idyllic 16 little town was such an unsafe place to be living. We 17 do deserve to know what is going on. 18 The EPA has by no means overstepped 19 its regulatory authority. I ask that the EPA does 20 everything possible to keep toxic waste out of our food 21 supply by banning all toxic waste and fertilizers. 22 All fertilizers should be fully 23 labeled and the EPA should have a comprehensive tracking 24 system for all waste going into the fertilizers, 25 including mining wastes. 38 1 Thanks. 2 MR. FOX: Next is Goldie Caughlan, 3 followed by Roger Herbst, followed by Rosemarie Wiegman. 4 MS. CAUGHLAN: Thank you. Yes, my 5 name is Goldie Caughlan, and I'm here representing Puget 6 Consumers Co­ op, otherwise known as PCC Natural Market. 7 For 40 years we have been operating 8 in this region as a community owned natural foods retail 9 store with now seven stores with more than 40,000 member 10 households. 11 When the story broke by Duff Wilson 12 in the newspaper all of us were as shocked, certainly, 13 as any person in this ­­ in this room. 14 I think that coming here tonight it 15 gives evidence, once again, to the fact that this is 16 another dirty little secret that is very, very much in 17 need of being given a serious examination. 18 And I want very much and very 19 strongly to recognize and thank the Washington Toxic 20 Coalition for their extraordinary stand, and the Sierra 21 Club. I think it's wonderful. Were it not for that we 22 would not be able to have you gentleman here tonight, 23 for whom we are very grateful that you're here. 24 However, I think it's extraordinary 25 evidence that what we need is to send the message back 39 1 to Washington, DC, we want this treated as a national 2 concern, not something that is simply a Washington State 3 because of the deal that you had to make with Washington 4 Toxic Coalition in order to ­­ to satisfy part of their 5 settlement, that is why you're here, we understand that, 6 but this needs to be ­­ I mean, there are no reporters 7 here tonight, apparently, at least I see no cameras, no 8 television. 9 Isn't that a shame? Every single one 10 of us should go home, get on that telephone, write those 11 letters, get some letters in for commentary. 12 I have written comments that simply 13 support the positions of the Washington Toxic Coalition, 14 as well as the Sierra Club. I have brought that and 15 I'll enter that into the record, but I want very, very 16 much to be heard on this issue that it is ­­ this is a 17 shame, it is a crime, it is ridiculous. We all know it 18 and we're asking very strongly for more hearings. 19 At the same time, I do recognize the 20 fact that there are circumstances that the EPA certainly 21 is operating under constraints, that being the case we 22 owe it to ourselves to become a lot more informed. 23 We can download from the library or 24 from our own computers. We can become educated, this is 25 ­­ we don't have to be scientists. I am not a 40 1 scientist. Most of us in this room are not. 2 I think that the eloquence that we 3 have heard here tonight is that we want to send that 4 message back. People are concerned and we will not stop. 5 We will not let this rest. 6 We're grateful that the State of 7 Washington has seen fit to have some protective status. 8 We're not satisfied with it, by any means, and we're 9 also pleased that the State of California and Texas, 10 those are the three, and in many respects the three 11 most, quote, important agricultural states in the union, 12 but this, as we've seen tonight, is also an 13 international disaster, coming from China, coming from 14 elsewhere. 15 These things are not being regulated 16 by the EPA for all of our protection. And after 17 listening to the gentleman from Oklahoma I think it's 18 time for PCC to open up a branch in Tulsa. 19 MR. FOX: Next is Roger Herbst, 20 followed by Rosemarie Wiegman, and then Hannah 21 McFarland. 22 MR. HERBST: Well, my name is Roger 23 Herbst, and I speak tonight on behalf of the 24 Mountaineers, one of the oldest and largest operations 25 in the country and in the northwest. 41 1 Twenty years the Mountaineers have 2 supported measures to reduce or eliminate the use of 3 toxins in our environment. 4 And what I am about to say, you've 5 heard it about 20 times tonight, I've agreed with the 6 conservation division that I would provide this 7 testimony we're going to hear it again. 8 Unfortunately, rules under the Federal 9 Resource Conservation Recovery Act, RCRA, allow certain 10 entities considered toxic waste, containing lead, 11 cadmium, arsenic and dioxins into commercial fertilizer 12 products. 13 We're pleased that the EPA has agreed 14 to propose new rules on the use of hazardous wastes in 15 commercial fertilized products. 16 The Mountaineers support a regulatory 17 process which would implement health­ based standards for 18 heavy metals. We support a regulatory process which 19 would prohibit the emission of dioxins in any fertilizer 20 product. We support a regulatory process which would 21 close legal loopholes that allow toxic mining and steel 22 mill waste to be used as a fertilizer ingredients. We 23 support a regulatory process which would implement 24 labeling requirements which would inform the consumer of 25 the quantity and amounts of all ingredients, including 42 1 inerts. We support a regulatory process which would 2 implement a comprehensive tracking system for all things 3 going into fertilizers. And, finally, we support a 4 regulatory process which would adopt registration 5 testing and enforcement procedure to insure compliance 6 with the regulatory process. 7 The Mountaineers thank you for the 8 opportunity to make comment on this important issue. 9 MR. FOX: Okay. Next is Rosemarie 10 Wiegman, followed by Hannah McFarland, followed by Glenn 11 Sklar. 12 MS. WIEGMAN: Hi, I'm Rosemarie 13 Wiegman, and I'm here as a concerned citizen of planet 14 Earth. 15 And, first of all, I need to comment 16 a little bit on synchronicity. I'm here today because 17 my son was sick on Monday and I went to go see my 18 naturopath and she told me about it. Otherwise I 19 wouldn't have know about it. 20 And I consider myself pretty aware, 21 and I try to be informed and so, you know, this is 22 pretty low key, all this stuff, you know, it should be 23 ­­ they should spend five minutes on this on the news 24 instead of on sports, you know. 25 So, any ways, I want to talk about 43 1 the frogs, okay. I just heard this morning, and this 2 is another synchronistic thing, am I going to go tonight 3 or am I not going to go tonight, because I have so much 4 going on. 5 Then this guy comes to work, "Did you 6 see the story on the news about the frogs, 30 out of 35 7 frogs are deformed." They collected 35 frogs, one had 8 six legs. And, come on, people, it's time to wake up. 9 You know, I mean that's like almost 100 percent, that's 10 not acceptable at all. 11 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: That's just 12 the frogs. There are other things like that, too. 13 MS. WIEGMAN: Right, right, but frogs 14 are a really high indicator, among the other things. 15 What's coming down the line for us. You know, to me 16 there's no levels, in my food, in my water, in my air 17 that are acceptable, absolutely no levels. Radical 18 change is the only way for survival. 19 Each of us must realize that the 20 personal choices we make in our lives have the greatest 21 effect of all. 22 Perfect, green, manicured lawns must 23 be a thing of the past. Wild, wonderful, life healing 24 weeds must reenter our vision of what is beautiful and 25 acceptable. 44 1 We must rethink our reaction when we 2 find a bug in our salad. We are all connected, for me, 3 a bug in my salad is something to be thankful for. 4 The frogs are trying to tell us 5 something. They're trying to tell us something is 6 terribly wrong, horribly out of balance. 7 We have the power with the choices 8 that we make. And that's where my passion lies, is to 9 try to get people to wake up and realize every single 10 thing we do, every day of our life, everything we buy, 11 we support these industries that are making these 12 hazardous wastes, that's where it starts, it starts 13 it starts before this hazardous waste is even made. 14 So, you know, all of us, the heads of 15 these corporations that are way up there in the billion 16 trillion are gone, you know, I don't know, they're gone, 17 they're lost, okay, but we have to live with what they 18 do to us and what they're doing to this planet, all of 19 this in this room have to live with that. 20 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds. 21 MS. WIEGMAN: So that's the point I 22 want to drive home. Think, think about what you're 23 doing. 24 And thank you very much. And I thank 25 you for being here. And I hope you really take this to 45 1 heart for your own personal life and your own family 2 and, you know, in your conscious of what kind of choices 3 you're going to make when you make these decisions. 4 MR. FOX: Next is Anna McFarland, 5 followed by Glen Sklar, and then Kristina Logsdon. 6 MS. MCFARLAND: Hi, I'm Hannah 7 McFarland, and I'm a concerned citizen. I think all 8 hazardous wastes should be banned from use in all 9 fertilizer, not just zinc fertilizer. 10 Common sense tells us the role of 11 poison in fertilizer is for the benefit of industry to 12 get rid of their waste. 13 If the EPA was genuinely concerned 14 about the public health, as being expressed here 15 tonight, all hazardous wastes would be banned. 16 Anything short of outright banning of hazardous waste 17 indicates the power of industry over the EPA. 18 Please, please, ban all hazardous 19 wastes from all fertilizers, not just zinc. And why, if 20 the EPA is really concerned about what the public 21 thinks, why is there one hearing for the whole country? 22 Please do what you can to care about what the public is 23 saying and not industry. 24 MR. FOX: Glen Sklar is next, and 25 then Kristina Logsdon, and Brandie Smith. 46 1 MR. SKLAR: Hi, my name is Glen 2 Sklar, and I'm a chemist who's worked on this project in 3 1997. I don't have any affiliations, and I'm not really 4 advocating for using these materials or not, but I just 5 have some experience that I would like to share on what 6 ­­ what can be done. 7 There are some materials that have 8 been spoken about, like brass foundry fume, which is the 9 ­­ the brass is copper and zinc, and in the process of 10 ­­ of obtaining the pure metals the zinc has a lower 11 melting point, so it kind of fumes up and makes an ash, 12 and this is collected. And this is one of the 13 by­ product materials that are worked on. 14 And then another one is the tire ash, 15 and some people might be wondering what's that got to do 16 with zinc. The zinc is used as a binder for the 17 rubber. 18 Anyhow, in 1997 I was working on a 19 project at the University of Nevada, Reno, trying to 20 come up with a chemical scheme and the production method 21 for how to remove all the nasty toxic metals from 22 from these by­ products to produce a pure zinc sulfate 23 product, kind of like the one that was being shown 24 earlier, the white one, one that's highly soluble, 90 25 plus percent soluble, and pretty to look at. 47 1 So all I want to say is that the 2 chemistry is not very difficult, what it takes to purify 3 these materials, and we just know that a lot of 4 companies like to not spend the money to do that. 5 What was being talked about with the 6 zinc oxysulfate, really, was ­­ and I don't know if it's 7 still going on anymore ­­ but it really is a sham, 8 because they just take these materials straight and add 9 a little bit of sulfuric acid to them to kind of wet 10 them down a little bit, keep the dust down, and say if 11 they process them somehow, but like has been mentioned 12 the solubility on them is really low, not much of the 13 zinc is available to the plants. 14 And of course none of the toxic heavy 15 metals have been removed. So ­­ but I guess, if 16 anybody wants to know anything specific about these 17 materials and what's involved in getting the ­­ the junk 18 out, I can answer those questions later. I don't know 19 what else can I say, here. 20 MR. FOX: Well, you only have 30 21 seconds. 22 MR. SKLAR: Oh, I've worked at two 23 different hazardous waste treatment facilities, too. So 24 I'm familiar with all the dangerous waste regulations 25 and all the things that people try to do to get around 48 1 those. And I think the record keeping and tracking that 2 people have spoken about is ­­ is very important, too. 3 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: How many 4 years? 5 MR. SKLAR: What? 6 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: How many 7 years were they tracking? 8 MR. SKLAR: Oh, I think ­­ I don't 9 know ­­ I think seven years, I believe, for hazardous 10 waste shipments in Washington State. Thanks. That's 11 it. 12 MR. FOX: Okay. Next is Kristina 13 Logsdon, followed by Brandie Smith, then Mary Charrow. 14 MS. LOGSDON: Hello, I'm Kristina 15 Logsdon, I'm a campaign assistant for Washington Toxic 16 Coalition, and tonight I'm here to submit 346 post cards 17 from concerned citizens about the toxic ­­ about the use 18 of toxic waste in fertilizer. 19 And I just want to read what the post 20 card says: Dear Ms. Whitman, it's addressed to 21 Christine Todd Whitman, director of EPA. 22 Steel mills, paper mills, and other 23 polluting industries are turning their waste into 24 fertilizer used to produce our food supply. As a 25 result, poisons such as lead, cadmium, arsenic and 49 1 dioxins wind up as fertilizer used for farms and 2 gardens. Please stop this practice. 3 I urge you to strengthen the proposed 4 fertilizer rule in the following ways: Keep toxic waste 5 out of our food supply by banning toxic waste in 6 fertilizer, especially waste containing dioxin. 7 As an interim step adopt stringent 8 standards for metals in fertilizers, and close loopholes 9 that give special treatment to mining and steel mill 10 waste. 11 Fertilizers should be labeled with all 12 contaminants levels. And EPA should establish a 13 comprehensive tracking system for all waste going to 14 fertilizer. 15 Please support standards for all 16 fertilizers based on keeping our soils clean for future 17 generations. 18 Fertilizers should be cleaner than 19 dirt. 20 MR. FOX: Next is Brandie Smith, 21 followed by Mary Charrow, and then Elizabeth Davis. 22 MS. SMITH: My name is Brandie Smith. 23 Tonight I will be reading comments from Jackie Hunt 24 Christiansen. She is the director of the food safety 25 project at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade 50 1 Policy. 2 I will begin by saying that IATP 3 supports the comments made by colleagues at the 4 Washington Toxins Coalition, with whom we have 5 collaborated for several years on these efforts. 6 IATP commended the agency for its 7 recognition that stricter standards are needed for 8 fertilizer product. We also greatly appreciate this 9 public opportunity to comment. 10 However, we are disappointed that the 11 agency intends to continue to allow the practice of 12 recycling hazardous industrial wastes into fertilizer. 13 These products are a disservice to 14 farmers, gardeners and other food producers, who buy 15 them in good faith in order to produce what they believe 16 will be safer, healthier food. They have no idea of 17 the tag­ along toxins, such as cadmium, lead and dioxin 18 contained in the fertilizer. 19 We urge the EPA to protect farmers, 20 food producers, gardeners and all consumers by banning 21 the practice of allowing hazardous, industrial waste to 22 be used in fertilizer products. 23 The US Department of Agriculture's 24 acceptance of the use of industrial waste as feed 25 additives does not make these pollutants any less toxic. 51 1 By requiring labeling of all the 2 constituting compounds or alloys in fertilizers, not 3 just the ones that are beneficial to plants. 4 Information regarding the potential 5 acute and chronic human health effects of those 6 ingredients should be included on the labels. 7 Requiring more frequent tests of 8 fertilizer ingredients. The agency acknowledges that 9 the levels of metals in industrial wastes can vary from 10 batch to batch. Just on that fact alone more frequent 11 analysis should be required. 12 Requiring efficacy testing for any 13 fertilizer ingredients. The Washington Toxins 14 Coalition, and others, have presented evidence that zinc 15 solubility is a critical factor in the effectiveness of 16 a zinc fertilizer product. Establishing strict 17 enforcement standards and penalties for noncompliance 18 with this rule. 19 Americans farms have been treated as a 20 dumping ground for toxic waste for too long. The 21 primary ways to stop that practice are a ban on waste 22 derived fertilizer and tough consequences for 23 individuals, companies or cooperatives that violate 24 these regulations. 25 We hope that you will take these 52 1 comments into consideration and act swiftly to protect 2 our nation's farms, families and food supply. 3 Thank you. 4 MR. FOX: Mary Charrow is next, 5 followed by Elizabeth Davis, and then Greg Peters. 6 MS. CHARROW: Hi. I'm here as the 7 comic relief, with all the scientific presentation. I'm 8 Mary Charrow, and I would like to give Darrell my three 9 minutes, but I don't think he would get back up here 10 and get anything but applause. 11 I appreciate the level of involvement 12 of the citizens. I appreciate the scientific 13 presentation tonight. I appreciate organic farmers and 14 I appreciate the modern conveniences, is this a great 15 country or what, that I can walk in this room, 16 completely unprepared, and have a moment of time. It's 17 ­­ it's phenomenal, and I appreciate it, it's a serious 18 issue. 19 The only thing is, my niece's in 20 Tulsa, and I've been in that auditorium, and you've got 21 to get Rush Green's watermelon to go with that pizza. 22 Thank you. 23 Oh, no, the real thing I have to say 24 is I am one of those people with like a borderline 25 sensitivity. I thought MSG was my major problem. I'm 53 1 wrong. 2 So the deal is, and it's a very 3 simple concept, you all know it, it just hasn't been 4 said tonight. These zero tolerances are idealistic and 5 we know it's not going to happen. 6 The 1600 parts per whatever it doesn't 7 really matter, if it's for me it's zero, because I get 8 it from too many places. If I get it one, it's fine, 9 if I get it two, it's fine, it doesn't stop there. 10 It's cascading, it's a multilayer whammy that we do to 11 ourselves. And we are all in the same boat. 12 And thank you all so much. I'm 13 impressed. 14 MR. FOX: Okay. Next is Elizabeth 15 Davis, followed by Greg Peters, and then L. B. 16 Sandyrock. 17 MS. DAVIS: My name is Elizabeth 18 Davis, and I'm second vice president of the League of 19 Women Voters of Washington, and chair of the Natural 20 Resources Committee. 21 Given the historic levels of toxic 22 waste entering Washington, plus in state generated toxic 23 waste, both of which go into our fertilizer, Washington 24 has a newer problem and our current laws are not 25 adequate to deal with it. 54 1 The league supports EPA's goals of 2 strengthening current regulations by making all 3 hazardous waste derived fertilizers meet stringent 4 contaminant standards, and the goal of limiting the 5 amounts of hazardous metals in recycled zinc 6 fertilizers. 7 The latter goal needs to be expanded 8 to include all metals and/ or contaminants to level of 9 background amounts in soil. 10 Two guiding principles should apply to 11 hazardous wastes, prevention and precaution. 12 Prevent long­ term damage to the health 13 of our agricultural soils. Prevent contamination of our 14 surface and ground waters with toxic chemicals and 15 metals. Prevent damage to the ecosystem plants and 16 animals. Prevent damage to the health of human beings, 17 especially our children. 18 The second guiding principle, 19 precaution. Especially for children's health do not wait 20 to act until you have complete scientific certainty. 21 The League supports policies and programs at all levels 22 of the community and government that promote the 23 well­ being, encourage the full development and ensure 24 the safety of all children. 25 As a society, knowing what we now 55 1 know about the damage that exposure to lead does to 2 children we clearly waited too long to act. 3 The same can undoubtedly be said about 4 several of the heavy metals and other hazardous 5 substances found in fertilizers. Let's take steps now 6 to reduce the list of exposures that can and do harm 7 our children. 8 Some specific comments on the proposed 9 rule: One, close all the loopholes, for example, steel 10 mill and mining rights. Two, add more toxic metals and 11 other hazardous substances to the list that are now 12 proposed to be regulated in fertilizers. Three, provide 13 for more independent testing of plant uptakes of the 14 toxic substances in fertilizers. Four, change the rules 15 that allows a hazardous material to be somehow 16 transformed into a product that now escapes testing and 17 content limits. Five, to address the problem of 18 build­ up of these metals in the soil set standards 19 reflecting background soil levels. And, six, require 20 accurate labeling of fertilizers, listing every 21 ingredient. 22 Consumers, farm workers and farmers, 23 have a right to know about pollution levels dangerous to 24 health in the environment and proposed management 25 policies and procedures. 56 1 In closing, keep up the good work and 2 make the rules even stronger. The League supports the 3 preservation of the physical chemical and biological 4 integrity of the ecosystem and maximum protection of 5 public health and the environment. 6 With prevention and precaution as your 7 guiding principles we urge you to set a goal of 8 eventually eliminating the disposal of toxic and 9 hazardous wastes in fertilizers. 10 Thank you for the opportunity to 11 speak. 12 MR. FOX: Next is Greg Peters, 13 followed by L. B. Sandyrock, followed by Joan Ruhland. 14 MR. PETERS: My name is Greg Peters, 15 and I'm a priest in the Episcopal church, and I 16 represent the diocese of Olympia and the ­­ and our 17 committee on the environment. 18 I've also been asked to speak by Paul 19 Bins (phonetic), on behalf of the Lutheran Public Policy 20 Office, for the State of Washington, in that we both 21 support the proposals by the Washington Toxin Coalition, 22 particularly that toxic waste in fertilizer, all 23 fertilizers, not just zinc fertilizers, should be 24 banned. 25 I recognize the utility of that 57 1 practice, but it is at least ludicrous, if not insane, 2 and it's particularly amoral. 3 As you noted, yourself, you're 4 concerned with runoff into streams and groundwater, 5 leaching down into groundwater, farm workers and their 6 families and their children particularly, and those are 7 the moral issues. 8 People handling this material have no 9 way of knowing if they're not labeled, and if the 10 fertilizers ­­ if toxic waste will be used in 11 fertilizers it should be labeled, but again, it 12 shouldn't be in their at all. 13 I am concerned about run off into 14 drinking water and into rivers and streams where fish, 15 and particularly salmon, can be effected, and for those 16 people who fish and provide protein, a valuable source 17 of protein to their families from fishing. 18 And those populations generally tend 19 to be poor or immigrant populations and they bear a 20 disproportionate brunt of this kind of waste and 21 environmental degradation. 22 So I will be short, close that 23 blessed loophole, damned loophole, KO61, and the mining 24 waste loophole. They're ludicrous. 25 Have strict regulations with real 58 1 sanctions. Like the person from the Sierra Club, I 2 think, said, and let violators be punished strongly if 3 they're producing this stuff. They should be able to 4 handle it properly and they should also be responsible 5 for it, not us, not our environment. 6 MR. FOX: Next is L. B. Sandyrock, 7 followed by Joan Ruhland, followed by Ivy 8 Sager­ Rosenthal. 9 MS. SANDYROCK: Thanks. I'm L. B. 10 Sandyrock. I'm a physician with the Washington 11 Physicians for Social Responsibility, Chair of the 12 Environment ­­ Environment and Health Committee of that 13 organization. I'm also with the ­­ I'm also a health and 14 environment research director of the Pacific Northwest 15 Pollution Resource Center. 16 And I also teach environmental science 17 at BCC. I have some of my students with me, and I 18 thought it was important that they see what a public 19 meeting like this can be, and so far I think it's been 20 a good demonstration. 21 I'm delighted to be here and I 22 appreciate your candor, in particular, during your 23 presentation, Mr. Fagan, about risk assessment and the 24 uncertainties that are involved with those assessments. 25 The ­­ it's clear that we ­­ there's 59 1 a lot we know and there's a lot we don't know about 2 these toxins in our environment, but there's also a lot 3 we don't know we don't know. 4 And as long as we ­­ as long as we 5 have those uncertainties then we need to follow the 6 principle, the precautionary principle, and make sure 7 that these toxins don't enter our food, whatsoever. 8 So I'll simply say no toxic waste in 9 anything used in food production. And I want to 10 and, by the way, Darrell, where are you, Darrell Merrell 11 is a tough act to follow, and anybody who wants to give 12 him a contribution to help him defer ­­ is that the 13 the cost defray, defray the costs ­­ I'm over 50 14 defray the cost of his travel up here I think he would 15 appreciate it. 16 I'm serious. I asked him how much he 17 made in his farm down there in Tulsa, so he deserves to 18 have some help, so anybody who wants to. I want to 19 thank a few people, Washington Toxin Coalition, Laune 20 Velenano, and Erika Schreder. 21 And I want to tell you an anecdote 22 about my daughter. She's three and a half. Yes, I'm 23 over 50 and I have a three and a half year old 24 daughter. 25 So it's she ­­ she was in the study 60 1 that Steve Gerritson alluded to, at least the follow­ up 2 study of pesticides in children. And she's been on 3 probably about an 80 percent organic diet since she was 4 born. She's three and a half. 5 She got in the study with, I think, 6 40 other kids or something like that. It astounded me, 7 even, when for years and years I've been an advocate for 8 getting these toxins out of our environment, but she 9 fell right along the graft where you would expect her to 10 fall in terms of the breakdown products that were in her 11 urine, according to the percentage of organic foods she 12 ate. 13 And I have the results from the rest 14 of the kids, and it's a perfect straight line. The 15 less organic food they ate the more organic ­­ excuse me 16 ­­ the more organic phosphate pesticide residues was 17 found in their urine. 18 So clearly this stuff does get into 19 our children. And I'm mostly concerned about our 20 children. Those of us that are older we ­­ we ­­ we've 21 already had our food, it's been contaminated in the 22 past. I think this century will go down as the century 23 of pollution when people look back at it. 24 And this is just a little ­­ just a 25 small effort that we're doing here tonight compared to 61 1 everything that needs to be done, but it's a terrific 2 effort, and I'm really proud of the people that are here 3 tonight. 4 One other thing I want to say is that 5 the minute quantities that we're talking about, parts 6 per trillion, let's not treat those as if they're not 7 significant. We're finding minute quantities of these 8 chemicals are not only can be carcinogenic, but they can 9 effect the immune system they can cause subtle 10 neurological damage, they can disrupt the endocrine 11 system, especially reproductive tracts in developing 12 fetuses and they need to be removed from our 13 environment. 14 The important thing is prevention, 15 getting things not ­­ not allowing these things to get 16 in our environment in the first place. Getting them out 17 is a tough process, but not letting them in our 18 environment in the first place. So, no toxic weighs in 19 anything you use in food production, simple as that. 20 Thank you. 21 MR. FOX: Next is Joan Ruhland, 22 followed by Ivy Sager­ Rosenthal, and then John Frink. 23 MS. RUHLAND: Hi, I'm Joan Ruhland, 24 and I'm a medical student, and I work with a doctor who 25 also deals with a lot of chemical sensitive people. 62 1 My main concern is that we not 2 increase the amount of toxins in our environment. And I 3 would like to say thank you to everybody here. I would 4 also like to say thank you to the EPA. And I wish the 5 EPA had millions and billions more dollars to spend and 6 to give to enforcing the regulations that they're 7 making. 8 Thank you. 9 MR. FOX: Next is Ivy Sager­ Rosenthal, 10 followed by John Frink, and then Stephen MacDonald. 11 MS. SAGER­ ROSENTHAL: Good evening, my 12 name is Ivy Sager­ Rosenthal, and I'm the Environmental 13 advocate for the Washington Public Interest Research 14 Group. We are a non­ profit, nonpartisan public interest 15 advocacy group with 30,000 members state­ wide. 16 WashPIRG is here today to urge the 17 EPA to keep toxic waste out of fertilizer and our feed 18 supplies. While the drafted proposed rule is a good 19 first try the rule must be strengthened to fully protect 20 the public's health. 21 The practice of turning hazardous 22 waste into fertilizer is a dangerous and dirty scam. 23 Polluting industries are permitted to cut corners and 24 reap their profits as farmers, farm workers, communities 25 and citizens must pay with their health. This practice 63 1 must be stopped. 2 When fertilizers made from toxic waste 3 are applied to the land toxic metals like lead, mercury, 4 cadmium and arsenic, and other poisons such as dioxins, 5 accumulate in soils and damage crops, contaminate our 6 ground and surface waters, and contaminate our food 7 supply. 8 These metals and other poisons belong 9 to a dangerous class of chemicals that do not naturally 10 exist in the environment, do not break down, and 11 ultimately build up in the food chain. 12 When we eat fruits and vegetables that 13 have been grown in contaminated soils, or when we eat 14 fish that swim in contaminated waters, we are also 15 eating the dangerous toxins that accumulate in those 16 fruits and vegetables and fish. 17 Studies show that irreversible these 18 toxic chemicals cause the nervous system damage and may 19 cause cancers, kidney disease and birth defects. 20 Exposure to heavy metals by children 21 is of special concern, because they tend to suffer high 22 exposures due to body size and greater pollution 23 absorption rates. 24 How long do we have to wait before 25 realizing that applying hazardous wastes to our land in 64 1 the form of fertilizer is threatening human health in 2 our environment. We're waiting. 3 EPA has given polluters a free ride 4 by letting them dump their toxic waste into fertilizers 5 for far too long. 6 EPA needs to take strong action to 7 protect our farmland and food supply from our ­­ from 8 these heavy metals and dioxins. 9 We urge the EPA to protect the public 10 health by moving towards a ban on toxic waste in 11 fertilizer, by closing the loopholes that give special 12 considerations to industries, and requiring that all 13 fertilizers be fully labeled with the actual levels of 14 contaminants. 15 We must hold industry accountable to 16 protect the health of our children. 17 Thank you. 18 MR. FOX: Next is John Frink, 19 followed by Steven MacDonald, and then Lyn Hansdew. 20 MR. FRINK: Thank you. My name is 21 John Frink. I'm a former steel mill worker, so I have 22 plenty of experience with bag houses and the dusts that 23 comes out of them. 24 I can tell you that stuff is a very 25 fine powder, and what they do at the fertilizer factory 65 1 I am not sure. I used to ask the railroad yard workers 2 where that bag house dust went, and their comment was 3 that they tried to, at all possible cost, to take that 4 ­­ fertilize that powder, the bag house dust, to get a 5 fertilizer factory to accept it. And when it wasn't 6 possible they would send it to a hazardous waste site. 7 So they had two options, and if they 8 could peon it off on the fertilizer company they were 9 more than happy to, and they would even pay the freight 10 sometimes, but quite often the fertilizer factory had 11 more than enough, and so they wouldn't take it. 12 And so then they had to ship it east 13 of the mountains to go to a hazardous landfill. So the 14 K061 is more free dumping versus proper disposal of 15 hazardous waste. 16 And instead of accounting, analyzing, 17 tracking and archiving fertilizer batches why not 18 recycle the hazardous materials back to the foundries 19 that they originated from. 20 We've got zinc, if somebody wants to 21 reuse the zinc, you know, they've got the processes to 22 do it. Take it back and the factory can use it again 23 and whatever. They will have to find out what to do 24 with the leftovers, but it shouldn't be in our food 25 supply. 66 1 And I've noticed in reading some of 2 the ecological magazines they are now using biological 3 remediation processes where they take plants, like 4 mustard plants and certain other ones I can't remember, 5 but they grow these plant in the toxic waste sites. 6 And the plants suck that material up. 7 And when they're finished, when the 8 plants are mature, they plow the plants up and take 9 those plants and put them in a hazardous waste site. I 10 certainly wouldn't want those plants to come to a 11 grocery store. 12 Concerning brass foundries, it was 13 always my understanding that brass, which is copper and 14 zinc primarily, bronze, copper and tin, they all contain 15 certain amounts of lead. 16 The EPA rules for brass plumbing 17 fixtures, for example, allows no more than eight percent 18 lead content. I, in trying to be a green repair 19 person, sometimes I've looked and you can certain it 20 out. It's hard to find, but you can find lead­ free 21 bronze fixtures or brass fixtures in plumbing, but 22 they're pretty remote. The majority of brass still 23 contains a certain percentage of lead. And so I see a 24 problem there. I see a problem with all of the 25 hazardous wastes that the foundries are producing or 67 1 wherever. 2 Concerning fertilizer, also, isn't 3 there something with fish fertilizer? How do we know 4 that it doesn't have mercury? A lot of fish do have 5 mercury in them. 6 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds. 7 MR. FRINK: Okay. So, I mean, all 8 sources of pollution should be looked at. And I would 9 encourage the EPA to deal with it in a proper and fair 10 way that helps all the people on our planet. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. FOX: Next is Steven MacDonald, 13 followed by Lyn Hansdew, and then Patricia Martin. 14 MR. MACDONALD: Thank you. I'm 15 Steven MacDonald. I'm an epidemiologist, and I'm not 16 here representing my agency. I'm here because I'm a 17 resident of Vashon Island. I'm an owner of Vadira Farms 18 (phonetic), which is a small organic farm, and I'm a 19 member of the Vashon Island Grower's Association. 20 I'm also a member of the Vashon­ Murray 21 Island Community Council Heavy Metal Remediation 22 Committee, and a member of the board of directors of the 23 Island's Remediation Public Participation Center, which 24 is funded by the Washington State Department of Ecology 25 Public Participation Grants. 68 1 As you may know, and some in the 2 audience probably do, there was a copper smelter called 3 Lasarco (phonetic), in Tacoma, that produced a flume for 4 about 100 years depositing arsenic, lead and cadmium in 5 the vicinity. And some of it was deposited on Vashon 6 Island. 7 One of the projects that we've got in 8 our public participation grant from Washington State 9 Department of Ecology is a multiple stakeholder project 10 focused on fertilizer. 11 Our goal is to decrease the addition 12 of heavy metals to the soil on Vashon Island. The 13 stakeholders include merchants, such as represented in 14 the Chamber of Commerce; growers, such as Vashon Island 15 Grower's Association; gardeners in the Vashon Island, 16 Vashon­ Murray Island Gardening Association; and 17 consultants, such as the Washington Toxins Coalition. 18 A variety of possible activities that 19 we planned to undertake when this ­­ we bring the 20 stakeholders together, which we've not yet done, is to 21 consider removal of fertilizer from store shelves that 22 have high contaminant levels, that's one possibility. 23 Another possibility is point of sale labeling. Another 24 possibility is broad public education. 25 The group of stakeholders will have to 69 1 choose among those options. What EPA does will have 2 some influence on what we are able to accomplish. 3 You asked us not to repeat what other 4 testifiers have said, and I think that's good advice. 5 And therefore I won't try and repeat what people said 6 about strengthening standards and closing loopholes, 7 because I agree with that, not surprisingly. 8 But people have haven't talked a lot 9 about labeling, and that's particularly important to us 10 in our project, because it's going to be a lot more 11 difficult for us to be successful with any kind of a 12 labeling project if strong labeling is not a part of the 13 federal regulations. 14 I think our goal ought to be ­­ and 15 this is the last thing I want to say ­­ the notion of 16 having fertilizer that is lower than the national 17 than the natural background level for these contaminants 18 in order, on our island, that we can use it to decrease 19 contaminant levels in our soil. 20 Thank you. 21 MR. FOX: Next is Lyn Hansdew, 22 followed by Patricia Martin, then Noya Munoz. 23 DR. HANSDEW. Hi, I'm Dr. Lyn 24 Hansdew. I'm a family medical doctor in Renton, and I'm 25 a research scientist. My training was in macrogenetics 70 1 and microbiology. And I took way too much chemistry as 2 an undergraduate before I even went to U. W. Medical 3 School, but I'm glad I did, because they don't teach 4 this in medical school and they need to. 5 My patients are sick and getting 6 sicker. And for 15 years I couldn't figure out why. 7 Now I know. 8 Back in March the Seattle Times 9 printed on the front page a report from the CBC, 10 Atlanta, Georgia, and you know what the headline said, 11 I'm sure you do, "We're all walking, talking toxic waste 12 site." That's what it said, and it's true. 13 On the Eastside, where I grew up in 14 Renton, the lead and arsenic in the ground and in the 15 dirt and in the water is off the wall. I've got sick 16 kids. Our state is number one for MS in the country. 17 Why? 18 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Would you 19 repeat that? 20 DR. HANSDEW: Our state is number one 21 for multiple sclerosis is the country. We have a 100 22 percent increase in autism. Have you been to the 23 schools lately? Our kids can't learn, they can't think, 24 they have no memory. They can't sit still. It's ­­ we 25 have reaped what we have done to ourselves. And I'm 71 1 taking care of these folks. 2 Something that we need to think about 3 is cancer indication is not appropriate, it's ADD. Why 4 are the kids all on Ritalin. 5 Washington State, their front page a 6 couple weeks ago, said we were number four for the 7 number of prescriptions written as antidepressants. 8 We're number four in the country for that. It's not 9 like the sunshine, folks. 10 Doctors are trying to treat 11 neurocognizant disorders with serotonin reuptake 12 inhibitors, that's not what's wrong with our kids. Our 13 kids don't need more serotonin. They need less mercury, 14 cadmium, arsenic and lead in their brains. 15 And the effect on the brain, of 16 mercury, is the same effect of what we now call 17 alzheimers. It's proven. We know this to be true. 18 There is no safe level of these things. There's no 19 safe level. 20 And mercury, the synergism of mercury, 21 Hubert did this study in 1978, you take an LD of one, a 22 lethal dose one of lead, you add a lethal dose of 23 mercury, do you mean how many rats you kill off in a 24 hundred? All of them. 25 The synergism of mercury is off the 72 1 wall to all the other heavy metals. So you at least 2 got to get the mercury out, because maybe we can 3 compensates for the other heavy metals, but not very 4 well. 5 These are test result reports on 6 people, not rats. And these people have fibromyalgia, 7 chronic fatigue, MS, ADD, OCD. 8 I have a little girl, their family 9 called me from Astoria. They were going to 10 institutionalize her in a psyche unit because she had 11 OCD off the wall. She was paranoid, not violent, but 12 doing weird stuff. She had been to every psychiatrist. 13 They had given her every medication. Do you know what 14 medications do to toxic people? Make you worse, don't 15 they, because your liver can't process them. So this 16 little girl is getting worse and worse and worse. 17 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds. 18 DR. HANSDEW: Thank you. And they 19 called me up and said, Doctor, can you think of 20 something else we can do before we lock her up in a 21 psyche unit, because we don't know what else to do. 22 And, I said, obviously, has she been 23 checked for heavy metals. The answer, obviously, no. 24 Do you know what she was poisoned with? Arsenic off 25 the wall. 73 1 Where did she get it, sir? It's the 2 food, it's the water, and it's the dirt. And it's got 3 to stop. And it's got to stop. So that's what I have 4 to say. And no psychiatric medication, no psyche unit is 5 going to detox a little girl from arsenic. 6 And the violence in our schools, the 7 kids killing each other, this is heavy metal toxicity. 8 And the solvents and everything else. 9 Don't get me wrong, here. Heavy 10 metals are huge, and this is what I do. I went into 11 family medicine for prevention and education. And do 12 you know what I do all day long, now? I detox heavy 13 metal all day long. 14 Thank you. 15 MR. FOX: Next is Patricia Martin, 16 followed by Noya Munoz, then Angela Bleth. 17 MS. MARTIN: My name is Patricia 18 Martin, of Quincy, Washington. And I have written 19 comments, but I'm going to ­­ again, many of the 20 comments are ­­ are familiar, but following with what 21 the woman just spoke to is this is a children's health 22 issue. 23 Three ­­ let's see ­­ children 24 consume, on average, or infants and toddlers consume, on 25 average consume three or four times as much lead, 74 1 mercury, arsenic and cadmium as teens and adults on a 2 body weight basis, this is every day, okay this is every 3 day, this is from their diet, this is what the FDA 4 studies every two years across the country. 5 I take exception on a couple things 6 that Mr. Fagan talked about, and that is the background 7 on fertilizer use and contaminants. 8 The EPA in that study, and all of 9 this, took place after the Seattle Times articles came 10 out. Okay, I think that had this not occurred that 11 this would still be a toxic secret. 12 Okay, but the EPA found that 110 13 billion pounds of fertilizer consumed annually in this 14 country, 2.4 billion in Washington State, alone. And of 15 that amount EPA acknowledges that they don't know how 16 much of it is made from hazardous waste. 17 And I was really surprised tonight to 18 learn that it was a small fraction of this 110 billion 19 pounds that we're talking about, and it's all zinc 20 fertilizer, because I was not aware of that. 21 Also, regarding the risk assessment, 22 it's my recollection that when they did the risk 23 assessment they did not look at ground water 24 contamination as a pathway was eluded to. Nor did they 25 consider the likelihood of cancer risk of children. 75 1 And the assumptions were all made on 2 one application of fertilizer per field, per year, not 3 multiple applications, not soil sediment, NPK, and 4 herbicides and everything, it was made on one 5 application per field, per year. 6 And all the information was gathered 7 by EPA, was provided by the industry. 8 I live in a rural community, and I 9 have four children, and I'm very concerned not only 10 about their health, but the health of the children in 11 the community. 12 One of the things that this proposal 13 does not take into consideration is a location of 14 fertilizer plants to public facilities, in my community 15 the ­­ our junior high and senior high school are 16 bordered on the north side by fertilizers and pesticides 17 companies. 18 Okay, now, the EPA just completed, in 19 June of 2000, a hazardous waste identification rule that 20 proposes concentration levels for lead, cadmium and 21 arsenic, that are much lower than the total numbers that 22 are presented and proposed in this rule. 23 They know that if a person, a 24 population center, a human receptor as you would call 25 it, my community is loaded with human receptors, okay, 76 1 and if they're within 500 meters of eight parts per 2 million lead, it's disbursed in the environment, they're 3 at risk. 4 Okay, they also set limits like, as I 5 said for cadmium and arsenic, they also talked about 6 thallium, silver and beryllium. 7 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds. 8 MS. MILLER: I waited all this time 9 ­­ oh, okay. Anyway thallium, silver and beryllium, 10 they also had very low numbers on that. And the 11 thallium, silver and beryllium and, let me see here, 12 barium antimony, selenium are chemicals or metals that 13 are present in this K061 and other fertilizers that EPA 14 knows are often at characteristics levels and need to be 15 regulated. 16 I want to read one thing before you 17 cut me off. I also want to challenge one of the things 18 that I'm thinking about. 19 When Washington State did their metal 20 studies out in the basin they found that cadmium and 21 zinc have accrued at significantly higher levels than 22 background. 23 Okay. So degradation of the soil is 24 already taking place. And I don't think we should allow 25 that to go on further. 77 1 I haven't publicly spoken for quite a 2 long time, so you have to forgive me for my nervousness 3 up here. I want to leave you with one thought, and 4 that is that for every one part per million of a 5 contaminant that is in these fertilizers, natural or 6 waste product, based on 110 billion pounds of materials 7 spread through the environment you're talking about 8 110,000 pounds dumped. 9 Okay, one part per million equals 10 110,000 pounds dumped, if it's averaging all those 11 fertilizers. Now you think about all the contaminants, 12 all the hundreds of thousands or not hundreds of 13 thousands, but hundreds and thousands of parts per 14 million, and now think about 20 years of this practice. 15 And now I think you have an answer 16 for why you see the change in the children's health in 17 the last 20 years. 18 Thank you. 19 MR. FOX: And next is Noya Munoz, 20 followed by Angela Bleth and then Kathy Albert. 21 MS. MUNOZ: Hi, my name is Noya 22 Munoz. First, I would like to say that I'm ­­ I wanted 23 to thank the EPA for being here and letting us all have 24 a chance to speak. And I also wanted to thank them 25 because I really had no idea of what's going on. I 78 1 want to be completely honest, I feel that I am a very 2 well­ educated woman. 3 I'm a student at Seattle Central 4 Community College, and just last week one of my fellow 5 students gave a speech on this very topic and I was 6 appalled and amazed. And I ­­ it was not unbelievable, 7 because a lot of things that I learn every day in 8 school are appalling and amazing, but I can still 9 believe that they happen. 10 I think that I have to definitely 11 agree with the Washington Toxic Coalition's stand on 12 this, that the toxic waste should be banned in all 13 fertilizers, it should be taken out of our food supply. 14 My mother's an elementary school 15 teacher, and until the woman, the couple speakers ago, 16 was speaking of the toxic waste poisoning basically, the 17 heavy metals build­ up in children having this effect, it 18 never occurred to me that that's why children are having 19 so many problems now that they didn't have before. 20 And I've definitely, from this day 21 forward, am going to be more involved. I'm going to 22 educate myself further, not just from what I read and 23 what I hear, but I'm going to dig and I'm going to get 24 information out, and I'm going to look into things, if I 25 have any suspicion at all I'm going to start looking and 79 1 start digging and I'm going to try and get as much 2 information as I can, this is also my first public 3 hearing that I've ever been to, and I am 27, and I'm 4 very ashamed of that. 5 Right now, as I stand up here and 6 talk to all of you, I'm going to make an effort to find 7 out about public meetings and I'm going to make an 8 effort to educate all of my friends, because I guaranty 9 that none of my friends or family know that this is 10 going on. And this is a really big issue. 11 And I just want to say thanks again 12 for letting me get a chance to speak, since I really am 13 not anybody yet. I'm just a citizen and I am a 14 concerned citizen. And hopefully some day I will be 15 someone who still can make a difference. 16 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: You are 17 someone. 18 MS. MARTIN: Thank you very much. 19 MR. FOX: Next is Angela Bleth, 20 followed by Kathy Albert, followed by Al Rasmussen. 21 MS. BLETH: Hi, I'm Angela Bleth, and 22 I represent a voting citizen for the United States of 23 America, and I agree with everything that's been stated 24 here this evening, but I'm going to go off on a slight 25 tangent and just focus on labeling at this point. 80 1 As the law states now the fertilizing 2 companies only have to state a web site in the 3 Department of Agriculture on their packaging, and it 4 says that you can see the other inert ingredients that 5 are in the fertilizer. 6 And this assumes that consumers are 7 aware that there are other ingredients, like toxic 8 wastes, in our fertilizers; it also assumes that 9 consumers have time to go home and research what they're 10 about to buy when they're in the store; this also 11 assumes we have access to the internet, not everybody 12 does. 13 And I went in, and I was this student 14 that did the speech on the toxic waste, and I bought 15 some ironite, kept my receipt, took it back, but ­­ and 16 I told the guy, I told them why I took it back, also. 17 But there was two web sites on the 18 ionite packaging. There was the ironite industry web 19 site, and the Department of Agriculture. I looked them 20 both up. Ironite stated that there was ­­ their 21 product's totally safe. Even the president of ironite 22 says he takes a teaspoon of ironite, in water, daily. 23 And he's in his 80's, so it must be safe. 24 And the Department of Agriculture 25 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: So why is 81 1 that still on the market? 2 MS. BLETH: The Department of 3 Agriculture site, it took me an hour to actually find 4 ironite on the site. I was very confused. I knew what 5 I was looking for. You know, I was looking for the 6 lead and arsenic, parts per million. And people don't 7 know to look for that. And it just gave me a list of 8 numbers, it didn't say whether it was good or bad, it 9 was just a list. 10 This is unacceptable. All ingredients 11 need to be labeled so consumers can make an educated 12 decision when they're in the store, in 1990 to 1995 over 13 20 million pounds of toxic waste were received by the 14 biggest fertilizer company in Washington State, Bay Zinc 15 Fertilizer Company. They accept the K061 ash. 16 They're located in Moxee City on the 17 Columbia River. They literally take the steel mill ash, 18 pour it in the top of their silos, and they have this 19 hazardous waste permit to store hazardous waste. And 20 they can take it out at the bottom of the Silo, 21 nothing's happening, and package it as fertilizer. 22 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds. 23 MS. BLETH: Okay. Now that I've 24 spoke from the president of Bay Zinc, when it goes into 25 our Silo it's a hazardous waste, when it comes out of 82 1 the Silo it's no longer regulated, the exact same 2 material, don't ask me why, that's the wisdom of the 3 EPA. 4 I grew up on the Columbia River and 5 also frolicked in a super fund cleanup site down river 6 from the Alcoa plant. I didn't learn that until I 7 moved to Seattle, about 10 years ago. 8 I can only suspect that the lymphedema 9 that I suffer from now is attributed to the mouthfuls of 10 Columbia River water that I consumed daily. 11 In conclusion, I plead that you change 12 the law to make it mandatory to list every ingredient 13 that includes toxic waste, because when it comes down 14 it, we are what we eat. 15 MR. FOX: Next is Kathy Albert, 16 followed by Al Rasmussen, and Max Kamen. 17 MS. ALBERT: It's a pleasure to be 18 here with all of us tonight. I'm Kathy Albert. I am a 19 student of acupuncture and oriental medicine at the 20 Northwest Institute of Acupuncture and Oriental 21 Medicine. And I applaud the research and scholarship of 22 my fellow citizens that we have so eloquently heard 23 tonight. 24 Gentlemen, I believe I'm the 31st 25 speaker. And amongst all of the speakers here tonight 83 1 we have heard organizations represented, including the 2 physicians for social responsibility, the Washington 3 Toxics Coalition, the Sierra Club, the Puget Sound 4 Consumers Cooperative, otherwise known as PCC, the 5 Mountaineers, the League of Women Voters, the Vashon 6 Island Grower's Association, and every single one of the 7 people who have represented these organizations, and 8 individuals themselves, have proposed more stringent 9 regulations, explicit and clear labeling, and basically 10 a complete elimination of toxins in fertilizers at all. 11 We have not heard one person come to 12 these microphones advocating what you have proposed. I 13 think it's very important that you, the EPA, takes this 14 into very, very strict consideration. 15 You're not just hearing industry, 16 here. You are hearing representatives from the public 17 at large. We are the citizens of the United States and 18 we demand representation. 19 We have had evidence presented here 20 that's based on sound science, not on the fulminations 21 of industry's representatives. 22 We have heard over and over tonight 23 "the public has the right to know." I counted at least 24 three times I heard that tonight. I'm sure it was 25 repeated even more often. And that's the basis of what 84 1 we're all saying. 2 I can give credence to what Dr. Lyn 3 Hansdew told us about the prevalence of autism and 4 learning disabilities and other neurological disorders 5 from the public schools. 6 I have been a public school teacher 7 for 17 years, and I can not tell you the ­­ the prep 8 the ­­ how astounding it is to see how little children 9 are able to absorb and learn. I specialized in special 10 education, so I've worked particularly with those 11 populations. 12 Those children do not have the 13 capacities to absorb knowledge the way I know people of 14 my generation did. And there's a reason for this. And 15 I'm ­­ I think that the evidence that the doctor gave 16 us is very clear. 17 I came unprepared tonight, and so I 18 have just ­­ I've taken what I've heard from you, and I 19 just say that I'm honored to be a citizen here tonight. 20 And, Darrell, you speak my heart. 21 MR. FOX: Okay. Next is Al 22 Rasmussen, followed by Max Kamen, and then Virginia 23 Hadley. 24 MR. RASMUSSEN: I am Al Rasmussen. 25 I've been involved in the food production industry for 85 1 more than 60 years, but only as a consumer. 2 I do have some standing, though, I 3 think. I therefore lack the technical knowledge of the 4 scientific issues that are involved. I do, however, 5 have social and political perspective, which leads me to 6 support the unanimous consensus, unanimous consensus of 7 the eloquent and informed testimony we've heard here 8 this evening. 9 Specifically, there should be zero 10 tolerance to the introduction of hazardous waste into 11 the nation's food supply, not just in the case of 12 fertilizers, but in the case of all additives to the 13 soil and to the food. 14 In the case of fertilizer, to 15 facilitate the protection of the food stream and the 16 public's confidence in it, fertilizer labeling should 17 disclose all ingredients, including trace amounts. 18 Against the background of biological 19 and chemical warfare that's been much in the news 20 recently I can not decide whether advocating introducing 21 hazardous waste into the nation's food supply smacks 22 more of George Orwell or Koffca (phonetic). 23 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Or Osama Bin 24 Lauden. Whose side are you on, anyway. 25 MR. FOX: Next is Max Kamen, followed 86 1 by Virginia Hadley, and then John Ruhland Virginia 2 Hadley, are you here? 3 MS. HADLEY: I'm Virginia Hadley. 4 I'm a nutritionist. I'm also a registered nurse, an 5 herbalist, and a counselor. I've been working at a 6 national medical clinic for the last five years with Dr. 7 Jonathan Wright. 8 We see a lot of patients there who 9 have toxic metal overload, such as Dr. Lyn said earlier. 10 I definitely support all of the speakers that have 11 spoken earlier. We at the Tahoma Clinic, I'm sure to a 12 person, will support the ban of all toxins in the food 13 supply. 14 We've seen this problem for so many 15 years. I'm so glad to see there are so many people 16 here involved in looking at changing this. I'm hoping 17 that the next generation will have it out of the food 18 supply. We can see our lives come back to us again. 19 Thanks so much. 20 MR. FOX: John Ruhland is next, 21 followed by Charles Weems, and then M. Melzer. 22 MR. RUHLAND: Thank you. And the 23 woman doing the transcribing, boy, thank you, that's a 24 lot of work. 25 I'm not sure exactly how much time 87 1 I'll have to ­­ I mean, I have three minutes, but how 2 much ­­ how much I will be able to cover, but I wanted 3 to start out with something one of my patients told me. 4 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: What's your 5 name? 6 MR. RUHLAND: I'm John Ruhland, 7 naturopathic physician. He told me that the smoking 8 section in a restaurant is like the peeing section in a 9 swimming pool. And he just told me that a few days 10 ago. And it just fits right in, here. 11 I mean, what are we putting on the 12 land. Where is that going to. Where is that going to 13 come back. I mean, the polar bears in Alaska, the 14 polar bears in the north pole have huge amounts of 15 chemicals and heavy metals, so especially in their 16 livers. 17 So I wanted to say, first of all, 18 that I have a slightly different point of view than some 19 people. I think of the EPA as kind of a buffer 20 mechanism. They represent something to protect industry 21 to keep the people from rising up and revolting against 22 the system that allows this type of occurrence. 23 So I'm also ­­ I'm going to mention 24 right now at the back table there's something about the 25 fast track. I don't know if you're familiar with that, 88 1 but it's very appropriate here, because the fast track 2 will allow the president to push through trade 3 negotiations. 4 And if you guys remember the WTO 5 does anybody remember the WTO? Tomorrow is our 6 wonderful anniversary of November 30th, two years ago. 7 So the WTO has the ability to nullify every 8 environmental law that is created. 9 And it's going to happen even if the 10 EPA does this. And I think there are some actually 11 really great people working for the EPA, but they will 12 nullify any law that limits the ability of industry to 13 make money. It's called an 14 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Restraint of 15 trade. 16 MR. RUHLAND: Right. ­­ restraint of 17 trade. So I guarantee it's going to happen. So if you 18 fight this fast track, the vote is next Thursday, 19 December 6th, it will make it that much more difficult 20 for the WTO to ­­ to nullify our laws that we make. 21 Let's see, there's a week long 22 conference going on right now. Tomorrow's the final 23 day. There's a meeting here at 5: 30, in this building, 24 it's about a third world. They're going to call 25 themselves the south, the global south. 89 1 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds. 2 MR. RUHLAND: They're meeting here all 3 week and talking about these issues related to 4 environment, labor rights, and all that. 5 I brought a whole stack of hair 6 analyses from my patients. And the majority of you, if 7 you do a hair analysis, will have either arsenic, 8 cadmium, mercury, lead in significant amounts, that 9 would explain some of ­­ some of the symptoms you might 10 be feeling. 11 Let's see, quickly, I have one other 12 request of you, this you don't have to enter into the 13 minutes if you don't want, but I have a handout there 14 for anybody who's willing to be a medic tomorrow. 15 There's going to be protesting and I hope some of you 16 are out there with signs protesting some of these 17 issues. And if you want to be a medic there's 18 instructions on how to protect people and yourselves 19 from tear gas and pepper spray. So please consider doing 20 that. 21 Thank you very much and ­­ thank you. 22 MR. FOX: We're going to take a five 23 minute break now, for the court reporter, and others up 24 here. We'll reconvene in about five minutes. 25 (Whereupon, a recess was held off the 90 1 record.) 2 MR. FOX: Charles Weems is followed 3 by M. Melzer and Val Carlson. 4 MR. WEEMS: I'm Charles Weems, I'm a 5 physician with Washington Physicians for Social 6 Responsibility. We very much endorse some of the things 7 that you're doing, but feel that they're very short of 8 what should be done. There should be a lot more done. 9 I think that among the things that 10 should be changed is to have not just zinc on the list, 11 but all the fertilizers. And we certainly are in total 12 agreement with the Washington Toxins and with the Sierra 13 Club. 14 Everything that I want to say has 15 been said in spades, but I would like to bring up one 16 point in particular that I got to thinking about with 17 your presentation, and it had to do with dioxin. 18 The problem that I see currently is 19 the confusion of science and politics, it is very easy 20 to hide behind. Oh, that is not proven scientifically. 21 You know as well as I do to prove an 22 incidence of cancer in the first generation is extremely 23 difficult. We have incredible experience in this state 24 with the ossification of disease caused by toxins at the 25 Hanford Reserve. 91 1 I think that you need to carry home a 2 message that the physicians in the country, now the 3 National Physicians for Social Responsibility, and I'm 4 sure will come out in agreement with this, they are not 5 really on board yet because of the speed with which 6 we've learned about this, but the fact is that you need 7 to carry home a message that the science will not be 8 obfuscated by the politics of the situation. 9 There are lots of things happening, 10 small facts that are known, medically. You know as well 11 as I do the toxic effects of dioxins. You, despite the 12 fact that you said there's something known and there's 13 things not known, sure, tremendous number of things not 14 known, but you would not willingly take in a whole bunch 15 of dioxins. 16 The problem is that these facts are 17 being then used in a political way. And that has to be 18 changed. Physicians, in general, adhere to a ruling that 19 do no harm. 20 Well, it would be perfectly clear if 21 we follow that rule we're going to strengthen what 22 you're proposing to do, increase all the fertilizers, 23 and have none of the toxic waste placed in it. 24 Thank you. 25 MR. FOX: Next is M. Melzer, followed 92 1 by Val Carlson, and then Georgina Sierra. 2 MS. MELZER: Hi. I've been a 3 political activist in my community for a number of 4 years. And I've noticed that there's a lot of people 5 who are extremely ignorant about so many things, 6 including the erroneous belief that our government 7 protects us and works in our best interests. After all, 8 aren't we the ones that finance it? 9 I'm also a mother. I have three 10 young children, and I'm real concerned about their 11 health. I would like to ask the ­­ I ­­ I agree with 12 everything everybody said. I could not have done a 13 better job had I spent hours and hours preparing, but I 14 would like to request of the EPA to please do the 15 honorable thing and fairly represent the requests of all 16 the speakers here tonight. 17 Show us that at least the EPA is 18 willing to work in the best interests of the people of 19 this country. 20 MR. FOX: Next is Val Carlson, 21 followed by Georgina Sierra and then Anna DiCicco. 22 MS. CARLSON: Thank you. I 23 wholeheartedly support and won't repeat the comments of 24 so many people that have testified here before me. 25 Listening to that testimony it's 93 1 unimaginable that anyone with any sense could go along 2 with what's happening in this country and in this world 3 in terms of the poisoning that we're all being subjected 4 to. 5 As Derrell Merrell so eloquently said 6 ordinary people who have the opportunity to know the 7 truth won't put up with it and would do things 8 differently. 9 One of the biggest problems we have 10 with this situation is the time between cause and 11 effect. When a couple of airplanes ran into the twin 12 towers in New York City there's no question of cause and 13 effect, but when it takes years for the poisons that 14 we're being fed every day in our food and in the air 15 and in the water, and everything around us, when it 16 takes that many years it can still be hidden, it still 17 is as much murder, and it still is as big a problem. 18 The problem is structural and 19 systemic, it's not individual. We live in a society 20 that is driven, and I do mean driven, by profit. It's 21 not surprising then that every short term gain that 22 brings the most money the fastest for the people who 23 already have the most and are simply accumulating, such 24 as WTO and all of that that we learned about, has shown 25 us when that is the driving force this is what's going 94 1 to happen. 2 The people who care, the people who 3 care in government and everywhere, are not in a position 4 to turn it around individually. 5 And that's where Darrell suggested 6 earlier is truly our only ­­ only solution, and that's 7 for the word to get out, people to become educated, and 8 for us to take in our own hands the power that we have. 9 Because there's a lot more of us than there are of the 10 few people trying to do this to us, but we have to 11 simply stop working for them, stop doing it to each 12 other, wishing we weren't and make a difference. 13 You've seen the cartoon where there's 14 the big fish swallowing the smaller fish and the smaller 15 fish, but the big fish is really made up of a whole 16 bunch of little fish together, and they're able to take 17 over and control and undermine and take the power away 18 from that shark that can and will and does eat them all 19 individually. 20 The EPA has a role to play in this, 21 and there's a lot of things that you can do. You're 22 caught between industry hollering at you on the one side 23 and us in this kind of a hearing telling you what is 24 probably the larger truths about what's really happening 25 in terms of this contamination. 95 1 And you're part of a government that's 2 going to take those regulations and probably, as weak as 3 they are, dump them all together and let industry 4 continue doing what it's doing, but you have something 5 that most of us don't have. You have the information. 6 You have your day job, in which your job is to gather 7 that information and publicize it. 8 And I think it wouldn't be 9 inappropriate to have a couple hundred hearings around 10 this country. Have them televised, at least this 11 recording, but let's have them televised. There's court 12 TV, even. 13 I would like to see the information 14 on the band on CNN in tomorrow's data that we learned 15 tonight that is so crucial to our ongoing survival. 16 You can create a forum for which 17 people can become empowered. And the job that you're 18 trying to do can then become possible. 19 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds. 20 MS. CARLSON: That's what I would 21 like to see, that's what I would like to see the EPA 22 do, in addition to everything else everyone has asked 23 for. 24 Thank you. 25 MR. FOX: Next is Georgina Sierra, 96 1 followed by Anna DiCicco, and Kathy Sparks. 2 MS. SIERRA: Hi. My name is Georgina 3 Sierra, and I don't have a prepared speech at all. I 4 only heard about this from my neighbor, who's here in 5 the audience, who came to my house about a week and a 6 half ago who was quite upset after having read the book 7 Faithful Harvest and talking to Herbert Mayor on the 8 phone. 9 I have to admit I was quite 10 speechless, and I'm a lawyer, that's hard to do. I was 11 speechless and then I was outraged. 12 And sitting here tonight I've gone 13 through a number of emotions, even extreme sadness, and 14 in the course of talking with my neighbor, my daughter 15 who's 11 years old, overheard the conversation, and her 16 question that I will tell you because she's not here to 17 tell you herself, so I'll pose the question that she 18 herself and all her friends would pose, and that is why, 19 why are you doing this, why are you allowing these 20 corporations to do this to our children, just why. 21 Children haven't learned how to be 22 diplomatic or polite or to say what needs to be said. 23 They come right out there. They're open. They're 24 honest. And they would say stop, please stop. 25 I ­­ I always thought until tonight, 97 1 I guess, that the EPA was our first line of defense 2 when the environment was under assault. Make no doubt 3 about it, the environment is under assault. 4 This is no different than the war 5 we're fighting over in Afghanistan, except it's right 6 here, home grown, in our country. 7 We are allowing these corporations to 8 do this to us, to us, yes, but again, like everyone 9 else, I am speaking on behalf of the children, who can 10 not speak for themselves, and somebody has to stand up 11 and say stop. 12 So I think, yes, all hazardous, toxic 13 waste, should be banned from not only the fertilizer, 14 but from our food supply, our water supply, our air 15 supply, it should be banned. The corporations can't 16 take care of it, seal it, bury it. They shouldn't be 17 allowed to process it or use it. 18 I consider this an assault like any 19 other, physical assault. If someone assaulted a child 20 or a person in the street they would be put in jail. 21 This is the same thing. 22 The doctor talked about how children 23 had ADD, ADHD, how they're not learning in school. I 24 work in the criminal justice system and I see these kids 25 coming through the jails, coming through for committing 98 1 crimes, coming through because they don't listen to 2 their parents, can't sit still. 3 They're suffering from all sorts of 4 behavior problems. ADD and ADHD are just one of them. 5 So it's not just schools. The kids are not in school, 6 so they're out getting in trouble. 7 I would like to see the decision 8 makers ­­ I would like you to take back a message to 9 the decision makers telling them that the people who are 10 going to make that decision should be required to look 11 their child or their grandchild in the eye 12 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: In the eye. 13 MS. SIERRA: And say to them: We're 14 going to let them poison you because ­­ and think of a 15 reason ­­ but look at their child in the eye. I mean, 16 because they have money, they're powerful, we can't stop 17 them. 18 You should be required to look the 19 child in the eye because they'll look back and say 20 that's a lie, it makes no sense. They should be 21 required. 22 Thank you. 23 MR. FOX: Anna DiCicco is next, 24 followed by Kathy Sparks, and then Mary Fung Kohler. 25 MS. DICICCO: Well, I'm Anna DiCicco. 99 1 I'm a student, and I hope to study cultural 2 anthropology, so this is not my area of expertise. 3 I'm definitely interested. I know the 4 benefits of eating organic foods and the fun of growing 5 your own food. I was raised macrobiotic, but in trying 6 to support my education I work as a waitress and I live 7 in an apartment, so I don't have a garden. 8 This quarter I met Lisa Merrell, 9 Darrell Merrell's daughter, and the information we were 10 studying this quarter was quite depressing. 11 And when she came back from the 12 garlic festival, and told me about what she had learned, 13 and gave me the book Faithful Harvest, I was really 14 disgusted. 15 I mean, I'm trying to study what I'm 16 interested in, what I am passionate about, of course, 17 I'm very concerned about what I'm eating, but I don't 18 think I should have to ­­ I mean, like one of the other 19 students from FCC mentioned, you can walk down the 20 hallway there's a thousand issues for us to education 21 ourselves on, and I think it's definitely important. 22 I'm an American citizen. I was born 23 and raised here. EPA stands for Environmental 24 Protection Agency. You're paid by our tax dollars to 25 protect us. And I think that's very, very important. 100 1 I want to study. I was really 2 looking forward to Christmas vacation. I'm moving into 3 an apartment tomorrow, and we have a raised pot, and I 4 wanted to grow some tomatoes and some garlic and I don't 5 even know what fertilizer to buy now. 6 So I am just asking to please 7 consider that. I hope to have children some day. I 8 have a 15 month old niece. You know, I'm concerned, 9 and I think that it's a responsibility. 10 I am an American and I deserve the 11 rights of that. And, you know, after September 11th 12 it's been on the news a lot, in commercials, encouraging 13 us to consume and help our economy. 14 As a consumer I want to know what I 15 am consuming. I mean, that's my right, isn't it? I 16 don't know. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm 17 very concerned about that. 18 MR. FOX: Kathy Sparks is next, 19 followed by Mary Fung Koehler, and then Olemara Peters. 20 MS. SPARKS: Hi, I'm an R. N., and I 21 work in the trenches of health care. And I ­­ I guess 22 I just want to represent common sense. 23 I didn't come here expecting to speak, 24 in fact, I just heard about this at the eleventh hour 25 or else I would have something prepared and I would also 101 1 have galvanized everybody in the health care community 2 that I felt would want to be here. 3 It's ­­ well, I won't go into that 4 because I don't have the time ­­ but I ­­ routinely I 5 work in a clinic where we screen for heavy metals. I 6 think everyone would be astounded to find that we all 7 have heavy metals already in our systems. We have 8 dioxin in our systems. 9 The people that I see on a routine 10 basis have it to the extent of health care compromise, 11 and that is so sad, it doesn't have to be that way. 12 I spend my whole day detoxifying 13 people, as we've heard before here, and it doesn't have 14 to be that way. 15 So why, you know, the question has 16 been asked earlier, why would we add more? It just 17 makes no sense. You know, if we're going to add 18 anything to the soil, the soil is already depleted. 19 I think you said earlier the only 20 thing we're putting back in the soil, and I know this 21 for a fact, is potassium, phosphorous and 22 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Nitrogen. 23 MS. SPARKS: ­­ nitrogen. Thank you. 24 If we're going to put something back let's put the trace 25 minerals back that would add to our health, that's 102 1 what's missing, that's why we all have to supplement 2 with nutritionals, because it's missing. Even if we eat 3 organic it's still missing. 4 I could go on and on, and I don't 5 want to just repeat what's already been said, but 6 recycling ­­ my philosophy of recycling is to improve 7 society so that we don't generate more waste, it doesn't 8 make sense to recycle what's already toxic. And why do 9 we even manufacture more toxins, it just makes no sense, 10 let alone put it back in the food chain. 11 You stated earlier that dioxins we 12 don't know the levels, that's why we don't want to use 13 it, exactly why. No amount is safe, until it's 14 determined otherwise, and we already know it's toxic. 15 Thank you for allowing me to speak. 16 MR. FOX: Mary Fung Koehler, followed 17 by Olemara Peters, and Susannah Lewis. 18 MS. KOEHLER: I'm Mary Fung Koehler. 19 I have a degree in chemical engineering. I was a 20 research chemist for six years, so I know about 21 chemistry, and also my ex­ husband was a chemist, and a 22 lot of University friends were chemists, in addition to 23 that I went to law school and I've been an attorney. 24 And I haven't been practicing because 25 I'm considered an ADD, manic depressive, bipolar 103 1 disorder, flight of ideas, non­ specified disorder. 2 And what happened to me on October 3 22nd, 1983, was I was going home on Bothell Way, and 4 the light changed for me to turn left onto Bothell Way 5 from Ballinger. And I got hit by a log truck that 6 claimed it was a firewood truck. I never saw it 7 coming, it must have been going five miles an hour, and 8 it spun my car around. 9 Unfortunately, I wasn't really 10 seriously injured, because I had no fractures other than 11 bruises. Well, it turns out after 18 years I'm finally 12 learning that in addition to having the physical 13 injuries, whiplash, etcetera, I have a brain stem 14 injury. 15 And I had the kind of memory that was 16 almost like photographic. And it runs ­­ it ran in my 17 family, which I was unaware of. I didn't know that my 18 sister that passed away three years ago had a pure 19 photographic memory and a pure oral memory. She 20 remembered everything she ever heard until they gave her 21 chemotherapy for her cancer, and then she became manic 22 Mary. 23 She started having the symptoms the 24 the mood swings, etcetera. And I was stupid enough to 25 believe that the medical doctors that treated me knew 104 1 what they were doing. And it took me five years before 2 I started getting chiropractic care. And it's been a 3 very slow process, in 1987 I could not remember what I 4 was saying, seeing or hearing. 5 And John Moore, our mercury expert, 6 lay expert, can tell you how bad I was. He doesn't 7 even know me at the height of my disability. 8 And I haven't really gone into EPA 9 that much, but I've spent thousands of hours, I have 10 thousands of books. I was so bad in `87, `90, I would 11 research an issue, and it would be clear in my mind, 12 and I couldn't even mouth it. I was at the point where 13 I couldn't even write three lines. 14 And I used to do trial work where I 15 was taking notes because I couldn't or I didn't want my 16 clients to spend the cost of ­­ of court reporters, 17 because most of my clients are poor. And they needed 18 somebody to help them. And usually I would get them 19 after the lawyers would take their money away, you know, 20 and say if you don't pay me I won't go to trial. And 21 then they'll dump them because they didn't have money 22 for trial. 23 And I would know that it's unusual 24 for a lawyer to walk in and try a case the next day. 25 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds. 105 1 MS. KOEHLER: And I want you to 2 understand that I have had the hair analysis, so I've 3 got heavy metal. I'm also considered a universal 4 reactor. 5 I've been having my fillings removed, 6 but you've got to be very careful and do it a little at 7 a time. This May, if you look at my mouth I have two 8 white temporary fillings, my neck was so swollen it was 9 elephantized. You could not see my chin from the left 10 or from the front. 11 And I went to my doctor, Jerry Beck, 12 and I said, Jerry, I want you to take those two 13 fillings out. And he said, well, Mary, I'm not a medical 14 doctor. I said, just take them out. Within two days 15 the swelling went down. 16 I have lymphedema where I have lumps 17 and my arms get swollen. And it's from the brain stem 18 injury. And a lot of this is what happens is you take a 19 bowl of Jell­ o, and you throw it across the floor, well 20 you've got all those cracks and the mercury got loose in 21 my system. 22 I've learned if people need help, you 23 don't know what to do, we can help you detoxify your 24 body. And this is what I do. I don't charge for this. 25 And what EPA needs to do is, I don't 106 1 know if you have a whistle blower law, but I sure wish 2 you had one, because that would accelerate people 3 reporting what's going on. 4 And ­­ and also we need laws that 5 would make ­­ you know, where lawyers would get paid for 6 doing the work that ­­ that the federal government 7 attorneys are not doing. 8 And I agree, there should be no 9 toxicity, whatsoever. I mean, I've gone through all of 10 this. The attention deficit disorder, I couldn't even 11 stay focused. I couldn't remember what I had ­­ I 12 couldn't even sit still. I couldn't even sit for 12 13 years. 14 And so I'm here on behalf of all the 15 children that don't even know what's wrong with them. 16 They are either born with head injuries or from ­­ from 17 the vaccines they get or a lot of people, a lot of your 18 homeless, one­ third of them, I believe, are ­­ are brain 19 damaged and they don't understand it. And I know why. 20 People used to tell me, Mary, you 21 were injured for a reason. And the reason was I had to 22 go ­­ I was so gifted I had to go and ­­ and go through 23 all of these problems. And I don't want pity, but I 24 just want people to understand that I'm here, if you 25 need the help I can help you. 107 1 And I'm also sort of a psychic 2 healer. I can reduce the pain. And it doesn't work if 3 you're not ready to receive it, but we need to get rid 4 of all of the toxins, every bit of it. I used purified 5 waters. I have to use minerals and supplements. 6 And you get to the point where you 7 don't need them so much, but then ­­ I'm a gardener, I 8 was growing my own vegetables and trying to use ­­ make 9 my own compost, but then I realized after I read it 10 I've been buying fertilizer, and I don't throw anything 11 away, and all my little indoor plants I keep propagating 12 more and more to give away to people. And you don't 13 know what to use. 14 And so we need to ban everything. 15 And, as that one chemist said, we need to put the onus 16 on the manufacturer's to remove those elements that are 17 toxic. 18 MR. FOX: Thank you very much, ma'am. 19 Your time is up. Next is Olemara Peters, followed by 20 Susannah Lewis and then Michael Shank. 21 MS. PETERS: I'm Olemara Peters, I'm 22 speaking as one unit of the biosphere. And I concur 23 exuberantly with all of the comments that have been made 24 this evening. 25 There's at least one more substance 108 1 that needs to be on the list. You listed nine metals 2 and dioxins that you're thinking of either restricting 3 or, I would hope, banning or at least looking at 4 stringently. 5 I'm wondering why fluoride is not on 6 that list, because fluoride is 15 times more toxic than 7 lead, it's just short of arsenic, it typically is at 8 very high levels in industrial wastes and it increases 9 humans uptake of metals, it synergizes with metals. 10 And if anyone's curious and needs more 11 information about that you'll find it's corroborated by 12 1500 professionals at EPA headquarters, the people of 13 the National Treasury Employees Unit. 14 Thank you, folks, for organizing this 15 hearing opportunity. And I'd like to know very much 16 what's the time frame for further input, because as 17 Darrell Merrell and others have pointed out, almost no 18 one has heard of the issue yet. 19 And, also, I'm eager to know if 20 everyone's input, if the discourse is going to be posted 21 on­ line. 22 Thank you. 23 MR. FOX: Next is Susannah Lewis, 24 followed by Michael Shank, then John Moore. Susannah 25 Lewis, are you here? Michael Shank? 109 1 MR. SHANK: Yep. Gentlemen, thank 2 you for listening to all this, it's not an easy job, 3 I'm sure. You're not back in your offices like 4 "whoo­ hoo," we get to go to Seattle, Washington, and 5 listen to several hundred people rant and rave. 6 Thank you. If I had been been up 7 there I would have had to go to the bathroom a long 8 time ago, because that break was pretty impressive. So 9 thank you for listening to me. 10 I'm Michael Shank. I work for a 11 non­ profit here in Seattle, Pacific Crest. We deal with 12 forest management. But I used to work for a group 13 called Puget Sound Keeper Alliance, and we were into 14 protecting the waters of Puget Sound. 15 And over in Port Angeles there was 16 this pulp and paper mill called Rainier ­­ well, Rainier 17 Corporation had left a pulp and paper mill there, done a 18 terrible job of cleaning it up, and so we were coming 19 in to kind of like, hey, Port Angeles, let's try and 20 keep it from a super fund, because it was inevitable 21 that the super fund listing was about to occur. 22 So we had these hearings with EPA, 23 DOE, Department of Ecology, and City of Port Angeles, 24 Rainier. And Puget Sound Keeper Alliance's stand was, 25 hey, let's make it a super fund listing so that we can 110 1 have adequate funds to clean it up. 2 The City of Port Angeles is like, 3 hell no, we don't want this super fund listing, it's 4 going to look terrible for our town. DOE was, like, 5 we'll swing you a deal. I have no trust in DOE. 6 And I also, unfortunately as an 7 environmentalist, wish I could have trust in 8 Environmental Protection Agency. I mean, it would make 9 sense that the Puget Sound Keeper Alliance and the 10 Environmental Protection Agency would get together for, 11 like, picnics and that we would talk about, hey, like 12 what are you guys doing to protect the environment, and 13 we would swap stories. 14 I mean, it should be that way. I'm 15 sitting up there with you guys and you're in your suit 16 and we're like chumming, we're drinking beers like 17 afterwards, it should be that way, that's the ideal. 18 So we had this hearing, and we didn't 19 get a super fund listing like we wanted. What happened 20 is DOE is like EPA, we'll just take care of it. We'll 21 swing a deal with Rainier. We'll clean it up. 22 So what happens is Rainier pays DOE. 23 All right, look, we'll give you like $15,000. You guys 24 clean it up. Where it would have been 15 million 25 dollars cleaning up that town, of course, those figures 111 1 are wrong. Don't quote me. Well, you're going to 2 quote me. They're not legitimate. 3 And what happens is Port Angeles gets 4 away with no super fund listing, which is good PR, but 5 then the water's contaminated because it wasn't super 6 fund listed. 7 So I was disappointed in EPA in that. 8 And also after the hearing, I quote, I gave a quote for 9 Puget Sound Alliance. Like several weeks later they 10 call me up, EPA calls me up, and they say, Mr. Shank, 11 we seem to have ­­ we seem to have lost your statement, 12 like that's what they said. 13 Evidently the recorder said the 14 batteries weren't working or something. So that whole 15 hearing was lost. And I sure hope ­­ all right , it 16 looks good. I just want to make sure. I mean, that's 17 a real issue. What are they going to do, call up, there 18 are a lot of people that commented tonight. It's 19 working right, because if you're not going to ­­ so 20 anyway, trust in EPA, that's important. 21 Another point, I have a roommate and 22 she's on a detox. Yeah, thank you, that's nice. You 23 didn't say it ­­ she's been detoxing for four weeks and 24 she is a pain in the ass to be around, because like 25 this detox, she's like, "Michael, I'm on detox. I need 112 1 to get these chemicals out." And she's really hard to 2 live with. And hopefully they're gone and hopefully 3 she's in a good mood now. 4 But if she has to go through this 5 periodically, and if I have to live with people, I don't 6 want to do it because I just saw how she ­­ I'm fine 7 with these toxins in my body, because if we all have to 8 go through these detox I mean you are a bitch, you're 9 an ass when you're in detox. I don't know if you guys 10 ­­ we're acclimated to the toxins, so it's like no big 11 deal, but if you want to clean your system, forget about 12 it. It's hard. 13 So, anyway, I concur with Washington 14 Toxic Coalition. You did a great job. Thank you for 15 coming in. 16 I would like ­­ no time ­­ I mean, I 17 grew up on the farm, of course we were self­ sufficient, 18 we didn't have any fertilizers. So I think ­­ I don't 19 know if I'm healthy or not. Well, it's in the brain. 20 Anyway, thanks for coming out here, 21 supporting Washington Toxic Coalition. 22 MR. FOX: Next is John Moore, 23 followed by Norm Winn, then Chris Savage. 24 MR. MOORE: Oh, Michael, it's a tough 25 job to follow your act, lad. I'm John Moore, and my 113 1 main claim to fame is I almost died 14 years ago from 2 mercury poisoning from the silver fillings in my teeth 3 that were leaching into our system, much as the mercury 4 is leaching into our systems out here, the water, 5 everywhere. 6 I'm very concerned about the mercury 7 issue, because the State of Washington after holding 8 their ecology hearings said that mercury was the number 9 one item on the list, and they moved it up to the very 10 top. 11 That doesn't mean that the other 12 issues aren't important, they are very, very important. 13 The problem is, mercury is unstable, it's unstable at 50 14 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. 15 Now, I share that with you because I 16 have also had some other items come up that I can kind 17 of put this together with in terms of the fertilizer 18 industry. 19 I also have lamas, in fact, that's 20 the reason I was late tonight. I got splashed in the 21 face by one of them that didn't want to behave himself 22 when we were trying to address an injured foot with the 23 vet. So I apologize for being late. 24 What happened was I decided I wanted 25 to buy some fertilizer. So I went to some of you know 114 1 McLendon's Hardware, here in town. 2 And I said, look, I want some 3 fertilizer to put on my soil in my orchard area on the 4 grass so that I can grow some nice, healthy grass, and 5 then my lamas can browse on that grass. 6 So I went there and this fellow 7 handed me this bag and he said here's a good bag. And 8 I looked at it, and I said, well, this is very nice. I 9 see the MPK on the front, and then I see, it says, 50 10 percent inert ingredients. And, I said, tell me, what 11 are those inert ingredients, and the guy couldn't tell 12 me. And I pursued it. And ultimately, through a slip 13 I think, this information came to me from the 14 manufacturer of the fertilizer. And guess what was in 15 the other 50 percent. 16 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Mercury. 17 MR. MOORE: Mercury, lead, cadmium, 18 beryllium, you name it in the heavy metal category and 19 it was there. 20 I took the package back to the store. 21 I said, look, I said I really appreciate the fact that 22 you offered me this wonderful, wonderful product to put 23 on my soil for my lamas, but I don't think I want to 24 feed them any of these heavy metals today. Thank you 25 very much. 115 1 It's really, really hard to get away 2 from threes heavy metals. And it's a big job for the 3 EPA to even get close to handling this. One part 4 I'm a dental researcher for 14 years 5 MR. FOX: Thirty second. 6 MR. MOORE: Thank you. One part per 7 billion causes damage of mercury. There is, in our 8 mouth for example, is 52 percent mercury when they first 9 put the fillings, in five years later they pull them out 10 and there's only 26 percent mercury. 11 The question is where did the other 12 26 percent go. And I know where it went, just like it 13 does in the ground, just like it does in the fertilizer, 14 just like it does everywhere. 15 I have a friend who has dogs. She 16 could not get the female pregnant. I said, you look at 17 the sphincter muscle of the rectum and see what color 18 that muscle is, it should be pink. She said she looked 19 at it, it was black. 20 I said, that animal is mercury toxic. 21 I said, detox that animal for mercury and I think you'll 22 get the female pregnant. She did, indeed, do that, and 23 the female was pregnant and had four babies, first time, 24 the second time was five babies. 25 Interesting story is when the babies 116 1 were born of this female they were shaking a little bit 2 tremoring, which was not normal, but the vet said, oh, 3 that's normal. They did a few other things, their eyes 4 opened a week early, they were on their feet a week 5 early, they were doing everything a lot faster than most 6 animals of this nature did. 7 She did a second female, did not 8 detox her enough for the mercury. She had gotten all 9 kinds of shots which were full of mercury. She went 10 ahead and bred her, and all five of the babies, all, 11 had birth defects, crooked legs, crooked everything. I 12 mean, the entire litter was damaged. She was so bad 13 they had to put two down. 14 Anyway, I just wanted to share some 15 of that with you because we need the toxins out of the 16 soil. One part per billion causes damage. Let's get 17 them out. 18 Thank you very much. 19 MR. FOX: Norm Winn is next, Chris 20 Savage following him, and then Alexander West. 21 MR. WINN: My name is Norm Winn. I'm 22 the immediate past conservation chair of the 23 Mountaineers. I've been the president of three 24 environmental organizations, and on the board of five 25 environmental organizations, been involved in pollution 117 1 and toxic issues for a long time. 2 Fifty years ago ­­ fifty years ago I 3 was a Boy Scout in a small town in Iowa. And in Iowa 4 we didn't have mountains so I did my hiking and camping 5 walking through the fields and the rivers and the 6 streams in Iowa. 7 And at that time we didn't have all 8 these fancy fertilizers, so farmers mostly used animal 9 manure and some nitrogen, and people were a lot 10 healthier then than they are now. 11 And farmers weren't smart enough to 12 ask for all these toxic chemicals in their fertilizers 13 and so they didn't get them, but now we have them, and 14 I guess some people would call that progress. 15 I want to make just two simple 16 points: One, is that there ought to be accurate and 17 complete labeling on all fertilizers, and other 18 products. You shouldn't have to go to a web site to 19 find out what the ingredients of fertilizers are. 20 When you go to the grocery store and 21 you buy a can of soup or beans all the ingredients are 22 listed on labels, same thing ought to be true of 23 fertilizers. 24 Secondly, as many, many other speakers 25 have pointed out tonight, there should be no toxic 118 1 materials at all in fertilizer, it is outrageous and 2 immoral that people are dumping these products into 3 fertilizers instead of recycling them as hazardous 4 materials as any normal, ethical person would do. 5 So I think that both of those are 6 simple easy steps in the right direction, and those 7 should be implemented immediately. 8 Thank you. 9 MR. FOX: Chris Savage is next, 10 followed by Alexander West and Rachel Liston. 11 MR. SAVAGE: Hi my name is Chris 12 Savage, and I am a division director with the March of 13 Dimes. And our mission is to improve the health of 14 babies by preventing birth defects and inmortality. 15 And a lot of people don't realize 16 there are 3,000 birth defects that have been discovered, 17 thus far. We only know, actually have working 18 knowledge, of about 50 percent of those. And 28,000 19 babies die before the age of one, in America, alone. 20 And you can't help but to think about 21 what percentage of that is happening because of these, 22 you know, these chemicals. 23 And I just wanted to bring that 24 about. I also wanted to bring about that 150,000 babies 25 per year in the US have birth defects. 119 1 And if we don't eradicate this problem 2 what is the future of this country and the world? How 3 are these people, how are children with birth defects 4 and Ritalin, the issues with ­­ with Ritalin, etcetera, 5 how are we going to have a productive society. How are 6 we going to lead and do the things that we need to do. 7 I wanted to note that there are four 8 causes of birth defects, heredity, environmental factors 9 multifactorial issues that that aren't really known, and 10 prenatal damage. And I just wanted everybody to think 11 about that, and from that perspective. 12 And I would like to yield my other 13 two minutes to Patty, if she would like to keep 14 speaking. Would you like to do that? I know you've 15 been working very hard. 16 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: If anybody 17 wants one minute to, you know. 18 SUE: I'll take a minute. 19 MR. SAVAGE: You want a minute? 20 SUE: Sure. 21 MR. SAVAGE: One minute to Sue. 22 SUE: My name is Sue, and I'm going 23 through mercury detox, and I'm taking cholera, and I'm 24 feeling better and better. And, boy, am I a bitch 25 going through this mercury detox. 120 1 No, I just wanted to share that, that 2 I'm doing this and I'm aware of these issues. And I'm 3 very grateful to be going through my detox and I'm 4 learning a lot about what these things have been doing 5 and I strongly encourage everyone else to go through it, 6 too. 7 Thank you. 8 MR. FOX: Alexander West is next, 9 Rachel Liston, and then Colin Stevens. 10 MR. WEST: Good evening. I'm 11 Alexander West, I'm a shareholder of United Stars 12 Industries, and a board member of the company. 13 I know from going to the board 14 meetings that we encourage all of our presidents of our 15 various corporations, which are in Washington, Wisconsin 16 and Pennsylvania, to maximize values to the shareholder 17 and maximize profits. 18 I know that our corporations dispose 19 of toxic chemicals in the most cheap way possible, and 20 I'm certain that they wind up as fertilizer. 21 We have 750 employees that all eat 22 food. All of our shareholders eat food, and it's hard 23 to avoid eating food. So, you know, I think all of our 24 employees, all of our shareholders and the population at 25 large, would benefit from having information available 121 1 to them. 2 I was an economic student at college, 3 and one of the primary requirements for a functioning 4 economy, according to good old Adam Smith, is that 5 people have information available to them. 6 And I would encourage the EPA to, at 7 the very least, require the labeling of all foods that 8 are fertilized with toxic waste to be labeled. 9 Also, as a company, we purchase from 10 other corporations and sell to other corporations. Most 11 consumers really don't interact with us directly, which 12 means that, you know, people who are aware of what 13 they're buying aren't influencing our production 14 decisions and, therefore, we have no economic incentive 15 to try and dispose of our waste in a way that is 16 friendlier to ourselves and our employees and our 17 citizens. 18 And we would like to be responsible, 19 but, you know, we're currently in an economic down turn, 20 and, you know, we would like to continue to provide our 21 employees with jobs. And I think it's very important to 22 us to have an equal economic playing field with other 23 corporations. And we can not choose to dispose of our 24 wastes in a manner that is more responsible and still 25 remain in business if our competitors are able to 122 1 dispose of their wastes in immoral manners. 2 And that's where I would also request 3 that the EPA pass more stringent codes ­­ is that the 4 term I'm looking for ­­ in order to recycle toxins waste 5 so that we can all be responsible without suffering 6 economic hardship. 7 MR. FOX: Rachel Liston, Colin 8 Stevens, and then Roger Baker. 9 MS. LISTON: Hi, I'm Rachel Liston, 10 and I'm a freshman at the University of Washington, 11 here. And I'm hearing all these very intelligent people 12 speak, and I've only been here for a short time, but I 13 just wanted to bring up the fact that although the EPA 14 does have ­­ does do some very good things and I, you 15 know, I've been working with some people at EPA about 16 impaired water bodies in Washington State, my big 17 problem with EPA is the enforcement policy. 18 I was doing some research about which 19 companies are the biggest polluters of mercury, and I 20 found that many companies had multiple violations, 21 multiple enforcement actions, hundreds and thousands of 22 dollars in fines because of different types of ­­ just 23 one company basically dumped 10,000 pounds of hazardous 24 waste, it was a medical supply company, I believe, just 25 dumped it into Puget Sound­­ and they're fine was $2500, 123 1 and that's unacceptable. 2 I ­­ I mean, like I ­­ I work with 3 WashPIRG, which is the Washington Public Industry 4 Research Group, and if I didn't work for them I wouldn't 5 know anything. 6 I really did used to trust the EPA 7 and the Department of Ecology. And I am just up here 8 to ask you to please enforce the policies that you have 9 and enforce the laws and don't allow companies to be 10 repeat offenders and just give them a slap on the wrist, 11 because nobody's going to learn. 12 Company's have no reason to be 13 responsible if ­­ if they don't have to. There's always 14 going to be companies that are looking at the bottom 15 line. Companies are not out for our best interests. 16 They don't care what happens to us. All they care 17 about is their profit. 18 And if you don't give them any sort 19 of restrictions or any sort of ­­ at least make it, you 20 know, a little bit more enforced just so that they have 21 a reason to just clean up and do a better job. 22 And thank you for having this hearing, 23 and that's all. 24 MR. FOX: Colin Stevens is next, 25 Roger Baker, and David Rodabaugh. 124 1 MR. STEVENS: My name is Collins 2 Stevens. I'm a student at the University of Washington, 3 also. And I don't have any interesting statistics or 4 moving stories, but I just like to come up here and say 5 that I support what people have been saying and I 6 support the ban on toxins in fertilizers. That's it. 7 MR. FOX: Roger Baker's next, and 8 then David Rodabaugh. 9 MS. BAKER: I'm Roger Baker. I took 10 a toxicology quarter long course when I was at the U. W., 11 plus also a quarter long course in pesticides. 12 And, anyway, some of the things that 13 came up in that class was that different people have 14 different sensitivity to chemicals. I should imagine 15 that the same applies to plants, thus you might have one 16 plant that absorbs 10, 100 times as much of one chemical 17 in the soil as another. 18 So, as far as studying how much of 19 different chemicals are absorbed out of the soil by 20 different plants I don't think we have enough time to 21 explore the range that's possible as far as ­­ because 22 there's such a wide ­­ there can be a wide range of 23 genetic variety, assuming they're not all cloned plants. 24 Okay, another thing, there's organic 25 standards that were recently adopted. I am not exactly 125 1 ­­ I didn't read the final standard, but I believe that 2 to ­­ if someone wants to certify their land as their 3 farm as organic they can, after three years ­­ after 4 since the last time that non­ organic fertilizers were 5 applied so if ­­ but since a lot of these metals are 6 persistent long beyond three years that sort of screws 7 up the ­­ it kind of reduces the value of organic 8 certification, because the plants may still be absorbing 9 a lot of stuff that other people ­­ that people aren't 10 expecting in their organically grown food. 11 About labeling, there have been cases 12 where very toxic chemicals have been mixed in with 13 agricultural products, animal feed, like some plant 14 where a fire retardant was mixed in with animal feed and 15 at least hundreds, if not thousands, of cattle had to be 16 destroyed. And I bet those bags were labeled animal 17 feed. 18 So if you got a company that's 19 putting ­­ has a range of 20 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds. 21 MS. BAKER: Okay. ­­ you have a 22 range of toxicity in your company, that you're selling 23 some of it to farmers, I don't think they should have 24 any kind of thing that's going to go on soil coming 25 from a company that's also manufactured ­­ is putting 126 1 out stuff that won't even go into soil. 2 Labeling assumes people are plant and 3 animal toxicology experts. The labels need to explain 4 the risks, not just what the chemicals are in them. If 5 there's going to be a label. If we're going to be 6 risking having any kind of weird stuff in our 7 fertilizer. 8 It takes many years, this is another 9 topic, it takes many years to manifest the effects of 10 chemicals on people, organisms. In those cases it will 11 take multiples of that kind to discover the cause what's 12 going wrong with the people. 13 Some toxic effects are ­­ only show 14 up when offspring of those exposed become mature. So 15 it's like a generation down the line might be when you 16 find out that something is going wrong, then it's going 17 to take a long time to figure out what caused that 18 effect. 19 And we don't ­­ it's not worth it, to 20 be putting things with questionable safety in the soil, 21 because we just can't test everything before we do it. 22 So why ­­ why bother taking risk and putting unnatural 23 products in the soil at all. 24 You put the hazards in and ­­ and 25 it's a lot harder to keep them out rather than to take 127 1 them out after you found that they're toxic. 2 It can be just a pretty impossible 3 task once you dispersed it all, finally, throughout the 4 environment. 5 Thanks for bearing with me with my 6 semi ­­ well, mostly, unprepared comments. Thanks. 7 MR. FOX: Okay. The last speaker is 8 David Rodabaugh. 9 MS. RODABAUGH: Thank you. My name 10 is David Rodabaugh. I will try to keep things fairly 11 simple, here, and just the idea that hazardous materials 12 such as lead, cadmium and arsenic are not appropriate 13 additives to fertilizer. 14 The second point I would like to look 15 at is the ­­ there's the obligation for notice of what 16 is going into materials, fertilizer materials. 17 And it might help if I tell a short 18 story to illustrate why ­­ why I have taken these views. 19 I know a person a few years back 20 added a significant amount of what was labeled steer 21 manure to his vegetable garden, and proceeded to a grow 22 a nice vegetable garden, ate the food out of the 23 vegetable garden, and then for other reasons that had 24 nothing to do with the topic tonight thought it would be 25 appropriate to ­­ to run some ­­ some ­­ some ­­ some 128 1 ­­ some samples of some of the soils around the 2 property, took various samples near the house, took a 3 control sample in the vegetable garden, went out to 4 where there was exposure to street run­ off, and brought 5 that to a lab for lead levels. 6 And much to this person's surprise 7 found the highest lead levels were in the vegetable 8 garden. All this happened a couple years or so after 9 ­­ after he had added the steer manure. 10 So it's a little hard to ­­ to ­­ to 11 say this was the cause, but that sure is a concern, 12 sure is a suspicion there. And it was to a level that 13 the person felt uncomfortable with ­­ with ­­ with 14 continuing to use that area for a vegetable garden. The 15 area become a nice subgrade for a driveway in the 16 future, and no more vegetable garden. 17 But I guess my first point there is 18 ­­ is that without their knowledge they possibly became 19 exposed to levels of lead which ­­ which might or might 20 not have been safe. And that's a concern. 21 The second point, then, is there was 22 no notice of this. There was nothing on the bag of 23 steer manure saying contains lead, nothing like that. 24 So they had no notice. 25 So, having gone through that quick 129 1 story, I will reiterate my points: One, where we have 2 many producers of fertilizers, many different operations 3 going on, it ­­ it's ­­ it's really impossible to ­­ to 4 regulate when you're adding materials and consciously 5 allowing these additives. It's going to be probably 6 impossible to get it right. 7 You're going to have, even if you 8 have a very tight regulatory framework, you're going to 9 have mistakes made. You're going to have materials 10 added where you have unsafe levels out there. So that 11 shouldn't be allowed to happen. Simply don't have those 12 additives. 13 The second point is notice. There is 14 a right to ­­ to be ­­ to know what is in those 15 products. There's one ­­ one person offering testimony 16 noted 50 percent inert ingredients. There's a right to 17 know what's in that. So there should be notice in 18 labeling. 19 Thank you. 20 MR. FOX: Thank you. All right, is 21 there anyone who has not made any comments who wishes 22 to, tonight? 23 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Well, before 24 it concludes, I would like to have a response from Mr. 25 Fagan. I would like to know what's going to be done 130 1 after this is over. 2 MR. FOX: The responses will ­­ will 3 follow some time for consideration. And they will be in 4 the federal register; is that correct 5 MR. FAGAN: Yes. 6 MR. FOX: ­­ for the final rule. So 7 there's not going to be any response tonight, but it 8 will be in writing. And if you leave your name we will 9 send you the answers. 10 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Thank you. 11 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Does that 12 does that include there was a gentleman that asked 13 earlier how ­­ what are the time frames for public 14 comment, is this it. 15 MR. FAGAN: Yeah, we ­­ we had the 16 when we first published the proposed rules back a year 17 ago we opened up a three month public comment period, 18 which ended in February. So that formal public comment 19 period is over. 20 This is kind of the last shot to 21 submit formal public comments that will, you know, by 22 law have to be considered. But as a ­­ as a practice, 23 usually 24 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Including our 25 wish for more public comment? 131 1 MR. FAGAN: Well, what I was going to 2 say is, you know, typically we accept comments whenever 3 we get them. We don't stand on the legal niceties. So 4 if you want to submit written comments, please do so. 5 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Thank you. 6 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: How could we 7 go about getting more of these ­­ you must realize this 8 is a very unusual outpouring ­­ how could one go about 9 petitioning or whatever other framework to see to it 10 that these hearings take place elsewhere in the US? 11 MR. FAGAN: I think the best way to 12 do that is to write to my boss. 13 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Who is that. 14 MR. FAGAN: Christine Todd­ Whitman. 15 MR. FOX: All right. We're already 16 45 minutes over time, so this meeting is adjourned. 17 (Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned 18 at 9: 50 p. m.) 19 . 20 . 21 . 22 . 23 . 24 . 25 .

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.239705

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2000-0054-0688

Supporting & Related Material

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST NUMBER 1109.XX "ZINC FERTILIZERS MADE FROM RECYCLED HAZARDOUS SECONDARY MATERIALS ­ FINAL RULE " April 12, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. IDENTIFICATIONOFTHE INFORMATIONCOLLECTION ................. 1 1( a) TITLE ANDNUMBEROFTHEINFORMATIONCOLLECTION .......... 1 1( b) SHORT CHARACTERIZATION .................................... 1 2. NEEDFORANDUSE OFTHECOLLECTION ............................ 3 2( a) NEEDANDAUTHORITYFORTHE COLLECTION .................... 3 2( b) PRACTICALUTILITYANDUSERSOFTHE DATA.................... 5 3. NON­ DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA7 3( a) NON­ DUPLICATION ............................................. 7 3( b) PUBLICNOTICE ................................................ 7 3( c) CONSULTATIONS............................................... 7 3( d) EFFECTSOFLESSFREQUENTCOLLECTION........................ 7 3( e) GENERALGUIDELINES.......................................... 7 3( f) CONFIDENTIALITY.............................................. 7 3( g) SENSITIVE QUESTIONS ......................................... 8 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED .............. 8 4( a) RESPONDENTS AND SIC CODES .................................. 8 4( b) INFORMATIONREQUESTED ..................................... 8 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED ­­ AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ................. 13 5( a) AGENCYACTIVITIES........................................... 13 5( b) COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT ............... 13 5( c) SMALLENTITYFLEXIBILITY ................................... 13 5( d) COLLECTIONSCHEDULE....................................... 13 6. ESTIMATINGTHE BURDENANDCOSTOFCOLLECTION ............... 14 6( a) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN ............................ 14 6( b) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS ............................... 14 6( c) ESTIMATINGAGENCYBURDENANDCOST ....................... 15 6( d) ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSE AND TOTAL BURDEN AND COSTS ..................................................... 15 6( e) BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS ...................... 19 6( f) REASONSFORCHANGEINBURDEN.............................. 19 6( g) BURDENSTATEMENT .......................................... 19 EXHIBITS ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST (EXHIBIT 1) ......... 21 TOTAL ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST SUMMARY (EXHIBIT 2) .... 22 ESTIMATED ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN AND COST (EXHIBIT 3) ............. 23 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection This Information Collection Request (ICR) is entitled "Zinc Fertilizers Made from Recycled Hazardous Secondary Materials ­ Final Rule," ICR Number 1189.XX. 1( b) Short Characterization Under Section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, EPA is authorized to develop and promulgate regulations identifying the characteristics of hazardous waste and listing particular hazardous wastes which should be subject to EPA's hazardous waste regulatory system. Under this authority, EPA promulgated regulations at 40 CFR Part 261 that identify hazardous characteristics (Subpart C) and list hazardous wastes (Subpart D). Part 261 also includes, among other things, procedures for making a hazardous waste determination and exclusions from the definition of solid and hazardous waste. EPA has now revised the regulations at Part 261 that apply to recycling of hazardous secondary materials to make zinc fertilizer products. The rule establishes a more consistent regulatory framework for these recycling practices, and establishes conditions for excluding such hazardous secondary materials from the definition of solid waste under RCRA. Under the rule, zinc fertilizer manufacturers and their suppliers will be able to manage hazardous secondary materials outside the current RCRA "cradle to grave" hazardous waste management system, provided they meet certain conditions involving storage of the material, and reporting and recordkeeping. In this sense the rule is deregulatory in nature, and will relieve industry from a number of information collection requirements that apply under current hazardous waste regulations. The rule also establishes new limits on contaminants in zinc fertilizers made from hazardous secondary materials, and specifies conditions for notification, reporting and recordkeeping, and testing of fertilizer products. With regard specifically to paperwork requirements, the rule requires generators of zincbearing hazardous waste secondary materials and manufacturers of zinc fertilizer or zinc fertilizer ingredients participating in the conditional exclusion to submit one­ time notices to EPA (or the authorized State) as specified, and keep on­ site records of shipments of excluded secondary materials. Manufacturers also must conduct annual reporting, periodic product sampling/ analysis, and recordkeeping of analytical data. In Sections 1 through 5 of this ICR, EPA presents a comprehensive description of the new information collection requirements in the rule. In Section 6, EPA estimates the total annual burden and cost to respondents and government associated with these new paperwork requirements under the rule. In addition, EPA estimates in Section 6( d) the burden and cost savings to respondents for no longer needing to manage zinc­ bearing secondary materials as hazardous waste under the existing RCRA paperwork requirements. In Section 6( e), EPA 1 presents the combined burden and costs under the new and previous requirements. In the following paragraphs, EPA briefly describes the new information collection requirements that are contained in the rule. Notification for Generators and Intermediate Handlers New 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 20)( ii)( A) requires generators and intermediate handlers of zincbearing hazardous waste secondary materials that are to be incorporated into zinc fertilizers to submit a one­ time notification to the Regional Administrator or State Director. The notification includes the name, address and EPA ID number of the generator facility, and specifies when the facility intends to begin managing secondary materials under the conditions of the exclusion. Record of Shipments for Generators and Intermediate Handlers New 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 20)( ii)( D) requires secondary material generators and intermediate handlers to keep records of shipments of excluded hazardous secondary materials. The shipping records at a minimum will provide the name of the transporter and date of the shipment; the name and address of the fertilizer manufacturer who received the excluded material; and the type and quantity of excluded secondary material in each shipment. Generators will need to keep shipping records for at least three years. Notification for Manufacturers New 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 20)( iii)( B) requires manufacturers of zinc fertilizers or zinc fertilizer ingredients made from excluded hazardous secondary materials to submit a one­ time notification to the Regional Administrator or State Director. The notification will need to include the name of the manufacturer, address and EPA ID number of the manufacturing facility; and must specify when the facility intends to begin managing secondary materials under the conditions of the exclusion. Records of Shipments for Manufacturers Under 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 20)( iii)( C), manufacturers of zinc fertilizers or zinc fertilizer ingredients made from excluded hazardous secondary materials will need to maintain for a minimum of three years records of all shipments of excluded secondary materials received by the manufacturers. The records will include the name and address of the generating facility; the name of the transporter and date the materials were received; the quantity received; and a brief description of the industrial process that generated the waste. 2 Annual Report for Manufacturers Under 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 21)( iii)( D), manufacturers of zinc fertilizers or zinc fertilizer ingredients made from excluded hazardous secondary materials will need to submit to the Director an annual report that identifies the total quantities of all excluded hazardous secondary materials that were used to manufacture zinc fertilizer or zinc fertilizer ingredients in the previous year; the name and address of each generating facility; and the industrial process( es) from which the materials were generated. Product Sampling and Analysis for Manufacturers Under 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 21)( ii), the manufacturer will need to perform sampling and analysis of the fertilizer product to determine compliance with the contaminant limits for metals no less than every six months, and for dioxins no less than every twelve months. Testing must also be performed whenever changes occur to manufacturing processes or ingredients that could significantly affect the amounts of contaminants in the fertilizer product. The manufacturer may use any reliable analytical method to demonstrate that no constituent of concern is present in the product at concentrations above the applicable limits. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that the sampling and analysis are unbiased, precise, and representative of the product( s) that is introduced into commerce. Under 40 CFR 216.4( a)( 21)( iii), the manufacturer will also need to maintain records of these activities for no less than three years. The records will include the dates and times product samples were taken, and the dates the samples were analyzed; the names and qualifications of the person( s) taking the samples; a description of the methods and equipment used to take the samples; the name and address of the laboratory facility at which analyses of the samples were performed; a description of the analytical methods used, including any cleanup and sample preparation methods; and all laboratory analytical results used to determine compliance with the contaminant limits specified in this paragraph. 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need and Authority for the Collection EPA is authorized to require information collection pursuant to RCRA Section 2002, which authorizes EPA to prescribe regulations, including information collection requirements, as are necessary to carry out the hazardous waste program. Under this authority, EPA has finalized new conditions for reporting and recordkeeping by generators and manufacturers, which are designed primarily to improve and streamline government oversight over the handlers of excluded materials (e. g., generators and manufacturers). These conditions replace the previous hazardous waste regulatory requirements for reporting and recordkeeping. The need for these reporting and recordkeeping requirements is further described in the following paragraphs. 3 Notification for Generators and Intermediate Handlers The rule requires generators and intermediate handlers of excluded hazardous secondary materials to submit a one­ time notice to the EPA Regional Administrator (or the state Director in an authorized state) identifying the name, location and EPA ID number of the generating facility, and when the facility intends to begin managing hazardous secondary materials according to the terms of the conditional exclusion. Regulatory agencies need this minimum amount of information to readily identify for tracking and enforcement purposes the generators who supply excluded secondary materials to zinc fertilizer producers. Record of Shipments for Generators and Intermediate Handlers The rule requires generators and intermediate handlers to maintain records of all shipments of excluded hazardous secondary materials for a minimum of three years. These records will be needed to identify for each shipment the name of the transporter, date of the shipment, name and location of the fertilizer manufacturer who received the shipment, the quantity shipped and a brief description of the excluded material in the shipment. These requirements are somewhat analogous to the current requirements for shipping hazardous wastes under manifests and maintenance of manifest records. Copies of manifests are typically kept at the generator's facility, though some states require copies of manifests to be submitted to the state agency. Notification for Manufacturers As a condition of the exclusion, manufacturers will need to submit a one­ time notice to the state Director or Regional Administrator that identifies the name and location of the manufacturing facility, and when the manufacturer intendes to begin managing hazardous secondary materials under the terms of the exclusion in this rule. The intent of this one­ time notice is to provide regulators with knowledge of which manufacturers intend to make use of the conditional exclusion, and when. Record of Shipments for Manufacturers The rule requires manufacturers to retain for a minimum of three years records of all shipments of excluded hazardous secondary materials that were received by the zinc fertilizer manufacturer during that period. This recordkeeping condition is intended to enhance the capability of regulatory agencies to (when necessary) track and account for shipments of excluded secondary materials. Annual Report for Manufacturers The rule requires each zinc fertilizer manufacturer who uses excluded hazardous secondary materials to submit to the appropriate regulatory agency an annual report that identifies the types, quantities and origins of all such excluded materials that were received by the 4 manufacturer in the preceding year. This new requirement is intended to ensure an adequate tracking and accountability system for these excluded materials. Product Sampling and Analysis for Manufacturers The rule requires manufacturers of conditionally excluded zinc fertilizer products to sample and analyze their products at least once every six months for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the product specifications for metals, and at least once per year for dioxins. Testing must also be performed whenever changes occur to manufacturing processes or ingredients that could significantly affect the amounts of contaminants in the fertilizer product. As a practical matter, EPA believes that fertilizer manufacturers typically sample and analyze their products for contaminants on more or less an ongoing basis, as a means of monitoring quality control. EPA believes that the testing requirements are reasonable, and will likely impose only minor additional testing burdens on manufacturers. 2( b) Practical Utility and Users of the Data In the following paragraphs, EPA discusses how the data required under the rule will be used and identifies the primary users. Notification for Generators and Intermediate Handlers This reporting requirement is analogous to the current requirement for generators of excluded secondary materials, which requires the generator to place a similar one­ time notice in the generator facility's on­ site files. However, the requirement enhances regulatory agencies' tracking and oversight capabilities, since the information would be submitted directly to the overseeing agency, rather than being maintained in the facility's files. Record of Shipments for Generators and Intemediate Handlers The recordkeeping conditions should enable regulatory agencies to more accurately track shipments of excluded materials for compliance and enforcement purposes (e. g., if requested by on­ site EPA inspectors). It is consistent with normal business recordkeeping practices, and is not expected to impose significant additional paperwork burdens on generators. Notification for Manufacturers This notice replaces and streamlines the current notification requirements for hazardous waste recyclers who make products used in a manner constituting disposal, as specified in existing 40 CFR 268.7( b)( 6). Under those requirements, manufacturers of hazardous waste derived fertilizers must submit to the overseeing agency an LDR certification statement, and certain other information relating to compliance with LDR treatment standards, for each shipment of fertilizer products. While it may be reasonable and desirable for regulatory agencies to be informed as to 5 which companies are making zinc fertilizer from excluded secondary materials and what materials they intend to use, the Agency does not believe that it is necessary to require reporting on every shipment of fertilizer products, especially in light of the proposed annual reporting requirement for manufacturers. Record of Shipments for Manufacturers These recordkeeping conditions will enable regulatory agencies (e. g., on­ site EPA inspectors) to more accurately track shipments of excluded materials for compliance and enforcement purposes. It is consistent with normal business recordkeeping practices, and is not expected to impose significant additional paperwork burdens on manufacturers. Annual Report for Manufacturers The annual report will be used to enhance the ability of regulatory agencies to assess compliance with regulatory requirements by manufacturers and to understand the management and recycling practices being undertaken. Product Sampling and Analysis for Manufacturers Under the rule, manufacturers will need to sample and analyse fertilizers to determine compliance with the contaminant limits in the rule. This will provide overseeing agencies with data to establish the manufacturers' compliance with this condition of the exclusion. 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Nonduplication None of the new information required by the rule is duplicative with any information required by the existing RCRA regulations. 3( b) Public Notice EPA published the proposed rule in the Federal Register and solicited public comments. To assist the public in commenting on the proposal, EPA raised a number of issues in the preamble about the proposed rule and asked for the public to comment on them. EPA also held a public hearing on the rule, on November 29, 2001. EPA has reviewed all of the comments received, and has responded to those comments in the preamble to the final rule, and in the response to comments document prepared in support of this final action. 6 3( c) Consultations EPA held stakeholder meetings on hazardous waste derived fertilizers on November 12­ 13, 1998, and met with a number of other stakeholders, including regulated companies, public interest groups, state regulatory officials, and others. The views of the various stakeholders were considered and incorporated as appropriate in the final rulemaking. 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection EPA has carefully considered the burden imposed upon the regulated community by this rule. EPA is confident that those activities required of respondents are necessary, and to the extent possible, the Agency has attempted to minimize the burden imposed. EPA believes strongly that, if the minimum information collection requirements of the rule are not met, neither the industry nor regulatory agencies will be able to ensure that this recycling practice is being conducted according to the requirements and conditions of the regulation. 3( e) General Guidelines This ICR adheres to the guidelines stated in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, OMB's implementing regulations, OMB's Information Collection Review Handbook, and other applicable OMB guidance. 3( f) Confidentiality Section 3007( b) of RCRA and 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, which defines EPA's general policy on public disclosure of information, contain provisions for confidentiality. However, the Agency does not anticipate that businesses will assert claims of confidentiality with regard to complying with this rule. If such a claim is asserted, EPA must and will treat the information in accordance with the regulations cited above. EPA also will assure that this information collection complies with the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular 108. 3( g) Sensitive Questions No questions of a sensitive nature are included in the information collection requirements. 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes Entities affected by this proposed rulemaking will be generators of zinc­ bearing hazardous waste secondary materials, and manufacturers of zinc fertilizers or zinc fertilizer ingredients made from excluded hazardous secondary materials. The following is a list of North American Industrial Classification System (SIC) codes associated with the generators and manufacturers 7 that may be affected by the information collection requirements covered under this ICR. NAICS Code Industrial Sector 32532 Fertilizer manufacturing 32531 Zinc sulfide manufacturing 331111 Iron and steel mills 331419 Zinc refining, primary 331492 Zinc dust reclaiming 562112 Hazardous waste collection 4( b) Information Requested In the following paragraphs, EPA describes the new information collection requirements under the rule. (1) Notification for Generators and Intermediate Handlers 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 20)( ii)( A) requires generators and intermediate handlers of zinc­ bearing hazardous waste secondary materials that are to be incorporated into zinc fertilizers to submit a one­ time notification to the Regional Administrator or State Director. (i) Data Items The one­ time notification must include the following information: ° Name, address and EPA ID number of the generator facility; ° When the facility intendes to begin managing hazardous secondary materials in accordance with the conditions in the rule. (ii) Respondent Activity ° Complete and submit the one­ time notification. (2) Record of Shipments for Generators and Intermediate Handlers 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 20)( ii)( C) requires secondary materials generators and intermediate handlers to keep records of shipments of excluded hazardous secondary materials for no less than three years. (i) Data Items 8 The shipping records must at a minimum contain the following information: ° Name of the transporter and date of the shipment; ° Name and address of the fertilizer manufacturer who received the excluded material; and ° Type and quantity of excluded secondary material in each shipment. (ii) Respondent Activity ° Keep the following records of shipping activities: S Name of the transporter and date of the shipment; S Name and address of the fertilizer manufacturer who received the excluded material; and S Type and quantity of excluded secondary material in each shipment. (3) Notification for Manufacturers 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 20)( iii)( B) requires manufacturers of zinc fertilizers or zinc fertilizer ingredients made from excluded hazardous secondary materials to submit a one­ time notification to the Regional Administrator. (i) Data Items The one­ time notification must include the following information: ° Name of the manufacturer, address and EPA ID number of the manufacturing facility; and ° When the facility intendes to begin managing hazardous secondary materials in accordance with the conditions in the rule. (ii) Respondent Activity ° Complete and submit the one­ time notification. (4) Record of Shipments for Manufacturers Under proposed 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 20)( iii)( C), manufacturers of zinc fertilizers or zinc 9 fertilizer ingredients made from excluded hazardous secondary materials must maintain for a minimum of three years records of all shipments of excluded secondary materials received by the manufacturers. (i) Data Items The shipping records would at a minimum contain the following information: ° Name and address of the generating facility; ° Name of transporter and date the materials were received; ° Quantity received; and ° Brief description of the industrial process that generated the waste. (ii) Respondent Activity ° Keep the following records: S Name and address of the generating facility; S Name of transporter and date the materials were received; S Record of the quantity received; and S Brief description of the industrial process that generated the waste. (5) Annual Report for Manufacturers Under 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 20)( iii)( D), manufacturers of zinc fertilizers or zinc fertilizer ingredients made from excluded hazardous secondary materials must submit to the Director an annual report that identifies the total quantities of all excluded hazardous secondary materials that were used to manufacture zinc fertilizer or zinc fertilizer ingredients in the previous year. (i) Data Items The annual report must include the following: ° Record of the total quantities of all excluded hazardous secondary materials that were used to manufacture zinc fertilizer or zinc fertilizer ingredients in the previous year; 10 ° Name and address of each generating facility; and ° The industrial process( es) from which the materials were generated. (ii) Respondent Activity ° Complete and submit the annual report. (6) Product Sampling and Analysis for Manufacturers Under 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 21)( ii), the manufacturer must perform sampling and analysis of the fertilizer product to determine compliance with the contaminant limits for metals no less than every six months, and for dioxins no less than every twelve months. The manufacturer may use any reliable analytical method to demonstrate that no constituent of concern is present in the product at concentrations above the applicable limits. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that the sampling and analysis are unbiased, precise, and representative of the product( s) that is introduced into commerce. The recordkeeping requirements for product sampling and analysis are listed in 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 21)( iii), and require the manufacturer to maintain specified sampling/ analysis records for no less than three years. (i) Data Items The records of sampling/ analysis must include the following: ° The dates and times product samples were taken, and the dates the samples were analyzed; ° The names and qualifications of the person( s) taking the samples; ° A description of the methods and equipment used to take the samples; ° The name and address of the laboratory facility at which analyses of the samples were performed; ° A description of the analytical methods used, including any cleanup and sample preparation methods; and ° All laboratory analytical results used to determine compliance with the contaminant limits specified in this paragraph. (ii) Respondent Activities ° Sample and analyze the product as specified; and 11 ° Keep records of all sampling and analyses for three years. 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED ­­ AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities The Agency activities associated with the rule include processing the one­ time notifications received from generators and manufacturers under 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 20)( ii)( B) and 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 20)( iii)( B), respectively, and the annual reports received from manufacturers under 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 20)( iii)( D). The Agency burden and costs associated with these activities are estimated in Exhibit 3. 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management In collecting and analyzing the information required under the zinc fertilizer regulations, EPA uses electronic equipment such as personal computers and applicable database software, when appropriate. 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility The conditional exclusion is intended to be de­ regulatory, and would relieve both small and large generators of secondary fertilizer materials from most of the RCRA hazardous waste program requirements, as specified. In addition, EPA has kept the paperwork requirements under the conditional exclusion as streamlined and as consistent with standard industry practices as possible, to thereby minimize the burden on both large and small entities. 5( d) Collection Schedule The rule would require generators to submit to EPA a one­ time notification of their intent to begin managing hazardous secondary materials under the terms of the exclusion. Generators would keep a record on site of all shipments of hazardous secondary materials for at least three years. The rule also requires manufacturers to sample and analyze the fertilizer product to determine compliance with the contaminant limits for metals no less than every six months, and for dioxins no less than every twelve months. In addition, manufacturers will submit an annual report to EPA describing the hazardous secondary materials used to make zinc fertilizer. Manufacturers also must keep a record of all shipments of hazardous secondary materials received for at least three years. 1 The $1,800 estimate for laboratory costs is taken from the March 6, 2000 proposed "Land Disposal Restrictions," ICR No. 1442.17. 12 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden In Exhibit 1, EPA estimates the respondent burden associated with the new paperwork requirements in the proposed rule. As shown in the exhibit, EPA estimates that the total annual respondent burden for the new paperwork requirements in the rule is approximately 61 hours per year. 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs EPA estimates that the total annual respondent cost for the new paperwork requirements in the rule is approximately $12,653. This cost includes annual labor, capital, and operation and maintenance (O& M) costs to be incurred by respondents affected by the information collection requirements covered in this ICR. Specific data and/ or assumptions used in developing these costs are described below. Labor Costs For purposes of this analysis, EPA estimates an average hourly respondent labor cost of $90 for legal staff, $69.30 for managerial staff, $54.33 for technical staff, and $24.29 for clerical staff. These estimates include overhead and fringe costs and are consistent with the labor rates in the "Part B Permit Application, Permit Modification, and Special Permits ICR" No. 1573. Annual Capital and Operation & Maintenance Costs Capital costs usually include any produced physical good needed to provide the needed information, such as machinery, computers, and other equipment. EPA does not anticipate that respondents will incur capital costs in carrying out the information collection requirements of the proposed rule. O& M costs are those costs associated with paperwork requirements incurred continually over the life of the ICR. They are defined by the EPA as "the recurring dollar amount of costs associated with O& M or purchasing services." EPA expects that the only respondent O& M costs incurred under the rule will be for generators and manufacturers to make submittals to the Agency (i. e., $3. 00 in certified mailing costs) and for manufacturers to sample their products (i. e., $1, 800 in annual laboratory costs). 1 2 These universe assumptions are based on the document, "Economic Analysis for Regulatory Modifications to the Definition of Solid Waste for Zinc­ Containing Hazardous Waste­ Derived Fertilizers, Notice of Final Rulemaking." 13 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs Agency labor costs are based on the 2000 GS pay schedule. EPA estimates an average hourly labor cost of $59.50 for legal staff (GS­ 15, Step 1), $55.65 for managerial staff (GS­ 14, Step 4), $40.80 for technical staff (GS­ 12, Step 5), and $16.38 for clerical staff (GS­ 5, Step 1). To derive these hourly estimates, EPA divided the annual compensation estimates by 2, 080, which is the number of hours in the Federal work­ year, and then multiplied the hourly rates by the standard government overhead factor of 1.6. Exhibit 3 shows the annual burden and costs to the Agency for collecting information under the rule. As shown in Exhibit 3, EPA estimates that the total annual burden and cost to the Agency would be approximately seven hours and $244. 6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Cost Respondent Universe In Exhibit 1, EPA provides estimates of the annual number of respondents that will be required to comply with the new paperwork requirements in the proposed rule. In the same exhibit, EPA estimates respondent burden and costs associated with these requirements. Table 1 presents the number of respondents that are expected to participate under the rule. 2 As shown in the table, EPA estimated that 24 generators of zinc­ bearing secondary materials used to make fertilizers and five manufacturers of zinc fertilizers or zinc fertilizer ingredients will participate in the proposed conditional exclusion. 14 Table 1 Number of Generators of Zinc­ Bearing Secondary Materials Used in Fertilizer and Manufacturers of Zinc Fertilizers or Zinc Fertilizer Ingredients Type of Waste Handler Number of Affected Entities Under Rule Generators of Zinc­ Bearing Secondary Materials Used in Fertilizer Steel Mill 1 Ingot Makers 9 Brass Foundries 5 Brass Mills 9 Subtotal 24 Manufacturers of Zinc Fertilizer or Zinc Fertilizer Ingredients 5 Total Number of Affected Entities 29 Respondent Burden and Cost In the following paragraphs, EPA discusses the universe assumptions of Table 1 in regard to the paperwork requirements in the proposed rule. Reading the Regulations As shown in Exhibit 1, EPA estimates that 24 generators and five manufacturers will read the rule for zinc fertilizers each year. Thus, in total, EPA expects 29 generators and manufacturers to read the rule annually. Notification for Generators EPA expects that 24 generators will be required to submit one­ time notices to EPA of their activities under 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 20)( ii)( B). [Note that Exhibit 1 presents annual burden and costs over the three­ year effective life of this ICR. The exhibit presents the burden and cost of one­ time activities by dividing the total number of respondents by three.] Record of Shipments for Generators EPA expects that 24 generators will be required to keep records of off­ site shipments of secondary materials each year, as required under 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 20)( ii)( C). Note that EPA 3 This $1,800 estimate is obtained from the proposed "Land Disposal Restrictions" ICR, No. 1442.17, dated March 6, 2000. 15 expects generators to incur negligible burden for this activity since they would most likely keep such records as a standard business practice (e. g., invoices or shipping papers). Notification for Manufacturers Under 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 20)( iii)( B), five manufacturers of zinc­ bearing fertilizer products are expected to submit one­ time notices to EPA of their activities. During the three­ year effective life of the ICR, this equates to approximately 1.3 manufacturers per year. Record of Shipments for Manufacturers Under 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 20)( iii)( C), five manufacturers are expected to keep records of off­ site shipments received each year from generators of zinc­ bearing secondary materials. EPA expects that the manufacturers would incur negligible burden for this activity since they would most likely keep such records as a standard business practice (e. g., invoices or shipping papers). Annual Report for Manufacturers EPA expects the five manufacturers to submit a report of their recycling activities once each year under proposed 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 20)( iii)( D). Product Sampling and Analysis for Manufacturers EPA expects that the five manufacturers will perform sampling and analysis and keep records as specified under 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 21)( ii). EPA expects that they would incur approximately $1, 800 in annual laboratory costs for these activities. 3 Total Respondent Burden and Cost In Exhibit 2, EPA presents a summary of the total annual respondent burden and costs associated with both new and existing paperwork requirements. The specific information collection activities of the new paperwork requirements are described throughout this ICR, and the total annual burden and cost estimates associated with them are calculated in Exhibit 1, summarized in Exhibit 2, and briefly described below. The existing paperwork requirements are those that are contained in the current RCRA regulations and that apply to generators of secondary materials and manufacturers of zinc fertilizer or zinc fertilizer ingredients, as applicable. These existing requirements, the existing ICRs with which they are associated, and the total annual burden and cost associated with them also are summarized in Exhibit 2 and briefly described below. 16 New Paperwork Requirements Using the per respondent burden estimated in Section 6( a), the per respondent costs estimated in Section 6( b), and the respondent universe estimated in this section, Exhibit 1 illustrates the total respondent burden and costs associated with all of the new information collection activities in the proposed rule. As noted above, this exhibit presents the annual burden and costs over the three­ year effective life of the ICR. The exhibit calculates the burden and cost of one­ time activities by dividing the total number of respondents by three. In Exhibit 2, EPA summarizes the total annual respondent burden and cost of these new paperwork requirements derived in Exhibit 1. Existing Paperwork Requirements In addition to the new paperwork requirements in the proposed rule, EPA also estimated the burden and cost savings that generators and manufacturers would expect for no longer following the existing RCRA information collection requirements for the excluded materials. In Exhibit 2, EPA presents the total annual respondent burden and cost savings under the existing paperwork requirements, broken out by the five existing EPA ICRs that are affected by the rule. In developing Exhibit 2, EPA reviewed each of the affected ICRs to identify the existing information collection activities that are currently undertaken by generators and manufacturers, calculated the associated burden and costs (or savings), and presented the totals in the exhibit. The total costs in Exhibit 2 are broken down into labor, capital, and operation and maintenance (O& M) costs. In Section 6( b), EPA presents a discussion of the capital and O& M costs associated with new paperwork requirements from the rule. In the following paragraph, EPA presents a brief discussion of the capital and O& M costs associated with each of the existing ICRs that are affected by the rule. There are no O& M costs associated with the Generator Standards ICR (ICR No. 820) or with the Specific Units ICR (ICR No. 1572). For the Biennial Report ICR (ICR No. 976), O& M costs are associated with submitting the Hazardous Waste report and maintaining copies of Waste Generation and Management (GM) and Waste Received from Off­ Site (WR) forms. For the General Facility Standards ICR (ICR No. 1571), the O& M costs are associated with performing a waste analysis twice annually and submittal of documents to EPA. For the Part B ICR (ICR No. 1573), O& M costs are associated with submitting the Part B application materials to EPA. Capital costs are not associated with any of these ICRs except for one. For the General Facility Standards ICR (ICR No. 1571), capital costs are associated with keeping the operating record in a filing cabinet. 17 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Respondent Tally In Exhibit 2, EPA presents the total annual respondent burden and cost for both new and existing paperwork requirements associated with the rule. As described specifically in Section 6( d) above, these new and existing paperwork requirements apply to generators and intermediate handlers of zinc­ bearing secondary materials used in fertilizers and manufacturers of zinc fertilizer or zinc fertilizer ingredients. As shown in Exhibit 2, the total annual respondent burden for these new paperwork requirements is approximately 61 hours, at an annual cost of $12,653. As also shown in Exhibit 2, the total annual respondent burden savings under the existing paperwork requirements, which are associated with five existing EPA ICRs, is 408 hours, at annual cost savings of approximately $21,149. In the same Exhibit 2, EPA then combines the burden and cost impacts under both new and existing paperwork requirements and estimates the total annual respondent burden savings for all information collection activities at 348 hours and an annual cost savings of approximately $8,496. The bottom line respondent burden hours saved over the three­ year period covered by this ICR is approximately 1,044 hours, at a total cost savings of $25,488. Agency Tally In Exhibit 3, EPA presents the total annual Agency burden or cost associated with this rule. As shown in Exhibit 3, the total annual Agency burden for these new paperwork requirements is seven hours, at an annual cost of approximately $244. The bottom line Agency burden over the three­ year period covered by this ICR is 21 hours, at a total cost of approximately $735. 6( f) Reasons for Change In Burden In finalizing the conditional exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 20) and (21), EPA will relieve generators and intermediate handlers of hazardous secondary materials used in fertilizer manufacturing from existing RCRA Subtitle C regulations for that waste. Manufacturers receiving and processing these secondary materials also will be relieved of RCRA regulations for that waste. These generators, intermediate handlers and manufacturers will only need to comply with a tailored set of conditions in generating, transporting and otherwise managing these secondary wastes under RCRA. 6( g) Burden Statement The public reporting burden for generators of zinc­ bearing secondary materials under the new paperwork requirements is estimated to be about 21 minutes over the three­ year life of this 18 ICR. This includes time for preparing and submitting the one­ time notification to EPA. (This one­ time burden of 21 minutes equates to an annualized burden of 7 minutes per year, if annualized of the three­ year life of this ICR.) The recordkeeping burden for these generators under the new paperwork requirements is estimated to be about one hour and 21 minutes per year. This includes time for reading the rule and keeping records of offsite shipments of zincbearing secondary materials. The public reporting burden for manufacturers of zinc­ bearing fertilizer or fertilizer ingredients under the new paperwork requirements is estimated to range from about two hours and 45 minutes to three hours per year. This includes time for preparing and submitting the onetime notice and an annual report to EPA. The recordkeeping burden for these manufacturers under the new paperwork requirements is estimated to be about two hours and 27 minutes per year. This includes time for reading the rule, keeping records of offsite shipments of zinc­ bearing secondary materials, performing sampling/ analysis as specified, and keeping records of the sampling/ analysis. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 1. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the burden estimates contained in the ICR, and any suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Director, Regulatory Information Division, Office of Policy, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N. W., Washington, D. C., 20503. 19 EXHIBIT 1 ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST Hours and Costs per Respondent Total Hours and Costs INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Legal $90.00/ hr Manager $69.30/ hr Technical $54.33/ hr Clerical $24.29/ hr Respon. Hours/ Year Labor Cost/ Year Capital/ Startup Costs O& M Costs Number of Respondents Total Hours/ Year Total Cost/ Year Read the Regulations 0. 25 0. 5 0.5 0 1. 25 $ 84.32 $0. 00 $0.00 20 25 $ 1, 686.30 Complete and submit notification 0 0. 1 0.25 0 0. 35 $ 20. 51 $0. 00 $3.00 5 1. 75 $ 117.56 Keep records of shipping activities 0 0 0 0.1 0. 1 $ 2. 43 $0. 00 $0.00 16 1.6 $ 38. 86 Subtotal varies varies varies varies varies varies $0. 00 varies varies 3. 35 $ 156.43 Complete and submit notification 0 0. 1 0.25 0 0. 35 $ 20. 51 $0. 00 $3.00 1. 3 0. 455 $ 30. 57 Keep records of shipping activities 0 0 0 0.1 0. 1 $ 2. 43 $0. 00 $0.00 4 0. 4 $ 9. 72 Complete and submit the annual report 0 0.25 2 0. 5 2. 75 $ 138.13 $0. 00 $3.00 4 11 $ 564.52 Sample and analyze the product 0 0 1 0 1$ 54. 33$ 0. 00$ 1, 800. 0044$ 7, 417. 32 Keep sampling and analysis records 0 0 0 0.1 0. 1 $ 2. 43 $0. 00 $0.00 4 0. 4 $ 9. 72 Subtotal varies varies varies varies varies varies $0. 00 varies varies 16. 255 $ 8,031.84 Total varies varies varies varies varies varies $0. 00 varies varies 44. 605 $ 9,874.56 Product sampling and analysis (261. 4( a)( 21)( ii) and (iii)) Requirements for Generators Requirements for Manufacturers Record of shipments (261. 4( a)( 20)( iii)( C)) Annual report (261. 4( a)( 20)( iii)( D) Reading the Regulations ­ Generators and Manufacturers Notification (261. 4( a)( 20)( ii)( B)) Record of shipments (261. 4( a)( 20)( ii)( C)) Notification (261. 4( a)( 20)( iii)( B)) 20 EXHIBIT 2 ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST SUMMARY (INCLUDING INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN PAPERWORK BURDEN FOR EXISTING ICRS) Requirements for Zinc Fertilizers Made from Recycled Hazardous Secondary Materials 45 $2, 644 $0 $7, 231 $9, 875 Generator Standards 820 ­3 ­$ 154 $0 $0 ­$ 154 Biennial Report 976 ­2 ­$ 150 $0 ­$ 2 ­$ 152 General Facility Standards 1571 ­279 ­$ 12, 464 ­$ 181 ­$ 1, 506 ­$ 14,151 Specific Units 1572 ­87 ­$ 4, 650 $0 $0 ­$ 4,650 Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, and Special Permits 1573 ­37 ­$ 2, 042 $0 ­$ 1 ­$ 2,043 Subtotal N/ A ­408 ­$ 19, 460 ­$ 181 ­$ 1, 509 ­$ 21,149 TOTAL N/ A ­364 ­$ 16, 816 ­$ 181 $5, 722 ­$ 11,275 Existing Paperwork Requirements ICR Name ICR Number Total Hours/ Year New Paperwork Requirements Total Labor Cost/ Year Total Annual Capital Cost Total Annual O& M Cost Total Cost 21 EXHIBIT 3 ESTIMATED ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN AND COST Hours and Costs per Respondent Total Hours and Costs INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Legal $59.50/ hr Manager $55. 65/ hr Technical $40. 80/ hr Clerical $16.38/ hr Respon. Hours/ Year Labor Cost/ Year Capital/ Startup Costs O& M Costs Number of Respondents Total Hours/ Year Total Cost/ Year Receive and process notification 0 0 0. 25 0. 1 0.35 $ 11. 84 $0.00 $0.00 5 1. 75 $ 59. 19 Receive and process notification 0 0 0. 25 0. 1 0.35 $ 11. 84 $0.00 $0.00 1.3 0. 455 $ 15. 39 Receive and process the annual report 0 0 1 0. 1 1.1 $ 42. 44 $0.00 $0.00 4 4. 4 $ 169.75 Total varies varies varies varies varies varies $0.00 $0.00 varies 6. 605 $ 244.34 Generator Notifications Notification (261. 4( a)( 20)( iii)( B)) Annual report (261.4( a)( 20)( iii)( D) Notification (261. 4( a)( 20)( ii)( B)) Manufacturer Notifications and Annual Reports

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.273171

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2000-0054-0693

Supporting & Related Material

1 EPA's Proposed Regulations for Zinc Fertilizers Made from Recycled Hazardous Secondary Materials Response to Comments A. General Comments: 1. Rule should address all micronutrient and macronutrient fertilizers, not just zinc. (NUL) Response: EPA's authority to regulate fertilizers under RCRA is limited to fertilizers made in part or in whole from recycled hazardous wastes. The predominant type of fertilizer (by volume produced and applied) subject to EPA's RCRA authorities are zinc micronutrient fertilizers which use hazardous secondary materials as an ingredient. "Hazardous secondary materials", as explained in the preamble to the final rule, are sludges, spent materials, and byproducts which may be classified as solid and hazardous wastes when recycled. This rule defines when such secondary materials are, and are not, hazardous wastes when used as ingredients in zinc micronutrient fertilizers, and likewise defines when the resulting fertilizers are and are not classified as hazardous wastes. EPA chose to focus the scope of this rulemaking on zinc fertilizers made from recycled hazardous secondary materials, primarily because this type of fertilizer accounts for the great majority of fertilizers subject to jurisdiction under RCRA. EPA does have the legal authority to regulate other fertilizers under other environmental statues, but our studies have not indicated a compelling need to do so; such an effort would have required a much more substantial effort, and would have delayed this rulemaking considerably, which we did not believe was a sensible approach. 2. Rule should apply to blended fertilizers that are applied to soil, not to individual nutrients (NUL) Response: As noted in the response to the previous comment, EPA's authority to regulate fertilizers under RCRA is limited to products made from recycled hazardous wastes. The great majority of these are zinc micronutrient fertilizers. EPA is not aware of any primary nutrient fertilizers (i. e., nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium) made from such materials. The rule in fact effectively applies to blended zinc­ micronutrient fertilizers by establishing toxic constituent specifications which demarcate when zinc fertilizers should be classified as wastes or as products. Thus, the commenter's point that the rule should apply to fertilizers and not to constituents appears either misplaced, or purely semantic. 3. Rule will be less environmentally protective, since companies will be forced to use 2 hazardous materials to stay in business (NUL) Response: We disagree that this rule will result in less environmental protection. This rule is expected to result in increased production of high­ quality zinc fertilizers with low levels of contaminants, and will likely eliminate K061­ derived fertilizers (which have relatively high contaminant levels) from the marketplace. It should also lower the cost of zinc fertilizers generally, by encouraging the use of lower­ cost hazardous secondary material feedstocks. We thus believe that, nationally, this rule will result in fewer tons of toxic metals being applied to the nation's farmlands, since hazardous constituent levels in zinc micronutrient fertilizers should decrease as a result of the rule. 4. Rather than regulate fertilizers under RCRA, EPA should defer to AAPFCO and state agencies to establish appropriate standards (NMA, TFI) EPA is responsible for establishing federal regulations for recycling of hazardous wastes, including the recycling of such wastes to make fertilizers. This includes the responsibility to ensure that such recycling is legitimate, which is a major focus of this rulemaking effort. A key factor in establishing the legitimacy of recycling is placing limits on toxic constitutents in the resulting fertilizers; the rationale for establishing the limits in today's rule is explained in the preamble. Moreover, this rule does not preclude state regulation of the same fertilizers, should states believe such regulation is appropriate. Such rules could be more stringent than the conditional exclusion adopted in the final federal rule. It is EPA's belief, however, that it would be both protective of human health and the environment, as well as commercially more advantageous, if states were to adopt the federal provisions, to avoid inconsistent standards among different states where the zinc micronutrient fertilizers are used. 5. EPA should finalize the proposed rules expeditiously, and set a 3­ month compliance date upon final promulgation to discourage stockpiling of non­ compliant fertilizers (BAY) Response: EPA has appreciated the need to promulgate these regulatory revisions in a timely manner. With regard to the effective date of the rules, RCRA section 3010 (b) establishes a presumptive effective date for new regulatory provisions of six months from the date of signature, though a shorter effective date may be established if there is good cause to do so, or if the regulated community does not require six months to come into compliance. In this rule, because the regulated community does not require six months to come into compliance with many of the rule's provisions, EPA is making all but one of the provisions in today's rule effective immediately. 6. General support for rule, which should be expanded to address recycling into other products subject to UCD provisions (OLI) 3 Response: EPA recognizes that the current RCRA regulations applicable to products produced from hazardous wastes that are used in a manner constituting disposal may not be ideal, since current rules may not address exposure pathways other than leaching to groundwater, see, e. g. 53 Fed. Reg. 17578, 17605­ 606 (May 17, 1988). On the other hand, this could result in stricter regulatory standards than apply to unregulated commercial products used instead of the recycled one (although no such situations have been pointed out to EPA. We will consider further UCD­ related regulatory efforts as priorities and resources allow. 7. Strong support for the proposed rule, which strikes a fair balance between ensuring recycled zinc dusts are made into good, clean fertilizers while streamlining regulatory restrictions; rule as proposed would improve and increase legitimate recycling (NFF, ISRI) Response: EPA appreciates this support for the proposed rule. 8. General support for the main provisions of the rule as proposed (MID, WAS, MDQ, AST, others) Response: EPA appreciates this support for the proposed rule. 9. Rule should address the linkage with PBT reduction goals (AST) Response: PBT pollutants are chemicals that are toxic, persist in the environment and bioaccumulate in food chains and, thus, pose risks to human health and ecosystems. These pollutants transfer easily among air, water, and land, and span boundaries of programs, geography, and generations. EPA's current strategy for addressing these pollutants is described on the Agency's website, at http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ pbt/ aboutpbt. htm. This rulemaking is consistent with the Agency's PBT strategy, in that we are addressing priority PBT pollutants such as dioxins and mercury that have been found in certain types of zinc fertilizers. 10. Support for additional regulations for non­ zinc fertilizers made from hazardous wastes (MINAG, MPCA) Response: See response to comment A. 1. 11. Proposal should have been reviewed under Executive Order 13045; EPA's justification for not doing so is flawed (MART) Response: Executive Order 13045, entitled "Protection of Children from Environmental 4 Risks and Safety Risks" applies to certain regulatory actions that are "economically significant" or where the environmental health or safety risks addressed by the rule have a disproportionate effect on children. EPA has complied with this executive order, as explained in section VII. G of the preamble to the final rule. 12. Rule should establish financial responsibility requirements for generators for environmental damages that may occur from fertilizer use (MART) Response: This comment implies that fertilizers which are properly used and which meet the contaminant limits established in today's rule nevertheless have the potential to cause substantial environmental damage, suggesting the need for some kind of financial assurance mechanism do address such damage cases. We disagree that this potential for harm exists, since the contaminant limits in the rule are well below levels estimated to be "safe" according to risk analyses done by EPA and others. This issue is discussed further in the preambles to the proposed and final rules. In any case, EPA has no legal authority to require such financial assurance for fertilizer products, and EPA believes that the final rule reasonably demarcates between wastes and fertilizer products. 13. EPA should not regulate fertilizers under RCRA, and should instead defer to state fertilizer regulators and the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials' (AAPFCO's) model fertilizer legislation.( TFI) Response: EPA has a statutory responsibility to regulate the practice of recycling hazardous wastes to make products that are applied to the land. We note further that RCRA Subtitle C regulations address the management of hazardous wastes (in the case of this rule, hazardous secondary materials) prior to recycling, as well as the contaminant levels in the finished products. This contrasts with state fertilizer regulatory programs, which regulate only the content of finished products. This regulatory gap is one reason why we chose not to defer to state fertilizer regulatory programs, as suggested by these commenters. Another important reason is that the contaminant standards that are being developed by AAPFCO are, in EPA's view, inappropriately lenient (see letter from Elizabeth Cotsworth to Mark Ringler, in the docket for this rulemaking). Finally, we believe that today's final RCRA regulations represent a careful, sensible balance of regulatory incentives and environmental protections that should benefit a wide range of stakeholders, including the farmers and others who are the end­ users of these products. This perception was obviously shared by many of the industry stakeholders (and others) who commented on the proposal. B. Economic Impacts 1. EPA has not adequately assessed the costs of its proposal. As part of its rulemaking 5 proposal, EPA attempted to quantify the costs associated with the proposal. The Agency's analysis is contained in a document entitled "Economic Analysis For Regulatory Modification to the Definition of Solid Wastes for Zinc Containing Hazardous WasteDerived Fertilizers Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." This analysis is severely flawed and fails to adequately take into account the true cost of EPA's proposal on all small businesses, in violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. [TFI] Response: EPA's economic analysis for the proposed rulemaking provided an accurate and reasonable estimate of costs to all small businesses as required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). Both RFA and SBREFA require federal agencies to determine whether there would be a "significant adverse impact to a substantial number of small entities" (SISNOSE). If a proposed rulemaking would result in SISNOSE, then it is required to complete a regulatory flexibility analysis to look for less burdensome alternatives to small business and to conduct outreach with affected entities, the Small Business Administration and the Office of Management and Budget. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives "which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities" (5 U. S. C. Sections 603 and 604). Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. There is one small entity incurring incremental costs and offsetting increased revenues resulting from this rulemaking. This firm is Frit Inc, a zinc oxysulfate fertilizer producer. Frit has one branch facility co­ located onsite with Nucor Steel's Norfolk, Nebraska facility. Frit has been producing zinc oxysulfate fertilizer from Nucor's baghouse dust (K061, a listed hazardous waste). As result of both this rulemaking and market conditions, Frit will no longer be able to make zinc oxysulfate from Nucor's dust. This is due to both the removal of the exemption of K061 derived fertilizer's from LDR requirements and metal limits on zinc fertilizers made from hazardous secondary materials. EPA understands that Frit is ceasing operations at the Norfolk, Nebraska facility. In the economic analysis of the proposed rulemaking, EPA had modeled Frit switching from zinc oxysulfate to zinc sulfate monohydrate at Nucor's facility as the most cost­ effective postregulatory alternative. For the final rule, EPA has reevaluated two possible alternative regulatory responses for Frit to this rulemaking (1. switching from zinc oxysulfate to zinc sulfate monohydrate, and 2. switching from hazardous secondary sources to nonhazardous secondary sources) and determined that switching to nonhazardous sources of zincbearing secondary materials would be more cost­ effective for Frit than switching its 1 5/ 3/ 02 facsimile from Ken Herstowski USEPA Region VII to Paul Borst USEPA, Office of Solid Waste containing 5/ 1/ 02 facsimile from Tom Miller, Nucor Steel to Ken Herstowski describing declines in zinc content in K061. 2 As quoted in the article "New Rules for Zinc" by Greg Horstmeier from www. farmtested. com/ Pages/ factsht. html as retrieved 5/ 14/ 02. 6 production to ZSM.. This is because although it costs more to purchase nonhazardous zinc­ bearing secondaries, the fertilizers produced from the nonhazardous sources are sold at a higher price due to lower non­ nutritive mineral content (i. e. lead and cadmium). Because Frit is ceasing operations at the Nucor site, EPA has modeled the firm consolidating its operations at another branch office to produce zinc oxysulfate from nonhazardous sources. EPA has estimated that Frit costs for nonhazardous feedstocks will increase by $2. 9 million. Also, Frit should realize increased revenues of $3. 4 million that offset these costs and increase profit by $0. 33 million. Thus, Frit should not be significantly impacted by this rule even though it will be required to incur additional costs when substituting to nonhazardous sources. Moreover, EPA does not believe that one regulated entity constitutes a substantial number of small entities in the zinc micronutrient industry. There are several other firms producing zinc micronutrient fertilizers, some of them small businesses that will benefit as a result of expanded market opportunities for hazardous zinc­ bearing feedstocks It is also likely that even in the absence of this rulemaking that opportunities to market K061 derived fertilizers would become more limited in response to decreased consumer demand for fertilizers with high non­ nutritive mineral content . EPA notes that there is currently a market trend away from zinc fertilizers with high heavy metal content (see www. chemexpo. com/ news/ newsframe. cfm? framebody=/ news/ profile. cfm as obtained April 12, 2002 for zinc sulfate). Therefore, it is likely that even in the absence of this rulemaking, the market for zinc fertilizers with relatively high heavy metal content, such as K061­ derived zinc oxysulfate, is declining in favor of cleaner zinc fertilizers. And in the past 3 years, there has been a trend away from using K061 in fertilizer production. Two of the three firms that had used K061 in 1997 in zinc oxysulfate production had ceased using this hazardous feedstock prior to EPA's proposed fertilizer rulemaking (see below). In addition, the zinc content of K061 at Nucor's Norfolk, NE facility has been declining following installation of a new melt shop at the site. Zinc levels have declined from 25 percent in the early 1990s to 10 to 15 percent during 1997 to 1998. 1 Additionally, Frit has stipulated that losing K061 would have little impact on U. S. zinc market and that K061 provided only a fifth of the company's total fertilizer production. Carl Schauble of Frit Industries stated "Because of the expected rules, and industry changes that produced K061 with poorer zinc quality, most companies were moving away from it. It is less than 20 percent of our zinc fertilizer production." 2 EPA notes that according to Agency Toxics Release Inventory data from 1990 to 1995 that K061 was used much more prominently between 1990 to 1995 than it was even in the late 1990s before the Agency first proposed 3 See Tables 9 and 10 of "Factory Farming, Toxic Wastes and Fertilizer in the United States, 1990 to 1995" Environmental Working Group, March 1998. See also Handout entitled "Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer/ Estimated Market Share Analysis" given to EPA during a meeting between representatives of the zinc micronutrient fertilizer industry and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 14, 1998. 4 See Handout entitled "Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer/ Estimated Market Share Analysis" given to EPA during a meeting between representatives of the zinc micronutrient fertilizer industry and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 14, 1998. 5 Camp, Richard, Bay Zinc, teleconference with Paul Borst, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 16, 1999. 7 restrictions on the use of K061 fertilizers. For example, from 1990 to 1995, 6 steel mills (Nucor Steel, Oregon Steel Mills, Atlantic Steel, Roanoke Electric Steel, Florida Steel and Nucor­ Yamoto Steel Co) supplied over 30 percent of hazardous waste used in fertilizer to 5 fertilizer facilities (Bay Zinc, Frit AR, Frit NE, Tri Chem, Stoller Chemical). 3 By April 1998, long before EPA had proposed to restrict K061 used in making fertilizer, the number fertilizer facilities receiving K061 had declined to 3 (Scott G. Williams or TriChem, Bay Zinc and Frit) 4 By 1999, Frit Industries in Norfolk, NE was the sole facility producing K061­ derived fertilizer and Nucor Steel's Norfolk NE facility the lone steel mill supplying it. 5 Thus, the trend away from K061 as a feedstock for hazardous waste­ derived fertilizer was well underway before EPA proposed removing the exemption for K061 derived fertilizers from the LDR program. 2. EPA's estimates relating to the revenues and costs associated with subjecting K061­ produced fertilizers to the standards in the proposal are totally flawed (pages 1­ 2, 1­ 3, 5­ 2, 5­ 3, and A­ 1). First, Frit Industries, the K061 fertilizer producer identified in the analysis, reports that it would be financially devastating to incur costs of $5. 68 million to install the requisite equipment to achieve compliance with the proposed standards. (TFI) Response: EPA disagrees. Bay Zinc, also a small business that used K061 to make zinc oxysulfate fertilizers, switched from zinc oxysulfate to zinc sulfate monohydrate production. The company stopped taking K061 for a time, but was able to switch to nonhazardous feedstocks as an interim option and kept the door open to looking at hazardous feedstocks in the future. It's capital expense in converting was not financially devastating. The commenter fails to provide additional data or detail as to why it would not be devastating to Bay Zinc but would be so to Frit. And although EPA has revised its cost modeling and determined that it is more cost­ effective for Frit to switch to nonhazardous sources, EPA believes that its modeling for the proposed rulemaking were also appropriate and accurate for the information available at the time. 3. EPA's estimate that Frit's "new" process would utilize 12, 000 tons of K061, produce 6,761 tons of zinc sulfate monohydrate, and generate 2,100 tons of hazardous waste at a disposal cost of $164.20/ ton is also flawed. According to Frit's estimates, 10,000 tons of waste would be generated by the process (assuming 20% zinc). The 10,000 tons of waste would cost $1,642,476 to dispose of, instead of $344,820 ­­ or $1,297,656 more than 6 http:// chinachlorate. com/ english/ product/ hg2340­ 92.htm as retrieved on 6/ 18/ 02. 8 EPA's estimate! Also, EPA fails to consider an additional $100/ ton manufacturing cost for zinc sulfate monohydrate production. (TFI) Response: EPA has revised its modeling for shifting from zinc oxysulfate to ZSM and incorporated additional capital costs required to convert raw K061 into ZSM. After considering these additional costs and comparing the incremental costs of this alternative with shifting to nonhazardous feedstocks, the Agency has determined that the latter alternative is more cost­ effective. EPA has modeled shifting from hazardous to nonhazardous secondaries to make zinc oxysulfate as the post­ regulatory compliance scenario for the rule. EPA disagrees, however, that its proposal did not adequately account for waste disposal costs associated with switching from a zinc oxysulfate to ZSM line. The commenter incorrectly assumes that 100 percent of the mass of feedstock that is not zinc would partition to the filtered lead sulfate material generated from the process (12, 000 tons of K061 minus 2, 000 tons of zinc equals 10, 000 tons of waste). Some of the inert constituents would partition with the ZSM product (ZSM is frequently only 36 percent zinc by weight). Thus the commenter overstates the volume of waste that would have to be managed. The commenter also assumes that stabilization and land disposal is the only alternative available for the lead sulfate stream generated from the ZSM process. Although EPA modeled this waste being land disposed to be conservative in its cost modeling, the Agency notes that lead sulfate is a chemical intermediate used in commerce. For example, some grades of lead sulfate are used as a stabilizer in PVC opaque plastic products. 6 The lead in the lead sulfate stream may also be recovered and used in resmelting to generate secondary lead. Thus, EPA's disposal scenario for this lead material is a conservative cost estimate rather than a least cost estimate. 4. Because Frit will be unable to utilize K061, it will be required to look for other zinc sources to produce zinc oxysulfate and modify its process accordingly. Current estimates place the cost of switching zinc sources from 2.5 cents per pound of zinc (K061) to 32 cents per pound of zinc (other zinc sources), for a total increase in cost of $1,180,000. Finally, EPA's estimate of the selling price for zinc sulfate monohydrate is flawed. EPA estimates a selling price of $617/ ton, yet the current selling price for granular zinc sulfate monohydrate from China is approximately $470/ ton. This figure points out two things. First, that EPA's cost analysis is flawed. Second, that zinc sulfate monohydrate produced from hazardous waste will enter the United States from China unregulated, while domestic production will be drastically curtailed. (TFI) Response: EPA notes first that Frit itself has had to increasingly use nonhazardous 9 sources of zinc in the baseline as a means to make up for lost zinc values in Nucor Steel's K061. (See above) The company has acknowledged that currently K061 only makes up 20 percent of its fertilizer feedstock and that its use as a feedstock has declined in part to steel industry changes in emission controls that generate the dust. The commenter's statement about the selling price of zinc sulfate monohydrate from China is unreferenced and not relevant to the accuracy of the estimate of the selling price of ZSM used by the Agency in the completion of its economic analysis. EPA described in detail a range of ZSM market prices (see Section 2. 4. 2. of the proposed EA generally for this discussion) from $480 to $520 per ton as quoted from Chem Expo as a bulk price fob works (i. e. freight cost and risk of loss are picked up by the purchaser at the manufacturing site). EPA chose to use the $617 per ton ZSM price based on specific data provided to the Agency in April 1998 by zinc fertilizer manufacturers including Frit. The market price for Chinese ZSM, as for domestically produced ZSM, fluctuated with forces of supply and demand. Chinese imports of this material in particular have had a cyclical pattern in the 1990s. After looking at prices and quantities for ZSM consumed in the US over a number of years, the Agency believes that market price used for ZSM in the proposed EA is reasonable. The commenters statement about ZSM produced from hazardous waste entering the United States from China being unregulated while domestic hazardous waste derived ZSM will be dramatically curtailed is supposition that is inconsistent with the higher levels Chinese imports of ZSM into the US from 1996 to 1998, at the same time that higher domestic ZSM production occurred over the same period (see Figure 2­ 3 and Figure 3­ 1 of the proposed EA). Contrary to the commenter's suggestion, this rulemaking should stimulate domestic hazardous secondary­ derived ZSM because of the exclusion of zinc­ containing hazardous feedstocks such as brass fume dust from RCRA jurisdiction. 5. Pages 1­ 3 and 1­ 4: The conclusion that the increase in revenues would off­ set Frit's costs is unrealistic. The net effect of removing the current exemption for K061 fertilizers is that such fertilizers will no longer be manufactured. The result is that approximately 10, 000 tons of K061 will need to be treated and disposed of in hazardous waste landfills or treated via high temperature metals recovery. Thus, instead of a steel manufacturer receiving $10/ ton of valuable K061 product, that same manufacturer will have to pay over $164/ ton to dispose of the material. (TFI) Response: The Agency agrees that the effect of this rulemaking will be that zinc oxysulfate K061­ derived fertilizer will no longer be produced. As noted above, there is a good deal of evidence that this result would have occurred with or without the rule given the declining zinc levels in steel mill emission control dust, a decline in consumer demand for fertilizers with high heavy metal content and an empirical decline in both the number of steel mills generating K061 used in fertilizer and the decline in the number of recycling facilities receiving K061 for that purpose (see above). EPA has incorporated the added cost to Nucor Steel of landfilling and stabilizing its K061. 10 The Agency disagrees, however, that higher revenues for zinc oxysulfate produced from nonhazardous feedstocks is unrealistic. First, this is based on market data for these fertilizers provided to EPA by the fertilizer industry itself. Second, EPA has confirmed with Richard Green, a fertilizer distributor, that consumers will pay higher prices for fertilizers with lower non­ nutritive (e. g. heavy metal) content. See Section 2. 4. 2 of the proposed EA. 6. Pages 1­ 4, 2­ 1, 6­ 1, and 6­ 2: There is no proof that EPA's proposal will reduce the loading of non­ nutritive elements to the environment. For example, if Frit replaces its current K061 zinc units with crude zinc oxide (the zinc oxide concentrate that is produced from the high temperature recovery of zinc from K061), lead and cadmium will carry over in the crude zinc oxide. Thus, using this material as a substitute for K061 will result in a product with the same amount of non­ nutritive elements as in a product made from K061 with no benefit to public health or the environment based on the CDFA, EPA, and TFI risk assessment results. (TFI) Response: If Frit were to replace K061 with crude zinc oxide made from K061, the latter would be considered K061 since it is a product used in a manner constituting disposal (see 40 CFR §261.3( c)( 2)( i) ) and would be subject to the same terms and conditions of for lead and cadmium content as the raw K061 derived zinc oxysulfate fertilizer. 7. Page 2­ 3: The content of zinc fines from galvanizing is 50­ 55 percent zinc, not 72 percent zinc. (TFI) Response: EPA's source for this zinc level in galvanizing fines is Richard Camp, President of Bay Zinc, a zinc micronutrient fertilizer producer. The Agency believes that Mr. Camp's estimate is sufficiently accurate given his experience and credentials. 8. Page 2­ 7: The average application rate for zinc fertilizers is approximately 2 pounds of zinc per acre. (TFI) Response: The primary reference for the Agency's estimate of 5 to 20 lbs per acre is USDA's Ag Extension Service data. The commenter has provided no reference for its estimate. We also note that these figures for application rates were provided only as background information in the economic analysis, and are not relevant to the actual results of the analysis. 9. Page A­ 3: EPA's assumption that zinc oxysulfate produced from a concentrated material will have a higher analysis than one produced from a low analysis material is incorrect. Raw materials are mixed together to produce whatever analysis is required. (TFI) Response: EPA does not state on Page A­ 3 that zinc oxysulfate produced from a 11 concentrated material will have a higher analysis than one produced from a low analysis material. The Agency has estimated on Page A­ 3 that if you use a higher zinc content feed material (i. e. 60 percent zinc in the nonhazardous feed vs. 20 percent zinc in the hazardous feed) that you need less of it (i. e. 7, 500 tons of nonhazardous feed vs. 12, 000 tons of hazardous feed). This does not state that a higher zinc feedstock results in higher zinc oxysulfate as the commenter claims. 10. Page B­ 1, B­ 2, D­ 1, and D­ 2: Contrary to EPA's conclusion, the demand for zinc micronutrient fertilizers is not cyclical. It is dependent on the results of soil analyses and specific crop nutrient needs. (TFI) Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the demand for micronutrient fertilizers is dependent on the results of soil analyses and specific crop needs. The Agency has revised its conclusions in the economic analysis for the final rule in light of more recent data that indicates that micronutrient fertilizer is less cyclical than previously believed. 11. Rule will create an economic advantage for manufacturers who will be able to buy and process less expensive feedstocks (i. g., hazardous wastes) than are currently available to them. The commenter (a zinc fertilizer manufacturer) cannot afford the capital investment necessary to make ZSM, and will thus be at a competitive disadvantage with those companies. (NUL) Response: This rule may provide a competitive advantage for firms that will be able to use hazardous secondary materials as feedstocks in zinc fertilizer manufacture, replacing more expensive materials not potentially subject to RCRA regulations. Companies that are unable for whatever reason to operate within the new rules may be at a competitive disadvantage vis­ a­ vis those firms. However, EPA is not required to shape its regulatory actions under RCRA to address these types of marketplace issues, and we therefore see no need to adjust this regulatory action to protect this commenter from potential business competitors. 12. Rule would encourage use of cheaper foreign secondary materials with high concentrations of contaminants (e. g., dioxins) (MAD) Response: We disagree that this new rule will encourage the industry to use more highly contaminated feedstock materials from foreign sources in zinc fertilizer manufacture. We believe that the new rules will encourage the the industry to use relatively inexpensive, domestically available secondary material feedstocks, while ensuring that the resulting fertilizer products are of high purity. By making domestic feedstocks less expensive, the industry should generally have less incentive to import materials from foreign sources. 13. Proposed standards "could lead to an increase in the likelihood of environmental harm by encouraging a shift in the industry to zinc­ containing raw materials that are not subject to 12 EPA regulation" (TFI) Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that today's rule may increase the likelihood of environmental harm in this way. As stated in the response to the previous question, we believe that the incentives in this rule are much more likely to lead to higher rates of legitimate recycling in this industry, and lower contaminant levels generally in the zinc fertilizers used on the nation's farmlands. 14. EPA's economic impact analysis underestimates the costs of complying with the proposal, and overestimates its benefits (BAY) Response: The Agency has revised its estimates of costs and benefits of this rulemaking, as discussed in section VII. A of the preamble the final rule, and more thoroughly in the background document "Economic Analysis for Regulatory Modifications to the Definition of Solid Waste for Zinc­ Containing Hazardous Waste Derived Fertilizers, Notice of Final Rulemaking." We believe that our estimates of costs and benefits are reasonably accurate, based on the data available to the Agency, and represent a good­ faith effort on our part to carefully assess the economic implications of the rule in accordance with the Executive Order. In any case, the commenter did not furnish any additional cost data or other information to challenge the methodology used in our analysis, to refute the accuracy of our estimates, or otherwise support his contention that our analysis of costs and benefits for this rule is substantially flawed. C. K061 Exemption 1. Most commenters expressed support for eliminating the regulatory exemption from land disposal restrictions (LDR) treatment standards for fertilizers made from recycled K061 (electric arc furnace dust). Response: The Agency appreciates these commenters' support for this provision of the proposed (and final) rule. 2. Removing exemption will provide advantage to companies that can use hazardous secondary materials (NUL) Response: See responses to comments A. 3 and B. 1 (above). 3. Rule should have a nine­ month effective date, so that the one remaining manufacturer of K061 derived fertilizers will have sufficient time to make the transition to alternative feedstock materials (FRIT). Response: EPA does not believe that an effective date of more than six months is necessary or appropriate for this rule. For one thing, the remaining manufacturer of K061 13 fertilizers has for several years been aware of the Agency's intent to remove this regulatory exemption, and should by now have had ample time to respond by developing different manufacturing techniques or finding alternative feedstock materials. This commenter also did not provide any information to support why a nine­ month effective date would be more appropriate for either economic or environmental reasons, or to demonstrate that a six­ month effective date would cause hardship for the company. Nor is it clear that an effective date of nine months is even legally permissible, given that section 3010 (b) of the statute indicates that Subtitle C rules must become effective in no more than 6 months, although EPA may adopt shorter effective dates with proper justification. D. Conditional Exclusion for Hazardous Secondary Materials 5. A plain reading of the UCD regulations is that zinc sulfate or oxysulfate made from hazardous secondary materials subject to RCRA regulations are not subject to RCRA, unless they exhibit a hazardous characteristic. (TFI) Response: This interpretation of the UCD regulations is incorrect. A detailed explanation of these regulatory requirements is presented in the preamble to the proposed rule (see 65 FR at 70956). 6. Consideration of environmental damage is not appropriate in determining whether a material is a waste ­ only in determining whether a waste is hazardous (ACC) Response: First, the basic scheme of the rule does not rely on past environmental damage incidents caused by hazardous wastes recycled to produce zinc fertilizers. Rather, the rule establishes conditions for exclusion, which conditions reflect reasonable demarcations between products and non­ products. These demarcations, by and large, are based on existing commercial practice for bona fide products, not on past damage incidents. However, past damage incidents can be relevant in determining whether a material is discarded, both in illustrating (in the rubric of the case law) when a secondary material is `part of the waste disposal problem', and also in determining when a material is being discarded because handling practices are so haphazard that large­ scale loss is not prevented, or because handling practices which have led to large­ scale past releases are inconsistent with a claim that such materials are valuable products and not wastes. 7. By establishing product specification limits on contaminants in zinc fertilizers made from materials that are not wastes (because they are conditionally excluded), EPA has asserted RCRA jurisdiction over those fertilizers. It is unclear, however, how RCRA jurisdiction over these products can be maintained, since they are not made from wastes. (AST) Response: As the commenter states, fertilizers which satisfy the conditions in the rule are excluded from authority, so that no continuing regulation applies to such fertilizers. The 14 same is true of the secondary materials meeting the rule's conditions for exclusion. 4. Conditional exclusion approach is inappropriate ­ favor the regulatory option described in the preamble as "Maintain current UCD requirements, with additional reporting, recordkeeping and testing requirements for all hazardous waste derived fertilizers" (NWF, many others ) Response: EPA believes that the conditional exclusion approach outlined in this final rule is reasonable and provides an appropriate balance of incentives and protections, as discussed in more detail in section III. C of the preamble to the final rule. Put another way, EPA believes it reasonable not to apply subtitle C regulation to products that are essentially physical identical to bona fide products not produced from hazardous secondary materials, and that EPA has the authority to classify such fertilizers as products rather than wastes. Similarly, EPA has the authority to establish a similar classification scheme for the secondary materials used to produce zinc micronutrient fertilizers. 5. Support the conditional exclusion concept generally for hazardous wastes (NDI, SOC, others) Response: The Agency appreciates this support for this provision of the rule. 6. Support the conditional exclusion, including the elimination of permitting requirements, and the proposed operating, management and recordkeeping conditions for manufacturers (BAY) Response: The Agency appreciates this support for this provision of the rule. 7. Proposal strikes a reasonable balance between minimizing burden on generators while providing adequate regulatory oversight; documentation and management requirements are reasonable (SOC) Response: The Agency appreciates this support for this provision of the rule. 8. Conditional exclusion approach is sound and will encourage recycling while protecting the environment, though some further simplifications are urged (OLI) Response: The Agency appreciates this support for this provision of the rule. 9. Conditional exclusion concept should be applied more broadly to other recycled/ reclaimed secondary materials in other industries (NDI, SOC) Response: The Agency appreciates this support for this provision of the rule. 15 10. Conditions are adequate to protect human health and the environment (NDI) Response: We agree. 11. The option of meeting LDR standards should be available for zinc fertilizers that don't qualify for the conditional exemption (NDI) Response: As explained in section III. D of the preamble to the final rule, zinc fertilizers that are made from non­ excluded hazardous wastes will continue to be subject to applicable LDR standards. Meeting the new contaminant limits will be mandatory only for zinc fertilizers made from materials that are excluded from hazardous waste regulatory requirements under the conditions of this rule (i. e. to be excluded, such fertilizers will have to meet the conditions). 12. Rule is unclear whether fertilizers would be eligible for the UCD exemption if they meet LDRs but don't qualify for the exclusion (NDI) Response: The commenter's use of the term "UCD exemption" in this context is somewhat confusing. Meeting the LDR standards will still be required for zinc fertilizers that are made from recycled hazardous wastes. The new product specification limits in this final rule will need to be met only if the fertilizer is to be excluded from RCRA subtitle C rules. 13. The rule should exclude all secondary materials, intermediates and fertilizer products from RCRA regulations without conditions, since only one damage case was included in the docket, and thus the Agency has not made a convincing case that such regulation/ conditions are necessary. (TFI, ARA) Response: EPA has compiled information on seven specific cases where environmental damage has occurred as a result of improper material handling practices at zinc fertilizer production facilities. These cases are in the administrative record for this rulemaking. However, as explained in an earlier response, damage incidents are not the basic organizing principle of the rule. Rather, the conditions for exclusion are drawn, for the most part, from existing commercial practice. 14. Regulation of hazardous secondary materials is unnecessary, given EPA's ability to monitor recycling practices under its statutory information­ gathering authorities, such as 3007( d) (ARA) Response: EPA believes that the regulatory approach in today's final rule is reasonable and appropriate, given the history of this issue and the damage cases cited in the previous comment response. At this point, EPA has adequate information on the practice, and what is required is some type of regulatory response. 16 15. Should EPA pursue a regulation with conditions for exclusion, the conditions should be limited to a prohibition on speculative accumulation and limited reporting and recordkeeping (TFI) Response: We believe that the conditions for the exclusion in today's final rule are reasonable, reflect normal industry practices, and will result in overall cost savings for the affected industry. We base this belief in part on the comments we received from a number of other industry commenters, who expressed general support for the conditional exclusion approach outlined in the proposal. 16. Requests EPA to be flexible regarding speculative accumulation in the case of fertilizer manufacturers, since there may be cases where the 75% recycling requirement in the speculative accumulation provision could be problematic (TFI) Response: EPA believes that maintaining the regulatory prohibition on speculative accumulation makes sense in the context of this rule, and in fact is one key to ensuring against potential abuse of the conditional exclusion. The commenter did not provide any information to support the contention that this provision will be problematic in any way for affected manufacturers, nor was this comment made by any of the fertilizer manufacturers who commented on the proposal. Indeed, although the rules have included an exception to the 75% annual turnover requirement since 1985, which exception allows an individual to demonstrate that it needs a longer accumulation period, there has not been a single application under that provision to date. (See 260.31 (a)). We thus have no reason to believe that commercially viable manufacturers will have difficulty in meeting the 75% annual recycling requirement of this provision, and see no reason to change this element of the proposed rule. In addition, the case­ by­ case exception provision just cited remains available in the unlikely event that an individual company is unable to satisfy the annual turnover requirement. 17. Exclusion without conditions would be preferred, since such conditions are not necessary environmentally, and eliminating such conditions would level the "playing field" for all zinc fertilizer manufacture (BAY) Response: We understand that industry stakeholders would prefer to have hazardous secondary materials excluded from regulation without any conditions at all. However, it is our view that the conditions in the rule are reasonable, serve a valid purpose of demarcating products from wastes based on standard industry practices, and should encourage legitimate recycling with only minimal associated economic impact on affected companies. Further, we believe that the rule helps to "level the playing field" considerably by removing most of the regulatory disincentives on use of hazardous secondary materials in zinc fertilizer manufacture. 18. Support option of no conditions to exclusion, in order to fully encourage recycling and 17 create a level regulatory playing field for hazardous secondary materials and other raw feedstock materials (CBF, SOC) Response: See response to previous comment. 19. EPA has exceeded its legal authority by proposing contingent management requirements for materials that are not wastes; conditions should be established to define when a material is discarded, rather than what is protective (ACC) Response: As explained in detail in the preamble to the final rule, the conditions in the final rule are developed precisely as the commenter indicates to define when a material is discarded. The conditions, moreover, are not those EPA would establish were it developing rules necessary to protect human health and the environment. Rather, the conditions are based on existing commercial practices for legitimate fertilizer products and handling practices based on practices for legitimate fertilizer feedstocks. G. Exclusion Levels ­ General 1. Proposed levels are not easily achievable economically, and will force companies to invest in additional equipment and training (NUL) Response: The product specification limits on contaminants in zinc fertilizers that are specified in today's final rule are based on the levels that have been demonstrated to be consistently achieved in widely marketed, high­ quality zinc fertilizers. The Agency acknowledges that this rule may benefit certain zinc fertilizer producers who are currently making such high­ quality products, since it will remove regulatory barriers to use of less expensive feedstock, and should thus result in lower production costs and lower prices of finished products to farmers. This may increase competitive pressures on other producers, as noted by the commenter. Though such indirect competitive effects may be a consequence of this rule, they are outside the scope of the economic analyses that we are required to prepare in support of the rule. 2. Technology­ based levels are not appropriate; should be risk­ based levels (NUL, TFI, BAY, others) Response: We disagree with these commenters, for the reasons discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, and in section III. D of the preamble to the final rule. (Ironically, in other contexts, TFI appears to criticize EPA for establishing conditions designed to be protective, rather than conditions focused on whether discarding is occurring. As noted in response to that comment, the characterization is not correct.) 18 3. Rule doesn't consider the fact that contaminants in fertilizer and animal feed all are deposited on the ground (NUL) Response: This comment refers to the fact that RCRA currently places limits on contaminants in zinc sulfate fertilizers made from recycled hazardous wastes, but such limits do not apply if the same zinc sulfate is used as animal feed, even though (the commenter suggests) in both cases the contaminants eventually are applied to the land. This issue was discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (see 65 FR 70959). We do not dispute the idea that contaminants in animal feed often are eventually applied to the land in the form of manures. We disagree, however, that we have failed to consider this point in developing the rule. In fact, this rule was designed in part to alleviate some of the regulatory inconsistencies that apply to recycled products that are used on the land and those that are not. We are currently considering further regulatory revisions to the definition of solid waste, to address similar consistency issues associated with other products that are subject to current regulations governing "use constituting disposal" under RCRA. 4. EPA is attempting to circumvent the rule­ making process by arbitrarily lowering the standard numbers for metals (NUL). Response: We find it oddly contradictory for this commenter on the proposed rule to accuse the Agency of circumventing the notice and comment rule­ making process. In any case, we disagree that the contaminant limits in this final rule were established arbitrarily. Our rationale for establishing the new limits have been discussed at length in the preambles to the proposed and final rules, and reflect existing commercial practice . 5. EPA should use standards set by AAPFCO and the states (based on TFI's risk assessment) as exclusion levels, should EPA decide that exclusion levels are necessary (TFI) Response: EPA does not believe that risk­ based exclusion levels are appropriate as the basis for exclusion levels in the context of this rulemaking. One reason is that the exclusion levels are intended as an indicator of legitimate recycling, and to demarcate products from wastes, by reflecting the levels that have been demonstrated as achievable using available, economically viable production processes. Risk­ based levels would presumably allow much higher levels of contaminants than currently are found in highquality zinc fertilizers; as such, they would not serve as an indicator of legitimate recycling. In fact, such lenient limits could be viewed as allowing the non­ contributing contaminants like lead, cadmium, and dioxins to simply be discarded (i. e., disposed), which could be considered sham recycling. 6. Rule is at odds with previous Agency statements indicating that risk­ based demonstrations of the safety of products subject to UCD regulations would be appropriate (TFI) 19 EPA's previous statements were that an individualized, risk­ based determination might be appropriate for hazardous wastes used in a manner constituting disposal. 50 FR at 628 (Jan. 4, 1985). This might be a possible scheme for products which remain classified as hazardous wastes, albeit a scheme which is extremely resource intensive for those having to prove a practice is safe, and for those evaluating such a claim. However, the present rule seeks to distinguish which fertilizers should be classified as products, and which should be classified as wastes, a different matter altogether. For making such determinations, EPA, consistently since 1981 (exclusion of spent pickle liquor used as a wastewater conditioner), has indicated that a proper means of delineation is to compare toxic constituent levels in non­ secondary material based products with those in the analogous product produced from hazardous secondary materials. EPA most recently used this approach in the fuel­ specification standards found at section 261.38. That is precisely the approach EPA is utilizing in this rule. 7. Exclusion levels should apply only to those entities producing a material suitable for direct application as fertilizer without additional processing (except for blending with conventional fertilizer) (BAY) Response: We agree; the exclusion levels apply only to products that are suitable for use as zinc fertilizers, and not to intermediate products or materials. 8. The proposed exclusion levels are unnecessarily low, and could inhibit development of new processes and/ or use of other feedstock materials that would still pose low risks. (BAY) Response: This commenter is in essence suggesting that the technology­ based limits in today's rule are inappropriate, and that more lenient (e. g., risk­ based) limits would be preferable because they would allow greater flexibility for manufacturers to use alternative processes or materials to make products with higher contaminant levels that could still be regarded as "safe" from a risk perspective. We acknowledge that technology­ based limits such as those in today's rule will require manufacturers to produce fertilizers of relatively high purity to be excluded from regulation, which we believe is appropriate and reasonable because the levels are drawn from existing commercial practice. Thus, fertilizer producers demonstrate that their secondary material derived zinc fertilizers are not wastes because they contain the same hazardous constituent concentrations of quality fertilizers not produced from such materials. We do not believe it would be appropriate for this rule to establish contaminant limits at much higher, risk­ based levels, for the reasons discussed in the preambles to the proposal (see 65 FR 70969­ 70) and the final rule (section III. D. 2), as well as in other comment responses. 9. Regulations could encourage the use of cheaper, potentially more hazardous imported zinc­ bearing materials and fertilizer products, to the detriment of the domestic industry. EPA should work with other federal government agencies to subject imported materials to 20 the standards established in this rule. (BAY) Response: EPA expects that one outcome of this rule will be to make a wider variety of lower­ cost feedstock materials available to zinc fertilizer manufacturers, under a more streamlined regulatory regime. It is not clear to us how this would serve to encourage the import of alternative feedstock materials or fertilizer products from foreign sources, and the commenter did not elaborate on this point. We recognize the possibility that in some cases the source of feedstock materials imported from abroad may be unknown, and the potential thus exists for hazardous wastes to be imported and distributed illegally, without any RCRA regulatory controls. We expect, however, that today's final rule will lessen this possibility, by providing the option to manufacturers of using less expensive, domestically available feedstock materials. In any case, in light of recent incidents involving highly­ contaminated zinc sulfate material imported from China, it would seem prudent for manufacturers and others who handle imported zinc­ bearing feedstock materials to have reliable information as to the content and origin of any such materials. If such imported materials are hazardous wastes, they are potentially subject to RCRA regulatory requirements in same way as non­ imported materials. Note that for the purpose of enforcement, if the origin of such imported material is at question, the manufacturer or other respondent bears the burden of proof in demonstrating that the material is not a solid waste (see §261.2( f)). 10. Exclusion levels are unnecessary, would impose additional costs and would discourage legitimate recycling of hazardous secondary materials (CBF) Response: We disagree. As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, we believe the exclusion levels are reasonable and serve several useful purposes. See also the response to comment #G. 16, below. 11. Use of technology­ based standards for metals and background standard for dioxins is appropriate (WAS) Response: The Agency appreciates the commenter's support for this provision. 12. Manufacturers should have the option of meeting either the exclusion levels, or the universal treatment standards (AST) Response: Manufacturers who do not use the conditional exclusion in today's final rule will have the option of meeting either the new exclusion levels (in order to be excluded from regulation) or the universal treatment standards (and remain classified as a solid, and potentially hazardous waste). However, if the conditional exclusion is used, the manufacturer will need to meet the somewhat more stringent exclusion levels, which reflect commercial practice. 21 13. Limits on composition of products made from materials that have not been discarded are beyond EPA's legal jurisdiction, and are unnecessary based on EPA's finding that fertilizers generally do not pose unacceptable risks (ACC) Response: For the reasons discussed in today's preamble, we reject the commenters assertion that establishing contaminant limits in this rule is beyond our legal jurisdiction. As for the comment suggesting that it is unnecessary to place any limits on contaminants in fertilizers because EPA's studies indicate fertilizers are generally safe, we disagree. In our view, it would be difficult, if not unconscionable, to assure the public and other stakeholders as to the safety and legitimacy of using hazardous secondary materials­­ i. e., what otherwise are hazardous wastes­­ to make fertilizers without having any means of limiting contaminants in the resulting fertilizer products. Moreover, opportunities for sham recycling obviously would become rife under such an approach. 14. EPA should defer to state/ AAPFCO regulations for contaminants in fertilizers (ACC) Response: EPA believes that the contaminant limits in today's rule are reasonable, easily achievable with existing technology, and are appropriate for demarcating zinc fertilizer products from wastes. We do not believe it appropriate to defer to state agriculture agencies to establish RCRA regulatory limits, especially when it is unclear as to how many states will actually set such limits, or what methodology they would use. Further, since they are federally established, the contaminant limits in this rule should provide national regulatory consistency for the industry, which should be to its benefit (we note that the three states that have so far enacted specific limits on fertilizer contaminants have each adopted a different set of standards). 15. EPA's and other risk assessments are flawed, and thus claims of safety regarding proposed contaminant limits are inappropriate (MART) Response: The commenter offered no specific information as to how EPA's risk assessment (or similar studies) may be flawed, how those flaws might affect the conclusions of the study, or what might be done to correct any of the alleged flaws. It is therefore difficult to respond directly to these allegations. As with virtually any risk assessment, EPA's study identified a number of uncertainties in the analysis, and these are discussed at length in the document. However, we believe that the conservative methods and assumptions used in the EPA study lend credibility to its general conclusions regarding fertilizer contaminant risks, and the commenter has provided no information that causes us to think otherwise. H. Exclusion Levels for Metals 1. Liquid fertilizers would be at a disadvantage under new rules, since 20­ 1 TCLP dilution factor wouldn't apply to liquid fertilizers (NUL) 22 Response: This comment is apparently based on a misunderstanding of the proposed exclusion limits. There will be no disadvantage in the final rule for liquid zinc fertilizers, since it makes no distinction between liquid and solid products. The TCLP dilution factor cited by the commenter has no relevance to this issue, since the exclusion limits are measured as total concentrations in the product, rather than as concentrations in leachate as would be measured using the TCLP test method. 2. A limit of less than 600 ppm for total chromium will inhibit development of new technologies. (BAY) Response: The proposed limit for total chromium (0. 6 ppm per unit of zinc) represents the level that has been demonstrated as readily achievable in ZSM fertilizers, including a small margin to account for variabilities in the manufacturing process. The commenter did not question EPA's assertion that this level can be easily achieved in ZSM products, but instead referred to an unspecified "advanced technology" for making zinc fertilizer that is not designed to remove these contaminants. We note that the commenter did not supply any description of this advanced process, or submit any data to substantiate the claim that this unidentified technology would be unable to meet the proposed limit for total chromium. In fact, it is unclear from the commenter's discussion that this unspecified technology has been actually used in actual manufacture of zinc fertilizers. We also note that there is little, if any, available ZSM analytical data that differentiates between the different forms of chromium, although the basic chemical properties of chromium suggest that the presence of hexavalent chromium in ZSM fertilizers is likely to be relatively rare. In any case, it is certainly not EPA's intent in this rule to stifle development of new technologies for legitimate recycling in the fertilizer industry. However, without additional data and/ or considerably more substantiation of the commenter's claims it is difficult for the Agency to conclude that the proposed limit on chromium is inappropriate or will otherwise be a hardship for zinc fertilizer manufacturers. The final limit on (total) chromium is therefore unchanged from the proposal. 3. Exclusion levels for mercury, chromium and nickel are unnecessary and would increase costs; fertilizers that meet standards for lead, cadmium and arsenic would likely meet the proposed levels for these metals (OLI) Response: For reasons explained in the preamble to the final rule, the proposed exclusion level for nickel has been eliminated. With regard to mercury and chromium, significant levels of these metals have been found in a number of fertilizers, particularly those made from recycled secondary materials. Thus, we believe that limits on mercury and chromium are consistent with the concept of demarcating products from wastes through the use of contaminant limits. In any case, we note that the incremental costs of testing for five metals instead of three are exceedingly small, and should impose little, if any burden on manufacturers (particularly if, as the commenter suggests, actually meeting the limits for these metals will pose little difficulty). 23 4. Standards for beryllium and antimony may be necessary, since dusts from brass processing may contain these metals (MAD) Response: While it is possible that some secondary materials may contain metals such as beryllium and antimony, our review of fertilizer contaminant data did not identify any products with elevated levels of these metals, and the commenter did not submit any analytical data demonstrating otherwise. We therefore see no reason to set limits on these metals. 5. Proposed limits on metals may not be low enough to be protective, given uncertainties in EPA's risk assessment (NWF, others) Response: EPA believes that the proposed and final limits on metals are protective. While there are uncertainties in EPA's study of fertilizer contaminant risks, we are confident in its basic conclusions, particularly since the limits are well below EPA's thresholds for acceptable risks to human health. The commenter did not offer any specific technical information to support his contention that the limits in this rule are insufficiently protective, nor did the commenter identify any particular aspect of EPA's study that should cause us to question its basic findings. 6. Rule should set an upper­ bound limit on metal contaminants, based on a zinc content of 50% (WTC) Response: The limits on metals in the final rule are tied to the zinc content of the fertilizer product, for reasons explained in the preamble. The commenter is apparently concerned that fertilizers with high zinc content might be allowed to contain excessive amounts of these contaminants. We believe that such concern is misplaced. For one thing, the zinc content of fertilizers that can meet the new limits (e. g., ZSM) is unlikely to exceed 36%, since that is the maximum amount of elemental zinc that can be present in this chemical formulation (ZnSO4
H2 O) and, in confirmation, the commenter did not identify any products with a higher zinc content. The commenter also did not provide any technical basis for setting an absolute limit based on 50% zinc content. We therefore see no reason to establish an upper­ bound limit as suggested by the commenter. 7. Proposed limits on mercury and arsenic were set based on data that reflected detection limits of test methods, rather than actual measured concentrations in fertilizers (WTC) Response: We have adjusted the limit on arsenic, in response to this comment. We did not change the final limit for mercury, since we believe there is sufficient data on mercury content in ZSM fertilizers that do not reflect analytical detection limits to support the final limit. 8. It is not good public policy to allow waste derived products to be used on the land that 24 could exhibit a hazardous (TC) characteristic. (AST) Response: As explained in the preamble to the proposed and final rules, EPA believes that the limits on metals in this rule are well below any "safe" levels that might be determined through the science of risk assessment. The Agency is not aware of any data indicating that ZSM products exhibit a hazardous characteristic, and the commenter did not submit any such data. 9. Technology­ based standards are too restrictive, since risks are relatively small (CDFA) Response: We believe that the technology­ based approach to establishing contaminant limits in this rule is appropriate, as discussed in section III. D of the preamble to today's rule. In essence, we believe using commercial product specifications for non­ contributing hazardous constituents as a reasonable means of distinguishing products from wastes. 10. Concern that technology based limits may allow increased levels of contaminants as compared with the current LDR standards (CAL) Response: As explained in the preamble to the proposed and final rules, direct comparisons between the LDR standards and the contaminant limits in today's rule are difficult to make, since the test methodologies are very different. Using the most conservative assumptions regarding leachability of metals according to the TCLP method, the final exclusion limits are likely to be roughly comparable to, or more stringent than, the LDR universal treatment standards. Even if (for the sake of argument) the exclusion limits were somewhat less stringent than the LDR standards they are nevertheless substantially below the Agency's risk thresholds, and we therefore believe that any incremental environmental consequences attributable to the conditional limits are likely to be exceedingly small. 11. Limits should be based on Phase IV LDRs (MART) Response: The commenter apparently believes that the Phase IV LDRs (i. e., the universal treatment standards specified at §268.48) would offer more environmental protection than the proposed exclusion levels, which we do not believe to be the case, as explained in the previous comment response. We believe that the exclusion levels in today's rule are reasonable, protective, and more appropriate than the LDR standards in distinguishing between fertilizer products and wastes, as discussed further in section III. D of today's preamble. 12. Rule should set limits on additional contaminants such as barium, vanadium, thallium, antimony, beryllium, silver and selenium (MART) Response: See response to comment H. 7 above. 25 13. Support for proposed standards based on good manufacturing practice (MPCA, others) Response: The agency appreciates this support for this provision of the rule. I. Exclusion Levels for Dioxins 1. Proposed dioxin limits are inconsistent (lower) with CWA section 503 and cement kiln dioxin standards (NUL, BAY) Response: EPA acknowledges that the limit on dioxins in today's rule is lower than the limits that EPA has proposed for dioxins in cement kiln dust and sewage sludges applied to agricultural land. These proposed rules would implement different statutory authorities under different legal standards, and neither is intended to distinguish products from wastes. Our rationale for the limit in today's rule is discussed at length in the preambles to the proposed and final rules. In any case, it should be noted that the proposed dioxin standards for cement kiln dust and sewage sludge have not yet been finalized, and may change substantially from the proposed standards. Thus, any issues having to do with consistency between the dioxin limits in these rules are premature. 2. Complete ban on dioxins is unreasonable (NUL) Response: We agree. 3. A standard for dioxins is not justified by the data, which are limited and unrepresentative, nor has EPA demonstrated a dioxin "problem" with regard to zinc fertilizers. (TFI, CBF, ARA) Response: Although the existing data on dioxins in zinc fertilizers are limited, we see no reason to totally discount this evidence, which indicates the presence of dioxins in K061 derived fertilizers in the several hundred parts per trillion range. The commenter offered no data questioning the accuracy of the analytical results that are available, or to otherwise refute the notion that such levels of dioxins are present in this type of fertilizer. We therefore disagree with the commenter's suggestion that we have no basis for establishing a limit on dioxins in this rule. Further discussion of the basis for our decision to limit dioxins in this rulemaking is presented in the preambles to the proposed and final rules. 4. If a dioxin standard is finalized the 300 ppt standard for sewage sludge should be used instead of the proposed background standard (TFI) Response: The 300 ppt standard for sewage sludge has not been finalized by EPA, and the final standard may be very different than the proposal. As such, adopting that standard in this rule would be premature at best. Nor is the sewage sludge standard addressing the 26 issue of what levels of non­ contributing hazardous constituent (deriving, moreover, from a source unrelated to fertilizer production) could be a type of discarding and illegitimate recycling. Further discussion of this issue can be found in the preamble to the proposed rule. 5. Dioxin standard is unnecessarily low, and should be raised to allow 2. 5 ppt per percent of zinc, not to exceed 100 ppt in the final product (BAY) Response: We disagree that the limit of 8 ppt is unnecessarily low, as we believe it can be (and is) easily achieved by manufacturers of high­ quality zinc fertilizers. We see no reason to allow much higher levels, as suggested by the commenter. The commenter did not submit information demonstrating or even suggesting that the 8 ppt limit will be difficult for industry to achieve, nor did the commenter provide any technical or environmental data to support the suggested alternative limit of 100 ppt. 6. Dioxin standard will increase costs unnecessarily. (OLI, AZA, DOE) Response: As noted in the response to the previous question, we disagree that a limit on dioxins in this rule is unnecessary. The incremental cost of this limit should be quite low, since we do not believe manufacturers of quality zinc fertilizers will need to make any processing changes or other investments to meet the dioxin limit. It is likely that the cost of this limit to industry will be limited to the costs of once­ yearly testing and analysis, which we believe are reasonable and will not be a significant economic burden to industry. 7. Exclusion level for dioxins should be set at non­ detect level, or a level that represents preindustrial background concentrations (NWF) Response: The Agency does not believe that setting a limit in this rule for dioxins at a nondetect or pre­ industrial background level is necessary environmentally, nor would it be consistent with the goals of this rulemaking. The commenter is in essence arguing for a dioxin limit of zero, or very close to it, given the extraordinary sensitivity of current analytical test methods for measuring dioxins. Since dioxins are nearly ubiquitous in the environment, and exceedingly small but detectable amounts of dioxins have been measured in a wide range of fertilizer products (most of which were not waste­ derived), it is reasonable to assume that few if any zinc fertilizer products could meet such a limit. This would effectively put an end to this recycling practice, which we do not believe would be environmentally beneficial, as explained in section III. D of today's preamble. 8. Dioxin test result for the commenter's ZnO product was essentially zero (HES) The Agency appreciates the additional dioxin data submitted by the commenter, which appears to be consistent with the existing, limited data on dioxins in zinc sulfate monohydrate fertilizer products. 27 9. The assumption that reducing metals contaminants results in low dioxin content is untrue (WTC) Response: The data EPA reviewed in developing this rulemaking indicate that high­ quality zinc fertilizers such as zinc sulfate monohydrate, which have relatively low levels of metal contaminants, also have very low levels of dioxins (approximately one part per trillion or less). We believe the low dioxin levels in ZSM are likely due at least in part to the processing steps (e. g., acid digestion, precipitation, filtering, etc.) involved in removing metal contaminants from feedstocks materials, though they may also be influenced by other factors. The commenter offered no technical or scientific information to challenge these conclusions, and we therefore see no need to modify our regulatory approach to dioxins in response to this comment. 10. Regulatory levels for dioxins should apply only to K061 derived fertilizers (CDFA) Response: Although available data indicate that zinc fertilizers made from K061 have the highest levels of dioxins of the fertilizer products tested, it is certainly possible that other types of zinc fertilizers could contain dioxins exceeding the eight parts per trillion limit established in today's rule. We therefore see no reason to limit the applicability of the dioxin limit in this way, especially since we expect the dioxin limit can be easily achieved in high­ quality zinc fertilizers, with minimal associated economic impact on industry. 11. Proposed limit is too lenient, as it will result in buildup of dioxin contaminants in soils (KKIM) Response: We disagree that the proposed (and final) limit for dioxins is too lenient and will increase levels of dioxins in soils. The limit is based on EPA's estimate of average national background soil levels of dioxins. Since it is an average level, it is certainly possible that some soils that will be amended with zinc fertilizers may have somewhat lower levels of dioxins than 8 ppt. However, the rate at which zinc fertilizer is applied to agricultural land (a few pounds per acre per year) is so low that the actual potential for buildup of dioxins in these soils over time is so small as to be insignificant. This is consistent with the results of the State of Washington's dioxin soil survey, which indicated that agricultural soils (which presumably have been amended over time with repeated applications of fertilizers, including in many cases K061 derived fertilizers) have lower dioxin levels than soils in open, forested or urban areas, which have not been amended with fertilizers. 12. Compliance testing for dioxins should be done with the same frequency as for metals. Response: EPA believes the condition for once­ yearly testing of dioxins in zinc fertilizers is reasonable and adequate, particularly since available data indicate that dioxin levels in high­ quality zinc fertilizers are well below the 8 ppt limit, and the production processes 28 involved with removing metals from feedstock materials are likely to remove dioxins as well. J. Conditions for Generators 1. Proposed conditions for generators should be eliminated (though the conditions themselves are not particularly burdensome) since they will discourage generators from selling secondary materials to fertilizer manufacturers, in favor of alternative markets not subject to RCRA controls (BAY, CBF, OLI) Response: Today's rule is intended to remove most of the regulatory disincentives that have to date discouraged generators from supplying material to zinc fertilizer producers. As such, we believe that today's rule will actually encourage more generators to supply more secondary materials to this industry, rather than fewer. This belief is supported by a number of comments received in support of the proposed rule from generators companies and generator industry trade associations. 2. If generator conditions are necessary, they should only address retention of normal business records (OLI) Response: The conditions applicable to generators in today's rule are designed to reflect normal industry practices, including recordkeeping practices associated with sending and receiving shipments of secondary material to off­ site parties. We thus believe that this commenter's request has been satisfied in the final rule. 3. Generator conditions belie the "level playing field" goal, since no other generators of recyclable hazardous wastes are subject to such controls (BAY, CBF) Response: The commenters are apparently referring to one of EPA's stated goals for this rulemaking, which is to remove many of the regulatory disincentives that have to date discouraged the use of hazardous wastes to make zinc fertilizers, while encouraging the use of non­ hazardous materials. We believe this goal has been largely met in this rule. The commenter's assertion that no other generators are subject to such controls is not accurate, since in many cases generators of recyclable materials are subject to full RCRA subtitle C regulatory requirements (see §261.2( c)), which are more stringent than the conditions in today's rule. It is also true, however, that many generators of recyclable hazardous secondary materials wastes are completely exempt from RCRA regulatory requirements, which we believe is the commenter's point of comparison. We note, for one thing, that our reference to the "playing field" in the proposal had to do with the zinc fertilizer production industry, and not to hazardous waste recycling in general. In any case, we believe the conditions for generators in the final rule are reasonable and will encourage greater recycling in this industry. We note also that many of the generators who commented on the rule expressed support for it, indicating that they also consider the 29 conditions for generators to be reasonable. 4. Generator conditions are not necessary environmentally, since the materials they generate have economic value and will therefore not be mismanaged (BAY) Response: We disagree that the generator conditions in the rule are unnecessary environmentally. We believe that there is potential for mismanagement of these materials, given the damage cases we have seen to date involving improper storage of zinc feedstock materials at a number of facilities (reports of these damage cases are in the docket for today's rule). In any case, we believe the conditions for generators are reasonable, will have minimal economic impact on the generating industry, and reflect normal industry practices. 5. Necessary conditions should be placed solely on fertilizer manufacturers, rather than also on generators, since such conditions are unnecessary, since normal business practices already provide a confirmatory system for tracking these materials, and since placing r/ r requirements on manufacturers alone would provide the necessary oversight capability (BAY) Response: EPA disagrees that the conditions on generators in this rule are unnecessary, as explained in the response to the previous comment. Conditions for generators will help ensure that these hazardous materials are managed carefully in a continuous manner, from the point of generation to when they are recycled. We further believe that the conditions are reasonable, and note that they were supported by many of the generators who commented on the proposed rule. 6. Recordkeeping requirements do not reflect normal business practices, would impose additional costs, and would be problematic for generators who ship materials through middlemen (CBF) Response: We disagree, and note that the commenter did not submit any information to substantiate these assertions. We also note that they are inconsistent with other comments submitted by the generator industry. With regard to shipments through middlemen, the final rule includes specific provisions addressing the use of such middlemen in this industry, which should alleviate the problems cited by the commenter. 7. No storage conditions should be placed on generators, since non­ hazardous materials aren't subject to such conditions, and generators have an incentive to manage these materials safely (CBF, OLI) Response: See response to comment #4, above. 8. General support for generator requirements, with plea for outside storage of supersacks, 30 and less required information in the one­ time notice, since normal business records would provide necessary information to regulators (BBI) Response: We appreciate the commenter's support, and generally agreed with these comments. Thus, the final rule provides for outside storage of supersacks, and requires less information to be submitted in the one­ time notice for generators. 9. The one­ time notification requirement should be supplemented by a requirement to submit biennial report information. (WAS) Response: We believe that the conditions for generators for notification and recordkeeping, combined with the similar conditions for manufacturers, should be adequate for state agencies in monitoring compliance by the industry. Further, we note that RCRA's biennial reporting requirements apply to generators of hazardous wastes. Since under this rule generators will handling excluded hazardous secondary materials instead of wastes, such a requirement would be inconsistent with the conditional exclusion concept. 10. Requirement for generarators to certify that states receiving shipments of excluded materials are authorized for this rule should be removed ­ generators should be allowed to ship to states that aren't authorized for the rule, as long as the materials are managed according to the authorized states's regulations. (AST) Response: We agree with this commenter, and have eliminated the language of the final rule accordingly. K. Conditions for Manufacturers 1. Conditions for manufacturers should also apply to manufacturers of fertilizer ingredients (BAY, KKIM) Response: We agree; the conditions in §261.4( a)( 20)( iii) apply to manufacturers of zinc fertilizer products, as well as manufacturers of ingredients that become incorporated into those fertilizers. 2. The yearly report from manufacturers is appropriate, and should require (for manufacturers and generators) additional information on the amount of materials being stored at the time of the report, and a certification that the secondary materials are not being speculatively accumulated (WAS) Response: EPA believes that the current regulatory prohibitions on speculative 31 accumulation of hazardous wastes, combined with the new conditions for reporting and recordkeeping, should be sufficient in dissuading manufacturers from such illegal accumulation, and will enable states and EPA to adequately oversee manufacturers' and generators' recycling activities. We thus do not see a clear need in this rule for additional conditions relating to speculative accumulation, though states may choose to adopt more stringent provisions. 3. The proposed recordkeeping requirements for manufacturers are appropriate, and should be supplemented with a requirement to maintain documentation that at least 75% of each secondary material is processed within a year (WAS) Response: See response to comment #2, above. 4. Testing of fertilizers (for compliance with exclusion levels) should be required for batches of fertilizer products made from different feedstocks (WAS) Response: The final regulation contains a new condition for manufacturers under which they will need to perform additional testing of their fertilizer products whenever changes occur to manufacturing processes or ingredients that could significantly affect the amounts of contaminants in the product. We believe this adequately addresses the concern of this commenter. 5. Testing of fertilizer products should be required more often than twice per year, and consistent specifications for sampling and analysis should be required (MDH) Response: EPA believes that the testing requirements in the proposed rule (which have been finalized) are adequate for the purpose of establishing manufacturers' compliance with the exclusion levels. The commenter did not provide any additional information to show why more frequent testing or more explicit specification of test methodologies are needed, and we thus chose not to modify the proposed conditions for product compliance testing. 6. Testing frequency is inadequate; the rule does not support the conclusion that sampling and testing is done by manufacturers on "more or less an ongoing basis;" there should be more frequent testing if levels of constitutents increase by more than an increment set by EPA (KKIM) Response: In developing this rule EPA reviewed a considerable volume of analytical data on ZSM contaminant levels, which were generated by several manufacturers. Much of these data were the result of monthly testing conducted as a routine quality control measure. Discussions with industry personnel have also confirmed that such testing is a normal practice. We further understand that sampling and analysis of key indicator constituents is typically done either on a daily basis or for each batch of material 32 processed. We believe it is reasonable to assume that these quality control measures, combined with the twice­ yearly confirmatory testing specified in the conditions for manufacturers, should be adequate to ensure that products meet the specification levels. Note that the final rule includes a new condition that would require additional testing based on process and/ or material changes that could affect contaminant levels. L. Reporting and Recordkeeping Conditions 1. Some of these conditions may not be necessary environmentally (NDI) Response: Certain reporting and recordkeeping conditions in the proposed rule have been eliminated as unnecessary, in response to this and other comments. The conditions that remain are, we believe, necessary and appropriate, and reflect normal industry practices. 2. Manifests would be better for ensuring proper handling of hazardous feedstock materials (MAD) Response: We believe that the reporting and recordkeeping conditions in this rule will be sufficient to ensure proper handling of these materials; the commenter offered no substantiation as to why RCRA manifests would be better for this purpose. 3. Reporting and recordkeeping conditions are not necessary for monitoring/ enforcement purposes, since RCRA section 3007 provides EPA with the authority to inspect facilities and request relevant information. (TFI) Response: The reporting and recordkeeping conditions in this rule (which have been reduced to some extent from the proposal) will help assist overseeing agencies in monitoring and tracking (as necessary) this recycling practice. We do not believe these conditions will be onerous for industry. Relying on the Agency's RCRA 3007 information­ gathering authority to collect this kind of information each time we have an interest in reviewing this type of data would be an inefficient use of agency resources, and could cause considerable delays, which we believe would unnecessarily hamper our oversight capability. 4. Rule should require only a one­ time notification, and not require three years of record retention, as such requirements are extremely burdensome and don't promote recycling (TFI, ACC) Response: We do not agree that retaining records of the type specified in the condition for recordkeeping in the final rule will be burdensome. We believe these records are kept in the course of normal business, and the need to retain them for three years should not be onerous. 33 5. Concern for maintaining clear chain of custody with regard to intermediate materials handlers is valid, and such Intermediaries (e. g., brokers) should be subject to the same conditions as for fertilizer manufacturers (BAY) Response: We agree with the commenter's view that maintaining the chain of custody over excluded hazardous secondary materials will be important to maintaining the effectiveness and credibility of the conditional exclusion. The final rule thus specifies that intermediate handlers (such as brokers) will be subject to the same conditions for storage, recordkeeping and reporting that generators must meet. In our view, in the context of this rule, the functions and incentives of such intermediate handlers are more similar to those of generators than manufacturers, which is why the final rule is structured in this way. 6. Support the proposed paperwork requirements­­ DOT shipping documents are adequate in lieu of manifests (SOC) Response: The Agency appreciates this commenter's support for the paperwork conditions. 7. Reporting and recordkeeping should not be conditions to the exclusion, since they do not help define when materials are discarded (ACC) Response: The reporting and recordkeeping conditions in the final rule are intended to reflect normal industry practices, and are thus consistent with the idea that the conditions for exclusion in the rule serve to reasonably demarcate normal product production practices from waste management. 8. Notices by generators to receiving facilities should be with initial shipments only; requiring notices with each shipment is unnecessary and would be more stringent than current LDR notice requirements. (ACC) Response: We believe that requiring (as a condition) shipping papers to accompany and verify receipt of each shipment of conditionally excluded material is a reasonable precaution to ensure that such shipments are received at their intended destination; such records will also assist regulatory personnel in their oversight efforts. We disagree with the commenter's assertion that this condition is more stringent than current LDR notice requirements, which involve­­ for each off­ site shipment­­ a RCRA manifest, a certification to the land disposal facility, and a notice to the EPA Regional Administrator or his designee (see §268.7( b)( 6). 9. Notification requirements to receiving facilities should be made more explicit in the regulation (ACC) Response: The final rule has been reworded in response to this comment, to clarify that as 34 a condition to the exclusion each off­ site shipment of excluded material be accompanied by a notice stating that the material is subject to the conditions of the exclusion in this rule. 10. Rule should require testing and notification for each shipment of fertilizer made from hazardous waste, consistent with requirements under §268.7( b)( 6) (MART). Response: EPA does not believe that testing and notification for each shipment of fertilizer made from hazardous secondary materials is either necessary or appropriate. For one thing, such requirements would add considerably to the costs associated with this rule, while in our view the potential environmental benefits of such requirements are highly questionable. The commenter did not offer any substantiation as to why such additional testing and notification is warranted (especially in light of the protections provided in this rule), or what problems might be avoided by imposing such requirements. M. Conditions for Storage 1. Support for general, performance­ based conditions (which could be further simplified) on storage of excluded materials (SOC) Response: The Agency appreciates the commenter's support for the performance­ based conditions in this rule, which we note have been simplified to some extent in response to similar comments. 2. The general performance standards for inside storage of feedstocks would provide inadequate protection from tracking and air dispersal of wastes; the standards for RCRAcompliant containment buildings should be required to prevent such tracking and dispersal of excluded secondary materials (see 264.1101( c)( 1)( iii) and (iv)). (WAS) Response: The commenter refers to several specific design requirements for hazardous waste containment buildings that are intended to prevent these types of releases. The Agency decided not to add such conditions in the final rule, for several reasons. For one, the design specifications cited by the commenter are quite detailed, and would be inconsistent with the rest of the storage conditions in the rule, which were intended to be more performance­ oriented. The final rule includes a general performance standard (§ 261.2( a)( 20)( ii)( B)) for prevention of releases, which should be adequate in addressing the types of small but cumulative releases cited by the commenter as a concern. Further, as discussed in the following comment response, soil contamination resulting from releases of product or feedstock material is potentially subject to federal and state remediation authorities, and the substantial costs that are often incurred in cleaning up such releases should give facility operators a strong incentive to prevent these releases from happening. 3. Soils that have been contaminated with spills or other releases of wastes or products have 35 been claimed by at least one facility to be viable feedstock materials, rather than environmental contamination, which suggests the need in this rule for more stringent controls over releases in this rule. (WAS) Response: Releases of hazardous constituents into the environment that are not promptly cleaned up can be considered acts of illegal disposal under RCRA, and are potentially subject to a variety of federal and state enforcement authorities, regardless of whether the contaminants originate from products, secondary material feedstocks or other material sources. As a general matter, the Agency would not consider such contaminated soils as potential feedstock materials, though in some case­ specific situations we might determine otherwise (for example, if a facility were to demonstrate a viable technology and a clear, workable plan for expeditiously removing the contaminated soil and recovering the contained zinc units). In our view, the performance­ oriented conditions for secondary material storage in this final rule, combined with facility operator's incentive to avoid potentially costly remediation obligations, should effectively prevent the types of contamination problems cited by the commenter. 4. Releases from process lines should be subject to controls (WAS) Response: This comment is similar in substance to the previous comment; see the response above. 5. The proposed conditions are not appropriate for storage of liquid hazardous wastes used to make fertilizers, such as spent sulfuric acid. The rule should specifically state that the exclusion applies only to solid waste materials, or establish supplemental standards for liquids. (WAS) Response: The commenter did not specify why the proposed conditions would be inappropriate for storage of liquid materials. We believe that the final conditions for storage of excluded hazardous secondary materials are appropriate for management of both liquids and solid materials. N. Technical Issues 1. Support standards expressed as total levels of contaminants, rather than the TCLP leach test( BAY, NWF, WAS, others) Response: We appreciate the support of these commenters for this aspect of the final rule. 2. More specific requirements for analytical methods should be specified (WAS) Response: The final rule specifies the general condition that results from sampling and 36 analysis of fertilizer products be unbiased, precise and representative, though it does not prescribe any specific methods or procedures. Providing such flexibility in meeting this performance standard is typical of RCRA regulatory requirements, and is also appropriate, we believe, for the purpose of this rulemaking. O. Mining Waste 1. EPA's statements about potential risks from Ironite are unsupported (NMA) Response: EPA made no definitive statements in the proposed rule (or elsewhere) regarding estimates of potential risk from use of Ironite products. As stated in section IV of today's preamble, the Agency has underway a research effort that will hopefully shed further light on this issue, and inform our future regulatory strategy for fertilizers made from mining wastes. 2. EPA is attempting a "backdoor" approach to narrowing the scope of the Bevill exemption for mining and mineral processing wastes (NMA) Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion. We believe this is a legitimate environmental issue worthy of further investigation. Should the Agency decide at a future time to initiate a regulatory action to address fertilizers made from Bevill­ exempt mining wastes, we will do so in accordance with appropriate notice­ and­ comment procedures. 3. Preamble language erroneously implies that the Bevill exemption doesn't apply to all mining and mineral processing wastes (NMA) Response: Since EPA is taking no final action on this matter, no response is necessary. 4. Rule contradicts EPA's assertions that its regulatory determinations for extraction, benificiation and mineral processing wastes would not be revisited (NMA) Response: Since EPA is taking no final action on this matter, no response is necessary. 5. Regulating fertilizers made from Bevill­ exempt mining wastes can only be done through a formal regulatory determination, which requires conducting a study consistent with statutory requirements, submitting a report to Congress, holding hearings and taking public comment, before such a determination may be made (NMA, TFI) Response: Should the Agency decide, based on further study, that subtitle C regulation of fertilizers made from Bevill­ exempt mining wastes is warranted, we will proceed with such action in accordance with applicable procedures. 37 6. Ironite may be unsafe for residential use; the product safety risk assessment done by the company is likely to underestimate the potential health risks to children from Ironite (MDH) Response: The Agency will be addressing these issues in its separate study of Ironite risks, results of which are expected in 2003. P. Implementation and Enforcement 1. Support a more explicit regulatory provision eliminating permit conditions, and similar treatment for interim status facilities (BAY) Response: The Agency chose not to include an explicit provision in the final rule to terminate permits, permit conditions, and/ or interim status at facilities regulated under RCRA subtitle C, since we believe that at least in some cases such facility transitions may not be entirely straightforward (particularly where there are ongoing remediation activities that could be affected by permit changes), and will need some level of regulatory agency oversight. 2. Oppose using the "delay of closure" approach to eliminating closure requirements. (BAY) Response: The final rule includes a specific provision to clarify that closure will not be required for certain units affected by today's rule; we agree that using the "delay of closure" concept in this context would not have been appropriate. 3. For the sake of regulatory consistency, EPA should use its influence to persuade States to adopt the rule (BAY) Response: EPA encourages states to adopt this rule, as stated in the preamble. Our discussions with state agencies indicate that most states are interested in adopting the rule, and we thus expect the rule to be widely implemented in a relatively short period of time. 4. Proposal for burden of proof in enforcement actions to be on facility owner/ operators is a substantial change to current regulations and is unnecessary for this rule (OLI) Response: We disagree that the proposed language pertaining to establishing the burden of proof in enforcement actions is a change to current regulations. This provision already exists at §261.2( f). The proposed provisions were essentially redundant with this provision, and for that reason have been eliminated from the final rule language. 5. Proposed regulation does not have adequate requirements for reporting of spills or 38 releases. (WAS) Response: Facilities that will operate under the conditional exclusions provided in today's rule will be subject to the same requirements for reporting of spills and releases that apply to normal manufacturers and handlers, including reporting under EPCRA (i. e., the Toxics Release Inventory, or TRI). We believe that requiring additional, specific reporting requirements is unnecessary for such entities, nor would it serve to reasonably demarcate normal production practices from waste management. 6. Cleanup/ post­ closure care obligations should not be diminished for facilities qualifying for the conditional exclusion. (WAS) Response: We agree that the conditional exclusion in this rule should not affect a facility's obligation to implement corrective action and/ or post­ closure care for hazardous waste management units. We believe this is explained sufficiently in the preambles to the proposed and final rules. 7. Final regulation should ensure flexibility for states to use alternative cleanup authorities and approaches at facilities qualifying for the exclusion (permitted facilities and those in interimstatus). (WAS) Response: This rule will not affect the ability of states to use alternative (i. e., non­ RCRA) cleanup authorities to remediate facilities. 8. The option of automatically terminating permit conditions without the need for agency oversight should is not appropriate; the rule should allow flexibility for dealing with these situations by the overseeing agency (WAS) Response: We agree with the commenter, the final rule provides this flexibility to overseeing agencies. 9. Storage units should not be subject to closure requirements at qualifying facilities. Though this will eliminate the requirement to maintain financial assurance, this concern would be eased if the rule prescribes more explicit requirements for speculative accumulation (WAS) Response: We agree that closure requirements for certain units that store excluded materials at affected facilities are unnecessary, and the final rule explicitly waives this requirement. We believe that the current regulatory prohibition on speculative accumulation is sufficient for the purpose of this rule, as described elsewhere in this document. 39 Q. State Authorization 1. Final rule preamble needs to clarify the discussion of state authorization, to say that nonHSWA rules adopted by a state are enforceable by the state, whether or not the state has been authorized for them by EPA (AST, MDNR) Response: We agree with the point made by the commenter, and have clarified the preamble discussion dealing with state authorization in the final rule. EPA encourages states to adopt and begin implementing these regulations under state law, pending authorization from EPA. R. Other 1. Rule proposes labeling of fertilizers, which is irrational and will cause greater public concerns (NUL) Response: This commenter apparently misread the preamble discussion on labeling of fertilizers; such labeling was not proposed in the NPRM, nor do we believe that such labeling requirements are necessary or within EPA's legal authority, as discussed in section III of today's preamble. Labeling was mentioned in the preamble to the proposal as part of a regulatory option that EPA considered but rejected. 2. Proposal to remove 268.40( j) is unclear, since that paragraph does not relate to fertilizer (ACC) Response: The commenter is correct; the reference to §268.40( j) in the proposal was in error, and has been corrected in the final rule. Key to Commenters: ARA ­ Agricultural Retailers Association AST ­ ASTSWMO Recycling Subcommittee BAY ­ Bay Zinc and Tetra Technologies BBI ­ Brass and Bronze Ingot Industry BRZ ­ Big River Zinc CAL ­ California Integrated Waste Management Board CDFA ­ California Department of Food and Agriculture CBF ­ Copper and Brass Fabricators Council 40 FRIT ­ Frit Industries HES ­ Heritage Environmental Services ISRI ­ Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries KKIM ­ Katharine Kimball MAD ­ Madison Industries MART ­ Patty Martin MDH ­ Minnesota Department of Health MDQ ­ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality NDI ­ Nickel Development Institute, et. al. NFF ­ Non Ferrous Founders Society NLX ­ Nulex, Inc. NMA ­ National Mining Association NWF ­ National Wildlife Federation NYD ­ New York Department of Environmental Conservation OLI ­Olin OMRI ­ Organic Materials Review Institute SOC ­ Speciality Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association TFI ­ Fertilizer Institute WAS ­ Washington Department of Ecology WTC ­ Washington Toxics Coalition

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.282442

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2000-0054-0706

Supporting & Related Material

Economic Analysis for Regulatory Modifications to the Definition of Solid Waste for ZincContaining Hazardous WasteDerived Fertilizers, Notice of Final Rulemaking Report U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N. W. Washington, DC 20460 July 2002 Economic Analysis for Regulatory Modifications to the Definition of Solid Waste for ZincContaining Hazardous WasteDerived Fertilizers, Notice of Final Rulemaking Report July 2002 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N. W. Washington, DC 20460 iii CONTENTS Chapter Page 1 Introduction and Executive Summary ..................................... 1­ 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................... 1­ 1 1.2 Summary of Findings ............................................. 1­ 2 1.3 Organization of the Economic Analysis ................................ 1­ 4 2 Profile of the Affected Industry .......................................... 2­ 1 2.1 The Supply of Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizers ............................ 2­ 1 2.1.1 Raw Materials ............................................ 2­ 1 2.1.2 Production Processes ...................................... 2­ 4 2.1.3 Costs of Production ....................................... 2­ 4 2.2 The Demand for Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizers .......................... 2­ 5 2.2.1 Product Characteristics ..................................... 2­ 5 2.2.2 Uses and Consumers ....................................... 2­ 5 2.3 Industry Organization ............................................ 2­ 7 2.3.1 Market Structure .......................................... 2­ 9 2.3.2 Manufacturing Plants ...................................... 2­ 11 2.3.3 Firm Characteristics ...................................... 2­ 13 2.4 Markets ..................................................... 2­ 13 2.4.1 Market Volumes ......................................... 2­ 15 2.4.2 Market Prices ........................................... 2­ 17 3 Methodology and Data Limitations ....................................... 3­ 1 3.1 Baseline Conditions .............................................. 3­ 1 3.1.1 Zinc Fertilizer Manufacturers ................................. 3­ 1 3.1.2 Zinc Raw Material Suppliers ................................. 3­ 2 3.2 Analytical Methodology ........................................... 3­ 2 3.3 Data Sources, Data Limitations, and Assumptions ....................... 3­ 3 4 Final Rulemaking .................................................... 4­ 1 4.1 Current Regulation .............................................. 4­ 1 4.2 Final Rulemaking ................................................ 4­ 1 5 Costs and Economic Impacts ........................................... 5­ 1 5.1 Cost Analysis .................................................. 5­ 1 5.1.1 Costing Model and Assumptions .............................. 5­ 1 5.1.2 Estimated Costs and Cost Savings ............................. 5­ 1 5.1.3 Use of Brass Baghouse Dust in ZSM Production .................. 5­ 4 iv Chapter Page 5.2 Economic Impact Analysis ........................................ 5­ 10 5.2.1 Expected Market Effects of the Conditional Exclusion ............. 5­ 10 5.2.2 Estimated Impacts on Companies Owning Zinc Micronutrient Facilities .................................... 5­ 11 5.2.3 Impacts on Small Businesses ................................ 5­ 11 5.3 Conclusions .................................................. 5­ 12 6 Benefits of the Final Rulemaking ......................................... 6­ 1 6.1 A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing the Benefits of Regulating Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizers ............................... 6­ 1 6.2 Identifying Categories of Benefits .................................... 6­ 3 6.3 Potential Exposure to Metals and Dioxin from Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizers ........................................... 6­ 4 7 Other Administrative Requirements ....................................... 7­ 1 7.1 Environmental Justice ............................................ 7­ 1 7.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act .................................... 7­ 1 7.3 Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ................................................... 7­ 2 8 References ......................................................... 8­ 1 Appendices A Cost Algorithms for Conversion to ZSM Lines from Oxy­ sul Lines .............. A­ 1 B Overview of Zinc Market Model and Results ............................... B­ 1 C (Reserved) ........................................................ C­ 1 D Sensitivity Analysis .................................................. D­ 1 v LIST OF FIGURES Number Page 2­ 1 Zinc Micronutrient Production and Consumption ............................. 2­ 2 2­ 2 Zinc Sulfate Imports and Exports, 1992­ 1999 (Metric Tons) .................. 2­ 19 2­ 3 Imports of Chinese Zinc Sulfate, 1989­ 1999 (Metric Tons) .................... 2­ 19 3­ 1 Annual Domestic ZSM Production, 1993– 1999 (standard tons) ................. 3­ 4 3­ 2 Annual Domestic Oxy­ sul Production, 1993– 1999 (standard tons) ............... 3­ 4 3­ 3 Annual Domestic Liquid Zinc Sulfate Production, 1993– 1999 (standard tons) ............................................................. 3­ 5 3­ 4 Annual Domestic Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer Production in Zinc Tons, 1993– 1999 (standard tons) ............................................ 3­ 5 6­ 1 Conceptual Framework for Benefits Analysis of Regulating Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer ................................................ 6­ 2 vi LIST OF TABLES Number Page 2­ 1 Domestic Zinc­ Bearing Secondary Materials Used in Micronutrient Fertilizer Production, 1997 or Most Current Year ................................... 2­ 3 2­ 2 Fertilizer Forms and Zinc Solubility ....................................... 2­ 6 2­ 3 Zinc Application Rates (lbs/ acre) ........................................ 2­ 6 2­ 4 Total Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer Consumed in the United States and Regions in 1996 (tons) ................................................ 2­ 8 2­ 5 Domestic Producers of Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer: 1999 ..................... 2­ 9 2­ 6 Parent Company Information for Potentially Affected Companies ............... 2­ 14 2­ 7 Volumes and Prices of Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer, 1997 ..................... 2­ 15 2­ 8 Highest Volume U. S. Trading Partners, International Trade in Zinc Sulfate, 1992­ 1999, in Metric Tons ........................................... 2­ 18 2­ 9 1997 Plant­ and Product­ Specific Output Prices of Zinc ...................... 2­ 21 3­ 1 Baseline Conditions for Directly Affected Zinc Fertilizer Producers and Feedstocks ........................................................ 3­ 2 5­ 1 Estimated Costs of Complying with the Conditional Exclusion for Frit Industries, Scenario 1: Shutting Down .................................... 5­ 2 5­ 2 Estimated Costs of Complying with the Condition Exclusion for Frit Industries, Scenario 2: Moving to Walnut .......................................... 5­ 4 5­ 3 Estimated Change in Costs and Revenues for Frit Industries from Substituting Nonhazardous Feedstock .................................... 5­ 5 5­ 4 Typical Brass Mill, Brass Foundry, and Brass Ingot Maker ..................... 5­ 7 5­ 5 Financial Impacts on Brass Baghouse Dust Generators ........................ 5­ 8 5­ 6 ZSM Producers Using or Projected to Use Brass Baghouse Dust ................ 5­ 8 5­ 7 Estimated Cost Savings due to the Rulemaking for Big River, Sauget, IL ........... 5­ 9 5­ 8 Estimated Revenue Increases for Madison Industries and Tetra, Fairbury, NE ...... 5­ 10 5­ 9 Estimated Company Impacts of the Conditional Exclusion ..................... 5­ 12 1­ 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Zinc is among several micronutrients required for normal plant growth and development. Because of its role in plant nutrition, zinc is incorporated in some fertilizers, especially those targeted at crops sensitive to lower soil zinc levels (e. g., corn, sorghum, flax, grapes). Typically, zinc micronutrient fertilizer is sold to fertilizer distributors who then mix the micronutrient into customized blends of other required nutrients, such as potassium or nitrogen; the relative amounts of each fertilizer are blended based on the specific soil deficiencies of the end­ users' farm land. Farmers purchase these custom blends to apply to their fields. Zinc micronutrient fertilizer is produced in two forms: Oxy­ sul (a combination of zinc oxide and zinc sulfate) and zinc sulfate monohydrate (ZSM). 1.1 Introduction A variety of secondary materials are used in the manufacturing of zinc­ containing micronutrient fertilizers for agriculture. Some of these materials are hazardous wastes under Federal regulations promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Examples of hazardous secondary materials used to manufacture zinc­ containing micronutrient fertilizer include emission control dust from electric arc furnaces (EAFs) in the iron and steel industry (K061, a listed hazardous waste) and tire ash (characteristically hazardous for both lead and cadmium and designated as D006 and D008). Brass fume dust is mostly used to produce zinc micronutrient for animal feed or sent for zinc reclamation. It is possible that zinc micronutrient manufacturers or zinc manufacturers will use brass fume dust to produce zinc micronutrient fertilizer or ZSM in the future. Brass fume dust from brass ingot makers, brass mills, and brass and bronze foundries is usually characteristically hazardous for both lead and cadmium and is designated as D006 and D008. Examples of nonhazardous secondary materials include zinc fines from galvanizing and zinc hydroxide from electrowinning of automobiles for rust prevention. Currently, handlers of hazardous wastes used in manufacturing zinc­ containing micronutrient fertilizers are subject to generator and transporter standards as well as applicable standards for facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous wastes (see 40 CFR §§ 266.21­ 23). Storage prior to recycling of these wastes is subject to RCRA permit requirements. The use of zinc­ containing hazardous waste­ derived fertilizers other than K061­ derived fertilizers is conditionally exempt from RCRA regulation provided that they meet the applicable treatment standard specified under Subpart D of Part 268 of RCRA regulation (see 40 CFR §266.20( b)). K061­ derived fertilizers are currently exempt from RCRA regulation, although the K061 used to produce them is fully regulated until the product is made. In 1998, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated two regulations affecting the status of hazardous waste­ derived fertilizers. In May 1998, EPA promulgated the 1­ 2 Phase IV final rule for toxicity characteristic for metals (hereafter TC metals) wastes (63 FR 28556 [May 26, 1998]). This rule revised the treatment standards for hazardous wastes that exhibited the TC metals (hereafter TC metals) to the Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) specified in 40 CFR §268.40. The rule did not change the regulatory exemption for K061­ derived fertilizers. The revised UTS standards for TC metal wastes are more stringent than the previous treatment standards. In reconsideration of the appropriateness of the UTS standards for zinc­ containing fertilizer, the Agency in August 1998 administratively stayed the effect of the treatment standards for zinc­ containing fertilizers (63 FR 46631 [August 31, 1998]). EPA is developing a notice of final rulemaking that ° removes the K061 fertilizer exemption from RCRA regulation, ° provides a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for hazardous secondary feedstocks (e. g., brass dust, EAF dust from steel mills, and tire ash) used to produce zinc­ containing fertilizers, and ° provides product specifications based on ZSM for excluding hazardous waste­ derived zinc­ containing fertilizers. The conditions for excluding the hazardous secondary feedstocks would include handling requirements for storage and transport (e. g., no land storage), reporting requirements, and labeling requirements. This report provides analytic support to the Agency's notice of final rulemaking effort. 1.2 Summary of Findings EPA projects that one firm currently producing zinc micronutrient fertilizers using hazardous feedstocks will have to change its operations at one facility to comply with the conditional exclusion. One raw material supplier may have to change its disposal practices. These two firms are the only directly affected entities. Also, EPA projects that two other zinc micronutrient producers will modify their output markets and one zinc producer will change its raw material supplier. Some brass fume dust generators will change their disposal practices, according to EPA estimates. One directly affected firm, Frit Industries, is projected to shut down operations at one of its facilities or move the production operation to another location. Given available data, it appears that moving its operation from Norfolk, NE, to Walnut Ridge, AR, would be Frit's leastcost method of complying with the conditional exclusion. Under this compliance scenario, Frit is projected to have an increase in costs of approximately $3.1 million but realize increased revenues of approximately $3.4 million as a result of its transition to a nonhazardous feedstock. The firm is estimated to increase its revenues, because Oxy­ sul produced with a nonhazardous feedstock sells for a higher price than Oxy­ sul produced with a hazardous feedstock. Overall, this scenario is projected to improve Frit's profitability by $326,000. The fact that Frit has not chosen to make this apparently profit­ enhancing change in the absence of the regulation suggests that contractual obligations or costs may be associated with such a move that are not currently considered in EPA's analysis. 1 Queneau, Paul. Personal communication with Paul Borst, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 9, 1999. 1­ 3 Another directly affected company, Nucor, is expected to be affected by the conditional exclusion, because Frit is projected to no longer purchase its EAF dust. The firm will thus incur the incremental costs of $1,400,000 of additional disposal costs. This scenario assumes that Frit chooses to move its operation to its plant in Arkansas and substitute a nonhazardous feedstock for the K061 that it currently uses. However, Frit may also choose to shut down its operation entirely. This alternative would require vacating and cleaning up the site of its plant in Norfolk, NE, and, based on the assumptions made by EPA, would result in a net increase in annual costs of approximately $1.5 million. Given the uncertainty of many of EPA's assumptions in this analysis, the Agency has chosen to present the two alternative scenarios described above. These two scenarios, their associated costs, and the assumptions used by the Agency to calculate these costs and impacts are described in greater detail in Chapter 5 of this report. Madison Industries and Tetra Micronutrients, two other zinc micronutrient fertilizer producers, are expected to change their output markets as a result of the conditional exclusion. Madison Industries currently sells all of their product to animal feed suppliers, and Tetra Micronutrients sells one­ half of their product to animal feed suppliers. EPA predicts that both fertilizer manufacturers will sell all of their product to fertilizer dealers in a post­ rule environment. Fertilizer demands a higher price than animal feed; therefore, both producers should experience an increase in revenues 1 . Madison Industries is expected to experience a cost savings of $500,000, while Tetra Micronutrients is expected to experience a cost savings of $250,000. Big River Zinc, a zinc producer, is expected to switch its raw material supplier as a result of the conditional exclusion. Currently, Big River Zinc purchases zinc oxide from Zinc Nacional. EPA predicts that Big River Zinc will substitute brass fume dust for its raw material, resulting in feedstock purchase savings of approximately $328,000. Big River Zinc will incur additional disposal costs, because a sludge is produced when a hazardous material is incorporated. These disposal costs amount to about $209,000; thus, Big River Zinc's net cost savings are expected to amount to $119,000. EPA expects several of the brass fume dust generators to experience cost savings as a result of the conditional exclusion, since Big River Zinc will create an increased demand for brass fume dust. These brass fume dust generators will no longer pay disposal costs for their dust; instead, they will receive payment for their dust. EPA expects ten brass mills to experience cost savings of $36,300 each ($ 363,000 aggregate savings). Three brass foundries are expected to realize cost savings of $29,000 each ($ 87,000 aggregate savings), and ten brass ingot makers are expected to realize cost savings of $121,000 each ($ 1,210,000 aggregate savings). One of the directly affected firms, Frit Industries, is a small businesses. In compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), EPA examined the potential impacts of the conditional exclusion on these small businesses. For Frit, the costs of complying are estimated to be substantial; however, EPA's analysis indicates that they may experience increases in revenues that largely offset their costs. Taking all costs, cost savings, and estimated revenue increases into account, Frit Industries may experience increased 1­ 4 profitability through substituting a nonhazardous feedstock. EPA estimates that the cost of disassembling its plant in Norfolk, NE; cleaning up the site; moving its capital equipment to Walnut Ridge, AR; and substituting a nonhazardous feedstock would be approximately $2.9 million. In addition, EPA estimates that Frit would incur costs of over $149,000 to move its plant to the facility in Arkansas. However, the Oxy­ sul made from the nonhazardous feedstock would sell at a higher price, increasing Frit's revenues by an estimated $3.4 million. Because only one small entity is projected to be directly affected, and because it may be able to completely recover its costs, EPA certifies that the conditional exclusion will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The benefits of the conditional exclusion can be expressed as the reduction in adverse health and ecosystem effects that will result from the final standards. The rulemaking is expected to result in human health and ecosystem benefits, because it will reduce releases of heavy metals, including lead, cadmium, chromium, and nickel, to the environment. Unfortunately, EPA has only limited information on which to evaluate the benefits; thus, the Agency has conducted a qualitative benefits assessment. Nevertheless, it is evident that the conditional exclusion, with its resulting reductions in releases of heavy metals and dioxins, would convey substantial benefits to the human population. Thus, the standards are projected to result in human health benefits; in addition, improved materials handling practices at zinc micronutrient manufacturers are projected to result in ecosystem benefits due to reduced releases of heavy metals to the environment. 1.3 Organization of the Economic Analysis This report is organized into seven chapters. Chapter 2 provides an industry profile of the zinc micronutrient fertilizer industry; it discusses the supply side and demand side dynamics, industry organization, and the market for zinc micronutrient fertilizers. Chapter 3 examines the methodology and data limitations of this analysis. The final rulemaking and current regulations are presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 discusses a cost analysis for the final rulemaking. The economic impacts of the final regulations are also examined in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 discusses the potential benefits of the final rulemaking, while Chapter 7 considers other regulatory requirements. Appendix A provides a more detailed description of the costs used to estimate economic impacts in Chapter 5. Appendices B, and C provide greater detail about how the costs of the standards were estimated and analyzed. Appendix D provides a sensitivity analysis of the economic impacts, analyzing the impacts when the production levels of zinc micronutrient fertilizer vary. In addition to the zinc micronutrient fertilizers made from hazardous secondary feedstocks, considered in the body of this report, EPA is considering regulating the practice of recycling wastes from extraction and beneficiation to make fertilizer products. These wastes (referred to hereafter as mining wastes) are currently exempt from hazardous waste regulations according to RCRA section 3001( b)( 3)( A)( ii), commonly referred to as the "Bevill exemption." 1 Queneau, Paul et al. June 27­ 29, 2000. "Recycling Heavy Metals in Solid Waste." Sponsored by Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. 2­ 1 CHAPTER 2 PROFILE OF THE AFFECTED INDUSTRY This chapter presents an industry profile of the zinc micronutrient fertilizer industry in the United States. Section 2.1 considers the supply of zinc micronutrient fertilizers, and Section 2.2 covers the demand for zinc micronutrient fertilizers. The organization of the zinc micronutrient fertilizer industry is addressed in Section 2.3. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the markets involved in this industry. 2.1 The Supply of Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizers This section provides an overview of zinc micronutrient fertilizer production in the United States. The industry is small, relative to the fertilizer industry as a whole; the United States has fewer than 20 zinc micronutrient producers. This section examines the raw materials used, the production processes incorporated, and the costs of production and discusses production in terms of "zinc tons" rather than in tons of input or product. 2.1.1 Raw Materials Zinc micronutrient fertilizers are made from a variety of raw materials, or feedstocks. Figure 2­ 1 presents an overview of zinc micronutrient production and consumption. In 1999, the amount of zinc tons of fertilizer produced annually derived from nonhazardous materials was roughly equivalent to the zinc tons produced annually derived from EAF dust, brass dust, or tire ash, which EPA classifies as hazardous waste. 1 Table 2­ 1 presents the amount of each type of feedstock used in the production of zinc fertilizer, as well as its RCRA status and percentage of zinc content. The nonhazardous materials have a much higher concentration of zinc. The nonhazardous raw materials include zinc fines from galvanizing, zinc hydroxide from electrowinning of automobiles for rust protection, and some crude zinc oxide from nonhazardous sources or crude zinc oxide refined from a hazardous waste source such as K061, EAF dust. These materials do not have the high levels of heavy metals that are characteristic of the hazardous raw materials and are therefore not regulated by the Federal government. 2­ 2 Brass ingot makers, tire ash generators, etc. EAFs Electrowinners, zinc oxide manufacturers Zinc micronutrient manufacturing process Zinc micronutrient manufacturing process Zinc micronutrient manufacturing process Chemical manufacturers Animal feed manufacturers Farmers Nonhazardous zinc K061 D006 D008 Fertilizer dealers ZSM, Oxy­ sul (nonhazardous) Oxy­ sul (H) ZSM (H) Figure 2­ 1. Zinc Micronutrient Production and Consumption 2­ 3 Table 2­ 1. Domestic Zinc­ Bearing Secondary Materials Used in Micronutrient Fertilizer Production, 1997 or Most Current Year Material Annual generation (tons) Annual amount used in fertilizer production (tons) a Typically hazardous or nonhazardous under RCRA b Zinc content (%) Electric arc furnace dust from steel mills (K061) d 925,000 10,000 Hazardous (Pb, Cr, Cd) 15­ 25 Brass fume dust (D006, D008) e 32,200 842 Hazardous (Pb, Cd) 40­ 60 Zinc fines from galvanizing Unknown 10,836 Nonhazardous 72 f Zinc hydroxide from electrowinning for rust protection Unknown 4,715 Nonhazardous 60­ 75 f a The annual amount of K061 destined for fertilizer production is estimated based on Oxy­ sul volume given for Frit in Queneau, Paul, et al. June 27­ 29, 2000. "Recycling Heavy Metals in Solid Waste," Sponsored by Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. The amount of brass fume dust incorporated into fertilizer production was estimated based on volumes given in a handout entitled, "Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer/ Estimated Market Share Analysis," given to EPA during a meeting between representatives of the zinc micronutrient fertilizer industry and EPA, April 14, 1998. b Camp, Richard, Bay Zinc, handout to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. c Borst, Paul, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication with Ken Wycherley, Exeter Energy Ltd. November 19, 1998. d Queneau, Paul, P. B. Queneau & Associates, Inc., facsimile to Paul Borst, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. "EAF Dust— U. S. A. 1998." February 10, 1999. e Personal communication between Paul Borst, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and Gary Mosher, American Foundrymen's Society, November 19, 1998. Personal communication between Paul Borst, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and George Obeldobel, Big River Zinc, July 12, 1999. Total generation of brass fume dust is a total of ingotmaker, brass foundry, and brass mill dust generation. Total estimated brass fume production is based on a 450 ton per ingot maker times 12 ingot makers, 32 ton per foundry annual generation rate times 791 nonferrous foundries, 125 tons per brass mill times 12 brass mills. f Borst, Paul, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication with Richard Camp, Bay Zinc. November 18, 1998. Source: Unless otherwise noted, volumes used in fertilizer production were derived from a handout entitled "Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer/ Estimated Market Share Analysis" given to EPA during a meeting between representatives of the zinc micronutrient fertilizer industry and EPA, April 14, 1998. Note: Some imported sources of zinc­ bearing secondary materials may also be used in micronutrient fertilizer production. 2 Schauble, Carl, Frit Industries, teleconference with Paul Borst, David Fagan, Mitch Kidwell, Matt Hale, Caroline Ahearn, and Steve Silverman, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 24, 1999. Page 1. 3 Ibid. Page 1. 4 Obeldobel, George, teleconference with Lindsay James, Research Triangle Institute, May 9, 2001. 5 Borst, Paul, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication with Richard Camp, President, Bay Zinc. April 16, 1999. Page 1. 2­ 4 2.1.2 Production Processes The production processes vary according to the type of fertilizer produced. Oxy­ sul is produced by adding sulfuric acid (H2SO4) to the raw material. Producers may or may not add crude zinc oxide (ZnO) to the raw material, depending on the zinc concentration in the raw material. The sulfuric acid granulates the raw material dust to create a form more appropriate for fertilizer application. The addition of sulfuric acid also converts some of the zinc oxide into zinc sulfate. Oxy­ sul is produced from both hazardous and nonhazardous feedstocks. This production process does not remove any of the heavy metals that may be present in the raw material. For example, Oxy­ sul from EAF dust averages approximately 20 percent zinc, 6,000 ppm lead, and 200 ppm cadmium. 2 The production of ZSM involves more elaborate capital equipment. This production process removes heavy metals (lead and cadmium) from hazardous raw materials through a twostep process involving filtration. While the production of Oxy­ sul only partially converts the raw zinc oxide to zinc sulfate, the ZSM production process completes the chemical reaction, and nearly all of the zinc oxide in the raw material is converted to ZSM. 2.1.3 Costs of Production Production of zinc fertilizer requires a combination of variable inputs such as raw materials, labor, transportation and energy, and fixed capital equipment. Costs are also associated with complying with RCRA regulations for those producers who use hazardous raw materials. This report focuses on the costs of raw materials and the change in costs of complying with the final regulations. (Chapter 5 examines the regulatory costs.) A major component of the variable costs for zinc fertilizer producers is the cost of raw zinc materials. The price that the zinc fertilizer producers pay to the raw zinc suppliers is mainly a function of the zinc concentration in the raw material. Transportation costs are also a factor in the cost of zinc raw material. Frit Industries pays $10 per ton of EAF dust, or approximately $0.025 per pound of zinc. 3 Nonhazardous zinc feedstocks are more expensive and are estimated to cost $0.18 per pound of zinc. 4 The capital equipment for ZSM production is much more expensive than the capital equipment for Oxy­ sul production. One fertilizer producer recently purchased the ZSM production equipment for approximately $4.5 million. 5 6 Green, Richard, Martin Resources, teleconference with Katherine Heller and Lindsay James, Research Triangle Institute. March 19, 1999. Page 1. 7 Armani, M., D. G. Westfall, and G. A. Peterson. 1997. "Zinc Plant Availability as Influenced by Zinc Fertilizer Sources and Zinc Water Solubility." Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin TB 97­ 4 (pre­ publication draft). Page 1. 2­ 5 2.2 The Demand for Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizers This section characterizes the consumption of zinc micronutrient fertilizers. It describes the characteristics of zinc fertilizers, its uses and consumers, and the substitution possibilities in consumption. 2.2.1 Product Characteristics As noted earlier, there are two major types of zinc micronutrient fertilizer: Oxy­ sul and ZSM. As described above, Oxy­ sul consists of a combination of zinc oxide and zinc sulfate, while the zinc in ZSM is in the form of zinc sulfate monohydrate. Oxy­ sul is always sold in the granular form; ZSM is sold in either a granular form or a liquid form (liquid ZnSO4 or L. ZnSO4), usually depending on consumer preference. Both types of zinc fertilizer can be produced from either hazardous or nonhazardous raw material. Because the production of ZSM incorporates a filtration process, the product characteristics of ZSM will be the same regardless of the raw material, and the concentration of heavy metals in ZSM is low. Oxy­ sul, however, will differ in both zinc concentration and heavy metal concentration, depending on the raw material. Oxy­ sul produced from nonhazardous feedstocks has higher zinc concentration and lower levels of lead and cadmium than Oxy­ sul produced from hazardous feedstocks. Although most fertilizer distributors perceive no difference between the two types of fertilizer, some believe that ZSM is more readily available for plant uptake, because zinc sulfate is more soluble than zinc oxide. 6 This point is quite controversial. Some proponents of Oxy­ sul argue that many chemical reactions occur in the soil, and it is possible that the effects of microbes, temperature, and sunlight convert the less soluble zinc oxide to soluble zinc sulfate. Armani et al. 7 recently concluded that ZSM is more effective as fertilizer, because they discovered a high correlation between water solubility of zinc in fertilizer material and measured plant parameters. Table 2­ 2 presents their findings. The researchers examined six different types of Oxy­ sul; the grades of Oxy­ sul differ as a result of the different characteristics of the raw zinc used. 2.2.2 Uses and Consumers Zinc micronutrient fertilizer producers typically sell their product to fertilizer dealers or distributors. These fertilizer dealers blend many different kinds of fertilizer (e. g., nitrogen, potassium) and sell these blends to farmers. There are two methods for blending fertilizers. The more expensive option is referred to as precision agriculture. This site­ specific method requires soil testing in grids of farmland every 2 to 5 years. Based on the soil tests, the fertilizer dealer recommends precise blends, and a "variable rate application machine" is used to apply the 8 Skillen, Jim, The Fertilizer Institute, teleconference with Katherine Heller and Lindsay James, Research Triangle Institute. March 10, 1999. Page 1. 9 Fertilizer Institute. 1999. "Fertilizer: From Plant to Plant." The Fertilizer Institute. <http:// www. tfi. org/ brochure. htm>. As obtained on March 5, 1999. Page 13. 2­ 6 fertilizer. This machine actually changes the blend as it is driven across the farmland. The other method of blending is more general. The dealer blends the fertilizer at the plant, based on the average nutrient needs for soil in that area. 8 Farmers consider the zinc concentration when applying fertilizer, and the amount of zinc applied is usually referred to in zinc pounds. The average application rate for zinc fertilizers is 5 zinc pounds per acre. Table 2­ 3 displays the application rates for zinc fertilizer. Sometimes micronutrients are applied directly to the plant leaves in a technique called foliar fertilization. 9 Table 2­ 2. Fertilizer Forms and Zinc Solubility Zinc source Zinc fertilizer symbol Total zinc (%) Water soluble zinc (%) ZnSO4 × H2O ZnSO4 35.5 99.9 Zn Oxy­ sul Zn20 20.4 98.3 Zn Oxy­ sul Zn27 27.3 66.4 Zn Oxy­ sul Zn40 39.9 26.5 Zn Oxy­ sul ZnOxS 37.7 11.0 Zn Oxy­ sul ZnOS 17.5 0.7 Zn Oxy­ sul (K061) ZnK 15.0 1.0 Source: Armani, M., D. G. Westfall, and G. A. Peterson. 1997. "Zinc Plant Availability as Influenced by Zinc Fertilizer Sources and Zinc Water Solubility." Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin TB 97­ 4 (pre­ publication draft). Page 3. Table 2­ 3. Zinc Application Rates (lbs/ acre) Average 5 High 10 Maximum 20 Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). June 1998. Background Report on Fertilizer Use, Contaminants and Regulations. Washington, DC: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. EPA 747­ R­ 98­ 003. Page 72. 10 ChemExpo. "Chemical Profile: Zinc Sulfate." <http:// www. chemexpo. com/ news/ PROFILE970811. cfm>. As obtained on March 17, 1999. Page 2. 11 Queneau, Paul et al. June 27– 29, 2000. "Recycling Metals from Industrial Waste." Sponsored by Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. 12 Obeldobel, George, Big River, teleconference with Katherine Heller and Charles Pringle, Research Triangle Institute. April 15, 2002. 13 Camp, Richard, Bay Zinc, Teleconference with Charles Pringle, Research Triangle Institute, April 30, 2002. 2­ 7 A look at the regional consumption patterns of zinc micronutrient fertilizer reveals that the West North Central region (including KS, IA, MN, MO, NB, ND, SD) consumes more zinc fertilizer than the rest of the country (see Table 2­ 4). Zinc is a required nutrient for corn production, so this consumption pattern is logical. ZSM has other uses beyond providing nutrients for crops, although 75 percent of ZSM produced is used for fertilizer. Animal feed comprises about 7 percent of the ZSM market, and another 7 percent of ZSM produced is used for water treatment. Approximately 11 percent of ZSM is used for miscellaneous purposes, including chemical manufacturing and froth flotation. Zinc stearate is zinc sulfate's largest chemical use. 10 2.3 Industry Organization Zinc micronutrient fertilizer producers are part of the zinc sulfate industry; in addition to its use in fertilizers, zinc sulfate is also used in animal feed and as a feedstock for various chemical production processes. In 1999, approximately 16 plants produced micronutrient fertilizers, including both Oxy­ sul and ZSM technical grade zinc sulfate. 11 Of these, one plant in Cheyenne, WY, owned by Tetra Micronutrients, has since closed. The rest of the companies, their plant locations, products, and zinc micronutrient fertilizer production volumes for 1999 are listed in Table 2­ 5. Interview data collected by the Agency indicate that Big River currently produces 7,000 tons of ZSM per year. 12 Bay Zinc shut down operations from April to September 2001 but has since resumed production and expects to produce 18,000 tons of ZSM in 2002. 13 Although Oxy­ sul is suitable only as a fertilizer input, ZSM can be used as an ingredient in animal feed. Currently, one of the zinc micronutrient fertilizer producers uses hazardous feedstocks, specifically EAF dust, in animal feed. (Other zinc sulfate producers incorporate brass fume dust into the production of animal feed, but because this is not a use constituting disposal, the feedstock is not categorized as hazardous.) Other manufacturers of zinc sulfates use zinc from nonharardous sources, including zinc fines, zinc hydroxide, or zinc oxide. Demand for zinc sulfate comes from fertilizer dealers, who incorporate the zinc micronutrients into their fertilizer products; from animal feed manufacturers, who incorporate it into animal feeds; and from chemical manufacturers. 2­ 8 Table 2­ 4. Total Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer Consumed in the United States and Regions in 1996 (tons) Description New England Middle Atlantic South Atlantic East north central West north central East south central West south central Mountain Pacific Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico U. S. and Puerto Rico Percentage of total Zinc chelate 2 95 83 3 2,955 61 646 4,989 790 0 9,623 24.67 Zinc oxide 0 367 120 673 4,849 359 63 243 1,482 0 8,158 20.91 Zinc oxy sulfate 0 72 22 331 39 114 0 0 35 0 612 1.57 Zinc sulfate 20 298 34 206 12,645 186 141 1,526 3,499 15 18,569 47.61 Zinc sulfate solution 0 0 0 0 1,883 0 144 17 0 0 2,044 5.24 TOTAL 22 832 259 1,213 22,371 720 994 6,775 5,806 15 39,006 Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). June 1998. Background Report on Fertilizer Use, Contaminants and Regulations . Washington, DC: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. EPA 747­ R­ 98­ 003. Page 12. 14 Ibid. Page 9. 2­ 9 Thirteen companies own the 15 plants producing zinc micronutrients in this country; at least six Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes describe their primary businesses. 14 All of the industries designated by those SIC codes (although not all of the firms) produce many other goods in addition to zinc micronutrients. Therefore, traditional measures of market concentration at the industry level may not be useful in this analysis. Instead, this report examines the markets for zinc micronutrients. 2.3.1 Market Structure Several markets are potentially affected, either directly or indirectly, by the final rulemaking. The market for zinc micronutrient fertilizers is expected to be directly affected by the final rulemaking, because the final rulemaking is expected to change the costs of zinc micronutrient fertilizer manufacturers, who in response will change their supply decisions. This Table 2­ 5. Domestic Producers of Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer: 1999 Company Location Products Quantity produced (zinc tons/ year) Agrium USA Saginaw, MI Oxy­ Sul 850 Bay Zinc Moxee City, WA ZSM, L. ZnSO4, Oxy­ Sul 2,650 Big River Sauget, IL ZSM 2,000 Cameron Chemical Suffolk, VA Oxy­ Sul 900 Cyprus Chemical West Helena, AR Oxy­ Sul 800 Frit Industries Norfolk, NE Oxy­ Sul 2,400 Frit Industries Chesapeake, VA Oxy­ Sul 350 Frit Industries Walnut Ridge, AR Oxy­ Sul 1,100 Madison Industries Oak Bridge, NJ ZSM, L. ZnSO4 5,300 Mineral King Minerals Hanford, CA Oxy­ Sul, L. ZnSO4 2,300 Moore Ag Goodlen, TX Oxy­ Sul, L. ZnSO4, ZSM 1,400 Scott G. Williams Co. Conyers, GA Oxy­ Sul 850 Sims Ag Products Mt. Gilead, OH Oxy­ Sul 1,100 Tetra Micronutrients Fairbury, NE ZSM, L. ZnSO4 10,300 ZCA Monaca, PA L. ZnSO4 200 Total Production in 1999 32,500 Source: Queneau, Paul et al. June 27­ 29, 2000. "Recycling Metals from Industrial Waste." Sponsored by Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. 15 Green, Richard, Martin Resources, teleconference with Katherine Heller and Lindsay James, Research Triangle Institute. March 19, 1999. Page 1. 16 Skillen, Jim, The Fertilizer Institute, teleconference with Katherine Heller and Lindsay James, Research Triangle Institute. March 10, 1999. Page 1. 17 U. S. International Trade Commission Database. "U. S. Imports for Consumption" and "U. S. Domestic Exports." HTS Code = 283326. 1989­ 2001. 2­ 10 response by manufacturers may change the overall supply of zinc micronutrient fertilizers and will likely change the market behavior of various zinc micronutrient fertilizer manufacturers, depending on how their operations are affected by the final rulemaking. Other markets, including the markets for hazardous and nonhazardous zinc­ containing materials for use as inputs into the zinc micronutrient production process and the markets for the products made with zinc micronutrient fertilizers, are expected to be indirectly affected. Because the final rulemaking impacts the relative costs of producing zinc micronutrient fertilizers from different zinccontaining materials, EPA expects the demand for these inputs to increase or decrease (depending on whether the cost of producing zinc micronutrient fertilizers using the material has decreased or increased). Similarly, the markets for outputs made from zinc micronutrient fertilizers may experience increases or decreases in supply (and market price) depending on the overall impact on the price of zinc micronutrient fertilizers. Fertilizer dealers stated that the market for zinc micronutrient fertilizers is regional, or possibly national. That is, zinc micronutrient fertilizer producers may serve customers located in many different parts of the country. Although the zinc sulfate products vary significantly from producer to producer, fertilizer dealers focus on the zinc content of the product and state that the price they pay is based largely on the product's zinc content. Nevertheless, Oxy­ sul, L. ZnSO4, and granular ZnSO4 (ZSM) have different production costs and somewhat different uses. These differences are reflected in their prices, per pound of zinc. Oxy­ sul has the lowest median price, liquid ZnSO4 has the next lowest median price, and ZSM has the highest median price, where the prices are defined in terms of price per pound of zinc (see Section 2.4, Table 2­ 7). Similarly, within each category, the zinc micronutrients made from hazardous feedstocks tend to sell for a lower price per pound of zinc than zinc micronutrients made from nonhazardous feedstocks. Thus, the zinc sulfate commodities are probably not perfect substitutes for one another, from the dealers' perspective. The fertilizer dealers also noted that zinc micronutrient fertilizer manufacturers might offer lower f. o. b. prices to customers who are located farther from their plant to account for higher transportation costs. 15 Because there are fewer than 20 domestic suppliers of zinc micronutrients and because their products are somewhat differentiated, the market for them may not be perfectly competitive. This means that prices for zinc micronutrient fertilizers may differ depending on quality. Faced with increased costs, therefore, they may be able to pass some share of the increased cost along to their customers in the form of higher prices. There is some international trade in zinc by­ products and secondary zinc sources, as well as zinc sulfate. EAF dust is exported to Mexico, where it is converted into crude zinc oxide and then imported into the U. S. for use as a feedstock. 16 The U. S. imports zinc sulfate from several countries; the highest volume import countries are China, Mexico, and Germany. 17 Also, the U. S. 18 Ibid. 19 Queneau, Paul et al. June 27– 29, 2000. "Recycling Metals from Industrial Waste." Sponsored by Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. 20 When hazardous feedstocks are used to make animal feed, they are presumptively not used in a manner constituting disposal and are therefore not solid wastes because they are used as ingredients in an industrial process to make a product per 40 CFR §261.2( e)( 1)( i). 21 Schauble, Carl, Frit Industries, teleconference with Paul Borst, David Fagan, Mitch Kidwell, Matt Hale, Caroline Ahearn, and Steve Silverman, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 24, 1999. Page 1. 2­ 11 exports zinc sulfate to several countries, mostly to Canada, Mexico, and Costa Rica. 18 China's imports have risen sharply, especially in 2000 and 2001. Below there is a more detailed discussion of ZSM imports and exports. 2.3.2 Manufacturing Plants Zinc micronutrients (Oxy­ sul and ZSM) are manufactured by 15 plants located in 12 states. 19 Of these 15 plants, three currently use hazardous waste as a feedstock. One of these three uses the hazardous waste to produce zinc micronutrient that is used as a fertilizer. The other two plants use brass fume dust (a characteristic hazardous waste when landfilled or used in fertilizer production) as a feedstock, but these plants state that they produce zinc micronutrients that are used exclusively for animal feed. 20 The remaining 12 plants produce zinc micronutrients from nonhazardous feedstocks, such as zinc oxide, zinc hydroxide, or zinc fines. This rulemaking will directly affect the one producer making zinc micronutrient fertilizer using hazardous waste as a feedstock. The others will be indirectly affected because they compete with the directly affected facility in the markets for zinc micronutrients. Also the suppliers of the hazardous feedstocks will be affected by the rulemaking. The following sections describe in greater detail the directly and indirectly affected facilities. 2.3.2.1 Potentially Affected Zinc Micronutrient Manufacturers Frit is currently the only zinc micronutrient fertilizer producer incorporating hazardous waste as a feedstock; therefore, they are the only zinc micronutrient fertilizer manufacturer that will be directly affected by the final rulemaking. Frit owns and operates a fertilizer manufacturing facility at Norfolk, NE, located on­ site at a Nucor Steel facility. Frit processes Nucor's EAF dust (K061, a listed hazardous waste) into Oxy­ sul, a zinc micronutrient fertilizer used in agriculture, principally corn. Because Frit operates its facility on­ site, it incurs no hazardous waste transportation cost and does not require a RCRA storage permit. 21 Frit also owns two plants that produce Oxy­ sul from zinc oxide (a 22 Queneau, Paul et al. June 27– 29, 2000. "Recycling Metals from Industrial Waste." Sponsored by Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. 23 Camp, Richard, Bay Zinc, teleconference with Paul Borst, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 16, 1999. 24 Oberlin, Mike, I. Schumann Inc., personal communications with Paul Borst, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 14, 1999, July 27, 2000, Arnett, John E. Copper and Brass Fabricators Council, Inc. June 2, 2000. 25 Hoover's Online. 2002. "Nucor Corporation." <www. hoovers. com>. As obtained on April 30, 2002. 2­ 12 nonhazardous feedstock). These plants are located in Walnut Ridge, AR, and Chesapeake, VA. 22 Frit is a small business. In addition to Frit, EPA has identified three other zinc micronutrient manufacturers that may be indirectly affected by the rulemaking. These are Tetra's Fairbury, NE, plant, Madison Industries, and Big River Zinc. Tetra and Madison Industries currently use brass baghouse dust as an input to their ZSM production but sell all their brass­ dust­ derived ZSM for animal feed. In addition, under the conditional exclusion, Big River Zinc, which has used brass dust in the past, is projected to substitute brass dust for the nonhazardous feedstock they are currently using. 2.3.2.2 Secondary Material Suppliers This section provides information on the suppliers of the hazardous waste feedstocks used by zinc micronutrient manufacturers. There are generally three types of hazardous feedstocks: EAF dust from steel mills; tire ash; and brass fume dust from brass ingot makers, brass mills, and brass and bronze foundries. Currently, only EAF dust is used solely in the production of zinc micronutrient fertilizer. Brass fume dust, another hazardous waste that would be conditionally exempt under the final rulemaking, is mostly incorporated in the production of ZSM for animal feed. EPA predicts that at least two companies (Madison Industries and Tetra Micronutrients) will use brass fume dust to produce ZSM for fertilizer in the future and one company will use brass fume dust to produce zinc (Big River Zinc), because the final conditional exclusion could increase demand for this material as a feedstock. The two companies that currently market their product as feed will most likely switch to selling their product as fertilizer. 23 All of the EAF dust feedstock is supplied by one steel company. In contrast, there are approximately 6 to 12 brass ingot makers, 10 brass mills, and 3 or 4 foundries supplying brass fume dust for zinc animal feed production, or zinc reclamation. 24 The EAF dust facility is discussed specifically, but the secondary brass ingot makers and brass foundries are discussed in aggregate, because EPA does not have individual facility data. Nucor Steel is a large company with multiple plants, using EAFs to produce a wide range of steel products. Nucor is in SIC 3312, primary iron and steel manufacturing, for which the small businesses are those with 1,000 or fewer employees. Nucor is a large company, with 8,400 employees in 2001 and $4.1 billion in sales. 25 Nucor directly pipes its EAF dust from its Norfolk, NE, plant to a storage silo at the co­ located Frit plant. 26 Queneau, Paul et al. June 27– 29, 2000. "Recycling Metals from Industrial Waste." Sponsored by Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. 2­ 13 Under the conditional exclusion, brass baghouse dust generators are projected to be able to sell more of their baghouse dust to fertilizer manufacturers. At baseline, they are estimated to provide 1,352 tons of zinc to ZSM manufacturers, who produce ZSM for animal feed from this brass dust. The rest of their brass baghouse dust is assumed to be sent for reclamation to Zinc Nacional in Monterey, Mexico. Post­ rule, ZSM manufacturers will be able to use brass baghouse dust for fertilizer production and are projected to increase the quantity of brass dust they purchase. 2.3.3 Firm Characteristics The 15 plants manufacturing zinc micronutrient fertilizer are owned by 13 parent companies. 26 The potentially affected fertilizer manufacturers' and raw material suppliers' parent companies are shown in Table 2­ 6, together with the location of the potentially affected facility, their North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code (primary industry), their sales, their employment, the Small Business Administration's (SBA) criteria for a small business in that NAICS code, and whether the company is a small business according to this criterion. 2.4 Markets The final rulemaking will change the costs of producing zinc micronutrient fertilizers relative to compliance with current standards. This change in costs, in turn, will affect firm behavior in the markets in which the companies buy inputs and sell their outputs. The markets directly affected are those for zinc micronutrients produced from hazardous waste feedstocks. Markets for zinc micronutrients produced from nonhazardous zinc feedstocks, and the market for the hazardous and nonhazardous feedstocks themselves, as well as other inputs used to produce the zinc micronutrients, will be indirectly affected by market forces and behavioral changes. This section summarizes the market volumes and prices at baseline in affected markets. Table 2­ 7 shows volumes of zinc micronutrient fertilizer product derived from hazardous waste and derived from nonhazardous feedstocks. Table 2­ 7 shows the volume of Oxy­ sul and ZSM manufactured and also reports the volumes made from hazardous and nonhazardous zinc feedstocks in 1997. The volume of the final product Oxy­ sul exceeded the volume of ZSM produced by 14,000 tons. The majority of the Oxy­ sul volume was made from nonhazardous feedstocks, as was the majority of the liquid ZnSO4. However, the majority of ZSM was produced from hazardous feedstocks. 2­ 14 Table 2­ 6. Parent Company Information for Potentially Affected Companies Parent company Facility location Parent NAICS code Parent sales ($ 10 6 2001) Parent employment (2001) Small business size standard Small business? Frit Inc. Norfolk, NE 325311 $67.5 250 1,000 Yes Tetra Micronutrients Fairbury, NE 325311 $7.5 35 1,000 Yes Madison Industries Old Bridge, NJ 332312 $35.0 175 500 Yes Big River Zinc Sauget, IL 331491 $300.0 375 750 Yes Nucor Steel Norfolk, NE 331111 $4,139.2 8,400 1,000 No Sources: Reference USA. 2002a. "Frit Industries." <http:// www. referenceusa. com>. As obtained on May 1, 2002. Reference USA. 2002b. "Big River Zinc." <http:// www. referenceusa. com>. As obtained on May 1, 2002. Reference USA. 2002c. "Madison Industries." <http:// www. referenceusa. com>. As obtained on May 1, 2002. Reference USA. 2002d. "Tetra Micronutrients." <www. referenceusa. com>. As obtained on May 1, 2002. Hoover's Online. 2002. "Nucor Corporation." <www. hoovers. com>. As obtained on April 30, 2002. 27 Schauble, Carl, Frit Industries, teleconference with Paul Borst, David Fagan, Mitch Kidwell, Matt Hale, Caroline Ahearn, and Steve Silverman, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 24, 1999. 28 Queneau, Paul et al. June 27­ 29, 2000. "Recycling Heavy Metals in Solid Waste." Sponsored by Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. 29 Queneau, Paul B., et al. June 22– 24, 1999. "Recycling Heavy Metals in Solid Waste." Sponsored by Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. 2­ 15 Table 2­ 7. Volumes and Prices of Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer, 1997 Zinc fertilizer type Volume of product (tons) Volume of zinc (tons) Median price per pound zinc Oxy­ sul 35,336 a 9,772 a $0.66 From hazardous feedstock 16,836 a 3,367 a $0.59 From nonhazardous feedstock 18,500 6,405 $0.69 ZSM 21,500 7,330 $0.87 From hazardous feedstock 15,500 5,200 $0.87 From nonhazardous feedstock 6,000 2,130 $0.85 Liquid ZnSO4 24,650 2,913 $0.75 From hazardous feedstock 11,000 1,320 $0.75 From nonhazardous feedstock 13,650 1,593 $0.75 a Volumes for Frit were estimated, based on industry information. Source: Handout entitled "Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer/ Estimated Market Share Analysis" given to EPA during a meeting between representatives of the zinc micronutrient fertilizer industry and U. S .Environmental Protection Agency, April 14, 1998. 2.4.1 Market Volumes Zinc micronutrient fertilizers are produced from both hazardous and nonhazardous feedstocks. Hazardous feedstocks currently include EAF dust (K061). At present, only Frit's Nebraska facility uses K061 to manufacture zinc micronutrient fertilizers. 27 In 1999, Frit accepted 10,000 tons of K061 and manufactured approximately 12,000 tons of Oxy­ sul. 28 Many other facilities produce Oxy­ sul as well, and these facilities incorporate nonhazardous feedstocks into their production. The total volume of Oxy­ sul produced in 1998 was nearly 15 percent less than the volume produced in 1997. 29 Despite increasing ZSM production, Oxy­ sul production 30 Queneau, Paul B., et al. "Recycling Heavy Metals in Solid Waste." Sponsored by Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. June 28­ 30, 1994; June 25­ 27, 1996; June 24­ 26, 1997; June 22­ 24, 1999; June 27­ 29, 2000. Queneau, Paul B. U. S. Recycling of Industrial Metals, Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Minimization and Management Division. December 1­ 2, 1998. 31 Ibid. 32 Painter, David, Martin Resources, personal communication with Lindsay James, Research Triangle Institute, July 2000. 33 Queneau, Paul et al. June 22– 24, 1999. "Recycling Heavy Metals in Solid Waste." Sponsored by Office of Speical Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. 34 Queneau, Paul B., et al. Recycling Heavy Metals in Solid Waste. Sponsored by Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. June 28­ 30, 1994; June 25­ 27, 1996; June 24­ 26, 1997; June 22­ 24, 1999; June 27­ 29, 2000. Queneau, Paul B. U. S. Recycling of Industrial Metals, Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Minimization and Management Division. December 1­ 2, 1998. 35 U. S. International Trade Commission Database. "U. S. Imports for Consumption" and "U. S. Domestic Exports." HTS Code = 283326. 1989­ 2001. 2­ 16 volumes have been decreasing, on average, since 1993. 30 This decline has been especially marked from 1997 to 1999. 31 Even in the absence of government regulation, the trend of decreasing Oxy­ sul is apparent. One explanation for why the demand for ZSM exceeds the demand for Oxy­ sul is the perceived lack of heavy metals in ZSM. 32 The other major category of zinc micronutrient fertilizer is ZSM. Unlike Oxy­ sul, ZSM volumes are increasing for the most part. In 1998, total ZSM volume was approximately 13 percent larger than the volume produced in 1997. 33 Although the trend from 1993 to 1999 indicates increasing levels of ZSM, ZSM levels declined slightly in 1999. 34 This decline in ZSM production is most likely a result of several factors, including decreasing demand for zinc micronutrient fertilizer. The demand for zinc micronutrient fertilizer appears to be cyclical, possibly based on the amount of zinc in the soil or cyclical cropping patterns. This fluctuating demand for zinc micronutrient fertilizer, mirrored by the volume of zinc sulfate imports, seems to cycle every 4 or 5 years. Import volumes of zinc sulfate are also cyclical, although the highs and lows of the import cycle are offset from the domestic cycle by 1 year. 35 EPA reasons that the imports absorb excess demand during the first year of an upswing, before domestic producers have increased their production. Another contributing factor to the recent decline of ZSM is the closing of Tetra Micronutrient's Salida, CO, plant. Please refer to Appendix D for a discussion of the potential economic impacts when the demand for zinc micronutrient fertilizer has fallen or risen. There is some international trade in zinc feedstocks and zinc micronutrient fertilizers, in addition to zinc sulfate. For example, K061 is exported to Mexico, where it is converted to crude 36 Green, Richard, Martin Resources, teleconference with Katherine Heller and Lindsay James, Research Triangle Institute. March 19, 1999. Page 1. 37 ChemExpo. "Chemical Profile: Zinc Sulfate." <http:// www. chemexpo. com/ news/ PROFILE970811. cfm>. As obtained on March 17, 1999. Page 1. 38 U. S. International Trade Commission Database. "U. S. Imports for Consumption" and "U. S. Domestic Exports." HTS Code = 283326. 1989­ 2001. 39 Ibid. 40 ChemExpo. "Chemical Profile: Zinc Sulfate." <http:// www. chemexpo. com/ news/ PROFILE970811. cfm>. As obtained on March 17, 1999. Page 2. 41 Prices are on a per­ ton basis, powder, bulk, f. o. b. works. 2­ 17 ZnO and imported back into the United States as a nonhazardous feedstock. 36 .. Also, in 1995 ZSM exports were 3,800 tons, and ZSM imports were 4,900 tons. 37 The United States imported a total of 10,517 metric tons of zinc sulfate in 1999 and exported about 4,700 metric tons the same year. In 2001, imports rose to almost 16,250 metric tons, and exports remained relatively stable at approximately 4800 metric tons. 38 Historically, the United States imports most extensively from China, Mexico, and Germany, although imports from Germany have declined sharply since 1999. Korea exported 538 tons of ZSM to the United States in 2001, but the country has had little history of extensive trading with the United States in this commodity prior to 2001. The three leading countries to whom the United States exports zinc sulfate are Canada, Mexico, and Costa Rica. 39 Table 2­ 8 lists the import and export volumes for these countries from 1992 to 2001. The most notable trend presented in Table 2­ 8 is the dramatic rise in Chinese imports over the last decade. In 2001, the United States imported 7,265 metric tons of ZSM from China. This represents almost 45 percent of all imports. Mexico still sends more ZSM to the United States than any other country. The United States imported almost 7,800 metric tons of ZSM from Mexico in 2001, or 48 percent of total imports for 2001. Figures 2­ 2 and 2­ 3 show historical trends in imports and exports of zinc sulfate and imports from China, respectively. 2.4.2 Market Prices Prices for zinc micronutrient fertilizer products, per pound of zinc, vary depending on the type of product and the type of feedstock used to produce it. Thus, ZSM is uniformly priced higher than Oxy­ sul, and Oxy­ sul made from nonhazardous feedstocks is uniformly priced higher than Oxy­ sul made from hazardous feedstocks. This pattern confirms information received from Richard Green, a fertilizer distributor. Mr. Green says zinc micronutrient's price varies primarily because of zinc content, but that somewhat lower prices would be paid for micronutrients with higher (nonnutritive) heavy metal content. According to a chemical industry database, 1997 ZSM prices range from $480 to $520 per ton. 40, 41 2­ 18 Table 2­ 8. Highest Volume U. S. Trading Partners, International Trade in Zinc Sulfate, 1992­ 2001, in Metric Tons 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Imports China 22 1,237 2,576 264 74 306 1,971 2,037 5,594 7,265 Mexico 3,379 3,589 3,986 4,361 3,547 6,247 7,684 7,800 7,656 7,798 Germany 154 172 233 237 232 213 188 237 140 107 All countries 3,828 5,617 7,197 5,399 4,054 7,094 10,366 10,517 13,747 16,248 Exports Canada 1,734 2,128 2,054 2,461 3,282 2,414 2,563 2,703 3,245 2,467 Mexico 112 40 122 928 617 596 724 732 485 1,090 Costa Rica 250 1,096 412 251 436 420 518 689 537 649 All countries 2,826 4,334 4,803 4,206 5,114 4,658 4,289 4,691 5,320 4,782 Source: U. S. International Trade Commission Database. "U. S. Imports for Consumption" and "U. S. Domestic Exports." HTS Code = 283326. 1989­ 2001. 2­ 19 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Metric Tons Imports Exports Figure 2­ 2. Zinc Sulfate Imports and Exports, 1992­ 2001 (Metric Tons) 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Metric Tons Figure 2­ 3. Imports of Chinese Zinc Sulfate, 1989­ 2001 (Metric Tons) 42 Schauble, Carl, Frit Industries, teleconference with Paul Borst, David Fagan, Mitch Kidwell, Matt Hale, Caroline Ahearn and Steve Silverman, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 24, 1999. Page 1. 43 ChemExpo. "Chemical Profile: Zinc Sulfate 7/ 3/ 2000." <http:// www. chemexpo. com/ news/ PROFILE970811. cfm>. As obtained on August 11, 2000 Page 2. 44 Ibid. 45 Obeldobel, George, teleconference with Lindsay James, Research Triangle Institute, May 9, 2001. 2­ 20 Plant­ and product­ specific output prices per pound of zinc are shown in Table 2­ 9 (1997 data). Although the data in the table indicate a price of $0.59 per pound of zinc for Frit's Oxy­ sul product, Frit president Carl Schauble indicates that their product sells for approximately $0.475 per pound of zinc. 42 This decrease in price may be due to a decline in market demand for zinc oxysulfates because of their heavy metal content. 43 Throughout this analysis, EPA uses the prices listed in Table 2­ 9. Prices of zinc feedstocks also vary. Hazardous feedstocks are considerably cheaper than nonhazardous ones. Frit pays $10 per ton on average for the EAF dust from Nucor. Assuming the K061 has 20 percent zinc content, Frit pays approximately $0.025 per pound of zinc. 44 Nonhazardous zinc feedstocks are more expensive and are estimated to cost about $0.18 per pound of zinc. 45 2­ 21 Table 2­ 9. 1997 Plant­ and Product­ Specific Output Prices of Zinc Manufacturer Location Raw material Product % zinc in product Finished product annual tons Zinc tons Annual capacity tons Sales price per ton of product Sales price per pound zinc Comments Agrium Reise, MI ZnOH/ Var Oxy­ sul 40 1,500 600 uk $465 $0.58 Agrium ZnOH/ Var Oxy­ sul 27 1,500 405 uk $375 $0.69 Bay Zinc Moxee City, WA Tire Ash Oxy­ sul 20 5,000 1,000 12,000 $235 $0.59 Zn fines L. ZnSO 4 10.5 3,000 315 5,000 $155 $0.74 Big River Sauget, Il Brass dust ZSM 31 6,500 2,015 6,500 $475 $0.77 Chem & Pigment Pittsburgh, CA Zn fines ZSM 35.5 2,000 710 8,000 $620 $0.87 Chem & Pigment Zn fines L. ZnSO 4 12 2,500 300 3,000 $180 $0.75 Frit Norfolk, NE K061 Oxy­ sul 20 15,000 a 3,000 a Excess $235 $0.59 Frit Walnut Ridge, AR ZnO Oxy­ sul 35.5 9,000 3,240 Excess $455 $0.63 Madison Industries Old Bridge, NJ Zn fines and brass dust ZSM 35 2,000 700 uk $620 $0.69 Product used for animal feed Madison Industries Zn fines and brass dust L. ZnSO 4 12 8,000 960 uk $180 $0.75 Product used for animal feed Mineral King Hanford, CA Zn fines L. ZnSO 4 12 7,000 840 10,000 $165 $0.69 Sims Mt. Gilead, OH ZnOH/ Var Oxy­ sul 20 500 100 uk $300 $0.75 Sims ZnOH/ Var Oxy­ sul 31 2,000 620 uk $440 $0.71 Sims ZnOH/ Var Oxy­ sul 36 4,000 1,440 uk $500 $0.69 Tetra Micronutrients Fairbury, NE Zn fines and brass dust ZSM 35.5 7,000 2,495 25,000 $620 $0.87 Product used for animal feed (½ total volume) Zn fines and brass dust L. ZnSO 4 12 3,000 360 5,000 $180 $0.75 Product used for animal feed (½ total volume) Note: Big River is no longer using brass dust for the production of zinc micronutrient fertilizer. Bay Zinc closed in 2001, but has now resumed operations using a nonhazardous zinc sulfate solution feedstock. uk = unknown. a The finished product and zinc volumes have been estimated based on industry sources and production process requirements. Source: Handout entitled "Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer/ Estimated Market Share Analysis" given to EPA during a meeting between representatives of the zinc micronutrient fertilizer industry and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 14, 1998. 1 Schauble, Carl, Frit Industries, teleconference with Paul Borst, David Fagan, Mitch Kidwell, Matt Hale, Caroline Ahearn, and Steve Silverman, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 24, 1999. Page 1. 3­ 1 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY AND DATA LIMITATIONS This chapter discusses the methodology used in the cost and economic impact analysis, as well as the data limitations and the assumptions that were used. This chapter begins with a description of the baseline conditions and behaviors of the zinc micronutrient fertilizer producers and zinc raw material suppliers. The analytical methodology used for calculating the costs and economic impacts is covered later in the chapter. The data sources, data limitations, and assumptions of the analysis are discussed in this chapter as well. 3.1 Baseline Conditions To calculate the costs and economic impacts of the final rulemaking, the Agency must have an understanding of the costs that the affected entities are incurring prior to the rulemaking. This set of costs and behaviors occurring in the industry prior to the rulemaking is called the baseline. This section characterizes the baseline conditions that are incorporated into the cost and economic impact analysis described in Chapter 5. These baseline conditions assume that all affected companies are handling their hazardous waste according to current applicable RCRA regulations. 3.1.1 Zinc Fertilizer Manufacturers Under the baseline conditions, the Agency assumes that the zinc fertilizer producers that are using hazardous waste are all RCRA­ compliant. This means that every facility, with the exception of Frit, which does not require one, has a RCRA permit and handles the raw material in such a manner that it does not touch the soil and cannot be wind dispersed. A description of compliance behavior for Frit Industries is given below. Table 3­ 1 shows the zinc fertilizer producer currently using hazardous waste as a feedstock. Frit Industries' plant in Norfolk, NE, uses EAF dust (K061) from Nucor Steel as a feedstock for the production of Oxy­ sul. Frit operates its facility on­ site with Nucor; therefore, it incurs no hazardous waste transportation costs and does not require a RCRA storage permit. 1 The 2 Borst, Paul, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, e­ mail message to Katherine Heller, Research Triangle Institute. March 16, 1999. Revised Frit meeting notes and handling requirements for fertilizer. Page 1. 3 Queneau, Paul et al. June 27­ 29, 2000. "Recycling Heavy Metals in Solid Waste." Sponsored by Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. 4 K061 volume estimated based on Queneau, Paul et al. June 27­ 29, 2000. "Recycling Heavy Metals in Solid Waste." Sponsored by Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. 5 Schauble, Carl, Frit Industries, teleconference with Paul Borst, David Fagan, Mitch Kidwell, Matt Hale, Caroline Ahearn, and Steve Silverman, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 24, 1999. Page 1. 3­ 2 K061 dust is directly piped from Nucor to a Frit­ operated storage silo. 2 In 1999, Frit produced 12,000 tons of Oxy­ sul. 3 3.1.2 Zinc Raw Material Suppliers Under these baseline conditions, this analysis assumes the raw material suppliers are RCRA­ compliant. Every facility must handle the hazardous waste in a manner compliant with RCRA, including shipping the waste in a manifest fashion. The compliance behaviors for the two types of facilities are described below. Nucor Steel does not store the K061 for more than 90 days; therefore, this facility does not require a RCRA storage permit. In 1999, Nucor sent at least 10,000 tons of EAF dust through the pipeline to Frit; 4 in 1999, Nucor may have transported as much as 12,500 tons of EAF dust to Frit. 5 EPA assumed Frit currently processes 10,000 tons of EAF dust to model the economic impacts in this analysis. 3.2 Analytical Methodology Under the assumption that the affected entities are currently in compliance with RCRA regulations, the Agency characterized the baseline operations of each entity. The Agency then compared the facility operations in the baseline conditions to the facility operations under the conditions of the final rulemaking and identified any changes that might be expected. Based on these expected changes, the Agency then estimated the costs or cost savings for zinc micronutrient fertilizer producers and their raw material suppliers. The Agency considered the effects the changes in costs will have on the markets and derived the economic impacts. Table 3­ 1. Baseline Conditions for Directly Affected Zinc Fertilizer Producers and Feedstocks Manufacturer Location Zinc feedstock Volume of feedstock processed (tons) Source of zinc feedstock Price paid per ton of raw material Frit Norfolk, NE K061 (EAF dust) 10,000 Nucor Steel, NE $10 3­ 3 3.3 Data Sources, Data Limitations, and Assumptions The zinc micronutrient fertilizer industry is a small industry, with fewer than 20 manufacturers. Because of its size, publicly available information on the zinc micronutrient fertilizer industry is scarce. The main sources of information used for this analysis were Paul Queneau's short course documents and telephone conversations with industry representatives, such as fertilizer dealers, company leaders, and representatives from trade associations. Data limitations are present throughout this analysis. The exact amount of K061 incorporated into Frit's production of Oxy­ sul was unknown and had to be estimated. The sales and employment data for each facility were obtained from publicly available sources. Some of these data were in the form of ranges. For these data, the Agency chose the midpoint for the analysis. The risk information that the Agency possessed was limited; therefore, the benefits assessment had to be qualitative rather then quantitative. The Agency made several assumptions throughout the analysis. First of all, the baseline incorporated into the cost analysis assumed that all affected entities were currently in full compliance with RCRA regulations. Throughout the economic analysis, the Agency had to project post­ rule behaviors for the directly and indirectly affected entities, and this projection required several basic economic assumptions. For example, the Agency assumed a company would choose the least­ cost alternative when making a company decision. Throughout this analysis, EPA uses price data from 1997, from a handout entitled "Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer/ Estimated Market Share Analysis," which was given to EPA during a meeting between representatives of the zinc micronutrient fertilizer industry and EPA on April 14, 1998. Volume data are adjusted to reflect 1999 quantities, based on data from Paul Queneau's "Recycling Heavy Metals in Solid Waste," 2000 short course. Because of the cyclical nature of zinc micronutrient fertilizer demand, choosing a single year as a baseline may seem risky. However, EPA has examined zinc micronutrient fertilizer volume data for several years (1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999), and 1997 is indeed a representative year in terms of zinc micronutrient fertilizer production, according to Paul Queneau's data for these years. (EPA chose to use the above­ mentioned handout as a primary source because this source provides both price and volume data. EPA relied on Paul Queneau's "Recycling Heavy Metals in Solid Waste" data for examining production trends, because this data source provides a time series.) When comparing 1997 volumes to the average volume from these 6 years, the 1997 volumes fall within one standard deviation of the average. For ZSM volumes, liquid zinc sulfate volumes, and volumes of contained zinc, the 1997 volumes are two­ fifths or less of one standard deviation from the average, indicating that 1997 is a representative year for zinc micronutrient fertilizer production. Figures 3­ 1 through 3­ 4 present these trends. EPA estimates economic impacts on firms producing zinc fertilizers and on firms providing inputs to fertilizer manufacturers based on an assumption that market prices do not change from baseline conditions. Because only one producer and one generator are directly 3­ 4 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year ZSM Tons ZSM Average Standard Dev High Standard Dev Low 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Figure 3­ 1. Annual Domestic ZSM Production, 1993– 1999 (standard tons) Source: Queneau, Paul et al. 1994– 2000. "Recycling Heavy Metals in Solid Waste." Sponsored by the Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year Oxy­ sul Tons Oxy­ sul Average Standard Dev High Standard Dev Low Figure 3­ 2. Annual Domestic Oxy­ sul Production, 1993– 1999 (standard tons) Source: Queneau, Paul et al. 1994– 2000. "Recycling Heavy Metals in Solid Waste." Sponsored by the Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. 3­ 5 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year L. ZSM Tons Liquid Zinc Sulfate Average Standard Dev High Standard Dev Low Figure 3­ 3. Annual Domestic Liquid Zinc Sulfate Production, 1993– 1999 (standard tons) Source: Queneau, Paul et al. 1994– 2000. "Recycling Heavy Metals in Solid Waste." Sponsored by the Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year Zinc Tons Contained Zinc Average Standard Dev High Standard Dev Low Figure 3­ 4. Annual Domestic Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer Production in Zinc Tons, 1993– 1999 (standard tons) Source: Queneau, Paul et al. 1994– 2000. "Recycling Heavy Metals in Solid Waste." Sponsored by the Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. 3­ 6 affected by the regulation, EPA believes that their ability to pass these costs along to customers will be limited. Thus the "no cost pass­ through" assumption appears reasonable. To assess the possible distribution of impacts across directly affected, indirectly affected, and unaffected firms, EPA performed a market analysis, which is presented in Appendix B. 4­ 1 CHAPTER 4 FINAL RULEMAKING EPA's final rulemaking would ° remove the K061 fertilizer exemption from RCRA regulation, ° provide a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for hazardous secondary feedstocks (e. g., brass fume dust, EAF dust from steel mills) used to produce zinc­ containing fertilizers, and ° provide product specifications based on ZSM for excluding hazardous waste­ derived zinc­ containing fertilizers. The conditions for the exclusion of the hazardous secondary feedstocks would include handling requirements for storage and transport (e. g., no outdoor storage), reporting requirements, and labeling requirements. The current regulation and the final rulemaking are described in more detail below. 4.1 Current Regulation Under current RCRA regulation, the following feedstocks used in zinc fertilizer manufacturing are typically characterized as solid wastes and hazardous wastes because they are used in a manner constituting disposal: EAF dust (K061) and brass fume dust (D006, D008) (40 CFR §261.2[ c][ 1]). All of these hazardous wastes are currently fully regulated until the product is made. This means that hazardous waste generator requirements, transporter requirements, and storage requirements (i. e., must have a permit at the recycling facility) are all applicable (see 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart B). The current handling requirements proscribe land storage and require the prevention of wind dispersal. Hazardous waste­ derived fertilizers, except for K061­ derived fertilizers, are conditionally exempt from regulation. There are two conditions: the fertilizer must be produced for the public's use, and the fertilizer must meet the applicable treatment standard listed under Subpart D of Part 268. K061­ derived fertilizers are currently unconditionally exempt from regulation (40 CFR §266.20[ b]). In May 1998, the Phase IV LDR final rule changed the treatment standard for hazardous waste fertilizers from the Third Third treatment standard to the more stringent UTS levels. The Agency stayed the effect of the rule in August 1998, however, effectively placing hazardous waste­ derived fertilizers back under the Third Third standard. 4.2 Final Rulemaking The primary regulatory difference in the final rulemaking is a change in the status of EAF dust and brass fume dust used to produce fertilizers. Secondary feedstocks currently classified as 4­ 2 solid wastes that are also hazardous wastes when used to produce fertilizer will no longer be classified as solid wastes or hazardous wastes, provided that they meet the following conditions: ° prior to recycling, such secondary materials are stored in tanks, containers, or buildings so that the materials are not placed on soils and that wind dispersal of the material is prevented; ° records of all shipments of hazardous secondary materials to the fertilizer manufacturer are maintained by the manufacturer for no less than 3 years, and these records identify at a minimum the volume, source, and type of material shipped; and ° for zinc micronutrient fertilizer made from hazardous secondary materials, the fertilizer meets the following standards for Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Hazardous Constituents (milligrams per kilogram of zinc): – Lead: based on ZSM levels – Cadmium: based on ZSM levels The last provision of the conditional exemption will require that all zinc fertilizers have levels of cadmium and lead that are as low as the levels in ZSM. Oxy­ sul produced from hazardous materials will most likely not be able to meet these treatment standards. Because the Agency is setting treatment standards, the final rulemaking includes a deletion of the provision that stayed the effectiveness of Phase IV LDR for zinc fertilizers. In addition to the provisions described above, the rule requires some additional recordkeeping and reporting activities for generators and intermediate handlers of secondary hazardous materials. The rulemaking also considers commercial fertilizers (beyond zinc fertilizers) that contain recyclable materials and are produced for the general public's use. These fertilizers would not be subject to regulation provided that they meet the same treatment standards. 5­ 1 CHAPTER 5 COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS In this section, EPA examines possible responses to the conditional exclusion; estimates the costs or cost savings associated with those responses; and analyzes the impacts of these costs or cost savings on affected facilities, companies, and markets. 5.1 Cost Analysis EPA analyzed the cost of compliance by first assessing baseline regulatory requirements and baseline performance, then determining what changes would be required or would be likely in response to the rulemaking. The baseline conditions are described in Section 2. This section describes EPA's analysis of possible facility choices in response to the conditional exclusion. EPA then compares performance that will comply with the conditional RCRA exclusion being considered to the baseline and computes the incremental cost (or cost savings) associated with the conditional RCRA exclusion. In this section, EPA presents the models used to estimate the costs of the rulemaking relative to each baseline and discusses the estimated costs and/ or cost savings. 5.1.1 Costing Model and Assumptions EPA estimates that the final rulemaking will directly affect one zinc micronutrient fertilizer manufacturer and one raw material supplier. EPA assumed that all facilities are complying with all applicable RCRA requirements at baseline, and that they will choose to respond to the conditional RCRA exclusion in the manner that is most profitable to them. Other facilities may be indirectly affected by the final rulemaking. These facilities are discussed in Section 5.1.3. One facility, owned by Frit Industries, is currently producing Oxy­ sul fertilizer from hazardous feedstocks. These products are not believed to meet the conditional exclusion's treatment standards. The facilities projected to be directly affected by the final conditional exclusion therefore include ° Frit Industries' Norfolk, NE, plant, which manufactures Oxy­ sul from EAF dust it receives from the Nucor Industries steel plant with which it is co­ located, and ° Nucor Steel, which sells its EAF dust to Frit as a feedstock. 5.1.2 Estimated Costs and Cost Savings Frit Industries' Norfolk, NE, plant is located on property owned by Nucor Steel and receives EAF dust that is piped directly from Nucor's air pollution control device to a silo at 1 K061 volume estimated based on 12,000 ton Oxy­ sul production volume given in Queneau, Paul et al. June 27­ 29, 2000. "Recycling Heavy Metals in Solid Waste." Sponsored by Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. 5­ 2 Frit's plant. Frit is assumed to accept 10,000 tons of EAF dust at baseline. 1 EPA examined two possible responses for Frit: ° shutting down its Norfolk, NE, plant, selling its equipment for salvage, and cleaning up the site and ° closing its Norfolk, NE, plant, cleaning up the site, and transporting the capital equipment to Frit Industries' facility in Walnut Ridge, AR. To evaluate which of the two responses Frit would select, EPA examined the cost and revenue implications of each. Both options are estimated to increase both Frit's costs and revenues. The more costly option, the closure of its Norfolk plant and salvaging the equipment, is shown in Table 5­ 1. Table 5­ 1 shows the estimated changes in Frit's costs and revenues associated with complying by shutting down its plant in Norfolk, NE. Frit's costs of shutting down its operation are estimated to be $320,000. This cost includes dismantling the plant and packing the capital equipment for transport and the salvage value of the capital equipment. In addition to these costs, Frit will lose profits equal to $1,513,000. After annualizing the costs of shutting down over 15 years at an interest rate of 7 percent, the total annual costs of closing the plant in Norfolk, NE, are $1,548,000. The costs of disassembly and site cleanup are based on costs reported by Tetra Micronutrients for dismantling one of its plants. These costs were then scaled to adjust for the differences in the relative size of operations between the two plants. For a more detailed description of these costs, see Appendix A. If Frit chooses Scenario 2, to close its plant in Norfolk, NE, and transport its operation to Walnut Ridge, AR, it will likely substitute a nonhazardous feedstock and continue to make Oxy Table 5­ 1. Estimated Costs of Complying with the Conditional Exclusion for Frit Industries, Scenario 1: Shutting Down Cost ($) Disassembly $329,000 Site cleanup $152,000 Salvage value of equipment $161,000 Total cost of shutdown $320,000 Lost profit $1,513,000 Total annual cost of shutdown $1,548,000 2 Queneau, Paul, personal communication with Paul Borst, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 16, 1999. Page 1. 3 Schauble, Carl, Frit Industries, teleconference with Paul Borst, David Fagan, Mitch Kidwell, Matt Hale, Caroline Ahearn, and Steve Silverman, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 24, 1999. 5­ 3 sul. The company will incur the increased cost of purchasing the nonhazardous feedstock, and it will receive higher revenues from the sale of its product, for two reasons: ° The zinc content of the nonhazardous feedstock is higher. Nonhazardous feedstock is approximately 60 percent zinc, 2 while K061 is 20 percent zinc. 3 ° The Oxy­ sul made from nonhazardous feedstocks can be sold for a higher price: $0.69 per pound of zinc for nonhazardous­ derived Oxy­ sul, compared to $0.59 per pound of zinc for K061­ derived Oxy­ sul. Nucor will be forced to pay for the disposal of its EAF dust when Frit stops producing Oxy­ sul at its plant in Norfolk, NE. Nucor will incur costs of disposal for K061 that total $1.4 million. This represents an increase of $1.5 million in costs for Nucor because it was receiving $100,000 from Frit as payment for its K061 prior to the rulemaking. Table 5­ 2 shows the estimated changes to Frit's costs if Frit chooses to move its operation to Walnut Ridge, AR. These costs include planning, packing, site cleanup, shipping, unpacking and reassembly, permitting revision, the relocation of three households, lost production, and the construction of a new storage facility at the Arkansas plant. The total costs of moving the operation to Walnut Ridge, AR, are estimated to be $1,360,000. This total, annualized over 15 years at an interest rate of 7 percent, is equal to $149,300. For a more detailed description of the assumption underlying these costs, see Appendix A. Both Frit's costs and revenues are estimated to increase significantly if it transports its capital equipment to the Arkansas plant and substitutes nonhazardous zinc feedstock in its Oxysul operation. Table 5­ 3 describes the changes in costs and revenues for Nucor and Frit that would result from Frit's move to Arkansas and substitution of a nonhazardous zinc feedstock. The table shows that Frit would increase its revenues by $3,386,000 by substituting a nonhazardous feedstock. Frit's costs will also increase by $2,910,500 because of increased raw material costs and by $149,300 because of its move to Arkansas. Overall, EPA estimates that Frit will realize a cost savings of $326,000 if it chooses this option. EPA recognizes that the analysis may omit some costs of substituting a nonhazardous feedstock. The analysis results suggest that this substitution would be profitable even in the absence of the regulation. Additional costs, which are not accounted for in the analysis may explain why Frit has not already made this move and feedstock substitution. For example, depending on the terms of Frit's contract with Nucor, fees may be associated with no longer accepting K061 from Nucor. It appears that Frit may already be substituting some nonhazardous zinc for K061, because in 2000, Frit accepted only slightly more than 5,000 tons of K061 from 4 Miller, Tomas A., Nucor Steel. June 22, 2001. Electronic mail message to Ken Herstowski, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7. 5 Madison Industries' and Tetra Micronutrient's use of brass dust comes from a handout entitled "Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer/ Estimated Market Share Analysis" given to EPA during a meeting between representatives of the zinc micronutrient fertilizer industry and EPA, April, 14,1998 5­ 4 Nucor. 4 Nucor, which had received $100,000 per year for its K061 when Frit used it as a feedstock, would now be required to spend an estimated $1.4 million annually to recycle its K061. Based on the analysis described in Tables 5­ 1 and 5­ 2, and the potential for Frit to increase revenues as a result of feedstock substitution, EPA projects that Frit would choose the second option and close its operation in Norfolk, NE; clean up the site; move its production to its plant in Walnut Ridge, AR; and substitute a nonhazardous feedstock. Because of the uncertainties inherent in the analysis, EPA has chosen to present a range of impacts, reflecting both scenarios. 5.1.3 Use of Brass Baghouse Dust in ZSM Production Based on available information, Madison Industries and Tetra Micronutrients are the two zinc micronutrient manufacturers who are currently using brass fume dust as a feedstock. 5 Big River Zinc, a zinc producer, had used the dust in 1997 but is not using this material now. The number and type of brass dust suppliers (either an ingot maker or large foundry) to each micronutrient manufacturing firm are unknown. Tetra Micronutrients in 1998 produced 10,000 tons of ZSM containing 2,845 tons of zinc. However, Tetra produces some of its zinc Table 5­ 2. Estimated Costs of Complying with the Conditional Exclusion for Frit Industries, Scenario 2: Moving to Walnut Cost ($) Planning $6,000 Dismantling and packing $329,000 Site cleanup $151,600 Shipping $25,600 Unpacking $518,100 Permitting revision $1,137 Household relocation— 3 employees $7,700 Foregone profit on lost production $210,000 Build new storage capacity $112,000 Grand total $1,360,000 Annualized cost $149,300 6 Tetra indicates that all zinc derived from hazardous feedstocks (brass dust) is used in the feed industry and is not used to produce fertilizer currently. Personal communication between Paul Borst, USEPA, and Mike Deiker, Tetra Micronutrients, July 16, 1999. 7 Personal communication between Paul A. Borst, USEPA, and Mike Oberlin, I Schumann Inc. (a brass ingot maker), July 14, 1999. 8 Personal communication between Paul Borst, USEPA, and George Obeldobel, Big River Zinc, July 12, 1999. 5­ 5 micronutrients from nonhazardous galvanizing fines as well as brass dust. Because the proportion of zinc made from hazardous feedstocks is limited to the feed market, 6 this analysis assumes that a small proportion of 20 to 40 percent of the throughput at Tetra's Fairbury, NE, facility is derived from hazardous brass dust sources. This analysis uses a value of 854 tons. Madison Industries, in 1997, produced 10,000 tons of ZSM containing 1,660 tons of zinc. Again, EPA estimates that 20 to 40 percent of the feedstock is derived from brass dust, so EPA estimates that Madison produces 489 tons of zinc from brass dust. In addition, Big River produces ZSM using nonhazardous feedstock at present. Producing their current volume of ZSM requires 2,015 tons of zinc. Thus, if Big River switches to brass dust as a feedstock, the total volume of brass dust­ derived zinc used for ZSM production is estimated to be 3,366 tons. EPA used the following assumptions to develop model facilities for brass dust generators: ° There are approximately 12 brass ingot makers in the United States. 7 ° A typical ingot maker may generate between 100 and 2,500 tons of baghouse dust annually. 8 Table 5­ 3. Estimated Change in Costs and Revenues for Frit Industries from Substituting Nonhazardous Feedstock Frit's costs and revenues a Oxy­ sul derived from K061 Oxy­ sul derived from nonhazardous feedstock Change resulting from substitution of nonhazardous feedstock Estimated revenues from sale of Oxy­ sul $2,832,000 $6,218,000 $3,386,000 Estimated feedstock costs $393,500 $3,304,000 $2,910,500 Costs of moving plant to Walnut Ridge, AR NA NA $149,300 Estimated profit $2,440,000 $2,930,000 $326,000 Nucor's cost to dispose of K061 –$ 100,000 $1,400,000 $1,500,000 a There may be some additional capital equipment required to use nonhazardous feedstock, for managing feedstock received from offsite. The cost of this equipment, if any, has been omitted from this calculation, as well as the possible costs of relocation. 9 Borst and Oberlin, July 14, 1999. 10 Personal communication between Paul Borst, USEPA, and Allan Silber, Recyclers of Copper Alloy Products. (RE­ CAP), July 14, 1999. 11 Letter from Collier, Shannon, Rill, and Scott on behalf of the American Foundrymen's Society to the EPA RCRA Information Center commenting on the Phase IV LDR proposed rulemaking, November 27, 1995. 12 Personal communication between Paul Borst, USEPA, and Gary Mosher, American Foundrymen's Society, November 19, 1998. 5­ 6 ° Brass ingot maker baghouse dust averages 60 to 70 percent zinc. 9 ° A typical ingot maker may ship one to two railroad cars of baghouse dust per month with between 75 and 90 tons of dust per car. 10 ° This analysis assumes an average generation rate of 450 tons of ingot maker baghouse dust per year, with a concentration of 65 percent zinc. Because the zinc content in the ingot maker baghouse dust is relatively high and there is a comparatively larger volume of dust per facility than a foundry, this analysis assumes that ingot makers are the principal suppliers of this type of material to zinc micronutrient manufacturers. ° There are approximately 791 brass and bronze or brass, bronze, and aluminum foundries in the United States that generate TC metal hazardous waste. 11 Typically nonferrous foundries generated 32 tons of baghouse dust per year. 12 However, empirically, larger brass foundries generate more dust and are therefore better able to afford the freight costs associated with shipping baghouse dust longer distances. Therefore, this analysis assumes a value of 100 tons per nonferrous foundry rather than the 32­ ton average that characterizes the industry and assumes that three foundries supply baghouse dust to the fertilizer producers. ° There are 12 brass mills in the country. They are assumed to generate, on average, 125 tons of baghouse dust per year. EPA assumes that 10 of the 12 supply baghouse dust to fertilizer producers. The conditional exclusion will mean the brass fume dust, if recycled into ZSM fertilizer or animal feed, is not solid waste. To analyze the impact of the conditional exclusion on brass fume dust generators, EPA assumes that ten ingot makers, ten brass mills, and the three largest brass foundries generating brass fume dust sell their brass fume dust to ZSM manufacturers. Because EPA does not know the characteristics of the specific generators, a model facility approach is used to characterize the generators. Table 5­ 4 depicts the characteristics of each typical brass fume generator. Overall, the Agency expects brass baghouse dust generators to benefit from the regulation. In the absence of the conditional exclusion, the brass generators are assumed to sell only about 1,350 tons of baghouse dust to ZSM producers; the rest is assumed to be sent to Zinc Nacional, Horsehead Resource Development, or another zinc reclaimer for reclamation, at an average cost 13 Arnett, John E. June 2, 2000. Copper and Brass Fabricators Council, Inc. Brass Mill Baghouse Dust. Brass fume dust averages 46 percent zinc; the average cost for reclamation is $0.15/ lb. 14 Obeldobel, George, Big River, teleconference with Charles Pringle, Research Triangle Institute. April 30, 2002. 5­ 7 of $0.15 per pound. 13 Currently, the average price of brass fume dust is approximately $0.08 per pound. 14 Post­ rule, the generators are assumed to sell approximately 3,500 tons of their brass baghouse dust to ZSM manufacturers, at an average price of $0.08 per pound. The actual cost for reclamation and price received from the ZSM manufacturers is assumed to reflect the variation in zinc content from the different types of brass baghouse dust generators. Brass mills and brass foundries are assumed to generate brass baghouse dust with an average zinc concentration of 35 percent, while brass ingot makers are assumed to generate dust with an average zinc concentration of 65 percent. Ingot makers are thus assumed to pay less for reclamation and earn more from ZSM makers for their brass baghouse dust. For all types of generators, the rulemaking is expected to result in reduced cost and increased revenues, averaging an increase in revenues of $0.22 per pound of brass dust sold to ZSM producers. Table 5­ 5 shows estimated impacts on typical brass dust generators. The Agency also expects several ZSM manufacturers to benefit from the rule's change in the treatment of brass baghouse dust. As noted above, EPA expects three ZSM manufacturers to use brass baghouse dust to manufacture ZSM for fertilizer post­ rule. Of the three, two currently use brass baghouse dust as an input to ZSM manufacturing but sell their ZSM made from brass dust exclusively for animal feed. The third is not currently using brass baghouse dust; EPA expects that, post­ rule, this company will substitute brass dust for the more costly nonhazardous ZnO it is currently using as a feedstock. EPA expects differing impacts on these three ZSM manufacturers. Big River Zinc, which currently uses nonhazardous ZnO as a feedstock, is expected to switch to using brass dust. This switch is predicted to reduce their costs of production but leave their revenues unchanged. Madison Industries and Tetra currently use at least some brass dust as feedstock but produce only Table 5­ 4. Typical Brass Mill, Brass Foundry, and Brass Ingot Maker Brass mill Brass foundry Brass ingot maker Size (tons/ yr) 125 100 450 Zinc content 35% 35% 65% Baseline management Send for reclamation, cost: $0.15/ lb Send for reclamation, cost: $0.15/ lb Send for animal feed, cost: $0.12/ lb Post­ rule management Sell to ZSM manufacturer, $0.071/ lb Sell to ZSM manufacturer, $0.071/ lb Sell to ZSM manufacturer, $0.091/ lb Number of generators 10 3 10 15 Queneau, Paul. Personal communication with Paul Borst, U. S. EPA. March 9, 1999. 5­ 8 animal feed from the brass dust. These two producers are projected to switch from selling animal feed to selling fertilizer, because fertilizer commands a higher price, due to its seasonal nature. 15 Table 5­ 6 shows the characteristics of the three ZSM manufacturers that EPA expects will use brass baghouse dust as an input for fertilizer manufacturing, as a result of the rulemaking. Table 5­ 5. Financial Impacts on Brass Baghouse Dust Generators Brass mill Brass foundry Brass ingot maker Dust volume 125 100 450 Baseline cost of reclamation $18,500 $14,800 $38,900 Post­ rule revenue from sales to ZSM $17,800 $14,200 $82,100 Net revenue $36,300 $29,000 $121,000 Number of generators 10 3 10 National net revenue $362,300 $87,000 $1,209,000 Note: Values are rounded. Table 5­ 6. ZSM Producers Using or Projected to Use Brass Baghouse Dust Big River, Sauget, IL Madison Industries Tetra, Fairbury, NE Quantity of ZSM tons/ yr 7,000 2,000 granular, 8,000 liquid 7,000 granular, 3,000 liquid Baseline feedstock ZnO Zinc fines, brass dust Zinc fines, brass dust Post­ rule feedstock Brass dust Zinc fines, brass dust Zinc fines, brass dust Baseline product Fertilizer ½ feed, ½ fertilizer ½ feed, ½ fertilizer Post­ rule product Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer 16 Obeldobel, George, Big River, teleconference with Katherine Heller and Charles Pringle, Research Triangle Institute. April 15, 2002. 17 For example, Tetra's Sauget, IL, facility has indicated its capacity and interest in obtaining brass fume dust as an alternative feed material for zinc metal. The company produces a ZSM from its process that has been and could be marketed for fertilizer use. Personal communication between Paul Borst, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and George Obeldobel, Big River Zinc, July 2000. 5­ 9 To assess the potential impact of the rulemaking on these ZSM manufacturers, we first focus on Big River Zinc. At baseline, this company is estimated to produce 7,000 tons per year of ZSM. 16 EPA assumes this facility purchases zinc fines, a nonhazardous feedstock, which has a 75 percent zinc content, at $0.18 per pound. Post­ rule, the company will be able to purchase brass dust, with an average zinc content of 46 percent, at $0.08 per pound. The facility will also incur some additional costs as a result of using brass dust. Specifically, the Agency assumes the company will incur the costs of treating and transporting the sludge created as a by­ product from ZSM production. Table 5­ 7 shows projected cost savings for Big River as a result of the rulemaking. Madison Industries and Tetra's Fairbury, NE, plant are not projected to change their operations, only the market in which they sell their ZSM as a result of the rulemaking. EPA thus projects no changes in their costs as a result of the rulemaking, only an increase in their revenues because ZSM for fertilizer commands a higher price than ZSM for feed. In fact, Madison Industries and Tetra may choose to substitute brass dust for the zinc fines they are currently using as part of their feedstock; if they did so, they might realize additional cost savings. But to avoid overstating the benefits of the rulemaking for these firms, EPA estimates only changes in revenues for them. Table 5­ 8 shows these estimated changes in revenues. Overall, EPA projects that the conditional exclusion will benefit both brass baghouse dust generators and ZSM manufacturers. Brass baghouse dust generators will find an improved market for their baghouse dust, enabling them to sell it rather than paying to have it reclaimed. 17 Nationwide, ten brass mills, ten ingot makers, and three foundries are projected to sell their Table 5­ 7. Estimated Cost Savings due to the Rulemaking for Big River Zinc, Sauget, IL Cost element Value Quantity of ZSM produced 8,000 tons Baseline cost of Zn fines 2,485 tons Zn × $. 018/ lb Zn × (2000/. 75) = $1,192,800 Post­ rule cost of brass dust 2,485 tons Zn × $0.08 × (2000/ 0.46) = $864,400 Post­ rule cost of treatment 1,195 tons sludge × $175/ ton transport, treat, and dispose = $209,100 Cost savings due to the rule $119,300 Note: Values are rounded. 5­ 10 baghouse dust to ZSM producers, at a net savings of approximately $1.7 million. Big River Zinc is projected to substitute brass dust for the nonhazardous feedstock currently used, at a cost savings of $119,000. Madison Industries and Tetra are projected to be able to sell all their ZSM, regardless of feedstock, for fertilizer, increasing their revenues by $750,000. 5.2 Economic Impact Analysis As described above, EPA estimates that the conditional exclusion will result in changes in the operations of at least three facilities, which in turn is estimated to change their costs and revenues. This section describes the projected impacts on affected markets, facilities, and companies. 5.2.1 Expected Market Effects of the Conditional Exclusion The conditional exclusion is expected to reduce the cost of using hazardous materials as feedstocks in zinc fertilizer manufacturing, because materials managed in compliance with the exclusion will no longer be subject to RCRA regulatory requirements. The change in regulatory status of the waste­ derived zinc feedstocks will reduce the cost of using them relative to the cost of using nonhazardous zinc feedstocks. Zinc micronutrient producers may choose to substitute some waste­ derived zinc feedstocks for nonwaste­ derived feedstocks, thus increasing the demand (and price) for the waste­ derived zinc feedstocks and decreasing the demand (and price) for the nonwaste­ derived zinc feedstocks. Overall, the costs of production for zinc micronutrients are expected to decrease somewhat, resulting in an increased supply of zinc micronutrients and a decrease in the market price. Because only a subset of the suppliers of zinc micronutrients are currently using hazardous waste feedstocks, and because the cost changes for these facilities are estimated to be fairly small, EPA expects the market impacts to be correspondingly small. The Agency has therefore not attempted to quantify the change in the market price of zinc micronutrients or zinc feedstocks; the Table 5­ 8. Estimated Revenue Increases for Madison Industries and Tetra, Fairbury, NE Revenue Element Value Madison Industries All ZSM used for animal feed at baseline Current revenues 8,000 tons ZnSO4 × $180 + 2,000 tons ZSM × 620 = $2,680,000 Estimated post­ rule revenues 8,000 tons ZnSO4 × $230 + 2,000 tons ZSM × 670 = $3,180,000 Estimated increased revenues $3,180,000 – $2,680,000 = $500,000 Tetra, Fairbury, NE Half ZSM used for animal feed at baseline Current revenues 3,000 tons ZnSO4 × $180 + 7,000 tons ZSM × $620 = $4,880,000 Estimated post­ rule revenues 0.5 × $4,880,000 + 0.5 × (3,000 × $230 + 7,000 × $670) = $5,130,000 Estimated increased revenues $5,130,000 – $4,880,000 = $250,000 5­ 11 economic impact analysis is conducted using a "full cost absorption" approach, based on market prices that do not change from their baseline levels. This modeling approach tends to estimate the maximum impacts on the directly affected facilities, and it makes use of the details of variations in price between feedstocks and outputs of various qualities in various markets. Thus, for facility­ level impacts, EPA believes this to be the most realistic approach. However, EPA also recognizes that facilities that are not affected by this rulemaking may also experience impacts (either positive or negative) due to the rulemaking. To illustrate the possible distribution of impacts across producers, EPA presents a market analysis in Appendix B. The market analysis abstracts from some of the quality premia realized by some zinc producers (for products made from nonhazardous feedstocks, for example), and treats the zinc content of various micronutrient products as perfect substitutes. In spite of this simplification, EPA believes that the sign if not the magnitude of impacts projected by the market analysis may be meaningful. 5.2.2 Estimated Impacts on Companies Owning Zinc Micronutrient Facilities EPA measures the impacts of the conditional exclusion by comparing the net costs of complying with the conditional exclusion (taking into account any estimated changes in revenues or cost savings) with the companies' baseline revenues. Table 5­ 9 shows the estimated net costs to comply with the conditional exclusion as a share of baseline company revenues for Frit Industries and Nucor. The estimated costs for these companies range from a cost savings of approximately $500,000 for Madison Industries to a cost of $1,500,000 for Nucor. Frit's estimated cost savings are approximately 0.5 percent of their baseline revenues. The Agency believes, based on this analysis, that none of the firms directly affected by the conditional exclusion will incur significant impacts. In addition to the specific companies listed above, several generators of brass baghouse dust are estimated to incur cost savings as a result of the conditional exclusions. Currently, they are able to sell only an estimated 1,350 tons of baghouse dust to ZSM manufacturers. Under the conditional exclusion, they are projected to increase those sales by more than 2,000 tons. As a result, they will experience cost savings because they will not have to pay a zinc reclamation facility to accept their baghouse dust and will experience increased revenues because they will be able to sell the dust to ZSM manufacturers. However, EPA does not have sufficient information about brass baghouse dust generators to identify individual generators that may experience these cost savings and increased revenues. 5.2.3 Impacts on Small Businesses SBREFA requires EPA to analyze and attempt to minimize economic impacts on small entities, including small businesses, small nonprofit organizations, and small governments. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be performed for any rule that imposes a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA has determined that one small business, a zinc micronutrient manufacturer, will be directly affected by the final standards. At least three other small businesses will be indirectly affected. EPA conducted a screening analysis, comparing the estimated costs of the standards with this company's baseline sales. For the zinc micronutrient manufacturer, the final standards 5­ 12 Table 5­ 9. Estimated Company Impacts of the Conditional Exclusion Company Baseline revenues Net costs of compliance Costs as a percentage of sales Zinc Micronutrient Manufacturers Frit Inc. $67,500,000 –$ 326,000 –0.48% Madison Industries $35,000,000 –$ 500,000 –1.43% Tetra Micronutrients — –$ 250,000 –3.33% Big River Zinc $300,000,000 ­$ 119,306 –0.04% Feedstock Suppliers Nucor Steel 4,139,200,000 $1,500,000 0.04% Note: Negative net costs reflect EPA's estimate that a company's revenues will increase by more than their costs. Source: Reference USA. 2002a. "Frit Industries." <http:// www. referenceusa. com>. As obtained on May 1, 2002. Reference USA. 2002b. "Big River Zinc." <http:// www. referenceusa. com>. As obtained on May 1, 2002. Reference USA. 2002c. "Madison Industries." <http:// www. referenceusa. com>. As obtained on May 1, 2002. Reference USA. 2002d. "Tetra Micronutrients." <www. referenceusa. com>. As obtained on May 1, 2002. Hoover's Online. 2002. "Nucor Corporation." <www. hoovers. com>. As obtained on April 30, 2002. are projected to result in cost savings or in revenue increases that largely offset the increased costs. Similarly, the small businesses indirectly affected are projected to experience increased revenues or cost savings. EPA therefore certifies that the conditional exclusion will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because ° only one small entity is directly affected, ° the overall financial impacts of the conditional exclusion on this small entity are expected to be affordable, and ° the small business may be able to recover its costs in a post­ rule environment. 5.3 Conclusions The conditional exclusion is expected to require one zinc micronutrient manufacturer to modify its operations. Frit Industries is estimated to not only incur incremental costs, but also to have a substantial increase in revenues, which may offset the increased costs. Its current supplier of K061, Nucor Steel, is projected to incur increased costs to recycle its K061. Three additional zinc micronutrient producers, Big River Zinc, Madison Industries, and Tetra Micronutrients, are projected to experience either cost savings or increased revenues because of the effect of the conditional exclusion on the regulatory status of brass baghouse dust. 5­ 13 The brass mills, brass foundries, and brass ingot producers that generate brass baghouse dust are also projected to experience cost savings. Overall, therefore, EPA estimates that few companies will be directly affected by the conditional exclusion, and for those that are, most will incur relatively small impacts, when estimated costs, cost savings, and changes in revenue are accounted for. 1 Rogowski, D., G. Golding, D. Bowhay, and S. Singleton. 1999. Screening Survey for Metals and Dioxins in Fertilizers, Soil Amendments, and Soils in Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, Ecology Publication No. 99­ 309. 2 Freeman, A. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 6­ 1 CHAPTER 6 BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULEMAKING Zinc micronutrient fertilizers have the potential to harm human and environmental health through a variety of environmental media and exposure pathways. As a result, the final conditional exclusion for zinc micronutrient fertilizer, which is designed to reduce the release of hazardous materials into the environment, can improve human welfare by generating environmental services. This chapter identifies the primary linkages between zinc micronutrient fertilizer pollution and human welfare, drawing on a study by Rogowski et al. conducted for Washington State 1 . The chapter begins with a conceptual discussion of the link between changes in environmental quality and human welfare as characterized in a standard benefits analysis. The second section identifies potential categories for benefits from the final rule limiting exposure to dioxins and some metals. In the final section, evidence is presented linking zinc micronutrient fertilizers to elevated levels of metals and dioxin exposure. 6.1 A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing the Benefits of Regulating Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizers Following the established procedures for benefits analysis, 2 we can use a three­ stage framework, illustrated in Figure 6­ 1, to conceptualize the economic benefits of regulating zinc micronutrient fertilizers. In Stage 1 (the first arrow), we propose that the conditional exclusion for zinc micronutrient fertilizer generates environmental services by reducing the release of hazardous substances. The main task is therefore to identify the primary environmental media, exposure pathways, and reductions in chemical concentration associated with the rulemaking. In Stage 2 (the second set of arrows) the reduction in dioxin exposure generates two main effects: human health effects and ecosystem effects. Health effects can be further subcategorized into mortality (typically cancer related) and morbidity effects. In addition, because of altruistic concerns society at large may gain some nonuse benefits from knowing that others are healthy. Although there are several ways to characterize and categorize the ecosystem effects of fertilizer regulation, EPA believes there are four primary areas: ° commercial effects in terms of productivity of agriculture and fishing; ° nonmarket effects from improved recreational opportunities and aesthetic qualities of nature; 6­ 2 ° maintenance or improvements of natural ecological functions such as water filtration, nutrient cycling, and habitat preservation; and ° nonuse effects to society (not necessarily individuals) from the knowledge that ecosystems are healthy. Nonuse services may also contribute to an individual's welfare through a sense of stewardship for the environment. Generate Health Effects a. Mortality b. Morbidity — acute, chronic c. Nonuse Environmental Policy Regulate Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer Change Air, Water, and Soil Quality and Provide Environmental Services STAGE 1 Change Human Welfare and Generate Benefits (Values) Generate Ecosystem Effects a. Commercial — crops, fish b. Nonmarket — recreation, aesthetics c. Ecological functions d. Nonuse STAGE 2 STAGE 3 Figure 6­ 1. Conceptual Framework for Benefits of Regulating Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer 3 Freeman provides a comprehensive discussion of the nonmarket valuation methods. (Freeman, A. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods.) Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 4 U. S. EPA Report of RCRA Compliance Evaluation Inspection at American MicroTrace Corporation, Fairbury, NE. September 19, 1996 and October 3­ 4, 1996. 6­ 3 Finally, in Stage 3 (the third set of arrows), the health and ecosystem effects generate benefits by increasing the welfare of human beings. Economists measure this gain in terms of changes in utility and translate them into monetary terms by using a nonmarket valuation method. The main basis for these methods is the relation between these health and ecosystem services and other conventionally valued market goods that are either substitutes or complements because people make production and consumption tradeoffs among market and nonmarket goods. By identifying the main economic tradeoffs, the benefits of the conditional exclusion can be estimated as willingness to pay that is measured in terms of market products. 3 6.2 Identifying Categories of Benefits To identify the primary exposure pathways, environmental media, exposure reduction, and human welfare gains associated with regulating zinc micronutrient fertilizers, this analysis draws from the Rogowski et al. study for Washington State on metals and dioxins in fertilizers and soils. The health benefits lie primarily in the control of lead, cadmium, chromium, and dioxins pollution. The benefits of the final conditional exclusion can be expressed as the reduction in adverse health and ecosystem effects that will result from the final standards. Potential benefits include ° fewer cancer cases among the most exposed population from reductions in dioxin concentrations and additional reductions in cancer cases in the remaining 90 percent of the population; ° reduction in cancer cases associated with exposure to lead, chromium, and cadmium; ° reductions in kidney tissue decay and other morbidity effects associated with exposure to chromium; ° reductions in kidney damage, significant proteinuria, and other morbidity effects from exposure to cadmium; and ° reductions in various cardiovascular, developmental, and central nervous system effects due to exposure to lead. In addition to the human health risks avoided by reducing exposures to lead and dioxins, the rulemaking is expected to yield ecological benefits, because of reduced loadings of heavy metals to the environment. Improved material handling procedures would prevent contamination of soil, groundwater, and surface water. For example, materials handling at one zinc fertilizer manufacturer resulted in contaminated storm water running off into a wetland area and creek, contaminating them with heavy metals including lead and cadmium. 4 Another zinc micronutrient fertilizer manufacturer was recently fined $35,000 for spilling and improperly disposing of waste 5 Washington Department of Ecology. September 23, 1999. Fertilizer company fined for improper handling of hazardous waste. News Release. <http:// www. wa. gov: 80/ ecology/ pie/ 1999news/ 99­ 186. html>. 6 As of July 1, 1999, Washington State law (RCW 15.54.820) requires a review of fertilizers that includes TCLP analysis for several metals. The TCLP is used to determine if a solid waste is also a dangerous waste. 6­ 4 containing lead and cadmium. 5 The plant was also ordered to immediately prevent any further releases of hazardous waste to the environment and to develop a plan for cleaning up the site, which has both soil and groundwater contamination resulting from its fertilizer manufacturing activities. Compliance with the terms of the conditional exclusion would reduce releases of heavy metals to the environment. It is evident that the conditional exclusion, with its resulting reductions in releases of heavy metals and dioxins, would convey benefits to the human population. 6.3 Potential Exposure to Metals and Dioxin from Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizers Zinc micronutrient fertilizers have relatively high concentrations of metals compared to other fertilizers tested, including lead, mercury, and silver (see Table 1­ 1 in Rogowski et al.). At the maximum application rates, zinc fertilizer application results in soil additions of less than 0.1 kg/ hectare of all metals except for lead (0.884 kg/ ha). Frit K061­ derived fertilizer also exceeded the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) 6 limits for cadmium. Dioxin in fertilizer is also a concern. The final regulation limits dioxin in zinc fertilizers to 8 ppt. The Rogowski et al. study for Washington State found greater than 140 ppt of dioxin congeners and one exceeded 50 ppt in one hazardous waste­ derived fertilizer and a level of 9 ppt in the other hazardous waste­ derived fertilizer tested. Regulating the composition of hazardous waste­ derived fertilizers would result in lower amounts of metals, especially cadmium, and dioxin entering the environment. 7­ 1 CHAPTER 7 OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS This chapter describes the Agency's response to other rulemaking requirements established by statute and executive order, within the context of the notice of final rulemaking for zinc­ containing hazardous waste­ derived fertilizers. 7.1 Environmental Justice EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, bears disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and that all people live in clean and sustainable communities. In response to Executive Order 12898 and to concerns voiced by many groups outside the Agency, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response formed an Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of environmental justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop an overall strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER Directive No. 9200.3­ 17). It is not certain whether the environmental problems addressed by the final conditional exclusion from hazardous waste regulation for zinc­ containing hazardous waste­ derived fertilizers could disproportionately affect minority or low income communities, due to the widespread distribution of fertilizers throughout the United States. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the West North Central region— which includes KS, IA, MN, MO, NE, ND, and SD— are the largest consumers of zinc fertilizer, principally used in corn production. The Pacific and Mountain regions are second to the North West Central region in zinc fertilizer consumption. Because the final rule removes the exclusion for K061­ derived fertilizers, retains protective management standards for hazardous secondary fertilizer feedstocks, and establishes technologybased protective product standards for zinc micronutrient fertilizers derived from hazardous feedstocks, the Agency does not believe that this rule will increase risks or result in any disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low income communities relative to affluent or nonminority communities. As stated in Chapter 6, EPA believes that this rule will reduce lead and cadmium loadings from zinc micronutrient fertilizers to the environment including groundwater and food supply. 7.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a statement to accompany any rule for which the estimated costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, will be $100 1 An economically significant rule is defined by Executive Order 12866 as any rulemaking that has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or would adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health; or safety; or state, local, or tribal governments or communities. 7­ 2 million or more in any one year. Under Section 205, EPA must select the most cost­ effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly affected by the rule. An analysis of the costs and benefits of the final rule was conducted and it was determined that this rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate. The private sector also is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million per year in this RIA. 7.3 Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks On April 21, 1997, the President signed Executive Order 13045 entitled, "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks." The executive order requires all economically significant rules 1 that concern an environmental health risk or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children to comply with requirements of the executive order. Because EPA does not consider today's final rule to be economically significant, it is not subject to Executive Order 13045. Because this rulemaking removes the exclusion for K061­ derived fertilizers, retains protective management standards for hazardous secondary fertilizer feedstocks, and establishes technology­ based protective product standards for zinc micronutrient fertilizers derived from hazardous feedstocks, EPA believes that this final rulemaking will not result in increased exposures to children. EPA believes that removing the exemption for K061­ derived fertilizers and establishing the technology­ based performance standard for excluded fertilizers will reduce lead and cadmium loading to the environment, including the food supply and groundwater over current management practices. Moreover, the prohibition on outdoor storage of the hazardous secondary feedstocks used to produce the fertilizer assures proper management of these materials. For these reasons, the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action do not have a disproportionate effect on children. 8­ 1 CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES Armani, M., D. G. Westfall, and G. A. Peterson. 1997. "Zinc Plant Availability as Influenced by Zinc Fertilizer Sources and Zinc Water Solubility." Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin TB 97­ 4 (pre­ publication draft). Arnett, John E. June 2, 2000a. Copper and Brass Fabricators Council, Inc. Facsimile to Paul Borst, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Brass fume dust. Arnett, John E. June 2, 2000b. Copper and Brass Fabricators Council, Inc. Facsimile to Paul Borst, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Brass Mill Baghouse Dust. Borst, Paul, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication with Richard Camp, Bay Zinc. November 18, 1998. Borst, Paul, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication with Gary Mosher, American Foundrymen's Society. November 19, 1998. Borst, Paul, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication with Ken Wycherley, Exeter Energy Ltd. November 19, 1998. Borst, Paul, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, e­ mail message to Katherine Heller, Research Triangle Institute. March 16, 1999. Revised Frit meeting notes and handling requirements for fertilizer. Borst, Paul, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication with Richard Camp, President, Bay Zinc. April 16, 1999. Borst, Paul, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication with George Obeldobel, Big River Zinc. July 12, 1999. Borst, Paul, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication with Mike Oberlin, I Schumann Inc. (a brass ingot maker). July 14, 1999 Borst, Paul, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication with Allan Silber, Recyclers of Copper Alloy Products (RE­ CAP). July 14, 1999. Borst, Paul, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication with Mike Deiker, Tetra Micronutrients, July 16, 1999. Camp, Richard, Bay Zinc, handout to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Camp, Richard, Bay Zinc, teleconference with Paul Borst, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 16, 1999. 8­ 2 ChemExpo. "Chemical Profile: Zinc Sulfate." <http:// www. chemexpo. com/ news/ PROFILE970811. cfm>. As obtained on March 17, 1999. ChemExpo. "Chemical Profile: Zinc Sulfate 7/ 3/ 2000." <http:// www. chemexpo. com/ news/ PROFILE970811. cfm>. As obtained on August 11, 2000 Page 2. Collier, Shannon, Rill and Scott, American Foundrymen's Society, letter to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, RCRA Information Center commenting on the Phase IV LDR proposed rulemaking. November 27, 1995. Fertilizer Institute. 1999. "Fertilizer: From Plant to Plant." The Fertilizer Institute. <http:// www. tfi. org/ brochure. htm>. As obtained on March 5, 1999. Freeman, A. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Green, Richard, Martin Resources, teleconference with Katherine Heller and Lindsay James, Research Triangle Institute. March 19, 1999. Hoover's Online. 2002. "Nucor Corporation." <http:// www. hoovers. com>. As obtained on April 30, 2002. Miller, Tomas A., Nucor Steel. June 22, 2001. Electronic mail message to Ken Herstowski, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7. Obeldobel, George, teleconference with Lindsay James, Research Triangle Institute, May 9, 2001. Obeldobel, George, Big River, teleconference with Katherine Heller and Charles Pringle, Research Triangle Institute. April 15, 2002. Obeldobel, George, Big River, teleconference with Charles Pringle, Research Triangle Institute. April 30, 2002. Oberlin, Mike, I. Schumann Inc., personal communications with Paul Borst, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 14, 1999, July 27, 2000. Painter, David, Martin Resources, personal communication with Lindsay James, Research Triangle Institute, July 2000. Queneau, Paul B. U. S. Recycling of Industrial Metals, Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Minimization and Management Division. December 1­ 2, 1998. Queneau, Paul, P. B. Queneau & Associates, Inc., facsimile to Paul Borst, U. S. EPA. "EAF Dust— U. S. A. 1998." February 10, 1999. Queneau, Paul, B. Personal communication with Paul Borst, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 9, 1999. Queneau, Paul, B. Personal communication with Paul Borst, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 16, 1999. 8­ 3 Queneau, Paul B., et al. June 22– 24, 1999. "Recycling Heavy Metals in Solid Waste." Sponsored by Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. Queneau, Paul et al. "Recycling Heavy Metals in Solid Waste." Sponsored by Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. June 28­ 30, 1994; June 25­ 27, 1996; June 24­ 26, 1997; June 22­ 24, 1999; June 27­ 29, 2000. Queneau, Paul et al. June 27­ 29, 2000. "Recycling Metals from Industrial Waste." Sponsored by Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education, Colorado School of Mines. Reference USA. 2002a. "Frit Industries." <http:// www. referenceusa. com>. As obtained on May 1, 2002. Reference USA. 2002b. "Big River Zinc." <http:// www. referenceusa. com>. As obtained on May 1, 2002. Reference USA. 2002c. "Madison Industries." <http:// www. referenceusa. com>. As obtained on May 1, 2002. Reference USA. 2002d. "Tetra Micronutrients." <www. referenceusa. com>. As obtained on May 1, 2002. Rogowski, D., G. Golding, D. Bowhay, and S. Singleton. 1999. Screening Survey for Metals and Dioxins in Fertilizers, Soil Amendments, and Soils in Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, Ecology Publication No. 99­ 309. Schauble, Carl, Frit Industries, teleconference with Paul Borst, David Fagan, Mitch Kidwell, Matt Hale, Caroline Ahearn, and Steve Silverman, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 24, 1999. Skillen, Jim, The Fertilizer Institute, teleconference with Katherine Heller and Lindsay James, Research Triangle Institute. March 10, 1999. Slade, M. E. 1996. "Uniform Compliance Costs for Mineral Commodities: Who Gains and Who Losses?" Land Economics 72( 1). U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Report of RCRA Compliance Evaluation Inspection at American MicroTrace Corporation, Fairbury, NE. September 19, 1996 and October 3­ 4, 1996. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). June 1998. Background Report on Fertilizer Use, Contaminants and Regulations. Washington, DC: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. EPA 747­ R­ 98­ 003. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 14, 1998. Handout entitled "Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer/ Estimated Market Share Analysis" given to EPA during a meeting between representatives of the zinc micronutrient fertilizer industry. U. S. International Trade Commission Database. "U. S. Imports for Consumption." HTS code = 283326. 1989­ 2001a. 8­ 4 U. S. International Trade Commission Database. "U. S. Domestic Exports." HTS code = 283326. 1989­ 2001b. Washington Department of Ecology. September 23, 1999. Fertilizer company fined for improper handling of hazardous waste. News Release. <http:// www. wa. gov: 80/ ecology/ pie/ 1999news/ 99­ 186. html>. A­ 1 APPENDIX A COST ALGORITHMS FOR RELOCATION OF FRIT TO ARKANSAS AND FOR CLOSURE OF FRIT'S NEBRASKA OPERATIONS WITHOUT RELOCATION EPA evaluated two possible scenarios for Frit's response to the final conditional exclusion. First, Frit may choose to close down their Nebraska operations, clean up the site, and relocate the operation to their Arkansas plant. Second, they may choose simply to close the Nebraska operation and forego the production that plant represents. A. 1 Relocation of the Frit Plant to Arkansas Relocation of the Frit plant to Arkansas requires planning, packing, site cleanup, shipping, unpacking, permitting revisions in Arkansas, household relocation (estimated for three people), the value of lost production, and an estimated requirement for added storage space at the Arkansas plant. These estimated costs are shown in Table A­ 1, including the annualized cost for total capital required to make the move. A description of the table rows follows. 1. Gives the subtotal of planning costs, based on estimated hours for management, technical, and clerical personnel. 2. Packing, including disassembly, crating, and loading is estimated from costs reported by Tetra for dismantling one of its plants. Frit's production is 12,000 tpy vs. Tetra's 4,000 tpy. Costs for Frit were taken as the ratio of the two sizes to the 0.6 power x $200,000 (Tetra's dismantling cost) = $387,000. This cost was then allocated 85 percent to dismantling and packing and 15 percent to cleanup. The 85 percent for dismantling and packing = $329,000. 3­ 4 Site cleanup costs include basic cleanup as incurred by Tetra (15 percent of $387,000 or $58,000) plus items for hazardous wastes that were not applicable to Tetra. Soil treatment and disposal requires an additional $82,100, based on 335 $/ ton (escalated) for stabilization and landfill disposal of soil (estimated at 20 x 40 x 5 ft 3 ) x 85 lb/ ft 3 soil density / 2000 lb/ ton + transportation costs of $2.52/ truck­ mile (escalated) x 15 tons/ truck) x 600 miles to Colorado treatment and disposal site. The unit costs are taken from Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Rule for 180­ day Accumulation Time for F006 Wastewater Treatment Sludges, EPA/ DPRA, January 14, 2000, pp. 19 (treatment and disposal) and 51 (transportation). Estimated distance is 600 miles to a Colorado treatment and disposal site. A­ 2 Table A­ 1. Frit's Costs of Moving to Arkansas Hrs Item cost, $ Cost, $ 1 Planning $6,000 2 Packing Disasembly Crating Loading Subtotal, dismantling and packing $329,000 Site cleanup 3 Basic cleanup $58,000 4 Soil treatment and disposal $82,100 5 Building cleanup $6,500 Waste disposal 6 Initial monitoring $5,000 7 Subtotal, site cleanup $151,600 8 Shipping $25,600 Unpacking and reassembly 9 Unloading, uncrating, assembly $503,000 Uncrating Assembly 10 Testing $15,100 11 Subtotal, reassembly and testing $518,100 12 Permitting revision $1,137 13 Household relocation— 3 employees $7,700 14 Foregone profit on lost production $210,000 15 Build new storage capacity $112,000 16 Grand total $1,360,000 17 Annualized cost, 7%, 15 years $149,300 A­ 3 5. Building cleanup requires an additional sum for washing the building walls and floor, then treating and disposing of the resulting hazardous sludge. These costs are based on the same unit costs as in item 6, but for 10.4 tons of water from cleanup (100­ x 100­ ft building with 170 tons/ 15­ ft ceilings; 1/ 4­ in. water film for cleaning = 333 ft 3 of water with a density of 62.4 lb/ ft 3 = 20,800 lb = 10.4 tons. The quantity of solids in the water is estimated at 4 tons. 6. Initial monitoring costs for the site are estimated at $5,000 for soil sampling, building sampling, and associated analyses. 7. The subtotal for site cleanup is the sum of the costs in items 3 through 6 = $151,600. 8. Shipping costs for the plant equipment and furniture are estimated from an average of rates given by agents at Mayflower and DeHavens moving companies (industrial transport) of $0.935/ ton mile x 685 miles from Norfolk, NE, to Walnut Ridge, AR. Equipment weight is estimated at 40 tons for granulating, drying, screening, blending, milling, packaging, and peripherals. 9­ 11 Unpacking and reassembly of the equipment in Arkansas is estimated as equivalent to the dismantling cost plus a 30­ percent premium for the additional care required to install, plumb, and wire the equipment at a new site (1.3 x $387,000 = $503,000). An additional cost is incurred for testing the equipment train before going into production. This cost is estimated at 3 percent of the installation costs = $503,000 x 0.03 = $15,100, for a total cost of $518,100. 12. Revisions to the Arkansas plant permit are estimated at $1,137. 13. Three of the Nebraska employees are assumed to be transferred to the Arkansas site. Moving costs are estimated from $0.935/ ton mile x 685 miles x 8,000 lbs/ household = $7,700. 14. The company is estimated to be out of production for 1.7 months. During that time, lost income is 1.7/ 12 x $1.483 million estimated annual income = $210,000. 15. The Arkansas site is estimated to have sufficient space for installing the Walnut Ridge equipment but to require additional storage space for raw materials and product awaiting shipment. The space is assumed to be an enclosed storage building, 40 x 80 ft, costing $35/ ft 2 , based on R. S. Means Building Construction Cost Data, 57 Ed., 1999. p. 479. The cost of the structure is 40 x 80 x 35 = $112,000. 16. The grand total for all items is $1,360,000. 17. The annualized cost based on 7 percent interest (i) and a 15­ year (n) capital cost is $1,360,000 x 0.1098 = $149,300/ y. The factor 0.1098 is for capital recovery (RF) based on the equation RF = i( 1+ i) n /(( 1+ i) n ­1). A­ 4 A. 2 Closure of Frit's Nebraska Operations Without Relocation Frit may also choose to close their Nebraska plant and sell the equipment for salvage. The costs of closure are shown in Table A­ 2. EPA assumed that dismantling the Nebraska plant, as shown in Section A. 1, would total $329,000. Site cleanup involves the same procedures and costs as described in Section A. 1 and totals $151,600. The sum of these two cost items is approximately $480,000 and is partially offset by selling the equipment for salvage. Salvage value of the Frit equipment is estimated at 7 percent of the original purchase cost. The equipment includes one or more granulators, driers, screens, blenders, hammer mills, packaging equipment, storage and mixing tanks, pumps, and piping. The equipment is estimated to be sized for producing about 50 tons/ day and to have cost approximately $2.3 million. At 7 percent, the salvage value is $161,000. Thus, the lump sum cost of shutting down operations in Nebraska is $319,000. Annualizing this amount over 15 years at 7 percent yields an annual cost of $35,000. The major estimated element of costs associated with shutting down the Nebraska operations is the foregone profits from the operations. To estimate these foregone profits, EPA estimated the sales of Frit's Oxy­ Sul ($ 2,832,000) and subtracted estimated K061 costs ($ 393,500) and estimated labor costs ($ 925,100). This estimate is $1,513,000. Clearly, there are many elements of cost for which EPA has not accounted; therefore, this estimate overstates baseline profits. Thus, EPA's estimates of the costs to Frit of closing their Nebraska operations without relocating them is $1,548,000 per year. EPA recognizes that, because it overstimates Frit's baseline profits, it is overestimating the opportunity cost of shutting down the Nebraska operations. Table A­ 2. Frit's Costs to Shut Down Operations in Nebraska Cost Disassembly $329,000 Site cleanup $152,000 Salvage value of equipment $161,000 Total cost of shutdown $320,000 Lost profit $1,513,000 Total annualized cost of shutdown $1,548,000 B­ 1 (B. 1) APPENDIX B OVERVIEW OF ZINC MARKET MODEL AND RESULTS To develop estimates of the economic impacts on society resulting from the regulation, the Agency developed a computational model using a framework that is consistent with economic analyses performed for other rules. This approach employs standard microeconomic concepts to model behavioral responses expected to occur with regulation. This appendix describes the spreadsheet model in detail and discusses how the Agency C characterized the supply and demand of a single zinc commodity. The model treats the zinc in the various fertilizer products as homogenous product with a single price. C introduced a policy "shock" into the model by using control cost­ induced shifts in the supply functions of affected zinc producers, and C used a solution algorithm to determine a new with­ regulation equilibrium for the zinc market. B. 1 Baseline Data Set EPA collected the following market information to characterize the baseline year, 1999: C Plant­ level quantities— Plant­ level production quantities were obtained from Queneau 1999 and 2000. C Market price— The Agency computed an average price for zinc ($ 1,432 per ton) using data provided by representatives of the zinc micronutrient fertilizer industry (EPA, 1998). C Supply and demand elasticities— Slade (1996) reports empirical estimates of zinc elasticities that are used in the analysis (see Table B­ 1). B. 2 Market for Zinc B. 2.1 Market Supply Market supply for zinc can be expressed as the sum of plant­ level supply B­ 2 (B. 2) (B. 3) where = zinc supply from plant j, n = the number of domestic plants. B. 2.1.1Domestic Plant­ Level Supply EPA used a simple constant elasticity supply function for each plant expressed as follows: where = the supply of zinc from plant (j), A = a parameter that calibrates the supply equation to replicate the estimated 1999 level of zinc production, P = the 1999 average market price for zinc, and = the domestic supply elasticity (empirical estimate =0.08). Regulatory Induced Shifts in the Supply Function (ci ). The upward shift in the supply function is calculated by taking the annual compliance cost estimate and dividing it by baseline output. Computing the supply shift in this manner treats the compliance costs as the conceptual equivalent of a unit­ tax on output. cj = the annual per­ unit control costs for plant (j). Table B­ 1. Supply and Demand Elasticities for Zinc Used in the Market Model Market Supply Demand Zinc 0.08 –0.47 Source: Slade, M. E. 1996. "Uniform Compliance Costs for Mineral Commodities: Who Gains and Who Losses?" Land Economics 72( 1). B­ 3 (B. 4) B. 2.2 Market Demand Market demand was expressed as follows: where = domestic demand for zinc, B = a parameter that calibrates the demand equation to replicate the 1999 level of domestic demand, P = the 1999 average market price for zinc, and = the domestic demand elasticity (empirical estimate = –0.47). B. 3 With Regulation Market Equilibrium Producer responses and market adjustments can be conceptualized as an interactive feedback process. The plant facing increased production costs due to compliance are willing to supply smaller quantities at the baseline price. This reduction in market supply leads to an increase in the market price that all producers and consumers face, which leads to further responses by producers and consumers and thus new market prices, and so on. The new with­ regulation equilibrium is the result of a series of iterations in which price is adjusted and producers and consumers respond, until a set of stable market prices arises where total market supply equals market demand (i. e., Qs = QD) in each market. Market price adjustment takes place based on a price revision rule that adjusts price upward (downward) by a given percentage in response to excess demand (excess supply). The algorithm for determining with­ regulation equilibria can be summarized by five recursive steps: 1. Impose the control costs on affected plants, thereby affecting their supply decisions. 2. Recalculate the market supply. 3. Determine the new price via the price revision rule. 4. Recalculate the supply functions with the new price, resulting in a new market supply. Compute market demand at the new prices. 5. Go to Step 3, resulting in a new price. Repeat until equilibrium conditions are satisfied (i. e., the ratio of supply to demand is arbitrarily close to one). B­ 4 B. 4 Market Model Results The conditional exclusion will increase the costs of one micronutrient manufacturer and decrease the costs of another. Overall, supply of zinc micronutrients will decline slightly, resulting in a small decrease in the quantity of zinc embodied in micronutrients, and a small increase in its price. Because the costs incurred by Frit are lower in Alternative II, the substitution scenario, the impacts are also smaller. As shown in Table B­ 4, only one zinc micronutrient manufacturing facility is projected to lose as a result of the regulation, while all others are projected to benefit from the higher prices for zinc in micronutrient compounds. Although this analysis abstracts from some of the differences in zinc micronutrient products (ZSM vs. OxySul, for example, or OxySul made from hazardous vs. nonhazardous feedstocks), it indicates the sign if not the magnitude of impacts projected for manufacturers as a result of the conditional exclusion. Table B­ 2. Market­ Level Impacts: 1999 Absolute Change Relative Change Baseline Alternative I Alternative II Alternative I Alternative II Zinc — — — — — Price ($/ ton) $1,432 $19.39 $4.97 1.35% 0.35% Quantity (tons) 40,075 –253 –65 –0.63% –0.16% Table B­ 3. Industry­ Level Impacts: 1999 Absolute Change Relative Change Baseline Alternative I Alternative II Alternative I Alternative II Total Revenue ($ 10 6 /yr) $57.4 $0.41 $0.11 0.72% 0.18% Total Cost ($ 10 6 /yr) $54.6 $1.72 $0.71 3.15% 1.31% Control $0.0 $1.82 $0.76 NA NA Production $54.6 –$ 0.10 –$ 0.05 –0.19% –0.09% Pre­ Tax Earnings ($ 10 6 /yr) $2.8 –$ 1.31 –$ 0.61 –46.53% –21.65% Facilities (#) 21 0 0 0.00% 0.00% B­ 5 Table B­ 5. Distribution of Social Costs ($): 1999 Value ($ 10 6 /yr) Alternative I Alternative II Consumer Surplus –$ 0.8 –$ 0.2 Producer Surplus –$ 1.3 –$ 0.6 Total Social Cost –$ 2.1 –$ 0.8 Table B­ 4. Distributional Impacts Across Facilities: 1999 Pre­ Tax Earnings Loss Gain Total Alternative I Alternative II Alternative I Alternative II Alternative I Alternative II Facilities (#) 1 1 19 19 20 20 Baseline Production Total (tons) 2,400 2,400 37,675 37,675 40,075 40,075 Average (tons/ facility) 2,400 2,400 1,983 1,983 2,004 2,004 Baseline Compliance Costs Total ($ 10 6 /yr) $2.9 $1.5 $0.0 $0.0 $2.9 $1.5 Average ($/ unit) $2.9 $1.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 $0.1 Change in Pre­ Tax Earnings ($ 10 6 /yr) –$ 2.7 –$ 1.5 $1.4 $0.9 –$ 1.3 –$ 0.6 Table B­ 6. Small Business Impacts: 1999 Absolute Change Relative Change Baseline Alternative I Alternative II Alternative I Alternative II Total Revenue ($ 10 6 /yr) $16.3 –$ 0.2 –$ 0.1 –1.49% –0.61% Total Cost ($ 10 6 /yr) $15.5 $2.3 $1.4 15.07% 8.78% Control $0.0 $2.5 $1.5 NA NA Production $15.5 –$ 0.2 –$ 0.1 –1.33% –0.75% Pre­ Tax Earnings ($ 10 6 /yr) $0.8 –$ 2.6 –$ 1.5 –322.80% –182.86% Facilities (#) 4 0 0 0.00% 0.00% B­ 6 C­ 1 APPENDIX C Reserved 1 EPA uses 1997 production levels throughout the analysis, with the exception of Frit production volumes. These were derived or chosen based on additional industry information. In the case of Frit, the production volume is a 1999 estimate. D­ 2 APPENDIX D SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS In the interest of estimating a complete range of potential impacts to the fertilizer industry from the final rulemaking, EPA presents a sensitivity analysis as an appendix to the economic analysis. Throughout the economic analysis, EPA based the impact calculations on price and production data from 1997 1 (see the discussion in Section 3.3 of this report for the basis of this choice). Since 1997 is an average year in terms of U. S. zinc micronutrient production, EPA examined the potential impacts of the final rule on the fertilizer industry during years of low production and years of high production. For the sensitivity analysis, the Agency estimated the impacts on fertilizer manufacturers and raw material producers for two scenarios: a 20 percent decrease in baseline fertilizer production and a 20 percent increase in baseline fertilizer production. D. 1 Low Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer Production and the Economic Impacts of the Final Rulemaking To provide a thorough analysis of the impacts of the final rulemaking on the zinc micronutrient fertilizer industry, EPA examined the impacts of the rule when the demand for zinc fertilizer has decreased dramatically. To do this, EPA measured the impacts for each generator and the raw material suppliers when fertilizer production has decreased by 20 percent from 1997 levels. The following sections describe the estimated impacts in detail. D. 1.1 Frit Industries Under the baseline scenario, Frit produces 12,000 tons of Oxy­ sul. Under a 20 percent decline in production, Frit would produce 9,600 tons of Oxy­ sul pre­ rule. EPA followed the same methods of analysis as used in the main analysis when modeling the costs and revenues for these decreased production levels in a post­ rule (i. e., ZSM production) scenario. (Appendix B describes the methodology in detail.) Frit's estimated costs and revenues under the 20 percent decline in production scenario (post­ rule) are presented in Table D­ 1. Under this scenario, the Agency predicts that Frit would still realize a cost savings of approximately $231,000 by moving to Arkansas and substituting a nonhazardous feedstock. These cost savings are less than the cost savings predicted in Chapter 5, under baseline production levels. D­ 3 The economic impacts to Nucor Steel, the K061 raw material supplier to Frit, would vary only slightly under the scenario of a 20 percent decline in Frit's production levels. In this case, Nucor would be responsible for disposing of approximately 8000 tons of EAF dust that would have been used as an input in Frit's production as opposed to the 10,000 tons it would have disposed of under baseline production levels. Nucor would pay approximately $1,120,000 annually for transporting, treating, and disposing of 8,000 tons of waste. In addition it would forego $80,000 of revenue that it would have received from Frit as payment for its K061. Thus, under a decreased production scenario, Nucor would realize a cost of $1.2 million. D. 1.3 Big River Zinc, Madison Industries, and Tetra Technologies Under the baseline (pre­ rule) production scenario, Madison Industries and Tetra are the two zinc micronutrient producers that are currently incorporating brass fume dust as a feedstock. Both of these companies are assumed to be using brass fume dust as roughly 30 percent of their total feedstock. Big River Zinc is not currently using brass fume dust as a feedstock. In this prerule environment, Madison Industries sells its product in the animal feed market, and Tetra sells one­ half of its product in the animal feed market and the other half to fertilizer distributors. Big River sells all of its product to fertilizer distributors. EPA predicts that all three companies (Madison Industries, Tetra, and Big River) will sell 100 percent of their product to fertilizer distributors in a post­ rule scenario. Also, EPA predicts that Madison Industries and Tetra will maintain the same ratio of feedstock materials (30 percent brass fume dust, 70 percent zinc fines) in a post­ rule environment, while Big River will substitute 100 percent of their nonhazardous feedstock with brass fume dust post­ rule. EPA maintains these assumptions and predictions for the sensitivity analysis. Under the baseline production levels, Madison Industries produces 8,000 tons of liquid ZSM and 2,000 tons of granular ZSM. With a 20 percent decrease of production levels, Madison Industries would produce 6,400 tons of liquid ZSM and 1,600 tons of granular ZSM. Under the baseline production levels, Tetra produces 3,000 tons of liquid ZSM and 7,000 tons of granular ZSM. Tetra's production levels would decline to 2,400 tons of liquid ZSM and 5,600 tons of Table D­ 1. Estimated Costs of Complying with the Conditional Exclusion for Frit Industries, 20 Percent Decline in Production Levels Cost or cost savings? Amount ($) Cost of moving operations to Arkansas Cost $149,300 Increased raw material costs Cost $2,330,000 Estimated incremental costs Cost $2,479,300 Estimated change in Frit's revenue Cost savings –$ 2,709,000 Total net costs (including increased revenues) Cost savings –$ 231,000 D­ 4 granular ZSM under a 20 percent production downturn scenario. Big River, under baseline production levels, produces 7,000 tons of ZSM. If production levels decreased by 20 percent, Big River would produce 5,600 tons of ZSM. The quantities and assumptions EPA used for the 20 percent production decrease scenario are presented in Table D­ 2. Again, EPA followed the same methods of analysis when modeling the costs and revenues for these decreased production levels in a post­ rule scenario for these three companies. (See Chapter 5 for a detailed description of the methodology.) Big River's estimated costs and revenues under the 20 percent decline in production scenario (post­ rule) are presented in Table D­ 3, and Madison Industries's and Tetra's estimated costs and revenues are presented in Table D­ 4. Although less than the cost savings realized under normal production levels, all three companies are still expected to realize cost savings when production levels have declined 20 percent in a post­ rule environment. Table D­ 2. ZSM Producers Using or Projected to Use Brass Baghouse Dust, 20 Percent Decline in Production Levels Big River Zinc Madison Industries Tetra, Fairbury NE Quantity of ZSM tons/ yr 5,600 1,600 granular, 6,400 liquid 5,600 granular, 2,400 liquid Baseline feedstock ZnO Zinc fines, brass dust Zinc fines, brass dust Post­ rule feedstock Brass dust Zinc fines, brass dust Zinc fines, brass dust Baseline product Fertilizer Feed ½ Feed, ½ Fertilizer Post­ rule product Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer Table D­ 3. Estimated Cost Savings due to the Rulemaking for Big River Zinc, 20 Percent Decline in Production Levels Cost element Value Quantity of ZSM produced 5,600 tons Baseline cost of ZnO 1,988 tons Zn × $. 18/ lb Zn × (2000/. 75) = $954,240 Post­ rule cost of brass dust 1,988 tons Zn × $0.08 × (2000/ 0.46) = $691,478 Post­ rule cost of treatment 956 tons slag × ($ 175/ ton disposal) = $167,317 Cost savings due to the rule $95,445 D­ 5 A representative from Big River Zinc indicated to EPA that Big River Zinc would buy any excess brass fume dust on the market to use in their zinc metal production process, even in the event of a 20 percent decline in zinc micronutrient fertilizer production. Therefore, the brass fume dust generators will be subject to approximately the same level of impacts, with or without the 20 percent decline in production levels, since Big River Zinc will absorb any excess brass fume dust on the market. The impacts will vary slightly, based on EPA's estimation of the baseline costs of disposal to the brass fume dust generators, which depend on the pre­ rule amounts of brass fume dust incorporated by Madison Industries and Tetra. Under the 20 percent decrease in production scenario, the amount of brass fume dust incorporated by Madison Industries and Tetra decreases; thus, the baseline disposal costs are increased for brass fume dust generators in a pre­ rule, 20 percent production decrease scenario (which is equivalent to an increase in post­ rule cost savings). The estimated financial impacts are presented in Table D­ 5. D­ 6 D. 2 High Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer Production and the Economic Impacts of the Final Rulemaking To provide a thorough analysis of the impacts of the final rulemaking on the zinc micronutrient fertilizer industry, EPA is examining the impacts of the rule when the demand for zinc fertilizer has increased dramatically. To do this, EPA measured the impacts for each generator and the raw material suppliers when fertilizer production has increased by 20 percent from 1997 levels. The following sections describe the estimated impacts in detail. Table D­ 5. Financial Impacts on Brass Baghouse Dust Generators, 20 Percent Decrease in Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer Production Levels Brass mill Brass foundry Brass ingot maker Dust volume 125 100 450 Baseline cost of reclamation $23,240 $18,952 $54,786 Post­ rule revenue from sales to ZSM $17,800 $14,240 $82,080 Net revenue $41,040 $32,832 $136,866 Number of generators 10 3 10 National net revenue $410,400 $92,495 $1,368,660 Table D­ 4. Estimated Revenue Increases for Madison Industries and Tetra, Fairbury, NE, 20 Percent Decline in Production Levels Revenue element Value Madison Industries Current revenues 6,400 tons L. ZSM × $180 + 1,600 tons ZSM × $620=$ 2,144,000 Estimated post­ rule revenues 6,400 tons L. ZSM × $230 + 1,600 tons ZSM × $670=$ 2,544,000 Estimated increased revenues $2,544,000 – $2,144,000 = $400,000 Tetra, Fairbury, NE Current revenues (. 5 × (2,400 tons L. ZSM × $180 + 5,600 tons ZSM × $620)) +( 0.5 × (2,400 × $230 + 5,600 × $670)) = $4,104,000 Estimated post­ rule revenues (2,400 × $230 + 5,600 × $670) = $4,304,000 Estimated increased revenues $4,304,000 – $4,104,000 = $200,000 D­ 7 D. 2.1 Frit Industries Under the baseline scenario, Frit produces 12,000 tons of Oxy­ sul. Under a 20 percent increase in production, Frit would produce 14,400 tons of Oxy­ sul pre­ rule. EPA followed the same methods of analysis when modeling the costs and revenues for these increased production levels in a post­ rule (i. e., ZSM production) scenario. (Appendix B describes the methodology in detail.) Frit's estimated costs and revenues under the 20 percent increase in production scenario (post­ rule) are presented in Table D­ 6. Under a 20 percent increase in production, Frit would realize a net cost savings of approximately $421,000 post­ rule by moving to Arkansas and substituting a nonhazardous feedstock. These cost savings are greater than the cost savings predicted in Chapter 5 under baseline production levels. The economic impacts to Nucor Steel, the K061 raw material supplier to Frit, would vary only slightly under the scenario of a 20 percent increase in Frit's production levels. In this case, Nucor would be responsible for disposing of approximately 12,000 tons of EAF dust that would have been used as an input in Frit's production as opposed to the 10,000 tons it would have disposed of under baseline production levels. Nucor would pay approximately $1,680,000 annually for transporting, treating, and disposing of 12,000 tons of waste. In addition it would forego $120,000 of revenue that it would have received from Frit as payment for its K061. Thus, under a decreased production scenario, Nucor would realize a cost of $1.8 million. D. 2.3 Big River Zinc, Madison Industries, and Tetra Technologies Under the baseline (pre­ rule) production scenario, Madison Industries and Tetra are the two zinc micronutrient producers that are currently incorporating brass fume dust as a feedstock. Both of these companies are assumed to be using brass fume dust as roughly 30 percent of their total feedstock. Big River Zinc is not currently using brass fume dust as a feedstock. In this prerule environment, Madison Industries sells its product in the animal feed market, and Tetra sells one­ half of its product in the animal feed market and the other half to fertilizer distributors. Big River sells all of its product to fertilizer distributors. EPA predicts that all three companies Table D­ 6. Estimated Costs of Complying with the Conditional Exclusion for Frit Industries, 20 Percent Increase in Production Levels Cost or Cost Savings? First Year of Compliance Cost for moving operations to Arkansas Cost $149,300 Increased raw materials costs Cost $3,493,100 Estimated incremental costs $3,642,300 Estimated change in Frit's revenue Cost savings –$ 4,063,500 Total net costs (including increased revenues) Cost savings –$ 421,100 D­ 8 (Madison Industries, Tetra, and Big River) will sell 100 percent of their product to fertilizer distributors in a post­ rule scenario. Also, EPA predicts that Madison Industries and Tetra will maintain the same ratio of feedstock materials (30 percent brass fume dust, 70 percent zinc fines) in a post­ rule environment, while Big River will substitute 100 percent of its nonhazardous feedstock with brass fume dust post­ rule. EPA maintains these assumptions and predictions for the sensitivity analysis. Under the baseline production levels, Madison Industries produces 8,000 tons of liquid ZSM and 2,000 tons of granular ZSM. With a 20 percent increase of production levels, Madison Industries would produce 9,600 tons of liquid ZSM and 2,400 tons of granular ZSM. Under the baseline production levels, Tetra produces 3,000 tons of liquid ZSM and 7,000 tons of granular ZSM. Tetra's production levels would increase to 3,600 tons of liquid ZSM and 8,400 tons of granular ZSM under a 20 percent growth in production scenario. Big River, under baseline production levels, produces 7,000 tons of ZSM. If production levels increased by 20 percent, Big River would produce 8,400 tons of ZSM. The quantities and assumptions EPA used for the 20 percent production increase scenario are presented in Table D­ 7. Again, EPA followed the same methods of analysis when modeling the costs and revenues for these increased production levels in a post­ rule scenario for these three companies. (See Chapter 5 for a detailed description of the methodology.) Big River's estimated costs and revenues under the 20 percent growth in production scenario (post­ rule) are presented in Table D­ 8, and Madison Industries's and Tetra's estimated costs and revenues are presented in Table D­ 9. Table D­ 7. ZSM Producers Using or Projected to Use Brass Baghouse Dust, 20 Percent Increase in Production Levels Big River Zinc Madison Industries Tetra, Fairbury, NE Quantity of ZSM tons/ yr 8,400 2,400 granular, 9,600 liquid 8,400 granular, 3,600 liquid Baseline feedstock ZnO Zinc fines, brass dust Zinc fines, brass dust Post­ rule feedstock Brass dust Zinc fines, brass dust Zinc fines, brass dust Baseline product Fertilizer Feed ½ Feed, ½ Fertilizer Post­ rule product Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer D­ 9 All three companies are still expected to realize cost savings when production levels have increased 20 percent in a post­ rule environment. These cost savings are greater than the cost savings realized under normal production levels. In the scenario of a 20 percent increase in domestic micronutrient zinc fertilizer production, the amount of brass fume dust demanded by Big River Zinc, Madison Industries, and Tetra will increase. EPA modeled the impacts of this increased demand on the brass fume dust generators. Based on EPA's knowledge of the brass fume dust generator industry, it seems most likely that the brass ingot makers will be able to supply the additional brass fume dust. EPA increased the number of ingot makers supplying brass fume dust from ten in the baseline level of production scenario to 12 in the increased production scenario. Because of this increase in the Table D­ 8. Estimated Cost Savings due to the Rulemaking for Big River Zinc, 20 Percent Increase in Production Levels Cost Element Value Quantity of ZSM produced 8,400 tons Baseline cost of ZnO 2,982 tons Zn × $. 18/ lb Zn × (2000/. 75) = $1,431,360 Post­ rule cost of brass dust 2,982 tons Zn × $0.08 × (2000/ 0.46) = $1,037,217 Post­ rule cost of treatment 1,434 tons slag × ($ 175/ ton disposal) = $250,976 Cost savings due to the rule $143,167 Table D­ 9. Estimated Revenue Increases for Madison Industries and Tetra, Fairbury, NE, 20 Percent Increase in Production Levels Revenue Element Value Madison Industries Current revenues 9,600 tons L. ZSM × $180 + 2,400 tons ZSM × $620=$ 3,216,000 Estimated post­ rule revenues 9,600 tons L. ZSM × $230 + 2,400 tons ZSM × $670=$ 3,816,000 Estimated increased revenues $3,816,000 – $3,216,000 = $600,000 Tetra, Fairbury, NE Current revenues (. 5 × (3,600 tons L. ZSM × $180 + 8,400 tons ZSM × $620)) +( 0.5 × (3,600 × $230 + 8,400 × $670)) = $6,156,000 Estimated post­ rule revenues 3,600 × $230 + 8,400 × $670 = $6,156,000 Estimated increased revenues $6,456,000 – $6,156,000 = $300,000 D­ 10 number of suppliers, EPA expects the financial benefits for ingot makers to increase as a result of the growth in demand for brass fume dust. However, the baseline disposal costs for the generators will change as the pre­ rule levels of brass dust consumed are adjusted, slightly lowering the financial gains for brass mills and foundries. Table D­ 10 presents the estimated financial impacts to brass fume dust generators under a 20 percent growth in zinc micronutrient fertilizer production scenario. D. 3 Conclusions EPA concludes that the economic impacts to the zinc micronutrient fertilizer manufacturers and raw material suppliers resulting from the conditional exclusion remain mostly as cost savings, with the exception of Nucor Steel. In the instance of Nucor Steel, the costs are minimal when compared to Nucor's company sales. The net costs of compliance for each of the three production level scenarios (20 percent decrease, baseline, and 20 percent increase) are shown in Tables D­ 11 through D­ 12 for each of the affected entities. Throughout these tables, negative values indicate expected cost savings. Table D­ 10. Financial Impacts on Brass Baghouse Dust Generators, 20 Percent Increase in Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizer Production Levels Brass mill Brass foundry Brass ingot maker Dust volume 125 100 450 Baseline cost of reclamation $18,028 $14,422 $37,405 Post­ rule revenue from sales to ZSM $17,800 $14,240 $82,080 Net revenue $35,828 $28,662 $119,485 Number of generators 10 3 12 National net revenue $358,280 $85,987 $1,433,821 D­ 1 Table D­ 11. Estimated Post­ Rule Costs (or Cost Savings) to Frit Industries and Nucor Steel for Various Production Levels 20 percent decrease Baseline 20 percent increase Frit Industries (annual costs for first year) –$ 231,000 –$ 326,000 –$ 421,000 Nucor Steel $1,200,000 $1,500,000 $1,800,000 Table D­ 12. Estimated Post­ Rule Costs (or Cost savings) to Big River Zinc. Madison Industries, Tetra Micronutrients, and Brass Fume Dust Generators for Various Production Levels 20 percent decrease Baseline 20 percent increase Big River Zinc – $95,400 –$ 119,300 –$ 143,200 Madison Industries Industries –$ 400,000 –$ 500,000 –$ 600,000 Tetra Technologies –$ 200,000 –$ 250,000 –$ 300,000 Brass Mills (National) –$ 410,400 –$ 362,600 –$ 358,300 Brass Foundries (National) –$ 98,500 –$ 87,000 –$ 86,000 Brass Ingot Makers (National) –$ 1,368,700 –$ 1,209,400 –$ 1,433,800

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.303575

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0007-0012

Supporting & Related Material

United States Solid Waste and EPA530­ R­ 02­ 003 Environmental Protection Emergency Response July, 2002 Agency (5305W) www. epa. gov/ osw Office of Solid Waste Guidance on Demonstrating Compliance With the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Alternative Soil Treatment Standards Final Guidance i Disclaimer The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste (EPA or the Agency) has prepared this document to provide guidance to EPA, the states, the public, and the regulated community regarding how to measure attainment of the alternative LDR soil treatment standards. Alternative approaches for planning and implementing a sampling program and for assessing the data may be appropriate where waste or facility­ specific circumstances do not match the underlying assumptions, conditions, and models of the guidance. This guidance is not a final Agency action; it is intended solely as guidance. This guidance does not amend or otherwise alter any promulgated regulation. This guidance is not intended to and cannot be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States, or create any rights enforceable by the United States. EPA officials may decide to follow the guidance provided in this document, or to act at variance with the guidance, based on an analysis of specific site or facility circumstances. The Agency also reserves the right to change this guidance at any time without public notice. ii Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ......................................... 1 1.1 What Is the Purpose of This Guidance? ................................. 2 1.2 What Are the LDR Alternative Soil Treatment Standards? ................... 2 1.3 Why Did EPA Develop Alternative Soil Treatment Standards? ................ 2 1.4 When Are Alternative Soil Treatment Standards Available in Authorized and Unauthorized States? ............................................... 3 1.5 When Do LDR Treatment Standards Apply to Hazardous Soils? .............. 3 1.6 Can the Alternative Soil Treatment Standards Be Used to Establish Site­ Specific Cleanup Standards? ................................................ 4 2. GUIDANCE FOR DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH THE ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR CONTAMINATED SOIL .......................... 5 2.1 What Steps Should I Use to Plan the Sampling and Analysis Program? ......... 7 2.2 How Do I Implement the Sampling and Analysis Program? .................. 14 2.3 How Should I Evaluate the Data to Determine Attainment of the Treatment Standards? ...................................................... 15 2.3.1 What Simple Nonstatistical Method Can I Use to Evaluate Attainment of the Soil Treatment Standards? .............................. 18 2.3.2 What Methods Can I Use to Determine Attainment of the UTS or 10 x UTS? .................................................. 20 2.3.3 What Statistical Methods Can I Use to Determine Attainment of the Alternative Soil Treatment Standard of 90­ Percent Reduction? ...... 21 2.3.3.1 A "Quick and Simple" Statistical Method for Determining 90­ Percent Reduction ................................ 23 2.3.3.2 Welch's t­ Test ................................... 25 2.3.3.3 Wilcoxon Rank­ Sum Test ........................... 27 3. WHAT ARE THE NOTIFICATION, CERTIFICATION, AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTAMINATED SOILS? ............................... 31 References .................................................................. 32 APPENDIX A: "MANAGEMENT OF REMEDIATION WASTE UNDER RCRA" APPENDIX B: STATISTICAL TABLES iii List of Acronyms AOC Area of Contamination ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BTU British Thermal Unit CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMI Corrective Measures Investigation DQA Data Quality Assessment DQO Data Quality Objective EPA Environmental Protection Agency FR Federal Register HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 LDRs Land Disposal Restrictions mg/ kg milligrams per kilogram mg/ L milligrams per Liter QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RFI RCRA Facility Investigation TC Toxicity Characteristic TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure TSDF Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facility UHC Underlying Hazardous Constituent USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers UTS Universal Treatment Standard WAP Waste Analysis Plan 1 A site­ specific LDR treatment variance from otherwise applicable LDR treatment standards for contaminated soil under 40 CFR 268.44( h) also may be an option. See Appendix A, "Management of Remediation Waste Under RCRA." 1 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 What Is the Purpose of This Guidance? The purpose of this guidance is to provide suggestions and perspectives on how you, as members of the regulated community, states, and the public, can demonstrate compliance with the alternative treatment standards for certain contaminated soils that will be land disposed and, therefore, will be subject to the RCRA land disposal restrictions (LDR) regulations. On May 26, 1998, EPA promulgated land disposal restriction treatment standards specific to contaminated soils (see 63 FR 28555 and 40 CFR 268.49). Under these regulations, when disposing of contaminated soils, you may elect to comply with either the alternative soil treatment standards at 40 CFR 268.49 or the generic treatment standards at 40 CFR 268.40 which apply to all hazardous wastes. 1 The LDR alternative treatment standards require that contaminated soils which will be land disposed must be treated to reduce concentrations of hazardous constituents by 90 percent or meet hazardous constituent concentrations that are 10 times the universal treatment standard (UTS), whichever is greater. You should use this guidance only in connection with compliance with the LDR alternative treatment standards that apply to contaminated soil which will be land disposed (e. g., soil generated during a cleanup), and you should not use it to establish site­ specific cleanup standards. This guidance document first describes the alternative treatment standards in some detail and then explains why they were developed, and their implementation. It then presents step­ by­ step guidance on approaches that can assist you in achieving compliance with the Agency's alternative soil treatment standards. This guidance document also can be used to assess attainment of the Corrective Action Management Unit treatment standards. Corrective Action Management Units, or "CAMUs," are special units created under RCRA to facilitate treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes managed for implementing cleanup, and to remove the disincentives to cleanup that the application of RCRA to these wastes can sometimes impose (see 67 FR 2961, January 22, 2002). Similar to the LDR alternative soil treatment standards, the CAMU minimum national treatment standards require a 90­ percent reduction in constituent concentrations, capped at 10 times the UTS. 2 1.2 What Are the LDR Alternative Soil Treatment Standards? Under the LDR alternative soil treatment standards in 40 CFR 268.49( c)( 1), there are two approaches to achieving compliance: ° hazardous constituents must be reduced by at least 90 percent through treatment so that no more than 10 percent of their initial concentration remains or comparable reductions in mobility for metals, OR ° hazardous constituents must not exceed 10 times the universal treatment standards (10 x UTS) at 40 CFR 268.48. If you treat the soil to achieve the 90­ percent reduction standard, or the treatment reduces constituent concentrations to levels that achieve the standard of 10 x UTS, then further treatment is not required. Under 40 CFR 268.49( c), treatment for non­ metals must achieve 90­ percent reduction in total constituent concentrations. Treatment for metals must achieve 90­ percent reduction as measured in leachate from the treated soil (testing according to the TCLP) when a metal stabilization treatment technology is used, and as measured in total constituent concentrations when a metal removal technology is used. In addition to the treatment required by § 268.49( c)( 1), under § 268.49( c)( 2) prior to land disposal, soils that exhibit the characteristic of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity must be treated to eliminate these characteristics. A hazardous constituent is a regulated constituent specified in the treatment standard at 40 CFR 268.40, or it may be an underlying hazardous constituent (UHC). Any constituent that is listed in the UTS Table at § 268.48, except for fluoride, selenium, sulfides, vanadium, and zinc, can be a UHC. You, as a facility owner or operator, may use knowledge of the waste to identify those UHCs reasonably expected to be present when hazardous soils are generated. You should use such a waste knowledge determination judiciously in identifying which UHCs are reasonably expected to be present in a volume of soil. For more information on appropriate use of knowledge of the waste, see EPA's Waste Analysis At Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, And Dispose Of Hazardous Wastes: A Guidance Manual, April 1994, available at http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ ldr/ wap330. pdf. If you choose to use the soil treatment standards, all UHCs present at levels greater than 10 x UTS must be treated regardless of whether the soil contains a listed waste or exhibits a characteristic when the soil is generated. A hazardous waste contaminated soil that is going to be used in products which are subsequently used in a manner constituting disposal must meet the treatment standards developed for as­ generated industrial waste at 40 CFR 268.40. 1.3 Why Did EPA Develop Alternative Soil Treatment Standards? The alternative soil treatment standards are designed to encourage more cost­ effective cleanup of hazardous contaminated soils subject to LDRs and to address the unique characteristics of soils. Before these treatment standards were developed, soils subject to LDRs were required to 3 comply with traditional technology­ based treatment standards developed for industrial hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 268.40). Aside from potentially discouraging some remediations, these treatment standards sometimes proved to be inappropriate (e. g., impracticable or not costeffective or unachievable (e. g., did not account for heterogeneous soil matrices) when applied to hazardous constituents present in soils. The soil treatment standards at 40 CFR 268.49 continue to minimize threats to human health and the environment (as required by RCRA section 3004( m)), but provide for more flexible treatment requirements that consider the unique characteristics of soils and applicable treatment technologies, and can be achieved by using non­ combustion treatment technologies. 1.4 When Are Alternative Soil Treatment Standards Available in Authorized and Unauthorized States? Like all LDR treatment standards, the soil treatment standards are promulgated pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). Because the alternative soil treatment standards are generally less stringent than the general federal LDR standards, as applied to soils, they would not be available in states authorized for the land ban until the state had adopted them. EPA encourages states to implement the revised soil standards as rapidly as possible. If a state – through implementation of State waiver authorities or other State laws – were to allow compliance with the soil treatment standards in advance of adoption or authorization, EPA generally would not consider such application of the soil treatment standards for purposes of enforcement or State authorization. Thus, by using State law to waive authorized or nonauthorized State requirements, a State can allow immediate implementation of the soil treatment standards without jeopardizing its RCRA authorization. (See EPA guidance memorandum from Elizabeth A. Cotsworth to RCRA Senior Policy Advisors, Regions I ­ X, "Phase IV Land Disposal Restrictions Rule – Clarification Of Effective Dates" October 19, 1998 at: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ ldr/ ldrmetal/ memos/ effectiv. pdf, especially page 13). To date, according to EPA records, 29 states have adopted the LDR Phase IV rule, and five of these have received authorization (see http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ state/ charts/ chart2. pdf). Because the availability of the soil treatment standards will vary from state to state, EPA recommends that you contact your state regulatory agency if you have any questions. 1.5 When Do LDR Treatment Standards Apply to Hazardous Soils? LDR treatment standards apply to hazardous soils that are "generated" and managed in a manner that qualifies as "placement" on the land for the purposes of the Land Disposal Restriction Program. Soils to which the standards apply are those soils that: (1) are removed from the area of contamination or are "placed" within the area of contamination (i. e., "generated"); (2) are a hazardous waste (either because they contain a listed hazardous waste or because they exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic); (3) are prohibited from land disposal (e. g., because they do not meet the applicable LDR treatment standard( s) and they are not eligible for a variance, extension, or exemption); and (4) are destined for land disposal. Whether a soil is both generated and managed in a unit that qualifies as placement is dependent on a number of factors. For example, if hazardous soil is consolidated within an area of 4 contamination, it would not be considered generated under the LDR program. If the soil is removed from the area, it is considered to be generated for the purposes of LDRs, and it may not be managed in a manner that qualifies as placement without prior treatment. For more specific information about when LDR treatment standards apply to the soil due to placement on the land, see the Phase IV Land Disposal Restrictions (63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998, especially pages 28617 through 28620). See also the memo entitled "Management of Remediation Waste Under RCRA" (EPA/ 530­ F­ 98­ 026, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response), which can be found in Appendix A of this document. 1.6 Can the Alternative Soil Treatment Standards Be Used to Establish Site­ Specific Cleanup Standards? The alternative soil treatment standards should not be used to establish site­ specific soil cleanup standards. The purpose of the land disposal restriction treatment standards is to ensure that prohibited hazardous wastes are properly treated before disposal (i. e., treated so that short­ and long­ term threats to human health and the environment posed by land disposal are minimized). The soil treatment standards, like other land disposal restriction treatment standards, are based on the performance of specific treatment technologies. In contrast, most soil cleanup levels are based not on the performance of specific treatment technologies but on an analysis of risk. Technology­ based treatment standards are not necessarily appropriate surrogates for site­ specific risk­ based cleanup levels. In a circumstance where the soil treatment standards result in constituent concentrations that are higher than those determined on a site­ specific basis to be required for soil cleanup, existing remedial programs such as RCRA Corrective Action, CERCLA and state cleanup programs could be applied to ensure that remedies are adequately protective (e. g., require a site­ specific cleanup standard that is lower than the soil treatment standard). Conversely, for contaminated soil only, under 40 CFR 268.44( h)( 3), a site­ specific, risk­ based variance may be an option where treatment to the soil treatment standards would result in concentrations of hazardous constituents that are lower than concentrations necessary to minimize short­ and long­ term risks to human health and the environment. 5 2. GUIDANCE FOR DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH THE ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR CONTAMINATED SOIL If LDR treatment standards apply to your soil, or if you think the standards will apply (for example, because hazardous soils will be excavated as part of the remedy), then you can use the guidance in this section to help determine how to comply with the standards. The first step is to identify whether contaminated soil is hazardous and if so, what constituents require treatment under the LDR program. With the exception of transporters, every hazardous waste handler along the cradle­ to­ grave spectrum has waste analysis requirements. Hazardous Waste Handler Waste Analysis Requirements Generators § 262.11 for hazardous waste identification § 268.7( a)( 1) to determine if the soil has to be treated before it can be land disposed Generators that treat in their tanks, containers, or containment buildings In addition to the requirements above, § 268.7( a)( 5) requires a written waste analysis plan (WAP) Treatment Facilities § 264.13 (permitted facilities) and § 265.13 (interim status facilities) require a written WAP § 268.7( b) requires treatment facilities to test for LDR requirements according to the WAP Disposal Facilities § 264.13 (permitted facilities) and § 265.13 (interim status facilities) require a written WAP § 268.7( c) requires disposal facilities to test for LDR requirements according to the WAP Compared to TSDFs, generators are not required to maintain a written waste analysis plan unless they are treating in their tanks, containers, or containment buildings. However, generators are required to characterize their waste with a high degree of certainty and maintain records showing how they made their determinations (under § 262.40 and §268.7( a)( 8)). For detailed information about how to develop a waste analysis plan, see EPA's Waste Analysis At Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, And Dispose Of Hazardous Wastes: A Guidance Manual, April 1994, available at http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ ldr/ wap330. pdf. To briefly summarize, compliance with the waste analysis requirements can be demonstrated by sampling and analysis, by using acceptable knowledge or by a combination of sampling and laboratory analysis and acceptable knowledge. You can show acceptable knowledge by using: ° process knowledge, or detailed information on the wastes obtained from existing published or documented waste analysis data or studies conducted on hazardous wastes generated by similar processes; ° waste analysis data obtained from facilities which send wastes off­ site for treatment, storage, or disposal (e. g., generators); or 6 ° facility records, which must be current and accurate, of analyses performed before or after the effective date of RCRA regulations. The waste knowledge approach( es) may be particularly useful if hazardous constituents in wastes from specific processes are well documented or if discarded wastes are unused commercial chemical products or reagents with known physical or chemical constituents. Also, you may choose to use waste knowledge if conditions are not conducive to sampling and analysis due to health and safety risks or the physical nature of the actual wastes. However, consider that if you are excavating a site with unclear historical sources of contamination, it is unlikely you will be able to characterize the soil using acceptable knowledge. If you choose to use waste knowledge or a combination of waste knowledge and sampling and analysis, documentation is essential to demonstrate that the information used identifies the waste accurately and completely. Compliance is best ensured through sampling and analysis. Because RCRA is a selfimplementing program, the burden is on you, the individual facility owner/ operator, to demonstrate that you are operating in compliance with all applicable regulations. You should determine as early as possible in the site characterization process whether LDRs might apply to your soils. To do this, you will need to integrate site characterization, hazardous waste determination, and LDR compliance activities early in the corrective action. If you anticipate that generation of hazardous soils will occur and that those soils will be subject to LDRs due to land placement, then you could plan to generate site characterization data that also meet the performance and acceptance criteria for LDR compliance. This strategy could minimize redundant waste analyses, reduce costs, and save time. As discussed earlier in Section 1.2, the alternative soil treatment standard under 40 CFR 268.49( c)( 1) includes treatment of soil to one of two standards, whichever is higher: ° hazardous constituents must be reduced by at least 90­ percent through treatment, OR ° hazardous constituents must not exceed 10 x UTS at 40 CFR 268.48. The data collection and assessment methods needed to demonstrate attainment of the 90­ percent reduction standard will differ from those needed to demonstrate attainment of 10 x UTS. Specifically, if you plan to use sampling and analysis to determine compliance with the 90­ percent reduction standard, then you may need to obtain TWO sets of samples as part of the sampling strategy: ° Obtain one set of samples prior to treatment to estimate concentrations of contaminants of concern in the soil for comparison to LDR standards and to determine if treatment is needed, AND ° If treatment is needed, obtain another set of samples after treatment to estimate concentrations of contaminants of concern in the same volume of soil and to determine if the treatment has attained the standard. 2 For treatment, storage, or disposal facilities (TSDFs), the sampling and analysis procedures typically are documented in a waste analysis plan (WAP). For RCRA corrective actions or Superfund remedies, sampling and analysis procedures may be described in any of a number of planning documents (e. g., RFI Work Plan, CMI Work Plan, Remedial Action Plan, etc.) which we refer to generically as the quality assurance project plan (QAPP). 7 Specify Limits on Decision Errors Develop a Decision Rule Define the Study Boundaries Identify Inputs to the Decision Identify the Decision State the Problem Optimize the Design for Obtaining Data Figure 1: The Seven Steps in the DQO Process (from USEPA 1994a). If you elect to use the UTS or 10 x UTS (rather than 90­ percent reduction), then it will not be necessary to obtain an initial set of samples from the untreated soil for comparison to the samples obtained from the treated soil. Note also that the regulations at 40 CFR Part 268.44( h)( 4) allow EPA and authorized states to grant site­ specific LDR treatment variances for contaminated soil if the level or the method specified in the soil treatment standards would result in concentrations of hazardous constituents that are below (i. e., lower than) natural background concentrations at the site where the contaminated soil will land disposed. Natural background concentrations are constituent concentrations that are present in soil which have not been influenced by human activities or releases. Because natural background concentrations may vary across geographic areas, and to ensure that LDRs will only be capped at background where appropriate, EPA requires that individuals who wish to cap LDR treatment at natural background concentrations apply for and receive a treatment variance. Information on how to determine background concentrations can be found in an issue paper entitled Determination of Background Concentrations of Inorganics in Soils and Sediment at Hazardous Waste Sites (USEPA 1996) published by EPA's Office of Research and Development and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (http:// www. epa. gov/ nerlesd1/ pdf/ engin. p df). In addition, consultation with a professional statistician may be necessary before preparing a request for a variance from LDR treatment standards for soil based on background concentrations. 2.1 What Steps Should I Use to Plan the Sampling and Analysis Program? Prior to conducting any sampling or data collection activities, we suggest you use a systematic planning process such as EPA's Data Quality Objectives (DQO) process (Figure 1), followed by development of a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) and waste analysis plan (WAP). 2 The DQO process is a systematic data collection planning process developed by EPA to ensure that the right type, quality, and quantity of data are collected to support decision making. The DQO Process is intended to be flexible, and the depth and detail of DQO 8 development should be scaled to the study's size and complexity. While one output of the DQO Process typically is a statistical/ probabilistic sampling design, not every sampling problem must be resolved with a probabilistic sampling design (e. g., a nonprobabilistic or judgmental method may suffice). You can find detailed guidance on the DQO process in Data Quality Objectives Process for Hazardous Waste Site Investigations, EPA QA/ G­ 4HW (USEPA 2000a) and the Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/ G­ 4 (USEPA 1994a). To help you get started, you can use the following seven­ step DQO process to plan a sampling program to demonstrate compliance with the alternative soil treatment standards. Based on these general steps, you should develop detailed DQO outputs for your specific project. Step 1: State the Problem – The outputs of this step will include a list of members of the planning team, the resources available, the schedule, and a concise description of the problem. For the purpose of a 90­ percent reduction or 10 x UTS attainment determination, the "problem" is to identify those soils that attain the 90­ percent reduction standard or that have concentrations less than 10 x UTS. Step 2: Identify the Decision – The decision is to determine whether the concentrations of contaminants of concern in a given volume of soil after treatment have been reduced by at least 90 percent from the concentrations prior to treatment or whether they have concentrations less than 10 x UTS. If either condition has been satisfied, then the treatment standard has been attained. If not, then the soils must be re­ treated or an alternative waste management option must be found. Step 3: Identify Inputs to the Decision – This step of the DQO process requires a list of informational inputs needed to resolve the decision statement. For the purpose of complying with the alternative soil treatment standards, these inputs would include, at a minimum, a list of the underlying hazardous constituents, the units of measure (e. g., mg/ kg or mg/ L), and a listing of appropriate analytical methods, method performance criteria (e. g., for precision and accuracy), required quantitation limits, and other existing soil characterization data. If you elect to use 10 x UTS as the treatment standard, then the analytical methods must be capable of measuring the concentration of constituents of concern at quantitation limits less than 10 x UTS. Data of sufficient quality to measure attainment of 10 x UTS also should be adequate to measure attainment of the 90­ percent reduction standard. Note that under 40 CFR 268.49( c), treatment for non­ metals must achieve 90­ percent reduction in total constituent concentrations. Treatment for metals must achieve 90­ percent reduction as measured in leachate from the treated soil (testing according to the TCLP) when a metal stabilization treatment technology is used, and as measured in total constituent concentrations when a metal removal technology is used. Step 4: Define the Boundaries – Under 40 CFR 268.49( d), the treatment standards apply to "any given volume of contaminated soil" that meets the definition of a hazardous waste when generated (e. g., is a hazardous waste upon excavation), does not already meet applicable LDR treatment requirements, AND will be land disposed. The decision to generate a hazardous soil 3 Note that the treatment standards do not apply to in situ soils, nor do they force soils to be excavated. If contaminated soil is managed within an area of contamination (AOC) and is being treated in situ or consolidated within an AOC, then the LDR treatment requirements do not apply. 4 For guidance on how to identify "hot spots," see Gilbert (1987, page 119), USEPA (1989), and the ELIPGRID software (Davidson 1995). 5 In addition, per 40 CFR 268.2( k) hazardous waste may not be deliberately mixed with soil solely to change its treatment classification from waste to soil. 9 usually will be made within a risk­ based corrective action decision­ making context. 3 For additional information regarding hazardous soil generation, see the memo in Appendix A of this document, entitled "Management of Remediation Waste Under RCRA" (EPA/ 530­ F­ 98­ 026, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response). If the remedy involves excavation of soil, you must determine whether the soil or identifiable portions of that soil (i. e., "any given volume") are subject to the LDRs. In practice, site characterization data or waste knowledge may allow you to determine a priori which soils will be subject to LDRs upon excavation. The volume of soil subject to LDRs could be defined as: ° single volumes of soil (e. g., soil contained in a drum), ° manageable subsets, strata, or units of soil with distinct characteristics (e. g., cleanup units consisting of ½­ acre lots at 6­ inch intervals), or ° one or more "hot spots" (that is, localized areas of high contamination). 4 You, as the generator, should determine the physical size of each "given volume" of soil on a site­ specific basis. Note that each volume of hazardous soil that will be treated using the alternative standards does not necessarily need to remain segregated from other similarly classified hazardous soil for the purpose of treatment. If a given volume of soil is a mixture of hazardous soils from different locations at a site, then the entire mixed volume must be treated to meet the applicable standard. Subject to some limited exceptions, you should not mix hazardous soil (e. g., soil that exhibits the TC) with nonhazardous soils prior to treatment. To do so may be impermissible dilution. For example, once a hazardous contaminated soil has been generated and becomes subject to LDR treatment standards, dilution of that soil solely as a substitute for adequate treatment to achieve compliance with LDR treatment standards is considered impermissible dilution and is prohibited under 40 CFR 268.3. 5 However, there are exceptions: (1) If mixing occurs through the normal consolidation of contaminated soil from various portions of a site that typically occurs during the course of remedial activities or in the course of normal earthmoving and grading activities, then the Agency does not consider this to be intentional mixing of soil with nonhazardous soil for the purposes of evading LDR treatment standards. Therefore, it is not viewed as a form of impermissible dilution. See 63 FR 28605 and 28621 (May 26, 1998). Indeed, if a contaminated soil is consolidated within an area of 10 contamination before it is removed from the land (i. e., generated), the determination as to whether the soil exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste may be made after such consolidation. If the soil is determined not to be hazardous when removed, neither Subtitle C nor the land disposal restriction requirements would apply. (2) Some situations may require soil mixing, as part of a pre­ treatment process, to facilitate and ensure proper operation of the final treatment technology to meet the LDR treatment standards. If the mixing or other pre­ treatment is necessary to facilitate proper treatment in meeting the LDR standards, then dilution is permissible. For example, addition of less contaminated soil may be needed to adjust the contaminated soil BTU value, water content, or other properties to facilitate treatment. These adjustments would be for meeting the energy or other technical requirements of the treatment unit to ensure its proper operation. The Agency views this type of pre­ treatment step as allowable, provided the added reagents or other materials produce chemical or physical changes and do not (1) merely dilute the hazardous constituents into a larger volume of waste so as to lower the constituent concentration or (2) release excessive amounts of hazardous constituents to the air. See 51 FR 40592 (November 7, 1986) and 53 FR 30911 (August 16, 1988). In addition, the Agency recognizes that it may be advantageous to over­ excavate contaminated soils to implement a cost­ effective cleanup and to minimize the need for multiple mobilizations of a field team for sampling, analysis, and soil excavation/ removal. Because each site­ specific situation is unique, the extent to which over­ excavation can be performed, if at all, must be determined on a site­ specific basis. Gross over­ excavation, however, could be viewed as impermissible dilution and should be avoided. In practice, without sampling all of the soil mass, it is not statistically possible to ensure that all portions of soil submitted for treatment have concentrations greater than 10 x UTS. Thus, you should have sufficient data or waste knowledge to indicate that a large proportion of the soil in a given volume has concentrations greater than 10 x UTS for one or more of the UHCs of interest. You will need to use educated judgment to avoid unnecessary treatment. If you plan to determine the volume of soil subject to the treatment standard prior to excavation (i. e., in situ soils), then you could delineate the soils using a spatial analysis (for example, by using geostatistical techniques). For assistance with application of geostatistical methods, consult a professional geostatistician or see Myers (1997), Isaaks and Srivastava (1989), Journel (1988), USACE (1997), and USEPA (1991a). If you plan to determine the volume of soil subject to the treatment standard when the soil is excavated (i. e., at the point of generation) and placed in temporary piles, or stored (e. g., in drums or roll­ off boxes), then the piles, drums, and/ or roll­ off boxes could define the boundaries. Note that if the 90­ percent reduction standard is used, then the estimate of post­ treatment concentrations should apply to the same unit of soil characterized initially. Even though handling and treatment of the soil may significantly change its volume and/ or mass between its point of generation and final treatment, the "identity" of the soil should remain intact throughout to 11 facilitate consistent comparison of the soil before and after treatment. One approach is to track each batch of soil through the characterization and treatment process. As an alternative, you could conduct an initial study to demonstrate that the treatment process achieves at least 90­ percent reduction. For subsequent treatment of the same type of contaminated soil, you should monitor the treatment process variables, controls, and operating conditions and establish waste and/ or process knowledge, in lieu of testing, to support your claim that the standard has been achieved. For long­ term treatment projects, you should retest periodically to confirm that the standard continues to be achieved. This strategy offers increased flexibility to operators and could reduce overall costs for sampling and analysis. Hypothetical example of defining a "given volume" of contaminated soil subject to LDRs: During a construction project at an active refinery, the facility identified soil contaminated with benzene. A riskbased cleanup level of 1.5 mg/ kg was established for the site, and a decision was made to excavate all soil with concentrations exceeding the cleanup level. The UTS for benzene for nonwastewaters is 10 mg/ kg. Note that soils with benzene concentrations less than 0.5 ppm in TCLP extract are not classified as hazardous under the Toxicity Characteristic for benzene (see 40 CFR 261.24), but may still be subject to cleanup requirements. The site characterization determined that the contaminated soil was confined to a horizontal area 40 feet wide by 90 feet long. The depth of contamination was approximately six feet. To characterize the site, the soils were divided into a series of 10 ft x 10 ft x 3 ft "blocks" so that a remedial decision could be made for each block based upon sample analysis results. Using this approach, each block of contaminated soil was placed into one of the following three categories for subsequent removal, treatment, and disposal: 1. Nonhazardous soils. Nonhazardous soils were those soils with TCLP concentrations less than 0.5 ppm but with total concentrations exceeding the risk­ based cleanup level of 1.5 mg/ kg. To conserve analytical costs, TCLP benzene concentrations were estimated from total benzene concentrations by comparing each total result to 20 times the TC regulatory limit, or 10 mg/ kg (to account for the 20: 1 dilution used in the TCLP). Therefore, soils with total benzene concentrations between 1.5 mg/ kg and 10 mg/ kg were placed in this category. Based on the sample analysis results, the facility identified 52 "blocks" or approximately 578 cubic yards of soil in this category. The LDR treatment standards do not apply to these soils, and upon removal, the soils were treated and/ or disposed in accordance with the state's risk­ based corrective action program. 2. TC hazardous soils with total concentrations less than 10 x UTS. These soils exhibited the TC for benzene (using 10 mg/ kg as a screening level) but had total benzene concentrations less than 10 x UTS (i. e., less than 100 mg/ kg). Therefore, soils with total benzene concentrations between 10 mg/ kg and 100 mg/ kg were placed in this category. The facility identified six "blocks" or approximately 67 cubic yards of soil in this category. Upon removal, the facility considered the soil to meet the alternative soil treatment standard of 10 x UTS without further treatment, and upon removal, the soils were treated and/ or disposed in accordance with the state's risk­ based corrective action program. 3. TC hazardous soils with total concentrations greater than 10 x UTS. These soils exhibited the TC for benzene and had total benzene concentrations greater than 10 x UTS (i. e., greater than 100 mg/ kg). The facility identified 14 "blocks" or approximately 155 cubic yards of soil in this category. This volume of soil (155 cubic yards) was designated as the "given volume" to which, upon generation, the facility elected to apply the alternative soil treatment standards at 40 CFR 268.49 (10 x UTS or 90% reduction). 12 Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule – In this step, you specify the parameter of interest, specify an action level, and develop a decision rule. A "parameter" is a descriptive measure of a population such as the population mean (or average), median, or some percentile (such as the 99 th percentile). An action level is a concentration limit that would cause you to choose between alternative actions. If you elect to apply the 90­ percent reduction standard, then the parameter of interest is the difference in the mean concentrations "before" treatment and "after" treatment. The action level is implicitly defined as the mean concentration in the untreated soil. If you elect to use 10 x UTS as the action level, then the parameter of interest is the maximum (i. e., no sample analysis result can exceed 10 x UTS). Note that the standard of 10 x UTS is more practicable when there is relatively low variability in constituent concentrations in the treated soil and average concentrations are well below their applicable standards (see also Section 2.3.2). The decision rule for contaminated soils subject to the alternative soil treatment standards is: If treatment of the contaminated soil has achieved on average at least 90 percent reduction in constituent concentrations, or maximum concentrations do not exceed 10 x UTS, then the alternative treatment standard for contaminated soil has been attained. Step 6: Specify Limits on Decision Errors – You will use the sample analysis results to support a decision about whether a given volume of soil attains the standard. Because of variability in contaminant concentrations within a given volume of soil, practical constraints on the number of samples that can be obtained and analyzed, and random variability and biases that can be introduced in the sampling and measurement processes, the data collected may not be representative and may mislead the decision maker into making an incorrect decision. A decision error occurs when sampling data mislead the decision maker into choosing a course of action that is different from or less desirable than the course of action that would have been chosen with perfect information (i. e., with no constraints on sample size and no measurement error). We recognize that data obtained from sampling and analysis are never perfectly representative and accurate, and that the costs of trying to achieve near­ perfect results can outweigh the benefits. Uncertainty in data must be tolerated to some degree. The DQO process controls the degree to which uncertainty in data affect the outcomes of decisions that are based on those data. This step of the DQO process allows the decision maker to set limits on the probabilities of making an incorrect decision. Hypothesis tests can be used to control decision errors. When performing a hypothesis test, a presumed or baseline condition, referred to as the "null hypothesis" (Ho ), is established. This baseline condition is presumed to be true unless the data conclusively demonstrate otherwise, which is called "rejecting the null hypothesis" in favor of an alternative hypothesis (Ha ). For the purpose of determining compliance with the 90­ percent reduction alternative soil treatment standard, the baseline condition, or Ho , is that the given volume of soil does not attain the 6 The symbol ":" is used to represent the population arithmetic mean. The mean is the best parameter for determining 90­ percent reduction. Where normality assumptions are grossly violated, however, another central tendency estimator such as the median may be used instead. For more information, see "Checking Data for Normality" in Section 2.3.3. 7 It also is possible to specify a Type II error rate ($), however, specification of the Type II error rate is not required to perform the statistical tests described in this guidance. Additional guidance on decision errors can be found in EPA's "G­ 4" and "G­ 9" guidance documents (USEPA 1994a and 1998c). 13 standard. Using the statistical notation for hypothesis testing 6 , these hypotheses can be stated as follows: H o Treated Untreated : . m m - > 01 0 H a Treated Untreated : . m m - £ 01 0 When the hypothesis test is performed, one of two possible decision errors may occur: 1. Deciding the soil treatment achieves 90­ percent reduction, when the correct decision (with complete and perfect information) would be "the soil treatment does not achieve 90­ percent reduction," or 2. Deciding the soil treatment does not achieve 90­ percent reduction, when the correct decision would be that the treatment does in fact achieve 90­ percent reduction. Because the soil is known to be contaminated and known to have concentrations greater than 10 x UTS, we can presume (as a "null hypothesis") that the soil does not attain the standard. The sampling data must provide clear evidence that the soil treatment achieves 90­ percent reduction or that the concentrations are less than 10 x UTS; otherwise, we must presume that the soil treatment standard has not been achieved. This presumption provides the basis for classifying the two types of decision errors. To decide that the soil treatment achieves the standard, when in fact it does not, is designated as a Type I decision error (also known as a "false rejection" of the null hypothesis). To decide that the soil treatment does not achieve the standard, when in fact it does, is designated as a Type II decision error (also known as a "false acceptance" of the null hypothesis). The probability of making a Type I error is denoted by a (" alpha"). 7 We recommend you set the Type I error rate, , equal to 0.10. Setting the error rate at this a level will ensure there is only a 10% chance of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis. In other words, when the standard has not truly been met, the test will erroneously conclude it has been achieved only one time in 10. Step 7: Optimize the Design for Obtaining the Data – The objective of this step is to develop a sampling and analysis plan that obtains the requisite information from the samples for the lowest cost and still satisfies the DQOs. The output of this step is the sampling design that will guide the development of QA project documentation such as a project­ specific QAPP or WAP. Key activities in this step include reviewing the DQO outputs and existing environmental 14 information, developing data collection design alternatives, calculating the optimal number of samples for each candidate sampling design, selecting the most resource­ effective design that will satisfy the DQOs, and documenting the outputs of the DQO Process. Key outputs of this step include documentation of the following: ° sample size (number of samples) ° sample type ° sample collection and handling techniques ° sample support (i. e., the size, shape, and orientation of soil to be collected for each sample) ° sample locations ° timing issues for sample collection, handling, and analysis ° analytical methods or the performance criteria for sample analysis ° QA and QC protocols. Formulas for calculating the appropriate number of samples are given in Data Quality Objectives Process for Hazardous Waste Site Investigations EPA QA/ G­ 4HW Final (USEPA 2000a) and described in depth in EPA's Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, EPA QA/ G­ 9 (QA00 Update, revised July 2000) (USEPA 1998c). You can find detailed guidance on the development and optimization of a sampling plan in the following references: ASTM (1998a), Mason (1992), Myers (1997), and USEPA (2000a and 2000b). 2.2 How Do I Implement the Sampling and Analysis Program? To implement the sampling and analysis program, you should develop and follow a projectspecific QAPP or WAP. Guidance for developing a QAPP can be found in EPA Guidance For Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/ G­ 5 (USEPA 1998b). Guidance for developing a WAP can be found in Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Wastes, a Guidance Manual (USEPA 1994b) available at: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ ldr/ wap330. pdf Detailed guidance on implementing a field sampling program to characterize soil can be found in Preparation of Soil Sampling Protocols: Sampling Techniques and Strategies, EPA/ 600/ R92 128 (Mason 1992), and in a variety of other publications including ASTM (1995, 1998b, 1998c, 1999), Myers (1997), and USEPA (1991b). Again, as emphasized in the beginning of section 2.1, the DQO process, including development of QAPPs or WAPs, is intended to be flexible, and the degree of detail should be commensurate 15 with the study size and complexity. 2.3 How Should I Evaluate the Data to Determine Attainment of the Treatment Standards? You should perform two data assessment activities to evaluate your sample analysis results: (1) data verification and validation and (2) data quality assessment. Perform data verification and validation in accordance with procedures specified in the QAPP or WAP to ensure that the sampling and analysis protocols specified in the planning documents were followed and that the measurement systems performed in accordance with the specified criteria. Following data verification and validation, you should perform data quality assessment (DQA). DQA is the scientific and statistical evaluation of data to determine if the data are of the right type, quality, and quantity to support their intended purpose. You can find detailed guidance on DQA in EPA's Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, EPA QA/ G­ 9 (USEPA 1998c). As one of the final activities in the DQA process, you should evaluate the data to determine whether or not you have attained the alternative treatment standards. You can select the appropriate method for data evaluation based on the type of treatment standard being used and other site­ specific conditions (such as the volume of soil subject to the treatment standards and the physical characteristics of the soil). Figure 2 provides a generalized flow diagram indicating the decision­ making process for determining attainment of the alternative soil treatment standards. Table 1 provides an overview of the various data evaluation methods available for determining attainment of the alternative soil treatment standards along with their appropriate conditions for use, advantages, and limitations. Note that the statistical methods included here are provided as guidance only. In those cases where you require additional information or more advanced statistical methods, we suggest you seek assistance from a statistician. Section 2.3.1 describes a simple nonstatistical method that can be used when only a small volume of soil is in question or when relatively small individual "batches" of soil are subject to treatment. Section 2.3.2 describes methods that can be used to evaluate attainment of the UTS or 10 x UTS. Section 2.3.3 describes statistical methods that can be used to evaluate attainment of the 90­ percent reduction standard. 16 Start* Define the "given volume of soil" subject to LDRs per 268.49( a)( use DQO Process Step 4). If the 90% reduction standard is selected, then obtain n U samples representing the untreated soil. Obtain n T random samples representing the treated soil. Treat the soil to achieve 90% reduction or 10 x UTS. Does the data evaluation indicate that 90% reduction is achieved? Soil attains the standard. Yes No Soil does not attain the standard. Does the soil attain the standard of < 10 x UTS? Yes No Does the soil attain the standard of 10xUTS? Select a data evaluation method and perform evaluation of data (see Table 1 in Section 2.3). Yes n U = number of samples representing the untreated soil n T = number of samples representing the treated soil * Use of the chart assumes the generator or treater has elected to use the alternative soil treatment standards and has not obtained a site­ specific variance under 40 CFR 268.44( h). No Figure 2. Flow Chart for Determining Attainment of the Alternative Soil Treatment Standards 17 Table 1. Summary of Data Evaluation Methods Data Evaluation Method Type of Standard Guidance Section No. Appropriate Conditions for Use Advantages Limitations 90% Reduction 10 x UTS Nonstatistical Method T T 2.3.1 ° Useful when sampling and measurement error can be minimized, and the volume of soil is relatively small ° Useful when only a rough estimate of the constituent concentration is required ° Simple ° Easy to use and understand ° Low­ cost ° Only provides a "point estimate" of the constituent concentration ° Does not provide information about variability ° Does not quantify the uncertainty associated with the estimate Simple Exceedance Rule V T 2.3.2 ° Analytical quantitation limit must be less than the treatment standard. ° Simple, easy to use and understand ° Easy to enforce ° Data set can include nondetects. ° Requires a large number of samples to provide high confidence that the standard is achieved Tolerance Limit V T 2.3.2 ° Most useful when the analytical quantitation limit is well below the treatment standard and sampling and measurement error are minimal ° Data must exhibit an approximately normal distribution. ° A small number of samples can be used (we recommend at least four random samples). ° Relatively easy to calculate ° The calculated limit will be very sensitive to the size of the standard deviation relative to the mean. Nonparametric Test of Location T V 2.3.3.1 ° Useful if there are no extreme values in the data sets ° Quick ° Simple ° Easy to use ° Does not require the assumption that the data exhibit a normal distribution. ° Can be used with data sets that include "nondetects" ° Provides less statistical "power" than Welch's t­ Test or the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (i. e., the test may indicate that 90­ percent reduction has not been achieved, when in fact it has) Welch's t­ Test T V 2.3.3.2 ° Data must exhibit an approximately normal distribution. ° Provides more statistical "power" than the test of location if the underlying assumptions for the test are satisfied ° Cannot be used when a large percentage (> 20%) of the data are reported as nondetect ° Requires more statistical calculations than other methods (e. g., calculation of the mean, variance, and degrees of freedom) Wilcoxon Rank­ Sum Test T V 2.3.3.3 ° Useful when the underlying distribution of the data is unknown or cannot be readily identified ° Useful when a significant percentage (> 20%) of the data are reported as nondetect ° Easy to compute and understand ° Can be used with data sets that include "nondetects" ° Provides less statistical "power" than Welch's t­ Test if the data follow a normal distribution or are approximately symmetrical T = appropriate for use. V = not appropriate for use. 8 Sampling error can be minimized by using an optimal sample mass, obtaining the correct shape and orientation of individual samples (known as the sample "support"), and by using sampling devices and subsampling procedures that will minimize biases. For detailed guidance on controlling error in sampling, see Mason (1992) and Myers (1997). 18 2.3.1 What Simple Nonstatistical Method Can I Use to Evaluate Attainment of the Soil Treatment Standards? As part of the planning process, the planning team must define the volume of soil that needs to be characterized for the purpose of evaluating attainment of the alternative soil treatment standards. If the "given volume" (as specified at 40 CFR 268.49( d)) is relatively small and the sampling and measurement error can be minimized 8 , then a single representative sample (within the meaning of a representative sample given at 40 CFR 260.10) may be adequate to estimate the concentration in the volume of soil, and use of a statistical method to determine attainment of soil treatment standards may not be necessary or appropriate. As a practical matter, the volume of soil characterized using this nonstatistical method could be defined operationally, such as: (1) the volume of soil that will fit in a 55­ gallon drum, (2) some reasonably small volume that could be excavated by a backhoe during remedial activities (such as a 10 ft­ by­ 10 ft­ by 2 ft block of soil), or (3) small volumes of soil that are considered "batches" in a batch treatment process. This approach can be used to evaluate attainment of either the 90­ percent reduction standard or the standard of 10 x UTS. If the 90­ percent reduction standard is used, then a representative sample must be obtained and analyzed before treatment of the given volume and a second representative sample obtained from the same unit of soil and analyzed after treatment. Only those two data points would be used to determine 90­ percent reduction. Using this nonstatistical approach, the decision rule to determine compliance with the 90­ percent reduction standard is simple: the concentration of the constituent of concern in the sample of the ( ) C treated soil must be less than or equal to 1/ 10 of the concentration found in the sample of the untreated soil. ( ) C C treated untreated £ 01 . One of the key underlying assumptions of this approach is that a single soil sample can provide an adequate estimate of the concentration within a given volume of soil. If the soil is heterogeneous, then a single soil sample (such as a core a few centimeters in diameter) may not provide a good estimate of the mean concentration within the given volume of soil. The nonstatistical procedure for evaluating attainment of the 90­ percent reduction standard is performed as follows: Step 1. Define a small "given volume" of soil to be characterized and treated (see DQO process Step 4). 19 Step 2. Obtain a representative sample from the given volume and submit the sample for laboratory analysis. Step 3. After treatment of the given volume of soil, obtain another sample from the same given volume using the same sampling and analysis procedures used in Step 2. Step 4. If the concentration in the sample from the treated soil is less than or equal to the 1/ 10th of the concentration in the sample of the untreated soil (or less than 10 x UTS), then you can conclude that the alternative soil treatment standard has been attained for that volume of soil. Otherwise, you cannot conclude that the treatment standard has been attained. If 10 x UTS is the selected standard, then the decision rule is simplified even further: the sample analysis result( s) (from one or more grab samples representing the given volume of soil) must be less than 10 x UTS. Hypothetical Example: Using the Nonstatistical Method to Evaluate Attainment of the 90­ Percent Reduction Standard A wood preserving facility is closing a tank that contained spent formulations from a wood preserving process (F035). Upon removal of the tank, the operator discovered a small patch of soil contaminated with F035. The operator excavated the soil and placed it into a 55­ gallon drum. Because the excavated soil contains a listed hazardous waste, Land Disposal Restrictions under RCRA apply. The applicable standard is for "nonwastewaters" and can be found in the table at 40 CFR 268.40. The facility operator decides to apply the alternative treatment standards for contaminated soil (10 x UTS or 90­ percent reduction). Because the volume of soil subject to LDRs is small, the operator decides to use the "small volume" approach to determine attainment of the 90­ percent reduction standard: Step 1. The "given volume" of soil is the volume of soil in the drum. Step 2. The operator obtains a soil core representing the full thickness of the soil in the drum and submits this sample for laboratory analysis. The concentrations of the hazardous constituents are as follows: Hazardous Constituent UTS for Nonwastewaters (ppm TCLP) (from the UTS Table at § 268.48) 10 x UTS (ppm TCLP) Conc. In Sample Obtained From Untreated Soil (ppm TCLP) Target Treatment Level For 90% Reduction (ppm TCLP) Arsenic 5.0 50 420 42* Chromium 0.6 6.0 120 12 * Compliance also may be demonstrated by achieving 10 x UTS, or 50 ppm. 20 Frequency Concentration Sample Mean Regulatory Threshold UCL on Upper Percentile or "Tolerance Limit" "Point estimate" of 99th percentile Confidence Interval on 99th Percentile Figure 3. To comply with the alternative soil treatment standard of 10 x UTS, the mean concentration must be well below the standard for all portions of the soil to be at or below the treatment standard. Step 3. After treatment of the soil, the treatment facility obtains another sample using the same sampling and analysis procedures used in Step 2. The concentrations of hazardous constituents are as follows: Arsenic (TCLP): 48 ppm Chromium (TCLP): 10 ppm Step 4. The concentration of arsenic in the treated soil is not less than the target treatment level for 90­ percent reduction; however, it is less than 10 x UTS. Therefore, the alternative treatment standard is attained for arsenic. The concentration of chromium in the treated soil is less than the target treatment level for 90­ percent reduction. Therefore, the alternative treatment standard also is attained for chromium. 2.3.2 What Methods Can I Use to Determine Attainment of the UTS or 10 x UTS? The concentration level treatment standards established for compliance with RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions, such as the universal treatment standards (UTS), represent concentration levels that should never be exceeded. To comply with the UTS (or to comply with the alternative of 10 x UTS for hazardous soils), no portion of the waste may exceed the standard. If testing results show that "hot spots" remain, this is evidence that the treatment was not effective and there is noncompliance with the LDR treatment requirements (see 63 FR 28567, May 26, 1998). You should consider the amount of variability in the treated soil to ensure compliance with the UTS or 10 x UTS. Statistical variability is "built in" to the LDR treatment standards (USEPA 1991c), and it is expected that the mean will be well below the standard for all portions of the waste to be below the standard (see Figure 3). To determine attainment of a concentration level LDR treatment standard such as the UTS (or 10 x UTS), conduct waste­ testing in accordance with your WAP and determine whether or not any sample analysis result exceeds the standard. If any sample analysis results exceed the standard, then you must conclude that the standard is not met. (Note that samples of the untreated soil are not required to determine attainment of the UTS or 10 x UTS). Though simple in practice, this simple exceedance rule has a potential limitation: a large number 9 The exceedance rule has statistical properties. The statistical performance can be ( ) 1- a determined for given number of samples, (all less than or equal to the standard), by n ( ) 1 1 - = - a p n where equals the proportion (e. g., 0.99) of the waste that must have concentrations less than or equal to the p standard. 21 of samples are required to have a high degree of confidence that little or no portion of the waste exceeds the standard. 9 The LDR regulations do not require hazardous waste generators or treaters to conduct statistical sampling, however, some waste handlers may wish to evaluate their sample analysis data statistically to quantify the level of "comfort" they can have in concluding that a standard has been met. This could be done by testing whether a high percentile (such as the 99 th percentile) or proportion of the soil (that is, all possible soil samples of a given sample "support") comply with the standard. An upper percentile serves as a reasonable approximation of the maximum concentration found in any portion of the waste. This approach is consistent with the manner in which the LDR concentration level treatment standards are calculated –– each standard is calculated as the 99 th percentile of the data obtained from a properly operating waste treatment process (USEPA 1988, 1991c). The 99 th percentile can be estimated from a set of samples drawn from the waste or soil by using an upper confidence limit for a percentile. You can use an upper confidence limit on a percentile to determine attainment of the standard as follows: ° If the upper confidence limit on the percentile is less than or equal to the applicable LDR standard (such as the UTS or 10 x UTS), then the waste can be judged in compliance with the standard (see Figure 3), as long as no individual sample values exceed the standard. ° If the upper confidence limit on the percentile exceeds the standard (but all sample values are less than or equal to the standard), then the waste still could be judged in compliance with the standard. However, you would not have the specified level of confidence that the specified proportion (e. g., 0.99) of the waste complies with the standard. Methods for testing a percentile against a fixed standard are fairly simple and are described in several USEPA guidance documents (for example, see Chapter 7 in USEPA 1989, and USEPA 1992) and statistical references (e. g., Hahn and Meeker 1991, and Guttman 1970). 2.3.3 What Statistical Methods Can I Use to Determine Attainment of the Alternative Soil Treatment Standard of 90­ Percent Reduction? Statistical methods can be used to determine if a given volume of soil has been treated such that there is a 90­ percent reduction from the initial concentration of hazardous constituents. This involves use of a statistical test selected from a category of tests known as "two­ sample" tests. The statistical tests are called two­ sample tests because they involve two sets of samples, one drawn independently from the untreated soil and another drawn independently from the treated soil, so that a comparison can be made between the "before" and "after" 10 The statistical methods for determining 90­ percent reduction described in this guidance involve the use of independent samples obtained from the untreated and treated soil. These tests should not be confused with a set of statistical tests that deal with analyzing "paired" data. 22 conditions of the soil. 10 That is, the generator will test the soil before treatment and again after treatment, then perform the statistical test to determine if 90­ percent reduction has been attained. For all of the statistical tests presented in this guidance, it is necessary that the samples be obtained using a random or systematic sampling plan. We present two "tiers" of statistical tests for determining attainment of the 90­ percent reduction standard. Under the first tier, we present a "quick and simple" method that does not require statistical calculations or assumptions about the distributional form of the data (see Section 2.3.3.1). The test is known as the Nonparametric Test of Location. The test is quick and easy to use and may be preferred by users of this guidance who have little or no training in statistics. The test does not require the assumption of normally distributed data. One limitation of the test is that it lacks statistical "power" – that is, compared with other statistical methods (described below) the test is less likely to show that 90­ percent reduction has been attained. The statistical tests in the second tier are more powerful but require more calculations. If both sets of data (i. e., the data representing the untreated soil and the data representing the treated soil) exhibit an approximately normal distribution or can be transformed to a normal distribution, then Welch's t­ Test can be used (see Section 2.3.3.2). Welch's t­ Test does not require the same number of samples in each group of data and does not require that the variances of the two groups of data be equal. If the distributions of the two groups of data are unknown or cannot be readily identified as normal or lognormal, a non­ parametric alternative to Welch's test should be used. The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test is recommended for use where the underlying distribution of the data is unknown and cannot be readily identified, or when a significant percentage (e. g., 20 to 90%) of the combined data set are reported as "nondetects" (see Section 2.3.3.3). Checking Data for Normality: The assumption of normality is very important, as it is the basis for many statistical tests. While the assumption of a normal distribution (i. e., a "mound­ shaped" frequency distribution) is convenient for statistical testing purposes, it is not always appropriate. For example, sometimes data are highly skewed (such as with a lognormal distribution in which the natural logarithms of the data exhibit a normal distribution), or they may have no specific shape at all. If the assumption of normality is not satisfied, then you should consider using an alternative nonparametric test (see list of tests in Table 1). You can check data sets for normality by using graphical methods, such as histograms, box and whisker plots, and normal probability plots, or by using numerical tests such as Filliben's Statistic or the Shapiro­ Wilk test. We recommend the Shapiro­ Wilk test as a superior method for testing normality of the data. The specific method for implementing the Shapiro­ Wilk Test is described in Gilbert (1987) and can be performed with EPA's DataQUEST free software (USEPA 1997) or other commercially available statistical software. EPA's Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, EPA QA/ G9 (USEPA 1998c) also describes methods you can use to check data for normality. 23 2.3.3.1 A "Quick and Simple" Statistical Method for Determining 90­ Percent Reduction To test whether the treatment process has resulted in 90­ percent reduction from the initial concentration in the untreated soil, the quick and simple statistical method described here can be used. All that is required to perform the test is knowing the number of samples representing the soil before treatment, the number of samples representing the soil after treatment, identification of the smallest observation in the "before" treatment data set, and use of a lookup table. The method described below is a modification of the nonparametric test of location (Rosenbaum 1954). Also, note that the presence of one or more extreme values within the data sets could further reduce the power of the test (i. e., if there is a value in the untreated soil data set that is much lower than the bulk of the other values, and/ or there is a value in the treated soil data set that is much higher than the bulk of the other values in the data set, then the test will have reduced statistical power). The procedure for performing the nonparametric test of location is as follows: Step 1. Count the number of samples used to characterize the untreated soil, and ( ) n U count the number of samples used to characterize the treated soil. ( ) n T Step 2. Use Table B­ 1 (found in Appendix B ­ Statistical Tables) (for 90% confidence) or Table B­ 2 (for 95% confidence) to obtain the critical value corresponding to n U and . nT Step 3. Identify the smallest value in the set of samples obtained from the untreated soil and divide the value by 10. Step 4. Count the number of samples (s) from the treated soil that are less than or equal to the value obtained in Step 3. If s is greater than or equal to the critical value from the table, then you can conclude that 90­ percent reduction has been attained. If s is less than the value in the table, then you cannot conclude that 90­ percent reduction has been achieved. If the "quick and simple" test fails to show that 90­ percent reduction has been achieved, then consider evaluating the data using a more powerful statistical method such as Welch's t­ Test (Section 2.3.3.2) or the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (Section 2.3.3.3). 24 Excavation and Ex Situ Treatment Volume of Untreated Soil Pile of Treated Soil n u = 8 random samples n T = 7 random samples Figure 4. Sample collection strategy for measuring attainment of 90­ percent reduction. Hypothetical Example: Using the "Quick and Simple" Nonparametric Statistical Test to Evaluate Attainment of the 90­ Percent Reduction Standard Using data obtained from a site characterization, the site operator delineates a volume of hazardous soil known to have contaminant concentrations greater than 10 x UTS within the defined volume (Figure 4). To determine attainment of the 90­ percent reduction standard, the operator obtains eight random samples from the volume of untreated soil (note that the samples also could be obtained from a pile of soil that is the complete excavation of the block). The volume of soil is then treated using an ex situ soil washing technology. After treatment, a new set of seven samples is obtained and analyzed. The analytical results are as follows (in ppm): Untreated Soil (ppm): 1200, 800, 400, 540, 370, 260, 230, 200 Treated Soil (ppm): 25, 18, 15, 14, 12, 8, 6 Use the "quick and simple" nonparametric method to determine if the treatment process has attained the 90­ percent reduction standard: Step 1. The number of samples used to characterize the untreated soil is 8. The ( ) n U number of samples used to characterize the treated soil is 7. ( ) nT Step 2. Using Table B­ 1 (for 90% confidence) found in Appendix B, we obtain a critical value of 3 corresponding to = 8 and = 7. n U n T Step 3. The smallest value in the set of samples obtained from the untreated soil is 200 ppm. 200 divided by 10 equals 20. Step 4. There are 6 samples from the treated soil that are less than or equal to 20. Because 6 is greater than or equal to 3 (the critical value from the table), then you can conclude with 90% confidence that 90­ percent reduction has been attained. 25 2.3.3.2 Welch's t­ Test If both sets of data (i. e., the data representing the untreated soil and the data representing the treated soil) exhibit an approximately normal distribution or can be transformed to a normal distribution, then Welch's t­ Test can be used. Welch's t­ Test does not require the same number of samples in each group of data and does not require that the variances of the two groups of data are equal. If the distributions of the two groups of data are unknown or cannot be readily identified as normal or lognormal, or a large percentage of the data (e. g., 20 to 90%) is reported as "nondetect", then the nonparametric Wilcoxon Rank­ Sum test should be used instead (see Section 2.3.3.3). Procedure Using a simple random or systematic sampling design, obtain a set of samples representing the untreated soil known to have contamination with concentrations greater than 10 x UTS. After treatment of the soil, obtain a new set of samples representing the same mass of soil. Multiply each datum from the untreated soil by 0.1 such that each is reduced by 90 ( ) U i percent of its original value. The 90­ percent reduced data will serve as the reference data set (" ref"). If 90­ percent reduction has been attained, then the mean concentration in the treated soil should be the same as the mean concentration in the reference data set or shifted to the left of the mean of the reference data set. Step 1: Calculate the sample mean and the sample variance for the "Treated" x T s T 2 soil. Calculate the sample mean and the sample variance for the x ref s ref 2 reference data set. The number of samples representing the untreated and treated soil do not need to be the same. Step 2: Calculate Welch's t­ Statistic as follows: ( ) t x x s n s n T ref T T ref ref = - + 2 2 Equation 1 Step 3: Calculate the approximate degrees of freedom as follows: ( ) ( ) df s n s n s n n s n n T T ref ref T T T ref ref ref = + é ë ê ê ù û ú ú - + - é ë ê ê ù û ú ú 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 Equation 2 Round to the nearest integer. df 26 Excavation and Ex Situ Treatment In Situ Untreated Soil Pile of Treated Soil n U = n ref = 6 n T = 8 Figure 5. Sample collection strategy for measuring attainment of 90­ percent reduction using Welch's t­ Test. Step 4: Use Table B­ 3 in Appendix B to find the critical value such that 100 t1-a % of the t­ ( ) 1- a distribution for the nearest degrees of freedom . ( ) df Step 5: If , then conclude t t £ - - 1 a that 90 percent reduction has been attained. If, however, , then t t > - - 1 a you cannot conclude that 90­ percent reduction has been attained. Hypothetical Example: Using Welch's t­ Test to Evaluate Attainment of the 90­ Percent Reduction Standard Using data obtained from a site characterization, the site operator delineates a unit of hazardous soil known to have contaminant concentrations greater than 10 x UTS within the defined volume (Figure 5). To determine the mean and the variance of the concentration of the constituent of concern, the operator obtains six random samples from the unit of untreated soil (note that the samples also could be obtained from a pile of soil that is the complete excavation of the unit). The unit of soil is then treated using an ex situ soil washing technology. After treatment, a new set of eight random samples is obtained and analyzed. The sample analysis results are as follows: Untreated Soil (ppm) : 400, 540, 260, 160, 370, 80 ( ) Ui Reference (ppm), 0.1 : 40, 54, 26, 16, 37, 8 ( ) Ui Treated Soil (ppm) : 25, 12, 18, 8, 14, 6, 15, 21 ( ) Ti Calculate Welch's t statistic to determine if the treatment process has attained the 90­ percent reduction standard: 27 Step 1: Calculate the sample mean and the variance for the treated soil and the reference data set. Treated Soil Reference Data Number of Samples 8 6 n T = n ref = Sample Mean 14.9 30.2 x T = x ref = Sample Variance 40.7 284.3 s T 2 = s ref 2 = Step 2: Calculate Welch's t statistic as follows: ( ) t x x s n s n T ref T T ref ref = - + 2 2 ( ) = - + = 302 407 8 6 -211 14.9 . . 284.3 . Step 3: Calculate the approximate degrees of freedom as follows: ( ) ( ) df s n s n s n n s n n T T ref ref T T T ref ref ref = + é ë ê ê ù û ú ú - + - é ë ê ê ù û ú ú 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 ( ) ( ) = + é ë ê ù û ú - + - é ë ê ê ù û ú ú = 407 8 2843 6 8 8 1 6 6 1 61 2 2 2 . . 40.7 284.3 . Rounding down to the nearest integer, we get 6. df Step 4: Using Table B­ 3 in Appendix B, we find the 90% critical value for 6 - t1 -a degrees of freedom is ­1.440. Step 5: Welch's t­ Statistic (­ 2.11 ) is less than the critical value of ­1.440 therefore we can conclude, with 90­ percent confidence, that the 90 percent reduction soil treatment standard has been attained for the given volume of soil. 2.3.3.3 Wilcoxon Rank­ Sum Test The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test is recommended for use where the underlying distribution of the data is unknown and cannot be readily identified or when a significant percentage (e. g., between 20 and 90%) of the combined data sets are reported as "nondetects." The assumptions for the 28 Wilcoxon Rank Sum test include the following: (1) both sets of samples are random samples from their respective populations, (2) in addition to independence within each sample, there must be mutual independence between the two samples (i. e., there can not be spatial correlation between observations and the samples must not be "paired"), and (3) the measurement scale is at least ordinal (i. e., you can rank the sample values from highest to lowest). In addition, it is assumed that the two populations are identical in shape (variance), however, the test is relatively robust with respect to violations of the equal variance assumption that is, the test is approximately correct even when the variances of the two populations differ. Procedure Let represent the number of samples obtained from the "Treated" soil. Let represent the n T n U number of samples obtained from the "Untreated" soil. Multiply each datum from the untreated soil by 0.1 such that each is reduced by 90 percent of its original value. The 90­ percent reduced data, , will serve as the reference data set. If 90­ percent reduction has been attained, then n ref the concentrations in the treated soil should tend to be the same as or less than the concentrations in the reference data set. Step 1: Combine all of the reference data (i. e., the untreated data reduced by 90­ percent) and the treated soil data into a single data set. Sort and rank the combined values from smallest to largest, assigning the rank of 1 to the smallest result, the rank of 2 to the next smallest result, and so on. Keep track of which samples belong to the reference population and the treated population. If two or more measurements are the same, assign all of them a rank equal to the average of the ranks they occupy. Step 2: Calculate as the sum of the ranks of the data from the treated soil, then R calculate ( ) W R n n T T = - + 1 2 Equation 3 Step 3: Use Table B­ 4 in Appendix B to find the critical value for the appropriate w a values of , , and . If , reject the null hypothesis and conclude n T n ref a W w < a that 90­ percent reduction is attained (i. e., conclude that the concentrations in the treated soil tend to be the same as or less than the concentration found in the reference soil data set). Otherwise, you cannot conclude that 90­ percent reduction was attained. 29 Excavation and Ex Situ Treatment In Situ Untreated Soil Pile of Treated Soil n U = n ref = 8 n T = 7 Figure 6. Sample collection strategy for measuring attainment of 90­ percent reduction using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. Hypothetical Example: Using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test to Evaluate Attainment of the 90­ Percent Reduction Standard Using data obtained from a site characterization, the site operator delineates a unit of soil known to have contaminant concentrations no less that 10 x UTS within the defined volume (Figure 6). The operator obtains n n U ref = = 8 random samples from the unit of untreated soil (note that the samples also could be obtained from a pile of soil that is the complete excavation of the unit of soil). The unit of soil is then treated using an ex situ soil washing technology. After treatment, a new set of n T = 7 samples is obtained from the treated soil and analyzed. A table of the data is created denoting data representing the untreated soil, the reference data, and the treated soil. Calculate the Wilcoxon Rank­ Sum Test to determine if the treatment process has attained the 90 percent reduction standard: Treated Soil (ppm) : 17, 23, 26, 5, 13, 13, 12 ( ) T i Untreated Soil (ppm) : 160, 200, 50, 40, 80, 100, 70, 30 ( ) U i Reference (ppm), 0.1 : 16, 20, 5, 4, 8, 10, 7, 3 ( ) U i Step 1: Combine the data for the treated soil and the data from the reference data set and sort and rank the values (the treated soil data are denoted by *): Data: 3 4 5 5* 7 8 10 12* 13* 13* 16 17* 20 23* 26* Rank: 1 2 3.5 3.5* 5 6 7 8* 9.5* 9.5* 11 12* 13 14* 15* Note that the data occupying ranks 3 and 4 are "ties" (both value are 5). Therefore, we assign both values a rank equal to the average of the ranks they occupy (i. e., (3+ 4)/ 2= 3.5). The same situation occurs at ranks 9 and 10 and both values are assigned a rank equal to the average of 9 + 10 (i. e., (9+ 10)/ 2= 9.5). 30 Step 2: Calculate as the sum of the ranks of the data from the treated soil: R R = 3.5 + 8 + 9.5 + 9.5 + 12 + 14 + 15 = 71.5 Then calculate : W ( ) ( ) W R n n T T = - + = - + = 1 2 715 7 7 1 2 435 . . Step 3: Using Table 4 in Appendix B, the critical value is found to be 17. ( ) w 0 10 . Because 43.5 > 17, do not reject the null hypothesis. In other words, we cannot conclude with 90­ percent confidence that 90­ percent reduction has been attained. 31 3. WHAT ARE THE NOTIFICATION, CERTIFICATION, AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTAMINATED SOILS? Contaminated soil subject to the land disposal restrictions must comply with the same recordkeeping requirements as other wastes subject to LDR. The generator of a hazardous soil must comply with the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 268.7( a). This would include a certification statement sent with the initial waste shipment and retained in the generator's files. The statement must certify that the soil [does/ does not] contain a listed hazardous waste and [does/ does not] exhibit a hazardous characteristic. Note that certifications accompanying waste shipments need only be provided for hazardous soils shipped off site. For hazardous soils remaining on site, this certification is not required. Once a characteristic soil is treated to remove its hazardous characteristic, it no longer must be disposed in a hazardous waste (Subtitle C) land disposal unit. However, it could require further treatment if the soils were prohibited from land disposal at the point of generation and the underlying hazardous constituents remain present at concentrations greater than 10 x UTS after treatment to remove the characteristic. Special notification requirements for treated characteristic wastes (found at 40 CFR 268.9( d)) allow generators to send a one­ time notice to the EPA region or their state agency instead of the Subtitle D disposal facility. This notification must be placed in the generator's files and include the following information: C the name and address of the receiving facility; and C a description of the waste including hazardous waste codes, treatability groups and subcategories, and any underlying hazardous constituents The generator also must prepare a certification statement in accordance with § 268.7( b)( 5) to accompany the notification. Both the certification and notification statements must be updated if there are any changes to the waste or receiving facility. Such changes must be submitted to the appropriate EPA region or state agency on an annual basis. Facilities should also be able to demonstrate how the alternative soil treatment standards have been met. As a result, you should keep records documenting the following: ° The rationale for arriving at a manageable list of monitoring constituents for the hazardous soil to be treated, ° The rationale for sampling protocols or methodology for collecting representative samples of hazardous constituents of concern in the contaminated soil (e. g., QAPP, sampling plan, and spatial analyses to delineate volumes of soil with constituent concentrations greater than 10 x UTS soils), ° The methodology for determining attainment of the standard of 90­ percent reduction or 10 x UTS, and ° Treatment data used to verify attainment of 90­ percent reduction or 10 x UTS. 32 References Note: Due to the dynamic nature of the Internet, the location and content of web sites given in this document may change over time. If you find a broken link to an EPA document, use the search engine at http:// www. epa. gov/ to find the document. Links to web sites outside the U. S. EPA web site are listed for the convenience of the user, and the U. S. EPA does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these external web sites. ASTM D 4220­ 95. 1995. Standard Practices for Preserving and Transporting Soil Samples. West Conshohocken, PA. http:// www. astm. org ASTM D 6311­ 98. 1998a. Standard Guide for Generation of Environmental Data Related to Waste Management Activities: Selection and Optimization of Sampling Design. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 4547­ 98. 1998b. Standard Guide for Sampling Waste and Soils for Volatile Organics. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 6169­ 98. 1998c. Standard Guide for Selection of Soil and Rock Sampling Devices Used With Drill Rigs for Environmental Investigations. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 6418­ 99. 1999. Standard Practice for Using the Disposable EnCore™ Sampler for Sampling and Storing Soil for Volatile Organic Analysis. West Conshohocken, PA. Davidson, J. R., Jr. 1995. ELIPGRID­ PC: Hot Spot Probability Calculations. Battelle/ Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA. Software and documentation available at http:// terrassa. pnl. gov: 2080/ DQO/ software/ elipgrid. html Gilbert, R. O. 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Guttman, I. 1970. Statistical Tolerance Regions: Classical and Bayesian. London: Charles Griffin & Co. Hahn, G. J. and W. Q. Meeker. 1991. Statistical Intervals: A Guide for Practitioners. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Isaaks, E. H. and R. M. Srivastava. 1989. An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics. New York: Oxford University Press. Journel, A. G. 1988. "Non­ parametric Geostatistics for Risk and Additional Sampling Assessment." Principles of Environmental Sampling. L. H. Keith, ed. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Mason, B. J. 1992. Preparation of Soil Sampling Protocols: Sampling Techniques and Strategies. EPA/ 600/ R­ 92/ 128. NTIS PB 92­ 220532. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Las Vegas, NV. 33 http:// www. epa. gov: 80/ swerust1/ cat/ mason. pdf Myers, J. C. 1997. Geostatistical Error Management: Quantifying Uncertainty for Environmental Sampling and Mapping. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Rosenbaum, S. 1954. Tables for a nonparametric test of location. Annals of Mathematical Statistics. 25: 146– 150. US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE). 1997. Engineering and Design ­ Practical Aspects of Applying Geostatistics at Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Sites. Publication Number ETL 1110­ 1­ 175. http:// www. usace. army. mil/ usace­ docs/ eng­ tech­ ltrs/ etl1110­ 1­ 175/ toc. html USEPA. 1988. Methodology for Developing Best Demonstrated Available (BDAT) Treatment Standards. EPA/ 530­ SW­ 89­ 017L. Treatment Technology Section, Office of Solid Waste. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1989. Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of Cleanup Standards, Volume 1: Soils and Solid Media. EPA 230/ 02­ 89­ 042. NTIS PB89­ 234959. Statistical Policy Branch, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ swertio1/ download/ stats/ vol1soils. pdf USEPA. 1991a. GEO­ EAS 1.2.1 User's Guide. EPA/ 600/ 8­ 91/ 008. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. USEPA. 1991b. Description and Sampling of Contaminated Soils– A Field Pocket Guide. EPA/ 625/ 12­ 91/ 002. Center for Environmental Research Information. Cincinnati, OH. USEPA. 1991c. Final Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background Document for Quality Assurance/ Quality Control Procedures and Methodology. NTIS PB95­ 230926. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1992. Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of Cleanup Standards. Volume 2: Ground Water. EPA 230­ R­ 92­ 14. Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ swertio1/ download/ stats/ vol2gw. pdf USEPA. 1994a. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/ G­ 4 (Revised, August 2000). EPA/ 600/ R­ 96/ 055. Office of Environmental Information. Quality Staff. Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ quality1/ qa_ docs. html USEPA. 1994b. Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Wastes, a Guidance Manual. OSWER 9938.4­ 03. http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ ldr/ guidance. htm Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1996. Determination of Background Concentrations of Inorganics in Soils and Sediment at Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA/ 540/ S­ 96/ 500. Office of Research and Development and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 34 http:// www. epa. gov/ nerlesd1/ pdf/ engin. pdf USEPA. 1997. Data Quality Assessment Statistical Toolbox (DataQUEST), EPA QA/ G­ 9D. User's Guide and Software. http:// www. epa. gov/ quality/ dqa. html. EPA/ 600/ R­ 96/ 085. Office of Research and Development. Las Vegas. USEPA. 1998a. Management of Remediation Waste Under RCRA. EPA/ 530­ F­ 98­ 026. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W). Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ ca/ resource/ guidance. htm# Remediation Waste USEPA. 1998b. EPA Guidance For Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/ G­ 5. EPA/ 600/ R­ 98/ 018. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ quality/ qa_ docs. html USEPA. 1998c. Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, EPA QA/ G­ 9 (QA00 Update, revised July 2000). EPA/ 600/ R­ 96/ 084. Final. Office of Environmental Information, Quality Staff. Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ quality/ qa_ docs. html USEPA. 1998d. "Phase IV Land Disposal Restrictions Rule – Clarification of Effective Dates." Memorandum from Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Acting Director Office of Solid Waste, to RCRA Senior Policy Advisors, Regions I ­ X. October 19, 1998. http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ ldr/ ldrmetal/ memos/ effectiv. pdf USEPA. 2000a. Data Quality Objectives Process for Hazardous Waste Site Investigations EPA QA/ G­ 4HW Final. EPA/ 600/ R­ 00/ 007. Office of Environmental Information. January 2000. http:// www. epa. gov/ quality1/ qa_ docs. html USEPA. 2000b. Guidance for Choosing a Sampling Design for Environmental Data Collection, Use in the Development of a Quality Assurance Project Plan. EPA QA/ G­ 5S. Quality Staff, Office of Environmental Information. Washington, D. C. Peer Review Draft. August 2000. http:// www. epa. gov/ quality1/ qa_ docs. html APPENDIX A: "MANAGEMENT OF REMEDIATION WASTE UNDER RCRA" October 14, 1998 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Management of Remediation Waste Under RCRA TO: RCRA/ CERCLA Senior Policy Managers Regional Counsels FROM: Timothy Fields, Jr., Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response /signed/ Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance /signed/ Rapid clean up of RCRA corrective action facilities and Superfund sites is one of the Agency's highest priorities. In this context, we often receive questions about management of remediation waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). To assist you in successfully implementing RCRA requirements for remediation waste, this memorandum consolidates existing guidance on the RCRA regulations and policies that most often affect remediation waste management. We encourage you to work with the regulations, policies and approaches outlined in this memorandum to achieve our cleanup goals as quickly and efficiently as possible. Note that not all remediation wastes are subject to RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements. As with any other solid waste, remediation wastes are subject to RCRA Subtitle C only if they are listed or identified hazardous waste. Environmental media are subject to RCRA Subtitle C only if they contain listed hazardous waste, or exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste. These distinctions are discussed more completely below. The information in this memo is divided into three categories: information on regulations and policies that apply to all remediation waste; information on regulations and policies that apply only to contaminated media; and, information on regulations and policies that apply only to contaminated debris. Most of the references cited in this memo are available over the Internet. The Federal Register notices published after 1994 are available at www. access. gpo. gov/ nara; the guidance memos and other EPA documents are available at www. epa. gov/ correctiveaction. Federal Register notices and other documents are also available through the RCRA/ CERCLA hotline: in Washington D. C., call (703) 412­ 9810; outside Washington D. C., call (800) 424­ 9346; and hearing impaired call (800) 553­ 7672. The hotline's hours are Monday ­ Friday, excluding 3 Federal holidays, 8: 00 ­ 5: 00, eastern standard time. Many EPA guidance memos and other documents may also be obtained through the RCRA/ CERCLA hotline fax­ back system. To obtain a list of documents available over the fax­ back system, and fax­ back system code numbers, call the RCRA/ CERCLA hotline at the numbers listed above. I hope this information will assist you as you continue to make protective, inclusive, and efficient cleanup decisions. If you have additional questions or require more information, please contact Robert Hall or Greg Madden, of our staffs, on (703) 308­ 8484 or (202) 564­ 4229 respectively. Regulations and Policies that Apply to All Remediation Wastes Area of Contamination Policy. In what is typically referred to as the area of contamination (AOC) policy, EPA interprets RCRA to allow certain discrete areas of generally dispersed contamination to be considered RCRA units (usually landfills). Because an AOC is equated to a RCRA land­ based unit, consolidation and in situ treatment of hazardous waste within the AOC do not create a new point of hazardous waste generation for purposes of RCRA. This interpretation allows wastes to be consolidated or treated in situ within an AOC without triggering land disposal restrictions or minimum technology requirements. The AOC interpretation may be applied to any hazardous remediation waste (including non­ media wastes) that is in or on the land. Note that the AOC policy only covers consolidation and other in situ waste management techniques carried out within an AOC. For ex situ waste management or transfer of wastes from one area of contamination to another, see discussion of corrective action management units, below. The AOC policy was first articulated in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). See 53 FR 51444 for detailed discussion in proposed NCP preamble; 55 FR 8758­ 8760, March 8, 1990 for final NCP preamble discussion. See also, most recent EPA guidance, March 13, 1996 EPA memo, "Use of the Area of Contamination Concept During RCRA Cleanups." Corrective Action Management Units (CAMUs). The corrective action management unit rule created a new type of RCRA unit – a Corrective Action Management Unit or CAMU specifically intended for treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous remediation waste. Under the CAMU rule, EPA and authorized states may develop and impose site­ specific design, operating, closure and post­ closure requirements for CAMUs in lieu of MTRs for land­ based units. Although there is a strong preference for use of CAMUs to facilitate treatment, remediation waste placed in approved CAMUs does not have to meet LDR treatment standards. The main differences between CAMUs and the AOC policy (discussed above) are that, when a CAMU is used, waste may be treated ex situ and then placed in a CAMU, CAMUs may be located in uncontaminated areas at a facility, and wastes may be consolidated into CAMUs from areas that are not contiguously contaminated. None of these activities are allowed under the AOC policy, which, as discussed above, covers only consolidation and in situ management techniques carried out within an AOC. 4 CAMUs must be approved by EPA or an authorized state and designated in a permit or corrective action order. In certain circumstances, EPA and states (including states that are not authorized for the CAMU regulations) may use other mechanisms to approve CAMUs. See, 58 FR 8677, February 16, 1993; appropriate use of RCRA Section 7003 orders and comparable state orders is discussed below and in an EPA guidance memo from J. Winston Porter to EPA Regional Administrators, "RCRA Permit Requirements for State Superfund Actions," November 16, 1987, OSWER Directive 9522.00­ 2. In addition, as appropriate, CAMUs may be approved by EPA as an applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement during a CERCLA cleanup using a record of decision or by an authorized state during a state cleanup using a CERCLA­ like authority and a similar state document. See, e. g., 58 FR 8679, February 16, 1993. An opportunity for the public to review and comment on tentative CAMU approvals is required by the regulations when CAMUs are approved using permitting procedures and as a matter of EPA policy when CAMUs are approved using orders. EPA recommends that, whenever possible, remediation project managers combine this public participation with other public involvement activities that are typically part of remediation. For example, public notice of tentative approval of a CAMU could be combined with public notice of a proposed plan under CERCLA. The CAMU rule is currently subject to litigation; however, the suit has been stayed pending promulgation of the final HWIR­ Media regulations. Although EPA proposed to withdraw CAMUs as part of the HWIR­ Media proposal, the Agency now intends to retain the CAMU rule. The Agency encourages approval of CAMUs when they are appropriate given the site­ specific conditions. The CAMU regulations are at 40 CFR 264.552, promulgated February 16, 1993 (58 FR 8658). The differences between CAMUs and AOCs are discussed in more detail in the March 13, 1996 EPA guidance memo, "Use of the Area of Contamination Concept During RCRA Cleanups." Corrective Action Temporary Units (TUs). Temporary units, like corrective action management units, are RCRA units established specifically for management of hazardous remediation waste. The regulations for temporary units (TUs) were promulgated at the same time as the regulations for corrective action management units. The CAMU regulations established land­ based units for treatment, storage and disposal of remediation waste; the TU regulations established non­ land based units for treatment and storage of hazardous remediation waste. Under the TU regulations, EPA and authorized states may modify existing MTR design, operating and closure standards for temporary tank and container units used to treat and store hazardous remediation waste. Temporary units may operate for one year, with an opportunity for a one year extension. Like CAMUs, temporary units must be approved by EPA or an authorized state and designated in a permit or corrective action order. In certain circumstances, EPA and states (including states that are not authorized for the TU regulations) may use other mechanisms to approve TUs. See, 58 FR 8677, February 16, 1993; appropriate use of RCRA Section 7003 orders and comparable state orders is discussed below and in an EPA guidance memo from J. Winston Porter to EPA Regional Administrators, "RCRA Permit Requirements for State Superfund Actions," November 16, 1987, OSWER Directive 9522.00­ 2. In addition, as appropriate, TUs may be approved by EPA as an applicable or relevant and appropriate 1 Listing determinations are often particularly difficult in the remedial context because the listings are generally identified by the sources of the hazardous wastes rather than the concentrations of various hazardous constituents; therefore, analytical testing alone, without information on a waste's source, will not generally produce information that will conclusively indicate whether a given waste is a listed hazardous waste. 5 requirement during a CERCLA cleanup using a record of decision or by an authorized state during a state cleanup using a CERCLA­ like authority and a similar state document. Placement of waste in tanks or containers, including temporary units, is not considered land disposal. Therefore, waste does not have to be treated to meet LDR treatment standards prior to being placed in a TU. Of course, LDRs must be met if hazardous remediation wastes are eventually land disposed, for example, after they are removed from the TU; however, if treatment in a TU results in constituent concentrations that comply with applicable land disposal restriction treatment standards, no further treatment prior to land disposal is required as a condition of the LDRs. An opportunity for the public to review and comment on tentative TU approvals is required by the regulations when TUs are approved using permitting procedures and as a matter of EPA policy when TUs are approved using orders. As with CAMUs, EPA recommends that whenever possible, remediation project managers combine this public participation with other public involvement activities that are typically part of remediation. For example, public notice of tentative approval of a temporary unit could be combined with public notice of a proposed plan under CERCLA. The TU regulations are at 40 CFR 264.553, promulgated February 16, 1993 (58 FR 8658). Determination Of When Contamination is Caused by Listed Hazardous Waste. Where a facility owner/ operator makes a good faith effort to determine if a material is a listed hazardous waste but cannot make such a determination because documentation regarding a source of contamination, contaminant, or waste is unavailable or inconclusive, EPA has stated that one may assume the source, contaminant or waste is not listed hazardous waste and, therefore, provided the material in question does not exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste, RCRA requirements do not apply. This approach was first articulated in the Proposed NCP preamble which notes that it is often necessary to know the source of a waste (or contaminant) to determine whether a waste is a listed hazardous waste under RCRA 1 and also notes that, "at many CERCLA sites no information exists on the source of the wastes." The proposed NCP preamble goes on to recommend that the lead agency use available site information such as manifests, storage records and vouchers in an effort to ascertain the sources of wastes or contaminants, but that when this documentation is not available or inconclusive the lead agency may assume that the wastes (or contaminants) are not listed RCRA hazardous wastes. This approach was confirmed in the final NCP preamble. See, 53 FR 51444, December 21, 1988 for proposed NCP preamble discussion; 55 FR 8758, March 13, 1990 for final NCP preamble discussion. This approach was also discussed in the HWIR­ Media proposal preamble, 61 FR 18805, April 29, 1996, where it was expanded to also cover dates of waste disposal – i. e., if, after a good faith effort to determine dates of disposal a facility owner/ operator is unable to make such a determination because documentation of dates of disposal is unavailable or inconclusive, one may 6 assume disposal occurred prior to the effective date of applicable land disposal restrictions. This is important because, if hazardous waste was originally disposed of before the effective dates of applicable land disposal restrictions and media contaminated by the waste are determined not to contain hazardous waste when first generated (i. e., removed from the land, or area of contamination), the media are not subject to RCRA requirements, including LDRs. See the discussion of the contained­ in policy, below. Site Specific LDR Treatment Variances. The regulations for site­ specific LDR treatment variances allow EPA and authorized states to establish a site­ specific LDR treatment standard on a case­ by­ case basis when a nationally applicable treatment standard is unachieveable or inappropriate. Public notice and a reasonable opportunity for public comment must be provided before granting or denying a site­ specific LDR treatment variance. EPA recommends that remediation project managers combine this public involvement with other public involvement activities that are typically part of remediation. Regulations governing site­ specific LDR treatment variances are at 40 CFR 268.44( h), promulgated August 17, 1988 (53 FR 31199) and clarified December 5, 1997 (62 FR 64504). The most recent EPA guidance on site­ specific LDR treatment variances, which includes information on establishing alternative LDR treatment standards, is in the January 8, 1997 guidance memo, "Use of Site­ Specific Land Disposal Restriction Treatability Variances Under 40 CFR 268.44( h) During Cleanups." In 1996, EPA revised its policy on state authorization for site­ specific LDR treatment variances and began encouraging states to become authorized to approve variances. See, HWIRMedia proposal, 61 FR 18828 (April 29, 1996). On May 26, 1998, EPA promulgated additional site­ specific land disposal restriction treatment variance opportunities specific to hazardous contaminated soil. These opportunities are discussed below. Treatability Studies Exemption. The term "treatability study" as defined at 40 CFR 260.10 refers to a study in which a hazardous waste is subjected to a treatment process to determine: (1) whether the waste is amenable to the treatment process; (2) what pretreatment (if any) is required; (3) the optimal process conditions needed to achieve the desired treatment; (4) the efficiency of a treatment process for a specific waste or wastes; or, (5) the characteristics and volumes of residuals from a particular treatment process. Under regulations at 40 CFR 261.4( e) and (f), hazardous wastes managed during a treatability study are exempt from many RCRA Subtitle C requirements. The regulations limit the amount of waste that may be managed under an exempt treatability study to, generally, 1000 kg of hazardous waste or 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per study. For contaminated environmental media, the volume limit is, generally, 10,000 kilograms of media that contain non­ acutely hazardous waste and 2,500 kilograms of media that contain acutely hazardous waste per study. There are also limits on the types and lengths of studies that may be conducted under the exemption and record keeping and reporting requirements. Regulations governing treatability studies are at 40 CFR 261.4( e) and (f), associated preamble discussions at 52 FR 27290 (July 19, 1988) and 59 FR 8362 (February 18, 1994). Exemption for Ninety Day Accumulation. Management of hazardous waste in tanks, containers, drip pads and containment buildings does not constitute land disposal. In addition, 2 Note that, under certain circumstances, substantive requirements may be waived using CERCLA. See the ARAR waiver provisions at 40 CFR 300.430( f)( 1)( ii)( C). 7 EPA has provided an exemption for generators of hazardous waste which allows them to accumulate (i. e., treat or store) hazardous waste at the site of generation in tanks, containers, drip pads or containment buildings for up to ninety days without RCRA interim status or a RCRA permit. Accumulation units must meet applicable design, operating, closure and post­ closure standards. Because putting hazardous waste in a tank, container, drip pad or containment building is not considered land disposal, LDR treatment standards do not have to be met before putting waste in such units. LDRs must be met if hazardous wastes are eventually land disposed, for example, after they are removed from the accumulation unit; however, if treatment in an accumulation unit results in constituent concentrations that comply with applicable land disposal restriction treatment standards, no further treatment prior to land disposal is required as a condition of the LDRs. The exemption for ninety­ day accumulation is found in regulations at 40 CFR 262.34; associated preamble discussion is at 51 FR at 10168 (March 24, 1986). Permit Waivers. Under CERCLA Section 121( e), no Federal, state or local permit is required for on­ site CERCLA response actions. EPA has interpreted CERCLA Section 121( e) to waive the requirement to obtain a permit and associated administrative and procedural requirements of permits, but not the substantive requirements that would be applied through permits. 2 In addition, on a case­ by­ case basis, where there may be an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment, EPA has broad authority to require corrective action and other appropriate activities under RCRA Section 7003. Under RCRA Section 7003, EPA has the ability to waive both the requirement to obtain a permit and the substantive requirements that would be imposed through permits. When EPA uses RCRA Section 7003, however, the Agency seldom uses RCRA Section 7003 to waive substantive requirements. In rare situations where substantive requirements are waived, the Agency would impose alternative requirements (e. g, waste treatment or storage requirements) as necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment. EPA may issue RCRA Section 7003 orders at, among other sites, facilities that have been issued RCRA permits and facilities that are authorized to operate under RCRA interim status. In discussing the use of 7003 orders, where other permit authorities are available to abate potential endangerments, EPA generally encourages use of those other permit authorities (e. g., 3005( c)( 3) omnibus permitting authority) rather than RCRA Section 7003. Similarly, if RCRA Section 3008( h) or RCRA Section 3013 authority is available, EPA generally encourages use of these authorities rather than RCRA Section 7003. If permit authorities or non­ RCRA Section 7003 enforcement authorities are inadequate, cannot be used to address the potential endangerment in a timely manner, or are otherwise inappropriate for the potential endangerment at issue, use of RCRA Section 7003 should be considered. See, "Guidance on the Use of Section 7003 of RCRA," U. S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, October 1997. In 1987, EPA issued guidance indicating that RCRA­ authorized states with state waiver authorities comparable to CERCLA 121( e) or RCRA Section 7003 could use those state waiver authorities to waive RCRA requirements as long as the state did so in a manner no less stringent than that allowed under the corresponding Federal authorities. These waivers are most often 8 used, as are the Federal waivers, to obviate the need to obtain a RCRA permit, rather than to eliminate substantive requirements. See, EPA guidance memo from J. Winston Porter to EPA Regional Administrators, "RCRA Permit Requirements for State Superfund Actions," November 16, 1987, OSWER Directive 9522.00­ 2. Exemption from 40 CFR Part 264 Requirements for People Engaged in the Immediate Phase of a Spill Response. Regulations at 40 CFR 264.1( g)( 8) provide that people engaged in treatment or containment activities are not subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 264 if the activities are carried out during immediate response to: (1) a discharge of hazardous waste; (2) an imminent and substantial threat of a discharge of hazardous waste; (3) a discharge of a materials which, when discharged, becomes a hazardous waste; or, (4) an immediate threat to human health, public safety, property or the environment from the known or suspected presence of military munitions, other explosive material, or an explosive device. This means that, during the immediate phase of a spill response, hazardous waste management activities do not require hazardous waste permits (or interim status) and hazardous waste management units used during immediate response actions are not subject to RCRA design, operating, closure or post­ closure requirements. Of course, if hazardous waste treatment activities or other hazardous waste management activities continue after the immediate phase of a spill response is over, all applicable hazardous waste management and permitting requirements would apply. In addition, if spills occur at a facility that is already regulated under 40 CFR part 264, the facility owner/ operator must continue to comply with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR Part 264 Subparts C (preparedness and prevention) and D (contingency plan and emergency procedures). See regulations at 40 CFR 260.1( g) and associated preamble discussion at 45 FR 76626 (November 19, 1980). See also, Sept. 29, 1986 memo from J. Winston Porter (EPA Assistant Administrator) to Fred Hansen interpreting the 40 CFR 264.1( g) regulations. Changes During Interim Status to Comply with Corrective Action Requirements. Under regulations at 40 CFR 270.72( a)( 5), an owner or operator of an interim status facility may make changes to provide for treatment, storage and disposal of remediation wastes in accordance with an interim status corrective action order issued by EPA under RCRA Section 3008( h) or other Federal authority, by an authorized state under comparable state authority, or by a court in a judicial action brought by EPA or an authorized state. These changes are limited to treatment, storage and disposal of remediation waste managed as a result of corrective action for releases at the facility in question; however, they are exempt from the reconstruction ban under 40 CFR 270.72( b). Under this provision, for example, EPA could approve a corrective action management unit for treatment of remediation waste using a 3008( h) order (or an authorized state could approve a CAMU using a similar state authority), even if that unit would otherwise amount to "reconstruction." Of course, units added at interim status facilities in accordance with this provision must meet all applicable unit requirements; for example, in the case of a CAMU, the CAMU requirements apply. See, regulations at 40 CFR 270.72( a)( 5) promulgated March 7, 1989 and associated preamble discussion at 54 FR 9599. Emergency Permits. In the event of an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment, EPA, or an authorized state, may issue a temporary emergency permit for treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous waste. Emergency permits may allow treatment, 9 storage or disposal of hazardous waste at a non­ permitted facility or at a permitted facility for waste not covered by the permit. Emergency permits may be oral or written. (If oral, they must be followed within five days by a written emergency permit.) Emergency permits must specify the hazardous wastes to be received and managed and the manner and location of their treatment, storage and disposal. Emergency permits may apply for up to ninety days, but may be terminated at any point if EPA, or an authorized state, determines that termination is appropriate to protect human health or the environment. Emergency permits must be accompanied by a public notice that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 124.10( b), including the name and address of the office approving the emergency permit, the name and location of the hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facility, a brief description of the wastes involved, the actions authorized and the reason for the authorization, and the duration of the emergency permit. Emergency permits are exempt from all other requirements of 40 CFR part 270 and part 124; however, to the extent possible and not inconsistent with the emergency situation, they must incorporate all otherwise applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 270 and parts 264 and 266. See, regulations at 40 CFR 270.61, originally promulgated as 40 CFR 122.27 on May 19, 1987 (45 FR 33326). EPA has also written a number of letters interpreting the emergency permit regulations, see, for example, November 3, 1992 letter to Mark Hansen, Environmental Products and Services Inc., from Sylvia Lowrance, Director Office of Solid Waste (available in the RCRA Permit Policy Compendium). Temporary Authorizations at Permitted Facilities. Under regulations at 40 CFR 270.42( e), EPA, or an authorized state, may temporarily authorize a permittee for an activity that would be the subject of a class two or three permit modification in order to, among other things, facilitate timely implementation of closure or corrective action activities. Activities approved using a temporary authorization must comply with applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 264. Temporary authorizations are limited to 180 days, with an opportunity for an extension of 180 additional days. To obtain an extension of a temporary authorization, a permittee must have requested a class two or three permit modification for the activity covered in the temporary authorization. Public notification of temporary authorizations is accomplished by the permittee sending a notice about the temporary authorization to all persons on the facility mailing list and to appropriate state and local governments. See regulations at 40 CFR 270.42, promulgated on September 28, 1988, and associated preamble at 53 FR 37919. Regulations and Policies that Apply to Contaminated Environmental Media Only Contained­ in policy. Contaminated environmental media, of itself, is not hazardous waste and, generally, is not subject to regulation under RCRA. Contaminated environmental media can become subject to regulation under RCRA if they "contain" hazardous waste. As discussed more fully below, EPA generally considers contaminated environmental media to contain hazardous waste: (1) when they exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste; or, (2) when they are contaminated with concentrations of hazardous constituents from listed hazardous waste that are above health­ based levels. If contaminated environmental media contain hazardous waste, they are subject to all applicable RCRA requirements until they no longer contain hazardous waste. EPA considers 10 contaminated environmental media to no longer contain hazardous waste: (1) when they no longer exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste; and (2) when concentrations of hazardous constituents from listed hazardous wastes are below health­ based levels. Generally, contaminated environmental media that do not (or no longer) contain hazardous waste are not subject to any RCRA requirements; however, as discussed below, in some circumstances, contaminated environmental media that contained hazardous waste when first generated (i. e., first removed from the land, or area of contamination) remain subject to LDR treatment requirements even after they "no longer contain" hazardous waste. The determination that any given volume of contaminated media does not contain hazardous waste is called a "contained­ in determination." In the case of media that exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste, the media are considered to "contain" hazardous waste for as long as they exhibit a characteristic. Once the characteristic is eliminated (e. g., through treatment), the media are no longer considered to "contain" hazardous waste. Since this determination can be made through relatively straightforward analytical testing, no formal "contained­ in" determination by EPA or an authorized state is required. Just like determinations about whether waste has been adequately decharacterized, generators of contaminated media may make independent determinations as to whether the media exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste. In the case of media that are contaminated by listed hazardous waste, current EPA guidance recommends that contained­ in determinations be made based on direct exposure using a reasonable maximum exposure scenario and that conservative, health­ based, standards be used to develop the site­ specific health­ based levels of hazardous constituents below which contaminated environmental media would be considered to no longer contain hazardous waste. Since this determination involves development of site­ specific health­ based levels, the approval of EPA or an authorized state is required. In certain circumstances the, RCRA land disposal restrictions will continue to apply to contaminated media that has been determined not to contain hazardous waste. This is the case when contaminated media contain hazardous waste when they are first generated (i. e., removed from the land, or area of contamination) and are subsequently determined to no longer contain hazardous waste (e. g., after treatment), but still contain hazardous constituents at concentrations above land disposal restriction treatment standards. It is also the case when media are contaminated as a result of disposal of untreated (or insufficiently treated) listed hazardous waste after the effective date of an applicable LDR treatment requirement. Of course, if no land disposal will occur (e. g., the media will be legitimately recycled) the LDR treatment standards do not apply. In addition, contaminated environmental media determined not to contain any waste (i. e., it is just media, it does not contain solid or hazardous waste) would not be subject to any RCRA Subtitle C requirements, including the LDRs, regardless of the time of the "contained­ in" determination. The contained­ in policy was first articulated in a November 13, 1986 EPA memorandum, "RCRA Regulatory Status of Contaminated Groundwater." It has been updated many times in Federal Register preambles, EPA memos and correspondence, see, e. g., 53 FR 31138, 31142, 31148 (Aug. 17, 1988), 57 FR 21450, 21453 (May 20, 1992), and detailed discussion in HWIRMedia proposal preamble, 61 FR 18795 (April 29, 1996). A detailed discussion of the continuing requirement that some soils which have been determined to no longer contain hazardous waste (but still contain solid waste) comply with land disposal treatment standards can be found in the 3 This rule, which also addresses a number of non­ soil issues, has been challenged by a number of parties. To date, the parties have filed non­ binding statements of issues only; however, based on those statements, it appears that, with the exception of the requirement that PCBs be included as an underlying hazardous constituent which has been challenged for both soil and non­ soil wastes, the soil treatment standards are not included in the challenges. 4 Except fluoride, selenium, sulfides, vanadium and zinc. 11 HWIR­ Media proposal preamble, 61 FR 18804; the September 15, 1996 letter from Michael Shapiro (EPA OSW Director) to Peter C. Wright (Monsanto Company); and the preamble to the LDR Phase IV rule, 63 FR 28617 (May 26, 1998). Note that the contained­ in policy applies only to environmental media (soil, ground water, surface water and sediments) and debris. The contained­ in policy for environmental media has not been codified. As discussed below, the contained­ in policy for hazardous debris was codified in 1992. RCRA Section 3020( b) Exemption for Reinjection of Contaminated Ground Water. Under RCRA Section 3020( a), disposal of hazardous waste into or above a formation that contains an underground source of drinking water is generally prohibited. RCRA Section 3020( b) provides an exception for underground injection carried out in connection with certain remediation activities. Under RCRA Section 3020( b), injection of contaminated ground water back into the aquifer from which it was withdrawn is allowed if: (1) such injection is conducted as part of a response action under Section 104 or 106 of CERCLA or a RCRA corrective action intended to clean up such contamination; (2) the contaminated ground water is treated to substantially reduce hazardous constituents prior to reinjection; and, (3) the response action or corrective action will, on completion, be sufficient to protect human health and the environment. Approval of reinjection under RCRA Section 3020( b) can be included in approval of other cleanup activities, for example, as part of approval of a RCRA Statement of Basis or CERCLA Record of Decision. See, RCRA Section 3020( b), established as part of the 1984 HSWA amendments. See also, OSWER Directive 9234.1­ 06, "Applicable of Land Disposal Restrictions to RCRA and CERCLA Ground Water Treatment Reinjection Superfund Management Review: Recommendation No. 26," November 27, 1989. LDR Treatment Standards for Contaminated Soils. On May 26, 1998, EPA promulgated land disposal restriction treatment standards specific to contaminated soils. 3 These treatment standards require that contaminated soils which will be land disposed be treated to reduce concentrations of hazardous constituents by 90 percent or meet hazardous constituent concentrations that are ten times the universal treatment standards (UTS), whichever is greater. (This is typically referred to as 90% capped by 10xUTS.) For contaminated soil that exhibits a characteristic of ignitable, reactive or corrosive hazardous waste, treatment must also eliminate the hazardous characteristic. The soil treatment standards apply to all underlying hazardous constituents 4 reasonably expected to be present in any given volume of contaminated soil when such constituents are found at initial concentrations greater than ten times the UTS. For soil that exhibits a characteristic of toxic, ignitable, reactive or corrosive hazardous waste, treatment is also required for: (1) in the case of the toxicity characteristic, the characteristic constituent; and, (2) in the case of ignitability, 12 reactivity or corrosivity, the characteristic property. Although treatment is required for each underlying hazardous constituent, it is not necessary to monitor soil for the entire list of underlying hazardous constituents. Generators of contaminated soil can reasonably apply knowledge of the likely contaminants present and use that knowledge to select appropriate underlying hazardous constituents, or classes of constituents, for monitoring. As with the LDR treatment standards for hazardous debris (discussed below), generators of contaminated soil may use either the applicable universal treatment standards for the contaminating hazardous waste or the soil treatment standards. See, soil treatment standard regulations at 40 CFR 268.49, promulgated May 26, 1998 and associated preamble discussion at 63 FR 28602­ 28622. Note that the soil treatment standards supersede the historic presumption that an LDR treatment variance is appropriate for contaminated soil. LDR treatment variances are still available for contaminated soil, provided the generator can show that an otherwise applicable treatment standard (i. e., the soil treatment standard) is unachieveable or inappropriate, as discussed above, or can show that a site­ specific, risk­ based treatment variance is proper, as discussed below. Site­ Specific, Risk­ Based LDR Treatment Variance for Contaminated Soils. On May 26, 1998, EPA promulgated a new land disposal restriction treatment variance specific to contaminated soil. Under 40 CFR 268.44( h)( 3), variances from otherwise applicable LDR treatment standards may be approved if it is determined that compliance with the treatment standards would result in treatment beyond the point at which short­ and long­ term threats to human health and the environment are minimized. This allows a site­ specific, risk­ based determination to supersede the technology­ based LDR treatment standards under certain circumstances. Alternative land disposal restriction treatment standards established through site specific, risk­ based minimize threat variances should be within the range of values the Agency generally finds acceptable for risk­ based cleanup levels. That is, for carcinogens, alternative treatment standards should ensure constituent concentrations that result in the total excess risk to an individual exposed over a lifetime generally falling within a range from 10 ­4 to 10 ­6 , using 10 ­6 as a point of departure and with a preference for achieving the more protective end of the risk range. For non­ carcinogenic effects, alternative treatment standards should ensure constituent concentrations that an individual could be exposed to on a daily basis without appreciable risk of deleterious effect during a lifetime; in general, the hazard index should not exceed one (1). Constituent concentrations that achieve these levels should be calculated based on a reasonable maximum exposure scenario ­­ that is, based on an analysis of both the current and reasonable expected future land uses, with exposure parameters chosen based on a reasonable assessment of the maximum exposure that might occur; however, alternative LDR treatment standards may not be based on consideration of post­ land disposal controls such as caps or other barriers. See, regulations at 40 CFR 268.44( h)( 4), promulgated May 26, 1998 and associated preamble discussion at 63 FR 28606­ 28608. Regulations and Policies that Apply Only to Debris 13 LDR Treatment Standards for Contaminated Debris. In 1992, EPA established land disposal restriction treatment standards specific to hazardous contaminated debris. The debrisspecific treatment standards established by these regulations are based on application of common extraction, destruction, and containment debris treatment technologies and are expressed as specific technologies rather than numeric criteria. As with the contaminated soil treatment standards discussed earlier, generators of hazardous contaminated debris may choose between meeting either the debris treatment standards or the numerical treatment standard promulgated for the contaminating hazardous waste. See, regulations at 40 CFR 268.45, promulgated August 18, 1992, and associated preamble discussion at 57 FR 37194 and 27221. Interpretation that Debris Treated to the LDR Debris Treatment Standards Using Extraction or Destruction Technologies no Longer Contain Hazardous Waste. With the land disposal restriction treatment standards for hazardous contaminated debris, in 1992, EPA determined that hazardous debris treated to comply with the debris treatment standards using one of the identified extraction or destruction technologies would be considered no longer to contain hazardous waste and would, therefore, no longer be subject to regulation under RCRA, provided the debris do not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics. This "contained­ in determination" is automatic; no agency action is needed. Note that this automatic contained­ in determination does not apply to debris treated to the debris treatment standards using one of the identified immobilization technologies. See, regulations at 40 CFR 261.3( f) and treatment standards at Table 1 of 40 CFR 268.45, promulgated August 18, 1992, and associated preamble discussion at 51 FR 37225. cc: Barbara Simcoe, Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials APPENDIX B: STATISTICAL TABLES Table B­ 1: 10% Values For The Nonparametric Test of Location nU ( nT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 46 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 10 10 11 12 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 17 18 19 19 20 21 21 22 23 23 24 25 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 30 31 32 32 33 34 34 35 36 3 2 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 4 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 23 5 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 6 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 18 7 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 8 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 9 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 10 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 11 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 12 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 13 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 14 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 15 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 16 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 17 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 18 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 19 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 20 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 21 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 22 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 23 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 24 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 25 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 26 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 27 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 28 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 29 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 31 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 32 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 33 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 34 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 35 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 36 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 37 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 38 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 39 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 40 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 41 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 42 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 43 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 45 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 46 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 47 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 48 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 49 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 50 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 Table B­ 2: 5% Values For The Nonparametric Test of Location nU ( nT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 1 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 2 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 20 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 30 31 32 33 33 34 35 36 37 37 38 39 40 40 3 3 4 5 5 6 7 7 8 9 9 10 11 11 12 12 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 18 19 19 20 21 21 22 23 23 24 24 25 26 26 27 28 28 29 30 30 31 31 32 33 33 4 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 5 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 23 24 24 6 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 7 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 19 8 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 9 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 10 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 11 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 14 12 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 14 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 12 15 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 16 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 17 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 18 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 19 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 20 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 21 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 22 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 23 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 24 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 25 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 26 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 27 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 28 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 29 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 30 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 31 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 32 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 33 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 34 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 35 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 36 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 37 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 38 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 39 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 40 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 41 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 42 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 43 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 44 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 45 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 46 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 47 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 48 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 49 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 50 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 Table B­ 3. Critical Values of Student's t Distribution (One­ Tailed) Degrees of Freedom 1­ " 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 0.99 1 1.376 1.963 3.078 6.314 31.821 2 1.061 1.386 1.886 2.920 6.965 3 0.978 1.250 1.638 2.353 4.541 4 0.941 1.190 1.533 2.132 3.747 5 0.920 1.156 1.476 2.015 3.365 6 0.906 1.134 1.440 1.943 3.143 7 0.896 1.119 1.415 1.895 2.998 8 0.889 1.108 1.397 1.860 2.896 9 0.883 1.100 1.383 1.833 2.821 10 0.879 1.093 1.372 1.812 2.764 11 0.876 1.088 1.363 1.796 2.718 12 0.873 1.083 1.356 1.782 2.681 13 0.870 1.079 1.350 1.771 2.650 14 0.868 1.076 1.345 1.761 2.624 15 0.866 1.074 1.340 1.753 2.602 16 0.865 1.071 1.337 1.746 2.583 17 0.863 1.069 1.333 1.740 2.567 18 0.862 1.067 1.330 1.734 2.552 19 0.861 1.066 1.328 1.729 2.539 20 0.860 1.064 1.325 1.725 2.528 21 0.859 1.063 1.323 1.721 2.518 22 0.858 1.061 1.321 1.717 2.508 23 0.858 1.060 1.319 1.714 2.500 24 0.857 1.059 1.318 1.711 2.492 25 0.856 1.058 1.316 1.708 2.485 26 0.856 1.058 1.315 1.706 2.479 27 0.855 1.057 1.314 1.703 2.473 28 0.855 1.056 1.313 1.701 2.467 29 0.854 1.055 1.311 1.699 2.462 30 0.854 1.055 1.310 1.697 2.457 40 0.851 1.050 1.303 1.684 2.423 60 0.848 1.046 1.296 1.671 2.390 120 0.845 1.041 1.289 1.658 2.358 ¥ 0.842 1.036 1.282 1.645 2.326 Table B­ 4. Critical Values For the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test nT a nref 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 0.05 0.10 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 4 2 4 3 5 3 5 4 5 4 6 4 6 4 7 5 7 5 8 5 8 3 0.05 0.10 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 5 4 6 5 6 5 7 6 8 6 9 7 10 8 11 8 11 9 12 10 13 10 14 11 15 12 16 4 0.05 0.10 0 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 4 6 5 7 6 8 7 10 8 11 9 12 10 13 11 14 12 16 13 17 15 18 16 19 17 21 18 22 19 23 5 0.05 0.10 1 2 2 3 3 5 5 6 6 8 7 9 9 11 10 13 12 14 13 16 14 18 16 19 17 21 19 23 20 24 21 26 23 28 24 29 26 31 6 0.05 0.10 1 2 3 4 4 6 6 8 8 10 9 12 11 14 13 16 15 18 17 20 18 22 20 24 22 26 24 28 26 30 27 32 29 35 31 37 33 39 7 0.05 0.10 1 2 3 5 5 7 7 9 9 12 12 14 14 17 16 19 18 22 20 24 22 27 25 29 27 32 29 34 31 37 34 39 36 42 38 44 40 47 8 0.05 0.10 2 3 4 6 6 8 9 11 11 14 14 17 16 20 19 23 21 25 24 28 27 31 29 34 32 37 34 40 37 43 40 46 42 49 45 52 48 55 9 0.05 0.10 2 3 5 6 7 10 10 13 13 16 16 19 19 23 22 26 25 29 28 32 31 36 34 39 37 42 40 46 43 49 46 53 49 56 52 59 55 63 10 0.05 0.10 2 4 5 7 8 11 12 14 15 18 18 22 21 25 25 29 28 33 32 37 35 40 38 44 42 48 45 52 49 55 52 59 56 63 59 67 63 71 11 0.05 0.10 2 4 6 8 9 12 13 16 17 20 20 24 24 28 28 32 32 37 35 41 39 45 43 49 47 53 51 58 55 62 58 66 62 70 66 74 70 79 12 0.05 0.10 3 5 6 9 10 13 14 18 18 22 22 27 27 31 31 36 35 40 39 45 43 50 48 54 52 59 56 64 61 68 65 73 69 78 73 82 78 87 13 0.05 0.10 3 5 7 10 11 14 16 19 20 24 25 29 29 34 34 39 38 44 43 49 48 54 52 59 57 64 62 69 66 75 71 80 76 85 81 90 85 95 14 0.05 0.10 4 5 8 11 12 16 17 21 22 26 27 32 32 37 37 42 42 48 47 53 52 59 57 64 62 70 67 75 72 81 78 86 83 92 88 98 93 103 15 0.05 0.10 4 6 8 11 13 17 19 23 24 28 29 34 34 40 40 46 45 52 51 58 56 64 62 69 67 75 73 81 78 87 84 93 89 99 95 105 101 111 Table B­ 4. Critical Values For the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test (continued) nT a nref 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 16 0.05 0.10 4 6 9 12 15 18 20 24 26 30 31 37 37 43 43 49 49 55 55 62 61 68 66 75 72 81 78 87 84 94 90 100 96 107 102 113 108 120 17 0.05 0.10 4 7 10 13 16 19 21 26 27 32 34 39 40 46 46 53 52 59 58 66 65 73 71 80 78 86 84 93 90 100 97 107 103 114 110 121 116 128 18 0.05 0.10 5 7 10 14 17 21 23 28 29 35 36 42 42 49 49 56 56 63 62 70 69 78 76 85 83 92 89 99 96 107 103 114 110 121 117 129 124 136 19 0.05 0.10 5 8 11 15 18 22 24 29 31 37 38 44 45 52 52 59 59 67 66 74 73 82 81 90 88 98 95 105 102 113 110 121 117 129 124 136 131 144 20 0.05 0.10 5 8 12 16 19 23 26 31 33 39 40 47 48 55 55 63 63 71 70 79 78 87 85 95 93 103 101 111 108 120 116 128 124 136 131 144 139 152

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.327678

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0007-0013

Supporting & Related Material

1 Guidance on Demonstrating Compliance With the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Alternative Soil Treatment Standards ­ Interim Guidance (EPA530­ D­ 00­ 002): June, 2002, Response to Comments on 66 FR 52918 (October 18, 2001) Commenter: U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Comment: The U. S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) appreciates the effort of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in developing and providing the "Interim Guidance on Demonstrating Compliance With the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Alternative Soil Treatment Standards." Generally, DOE believes the Interim Guidance should help the regulated community to better prepare demonstrations of compliance with the alternative LDR treatment standards for contaminated soils. Response: The Agency appreciates the commenter's support. Comment: DOE notes that much of the Interim Guidance focuses on use of the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) process to develop a sampling strategy for characterizing the contaminant concentrations within soil to which the alternative LDR treatment standards will be applied. DOE believes targeted DQO guidance documents of this type could also be helpful to members of the regulated community who must develop sampling strategies for demonstrating compliance with LDR treatment standards other than the alternative soil standards. Accordingly, DOE suggests that EPA consider preparing a similar guidance document targeted at development of sampling strategies for characterizing contaminant concentrations within wastes subject to the LDR treatment standards for hazardous wastes identified in 40 CFR 268.40. Response: EPA OSW currently is in the process of revising the sampling guidance found in Chapter Nine of "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste" EPA publication SW­ 846. While a draft is not yet available, we anticipate that the document will include guidance on sampling for compliance with LDR standards. Comment: While DOE is an advocate of the DQO process, the Department has found that the process can become very complex, time consuming, and expensive, especially when it is applied to develop multiple, statistically­ based sampling approaches at a site undergoing cleanup. This may occur when multiple contaminants are present in different media at a site, and each contaminant has multiple action levels (e. g., cleanup levels, hazardous characteristic levels, and LDR treatment standards). The problem can be compounded even further at facilities that must consider eco­ risk issues or contain numerous cleanup locations. DOE recommends that EPA consider devoting future resources to evaluating the need for statistically­ based sampling approaches with an eye toward simplifying the task 2 of applying the DQO process and reducing its costs. DOE would be pleased to cooperate with EPA in such an effort. Response: The DQO Process is designed to be flexible. EPA encourages a "graded" approach to the DQO Process such that the level of planning, management, and QA/ QC is commensurate with the end use of the data and the level of confidence required in decisions to be made from the data. EPA has added text to the guidance in two places to reinforce this point. Comment: 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND, 1.1 What Is the Purpose of This Guidance? p. 1, 1 st paragraph in the section – The Interim Guidance explains that 40 CFR 268.49 allows the generator of contaminated soils that will be land disposed to elect to comply with either the LDR alternative soil treatment standards at 40 CFR 268.49 or the generic treatment standards at 40 CFR 268.40. DOE believes it would be helpful to the regulated community for this section of the Interim Guidance to acknowledge that a third alternative might be available on a site­ specific basis. Specifically, the Interim Guidance should mention that, if a generator can demonstrate that the LDR alternative soil treatment standards would impose treatment of contaminated soil beyond the point at which threats are minimized, the generator can seek a site­ specific risk­ based treatment variance in accordance with 40 CFR 268.44( h)( 3). Response: Site­ specific LDR variances are described in Appendix A of the guidance (page 6) in the memo entitled "Management of Remediation Waste Under RCRA." Detailed guidance also is given in EPA's recent (August 2001) publication "Land Disposal Restrictions: Summary of Requirements" (http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ ldr/ guidance. htm). Note also that variances are described in Section 1.5 (page 3) of the Interim Guidance. The Agency appreciates the comment and will add additional language to highlight availability of variances under 40 CFR 268.44( h). Comment: p. 1, 2 nd paragraph in the section – The Interim Guidance states that it should not be used to establish site­ specific soil cleanup standards. DOE believes it would be helpful to the regulated community for this paragraph to briefly explain why the Interim Guidance should not be used to establish site­ specific soil cleanup standards. For example, a discussion similar to that provided in the preamble to the final rule promulgating the LDR alternative soil treatment standards would be useful (see 63 FR 28556, 28606 (column 2); May 26, 1998). Response: The Agency appreciates the comment and will include additional language in the guidance to explain why the soil treatment standards should not be used to establish site­ specific soil cleanup standards. The purpose of the land disposal restriction treatment standards is to ensure that prohibited hazardous 3 wastes are properly pre­ treated before disposal (i. e., treated so that short­ and long­ term threats to human health and the environment posed by land disposal are minimized). The soil treatment standards, like other land disposal restriction treatment standards, are based on the performance of specific treatment technologies. In contrast, most soil cleanup levels are based not on the performance of specific treatment technologies but on an analysis of risk. Technology­ based treatment standards are not necessarily appropriate surrogates for site­ specific risk­ based cleanup levels. In a circumstance where the soil treatment standards result in constituent concentrations that are higher than those determined, on a site­ specific basis, to be required for soil cleanup, existing remedial programs such as RCRA Corrective Action, CERCLA and state cleanup programs could be applied to ensure that remedies are adequately protective (e. g., require a site­ specific cleanup standard that is lower than the soil treatment standard). Comment: 1.3 Why Did EPA Develop Alternative Soil Treatment Standards? p. 2 – Section 1.3 of the Interim Guidance explains that EPA developed the alternative soil treatment standards because the traditional technology­ based standards were intended for industrial hazardous waste and were often not appropriate or not achievable when applied to hazardous constituents present in soil. DOE suggests that Section 1.3 be expanded to briefly describe the LDR compliance option of developing site­ specific, risk­ based treatment standards through the variance process in 40 CFR 268.44( h)( 3). The Department believes this information would be helpful to the regulated community in evaluating options for treatment of hazardous soils. In addition, the discussion could explain why EPA based the alternative soil treatment standards on technology rather than risk. Response: Site­ specific LDR variances are described in Appendix A of the guidance (page 6) in the memo entitled "Management of Remediation Waste Under RCRA." Detailed guidance also is given in EPA's recent (August 2001) publication "Land Disposal Restrictions: Summary of Requirements" (http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ ldr/ guidance. htm). Note also that variances are described in Section 1.5 (page 3) of the Interim Guidance. The Agency appreciates the comment and will add additional language to highlight availability of variances under 40 CFR 268.44( h)( 3). Comment: 2.1 What Steps Should I Use to Plan the Sampling and Analysis Program? p. 6, Step 3: Identify Inputs to the Decision, 1 st paragraph in the section – The Interim Guidance lists the following informational inputs needed to resolve the question of whether compliance with the LDR alternative soil treatment standards has been achieved: a list of the underlying hazardous constituents; the units of measure (e. g., mg/ kg or mg/ L); and a listing of appropriate analytical methods, method performance criteria (e. g., for precision and accuracy), and required quantitation limits. Noticeably absent from the list of informational inputs described in the Interim Guidance as necessary to resolve the question of compliance with the LDR alternative soil treatment standards is input concerning background constituent concentrations, especially metals. Accordingly, DOE requests that EPA address this issue in the Interim Guidance by discussing acceptable methods for determining 4 background constituent concentrations and for excluding them from the determination of whether compliance has been achieved. In addition, DOE requests that the Interim Guidance discuss the provisions of 40 CFR 268.44( h)( 4), which allow EPA or the authorized state agency to grant a variance capping treatment at natural background concentrations in circumstances where treatment of contaminated soil to meet the LDR alternative soil treatment standards would result in concentrations of hazardous constituents that are below (i. e., lower than) natural background concentrations at the site where the treated soil will be disposed of on land. Response: The regulations at 40 CFR Part 268.44( h)( 4) allow EPA and authorized states to grant a site­ specific LDR treatment variance for contaminated soil if the level or the method specified in the soil treatment standards would result in concentrations of hazardous constituents that are below (i. e., lower than) natural background concentrations at the site where the contaminated soil will land disposed. Natural background concentrations are constituent concentrations that are present in soil which have not been influenced by human activities or releases. Because natural background concentrations may vary across geographic areas, and to ensure that LDRs will only be capped at background where appropriate, EPA requires that individuals who wish to cap LDR treatment at natural background concentrations apply for and receive a treatment variance. Information on how to determine background concentrations can be found in an issue paper entitled Determination of Background Concentrations of Inorganics in Soils and Sediment at Hazardous Waste Sites (EPA/ 540/ S96 500) published by EPA's Office of Research and Development and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (http:// www. epa. gov/ nerlesd1/ pdf/ engin. pdf). In addition, consultation with a professional statistician is recommended before preparing a request for a variance from LDR treatment standards for soil based on background concentrations. EPA edited the document to include this information. Comment: p. 7, Step 4: Define the Boundaries, last paragraph on p. 7 – The Interim Guidance indicates that, with certain exceptions, mixing hazardous soil with nonhazardous soil may be impermissible dilution. The first exception is stated in part as follows: "If mixing occurs through the normal consolidation of contaminated soil from various portions of a site that typically occurs during the course of remedial activities or in the course of normal earthmoving and grading activities, then the Agency does not consider this to be intentional mixing of soil with nonhazardous soil for the purposes of evading LDR treatment standards." DOE notes that the delineation and excavation of soils subject to remedial action thresholds is one of the more difficult aspects of a cost effective cleanup. Costs associated with leaving staff and equipment idle while waiting for the receipt of cleanup verification results can be so prohibitive that, sometimes, it is more cost­ effective to "over excavate" into "clean" soil in order to ensure that all soil containing contaminants in excess of proscribed concentrations has been removed quickly. Because it is possible that over excavation such as this could be interpreted by a responsible regulator as intentional dilution, since cleaner soil is being mixed with the soil volume targeted for cleanup, DOE requests that the discussion of Step 4 in Section 2.1 of the Interim Guidance be enhanced. Specifically, DOE 5 recommends that EPA clarify that over excavation, when performed as described above, does not constitute impermissible dilution. In addition, DOE recommends that the Interim Guidance provide instructions or examples of how removal and remediation plans should be structured to avoid disagreements about whether over excavation constitutes impermissible dilution. Response: The Agency understands that it is sometimes advantageous to over­ excavate contaminated soils as part of implementing a cost­ effective cleanup and minimize the need for multiple mobilizations of a field team for sampling, analysis, and removal. Because each site­ specific situation is unique, the Agency cannot provide detailed guidance on the extent to which over­ excavation can be performed before it would be considered impermissible dilution. However, gross over­ excavation could be viewed as impermissible dilution and should be avoided. EPA added a discussion of this topic to the guidance. Comment: p. 8, Step 4: Define the Boundaries, last paragraph on p. 8 – The Interim Guidance states: "Note that if the 90­ percent reduction standard is used, then the estimate of post­ treatment concentrations should apply to the same unit of soil characterized initially." When relying on a 90­ percent reduction soil treatment standard, a strategy is needed to ensure consistent comparison of soil before and after treatment. However, some soil handling technologies and treatment technologies may significantly change both the volume and the mass of soil being treated. For example, thermal treatment technologies tend to reduce soil mass and volume as moisture and combustible fractions are driven off during the treatment process. Stabilization technologies can result in an increase in soil mass and volume because these technologies rely on mixing additives with the unit of soil being treated. Excavation technologies can also affect soil volume; the volume of in situ soil tends to increase after the soil is excavated. Clearly, volume or mass of soil can change as a result of excavation and treatment. As a result, DOE seeks additional clarification, perhaps through the use of hypothetical examples, to clearly communicate to the regulated community whether or not mass and volume changes caused by excavation and treatment needs to be addressed in the post­ treatment sampling effort. Response: The Agency recognizes that some soil handling technologies and treatment technologies may significantly change both the volume and the mass of soil between the time the soil is generated to after treatment is completed. Note that the regulation at 40 CFR 268.49( a) indicates that the treatment standards apply to "any given volume" of hazardous soil (see chart note at §268.49( a)), and the regulation does not require that the volume or mass of the soil subject to the treatment standards remain unchanged after treatment. The "identity" of the parcel of the soil, however, should remain intact after treatment to facilitate comparison of the pre­ treated to post­ treated concentrations in the soil. For this reason, the guidance document simply refers to the "unit" of soil that should be used for comparing pretreated to post­ treated concentrations. The guidance does not indicate that the volume or mass of soil needs to remain the same before and after treatment. The Agency has modified the language describing Step 4 of the DQO Process to clarify that the volume of soil may change as a result of treatment. 6 Comment: p. 9, Text Box: Hypothetical Example – The Interim Guidance provides an example of defining a "given volume" of contaminated soil subject to LDR treatment standards. DOE believes it would be helpful for the Interim Guidance to remind the regulated community that the number of samples that must be tested to determine whether soil exhibits a hazardous characteristic might be reduced using the following relatively simple screening technique. Assume that the total amount of each hazardous constituent of concern in a volume of contaminated soil (in this example, benzene) would partition to the extract during the TCLP (which is often a very conservative assumption). Then, using the fact that the TCLP has an inherent 20­ fold dilution factor (liquid to solid ratio), calculate the highest concentrations that could be present before hazardous constituents of concern would cause the soil to exhibit the toxicity characteristic. For example, in the case of benzene, the TCLP toxicity characteristic concentration limit is 0.5 mg/ L. Therefore, 10 mg/ kg of benzene would have to be present in soil before it would exhibit the toxicity characteristic for benzene. Compare the calculated, highest allowable concentrations of hazardous constituents of concern with total concentrations measured in each volume of soil. Only volumes of soil containing total concentrations of one or more hazardous constituents in excess of the highest allowable concentrations must be subjected to the TCLP in order to determine whether such volumes are hazardous. In the hypothetical example, only those volumes of soil containing greater than 10 mg/ kg of benzene would need to be subjected to the TCLP in order to determine whether they were hazardous. Response: The commenter is correct that a 20: 1 dilution factor can be used to screen samples for the TC. This approach is specifically allowed in SW­ 846 Method 1311 (TCLP). The example has been modified to show how total concentrations can be used to screen soil for the TC. Comment: p. 9, Text Box: Hypothetical Example – The Interim Guidance provides an example of defining a "given volume" of contaminated soil subject to LDR treatment standards. DOE requests that EPA consider including at least one other hypothetical example that is more complicated and more typical of an actual cleanup action. Such an example would depict a cleanup site containing several different locations of contamination with multiple contaminants having various types of action levels. Response: At this time, EPA has very limited experience with application of the alternative soil treatment standards at actual sites. EPA believes that the inclusion of additional more complex hypothetical examples is unnecessary at this time, and may in fact detract from the flexibility that alternative treatment standards offer. Comment: p. 11, Step 7: Optimize the Design for Obtaining the Data – The Interim Guidance provides references to several other documents that contain detailed instructions on development and optimization of a sampling plan. 7 Define the "given volume of soil" subject to LDRs per 268.49( a) (use DQO Process Step 4) If the 90% reduction standard is selected, then obtain nu random samples representing the untreated soil. Does the soil attain the standard of 10xUTS? Start Yes NO Because Step 7 of the DQO process is so important, DOE recommends that (in addition to referencing other available guidance) this discussion in the Interim Guidance be expanded to include information focusing on the development and optimization of sampling plans that deal specifically with the management of contaminated soil. Response: The Agency agrees that Step 7 of the DQO Process is important because it involves, among other activities, a determination of the appropriate number of samples. Users of the guidance should be aware that some of the measurement data required to determine compliance with the treatment standards may be generated as part of normal site characterization sampling and analysis activities. Inputs into Step 7 of the DQO Process need to take this existing characterization data into account. Based on the comment, EPA has expanded the discussion of the Step 7 of the DQO Process and provide reference to more specific guidance on how to calculate the appropriate number of samples. Comment: 2.3 How Should I Evaluate the Data to Determine Attainment of the Treatment Standards? p. 13, Figure 2 – Figure 2 provides a generalized flow diagram indicating the decisionmaking process for determining attainment of the alternative soil treatment standards. Reproduced below is a portion of the flow diagram contained in Figure 2 of the Interim Guidance. Regarding this portion of the diagram, DOE offers the following observations: (1) DOE believes the flow would be more logical if the diamond box (" Does the soil attain the standard of 10xUTS?") were placed upstream rather than downstream of the box containing the statement, "If the 90% reduction standard is selected, then obtain nu random samples representing the untreated soil." The determination of whether or not soil attains the standard of 10xUTS should be the first step in the flow diagram, because if the soil attains this standard, it can be disposed as hazardous waste without further treatment. 8 (2) DOE believes the box containing the statement "If the 90% reduction standard is selected, then obtain nu random samples representing the untreated soil" is misleading because the statement implies that random sampling of the untreated soil is the only approach that can be used to determine whether the 90% reduction standard has been met. However, as Section 2.3.3.2 (Welch's t­ Test) indicates, sometimes systematic sampling designs are equally acceptable (see p. 21, discussion on "Procedure"). In light of these observations, DOE suggests that EPA amend the flow chart to better reflect the narrative descriptions in the Interim Guidance of the various methods that can be used to evaluate attainment of the alternative soil treatment standards. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and made the suggested changes to the figure. Comment: p. 13, Figure 2 – According to the flow diagram in Figure 2, if the soil does not attain either the 90­ percent reduction standard or the standard of 10xUTS, then further treatment is always required. DOE suggests that Figure 2 and the text of Section 2.3 be revised to reflect the availability of certain variances in the event that treatment of soils to meet the LDR alternative soil treatment standards is either not possible or not appropriate. DOE recognizes that the alternative LDR treatment standards for contaminated soil are intended to be achievable by well­ designed and well­ operated technologies appropriate to the soil matrix and constituents of concern. However, in the event that a particular soil cannot be treated by such a system to meet the LDR alternative soil treatment standards, it is DOE's understanding that a site­ specific treatability variance based on the "not physically possible" test under 40 CFR 268.44( h)( 1) would still be available. It is also DOE's understanding that a "not appropriate" treatability variance under 40 CFR 268.44( h)( 2) could be approved for contaminated soil if applying the LDR alternative soil treatment standards would present unacceptable risks to on­ site workers (for example, if certain explosive or radioactive contaminants are present in the soil). Accordingly, DOE believes it would be helpful to the regulated community if the Interim Guidance contained instructions for evaluating whether one of these variances could be justified for contaminated soil in a particular set of circumstances. Response: The flow chart is presented in the guidance for use in data quality assessment (DQA). Use of the flow chart assumes that the generator or treater has determined that the soil is subject to the LDR treatment standards and has elected to use the alternative soil treatment standards available at 40 CFR 268.49. For clarity, however, EPA added information to the chart as a footnote to indicate that one option is to petition for a variance from the treatment standards. 9 Commenter: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment: Method quality objectives for sensitivity are not adequately addressed. In order to satisfy the LDR treatment standard, the concentration of contamination must be reduced by 90% on the average or must be less than 10 x UTS. For example, using a statistical approach the null hypothesis is H0 : (Treated) – 0.1 (Untreated) > 0 m m This suggests that the laboratory method must be capable of reporting quantitative results at concentrations less than 0.1 (Untreated). Similarly, if the null hypothesis is: m H0 : (Treated) > 10 x UTS m then, quantitative values would be required for concentrations less than 10 x UTS. However, Page 6 of the document requires only that the analytical method be "capable of detecting constituents of concern at concentrations less than 10 UTS." In general, the requirement that the detection limit (e. g., as opposed to the quantitation limit) must be less than the decision limit (e. g., 10 UTS) will not be adequate to support the decision­ making process. The detection limit establishes only presence­ absence. Results near the detection limit not quantitatively reliable. The decision limit should be significantly higher than the detection limit (e. g., by a factor of 10). Response: The commenter has correctly outlined the hypothesis framework used in the guidance document. In the Interim Guidance, EPA used the term "detecting" on Page 6 where more appropriately the term "quantitating" (in reference to the analytical quantitation limit) should have been used. EPA has modified the language in the guidance so that use of the term "detecting" is not confused with the term "quantitation" or "quantitation limit." Comment: The "non­ statistical" approach discussed in Section 2.3.1 of the document (page 15) for determining whether contamination is less than either 10 x UTS or whether a 90% reduction has occurred does not appear to be scientifically defensible. It not valid to infer that :( Treated) < 10 x UTS or 0.1 :( Treated) (where : denoted the "true" concentration) when C( Treated) < 0.1C( Untreated) or 10 C( Treated) < 10 x UTS unless the uncertainties associated with the measurements C( Treated) and C( Untreated) are known or can be estimated. For example, assume that for some single metal contaminant 10 x UTS = 100 mg/ kg and C( Treated) = 95 mg/ kg Since instrumental error alone for the metal analysis is about ±10%, the uncertainty associated with the single measurement C( Treated) = 95 mg/ kg is at least ± 10 mg/ kg. The measurement does not demonstrate that contamination is either above or below 10 UTS. A single measurement, without some estimate of the uncertainty is meaningless. In addition, according to the guidance, the "non­ statistical" approach should be used only when "the soil is relatively homogeneous." What constitutes "homogeneous soil"? Natural soils are inherently heterogeneous. An operational definition for "homogeneous soil" is not presented; that some practical approach for evaluating whether the soil is "homogeneous" is required. This would typically require the analysis of multiple samples, but if multiple samples were taken, then advantage of using a "non­ statistical" approach is unclear. The approach presented in 2.3.1 appears to be viable only if some estimate of the total measurement uncertainty exists and the measured value is much less than the decision limit (in the context of the magnitude of the estimated uncertainty). For example, if it is estimated that the total uncertainty is approximately ± 30% of the measured value, then a result of C( Treated) = 10 mg/ kg could be considered to be less than 10 x UTS = 100 mg/ kg. In general, unless the uncertainty is known or can be estimated, single point comparisons will be invalid (e. g., unless the unless [sic] the measured results are orders of magnitude less than the decision limit). Response: [For the purpose of responding to the comment, EPA assumes, where the commenter wrote ":( Treated) < 10 UTS or 0.1 :( Treated)" that the commenter actually meant ":( Treated) < 10 UTS or 0.1 :( Untreated)."] EPA agrees that there are some limitations to the "nonstatistical" approach given in the Interim Guidance. These limitations are stated in Table 1 (page 14): the method "only provides a `point estimate' of the constituent concentration, does not provide information about variability, and does not quantify the uncertainty associated with the estimate." 11 EPA agrees that it is prudent to identify and quantify sampling and measurement error and to take that information into account when using the data to make a decision about the status of a waste. Variability and bias (collectively known as "error") introduced in the sampling and measurement processes can cause decision errors to be made. Waste generators should (but are not required to do so by LDR regulations) specify tolerable limits for such decision errors as part of the DQO Process. Tolerable limits for error should balance the consequences of decision errors against the cost of limiting the possibility of those errors. When the soil subject to the treatment determination is (1) relatively small in volume (e. g., a single drum), (2) is "relatively homogeneous," and (3) sampling and measurement error can be minimized, a single representative sample may provide a reasonable point estimate of the concentration of the constituent of concern in that given volume of soil, and the consequences of a decision error would not be severe due to the small quantity of soil affected. Finally, EPA has noted the comment that natural soils are inherently heterogeneous, and that an operational definition for "homogeneous soil" is not presented in the Interim Guidance. The phrase "relatively homogeneous" is used in a qualitative manner to describe an ideal condition. In fact, soils are often described in the literature in terms of their type and degree of heterogeneity. EPA agrees with the commenter that a practical approach for dealing with heterogeneous soils should be given. As noted in the footnote on page 15 of the Interim Guidance, the sampling error (which is caused in part by heterogeneity) can be controlled by using optimal sample mass, obtaining the correct shape and orientation of individual samples (known as the sample "support"), and by using sampling devices and sub­ sampling procedures that will minimize bias. Several references are provided in the footnote. In response to the comment, EPA has removed the phase "relatively homogeneous" and emphasize that the effects of heterogeneity can be controlled by means of certain sampling and sample­ handling techniques. Comment: All the assumptions for the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test should also be presented in Section 2.3.3. It is my understanding that this test requires similar variances for the two populations (i. e., the underlying distributions are required to possess similar shapes and dispersion). Furthermore, a lower limit but not an upper limit is specified for the number of nondetections. This test will probably be inappropriate if a large number of nondetections are being reported. Response: The assumptions for the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test include the following: (1) both samples are random samples from their respective populations, (2) in addition to independence within each sample, there must be mutual independence between the two samples (i. e., there can not be spatial correlation between observations and the samples must not be "paired"), and (3) the measurement scale is at least ordinal (i. e., you can rank the sample values from highest to lowest) (from Practical Nonparametric Statistics, Third Addition, W. J. Conover, 1999). In addition, variances of the two populations are assumed to be the same, however, the rank sum test is relatively robust with respect to violations of the equal variance assumption – that is, the test is approximately correct even when the variances of the two populations differ (from Statistics in Plain English with Computer Applications, Robert S. Schulmam, 1992). EPA will add these assumptions for the Wilcoxon Rank 12 Sum test to Section 2.3.3. The upper limit of the percentage of nondetects is about 90%. This statement was added to the guidance document. 13 Commenter: Environmental Technology Council (ETC) Comment: Section 2: Determining if Soil Needs to be Treated. On page 4 of the guidance, EPA states that the generator must determine if the soil has to be treated before it can be land disposed. The Guidance states that this determination can be based on knowledge or laboratory analysis. If knowledge is used, acceptable knowledge can be based on any of the following sources: ° Process knowledge or information on waste generated from similar processes; ° Waste analysis data from facilities that send wastes off­ site for treatment, storage or disposal; ° Facility records of analyses performed before the effective date of RCRA regulations. The ETC finds this language both problematic and puzzling. With regard to the first two sources, we are concerned that knowledge or data on waste generated from similar processes may not be sufficient for contaminated soil at a given site. Such information may be used as a starting point; however, other contaminants may be present based on unique aspects of the process at the given site. Therefore, when using such knowledge, the generator or operator should have to reasonably ascertain, if possible, whether other contaminants may be present in the contaminated soil. With regard to the third source, why would facility records be limited to analytical data from before the effective date of RCRA regulations? If more recent data is available, why could that not be used? We suspect EPA means that facility records, including records of waste analyses performed before RCRA, can be used. To avoid confusion, we recommend that the Guidance simply state the credible facility records of waste analyses may be relied upon to support acceptable knowledge. If process information is limited or of questionable validity, then the Guidance must require that new analytical data be obtained. The Guidance needs to define specific circumstances when new analytical data on contaminated soil must be obtained. This would include situations when process information is limited, or the site history has involved various types of owners and processes. Also, if analytical data on the site is limited or of questionable quality, a soil sampling survey should be performed. Response: The language to which the commenter is referring was drawn from EPA's Waste Analysis Plan Guidance Manual (OSWER 9938.4­ 03, pages 1­ 11 and 1­ 12). The Agency agrees with the commenter in that the language could be taken out of context to imply that acceptable knowledge for waste analysis purposes allows for the use of information that is of questionable validity. EPA has revised this section to be clearer about the responsibilities of all hazardous waste handlers and to be clearer about the extent of the usefulness of acceptable knowledge. Further, the revised section encourages the reader to reference the Waste Analysis Plan Guidance Manual for more detailed information. 14 Comment: Section 2.1: Data Quality Objectives. The ETC is supportive of using the DQO Process to develop the sampling strategy. However, allowance for "other systematic planning processes" as stated on page 5 invites potentially less effective sampling programs. The ETC believes that the DQO Process can be followed in all cases, without imposing unreasonable costs. Response: The Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Process is the Agency's recommended systematic planning tool that is part of EPA's Quality System. EPA organizations and organizations with extramural agreements with EPA must follow a systematic planning process as required by EPA Order 5360.1 A2; however, waste generators and treaters have no regulatory obligation under RCRA to use the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Process or any other systematic planning process when complying with the LDR regulations. Regulated entities are free to use any planning process they desire. Comment: Under Step 4 of the process (pages 6 through 8) the ETC has concerns that the wording will not adequately protect against impermissible dilution through the mixing of different segments of soil contamination. The Guidance should be specific about defining hot spots through analysis, and prohibiting mixing such hot spots with soil containing low levels of contamination. To do otherwise will be encouraging impermissible dilution. Response: The Agency's position on impermissible dilution and mixing of contaminated is not changed by the guidance document. The guidance document simply reiterates the Agency's position on these issues given previously in the Federal Register. See 63 FR 28605 and 28621 (May 26, 1998), 51 FR 40592 (November 7, 1986), and 53, FR 30911 (August 16, 1988). Regarding the identification of "hot spots," the guidance provides several specific references that provide detailed procedures for the identification of hot spots using statistical methods. Comment: Also on page 7, EPA states that "Generally, subject to limited exceptions, you should not mix hazardous soil with nonhazardous soils". The ETC disagrees with the use of the term "generally", and mixing of hazardous with nonhazardous soil should always be viewed as impermissible dilution. On page 8, EPA states that mixing such soil may be needed to adjust BTU or water content. Yet the BTU value of various soils does not change significantly to affect a given treatment process, and water can always be addressed easily in other ways. Given the broad flexibility already provided by the 90% reduction or 10xUTS standard, there is no need to risk promoting impermissible dilution by allowing the mixing of nonhazardous with hazardous soils, based on justifications that are both weak and avoidable. Response: In response to the comment, EPA has removed the phrase "Generally." EPA does not agree with the comment that mixing of hazardous soil with nonhazardous soil "should always be viewed as impermissible dilution." As stated in the preamble to the Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV: Final Rule (May 26, 1998), the "Agency notes that the normal mixing of contaminated soil from various portions of a site that typically occurs during the course of remedial activities or in the course of normal earthmoving and grading activities is not considered intentional mixing of soil with non­ media or prohibited soil with non­ prohibited soil and, therefore, is not a type of impermissible dilution." 15 Comment: On the bottom of page 8, EPA states that when using the 90% reduction criteria, that an initial study could be done to demonstrate the 90% reduction, and then other process variables, controls and operating conditions can be used along with knowledge to support the 90% standard in lieu of testing. The ETC disagrees with the allowance for this alternative. There is nothing said in the Guidance about the degree of trial treatment required to demonstrate the correlation between 90% reduction and process variables. For example, how many trial runs are required to demonstrate the correlation between a given process condition and 90% reduction? How representative does the waste need to be during the initial study correlating process conditions and percent reduction? In order to ensure effective treatment, the initial study should be based on a worse case contaminated soil, which is spiked with the hazardous constituents at levels above the maximum level known to exist. But what if a hot spot is encountered that exceeds the concentration demonstrated during the initial study? There are too many variables and sources of uncertainty to allow use of process variables to demonstrate 90% reduction in lieu of batch testing. Instead, EPA should still require batch­ by­ batch testing, but provide flexibility by allowing use of surrogate indicator constituents. For example, if a petroleum contaminated site is under remediation, the batch­ by­ batch testing can be limited to benzene or TPH. If chlorinated contaminated soil is being treated, testing for total halogens or for the highest chlorinated constituent can be performed. This would reduce cost while ensuring that each batch achieves the 90% reduction level. Then on a periodic basis, such as monthly, a sample can be verified for all of the constituents. Response: EPA recognizes that there can be many site­ specific variables that influence the frequency of testing, thus EPA cannot specify in guidance documents or regulations rigid sampling and testing requirements. Instead, a hazardous waste treater must test their waste according to the frequency specified in the their facility­ specific Waste Analysis Plan (WAP) as required by 40 CFR 264.13 (for permitted facilities) or 40 CFR 265.13 (for interim status facilities). Comment: Section 2.3: Methods for Determining Attainment of 90% Reduction or 10xUTS. The non­ statistical approach defined in Section 2.3.1 allows for collection of a single soil sample with the critical assumptions that the soil is homogenous and that the volume of soil is "relatively small". These criteria are very subjective and weak. The Guidance should be more specific in setting a maximum volume above which the non­ statistical approach cannot be used. In addition, the non­ statistical approach could require collection of a certain number of duplicate samples (such as every 5th batch) to verify that the single sample non­ statistical approach is valid and that the soil is homogenous and the treatment is consistent. Response: Through application of the DQO Process, EPA encourages – but does not require by regulation – waste generators and treaters to strike a balance between the costs of limiting the possibility of making a waste classification error (or "decision error") and the cost of sampling and analysis by considering the consequences of a decision error. If a soil subject to the treatment determination is (1) relatively small in volume (e. g., a single drum) and (2) sampling and measurement 16 error can be minimized, then a single representative sample may provide a reasonable point estimate of the concentration of the constituent of concern in that given volume of soil, and the consequences of a decision error would not be severe due to the small quantity of soil affected. Several examples of what constitutes a "small volume" are given in the guidance; however, waste generators and treaters have an obligation to ensure that all portions of the waste meet the treatment standard. Otherwise, there is evidence that the treatment was not effective and there is noncompliance with the LDR treatment standard. EPA agrees that the term "homogeneous" is subjective, as used in the Interim Guidance document. EPA removed the phrase "relatively homogeneous" and emphasizes that the effects of heterogeneity can be controlled (i. e., sampling error can be minimized) by means of certain sampling techniques referenced in footnote 7 at the bottom of page 15. Comment: In Section 2.3.2 EPA discusses methods that can be used to determine attainment of the UTS or 10xUTS standard. The ETC supports use of a 99% Upper Confidence Limit approach to ensuring compliance with the UTS or 10xUTS standard. However, such a statistical evaluation should only be necessary if the levels measured in the soil exceed 50% of the compliance threshold. In general, if a single test shows that the treated soil is less than 50% of the compliance threshold, then no further testing should be necessary. However, if the result exceeds 50% of the threshold, then at least 3 additional samples should be taken and an upper confidence limit calculated. Then the confidence limit can be evaluated using the two bulleted criteria at the top of page 18. In the case of the second bullet, where the four samples comply but the upper confidence limit exceeds the standard, it would be prudent to collect another set of 4 samples to verify that the batch is in compliance. The results for these 4 could be combined with the first 4 to obtain a better standard deviation and thus a more accurate calculation of the upper confidence limit. As a result, it may be found that the upper confidence limit drops below the compliance threshold. Response: Waste generators and treaters have no obligation under the LDR regulations to conduct statistical sampling or to apply statistical methods to evaluate attainment of the LDR treatment standards. If a generator or treater elects to use statistical sampling to estimate the uncertainty associated with a waste classification decision, then use of an upper confidence limit on an upper percentile is one data assessment tool that could be used. (Note that a nonparametric version of the test does not require knowledge of the standard deviation). Other methods such as a test of proportions or "acceptance" sampling methods also could be used, though none of these methods are required by regulation. As noted previously, a hazardous waste treater must test their waste according to the frequency specified in the their facility­ specific Waste Analysis Plan (WAP) as required by 40 CFR 264.13 (for permitted facilities) or 40 CFR 265.13 (for interim status facilities). Comment: In Section 2.3.3 EPA describes various statistical methods that can be used to determine attainment of the 90% reduction standard. The ETC is in agreement with the various "two­ sample" statistical tests allowed to demonstrate compliance with 90% reduction. The ETC also supports the 17 two­ tiered approach, starting with the Non­ Parametric test and progressing to the second tier using either the Welch's t­ Test or the Wilcoxon Rank Sum. The only improvement warranted to this section is to require for all tiers that a minimum of 4 replicates be obtained of soil before treatment and after treatment. This would provide greater confidence that the 90% reduction standard has been achieved, no matter what statistical approach is taken. All three statistical approaches are dependent on an accurate standard deviation, and a minimum of three samples are needed to establish a reasonably accurate standard deviation. Response: EPA assumes the term "replicates" used by the commenter refers to individual field samples and not quality control samples sometimes referred to as "replicates" or "duplicates." The number of samples used in the various two­ sample tests influences the statistical "power" of the test. The power of a statistical test is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is false (a correct decision). In the context of a 90­ percent reduction determination, power is the probability of correctly deciding the standard has been attained. This measure differs from "confidence" (1 ­ "), where " is the "level of significance" or the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true. The value of ", and hence (1 ­ ") is set in advance by the planning team. Setting the number of samples to some minimum value would control "power" but would not "provide greater confidence" that the 90% reduction standard has been achieved. Aside from the technical definition of "confidence," the ability to statistically conclude that 90% reduction has been attained (when in fact it has) is indeed improved by increasing the number of samples representing each population. Note also that only Welch's t­ Test relies on estimates of the standard deviation. The other two­ sample tests (the nonparametric test of location, and the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test) do not require estimates of the standard deviation. However, a minimum of three to five samples (per population) typically is needed to perform any of the two­ sample tests given in the guidance document. Comment: Section 3. Notification, Certification and Recordkeeping Requirements. The recordkeeping requirements need to be more emphatically stated, eliminating the word "should" and replacing it with "must." This is consistent with the language in 40 CFR § 268.7. The facility or generator must have documentation to support that the alternative treatment standards were achieved including the list of constituents subject to treatment and how this was determined. The documentation at the bottom of page 27 lists data associated with the 90% reduction standard, but does not list any data for the 10xUTS alternative. All statistical calculations must also be maintained to document the degree of confidence in achieving the alternative soil treatment standards. Finally, in cases where there is no central file applicable to a given generator or facility location, then this data must be submitted to the Agency as part of a Closure, Remedial Action, Corrective Action or CERCLA response report. The appropriate treatment certification under 40 CFR § 268.7( b)( 5) must also be maintained on file and included with the Report to the Agency. 18 Response: EPA agrees that treatment data used to verify compliance with either the standard of 10 x UTS or 90­ percent reduction should be listed. EPA has modified the guidance accordingly.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.350173

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0023-0038

Supporting & Related Material

Attachment A Summary of Catalyst Reclamation and Disposal Costs Before the final listing decision: Recycling costs were $500 ­ $600 / ton with a passback based on price of metals recovered. Disposal in subtitle D landfill was $50 ­ $70 / ton. 70% of spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining was recycled. Majority was recycled because of uncertainty of future regulatory status. Refineries did not want to be liable for subtitle D landfilling of what could become hazardous waste. A significant portion of spent catalyst was handled as characteristic (ignitable) waste. After the final listing decision: Recycling costs are still $500 / $600 ton. However, metals (vanadium) market is depressed. Almost no passback to refineries. Costs for reclaimers increased slightly as a result of the final rule due to need to manage derived­ from wastes as hazardous (previously these wastes were subject to characteristic/ ignitability requirements). Most reclaimers already had subtitle C storage due to management of characteristic wastes. Disposal in Subtitle C landfill is approximately $200/ ton. A lower percentage of spent catalyst is recycled because fear of future regulation is gone, not because of any actual changes in the cost of proper waste management. And in fact, spent hydrocracking catalysts are not listed, thus providing what the refineries see as an "exclusion" from subtitle C regulation. Therefore, no hydrocracking catalysts are recycled and until our 11/ 29/ 99 memo, dual purpose catalysts were not recycled. Claims by refineries that the inclusion of spent dual purpose catalysts in scope of listing will present significant new burdens are mostly without merit, given that only two refineries have dual purpose units (Motiva in Convent, LA, BP Amoco in Texas City, TX). In economic analysis for final rule, we assumed a 5% increase in recycling costs as a result of the rule. We assumed LDR and off­ site disposal costs would be $240/ MT and $233/ MT. This is almost double what refineries claim currently to be incurring.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.374140

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0023-0039

Supporting & Related Material

1 Summary of Meeting with the Ferroalloys Association January 28, 2002 On January 28, 2002, Marianne Lamont Horinko, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and staff from the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) met with members of the Ferroalloys Association (tFA) at EPA's offices at 401 M Street SW, Washington, D. C. A list of attendees is attached. TFA members made a presentation to Ms. Horinko and EPA staff describing current regulatory barriers affecting recycling of spent catalysts from petroleum refining hydroprocessing operations. A copy of TFA's presentation is attached. Following tFA's presentation, Ms. Horinko mentioned that Agency resources available for regulatory development, particularly within the Office of Solid Waste, are scarce. Guidance to assist the regulated community in complying with current regulations and in understanding the benefits of recycling and resource conservation, although preferable under current budget constraints, may be controversial and could lead to legal petitions for judicial review. Elizabeth Cotsworth, Director of OSW, asked if members of tFA could meet with the generators of spent petroleum catalysts to negotiate a mutually beneficial agreement for managing spent catalysts. TFA members explained that achieving such an agreement may not be possible given that petroleum refineries generally make their waste management decisions based entirely upon cost. TFA members stressed that the current RCRA regulations governing spent petroleum catalysts allow these wastes to be treated and disposed in manners that are less costly than reclamation, despite the fact that the spent catalysts contain significant levels of hazardous constituents and recoverable levels of metals, primarily vanadium. TFA members pointed out that EPA may have a better chance, than tFA, of calling members of the petroleum refining industry to the table to discuss catalyst recycling opportunities. Matt Straus of OSWER asked if refineries are mislabeling or mis­ characterizing spent catalysts. TFA members said that almost all spent hydroprocessing catalysts that are landfilled are labeled K172. The LDR treatment standards for K172 do not require treatment for the presence of PAHs, while the LDR standards for K171 require that the spent catalysts be treated for the presence of PAHs. In addition, the current definitions for the ignitable and reactive hazardous waste characteristics are problematic in that there are not tests for determining when solids fit within the scope of the characteristics. Therefore, spent catalysts often are not labeled as exhibiting either characteristic and may be accepted for disposal in landfills. The tFA member pointed out that if spent catalysts were required to carry the waste codes for ignitability (D001) or reactivity (D003), landfills probably would not accept the wastes for disposal. A member of tFA pointed out that a petroleum refinery located in Louisiana has submitted a delisting petition for several categories of refinery waste, including spent catalyst that is treated to remove the oil content and then re­ designated as F037 (per 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 12)( i)). The tFA 2 member indicated that tFA is concerned that the State's review of the delisting petition may not include an analysis of the presence of sulfides in the spent catalyst waste, which could lead to the release of hazardous constituents from the waste under certain landfill conditions. Matt Hale of OSW asked if the Agency could encourage additional recycling of spent petroleum catalysts, if the Agency reduced the regulatory requirements for spent catalysts that are recycled. TFA members indicated that reduced management standards for spent catalysts that are recycled would not affect the costs associated with recycling. However, there may be some benefit to petroleum refineries of not having to label and report the waste as hazardous. James Allen, counsel to tFA asked Elizabeth Cotsworth if OSW staff would be reviewing tFA's petition requesting a review of the current LDR standards applicable to K171 and K172. Ms. Cotsworth said that OSW could only initiate such a review if the office could identify available and qualified staff to undertake the review. Ms. Cotsworth said that OSW does not have sufficient extramural resources to dedicate to a review of the petition.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.378680

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0023-0040

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.382717

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0023-0041

Supporting & Related Material

Background Document Clarifying the Scope of Petroleum Hazardous Waste Listings: Supplemental Information Regarding Petroleum Hydroprocessing Units May 2002 Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20460 Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation 11251 Roger Bacon Drive Reston, VA 20190 EPA Contract No. 68­ W­ 02­ 006, Work Assignment No. 3 SAIC Project No. 06­ 6312­ 08­ 3006­ 000 i Table of Contents Glossary and Acronyms ........................................................ iii 1. Introduction ................................................................ 1 2. Overview of Hydrotreating, Hydrorefining, and Hydrocracking Processes ................ 3 3. Ebullated Bed (Dual Purpose) Processes.......................................... 7 3.1 H­ Oil .............................................................. 7 3.2 LC­ Fining .......................................................... 13 3.3 T­ Star ............................................................. 13 3.4 Population ......................................................... 17 3.5 Conclusions ........................................................ 17 4. Mild Hydrocracking......................................................... 18 4.1 MHUG ............................................................ 19 4.2 Population ......................................................... 21 4.3 Conclusions ........................................................ 21 5. Single­ and Multi­ Stage Hydrocracking Processes ................................. 22 5.1 IFP Technology Hydrocracking ......................................... 24 5.2 MAKFining ........................................................ 25 5.3 Shell Hydrocracking Process ........................................... 27 5.4 Isocracking Technology ............................................... 27 5.5 Population ......................................................... 29 5.6 Conclusions ........................................................ 31 6. Lube Oil Processes.......................................................... 32 6.1 Hybrid ............................................................ 32 6.2 Yukong UCO Lube Process ............................................ 32 6.3 Mobil Selective Dewaxing Process ...................................... 33 6.4 Conclusions ........................................................ 33 7. Recycling Spent Catalysts .................................................... 34 7.1 Quantity Data ....................................................... 34 7.2 Cost Data .......................................................... 38 7.3 Recycling Trends Analysis ............................................. 38 8. Discussion ................................................................ 39 8.1 Characteristics of Hydroprocessing Units ................................. 39 8.2 Performance Summary of Hydroprocessing Units ........................... 40 8.3 Conclusions ........................................................ 45 9. Bibliography............................................................... 48 ii List of Tables Table 2B1. Population of U. S. Hydroprocessing Units ................................. 6 Table 3B1. Typical H­ Oil Process Operating Conditions ............................... 8 Table 3B2. H­ Oil Process Performance............................................. 9 Table 3B3. Yields and Operation for Two­ stage H­ Oil Processing of Arabian Medium Vacuum Resid ................................................................. 9 Table 3B4. H­ Oil Processing of Arabian Heavy Resid ................................ 10 Table 3B5. Typical H­ Oil Process Results ......................................... 11 Table 3B6. H­ Oil Processing of Arabian Crude: Typical Product Properties ............... 11 Table 3B7. Product Quality for H­ Oil Conversion of Arab Light/ Heavy Vacuum Residue .... 12 Table 3B8. Feedstock Inspections for Isthmus/ Maya Feed............................. 13 Table 3B9. Typical Properties of LC­ Fining Process Feedstock......................... 13 Table 3B10. Husky Oil Trial Feed Properties for T­ Star Reactor ........................ 14 Table 3B11. T­ Star Commercial Demonstration ..................................... 14 Table 3B12. T­ Star Reactor Feedstock Components and Properties ..................... 15 Table 3B13. T­ Star FCCU Feed Yields at 30 Percent Conversion ....................... 15 Table 3B14. T­ Star Reactor Feedstock Properties ................................... 16 Table 3B15. T­ Star Mild Hydrocracking Yields at 55 Percent Conversion ................ 16 Table 3B16. Summary of U. S. Refineries Using Ebullated Bed Technology ............... 17 Table 4B1. Typical Mild Hydrocracking Feedstock Characteristics...................... 19 Table 4B2. Typical Mild Hydrocracking Performances Based on Arabian Light............ 19 Table 4B3. Test Results for MHUG Application to Mild Hydrocracking of FCC Feed ....... 20 Table 4B4. Test Results of LCO Upgrading Using MHUG ............................ 21 Table 5­ 1. Single or Two­ Stage Hydrocracking Operating Conditions ................... 23 Table 5­ 2. Sulfur and Nitrogen Reduction from IFP Hydrocracking Process .............. 25 Table 5­ 3. Sulfur and Nitrogen Reduction Through MAKFining Technology ............. 26 Table 5­ 4. Typical Isocracking Catalysts .......................................... 28 Table 5­ 5. Feed and Product Data for Isocracking ................................... 29 Table 5­ 6. Chevron­ Designed Hydrocracking Plants ................................. 30 Table 5­ 7. Other Single and Multi­ Stage Hydrocracking Processes ...................... 31 Table 7­ 1. K171/ K172 Waste Generation Data in 1992/ 1999 .......................... 35 Table 7­ 2. Waste Management Data for Spent Catalyst (1992/ 1999) .................... 36 Table 7­ 3. Unit Costs for Common Management Methods ............................ 38 Table 8­ 1. Sulfur Reduction in Named Processes .................................... 41 Table 8­ 2. Nitrogen Reduction in Named Processes ................................. 42 Table 8­ 3. Metals Reduction in Named Processes ................................... 43 Table 8­ 4. Feed Conversions in Named Processes ................................... 44 List of Figures Figure 2B1. Typical Petroleum Refining Process Flow Diagram......................... 5 Figure 7B1. Waste Management Destinations for Spent Catalyst (1992 vs. 1999) .......... 37 iii Glossary and Acronyms atm Atmospheres (unit of measure for pressure) Barrel Equal to 42 gallons BPSD Barrels per Stream Day CCR Conradson Carbon Residue Co Cobalt cSt Centistokes EP End boiling point EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency FCCU Fluid catalytic cracking unit Gravity, °API Unit of measure for density of hydrocarbon fractions. A heavy liquid will have a low °API gravity. H2 Hydrogen HDN Hydrodenitrogenation HDS Hydrodesulfurization HDT Hydrotreating HDW Hydrodewaxing HVGO Heavy vacuum gas oil IP Initial boiling point K171 Spent hydrotreating catalyst from petroleum refining operations, including guard beds used to desulfurize feeds to other catalytic reactors (this listing does not include inert support material). K172 Spent hydrorefining catalyst from petroleum refining operations, including guard beds used to desulfurize feeds to other catalytic reactors (this listing does not include inert support material). LCO Light Cycle Oil LHSV Liquid hourly space velocity. This is an indication of the flow velocity through the reactor. A relatively low number indicates relatively slow movement of hydrocarbon. LPG Liquid­ Petroleum Gas MHUG Medium­ Pressure Hydro Upgrading Mo Molybdenum Naphtha A light fraction used for gasoline production Ni Nickel. A catalyst ingredient and an impurity in hydrocarbon feedstock. Nm 3 /m 3 Normal cubic meter gas per cubic meter hydrocarbon feed. Normal conditions are 0° C and 1 bar pressure. ppmw parts per million by weight PSA Department of Energy's Petroleum Supply Annual Resid The heaviest fraction from atmospheric or vacuum distillation scfb Standard cubic feet of gas per barrel hydrocarbon feed. Standard conditions are 70° F and 1 atmosphere pressure. UCO Unconverted oil iv Glossary and Acronyms (cont.) V Vanadium VGO Vacuum gas oil vol % percent by volume W Tungsten wt % percent by weight 1 U. S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, "Study of Selected Petroleum Refining Residuals, Industry Study," August 1996 (EPA530­ R­ 96­ 018). 1 1. Introduction On August 6, 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published final hazardous waste listing determinations for particular solid wastes generated at petroleum refineries (63 FR 42110). In that final rule, EPA listed spent hydrotreating catalysts (K171) and spent hydrorefining catalysts (K172) as hazardous wastes. (The final rule also included final listing determinations for several other petroleum refining wastes.) EPA took no action regarding a listing determination in the case of a third type of spent hydroprocessing catalyst, spent hydrocracking catalyst. However, the regulatory docket supporting the August 6, 1998 final rule did present available data characterizing spent hydrocracking catalysts in a Hazardous Waste Identification Study. 1 Prior to publishing its final listing determinations for particular wastes generated at petroleum refineries, EPA collected a wide variety of facility­ and waste­ specific information relative to a number of different petroleum refining processes. Information collection activities included an industry survey and waste sampling and analyses. The listing determination decisions made by EPA and published on August 6, 1998, including the Agency's decisions to list spent hydrotreating and spent hydrorefining catalysts as hazardous waste, were based upon the results of these information collection activities. In the case of some refinery wastes, including spent hydrocracking catalysts, EPA presented available data without finalizing a regulatory determination. The preamble to the August 1998 final rule provides definitions for three types of petroleum refinery hydroprocessing units from which spent catalysts may be generated and removed. The definitions are provided both to identify the two types of spent catalyst that are listed as hazardous waste and to aid in distinguishing spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts from spent hydrocracking catalysts. These definitions are based on the categories used in the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Petroleum Supply Annual (PSA) to differentiate between hydrocracking units and hydrotreating (treating/ refining) units (63 FR 42155, August 6, 1998) for the purpose of reporting refinery production capacities to DOE. By the PSA's definition, catalytic hydrotreating is: A refining process for treating petroleum fractions from atmospheric or vacuum distillation units (e. g., naphthas, middle distillates, reformer feeds, residual fuel oil, and heavy gas oil) and other petroleum (e. g., cat cracked naphtha, coker naphtha, gas oil, etc.) in the presence of catalysts and substantial quantities of hydrogen. Hydrotreating includes desulfurization, removal of substances (e. g., nitrogen compounds) that deactivate catalysts, conversion of olefins to paraffins to reduce gum formation in gasoline, and other processes to upgrade the quality of the fractions. 2 In the 1998 final rule, EPA defined catalytic hydrorefining as a refining process similar to hydrotreating that uses higher temperatures and pressures than hydrotreating. The purpose of hydrorefining is to treat heavier molecular weight petroleum fractions (hydrorefining is not defined in the PSA). EPA also adopted the PSA definition of hydrocracking in the 1998 final rule. Catalytic hydrocracking is defined by the PSA as: A refining process that uses hydrogen and catalysts with relatively low temperature and high pressures for converting middle boiling residual material to high­ octane gasoline, reformer charge stock, jet fuel, and/ or high grade fuel oil. The process uses one or more catalysts, depending upon product output, and can handle high sulfur feedstocks without prior desulfurization. Although the preamble to the 1998 final rule referred to the general definitions used by DOE for the purposes of PSA reporting, the final rule did not include unit­ or reactor­ specific definitions or regulatory determinations for specific types of catalysts. When the final rule was published, EPA lacked information about certain types of hydroprocessing reactors may serve multiple functions. The Agency subsequently received inquiries regarding the regulatory status of spent catalysts removed from "dual purpose" reactors. Dual purpose petroleum hydroprocessing reactors are reactors that conduct hydrotreating (or hydrorefining) and hydrocracking in the same reactor. In response to inquiries regarding the regulatory status of dual purpose hydroprocessing reactors, EPA issued guidance, in the form of two memoranda, clarifying that spent catalysts removed from dual purpose reactors are listed hazardous wastes. In a memorandum issued November 29, 1999, EPA stated that spent catalysts from petroleum hydroprocessing units performing hydrotreating or hydrorefining operations are listed hazardous wastes regardless of whether hydrocracking also occurs in the same reactor using a single catalyst. EPA clarified in the memorandum that the final rule defines a spent catalyst generated from a petroleum hydroprocessing reactor on the basis of the type of hydroprocessing operation in which the catalyst was used. If a spent catalyst is removed from a reactor that conducts hydrotreatment or hydrorefining, the spent catalyst is a listed hazardous waste. The memorandum further stated that refineries may not classify "dual purpose" reactors as hydrocracking reactors based solely on the fact that some hydrocracking takes place in the presence of the catalyst and then subsequently claim the spent catalyst to be non­ hazardous. In a second memorandum that was issued on June 1, 2000, EPA clarified that spent catalysts removed from hydroprocessing reactors that are designed primarily to hydrocrack previously treated petroleum feedstock, and that perform no more than minimal and incidental hydrotreatment are not listed hazardous wastes. EPA issued this second memorandum in response to concerns raised by the regulated community over the wording used in the November, 1999 memorandum. Members of the regulated community asserted that a strict reading of the November 1999 memorandum would render all spent catalysts from hydrocracking units as listed hazardous wastes due to the fact that some small amount of hydrotreating can occur in any hydrocracking reactor. As a result, the June 1, 2000 memorandum clarifies that spent catalysts from hydroprocessing reactors that perform a hydrocracking function (i. e., hydrocrack previously 2 The literature generally does not use the term hydrorefining. In general the characteristics of hydrotreating identified below are also applicable to hydrorefining. 3 treated feed) and only a minimal and incidental hydrotreating function are not within the scope of the hazardous waste listing. In two letters written in response to specific questions posed by industry, EPA clarified the regulatory status of spent catalysts removed from two different types of hydroprocessing reactors. In the November 29, 1999 Memorandum and the subsequent memorandum and letters, EPA maintained that spent catalysts removed from dual purpose hydroprocessing units are listed hazardous wastes (K171 and K172). In February 2000, API filed a lawsuit in the D. C. Circuit challenging the validity of the November 29, 1999 memorandum. API v. EPA, Docket No. 00­ 1069. In June 2001, API and EPA entered into a settlement agreement in regard to the second lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement agreement EPA published a Federal Register notice (July 5, 2001; 66 FR 35379) announcing EPA's intention to accept comment on whether to maintain, and possibly clarify, the policy expressed in the memoranda regarding the regulatory status of spent dual purpose catalysts or to change it. After reviewing public comments received on the initial notice, EPA agreed to publish a second notice in the Federal Register. This background document summarizes the results of a literature review and technical assessment identifying and characterizing petroleum hydroprocessing reactors, emphasizing dual purpose reactors. Three specific types of dual purpose reactors are identified and described. A summary of other types of petroleum hydroprocessing processes also is provided. 2. Overview of Hydrotreating, Hydrorefining, and Hydrocracking Processes The term hydroprocessing is used to denote processes by which molecules in petroleum feedstocks are split or saturated in the presence of hydrogen gas while reducing boiling ranges of and removing impurities from petroleum feedstocks. Hydroprocessing is a broad term that includes hydrocracking, hydrotreating, and hydrorefining. In addition to the terminology (presented above) that EPA used in the preamble to the 1998 final rule, the literature identifies specific characteristics for each type of process. 2 Reactions that take place during hydrotreating include the following (none greatly reduce the resulting molecular weight of the product) (Scherzer, 1996): $ Hydrodesulfurization (i. e., the conversion of organo­ sulfur compounds to H2 S and similar weight organic compounds). $ Hydrodenitrogenation (i. e., the conversion of organo­ nitrogen compounds to NH3 and similar weight organic compounds). $ Hydrodemetallation (i. e., the precipitation of metal on catalyst in sulfide form). $ Hydrodeoxygenation (i. e., the removal of ­OH from molecule). $ Olefin hydrogenation (i. e., the hydrogenation of olefins to aliphatic compounds). 4 The PSA definition of hydrotreating (as cited in the preamble of EPA's August 1998 final rule) identifies sulfur, nitrogen, and other impurity removal as characteristics relevant to hydrotreating units. As a result, data on sulfur, nitrogen, and metals feed concentrations, and reactor­ specific removal efficiencies, are presented in the following sections as available; such data are generally presented near the top of tables. However, other characteristics of hydrotreating units identified from the PSA definition (e. g., olefin conversion) generally were found not to be well documented in the open literature, and therefore generally do not appear in the tables provided below. Reactions that take place during hydrocracking include the following (Scherzer, 1996): $ Monoaromatics hydrogenation (i. e., hydrogenation of phenyl rings). $ Hydrodealkylation (i. e., the separation of aliphatic chain from phenyl ring). $ Hydrodecyclization (i. e., breaking of saturated ring compounds). $ Isomerization of paraffins (i. e., molecular rearrangement of aliphatic compounds). Polyaromatics hydrogenation (i. e., the saturation of polycyclic aromatic compounds) takes place during both hydrocracking and hydrotreating). Figure 2­ 1 presents a flow diagram of a refinery; this diagram is intended to show approximately where hydroprocessing occurs in a refinery. Streams that undergo hydroprocessing include resid, naphtha, diesel, and lube oil. 5 Crude Unit Atmospheric Distillation Vacuum Distillation HydroTreating Naphtha Reforming C 1 To C 4 Reformate HydroTreating Alkylation Alkylate Diesel and Jet Fuel FCC Feed HydroRefining Hvy Atm Gas Oil Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Gasoline Fuel Oil Lt Vac Gas Oil Hvy VGO Resid Thermal Processing Fuel Gas and Coker Gasoline Coke Sulfur Complex Sulfur Hydrogen Sulfide­ containing Gas Hydrocracking Figure 2­ 1. Typical Petroleum Refining Process Flow Diagram The different types of streams that can undergo hydroprocessing range from heavy feedstocks of resid and vacuum gas oil to lighter feedstocks of naphtha and distillate. Naphtha, or gasoline, is hydroprocessed to remove contaminants such as sulfur, which is harmful to downstream operations (such as precious metal reforming catalyst). Diesel hydroprocessing removes sulfur to meet fuel requirements, and saturates aromatics. The purpose of resid and VGO hydroprocessing is to remove metals, sulfur, and nitrogen (e. g., hydrotreating), as well as to convert high molecular weight hydrocarbons into lower molecular weight hydrocarbons (e. g., hydrocracking). Several different types of heavy end hydroprocessing include hydrotreating, mild hydrocracking, high pressure hydrocracking, and medium pressure hydrocracking; all can be used with essentially similar feeds but with major differences in product quality. Mild hydrocracking operates at relatively low pressure (30B60 atm) to achieve partial conversion of feedstocks (i. e., where the majority of the feed is not converted to lighter components). High pressure hydrocracking achieves high conversion of pretreated feeds (90 to 100 percent) using a combination of catalysts at high pressure (100 to 130 atm). As the name suggests, medium 6 pressure hydrocracking has operating parameters and product characteristics between mild and high pressure hydrocracking (Marion, 1998). Data regarding the prevalency of hydroprocessing operations in U. S. refineries are provided in Table 2­ 1. Table 2B1. Population of U. S. Hydroprocessing Units Process Type Total Capacity, BPSD No. of Refineries with Process 2 Heavy Gas Oil Hydrotreating 2,316,160 54 Naphtha Reformer Feed Hydrotreating 4,276,664 120 Distillate Hydrotreating 3,942,220 101 Other/ Residual Hydrotreating 904,660 41 Hydrocracking 1,575,800 42 Total U. S. Distillation 1 17,393,070 158 Source: U. S. Department of Energy, 2000. Data do not include Puerto Rico and U. S. Virgin Islands. 1. Presented for context; includes refineries with and without hydroprocessing capacity. 2. A single refinery may have more than one unit within each process type. Petroleum hydroprocessing reactors use catalysts to assist with chemical reactions necessary to remove sulfur and metals from feedstocks and reduce the boiling range of the feed. Amorphous and zeolite­ based catalysts generally are used in hydrocracking reactors. The zeolitebased catalysts are high activity catalysts with high ammonia tolerance, and offer higher gasoline selectivity than do amorphous catalysts. Zeolites are microporous, crystalline aluminosilicates with ion exchange, sorption, and molecular sieving properties. Most zeolites are synthesized from a mixture of silica and alumina sources and caustic. Active catalysts are obtained by modifying the synthesized zeolite with ionic exchange and thermal or chemical treatment. High zeolite content catalysts rely primarily on the zeolite for their hydrocracking function. In low zeolite content catalysts, both the zeolite and acidic amorphous content are responsible for the cracking activity. Zeolite­ based hydrocracking catalysts have certain advantages over amorphous catalysts such as greater acidity which results in greater cracking activity. They also possess better thermal/ hydrothermal stability, naphtha selectivity, and resistance to nitrogen and sulfur compounds than amorphous catalysts. In addition to these advantages, the zeolite­ based catalysts also have a low coke­ forming tendency and can be more easily regenerated (Scherzer, 1996, p. 15). Catalysts used in hydrotreating reactors include cobalt and molybdenum oxides on alumina, nickel oxide, nickel thiomolybdate, tungsten and nickel sulfides, and vanadium oxide. Cobalt­ molybdenum and nickel­ molybdenum are the most commonly used catalysts for hydrotreating. Both types of catalyst remove sulfur, nitrogen and other contaminants from 7 petroleum feed. Cobalt­ molybdenum catalysts, however, are selective for sulfur removal, while nickel­ molybdenum catalysts are selective for nitrogen removal. (Gary, 1994, p. 189) Initial, or "guard," reactors can be placed in front of hydrocracking reactors to remove contaminants, particularly metals, prior to hydrocracking. Guard reactors may employ a very inexpensive catalyst (five percent of the cost of CoMo catalyst) to remove metals from expanded bed feed. Spent demetallization catalyst can be loaded to more than 30 percent vanadium. A catalyst support having large pores preferentially demetallizes with a low degree of desulfurization. The opposite is true of catalyst supports having small pores (McKetta, 1992, p. 688­ 689). 3. Ebullated Bed (Dual Purpose) Processes Catalyst beds within petroleum hydroprocessing units may be fixed or moving. Most hydroprocessing reactors are fixed­ bed reactors. Hydroprocessing units with fixed­ bed reactors must be shut down to remove the spent catalyst when catalyst activity declines below an acceptable level (due to the accumulation of coke, metals, and other contaminants). There are a few types of hydroprocessing reactors with moving, or ebullating catalyst beds. In ebullated bed hydroprocessing, the catalyst within the reactor bed is not fixed. In such a process, the hydrocarbon feed stream enters the bottom of the reactor and flows upward through the catalyst; the catalyst is kept in suspension by the pressure of the fluid feed. Ebullating bed reactors are capable of converting the most problematic feeds, such as atmospheric resids, vacuum resids, and heavy oils (all of which have a high content of asphaltenes, metals, sulfur, and sediments) to lighter, more valuable products while simultaneously removing contaminants. The function of the catalyst is to remove contaminants such as sulfur and nitrogen heteroatoms, which accelerate the deactivation of the catalyst, while cracking (converting) the feed to lighter products. Because ebullating bed reactors perform both hydrotreating and hydrocracking functions, EPA also refers to them as dual purpose reactors. Ebullating bed catalysts are made of pellets that are less than one millimeter in size to facilitate suspension by the liquid phase in the reactor (Generalizations from: Scherzer, 1996; Gary, 1994; Colyar, 1997). Licensed ebullating bed processes include: $ LC­ Fining. Licensed by ABB Lummus Global Inc., Oxy Research and Development Co., and BP Amoco Corporation. $ H­ Oil. Licensed by IFP North America and Texaco. $ T­ Star. Licensed by IFP North America and Texaco. LC­ Fining and H­ Oil both use similar technologies but offer different mechanical designs. 3.1 H­ Oil H­ Oil is used to convert resid and heavy oils to upgraded petroleum products such as LPG, gasoline, middle distillates, gas oil, and desulfurized fuel oil. Stable operation is achieved through a high operating pressure which ensures a sufficient reactor outlet hydrogen partial 8 pressure. Typical operating conditions for the H­ Oil process are shown in Table 3B1 (Colyar, 1997). Table 3B1. Typical H­ Oil Process Operating Conditions Parameter Value Temperature, °C 415B440 Pressure, atm 168B207 LHSV, h ­1 0.4B1.3 Catalyst Replacement Rate, kg/ ton feed 1 0.3B2.0 Single Train Throughput, bpsd up to 34,000 Source: Colyar, 1997. 1. For a 40,000 BPSD design, this removal rate results in the generation of 2 to 13 tons of spent catalyst per day. Tables 3­ 2 and 3­ 3 present performance data for H­ Oil operation. Typical process performances for two different catalysts are shown in Table 3B2 for two­ stage operation (in twostage operation, two H­ Oil reactors are used in series). Other catalysts are available, for example a different second generation catalyst achieving conversions greater than 80 percent (Colyar, 1997). Table 3B2 shows that sulfur, nitrogen, and metals are reduced between the feed and the product (up to 92 percent for sulfur, 50 percent for nitrogen, and 90 percent for metals), and that conversion up to 90 percent is achieved. The H­ Oil reactor is flexible in that it can handle feedstock with either high or low metals concentrations, although it is particularly efficient in treating and cracking heavier feedstocks (e. g., vacuum resid). Table 3­ 3 shows intermediate product yields from two­ stage H­ Oil processing of vacuum resid from Arabian Medium crude at two conversion rates, 65 percent and 90 percent (Hydrocarbon Processing, 1998). Although typical nickel and vanadium concentrations of Arabian Medium crude are not particularly high (9.5 and 46 ppm, respectively; Environment Technology Center, 2000), the vacuum resid derived from the crude will have higher concentrations of these metals because metal compounds accumulate in the heavier fractions. The H­ Oil reactor is designed particularly for the processing of these heavier fractions. Table 3­ 3 also shows the high desulfurization rates that can be achieved in an H­ Oil reactor. 9 Table 3B2. H­ Oil Process Performance Parameter Results 1 st Generation Catalyst 2 nd Generation Catalyst Hydrodesulfurization, wt% 55B80 75B92 Nitrogen Removal, wt% 25B35 30B50 Metals Removal, wt% 65B90 (similar for each) Residue Conversion, vol% 45B90 45B85 CCR Conversion, wt% 45B65 65B75 H2 Consumption, Nm 3 /m 3 130B300 (similar for each) Source: Colyar, 1997. The 1 st Generation catalyst is the standard catalyst. The 2 nd Generation Catalyst is a new catalyst available for the H­ Oil Process which is claimed to result in higher process performance and improved product quality affecting both the H­ Oil distillates and unconverted residue. Table 3B3. Yields and Operation for Two­ stage H­ Oil Processing of Arabian Medium Vacuum Resid Parameter Product Results 65 % Conversion 90 % Conversion Removal Rates Desulfurization, wt % removal 91 84 CCR Conversion, wt % removal 69 82 Yields H2 S & NH3 , wt % 5.6 5.1 C1 to C3 , wt % 3.1 6.7 C4 to 221° C, vol % 17.6 23.8 205° C to 371° C, vol % 22.1 36.5 371° C to 566° C, vol % 34.0 37.1 566 °C + , vol % 33.2 9.5 Operating Parameters H2 consumption, scfb 1,410 1,860 Source: Hydrocarbon Processing, 1998. 10 Table 3B4 summarizes the feed properties and operating data for the H­ Oil processing of vacuum resid derived from Arabian Heavy crude at two different conversion rates, 65 percent and 85 percent conversion. Again, the heaviest feedstocks (e. g., vacuum resids) generally are found to contain the highest concentration of metals (Nongbri, 1992). The following conclusions are evident from Table 3­ 4: $ High levels of sulfur and nitrogen removal (90 percent and 66 percent, respectively), similar to the previous table. $ High levels of nickel and vanadium removal (81 percent and 91 percent, respectively). $ High, but not complete, conversion (up to 85 percent). $ Higher conversions of the feedstock result in slightly lower levels of desulfurization and metal removal. Table 3B4. H­ Oil Processing of Arabian Heavy Resid Parameter Feed Properties Reduction (%) in Product 65% Conversion 85% Conversion Sulfur, wt% 6.00 90.1 88.0 Nitrogen, ppmw 4,800 57.3 65.7 Nickel, ppmw 64 81.2 78.4 Vanadium, ppmw 205 91.4 88.4 538° C+, vol% 95.0 65.0 85.0 CCR, wt% 27.7 69.3 75.3 Hydrogen, wt% 9.86 C C Gravity, °API 3.0 C C Carbon, wt% 83.63 C C Hydrogen Consumption, scfb 1,550 2,440 Number of Stages 2 2 Source: Nongbri, 1992. Tables 3­ 5 and 3­ 6 present sulfur content data for products resulting from the H­ Oil process. Table 3­ 5 presents data from a Russian vacuum resid for a two­ stage H­ Oil process (where the two reactors are in series), operating at 68 volume percent conversion (Colyar, 1997). Table 3B6 presents typical product qualities obtained from a Heavy Arabian crude using the HOil process (Scherzer, 1996). Colyar (1997) identified the H­ Oil process as demonstrating good selectivity to middle distillates and vacuum gas oil. Higher conversion rates show an increase in the selectivity towards lighter products including light gases. The unconverted resid can be used 11 as feed to a resid FCC Unit, or for other uses. Both tables demonstrate that the sulfur content of the products decrease as the products become `lighter. ' Additionally, the data in Table 3­ 6 show that the sulfur content of all products (including the heaviest) exiting the H­ Oil unit are less than the concentration in the crude oil (note that the sulfur content of the actual feed to the H­ Oil is most likely even greater than the sulfur content of the crude, because the feed to the unit is heavier than the crude). Table 3B5. Typical H­ Oil Process Results Fraction Yield, wt% Yield, vol% Sulfur, % C1BC4 C5B180° C 180B370° C 370B538° C 538° C 3.5 6.3 25.5 33.9 28.8 C 8.7 29.8 36.3 28.9 C < 0.01 0.05 0.21 0.91 Source: Colyar, 1997. Two­ stage H­ Oil process using vacuum resid as feed, operating at 68 volume percent conversion. Table 3B6. H­ Oil Processing of Arabian Crude: Typical Product Properties Fraction/ Property Virgin Crude H­ Oil Products Naphtha Middle distillate Vacuum gas oil Sulfur, wt % 2.7 0.06B0.15 0.26B0.59 0.71B1.55 Gravity, °API 22.5 62.0B62.2 34.4B34.5 16.4B19.8 Source: Scherzer, 1996. Table 14.10. Low conversion 70%. High conversion 90%. Tables 3­ 7 and 3­ 8 present data regarding the metals content of feedstock to the H­ Oil process. Nickel and vanadium are the two metals most often presented in the literature as typical feed contaminants. These two metals generally appear at higher concentrations than other metals in crude oil and can have deleterious effects on certain catalysts and fuel products. Table 3­ 7 compares the products obtained from two different conversion rates, 65 volume percent and 85 volume percent, for a vacuum residue (38,000 bpsd of a nominal 565° C vacuum residue was processed). The feedstock is Arab Light/ Heavy vacuum residue obtained from a 50/ 50 blend of Arabian Light and Heavy crudes, and is a standard for many company studies. The H­ Oil process consisted of a single train with two H­ Oil reactors in series. Table 3B7 illustrates the feed characteristics and product quality as a measure of sulfur content (Wisdom, 1997). Table 3B7 shows that the sulfur content of products exiting the H­ Oil reactor is less than the sulfur content of the feed. However, there is a tradeoff between conversion and sulfur content: a higher conversion results in lower sulfur removal (i. e., greater sulfur concentrations reside in the products as conversion increases). The relatively high nickel and vanadium feed concentration is demonstrative of the H­ Oil unit's capability to process feeds with high metal concentrations. 12 Table 3­ 8 presents characteristics of a vacuum resid (nominal 565° C) derived from a 60/ 40 blend of Isthmus and Maya crude processed in an H­ Oil reactor (Wisdom, 1997). As above, the H­ Oil process to which the vacuum resid was fed consisted of a single train with two H­ Oil reactors in series operated at 38,000 bpsd. The feed had a sulfur content of 4.71 percent and a metals concentration of 707 ppmw. Other feed properties are identified in Table 3B8. The H­ Oil product fractionator bottoms (expected to have the highest sulfur content of any fraction) had a sulfur content of 1.0 percent at moderate conversion (65 volume percent) and a sulfur content of 1.5 percent at high conversion (85 volume percent). These results demonstrate the treatment capability of the H­ Oil reactor. As in the previous table, the high metal concentration of the feed is indicative of the H­ Oil unit's processing capabilities. Table 3B7. Product Quality for H­ Oil Conversion of Arab Light/ Heavy Vacuum Residue Parameter Value Feed Sulfur, wt% 5.33 Nickel + Vanadium, ppmw 221 Gravity, °API 4.7 CCR, wt% 24.6 Sulfur Content of Products, wt% Naphtha (moderately high conversion) 0.02 Mid­ distillate (moderate conversion) 0.90 Mid­ distillate (high conversion) 0.20 Vacuum Gas Oil (moderate conversion) 0.23 Vacuum Gas Oil (high conversion) 1.04 Source: Wisdom, 1997. Moderate conversion: 65%; High conversion: 85%. 13 Table 3B8. Feedstock Inspections for Isthmus/ Maya Feed Parameter Value Sulfur, wt% 4.71 Nickel + Vanadium, ppmw 707 Specific Gravity 1.06 Gravity, °API 1.5 CCR, wt% 27.8 Source: Wisdom, 1997. 3.2 LC­ Fining The LC­ Fining ebullated bed process can achieve desulfurization, demetallization, CCR reduction, and hydrocracking of atmospheric and vacuum resids. This process yields a full range of high quality distillates; heavy residuals can be used as fuel oil, synthetic crude, or feedstock for a resid FCC, coker, visbreaker or solvent deasphalter. Operating conditions for the LCFining process include reactor temperatures of 385° C to 450° C and H2 partial pressure of 68 to 184 atm. These can be compared to the H­ Oil operating conditions in Table 3B1. The LC­ Fining process can achieve conversion of 40 to 97 percent (or more), desulfurization of 60 to 90 percent, demetallization of 50 to 98 percent, and CCR reduction of 35 to 80 percent. Table 3B9 illustrates typical properties of Arabian Heavy/ Arabian Light blends fed to the LC­ Fining Process (Hydrocarbon Processing, 1998). Table 3B9. Typical Properties of LC­ Fining Process Feedstock Parameter Value Atm. Resid Vac. Resid Sulfur, wt % 3.90 4.97 Ni/ V, ppmw 18/ 65 39/ 142 Gravity,° API 12.40 4.73 Source: Hydrocarbon Processing, 1998. Blend of Arabian heavy and light. 3.3 T­ Star The T­ Star process is a third ebullated bed process. T­ Star units can maintain conversions in the range of 20 to 60 percent and hydrodesulfurization in the 93 to 99 percent range for four­ year run lengths (Hydrocarbon Processing, 2000). The unit can act as either an FCCU pretreater or VGO hydrocracker. H­ Oil catalyst can be used in the T­ Star process. A TStar reactor can also be placed in­ line with an H­ Oil reactor to improve the quality of H­ Oil 14 distillate products such as virgin distillates, FCCU light or heavy cycle gas oil, and coker gas oils. In mild hydrocracking mode, the T­ Star process can reach conversions up to the 60 volume percent range. An advantage of operating the T­ Star unit in mild hydrocracking mode is that the T­ Star catalyst is not sensitive to sulfur and nitrogen levels in the feed and will provide constant conversion, product yields, and product quality. This consistency in output is due to the reactor catalyst being replaced while the unit remains on­ line. A commercial scale demonstration of the T­ Star Process in conjunction with the startup of H­ Oil units was done as a joint venture between Husky Oil, Canada and HRI (HRI currently is IFP). The feed properties and process performance for the T­ Star process are shown in Tables 3B10 and 3B11 (Johns, 1993). Table 3­ 10 shows that high levels of sulfur and nitrogen may be present in the feed to the T­ Star unit. Table 3­ 11 shows that high percentages of sulfur and nitrogen are removed from the products as a result of T­ Star processing. Table 3B10. Husky Oil Trial Feed Properties for T­ Star Reactor Parameter Value Sulfur, wt% 2.8 Nitrogen, ppmw 1,328 Carbon Residue, wt% 0.21 Source: Johns, 1993. Table 3B11. T­ Star Commercial Demonstration Parameter Results Hydrodesulfurization, wt % 91.7 Nitrogen removal, wt % 80.0 343° C+ Net Conversion, vol% 1 9 Hydrogen Consumption, scfb 642 Source: Johns, 1993. 1. Examples of products lighter than 343° C include light naphtha, heavy naphtha, and light gas oil. An example of a product heavier than 343° C is heavy gas oil. Tables 3­ 12 and 3­ 13 show, respectively, the properties of a feedstock processed in the TStar process and the resulting product qualities. The T­ Star process was operated at a conversion rate of 30 percent and was used to produce FCC unit feed from a single stage operation using a single catalyst system under moderate pressure levels (Nongbri, 1996). The predominant 15 feedstock was vacuum gas oil that was not treated prior to being fed to the T­ Star reactor. Table 3­ 12 shows that, in this case, the sulfur and nitrogen levels of the feed are relatively high. Table 3­ 13 shows that the sulfur and nitrogen levels of the products (including the heaviest products) are lower than the feed levels as a result of T­ Star processing. Table 3B12. T­ Star Reactor Feedstock Components and Properties Parameter Value Sulfur, wt % 1.93 Total Nitrogen, ppmw 1820 Nickel, ppmw 1.6 Vanadium, ppmw 4.4 Watson Aromatics, wt % 61.7 Gravity, °API 23.7 182° C and lighter, wt % 182B360° C, wt % 360° C+, wt % 4.0 23.4 72.6 Feed components: Virgin Vacuum Gas Oil (71%), Coker Light Gas Oil (9%), Aromatic Extracts (9%), Coker Heavy Gas Oil (6%), and Heavy Coker Naphtha (5%) Source: Nongbri, 1996. Table 3B13. T­ Star FCCU Feed Yields at 30 Percent Conversion Feed or Product Fraction Gravity, °API Sulfur, wt % Nitrogen, ppmw Feed property (from previous table) 23.7 1.93 1,820 Product Fraction H2 S and NH3 C1 B C4 C5 B 65° C 65 B 170° C 170 B 360° C 360° C + C C 85.6 59.0 33.7 25.5 C C 0.007 0.007 0.009 0.100 C C C 3 46 766 Overall Reduction Rate C 97 wt% reduction 78 wt% reduction Source: Nongbri, 1996. Hydrogen consumption is 700 SCFB. Tables 3­ 14 and 3­ 15 present data for the T­ Star process operating in mild hydrocracking mode using a single stage operation and a single catalyst system under moderate pressure levels 16 (Nongbri, 1996). The T­ Star process was operated at a conversion rate of 55 percent; Table 3­ 14 shows that, in this case, the predominant feedstock was vacuum gas oil without any type of prior processing; as a result the sulfur and nitrogen levels of the feed are relatively high. Table 3­ 15 shows that the sulfur and nitrogen levels of the products (including the heaviest products) are lower than the feed levels as a result of T­ Star processing. Tables 3­ 12 to 3­ 15 show that desulfurization was in excess of 97 percent for each operation of the T­ Star reactor. For the two operations identified, denitrogenation was 78 percent in the first case and 94 percent in the second (Nongbri, 1996). Table 3B14. T­ Star Reactor Feedstock Properties Parameter Value Gravity, °API Sulfur, wt % Total Nitrogen, ppmw Watson Aromatics, wt % Nickel, ppmw Vanadium, ppmw 182° C and lighter, wt % 182B360 °C, wt % 360° C+, wt % 23.5 2.10 819 54.2 <5 <5 0 29.0 71.0 Feed components: Virgin Vacuum gas Oil (75%), Light Cycle Oil (13%), Virgin Diesel (12%) Source: Nongbri, 1996. Table 3B15. T­ Star Mild Hydrocracking Yields at 55 Percent Conversion Feed or Product Gravity, °API Sulfur, wt % Nitrogen, ppmw Feed property (from previous table) 23.5 2.10 819 Product Fraction H2 S and NH3 C1 B C4 C5 B 65° C 65 B 170° C 170 B 360° C 360° C+ C C 90.0 57.5 35.0 32.2 C C 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.08 C C 1 4 30 90 Overall Reduction Rate C 98 wt% reduction 94 wt% reduction Source: Nongbri, 1996. Hydrogen consumption is 922 scfb. 17 3.4 Population EPA is aware of two facilities in the U. S. that use ebullated bed technologies. These facilities are identified in Table 3B16. The two facilities were identified in an evaluation of data collected for EPA's 1992 petroleum refining survey. The data in Table 3B16 do not include facilities which may have constructed new units after 1992 (the year for which EPA's data were collected), or which were otherwise not identified from EPA's data. Table 3B16. Summary of U. S. Refineries Using Ebullated Bed Technology Refinery Name Licensor and Name of Hydroprocessing Unit Capacity, BPSD Catalyst Type BP Amoco, Texas City TX C. E. Lummus LC­ Fining 75,000 No data Motiva, Convent LA Texaco H­ Oil 40,158 Ni/ Mo Source: Non­ CBI data from the database developed from the 1992 EPA petroleum refining solid waste survey. 3.5 Conclusions Based on the data presented in this section, the following conclusions are evident regarding ebullated bed processes: $ There are three different licensed ebullated bed processes: H­ Oil, LC­ Fining, and T­ Star. In each of these processes, the ebullated bed operates so that there is constant withdrawal and replacement of the catalyst. $ Ebullated bed processes use very heavy feeds such as vacuum gas oil or vacuum residue. Such feeds have correspondingly elevated sulfur, nitrogen, and metals content (i. e., compared to other crude oil distillation cuts). The feeds are not pretreated prior to the ebullated bed process. $ Ebullating bed processes yield high product conversions, however the conversion is not 100 percent. $ High sulfur reduction is seen in all products. Nitrogen is also significantly reduced, but to a lesser degree than the sulfur. $ The process can accept feedstocks with elevated metals content (e. g., up to 700 ppm in one case); the metals content of each product is less than the feed concentration indicating that the unit is hydrotreating the feed. 18 4. Mild Hydrocracking The purpose of mild hydrocracking is to convert vacuum gas oil to low sulfur distillates at operating conditions consistent with those for hydrotreating equipment. Full conversion of the feedstock does not occur in the mild hydrocracking process. Typically the process yields conversions of 20 to 60 percent (Marion, 1998). The products obtained through mild hydrocracking are high quality, low sulfur/ nitrogen diesel and unconverted VGO fractions. The VGO fraction is desirable as FCC feedstock due to its high hydrogen content and reduced sulfur and nitrogen levels. The product properties of the fractions depends on the feedstock characteristics and the process operating conditions (Johns, 1996). Most often, mild hydrocracking units are re­ designs of existing hydrotreating VGO process units. The process employs a single reactor and operates on a once­ through basis, designed to partially convert the VGO into low­ sulfur naphtha or distillate. The feed to a mild hydrocracking unit is mostly vacuum gas oil but can also be other heavy feedstock (Scherzer, 1996). Catalysts used in this type of unit are multi­ purpose in that they perform the hydrotreating functions of desulfurization and denitrogenation but also convert the heavy fuel oil molecules into lighter mid­ distillates (Desai, undated). The catalysts are mildly acidic, usually consisting of cobalt or nickel oxide combined with molybdenum or tungsten oxide, supported on amorphous silica­ alumina or mildly acidic zeolite (Scherzer, 1996). The process operates under temperature conditions of 350B440° C and pressures of 30B100 atm (Scherzer, 1996). The hydrogen partial pressure has the greatest effect on the mild hydrocracking process. Higher pressures result in higher reaction rates and increased catalyst stability. Lower pressures facilitate deactivation of the catalyst due to the fact that the reactive coke precursors are not hydrogenated quickly enough to prevent coke formation on the catalyst. Reactor pressure cannot always be controlled, however. Instead, it is dependent on the available pressure of the hydrogen gas, which would otherwise require installation of costly compressors to increase pressure. To compensate for varying pressures, the reactor temperature can be adjusted to achieve similar results (Johns, 1996). Table 4B1 shows typical feed properties for a mild hydrocracking process. The metal concentration of less than 20 ppmw is significantly less than the typical metal concentration of an ebullating bed feedstock. The sulfur and nitrogen levels, however, are elevated. Table 4B2 shows typical unit performance and product yields and qualities of mild hydrocracking operated at 30 percent conversion (Marion, 1998). Table 4B2 shows high desulfurization rates for all products, including the heaviest fractions. 19 Table 4B1. Typical Mild Hydrocracking Feedstock Characteristics Parameter 1 Value Gravity, °API 22.1 S (wt %) 2.7 N (ppmw) 800 Nickel (ppm) 2 2.5 Vanadium (ppm) 2 16 Boiling Point at 5 wt%, °C 370 Boiling Point at 50 wt%, °C 460 Boiling Point at 95 wt%, °C 550 Source: Marion, 1998 unless otherwise indicated. 1. Properties of vacuum gas oil (370 to 550° C) derived from Arabian light crude. 2. Source: Environment Technology Center 1996B2000. Table 4B2. Typical Mild Hydrocracking Performances Based on Arabian Light Fraction Yield S, ppmw Gravity °API Polyaromatics, wt % Wt % Vol % Feed property (from previous table) C C27,000 22.1 C H2S + NH3 2.85 C CC C C1 B C4 0.70 C CC C Naphtha 1.75 2.09 C C C Diesel 25.23 26.71 300 C <11 VGO Product 70.27 72.31 <1000 26.6 C TOTAL 100.80 101.78 C C C Source: Marion, 1998, p. 52. Two year cycle length. Overall conversion: 30 wt %. 4.1 MHUG One mild hydrocracking processes is called MHUG (Medium­ Pressure Hydro Upgrading) technology. It is presented by Technip Benelux in alliance with RIPP/ Sinopec. The MHUG process uses medium­ pressure, single­ stage, once­ through technology to produce low­ sulfur, low­ aromatics diesel or naphtha reformer feed. Feedstocks can range from light diesel­ range feedstocks to heavy vacuum gas oil boiling­ range fractions. This process operates at a pressure below 100 atm, has low operating temperatures and hydrogen consumption, and has a long 20 catalyst cycle time. This process has been used to revamp existing processes and has also been installed as a grassroots process (Chen, 1999). The process is designed such that two catalysts are placed in series within a single reactor. The first catalyst (designated RN by the licensor) is a hydrotreating catalyst, while the second (designated RT by the licensor) is a mild hydrocracking catalyst. Both have Ni­ W as an active component. The RN series catalysts are identified as having strong hydrodenitrification, hydrodesulfurization, and hydrodearomatisation functions. The RT series catalysts are designed to promote the partial saturation of polynuclear aromatics, the ring opening of naphthenic aromatics, and the ring opening of naphthenes (Chen, 1999). Mild hydrocracking maintains the hydrotreating advantage of sulfur reduction while achieving significant conversion of the feed. Table 4B3 shows the pilot­ plant test results for the mild hydrocracking of an FCC feedstock vacuum gas oil derived from a naphthenic type of crude oil at a conversion rate of 35 percent (Chen, 1999). The table demonstrates high rates of desulfurization and denitrogenation in each of the products. Table 4B3. Test Results for MHUG Application to Mild Hydrocracking of FCC Feed Parameter Value in Feed Value in Product Naphtha Diesel Hydroconverted oil Yield, wt % C 7.15 26.81 64.51 Sulfur, ppmw 10,000 16 19 9 Nitrogen, ppmw 2,400 <0.5 <0.5 6 Initial boiling point, °C 251 C 180 C 50% Boiling Point, °C 447 C CC Final boiling point, °C 503 C 350 C Aromatics, wt % 39.3 56.3 (potential) C 16.9 Hydrogen content, wt % C CC13.34 Source: Chen, 1999. The MHUG process also can be used to upgrade light cycle oil (a lighter fraction than VGO) to low sulfur, low aromatics diesel fuel. The hydrodearomatisation function of the catalyst makes it an ideal process for upgrading LCO to a premium diesel component. This mode of operation typically operates under hydrogen partial pressures of around 65 atm and temperatures in the range of 350 to 365° C. If diesel is the desired product, a diesel yield of 95 percent is typical under these operating conditions. Table 4B4 illustrates the pilot plant test results for MHUG application to upgrade LCO (Chen, 1999). Table 4­ 4 identifies significant reductions in sulfur content, nitrogen content, and aromatics content from the feed to the diesel product. 21 Table 4B4. Test Results of LCO Upgrading Using MHUG Parameter Value in Feed Value in Product Naphtha Diesel Yield, wt % C 7.0 93.0 Sulfur, ppmw 10,400 C 16 Nitrogen, ppmw 446 <0.5 1.4 Aromatics, vol % 48.2 C 17.8 Cetane Index 39.0 C 52.0 Initial Boiling Point, °C 203 C C 50% Boiling Point, °C 279 C C Final Boiling Point, °C 360 C C Source: Chen, 1999. 4.2 Population From the information collected, it was not possible to estimate the population of mild hydrocracking facilities within the United States. Mild hydrocracking units are often re­ designs of existing VGO hydrotreating process units; it is difficult to identify refineries who have conducted such changes. 4.3 Conclusions Based on the above information, the following conclusions are reached regarding mild hydrocracking processes: $ Mild hydrocracking processes use heavy feeds such as vacuum gas oil. Mild hydrocracking does not accept the heaviest refinery feeds such as those used for some ebullated bed processes. The feeds are not pretreated prior to the mild hydrocracking process. $ Facilities will often `retrofit' an existing reactor to mild hydrocracking mode. For this reason it is difficult to estimate the population of facilities operating mild hydrocracking units. $ The process employs a single fixed bed reactor and operates on a once­ through basis. 22 $ Mild hydrocracking bed processes yield product conversions much lower than100 percent. The heaviest product is used for FCC feed, fuel oil, etc. $ Mild hydrocracking reduces the sulfur and nitrogen heteroatom concentrations in all products. Reductions in aromatic content also were noted when mild hydrocracking was used for diesel fuel upgrading (Table 4­ 4). $ Limited data are available describing reductions in metals content achieved via mild hydrocracking processes. The data available indicate that feedstocks for mild hydrocracking processes generally have relatively low metals content. For example, the Arabian light crude from Table 4B1 has a total metals content of only 20 ppm. Data are insufficient to determine whether feedstocks with higher metals contents can be successfully processed, or if the metals in the feedstocks are deposited on the catalyst or "pass through" to the products. No data on metals removal percentages, or the metals content of products, were identified. 5. Single­ and Multi­ Stage Hydrocracking Processes Several licensors provide staged hydrocracking technologies. Hydrocracking is typically classified as single­ stage or two­ stage unit operations. While nomenclature and design objectives differ for each licensor and application, several similarities are evident. These include the following: $ Catalysts are present within a fixed bed reactor, or series of reactors. $ Heavy feeds, such as vacuum gas oil, are typically processed. $ Lighter, more valuable products such as naphtha, jet fuel, and distillate are produced. $ Some or all of the heaviest product can be recycled to the reactors. $ Objectives typically include sulfur/ nitrogen removal and conversion to lighter fuels. Such objectives often require the use of different types of catalysts at different points in the process. In single­ stage processing, one or more reactors are used. If one reactor is used, multiple catalysts can still be employed by using a stacked bed arrangement of different catalysts. Heavy hydrocarbon and hydrogen is fed to the first reactor that generates hydrogen sulfide and ammonia gases as a result of hydrodesulfurization and hydrodenitrification reactions. However there is no separation of products between the first and second reactors, so that the second reactor receives the gases and light products generated from the first reactor (George, 1994). Typically 40 to 80 percent of the feed volume is converted in one pass. If the fractionator bottoms are not recycled, higher conversion (90 percent) can be achieved with lower temperatures and lower hydrogen partial pressures (Scherzer, 1996). In two­ stage processing, light gases and relatively light petroleum products (such as naphtha) are removed between the two reactors. The remaining feed then proceeds to the second reactor (George, 1994). An advantage to this configuration is that better conversion (i. e., cracking) results are achieved in the second reaction because the reaction occurs in the absence of 23 ammonia; ammonia inhibits the activity of hydrocracking catalyst (Criterion, 1998). A second advantage of two­ stage operation is that the capacity of the second reactor is essentially increased: greater quantities of heavier feedstock can be fed to the second reactor as the light gases and products are separated from the feed after being treated in the first reactor. Table 5­ 1 illustrates typical operating conditions for conventional one or two­ stage hydrocracking (Scherzer, 1996). Table 5­ 1. Single or Two­ Stage Hydrocracking Operating Conditions Parameter Value Conversion, wt% 70­ 100 Temperature, °C 350­ 450 H2 partial pressure, atm 100­ 200 LHSV, h ­1 0.5­ 2.0 Hydrogen Feed Rate, Nm 3 /m 3 1000­ 2000 Source: Scherzer, 1996 (Chapter 12). In the case of most two­ stage units, the different reactors have different functions. One way this is illustrated is through the type of catalyst( s) used in each reactor. For example, one catalyst can be designed for primarily sulfur and nitrogen reduction, and a second catalyst designed primarily for cracking. A single catalyst can have multiple effects, or a single reactor or series of reactors can contain multiple catalysts (as shown in the example presented in Section 5.2 below). In cases where multiple catalysts are used, the initial catalyst is used for (1) pretreating the feed to remove nitrogen and sulfur, and (2) aromatics saturation. These are followed by cracking catalysts which convert heavy oil to either gasoline or distillate fuels (Criterion, 1998). Criterion (1998) also describes post­ treat catalysts that may be used to stabilize the product by preventing reactions between hydrogen sulfide and olefins that form mercaptans. Guard reactors are used in hydrocracking processes to protect catalysts in subsequent reactors, including precious metals hydrocracking catalysts, from contaminants in feedstocks that are not previously hydrotreated. If a hydrocracking unit is designed to accept feedstocks that have not been hydrotreated previously, a guard reactor precedes the first hydrocracking reactor in the process flow. The purpose of the guard reactor is to convert organic sulfur and nitrogen compounds to hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. Guard reactors also serve the purpose of reducing the metals content in the feed to the hydrocracking units. Catalysts used in guard reactors are usually modified hydrotreating catalysts such as CoMo on silica­ alumina. Most of the metals in the feed will be deposited on the catalyst in the guard reactor and there will be a substantial reduction in the Conradson and Ramsbottom carbons, resulting in a feed to the hydrocracking reactors that is low in metals and carbon forming precursors (Gary, 1994, p. 156, 174­ 176). An example of a two­ stage hydrocracking unit, consisting of two separate reactors and a fractionator, was described for a Kuwait refinery (Maheshri, 2000). The feed is vacuum gas oil, 3 A typical sulfur content of Kuwait crude is 2.52 percent (ETC, 2000). The sulfur content of the actual unit feed in this case may be higher or lower depending on the specific crude source, the degree that sulfur is `concentrated' in the bottom fractions, and the severity of upstream desulfurization in this instance. 24 where some sulfur reduction has already taken place: crude unit residue is hydrotreated and fed to a vacuum rerun unit, where VGO is drawn off to become hydrocracking feed. 3 The two­ stage hydrocracking unit normally is operated such that feed enters the first stage, light products and gas are removed, and the majority of the fractionator bottoms are continuously recycled to the second stage to achieve an overall conversion of 95 percent. The MDQ Unionfining process is an example of a process that can be constructed as either a single or two­ stage operation. Single­ stage typically uses one or two reactors. These reactors use base­ metal catalysts that may be the same or different for each reactor. The twostage process uses noble­ metal catalysts in the second­ stage reactor where there is a much lower contaminant concentration due to interstage gas stripping (Heckel, 1998). Licensed single­ and two­ stage hydrocracking units include: C IFP Technology. IFP, North America. C MAKFining. Licensed by Kellog Brown & Root. C Shell Hydrocracking Process, Shell International Oil Products B. V. Examples of these processes are discussed in Sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, respectively. 5.1 IFP Technology Hydrocracking IFP hydrocracking is used for the purpose of upgrading straight vacuum gas oil or VGO blended with LCO, deasphalted oil, visbreaker, or coker gas oil. Three different process arrangements are available: single­ stage, single­ stage with recycle, and two­ stage hydrocracking. Organic heteroatom removal is a major part of single and two­ stage hydrocracking. Therefore, in two­ stage processing, this process uses a hydrorefining catalyst followed by a zeolite­ type hydrocracking catalyst (Hydrocarbon Processing, November 2000). Table 5­ 2 demonstrates the sulfur and nitrogen reduction of a 50/ 50 Arabian light/ heavy blend using IFP fixed­ bed hydrocracking technology (Hydrocarbon Processing, November 1998). The data show that sulfur and nitrogen in the two products removed from the IFP hydrocracking unit are much lower than the feed levels. However, the data are incomplete because sulfur and nitrogen levels in the heaviest fraction (where the highest levels are expected) were not presented in the source literature. 25 Table 5­ 2. Sulfur and Nitrogen Reduction from IFP Hydrocracking Process Parameter Feed HVGO (50/ 50 Arabian light/ heavy) Product Jet Fuel Diesel Sulfur, ppm 31,700 <10 <20 Nitrogen, ppm 853 <5 <5 Metals 1 C C Source: Hydrocarbon Processing, November 1998. 1. The nickel and vanadium content of Arabian Light crude oil are 2.5 ppm and 16 ppm, respectively (Environment Canada 2000). The HVGO feedstock is expected to have higher levels of metals because it is derived from a blend of light and heavy crude (where the heavy crude is expected to have higher metals concentrations), and the VGO fraction is expected to concentrate these metals somewhat. 5.2 MAKFining The Kellogg MAKFining process is capable of converting feedstocks such as vacuum gas oil, coker gas oils, and FCC cycle oils into high­ quality, low­ sulfur fuels. This process can be operated as a single­ pass or extinction (i. e., complete recycle of fractionator bottoms) process. Multi­ bed reactors using multiple catalysts are used in this process (Hydrocarbon Processing, November 2000). Table 5­ 3 shows the sulfur and nitrogen levels in the feed that can be processed using MAKfining technology. This table was developed from operations where VGO derived from a 50/ 50 blend of Arabian light and heavy was processed in the MAKFining unit. The sulfur content of the diesel product is reduced. 26 Table 5­ 3. Sulfur and Nitrogen Reduction Through MAKFining Technology Parameter Feed Product Naphtha Kerosene Diesel Gas Oil Sulfur, ppm 29,000 C C< 50 C Nitrogen, ppm 900 C C CC Yield, % C 12.9­ 22.6 14.1­ 24.5 31.8­ 32.5 30­ 50 Operation mode Single pass Temperature, °C 370­ 430 Pressure, atm 70­ 140 Source: Hydrocarbon Processing, November 1998. Range: bound from low conversion (50%) to high conversion (70%). Higher conversion gives higher yields of lighter products. One refinery in Austria converted its existing VGO HDS reactor into a two reactor system (using MAKFining Technology). The two reactors are in series, with no intermediate separation or fractionation, and would be considered a `single stage' system according to the above terminology by George (1994). The unit is not designed to achieve complete conversion; only 33 percent conversion is achieved with the heavier product being fed to the FCC. The following catalysts were identified for use in the initial start­ up in 1997 (Danzinger, 1999): $ For the first reactor, three catalysts were used together: $ Akzo Nobel KF­ 647. An HVGO demetallization catalyst with high hydrodenitrogenation (HDN), hydrodesulfurization (HDS), and hydrogenation activity. $ Akzo Nobel KF­ 840. A high activity catalyst for HDN $ Akzo Nobel KF­ 901H. A Ni/ Co/ Mo catalyst with high HDS and HDN activity. $ For the second reactor, only one catalyst was used: Akzo Nobel KC­ 2602. A zeolytic Co/ Mo catalyst combining hydrocracking activity for HGO conversion with high HDS performance. These catalysts suggest that the first reactor is used to achieve nitrogen and sulfur removal. Sulfur removal also appears to be an objective of the second reactor, in addition to hydrocracking. Criterion (1998) also verifies that some two stage hydrocracking designs are exposed to elevated hydrogen sulfide levels in the second stage, but not to ammonia. Overall sulfur reduction (Danzinger, 1999) is from 0.63 wt percent to 0.0047 wt percent in the FCC feed; overall nitrogen reduction is from 1700 ppmw to 454 ppmw in the FCC feed. The first reactor temperature is 410° C and the inlet pressure is 71 atm. No data are available to identify differences in feed characteristics between the two reactors. 27 5.3 Shell Hydrocracking Process The Shell hydrocracking process converts heavy VGO and other cracked and extracted feedstocks to products such as low­ sulfur diesel and jet fuel, high­ octane light gasoline, and reformer, cat cracker or lube oil feedstocks. The process can be either a single­ stage or two­ stage unit. A single reactor stacked catalyst bed is best suited for capacities up to 10,000 tons per day (about 65,000 barrels per day) in either partial or full conversion modes. In this process, heavy hydrocarbons are mixed with fresh hydrogen and passed through multi­ bed reactor( s) which contain proprietary pre­ treat, cracking, and post­ treat catalysts (Hydrocarbon Processing, November 2000). EPA visited one refinery with a two­ stage hydrocracking process using Shell technology during its development of the 1995 proposed rule. This refinery (Equilon, formerly Shell, in Wood River Illinois) uses a two stage process, wherein the first stage catalyst conducts a hydrotreating function (Ni/ Mo catalyst) and the second stage catalyst conducts a hydrocracking function (Ni/ W on zeolite). Operating conditions of the second stage are 315 to 343° C, and approximately 125 atm (U. S. EPA, 1995a). 5.4 Isocracking Technology Chevron's Isocracking Technology is another example of a licensed hydrocracking process. Three options exist for the design of an Isocracking unit: single­ stage once through (SSOT), single­ stage recycle (SSREC), and two­ stage. These options are very similar to those discussed above for stage hydrocracking processes in general. The most common Isocracking unit configuration is the two­ stage unit consisting of two reactor stages and a product distillation section. Generally, the first stage catalyst performs denitrification and desulfurization of the hydrogenated gas oil feed with minimal hydrocracking. Before the feed is sent to the second reactor stage, it is passed through a product fractionator which removes the conversion products of the first stage to avoid recracking in the second stage. Hydrocracking of the feed occurs in the second stage reactor. The relatively low operating temperatures of this stage result in good selectivity and product quality. Complete conversion of the feed is accomplished by recycling all unconverted material back to the second stage reactor (Dahlberg, 1995). An SSOT Isocracking unit is similar to the first stage of the two­ stage process. In such a unit, the feedstock is not completely converted into lighter products. The typical product of this type of unit is a highly refined heavy oil (McKetta, 1992). An SSREC Isocracking unit completely converts heavy oils to lighter products as in the second stage of the two­ stage unit design (i. e., where the heaviest fraction is recycled to the reactor) (McKetta, 1992). Different catalysts are used in these units depending upon the feed available, products required, and the number of process stages in the design of the unit. Table 5­ 4 lists typical hydrocracking catalysts used in Isocracking process units (McKetta, 1992). 28 Table 5­ 4. Typical Isocracking Catalysts Catalyst Number Use in Isocracking Units Single Stage Design Two Stage Design ICR 106 and ICR 120 High ratio of mid­ distillate to naphtha First stage denitrification and cracking Second stage hydrocracking for mid­ distillate emphasis ICR 113 Used for hydrocracking heavy oils like DAO First stage denitrification ICR 117 High ratio of naphtha to mid distillate First stage denitrification and cracking Second stage hydrocracking for naphtha and mid­ distillate ICR 201 Hydrocracking naphtha or raffinate to LPG Second stage hydrocracking for LPG from naphtha or raffinate ICR 202 C Second stage hydrocracking for naphtha or jet fuel ICR 204 C Second stage hydrocracking for naphtha, aromatics, and jet fuel Source: Chevron Research Co. From McKetta, 1992 (pg. 603). As can be seen from this table, the same catalyst can perform different or multiple functions within an Isocracking unit, depending upon the process stage in which it is used. For example, Chevron's catalyst ICR 113 is used for hydrocracking heavy oils if used in a singlestage Isocracking unit. In such a unit the catalyst performs both the hydrotreating and hydrocracking functions. But its primary function, when used in the first stage of a two­ stage Isocracking unit, is denitrification (a hydrotreating function). Therefore, the classification of a catalyst within an Isocracking unit as either hydrotreating or hydrocracking is dependent upon the function of the catalyst within a given process stage. An example of Chevron's mild Isocracking catalyst system being used to upgrade an exiting process is at the Nippon Petroleum Refining Co. 's (NPRC) Muroran, Japan facility. The facility's hydroprocessing system originally was designed for desulfurization of Arabian VGO. In the early 1980's, Muroran shifted to severe desulfurization, using the existing hydrodesulfurization catalyst. Chevron's mild Isocracking catalyst system was installed in 1982, and the Muroran unit continues to operate in this mode (as of 1992). Table 5­ 5 provides a comparison of product yields and properties for three modes of operation for the Isocracking system yielding Isomate distillates. The light Isomate distillate product meets Japanese diesel specifications for sulfur, cetane index, pour point, and distillation and the heavy Isomate bottoms product is used as a fuel oil blend stock or FCC feed. The nitrogen reduction achieved in the 29 Isocracking system leads to improved FCC catalyst activity, conversion, and yields (McKetta, 1992). Table 5­ 5. Feed and Product Data for Isocracking Parameter Conventional Desulfurization Severe Desulfurization Mild Isocracking % HDS 90.0 99.8 99.6 Sulfur, wt% of feed 2.67 2.67 2.57 Nitrogen, ppm of feed 720 720 617 Gravity, °API of feed 22.6 22.6 23.0 Light Isomate Product Sulfur, wt% 0.07 0.002 0.005 Nitrogen, ppm 18 20 20 Gravity, °API 30.9 37.8 34.0 Heavy Isomate Product Gravity, °API 27.1 29.2 30.7 Sulfur, wt% 0.26 0.009 0.013 Nitrogen, ppm 400 60 47 Source: McKetta (1992). 5.5 Population Data regarding the population of single­ stage or two­ stage hydrocracking (including isocracking) processes are identified from Hydrocarbon Processing (November 1998 and November 2000). Worldwide, there are over forty such units currently operating (including revamps of pre­ existing processes). Data specific to the U. S. are available for Chevron­ designed hydrocracking (Isocracking) units only. Table 5­ 6 lists Chevron­ designed hydrocrackers in operation in the U. S. as of 1991 (McKetta, 1992). The Ferroalloys Association provided the names of facilities that perform all types of single and multi­ stage hydrocracking processes. The non­ Isocracking facilities are listed in table 5­ 7. 30 Table 5­ 6. Chevron­ Designed Hydrocracking Plants Company (as of 1991) Location Major Products Start­ up Year Capacity (BPSD) Sohio Ohio N 1962 12,000 Chevron Mississippi N 1963 28,000 Tosco California N 1963 22,000 Chevron California N/ K/ F 1966 30,000 Chevron California N/ K 1966 50,000 Sohio Ohio N/ F 1966 25,000 Mobil California N 1967 16,000 Tenneco Louisiana N 1968 16,000 Mobil Texas N 1969 29,000 Chevron California N/ K 1969 50,000 Sohio Ohio N/ L 1970 20,000 Chevron Mississippi N/ K 1971 32,000 BP Oil Pennsylvania N 1975 20,000 Hawaiian Independent Hawaii K 1981 12,000 Chevron California L 1984 18,500 Chevron California L 1984 12,000 Total Isocracking Capacity 392,500 Total 2000 Hydrocracking Capacity* 1,575,800 Source: Chevron Research Company in McKetta, 1992. D= diesel, F= FCC feed, G= LPG, K= kerojet, L= lubes, N= naptha *For comparison. From U. S. DOE (2000). Note: In comments from The Ferroalloys Association (September 4, 2001), the commenter provided the names of eight facilities that perform Isocracking. It appears that the facilities identified in this table overlap with the Association's list. 31 Table 5­ 7. Other Single and Multi­ Stage Hydrocracking Processes* Company Location Process Type Arco Carson, CA UOP Unicracking Arco Cherry Point, WA UOP Unicracking Excel Paralubes Lake Charles, LA UOP Unicracking Equilon Wilmington, CA UOP Unicracking Equilon Wood River Shell Exxon Baton Rouge, LA UOP Unicracking Exxon Baytown, TX UOP Unicracking Exxon Billings, MT UOP Unicracking Tesoro Kapolei, HI UOP Unicracking Tosco Rodeo, CA UOP Unicracking Tosco Wilmington, CA UOP Unicracking *Information in this table was derived from comments from The Ferroalloys Association (September 4, 2001) 5.6 Conclusions Based on the above information, the following conclusions are reached regarding staged hydrocracking processes: $ Single stage hydrocracking processes offer no H2 S or NH3 removal between reactors, while two stage processing employs interstage gas and light products removal. All reactors are fixed bed. $ First stage units conduct hydrotreating functions such as nitrogen and sulfur removal. Second stage units also may conduct sulfur removal, but little to no nitrogen removal. Second stage units are designed for cracking. $ Due to the fact that single­ stage units offer no H2 S or NH3 removal between reactors, the subsequent cracking reactors must use a catalyst specifically designed to operate in the presence of high contaminant levels such as high activity or nitrogen/ NH3 resistant zeolite catalysts. $ Complete, or near complete, conversion of the feed can be achieved through the addition of a recycle stream which passes the uncracked material repeatedly over the cracking catalyst to the point of extinction. 32 $ High sulfur and nitrogen removal rates are identified. Although sources indicate most nitrogen is removed in the first stage of a multi stage process, data are unavailable to confirm this. Sources also indicate that sulfur reduction occurs in both stages, although again stage specific removal rates were not found in the literature. 6. Lube Oil Processes There are five basic steps to manufacturing lube oil base stocks from crude oil: distillation, deasphalting, refining, dewaxing, and finishing. The first two steps prepare the feedstocks, while hydroprocessing may take place in any of the following three steps. Collectively, these five steps serve the purpose of improving the viscosity index, quality, temperature properties, color, and stability of the lube base stock. Refining is achieved through the use of solvents or hydrogen. Dewaxing processes use either solvents or catalysts. Clay or hydrogen is used for product finishing. The most common lube oil manufacturing process route is that which consists of solvent refining, solvent dewaxing, and hydrogen finishing (McKetta, 1992). Licensed lube oil processes include: $ Shell Hybrid. Licensed by Shell Global Solutions International B. V. $ Yukong UCO Lube Process. Licensed by Washington Group International, Petroleum and Chemicals Technology Center, under exclusive arrangement with SK Corporation. $ Mobil Selective Dewaxing (MSDW) Process. Licensed by Mobil. These are discussed in the following sections, but should not be assumed to be a comprehensive listing of all technologies. 6.1 Hybrid The Shell Hybrid base oil process is a combination of solvent extraction and one­ stage hydroprocessing. It can be installed as a revamp to an existing solvent extraction lube oil plants in order to increase capacity (by up to 60 percent). Process feeds can be derived from a wider range of crudes than those feeds used with solvent extraction alone. Yields and capacity are less sensitive to feedstock when solvent extraction is used in conjunction with hydroprocessing (Hydrocarbon Processing, November 2000). The Hybrid base oil process consists of two separate upgrading units, a solvent extractor and a one­ stage hydroprocessor. The types of solvent extraction and hydroprocessing depend upon the feedstock and manufacturing objectives. Hydrotreating within the process yields higher quantities of low­ sulfur, low­ pour­ point gas oil byproducts which reduces the quantity of lowvalue byproducts produced (Hydrocarbon Processing, November 2000). 6.2 Yukong UCO Lube Process The purpose of the Yukong UCO Lube Process is to produce higher quality lube base stocks from unconverted oil (UCO). UCO from a fuels hydrocacker is used as feed to the 33 Yukong UCO Lube process due to its characteristically low sulfur, oxygen, and metals content. This feed requirement is due to the deactivation effect these impurities have on the lube process catalyst. The pilot plant used in conjunction with the development of the Yukong UCO Lube Process consists of three sections: feed preparation, reaction, and product separation. The feed preparation section is a vacuum distillation column. The reaction section consists of two independently controlled and operated units. The first reactor is for the purpose of hydrodewaxing (HDW) and the second is for hydrotreating (HDT). Both reactors have operating conditions of 0 to 205 atm or higher. The product separation section consists of two columns. The first column removes light material by fractionation for the purpose of feeding the bottom to a vacuum distillation column. The bottom stream of the second column is the final lube base oil product (Andre', 1996). 6.3 Mobil Selective Dewaxing Process Catalytic dewaxing is a shape selective kinetic process which selectively cracks and/ or isomerizes wax molecules. The Mobil Selective Dewaxing Process (MSDW) provides improved lube yields and viscosity index and requires either severely hydrotreated or hydrocracked feeds. The process is based on a catalyst that combines isomerization and selective cracking resulting in dewaxed oil yield and the viscosity index being equivalent or higher than for solvent dewaxing. Noble metals can be incorporated into the catalyst due to the use of "clean" (i. e., low in sulfur, nitrogen, and coke precursors) feedstocks. Increased catalyst activity and cycle length are realized with the addition of the metal component due to its reduction affect on the rate of coke formation. Operating pressures vary between 27 to 205 atm. Higher operating pressures result in increased cycle length and higher yield and viscosity index. The MSDW process can handle light and heavy neutral hydrorefined feedstocks (Baker, 1995). 6.4 Conclusions Based on the information presented in this section, the following conclusions can be made in regard to lube oil hydroprocessing: $ Lube oil hydroprocessing units require a "clean" feed. Such feeds have low sulfur, nitrogen, and metals concentrations. Typically these feeds are the products of fuel hydrocracking units. $ Lube oil hydroprocessing catalysts can incorporate noble metals witch enhance the quality of the product but are also sensitive to feed impurities. $ The above mentioned licensed process units use hydroprocessing to increase the quality of the lube stock produced. Other licensed process units not identified from the literature may have similar characteristics. Not all lube oil processes use hydroprocessing. $ Using hydroprocessing in conjunction with traditional solvent extraction methods of dewaxing allows for processing of a wider range of feedstocks than would be possible with solvent extraction alone. 34 7. Recycling Spent Catalysts EPA wants to encourage recycling and reclamation of hazardous wastes, as well as to conserve resources that would alternatively be used if hazardous waste recycling did not occur. This section provides a summary of information currently available to EPA regarding the quantities of spent catalyst managed by different management practices, and the costs of these management practices, both prior to and following the promulgation of the K171 and K172 listings. Moreover, this section assesses trends in activities, or factors affecting management alternatives. For spent catalysts, the principal waste management options are recycling practices and disposal practices. Section 7.1 presents EPA's waste management data concerning the quantities of K171 and K172 wastes being landfilled or recycled. Section 7.2 provides EPA's current cost data for various waste management practices or steps, including recycling. Section 7.3 discusses the recycling trends shown in the data. 7.1 Quantity Data EPA initially collected waste management data for spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts in its 1992 RCRA §3007 survey (EPA, 1995). These data were presented in EPA's background document for the 1998 final rule, and represent management practices prior to implementation of the listings. The K171 and K172 listings became effective in February 1999 (i. e., six months after the publication date of August 6, 1998). Therefore, most refineries generating spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts in 1999 were required to manage them as hazardous wastes, consistent with the Subtitle C program and land disposal restrictions. Such data subsequently were recorded in the 1999 Biennial Reporting System (BRS). The BRS provides a good way to assess the generation and management of K171 and K172, and to see how the quantities generated and the management methods compare to data collected by EPA in 1992, prior to the listing. Table 7­ 1 compares the quantities of spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts generated by refineries in 1992 and 1999. Observations include the following: ° There was a 25 percent increase in the total quantity of K171/ K172 (combined) generated from 1992 to 1999. ° The quantities of K171 and K172 generated in 1999 have almost a reverse profile from that generated 1992. In 1992, the quantity of K172 was much larger than K171, while in 1999 the opposite was true. ° A few refineries (20 percent of the quantity) identify the waste as either ignitable (D001) or reactive (D003) in addition to the listed hazardous waste codes (see table footnote). 35 Table 7­ 1. K171/ K172 Waste Generation Data in 1992/ 1999 Waste Type Number of Refineries Generating Waste Quantity Generated (short tons) 1999 1992 1999 1 1992 Total 106 2 — 34,445 26,701 K171 95 92 20,841 6,204 K172 13 38 7,067 20,497 Both K171 and K172 3 7 0 6,537 0 Data are limited to wastes generated by petroleum refineries. Additional waste quantities `generated' by facilities outside the refining industry (e. g., waste treatment and disposal) are not included in this table. 1 Eighteen refineries reported generating a total of 6,787 tons (20 percent of the total) of hazardous waste coded as D001/ D003 in 1999, in addition to the codes reported in the table. This data is not included in the table because it would `double count' the quantities already presented. 2 Not equal to sum of the numbers below, because some refineries generate more than one type of waste. 3 Refers to waste identified as `K171 and K172, ' as one waste shipment. 1999 data source: BRS, GM Form. 1992 data source: 1995 EPA Listing Background Document (U. S. EPA, 1995b). Table 7­ 2 identifies the management practices used in 1992 and 1999 for spent hydrotreating and spent hydrorefining catalysts. The data are illustrated graphically in Figure 7­ 1. The total quantities given in Table 7­ 2 for 1999 are slightly different than those in Table 7­ 1, because slightly different source data were used within BRS for 1999. The quantities in Table 7­ 2 include only those wastes received directly from refineries. Quantities such as those generated by waste treatment facilities and further managed by waste disposal facilities are not included in these tables. Table 7­ 2 illustrates the following: ° Most spent catalyst hazardous waste is listed as K171 rather than as K172. This is consistent with Table 7­ 1. ° The vast majority of listed waste received by incineration and reclamation/ regeneration facilities is K171. Conversely the majority of listed waste received by stabilization/ landfill facilities is K172. ° Incineration, a negligible management technique in 1992, accounted for a small but significant quantity of waste management in 1999. ° Both the total quantity, and the percentage of total volume of spent catalyst, landfilled between 1992 and 1999 increased. ° Recycling/ reclamation was still a significant management technique in 1999, although the percentage of spent catalyst managed in this manner decreased from 82% in 1992 to 55% in 1999. 36 Table 7­ 2. Waste Management Data for Spent Catalyst (1992/ 1999) Waste Code Quantity Managed (short tons) Reclamation/ Regeneration Stabilization/ Landfill Other Total 1992 1999 1992 1999 1992 1999 1992 1999 K171 4,701 15,634 1,165 1,692 339 1,686 6,205 19,012 K172 16,926 879 3,571 8,291 0 57 20,497 9,227 Both K171 and K172 ­­ 573 ­­ 1,343 ­­ 724 ­­ 2,640 Total 21,850 17,086 4,805 11,326 47 2,467 26,702 30,879 Data are limited to wastes received from petroleum refineries. Additional waste quantities "received" from facilities outside the refining industry (e. g., waste treatment and disposal) are not included in this table. Ten facilities reported receiving a total of 5,912 tons (19 percent of the total) of hazardous waste coded as D001/ D003 in 1999, in addition to the codes reported in the table. This data is not included in the table because it would "double count" the quantities already presented. 1999 data source: BRS, WR Form. 1992 data source: 1995 EPA Listing Background Document (U. S. EPA, 1995b).. 37 Incineration (8.00%) Stabilization/ Landfill (37.00%) Reclamation/ Regeneration (55.00%) 1999 Other (0.20%) Stabilization/ Landfill (17.80%) Reclamation/ Regeneration (82.00%) 1992 Figure 7­ 1. Waste Management Destinations for Spent Catalyst (1992 vs. 1999) 4 Cost and Economic Impact Analysis of Listing Hazardous Wastes from the Petroleum Refining Industry. September 21, 1995. 38 7.2 Cost Data For the petroleum listing final rule, EPA performed an Economic Analysis of the costs of managing catalyst wastes. 4 Table 7­ 3 identifies the costs of reclamation versus treatment and disposal prior to and following the listing. There were many management options envisioned in the Economic Analysis, but Subtitle C disposal and recycling represent some of the most common alternatives. See Section 8.3 for further discussion. Table 7­ 3. Unit Costs for Common Management Methods Management Practice EPA Data 1 API Estimates 2 Reclamation/ regeneration Pre­ listing: $725/ MT Post­ listing: Assumed 5 percent increase in price due to Subtitle C storage, transportation, and management costs. Pre­ listing: $250/ ton Post­ listing: $500­ 800/ ton LDR treatment and Subtitle C disposal Pre­ listing: Off­ Site Subtitle C disposal: $233/ MT (no LDR treatment occurred) Post­ listing: LDR Treatment: $240/ MT Off­ Site Subtitle C Disposal: $233/ MT Pre­ listing: $130/ ton Post­ listing: $200/ ton 1. The EPA figures are provided in 1992 dollars. Source: Cost and Economic Impact Analysis of Listing Hazardous Wastes from the Petroleum Refining Industry. September 21, 1995. 2. API Estimates were provided in public comments to the July 5, 2001 Federal Register Notice, dated September 4, 2001. The estimates are drawn from API's primary comments as well as comments to the 1998 final rule. The estimates assume a volume of 900 tons of spent catalyst. 7.3 Recycling Trends Analysis EPA data and API data and information indicate that recycling is significantly lower than the recycling rate prior to the listing decision. As shown in section 7.1, the data collected by the agency can be used to compare recycling rates from 1992 to 1999 (the year in which the listing came into effect). EPA's data indicates that recycling rates decreased from 82 percent to 55 percent. API also indicated in its comments that recycling rates are down throughout the industry, although the comment did not provide specific rates or data to support the information. There are many reasons that the recycling rate may have dropped so dramatically. The drop could be attributable to the change in recycling costs after the listing came into effect (illustrated in section 7.2). EPA has not collected data on recycling costs after the listings went 5 U. S. Geological Survey data for vanadium. Mineral Commodity Summaries. 39 into effect. In the economic analysis to the final rule, EPA estimated a five percent increase in costs due to the increased cost of transporting and storing hazardous wastes. The cost of storage was not considered a significant issue because most recycling facilities had acquired a Subtitle C permit pre­ listing for the storage of catalysts that exhibit a characteristic. API's estimates for the cost of recycling appear to be inconsistent with the economic data collected by the Agency. In particular, the EPA estimates for the cost of recycling prior to the 1998 final rule are almost three times the estimates provided by API. Since the post­ listing estimates are relatively close to one another, the increase in price is far more dramatic from the perspective of the API estimates, but may also better explain the reason for the decrease in recycling rates. The cost increase may be at least partially explained by a depressed vanadium market. In the past, the value of recycled vanadium allowed the recycling facilities to pass back the benefits to refineries by reducing costs. However, it appears that there is substantial variation in the market price for vanadium. USGS data for vanadium identifies that annual average prices between 1994 and 1997 were roughly $3 to $4 per pound. Between 1999 and 2001, annual average prices were only $1 to $2 per pound. 5 8. Discussion 8.1 Characteristics of Hydroprocessing Units General characteristics of hydroprocessing technologies, including hydrotreating and hydrocracking, were discussed in Section 2. Hydrocracking is a catalytic petroleum refining process that converts heavy, high boiling feedstock molecules to smaller, lower boiling products through carbon­ carbon bond breaking accompanied by simultaneous or sequential hydrogenation (Scherzer, 1996, p. 1). Hydrotreating is a process whose primary purpose is to saturate olefins and/ or reduce sulfur and/ or nitrogen content (and not to change the boiling range) by reacting the feed with hydrogen (Gary, 1994, p. 187). Hydrorefining, while present in EPA's regulatory definition of K172, is a term generally not used in literature and instead is encompassed within "hydrotreating." In virtually all cases presented in this report, hydrocracking is accompanied with or preceded by hydrotreating reactions. This is due to the deactivating effect that sulfur and nitrogen compounds have on hydrocracking catalysts (Scherzer, 1996, p. 174). The feedstocks used in the hydrocracking process contain sulfur, nitrogen, and, in the case of resid feedstocks, metals such as nickel and vanadium. The function of the hydrocracking catalyst is to promote hydrocracking reactions with acid sites and promote hydrogenation with metal sites (McKetta, 1992, p. 601). The composition of the catalyst is dependent upon the feed material, specific process, and desired product of the process. Most hydrocracking catalysts are a crystalline mixture of silica­ alumina with small amounts of rare earths contained within the crystal lattice. The silica­ alumina performs the cracking while the rare earths promote hydrogenation. The most commonly used rare earths are platinum, palladium, tungsten, and nickel (Gary, 1994, p. 156­ 157). Acidic support consists of: amorphous oxides (e. g., silicaalumina a crystalline zeolite (mostly modified Y zeolite) plus binder (e. g., alumina), or a 40 mixture of crystalline zeolite and amorphous oxides. Cracking and isomerization reactions take place on the acidic support. Metals can be noble metals (palladium, platinum), or nonnoble metal sulfides from group VIA (molybdenum, tungsten) and group VIIA (cobalt, nickel) (Scherzer, 1996, p. 13­ 15). In the hydrotreating process, sulfur­ containing hydrocarbons are converted into low­ sulfur liquids and hydrogen sulfide. Nitrogen and oxygen compounds also are dissociated by hydrotreating. This process is operated under high temperatures and pressures. The purpose of the hydrotreating catalyst is to promote hydrogenation reactions using metal sites (McKetta, 1992, pp. 81, 601). Hydrogenation is the addition of hydrogen to a carbon­ carbon double bond (Gary, 1994, p. 150). Typical catalyst compositions include cobalt and molybdenum oxides on alumina, nickel oxide, nickel thiomolybdate, tungsten and nickel sulfides, and vanadium oxide. CoMo catalysts are selective for sulfur removal and NiMo catalysts are selective for nitrogen removal (Gary, 1994, p. 189). 8.2 Performance Summary of Hydroprocessing Units Throughout this report there are many instances where reduction in sulfur, nitrogen, and metals content are demonstrated between feed and product. This type of reduction is an integral part of hydroprocessing, not only because of the demand for "cleaner" fuels but also because of the harmful effect that sulfur and nitrogen heteroatoms and metals such as vanadium and nickel have on expensive hydrocracking catalysts. Most hydrocracking processes employ both hydrotreating and hydrocracking steps for this reason. The significant sulfur, nitrogen, and metals content reductions are characteristics of hydrotreating. The following tables reiterate the information and examples previously given in the report for specific hydroprocessing units. Here, however, the specific reductions are organized according to property (sulfur, nitrogen, metals). Conclusions from these tables are discussed in Section 8.3. Table 8­ 1 presents data on sulfur, Table 8­ 2 presents data for nitrogen, and Table 8­ 3 presents data for metals. Data are presented as available for these constituents in feed, products, and overall reductions. While Section 2 discussed other characteristics of hydrotreating (e. g., olefin hydrogenation), operating data were typically unavailable to quantitatively demonstrate such processes within these units. Table 8­ 4 presents information regarding the conversion of various processes discussed in this report. Conversion is the reduction of the amount of material boiling above a certain temperature. Cuts, or fractions are characterized by their boiling ranges (i. e., by an initial boiling point and endpoint). The initial boiling point and endpoint of a fraction increases with the average molecular weight of the fraction, as does the sulfur content (Scherzer, 1996, p. 2). Therefore, a conversion of 80 percent means that 80 percent of the feed is broken down into fractions with lower, generally more desirable, molecular weights and boiling ranges, relative to the feed or a heavy product fraction. 41 Table 8­ 1. Sulfur Reduction in Named Processes Process Name Sulfur Content in Typical Feed Sulfur Reduction, or Content in Product Reference Ebullating Bed H­ Oil C 55­ 92 wt% reduction Colyar, 1997 H­ Oil C 84­ 91 wt% Hydrocarbon Processing, 1998 H­ Oil 6.0 wt% 88.0 ­ 90.1 % reduction Nongbri, 1992 H­ Oil 2.7 wt % 0.06 ­ 1.55 wt % (depending on product) Schrezer, 1996 H­ Oil 5.33 wt % 0.02 ­ 1.04 wt % (depending on product) Wisdom, 1997 H­ Oil 4.71 wt% C Wisdom, 1997 LC­ Fining 3.9 ­ 4.97 wt% 60­ 90 wt% reduction Hydrocarbon Processing, 1998 T­ Star C 93­ 99 wt% reduction Hydrocarbon Processing, 2000 T­ Star 2.8 wt % 91.7 wt% reduction, < 70­ 1,000 ppmw (depending on product) Johns, 1993 T­ Star 1.93 wt % 97 wt% reduction Nongbri, 1996 T­ Star (mild hydrocracking mode) 2.10 98 wt% reduction Nongbri, 1996 Mild Hydrocracking Typical 27,000 ppmw 300 to < 1,000 ppmw (depending on product) Marion, 1998 MHUG 10,000 ppmw (VGO) 9 ­ 19 ppmw (depending on product) Chen, 1999 MHUG 10,400 (LCO) 16 ppmw (diesel) Chen, 1999 Table 8­ 1. Sulfur Reduction in Named Processes Process Name Sulfur Content in Typical Feed Sulfur Reduction, or Content in Product Reference 42 Stage Hydrocracking IFP Hydrocracking Process 31,700 ppm (HVGO) <10 ­ <20 ppm (depending on product) Hydrocarbon Processing, 1998 MAKFining 29,000 ppm (VGO) <50 ppm (diesel) Hydrocarbon Processing, 1998 Isocracking 25,700 ppm 50 to 130 ppm (depending on product) McKetta, 1992 Lube Oil No data Table 8­ 2. Nitrogen Reduction in Named Processes Process Name Nitrogen Content in Feed Nitrogen Reduction/ Content in Product Reference Ebullating Bed H­ Oil C 25­ 50 wt% reduction Colyar, 1997 H­ Oil 4,800 ppmw 57.3 ­ 65.7 % reduction Nongbri, 1992 T­ Star 1,328 ppmw 80 wt % reduction 3­ 766 ppmw (depending on product) Johns, 1993 T­ Star 1,820 ppmw 78 wt % reduction Nongbri, 1996 T­ Star (mild hydrocracking mode) 819 ppmw 94 wt % reduction Nongbri, 1996 Mild Hydrocracking Typical 800 ppmw C Marion, 1998 MHUG 2,400 ppmw (VGO) <0.5 ­ 6 ppmw (depending on product) Chen, 1999 MHUG 446 (LCO) <0.5 ­ 1.4 ppmw (depending on product) Chen, 1999 Table 8­ 2. Nitrogen Reduction in Named Processes Process Name Nitrogen Content in Feed Nitrogen Reduction/ Content in Product Reference 43 Stage Hydrocracking IFP Hydrocracking Process 853 ppm (HVGO) <5 ppm Hydrocarbon Processing, 1998 MAKFining 900 ppm C Hydrocarbon Processing, 1998 Isocracking 617 ppm 20B47 ppm (depending on product) McKetta, 1992 Lube Oil No data Table 8­ 3. Metals Reduction in Named Processes Process Name Metals Content in Feed Metals Reduction / Content in Product Reference Ebullating Bed H­ Oil C 65­ 90 wt% reduction Colyar, 1997 H­ Oil Nickel: 64 ppmw Vanadium: 205 ppmw Ni: 78.4 ­ 81.2 % reduction V: 88.4­ 91.4 % reduction Nongbri, 1992 H­ Oil Nickel + Vanadium 221 ppmw C Wisdom, 1997 H­ Oil Nickel + Vanadium 707 ppmw C Wisdom, 1997 LC­ Fining Nickel: 18­ 39 ppmw Vanadium: 65­ 142 ppmw 50­ 98 wt% reduction Hydrocarbon Processing, 1998 T­ Star Nickel: 1.6 ppmw Vanadium: 4.4 ppmw C Nongbri, 1996 T­ Star Nickel: <5 ppmw Vanadium: <5 ppmw C Nongbri, 1996 Table 8­ 3. Metals Reduction in Named Processes Process Name Metals Content in Feed Metals Reduction / Content in Product Reference 44 Mild Hydrocracking Typical Nickel: 2.5 ppm Vanadium: 16 ppm C Environment Technology Center, 1996 2000 Stage Hydrocracking No data Lube Oil No data Table 8­ 4. Feed Conversions in Named Processes Process Name Type of Feed Percent Conversion Reference Ebullating Bed H­ Oil Typical Vacuum Residue 45 ­ 90 vol% Colyar, 1997 H­ Oil Arabian Medium Vacuum Resid 65 ­ 90 Hydrocarbon Processing, 1998 H­ Oil Arabian Heavy Resid 65 ­ 85 Nongbri, 1992 H­ Oil Russian Vacuum Resid 68 vol% Colyar, 1997 H­ Oil Arabian Crude 70 ­ 90 vol% Scherzer, 1996 H­ Oil Arabian Light/ Heavy Vacuum Residue 65 ­ 85 vol% Wisdom, 1997 H­ Oil Isthmus / Maya Blend 65 ­ 85 vol% Wisdom, 1997 LC­ Fining C 40­ 97 vol% Hydrocarbon Processing, 1998 T­ Star C 20­ 60 vol% Hydrocarbon Processing, 2000 T­ Star C 9 vol% Johns, 1993 Table 8­ 4. Feed Conversions in Named Processes Process Name Type of Feed Percent Conversion Reference 45 T­ Star Vacuum Gas Oil 30 Nongbri, 1996 T­ Star Vacuum Gas Oil 55 Nongbri, 1996 Mild Hydrocracking Typical Arabian Light 30 wt% Marion, 1998 MHUG FCC Feedstock Vacuum Gas Oil 35 Chen, 1999 Stage Hydrocracking Typical Single or Two­ Stage Typical Feed (e. g., VGO) 70 ­ 100 wt% Scherzer, 1996 MAKFining 50/ 50 Arabian Light/ Heavy Blend 50 ­ 70 Hydrocarbon Processing, November 1998 Lube Oil No data 8.3 Conclusions This section serves as a summary of the information presented in this report to identify key characteristics of hydrotreating and hydrocracking processes. It will show the property conversion/ reduction ranges and types of catalysts used and their purposes for the four types of hydroprocessing processes detailed in this report: ebullated bed, mild hydrocracking, single and multi­ stage hydrocracking, and lube oil hydroprocessing processes. 8.3.1 Ebullated Bed The three licensed ebullating bed processes discussed in Section 3 are H­ Oil, LC­ Fining, and T­ Star. These processes are capable of processing very heavy feeds such as VGO or vacuum residue that have not been pretreated prior to being fed to the ebullating bed reactor. Feed conversion for such processes range from 30 to 90 percent depending on process conditions. Feedstock sulfur content reduction as high as 98 percent can be achieved in ebullating bed (dual purpose) reactors depending upon the desired conversion level of the process. Significant nitrogen feed content reduction of up to 94 wt percent is possible with a more typical reduction being about 80 wt percent. Feedstock metals reduction also is achieved in ebullating bed processes. Nickel feed content reduction is on the order of 80 percent and vanadium feed content reduction is about 90 percent. These processes use catalysts with metals removal, hydrotreating, and cracking activities (Gary, 1994, p. 178). The information collected regarding catalyst purpose and activity from Section 2 shows that significant sulfur and nitrogen reductions 46 are characteristic of hydrotreating activity while significant feedstock conversion levels are indicative of hydrocracking activity. Based on information presented in Section 2 regarding characteristics of hydrotreating and hydrocracking, the conclusion can be drawn that both hydrotreating and hydrocracking occur in ebullated bed hydroprocessing units. EPA has identified two U. S. refineries with ebullated bed processes. 8.3.2 Mild Hydrocracking The mild hydrocracking process is used to process heavy feeds such as vacuum gas oil. As in the ebullated bed processes, feeds are not pretreated prior to being fed to the mild hydrocracking unit. Examples of "typical" mild hydrocracking processes and the licensed MHUG process were investigated. Mild hydrocracking operates on a once­ through basis using a single fixed bed reactor. Feed conversions for the mild hydrocracking process are on the order of 30 percent. High rates of sulfur and nitrogen reduction are seen for the examples presented in Table 8­ 1 and 8­ 2, respectively. No data regarding metals reduction percentages or product metal content was identified. Therefore, EPA can not determine if demetallization takes place, if the process works best with low feed metal feedstocks only, or if metals in the feed pass through to the products. Catalysts used in the mild hydrocracking process perform both the hydrotreating functions of desulfurization/ denitrification and the hydrocracking function of feed conversion. These catalysts are mildly acidic. They usually consist of cobalt or nickel oxide combined with molybdenum or tungsten oxide supported on amorphous silica­ alumina or mildly acidic zeolite (Scherzer, 1996). The high rates of heteroatom removal realized with the mild hydrocracking process is characteristic of hydrotreating while the significant (30 percent) feed conversion is characteristic of hydrocracking. Given these product conversions/ reductions and the type of catalyst( s) used in these types of processes, the conclusion can be drawn that both hydrotreating and hydrocracking occur in the mild hydrocracking process. An estimate of the number of refineries operating mild hydrocracking processes is unavailable. 8.3.3. Single­ and Multi­ Stage Hydrocracking Processes Single and multi­ stage hydrocracking processes employ one or more reactors in series. The licensed processes discussed in this report include IFP Technology, MAKFining, and the Shell hydrocracking process. Feedstock conversion using this type of process is in the range of 50 B 100 percent depending on process conditions and design. Specific process examples demonstrated very high sulfur and nitrogen feed content reductions. No metals reduction percentages or product content were identified, most likely because metals removal is not a primary function of hydrocracking reactors. The types of catalysts used in this process are dependent upon the number of reactors used. If a single reactor is used, multiple catalysts for hydrodesulfurization, hydrodenitrification, and conversion reactions can be used in a stacked bed arrangement. If multiple reactors are used, the first reactor in the series typically performs a hydrotreatment function and removes sulfur, nitrogen, and other heteroatoms. The following reactors in the series convert the feed to lighter products. The use of different catalysts or multipurpose catalysts for the purpose of sulfur/ nitrogen removal and feed conversion is indicative of both hydrotreating and hydrocracking activity. Depending on the configuration of the reactors, the hydrotreating and hydrocracking reactions may occur within the same reactor, or 47 may be located in different reactors. Even in a two­ stage process, some degree of sulfur reduction (a characteristic of hydrotreating) may occur in the second, hydrocracking stage. 8.3.4 Lube Oil Processes Lube oil hydroprocesses require feeds that have low sulfur, nitrogen, and metals concentrations. Typically these feeds have been severely hydrotreated or hydrocracked prior to being fed to the lube oil processing unit. No information on conversion or sulfur/ nitrogen/ metals removal percentages was identified for specific lube oil process examples. 48 9. Bibliography Andre ! , Jean­ Philippe, Hahn, Soo­ Kuhk, and Min, Dr. Whasik. "An Economical Route to High Quality Lubricants." AM­ 96­ 38. Presented at the 1996 NPRA Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas. March 17B19, 1996. Baker, Charles L., and McGuiness, Mary P. "Mobil Lube Dewaxing Technologies." AM­ 95­ 96. Presented at the 1995 NPRA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California. March 19B21, 1995. Chen, Q.; van den Oosterkamp, Paul; and Barendregt, Simon. Petroleum Technology Quarterly. "Upgrading Gasoils by Mild Hydrocracking." Summer 1999. Colyar, J. J. "Ebullated­ Bed Reactor Technology." IFP Industrial Division. C. 1997. Cotsworth, Elizabeth (US EPA). Memorandum to Regions I­ X RCRA Senior Policy Advisors concerning Spent Catalysts from Petroleum Refining "Dual Process" Units. November 29, 1999. Cotsworth, Elizabeth (US EPA). Letter to Mark Luce (Chevron, Richmond, CA) regarding petroleum catalyst listings. June 1, 2000. Criterion, 1998. Hydrocracking Process Description and Criterion/ Zeolyst Hydrocracking Catalyst Applications. August 1998. Dahlberg, A. J., Habib, M. M., Moore, R. O., Law, D. V., and Convery, L. J. "Improved Zeolitic Isocracking Catalysts." AM­ 95­ 66. Presented at the 1995 NPRA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California. March 19– 21, 1995. Danzinger, Friedrich; Groeneveld, Lucas R.; Tracy, William J.; and Macris, Aris. "Revamping OMV's FCC Pretreater to a Makfining MPHC Hydrocracker for Maximum Operational Flexibility and Profit." AM­ 99­ 39. Presented at the 1999 NPRA Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas. March 21B23, 1999. Desai, Pankaj H. "Mild Hydrocracking: Low Cost Option for Distillate Production." Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Houston, Texas. Circa 1996. Appears to be unpublished. Environment Technology Center. 2000. Properties of Crude Oils and Oil Products. Environment Canada. http:// www. etcentre. org/ cgiwin oil_ prop_ cgi. exe? Path=\ Website\ river\ Gary, James H. and Handwerk, Glenn E. Petroleum Refining Technology and Economics. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York. 1994. George, S. E.; Foley, R. M.; Sanborn, L. J.; Johnson, P. S.; Boardman, S. R.; Gallagher, A.; Gualtieri, P. K.; Mok, W. S.; Nash, D. and Webb, A. "Hydrocracking to Achieve Product 49 Flexibility." AM­ 94­ 19. Presented at the 1994 NPRA Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas. 1994. Heckel, Timothy, Thakkar, Vasant, Behraz, Emmanuel, Brierley, Gary, and Simpson, Stuart. "Developments in Distillate Fuel Specifications and Stategies for Meeting Them." AM98 24. Presented at the 1998 NPRA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California. March 15­ 17, 1998. Hydrocarbon Processing. "Refining `98." Process descriptions of hydroprocessing units. November 1998. Hydrocarbon Processing. "Refining Processes 2000." Process descriptions of hydroprocessing units. November 2000. Johns, William F.; Clausen, Glenn; Nongbri, Govanon; and Kaufman, Harold. "Texaco T­ Star Process for Ebullated Bed Hydrotreating/ Hydrocracking." AM­ 93­ 21. Presented at the 1993 NPRA Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas. March 21B23, 1993. Johns, William F.; Hall, Laura L.; Lamourelle, Alain P.; Moyse, Brian M.; and Rasmussen, Henrik W. "Low Pressure Mild Hydrocracking `Room for Improvement'." AM­ 96­ 64. Presented at the 1996 NPRA Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas. March 17B19, 1996. McKetta, John. Petroleum Processing Handbook. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York. 1992. Chapter 3. Maheshri, J. C.; Kotob, S.; and Yousuf, B. H. "Hydrocracker Advanced Control Improves Profitability." Hydrocarbon Processing. pp. 85B92. October 2000. Marion, P.; and Koseoglu, R. O. Fuel Technology and Management. "Build Flexible Hydrocracking Configurations." Vol. 8 No. 1. pp. 51B54. JanuaryBFebruary 1998. Nongbri, G; Brent, F. D.; Nelson, V.; Self, D. E.; and Kaufman, H. C. "Refining Trends in the 1990's." Presented at the Texaco Development Corporation Technology Seminar, Dubai. February 10­ 12, 1992. Nongbri, Govanon; Rodarte, Alma J.; and Falsetti, James S. "Mild Hydrocracking of Virgin Vacuum Gas Oil, Cycle Oils and Coker Gas Oil With the T­ Star Process." AM­ 96­ 60. Presented at the 1996 NPRA Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas. March 17B19, 1996. Scherzer, Julius and Gruia, A. J. Hydrocracking Science and Technology. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York. 1996. 50 The Ferroalloys Association. Comments on 66 Fed. Reg. 35379 (July 5, 2001), "Spent Catalysts from Dual­ Purpose Petroleum Hydroprocessing Reactors." PR2P­ 00001. September 4, 2001. U. S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. "Petroleum Supply Annual 1999." Vol. 1. DOE/ EIA­ 0340( 99)/ 1. June 2000. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. "Sampling and Analytical Data Report for Record Sampling and Characterization Under the 1992B1996 Petroleum Refining Listing Determination and Industry Study," Shell Oil Company, Wood River, IL. F­ 95­ PRLP­ S0030. October 26, 1995. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. "Listing Background Document for the 1992­ 1996 Petroleum Refining Listing Determination." October 31, 1995. F­ 95­ PRLP­ S0003. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. "Draft Final Report, Cost and Economic Impact Analysis of Listing Hazardous Wastes from the Petroleum Refining Industry." September 21, 1995. F­ 1995­ PRLP­ S0004. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. "Study of Selected Petroleum Refining Residuals, Industry Study." August 1996. Available at: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ id/ studies. htm U. S. Geological Survey data for vanadium. Mineral Commodity Summaries. January 2002. Available at: http:// minerals. usgs. gov/ minerals/ pubs/ commodity/ vanadium/ index. html# mcs Wisdom, L. I.; Peer, E. D.; and Bonnifay, P. "H­ Oil Versus Coking for the Turn of the Century." IFP Industrial Division. 1997. All of the above references are included in the RCRA public docket, with the following exceptions. The following citations were not included because three are text books and the other three are available in electronic format from other sources. Environment Technology Center. 2000. Properties of Crude Oils and Oil Products. Environment Canada. http:// www. etcentre. org/ cgiwin oil_ prop_ cgi. exe? Path=\ Website\ river\ Gary, James H. and Handwerk, Glenn E. Petroleum Refining Technology and Economics. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York. 1994. (Textbook) McKetta, John. Petroleum Processing Handbook. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York. 1992. (Textbook) 51 Scherzer, Julius and Gruia, A. J. Hydrocracking Science and Technology. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York. 1996. (Textbook) U. S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. "Petroleum Supply Annual 1999." Vol. 1. DOE/ EIA­ 0340( 99)/ 1. June 2000. This report is available on the Internet at: http:// www. eia. doe. gov/ oil_ gas/ petroleum/ data_ publications/ petroleum_ supply_ annual/ p sa_ volume1/ psa_ volume1. html U. S. Geological Survey data for vanadium. Mineral Commodity Summaries. January 2002. This data is available on the Internet at: http:// minerals. usgs. gov/ minerals/ pubs/ commodity/ vanadium/ index. html# mcs

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.387488

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0023-0043

Rule

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste: Spent Catalysts From Dual-Purpose Petroleum Hydroprocessing Reactors, Notice of Availability of Response to Comment on the Scope of Petroleum Hazardous Waste Listings

30811 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Protection of Children The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Environment The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under Figure 2– 1, paragraph 34( g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A `` Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. Energy Effects The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a `` significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a `` significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. Regulation For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165— REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U. S. C. 1231; 50 U. S. C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05– 1( g), 6.04– 1, 6.04– 6, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46. [§ 165.103 Suspended] 2. Suspend § 165.103 from June 21, 2002 through August 15, 2002. 3. In temporary § 165. T01– 192 revise the section heading and add a new paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 165. T01– 192 Safety and Security Zones; LPG Transits, Portland, Maine Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone * * * * * (c) Effective dates. This section is effective from November 9, 2001 through August 15, 2002. Dated: April 29, 2002. M. P. O'Malley, Commander, Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Portland, ME. [FR Doc. 02– 11491 Filed 5– 7– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 4910– 15– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 124 Procedures for Decisionmaking CFR Correction In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 100 to 135, revised as of July 1, 2001, in § 124.15, on page 266, the third sentence of paragraph (a) is revised, and in § 124.56, on page 276, paragraph (b)( 1)( vi) is revised, as follows: § 124.15 Issuance and effective date of permit. (a)* * * This notice shall include reference to the procedures for appealing a decision on a RCRA, UIC, PSD, or NPDES permit under § 124.19 of this part. * * * * * * * * § 124.56 Fact sheets (applicable to State programs, see § 123.25 (NPDES).) * * * * * (b)* * * (1)* * * (vi) Waivers from monitoring requirements granted under § 122.44( a) of this chapter. [FR Doc. 02– 55511 Filed 5– 7– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 1505– 01– D ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 261 [SWH– FRL– 7208– 6] Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste: Spent Catalysts From Dual­ Purpose Petroleum Hydroprocessing Reactors AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of availability of response to comments on the scope of petroleum hazardous waste listings. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today is announcing its decision to maintain its interpretation that under RCRA regulations, spent catalyst wastes removed from dual purpose hydroprocessing reactors at petroleum refining facilities are listed hazardous wastes. This interpretation was previously announced in Agency memoranda dated November 29, 1999 and June 1, 2000. In a Federal Register notice published July 5, 2001 (66 FR 35379), EPA announced that it was providing the public an opportunity to comment on the interpretation set forth in these memoranda and that the Agency would issue a second Federal Register notice that would announce EPA's decision and provide responses to those comments received. EPA's responses are provided in today's document and in a background document, `` Response to Comments: July 5, 2001 FR Notice on Spent Catalysts from Dual­ Purpose Petroleum Hydroprocessing Reactors. '' The regulations addressed in the memoranda and again in today's document were promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) on August 6, 1998 (63 FR 42110). ADDRESSES: Supporting materials to this notice are available for viewing in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The Docket Identification Number is F– 2002– PR2F– FFFFF. The RIC is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review file materials, we recommend that you make an appointment by calling (703) 603– 9230. You may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any file maintained at the RCRA Docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/ per page. The docket index and some supporting materials are available electronically. See the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on accessing them. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 09 May 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08MYR1. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 08MYR1 30812 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the RCRA Hotline at (800) 424– 9346 or TDD (800) 553– 7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call (703) 412– 3323. For information on specific aspects of the information contained in the memoranda discussed below, contact Patricia Overmeyer or Max Diaz of the Office of Solid Waste (5304W), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. [E­ mail addresses and telephone numbers: Overmeyer. Patricia@ epa. gov, (703) 605– 0708; Diaz. Max@ epa. gov, (703) 308– 0439.] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The docket index and some supporting documents, including the Response to Comments document, that are in the docket for today's notice also are available in electronic format on the Internet at URL: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ id/ petroleum/ catalyst. htm EPA will keep the official record for this action in paper form. The official record is the paper file maintained at the RCRA Docket, the address of which is in ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document. I. Background A. What is the Reason for Today's Publication? Today's notice fulfills the terms of a settlement agreement between EPA and the American Petroleum Institute (API), in which the Agency agreed to solicit comment on its interpretation, described in two Agency memoranda, regarding the regulatory status of spent catalysts removed from dual purpose reactors at petroleum facilities and provide the public with responses to comments received. Today's notice provides an overview of the response to comments and announces the availability of a separate, more detailed, response to comments document. In addition, today's notice announces that the Agency is maintaining its interpretation provided in the memoranda dated November 29, 1999 and June 1, 2000 with regard to the hazardous waste listing determinations issued on August 6, 1998. The interpretation is that spent catalysts removed from dual purpose petroleum hydroprocessing reactors are included within the scope of the hazardous waste listings for spent hydrotreating catalysts (K171) or spent hydrorefining catalysts (K172). B. Overview of Past Agency Actions On August 6, 1998, EPA listed as hazardous wastes spent hydrotreating catalysts (K171) and spent hydrorefining catalysts (K172) generated in petroleum refining operations (63 FR 42110). These regulations were promulgated under RCRA, 42 USC 6901, et seq. EPA took no action with regard to a third type of spent hydroprocessing catalyst generated by petroleum refineries, hydrocracking catalysts. Subsequent to the promulgation of the hazardous waste listing determination, a number of industry and environmental groups filed lawsuits challenging the validity of the listings. These cases were consolidated in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D. C. Circuit) in American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, Docket No. 94– 1683. Among the petitioners was Gulf Chemical and Metallurgical Corporation. Gulf asserted that the final rulemaking did not provide adequate definitions of the spent catalysts covered within the scope of the hazardous waste listing descriptions for K171 and K172. In particular, Gulf stated that the scope of the final listing descriptions did not adequately address the regulatory status of spent catalysts from petroleum hydroprocessing reactors that perform both hydrotreating and hydrocracking functions (i. e., spent catalysts from dual purpose reactors). Gulf pointed out that such dual purpose reactors perform functions meeting both the definitions of `` hydrotreating'' and `` hydrocracking'' provided in the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Petroleum Supply Annual (PSA) and presented in the preamble to the August 6, 1998 final petroleum refining listing determination. After reviewing the issues raised by Gulf in its petition, we concluded that the Agency had no dispute with the petitioner with regard to the regulatory status of spent catalysts removed from dual purpose reactors. In fact, we saw no grounds for Gulf's challenge to the August 1998 rulemaking given that our interpretation of the final listing descriptions for K171 and K172 is that spent catalysts from petroleum hydroprocessing units that perform hydrorefining and hydrotreatment functions are captured by the listing. Gulf's challenge did, however, serve to highlight the potential for confusion regarding the regulatory status of spent catalysts removed from dual purpose reactors. Although a straight reading of the regulatory language promulgated in the final rule should result in a conclusion that spent catalysts from units or reactors that perform hydrotreatment or hydrorefining functions are listed hazardous wastes, EPA's Office of Solid Waste decided to issue a memorandum clarifying the regulatory status of spent catalysts from dual purpose petroleum hydroprocessing operations. The memorandum was issued on November 29, 1999, and was distributed to industry trade associations and posted on EPA's `` RCRA On­ line'' website (http:// www. epa. gov/ rcraonline). After the memorandum was issued, Gulf dismissed its lawsuit on the hazardous waste listings (K171 and K172). The Agency's policy with regard to spent catalysts from dual purpose reactors, as originally expressed in the November 29, 1999 memorandum, is based on the fact that catalysts used in dual purpose reactors enhance the hydrotreatment or hydrorefining of petroleum feedstock. Dual purpose reactors are hydroprocessing reactors that perform hydrotreatment or hydrorefining functions while simultaneously hydrocracking petroleum feedstock. As explained in the memorandum, the fact that such reactors hydrocrack petroleum feedstocks does not exclude the spent catalysts from the hazardous waste listing. It was never the Agency's intent to exclude a spent catalyst from the listings for K171 and K172 on the basis that a spent catalyst is removed from a unit or reactor that hydrocracks petroleum feedstock, when the same unit or reactor also performs a hydrotreating or hydrorefining function. In February 2000, API filed a lawsuit in the D. C. Circuit challenging the validity of the November 29, 1999 memorandum. API v. EPA, Docket No. 00– 1069. API, however, agreed to hold this lawsuit in abeyance until the court decided the challenge to the original hazardous waste listing determinations. While awaiting the opinion of the court in the first API lawsuit, and while the second suit was being held in abeyance, EPA received further inquiries on the regulatory coverage of spent catalysts from dual purpose hydroprocessing reactors. In response to these additional inquiries, EPA distributed a second memorandum on June 1, 2000 further clarifying the scope of the K171 and K172 hazardous waste listings with regard to spent catalysts removed from dual purpose reactors. EPA also responded to two letters from individual petroleum refineries that requested information on the regulatory status of spent catalysts from two specific types of hydroprocessing reactors. These letters are discussed in more detail below, and both letters and VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 09 May 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08MYR1. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 08MYR1 30813 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 1 Gary, James H. and Handwerk, Glenn E., `` Petroleum Refining Technology and Economics, '' Third Edition, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1994, p. 174. 2 Gary, James H., Handwerk, Glenn E., Petroleum Refining Technology and Economics, fourth edition. 2001. p. 165. 3 See `` Background Document Clarifying the Scope of Petroleum Hazardous Waste Listings: Supplemental Information Regarding Petroleum Hydroprocessing Units. '' 4 Carbon residue is roughly related to the asphalt content of crude and to the quantity of lubricating oil fraction that can be recovered from it. It often is expressed in terms of weight percent carbon residue by the Conradson ASTM test procedure. EPA's responses to each are in the docket for this notice. On June 27, 2000, the D. C. Circuit issued an opinion in the first lawsuit that upheld EPA's hazardous waste listing determinations. API v. EPA, 216 F. 3d 50. Following the announcement of the court's decision with regard to its petition filed in response to the August 6, 1998 listing determinations, API reactivated its lawsuit on the November 29, 1999 memorandum. In June 2001, API and EPA entered into an agreement settling the second lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, EPA agreed to publish a Federal Register notice announcing the opportunity for the public to comment on the Agency's memoranda regarding the regulatory status of spent catalysts removed from dual purpose reactors. We published this notice in the Federal Register on July 5, 2001. In the settlement agreement, EPA also agreed to publish a second notice, after evaluating the public comments received in response to the first notice. In the July 5, 2001 notice, we explained that the second Federal Register notice would serve as an announcement of EPA's decision either to maintain, and possibly clarify, the positions expressed in the memoranda or to change them. Today's notice serves as the second notice that EPA agreed to publish and completes the activities that EPA agreed to undertake in our settlement agreement with API. C. What Are Dual Purpose Reactors? Petroleum refineries use hydroprocessing units to prepare residual stream feedstocks for cracking and coking units and to polish final products ( e. g., diesel fuels). Hydroprocessing reduces the boiling range of petroleum feedstock and removes substantial amounts of impurities from the feed. 1 During hydroprocessing, molecules in petroleum feedstock are split or saturated in the presence of hydrogen. Hydroprocessing is a broad term encompassing the more specific processes of hydrotreating, hydrorefining, and hydrocracking. Hydroprocessing reactors that hydrotreat petroleum feedstock stabilize the feed and remove impurities catalytically and react the feed with hydrogen. Hydrotreating includes the removal of sulfur, nitrogen, metals, and other impurities from petroleum feedstocks. Spent catalysts removed from hydrotreating reactors are listed hazardous wastes (K171). Hydrorefining also removes impurities, but uses more severe operating conditions than hydrotreating, and treats heavier molecular weight petroleum fractions (e. g., residual fuel oil and heavy gas oil). Spent catalysts removed from hydrorefining reactors also are listed hazardous wastes (K172). Hydrocracking is a process in which the primary purpose is to reduce the boiling range of petroleum feedstocks. Hydrocracking involves the breaking down of higher molecular weight hydrocarbons to lighter components with an infusion of hydrogen and in the presence of heat. In the August 6, 1998 final rule, EPA did not make a listing determination for spent catalysts from petroleum hydrocracking reactors and these spent catalysts are not currently listed as hazardous wastes. Dual purpose hydroprocessing reactors are designed to process petroleum feedstocks by both hydrotreating (or hydrorefining) the feedstock (i. e., removing sulfur, nitrogen, metals, and/ or other impurities) and hydrocracking the feedstock (i. e., reducing boiling points). The impurities are removed from the feedstock and become deposited on the spent catalyst. Given that the catalysts in dual purpose reactors are used to promote a hydrotreating or hydrorefining function, as well as a hydrocracking function, such catalysts when spent, are listed hazardous wastes under the plain language of the regulation. Although some commenters argue that dual purpose reactors fall within the definition of `` hydrocracking'' provided in DOE's Petroleum Supply Annual (see 63 FR 42110, at 42155), we point out that these units also clearly fall within the definition of `` hydrotreating'' included in the Petroleum Supply Annual. We include spent catalysts removed from dual purpose units within the scope of the hazardous waste listings based on the fact that these units perform hydrotreating or hydrorefining functions. We disagree with API's apparent view that the definitions are mutually exclusive and that a unit that can be described legitimately as a hydrocracking unit cannot also be described legitimately as a hydrotreating or hydrorefining unit. We also disagree with API's suggestion that the hydrotreating definition should be limited to the activities that do not also fall within the hydrocracking definition. The Agency knows of three specific types of dual purpose hydroprocessing reactors currently in use at petroleum refineries. The Agency is clarifying that spent catalysts removed from these three types of dual purpose units are listed hazardous wastes. All are expanded­ or ebullating­ bed processes. These are the H­ Oil, the LC­ Fining, and the T­ Star reactors. These reactors are designed to process heavy feeds such as atmospheric tower bottoms or vacuum reduced crude and use a single movingbed catalyst to perform hydrotreating (i. e., metals removal, desulfurization) and hydrocracking functions. 2 Ebullating bed hydroprocessing is a process that takes place in a reactor bed that is not fixed. In such a process, hydrocarbon feed streams enter the bottom of the reactor and flow upwards passing through the catalyst which is kept in suspension by the pressure of the fluid feed. LC­ Fining and H­ Oil both use similar technologies but offer different mechanical designs. The purpose of an ebullating bed reactor is to convert the most problematic feeds, such as atmospheric residuum, vacuum residues, and heavy oils having a high content of asphaltenes, metals, sulfur, and sediments, to lighter, more valuable products while simultaneously removing contaminants. The function of the catalyst is to remove contaminants such as sulfur and nitrogen heteroatoms, which accelerate the deactivation of the catalyst, while cracking (converting) the feed to lighter products. The H­ Oil reactor is used to process residue and heavy oils to produce upgraded petroleum products such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), gasoline, middle distillates, gas oil, and desulfurized fuel oil. Stable operation is achieved through a high operating pressure. The reactor achieves a very high level of treatment, as well as a very high conversion rate. The H­ Oil process can achieve conversion rates of 45 to 90 percent, desulfurization of 55 to 92 percent, and demetallization of 65 to 90 percent. 3 The LC­ Fining process serves the purposes of desulfurization, demetallization, Conradson Carbon Residue (CCR) reduction, 4 and hydrocracking of atmospheric and vacuum residuum. The LC­ Fining process can be used to yield a full range VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 09 May 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08MYR1. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 08MYR1 30814 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 5 Hydrocarbon Processing. `` Refining Processes 2000.'' Process descriptions of hydroprocessing units. November 2000. of high quality distillates, including residuals that may be used as fuel oil, and synthetic crude or feedstock for a residuum FCC, coker, visbreaker, or solvent deasphalter. The LC­ Fining process can achieve conversion rates of 40 to 97 percent, desulfurization of 60 to 90 percent, and a demetallization rate of 50 to 98 percent. These conversion and treatment percentages are high, relative to other types of hydroprocessing units. The T­ Star Process also is an ebullated bed hydrotreating/ hydrocracking process designed to process very difficult feedstocks (e. g., atmospheric residuum, vacuum residues, and heavy oils with high levels of sulfur and/ or metals) and achieve both a high level of treatment and high conversion. T­ Star units can maintain conversion rates in the range of 20 to 60 percent and hydrodesulfurization rates in the range of 93 to 99 percent. 5 Additional information on each of the dual­ purpose technologies is provided in `` Background Document Clarifying the Scope of Petroleum Hazardous Waste Listings: Supplemental Information Regarding Petroleum Hydroprocessing Units' which can be found in the docket for today's notice. At this time, EPA is aware of only three specific types of dual purpose hydroprocessing units. In addition to the technologies identified in today's notice and in the accompanying background document, other dual purpose units may be under development or made commercially available in the future. Therefore, we point out that the scope of the spent catalyst listings, as it applies to dual purpose units, is not limited to the three units named here. In naming these three specific units we do not mean to imply that spent catalysts from other types of dual purpose units that are designed to both hydrocrack petroleum feedstock and hydrotreat or hydrorefine the feedstock are not included within the scope of the listings. Our intention is to clarify that the scope of the hazardous waste listings includes spent catalysts removed from petroleum hydroprocessing units that perform both a hydrotreating or hydrorefining function, as well as a hydrocracking function. The scope of the hazardous waste listing is based upon the function performed by the reactor and is not specific to the name or brand of the reactor. II. Summary of the Agency's Views Regarding Spent Catalysts From Dual Purpose Reactors EPA is retaining its determination that spent catalysts removed from dual purpose reactors (i. e., those hydroprocessing reactors that perform both hydrotreating, or hydrorefining, and hydrocracking functions) are listed hazardous wastes. In the November 29, 1999 memorandum, the Agency clarified that these spent catalysts meet the listing descriptions for K171 or K172. Such materials include spent catalysts removed from expanded­ or ebullated­ bed reactors (e. g., H­ Oil, TStar and LC­ fining processes). As explained in the preamble to the August 6, 1998, final rule, definitions for petroleum hydrotreating, hydrorefining, and hydrocracking operations are not universally established. We explained in the final rule preamble that classifying petroleum refining processes on the basis of conversion rates is problematic. Although the preamble introduced the concept of classifying hydroprocessing units on the basis of conversion rates, we decided not to rely upon specific conversion rates to define hydrotreating and hydrocracking. Our reasons for rejecting the use of specific conversion rates included the fact that the ability to vary the operating conditions for some reactors, or changes to the manner in which feedstock conversion is calculated or accounted for, may allow refineries to classify particular reactors as hydrocracking units despite the amount of hydrotreatment or hydrorefining conducted in the reactor. After considering all relevant information in the rulemaking record, as well as commenter suggestions, we decided that the simplest way to differentiate between hydrocracking and hydrotreating units was to rely on categorizations provided in the Department of Energy's (DOE) Petroleum Supply Annual (PSA). We, however, did not foresee the confusion that arose after the final rule was promulgated over how to classify hydroprocessing units that meet more than one PSA definition. When we wrote the section of the final rule preamble discussing the definitions of hydrotreating, hydrorefining, and hydrocracking, we did not have dual purpose hydroprocessing units in mind. As a result, the discussion did not address the uncommon situation of petroleum hydroprocessing units or reactors that are designed to both hydrotreat or hydrorefine and hydrocrack feedstock and that legitimately meet both the PSA definition of hydrotreating and the PSA definition of hydrocracking. Inquiries received after promulgation of the 1998 final listing determination made us recognize that dual purpose hydroprocessing units that achieve high conversation rates and that are designed to and in fact do perform a high level of treatment were not specifically addressed in the preamble discussion. Due to the high level of treatment obtained in the units, the units meet the definition of a hydrotreater and the spent catalysts generated by the units become contaminated with the same contaminants for which spent hydrotreating catalysts were listed as hazardous wastes. Dual purpose units are not widely used in the petroleum refining industry. The discussion provided in the 1998 final rule preamble addressed the more common situation where hydrotreatment and hydrocracking are done in succession and in separate units or in separate reactors within a given unit (e. g., a two­ staged hydrocracker, where a guard bed performs treatment prior to hydrocracking). Most hydrocracking units, with the exception of the dual purpose units addressed in today's notice, are not designed to convert or crack untreated petroleum feedstock. Most hydrocracking units contain catalysts that promote hydrocarbon conversion but will become poisoned by the sulfur, metal and other heteoratom content of untreated feedstock. This is not the case with dual purpose units where the unit and catalyst can handle untreated petroleum feedstock and perform both hydrotreating and hydrocracking in the same unit. The 1998 preamble discussion addresses the most prevalent case, and did not address the unusual or limited situation of a dual purpose unit. Our intention in the November 29, 1999 and June 1, 2000 memoranda was to address this situation and clarify that spent catalysts removed from hydroprocessing units that meet the PSA definition of hydrotreating are listed hazardous wastes, even in cases where the unit also meets the PSA definition of hydrocracking. We also clarified that we do not consider spent catalysts from a petroleum hydroprocessing reactor to be a listed hazardous waste solely because some incidental and minimal amount of hydrotreatment (or hydrorefining) of feeds occurs in a hydrocracking unit. In addition, the Agency, in the November 1999 memorandum, clarified that the listing should not be interpreted as providing that spent catalysts from any hydrocracking process­ regardless of whether or not hydrotreatment (or VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 09 May 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08MYR1. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 08MYR1 30815 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations hydrorefining) also occurs— are, by definition, outside the scope of the K171 and K172 listings (i. e., if a spent catalyst otherwise meets the K171 or K172 listings because it comes from a unit that performs a hydrotreating or hydrorefining function, the fact that the spent catalyst is removed from a unit that also hydrocracks does not exclude the spent catalyst from the hazardous waste listing). In the August 1998 final rule, we did not define hydrocracking and then indicate that hydrotreating and hydrorefining are `` not hydrocracking. '' It was never our intent to allow the scope of the hazardous waste listing determination to be defined or superseded when a catalyst performs a hydrocracking function, and that same catalyst also, by design, facilitates a hydrotreatment or hydrorefining function in the same unit or reactor. The final listing determinations were meant to include spent catalysts removed from reactors that perform hydrotreating and hydrorefining functions, even if the reactors also perform a hydrocracking function. This is consistent with EPA's decision in the final rulemaking to rely on the PSA definitions in determining the function or functions performed by a reactor. The PSA definitions of hydroprocessing take into account the function or operation performed by a reactor when defining hydroprocessing operations. We, therefore, clarified in the November 1999 memorandum that it was based on these functions, hydrotreating and hydrorefining, that we determine the regulatory status of the spent catalysts from dual purpose reactors. The presence of hydrocracking within a reactor does not exclude a spent catalyst from the scope of the hazardous waste listing when the reactor also functions as a hydrotreating or a hydrorefining unit. We further clarify that spent catalysts generated by refineries that classify dual purpose reactors as hydrocracking units when reporting to DOE will nonetheless be K171 or K172 listed wastes if the unit performs a hydrotreatment or hydrorefining function. Today's notice retains the clarification that the 1998 final rule should not be interpreted as allowing petroleum refineries to classify dual purpose reactors as hydrocracking reactors and in doing so claim that the spent catalysts removed from these reactors are spent hydrocracking catalysts (which are not listed hazardous wastes). Catalysts removed from reactors that perform a hydrotreating or hydrorefining function, regardless of whether hydrocracking is performed in the same unit, are listed hazardous wastes, when spent. We acknowledge that the preamble is confusing in that it indicated that units that previously have been classified as hydrocrackers are not covered by the listing. Again, at the time EPA wrote the final rule preamble, it did not have dual purpose reactors in mind. The preamble did specifically address guard beds, in which a separate bed treats feed in advance of feeding the petroleum stream to a hydrocracker. But, EPA did not (in the 1998 preamble) address the situation where a single reactor preforms both a hydrotreating (or hydrorefining) and a hydrocracking function. (Indeed, EPA's treatment of guard beds supports the interpretation retained today, in that it reflects EPA's clear intention to capture within the scope of the listings catalyst wastes from units that are intended to, and do, hydrotreat or hydrorefine petroleum feedstock). In any event, the indication that self­ classification as a hydrocracker avoids listing coverage is inconsistent with EPA's stated intent to rely on the PSA definitions, in that it would allow spent catalysts from units that are designed to, and in fact do, perform hydrotreating or hydrorefining functions to escape the listing, despite the fact that they are generating precisely the wastes EPA intended to capture in the listing. It was because of the potential inconsistency in the preamble that EPA saw the need to issue its interpretive memoranda in the first place. EPA believes that its interpretation presented in these memoranda and retained today is most consistent with the preamble and rulemaking overall­ it captures wastes from units that are designed to hydrotreat or hydrorefine waste under the PSA definitions. After EPA distributed the November 29, 1999 memorandum, it was brought to the Agency's attention that the memorandum could be interpreted as indicating that spent catalysts from petroleum hydrocracking reactors are captured by the hazardous waste listings, even though such reactors may conduct only minimal and incidental hydrotreatment or hydrorefining of previously treated feedstock. For example, some reactors that hydrocrack petroleum feedstock treated previously to remove sulfur, metals and other impurities, may also in practice perform incidental and minimal hydrotreating or hydrorefining due to the operating parameters employed and the nature of the pre­ treated feed entering the reactor. The Agency did not intend, when issuing the November 29, 1999 memorandum, to include within the scope of the hazardous waste listings spent catalysts from hydrocracking reactors, if such reactors are designed to hydrocrack feedstock and perform only a minimal and incidental amount of hydrotreatment or hydrorefining. Rather, EPA intended to address only the status of dual purpose units that are designed to perform hydrotreatment or hydrorefining as well as hydrocracking functions. Therefore, we issued a memorandum dated June 1, 2000, clarifying that spent catalysts removed from reactors that hydrocrack petroleum feedstocks and perform only `` minimal and incidental'' hydrotreatment or hydrorefining are not within the scope of the hazardous waste listing descriptions for K171 or K172. This is consistent with the regulatory language, and with the intention stated in the preamble and the November 1999 memorandum, to adopt a functional approach to defining catalysts removed from hydroprocessing units. Today, the Agency reiterates that a spent catalyst removed from a unit that performs hydrotreating or hydrorefining functions is a `` spent hydrotreating catalyst'' or a `` spent hydrorefining catalyst'' within the meaning of the regulation, even if the unit also performs a hydrocracking function. However, a spent catalyst removed from a reactor that hydrocracks and performs only minimal and incidental hydrotreatment or hydrorefining does not fall within the scope of the hazardous waste listings K171 and K172. Spent catalysts removed from such hydrocracking reactors are not captured by the listings simply because some hydrotreating or hydrorefining unavoidably occurs in the reactor. A copy of the Agency's June 1, 2000 memorandum clarifying this conclusion is included in the docket. Following distribution of the November 29, 1999 memorandum, EPA also received requests from members of the petroleum refining industry for clarification of the regulatory status of two specific types of spent catalysts. In response to these requests, we issued two letters to the requesting parties on June 1, 2000. In a letter to Motiva Enterprises LLC, we explained that we determined that the spent catalyst removed from the Motiva refinery's HOil unit is a listed hazardous wastes. Based on our determination that the HOil unit is a dual purpose hydroprocessing reactor designed to both hydrotreat and hydrocrack petroleum feedstock in a single reactor using a single, ebullating bed catalyst, we found that the spent catalyst from the H­ Oil unit falls within the scope of the hazardous waste listings. In a second letter, to Chevron Research and Technology Company, we addressed the regulatory status of spent VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 09 May 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08MYR1. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 08MYR1 30816 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations catalyst removed from Chevron's twostage ISOCRACKING hydroprocessing unit. In this letter, we determined that spent catalyst removed from the first stage of the ISOCRACKING unit, which serves as a guard bed reactor and performs a predominant treatment function, is a listed hazardous waste (K171). The resulting K171 designation of spent catalyst from the first stage reactor of this unit follows from our determination that spent catalysts from guard bed reactors are within the scope of the listing descriptions for K171 and K172 as clarified in the preamble to the August 6, 1998 final rule. Also, the final listing descriptions for K171 and K172 clearly designate spent catalysts from guard bed reactors as included within the scope of the listings (see 40 CFR 261.32). In addition, we also stated in our letter to Chevron that spent catalysts removed from the second stage reactor of Chevron's ISOCRACKING unit are not spent hydrotreating or hydrorefining catalysts and are not captured by the listing descriptions for K171 and K172. The second stage reactor within the ISOCRACKING unit receives pretreated feed and performs a predominant hydrocracking function; we concluded that any hydrotreatment that occurs in the second stage of the reactor is minimal and incidental. III. Overview of Public Comments In the July 5, 2001 Federal Register notice, we reiterated our explanation that spent catalysts removed from dual purpose reactors are listed hazardous wastes. We explained in that notice that it was our finding that this conclusion, as expressed in the two EPA memoranda, is consistent with the plain language of the listing description. However, we acknowledged that the memoranda were controversial within the regulated community and we believed that providing an opportunity for public comment was in the interest of good government because it provides interested parties with a chance to influence the Agency's thinking and could avoid potentially unnecessary litigation. We, therefore, solicited comment on the regulatory interpretation presented in the November 29, 1999 and the June 1, 2000 memoranda which explained the Agency's position that spent catalysts removed from petroleum hydroprocessing reactors that perform both a hydrotreatment (or hydrorefining) function and a hydrocracking function are captured by the hazardous waste listings K171 or K172. We also solicited comments as to whether there are specific situations where it is not clear whether, or relatively how much, hydrotreatment or hydrorefining is either occurring or intended in a particular unit or reactor. We noted especially that we were interested in comment on whether there is a better test for generally describing dual purpose units that are not H­ Oil, LC­ Fining, or T­ Star reactors (the dual purpose reactors that, as noted above, EPA knows about) but perform hydrocracking and more than `` minimal and incidental'' hydrotreating or hydrorefining, or whether decisions regarding the regulatory status of these other reactors must be made on a caseby case basis. We requested that any improvements suggested by commenters be consistent with our focus on determining when a catalyst is used in a reactor that performs a hydrotreatment or hydrorefining function, regardless of whether it also is performing a hydrocracking function. We explained in the July 5, 2001 notice that we were not reopening comment on any substantive or procedural issues affecting the August 6, 1998 hazardous waste listing rule. Comments were requested solely on the issues addressed within the context of the two memoranda. We received comments in response to the July 5, 2001 notice from one petroleum refinery, as well as from the American Petroleum Institute and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA). We also received comments from the Ferroalloys Association, a trade association representing the catalyst recycling industry. We did not receive any comments on determining a clear test for describing dual purpose reactors that are not the three types EPA knows about, nor did any comments identify any other units that should be considered dual purpose reactors. However, we understand that we may in the future have to make caseby case determinations of the status of spent catalysts from other dual purpose reactors under the general principles discussed in the record for the August 1998 rulemaking, as clarified by the record accompanying this Federal Register notice. A. Comments Received From the Petroleum Refining Industry Comments received from parties representing the petroleum refining industry argued that the memoranda developed by EPA clarifying the status of spent catalysts removed from dual purpose petroleum refining reactors contradict the preamble language included in the August 6, 1998 final rulemaking and substantially expand the listing definitions. The commenters stated that the preamble to the final rule did not mention dual purpose reactors and stated that, with the exception of guard beds, if a refinery had been classifying hydroprocessing units as hydrocrackers for the purpose of the DOE form EIA– 820, spent catalyst from such a unit would not be covered by K171 or K172. These commenters also argued that since EPA promulgated source­ specific listings (or `` K'' listings), the listings were clearly based on specific processes or units from which the catalysts are removed and not based on the function performed by the catalysts. In addition, these commenters suggested that EPA define the scope of the hazardous waste listings on the percentage of feedstock conversion (i. e., the amount of hydrocracking performed) in the unit from which a spent catalyst is removed. We admit that confusion may have been created by the sentence in the preamble to the August 1998 final rule that states that `` if a refinery has been classifying its hydroprocessor as a catalytic hydrocracker for the purposes of DOE's Form EIA– 820, spent catalysts from this unit would not be covered by K171 or K172 (with the exception of guard beds * * *). '' As stated above, when we wrote the section of the final rule preamble discussing the definitions of hydrotreating, hydrorefining, and hydrocracking, we did not have dual purpose hydroprocessing units in mind. As a result, the discussion did not address the unusual situation of petroleum hydroprocessing units or reactors that legitimately meet both the PSA definition of hydrotreating and the PSA definition of hydrocracking. Our intention in the November 29, 1999 and June 1, 2000 memoranda was to address this confusion and clarify that spent catalysts removed from hydroprocessing units that meet the PSA definition of hydrotreating are listed hazardous wastes, even in cases where the unit also meets the PSA definition of hydrocracking. We also clarified that we do not consider spent catalysts from a petroleum hydroprocessing reactor to be a listed hazardous waste solely because some incidental and minimal amount of hydrotreatment of feeds occurs in a hydrocracking unit. In addition, the Agency, in the November 1999 memorandum, clarified that the listing should not be interpreted as providing that spent catalysts from any hydrocracking process— regardless of whether or not hydrotreatment also occurs— are, by definition, outside the scope of the K171 and K172 listings. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 09 May 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08MYR1. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 08MYR1 30817 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Therefore, we disagree with the underlying premise of the commenter's argument that the PSA definitions of hydrotreatment and hydrocracking are mutually exclusive. The definitions clearly overlap. Individual hydroprocessing units may meet both definitions. The fact that any unit can legitimately be classified as a hydrocracker does not preclude the unit from meeting the definition of a hydrotreater or a hydrorefiner. Based on guidance provided in the preamble to the final rule, including our use of definitions that categorize hydroprocessing units based on the function performed by the unit, and our rejection in the final rule of general refining process definitions (e. g., definitions provided by the Oil and Gas Journal, that base hydroprocessor definitions on the percent of conversion obtained within a unit), we believe the preamble to the August 1998 rule reflects our intent to base the scope of the final listings on the function performed by the units or reactors in which spent catalysts are generated. Therefore, when we clarified in our November 29, 1999 and June 1, 2001 memoranda that spent catalysts removed from dual purpose reactors are included within the scope of the hazardous waste listings based on the function performed by dual purpose reactors, we were consistent with the overall thrust of the discussion provided in the preamble to the final rule. As we explained in the July 5, 2001 Federal Register notice, we acknowledge that the scope of the hazardous waste listings, as explained in the memoranda, is controversial. Therefore, although we believe that the policy explained in the memoranda is a correct reading of the final regulatory language, we decided to take the unusual step of soliciting public comment on the memoranda in which we explained our policy, due to concerns raised by the regulatory community. In today's notice, and after considering public comments received in response to the July 5, 2001 notice, we are providing public notification that we are retaining our policy with regard to the regulatory status of spent catalysts removed from dual purpose hydroprocessing units, as it is explained in our memoranda of November 29, 1999 and June 1, 2000. We also disagree with the commenters' assertion that, because we promulgated the final listings as `` K'' listings, this limits the scope of the listings to specific units. Neither the listing descriptions codified in the regulatory language nor the preamble to the final rule limits the listings to specific units. Both the final listing descriptions and the preamble language describe the scope of the listing based on the function performed by the units or reactors from which the spent catalysts have been removed. In addition, while the commenter is correct that some K­ listings are unit specific (such as K051— API separator sludge from the petroleum refining industry), many K­ listings are not unit specific, but process­ specific from a particular industry. For example, there are 16 separate listings within the Klistings that specify `` wastewater treatment sludge'' from a particular industry (e. g., from the production of toxaphene (K041)). The wastewater treatment sludge listings are not necessarily from a particular type of unit. Instead, the listings can be derived from any wastewater treatment process involved in the production of a certain product. In fact, very few of the Klistings actually specify a specific unit. The major difference between the F­ and K­ listings is that the K­ listings generally identify wastes generated by a particular industry and are often more specific with regard to where the waste is formed. Therefore, the Agency's interpretation that spent catalyst from dual­ purpose reactors is included in the listing is consistent with the Agency's designation of other K­ listings. We also do not agree with arguments that we should redefine the scope of the hazardous waste listings for spent hydrotreating catalysts and spent hydrorefining catalysts based on the amount of hydrocracking performed in the units or reactors from which the catalysts are removed. We find it is more appropriate to base the scope of the listings on the basis of the hydrotreating and hydrorefining functions performed by the units. As we explained in the preamble to the August 6, 1998 final rule and in our responses to comments received on the proposed listing determinations (60 FR 57747), we continue to reject the notion of defining these wastes on the basis of the degree of hydrocracking that is performed in the units or reactors from which they are removed. As we stated in the preamble to the final rule, reliance on specific conversion rates allows that slight changes in operating and accounting practices may result in reclassification of units or reactors that otherwise would be considered hydrorefiners or hydrotreaters. In addition, the mere presence of hydrocracking does not preclude a unit or reactor from performing a significant hydrotreating or hydrorefining function. Hydrotreating and hydrorefining of petroleum feedstock results in the demetalization and desulfurization of petroleum feedstock as well as the removal of other impurities and heteroatoms. The performance of these functions results in the contamination of the catalyst, such that it eventually becomes spent. We found that the degree of contamination of the catalyst has a direct correlation to the risk potential of the spent catalyst. B. Comments Received From the Catalyst Recycling Industry We also received comments from the Ferroalloys Association, a trade association representing companies that recycle spent hydroprocessing catalysts. The catalyst recycling industry generally supports the policy articulated in the November 29, 1999 and June 1, 2001 memoranda. As stated in its comments, the commenter agrees that spent catalysts that perform hydrotreating or hydrorefining functions should be regulated as hazardous wastes, even when the catalysts are removed from units that also perform conversion of heavy fractions to lighter fractions. The commenter points out, however, that in the July 5, 2001 Federal Register notice, we identified only three types of dual purpose hydroprocessing units. The commenter argues that other types of hydroprocessing units, including some fixed bed units also perform both hydrotreating and hydrocracking functions. As pointed out above, our interpretation of the final spent catalyst listings, as described in the final rule preamble, the two memoranda, and in this notice, is that the listings include spent catalysts from dual purpose hydroprocessing units. At present, we are aware of three types of specific dual purpose units (H­ oil, L– C fining, and Tstar units), that both hydrocrack petroleum feedstock and perform hydrotreatment or hydrorefining functions. We are aware that more such units could become available in the future and that others could now exist of which we are unaware. Although we do not anticipate that many other such units exist, other dual purpose units could exist, and the spent catalysts from such units would be captured by the listings. The July 5, 2001 notice established that the Agency's policy, as described in the November 29, 1999 and June 1, 2000 memoranda, is that spent catalysts from hydroprocessing units that perform both a hydrotreating (or hydrorefining) function and a hydrocracking function are listed hazardous wastes. However, spent catalysts from reactors that perform a hydrocracking function and VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 09 May 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08MYR1. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 08MYR1 30818 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations only some incidental and minimal amount of hydrotreatment of feeds (e. g., the second stage of a two­ staged ISOCRACKING unit) are not listed hazardous wastes. As explained above, the scope of the hazardous waste listings for K171 and K172 includes spent catalysts removed from a reactor that performs a hydrotreating or hydrorefining function, including a spent catalyst from any dual purpose reactor designed and operated to hydrotreat or hydrorefine petroleum feedstock, as well as hydrocrack the feed in the same reactor. The scope of the listing is not limited to the specific units named above or in the background document to this notice, or to units with specific brand names. The catalyst recyclers also commented that, when EPA promulgated the final hazardous waste listings for spent catalysts, EPA designated the listings as `` specific source'' listings, or `` K'' listings. The recyclers suggested that the Agency amend the listings by combining both listings into one `` F, '' or non­ specific source listing. In its comments, the catalyst recycling industry also encouraged EPA to undertake a listing investigation to determine whether or not spent hydrocracking catalysts should be listed as hazardous waste. The commenter points out that data previously collected by the Agency may support such a hazardous waste listing. The issue regarding the designation of a `` specific source'' listing versus `` nonspecific source'' listing (i. e., a `` Flisting versus a `` K­ listing'') is addressed above. The request regarding a listing determination for spent hydrocracking catalyst is beyond the scope of today's notice. C. Comments Related to Encouraging Recycling Commenters representing petroleum refineries argued that EPA should promulgate a conditional exemption from the hazardous waste listings for spent hydrotreating catalysts and spent hydrorefining catalysts that are recycled. Commenters argued that a conditional exemption from the hazardous waste listing would encourage more recycling of spent catalysts. The consideration of a conditional exemption from the hazardous waste listing for spent catalysts that are recycled is beyond the scope of today's notice. A commenter representing the petroleum refining industry argued that the final listing determination resulted in significant increases in the cost of recycling spent catalysts. The commenter stated, that `` the predicted result of EPA's refusal to tailor the listings was that the costs related to reclamation rose substantially (up to $500– 800/ ton) after the listings took effect in early 1999, while landfilling of the listed catalysts— in compliance with Subtitle C of RCRA— became relatively more practical and economical (about $200/ ton) than reclamation. '' The commenter provided no additional documentation of its claim. Information available to EPA does not support this conclusion. Available information indicates that management costs for catalyst recyclers increased only slightly as a result of the 1998 final rulemaking due to the need to manage wastes generated as a result of the reclamation process as hazardous wastes. Almost all of the catalyst reclaimers had Subtitle C storage permits prior to the 1998 final rule because many catalysts exhibit one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics and, therefore, had to be managed as hazardous wastes prior to the final listing determination. Although we do not dispute that there is a significant cost differential between the costs associated with reclamation and disposal of spent catalysts, the cost differential is not a result of the final listing determination. In addition, we do not expect a regulatory amendment changing the listing status of spent catalysts that are reclaimed or recycled to have any significant effect upon the future costs of waste management practices. In its comments, the association representing the catalyst reclaimers did not address the issue of a conditional exemption from the hazardous waste listing for spent catalysts that are recycled. However, the association has petitioned the Agency to amend the land disposal restrictions treatment standards promulgated as part of the final listing determination to require similar treatment requirements for both spent hydrotreating catalysts and spent hydrorefining catalysts. The catalyst reclaimers argue that the difference in treatment standards for spent hydrorefining catalysts discourage recycling of these wastes and result in significant levels of hazardous constituents being land disposed. We believe it is important to encourage recycling and reclamation of hazardous wastes, as well as the conservation of resources. It is a particularly important goal for the Agency to encourage the reclamation of hazardous wastes containing significant quantities of recoverable metals. As commenters to the July 5, 2001 notice pointed out, spent petroleum hydroprocessing catalyst can contain recoverable quantities of vanadium and other metals. Therefore, we continue to encourage all parties to identify ways in which the recycling of spent catalysts may be encouraged. Dated: April 30, 2002. Marianne Lamont Horinko, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. [FR Doc. 02– 11451 Filed 5– 7– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 02– 975, MM Docket No. 01– 128, RM– 10133] Digital Television Broadcast Service; Charleston, SC AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of WCSC, Inc., licensee of WCSC– TV, NTSC channel 5, substitutes DTV channel 47 for DTV channel 52 at Charleston. See 66 FR 34400, June 28, 2001. DTV channel 47 can be allotted to Charleston, South Carolina, in compliance with the principle community coverage requirements of Section 73.625( a) at reference coordinates 32– 55– 28 N. and 79– 41– 58 W. with a power of 1000, HAAT of 597 meters and with a DTV service population of 851 thousand. With is action, this proceeding is terminated. DATES: Effective June 17, 2002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Media Bureau, (202) 418– 1600. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01– 128, adopted April 26, 2002, and released May 2, 2002. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY– A257, Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, CY– B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202– 863– 2893, facsimile 202– 863– 2898, or via e­ mail qualexint@ aol. com. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 09 May 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08MYR1. SGM pfrm04 PsN: 08MYR1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.414229

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0025-0057

Supporting & Related Material

1 Sources are required to begin the initial comprehensive performance test by 180 days after the compliance date, to complete testing within 30 days, and to submit the NOC within 90 days of completing the testing. Upon postmark of the NOC, sources must begin complying with the operating parameter limits demonstrated during the performance test. October 15, 2002 NOTE SUBJECT: Stakeholder Review of Draft Technical Correction FROM: Robert Holloway Environmental Engineer, OSW, USEPA TO: The Docket This is to document that industry stakeholders were given notice and opportunity to comment on a technical correction we plan to make to the September 30, 1999 NESHAP for hazardous waste combustors. The correction is needed to remove an impediment to early compliance with the standards, as we intended in previous revisions to the 1999 rule. The correction would waive the requirement to submit the Notification of Compliance ( NOC) within 90 days of completion of the performance test for sources that comply early. We had previously proposed regulatory language to address this issue. See 66 FR at 35153. Even though we did not receive adverse comments on the proposed regulatory revision, we have determined that the wording of the amendment may not have ensured that a source eligible for the waiver would actually be required to comply early. Accordingly, we plan to revise the amendment to require that a source that conducts the performance test prior to the compliance date, and that takes advantage of the waiver of the requirement to submit the NOC within 90 days of completing the test, must nonetheless submit the NOC by the compliance date or 90 days after completing the test, whichever is later. This provision ensures that sources using the waiver will begin complying with the emission standards using operating parameter limits documented by a performance test well before the regulatory deadline. 1 I apprised Melvin Keener, Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration, in early October, 2002, of our intent to make this technical correction and to revise the regulatory language ( as discussed above) that we proposed at 66 FR at 35153. Mr. Keener subsequently indicated that he apprised other industry organizations ( e. g., Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition) of our intent, and that neither CRWI nor the other industry representatives had adverse comments. In addition, Jim Berlow, Director, Hazardous Waste Minimization and Management Division, OSW, recently called Jim Pew, Earth Justice, and left a detailed voicemail message explaining that we intended to issue a technical correction with the early compliance provision discussed above. Mr. Berlow asked Mr. Pugh to call him to discuss any concerns that he may have with that approach. Mr. Pugh did not return the call, and we assume he had no objections.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.423178

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0026-0004

Supporting & Related Material

1 Sources are required to begin the initial comprehensive performance test by 180 days after the compliance date, to complete testing within 30 days, and to submit the NOC within 90 days of completing the testing. Upon postmark of the NOC, sources must begin complying with the operating parameter limits demonstrated during the performance test. October 15, 2002 NOTE SUBJECT: Stakeholder Review of Draft Technical Correction FROM: Robert Holloway Environmental Engineer, OSW, USEPA TO: The Docket This is to document that industry stakeholders were given notice and opportunity to comment on a technical correction we plan to make to the September 30, 1999 NESHAP for hazardous waste combustors. The correction is needed to remove an impediment to early compliance with the standards, as we intended in previous revisions to the 1999 rule. The correction would waive the requirement to submit the Notification of Compliance ( NOC) within 90 days of completion of the performance test for sources that comply early. We had previously proposed regulatory language to address this issue. See 66 FR at 35153. Even though we did not receive adverse comments on the proposed regulatory revision, we have determined that the wording of the amendment may not have ensured that a source eligible for the waiver would actually be required to comply early. Accordingly, we plan to revise the amendment to require that a source that conducts the performance test prior to the compliance date, and that takes advantage of the waiver of the requirement to submit the NOC within 90 days of completing the test, must nonetheless submit the NOC by the compliance date or 90 days after completing the test, whichever is later. This provision ensures that sources using the waiver will begin complying with the emission standards using operating parameter limits documented by a performance test well before the regulatory deadline. 1 I apprised Melvin Keener, Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration, in early October, 2002, of our intent to make this technical correction and to revise the regulatory language ( as discussed above) that we proposed at 66 FR at 35153. Mr. Keener subsequently indicated that he apprised other industry organizations ( e. g., Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition) of our intent, and that neither CRWI nor the other industry representatives had adverse comments. In addition, Jim Berlow, Director, Hazardous Waste Minimization and Management Division, OSW, recently called Jim Pew, Earth Justice, and left a detailed voicemail message explaining that we intended to issue a technical correction with the early compliance provision discussed above. Mr. Berlow asked Mr. Pugh to call him to discuss any concerns that he may have with that approach. Mr. Pugh did not return the call, and we assume he had no objections.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.425383

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0029-0086

Supporting & Related Material

Note to the Docket: F­ 2001­ SPRP­ FFFFF Standardized Permit Proposed Rule Meeting Summary April 16; 11: 00­ 12: 00 noon Melrose Hotel, Washington, DC Quarterly meeting of the Environmental Technology Council (David Case, presiding) Purpose: meeting requested by ETC to hear about EPA's activities with the proposed rule Attachment 1: list of attendees (ETC, and EPA staff) Attachment 2: background and intent of proposed rule Attachment 3: selected comments summary Attachment 4: financial assurance comments summary Attachment 5: Summary of Discussion Attachment 1 List of Attendees April 16, 2002 ETC Meeting Briefing Name Company 1 David Case Environmental Technology Council 2 John Corcia Gulstream TLC Stablex, Palm Beach, FL 3 Steve DeLussa Envirosource Technologies, Horsham, PA 4 Jim Gress Ross Incineration, Grafton, OH 5 John Klepeis ECO Services Rhodia, Cranberry, NJ 6 Scott Maris EQ Company, Wayne, MI 7 Angie Martin Heritage Environmental Services, Indianapolis, IN 8 Shaun McCabe Waste Control Specialists, Dallas, TX 9 Bill Morris Norlite Corp., Meriden, CT 10 Mike Parkes Von Roll WTI, East Liverpool, OH 11 Susan Prior Safety­ Kleen Corp., Columbia, SC 12 Fred Sigg Von Roll WTI, East Liverpool, OH 13 Zul Tejpar, Bennett Environmental, Vancouver, BC 14 Bill Ziegler Teris LLC, El Dorado, AR 15 Jeff Gaines US EPA Office of Solid Waste 16 Vernon Myers US EPA Office of Solid Waste 17 Dale Ruhter US EPA Office of Solid Waste 18 Malcolm Woolf US EPA Office of General Council Attachment 2: background and intent of proposed rule power point document Proposed RCRA Standardized Permit Rule Jeff Gaines RCRA Permits Branch April 16, 2002 Proposed Standardized Permit Rule z The Proposed Standardized Permit Rule will streamline the permitting of facilities that generate waste and then manage the waste in tanks, containers, or containment buildings. z Permit application and review is substantially streamlined: y no part B information submitted y most information kept at facility z Public participation is not streamlined Proposed Standardized Permit Rule (continued) z We believe the standardized permit is appropriate for tanks, containers, and containment buildings because: y risk of managing waste in these units is sufficiently low that it can be addressed through standard conditions y engineering and construction skills necessary to design and construct these units is relatively basic y facilities that receive waste from off­ site are not eligible for a standardized permit (We are asking for comment on intracompany transfer of waste). Proposed Standardized Permit Rule (continued) z Although the Standardized Permit streamlines the administrative permitting process, the technical requirements are substantively the same that apply under the current permitting system. These include similar: y public participation requirements, y general facility standards (waste analysis, personnel training, waste compatibility, location standards), y preparedness, prevention, and contingency plan standards, y manifest, record keeping, and reporting requirements, Proposed Standardized Permit Rule (continued) y closure and post­ closure (no up­ front closure plan required and units must clean close or apply for an individual permit), y financial requirements (modified to fit the situation of not requiring up­ front closure plan), y corrective action standards (preamble discussion of implementation approaches), y technical standards for tanks, containers, and containment building (waivers provisions eliminated). Corrective Action Approach z Preamble discusses several approaches: y postpone RCRA corrective action decision until ongoing state corrective action activities are completed, y defer RCRA correction action to states with acceptable corrective action programs. Financial Responsibility z Request comments on several topics y Conclusion of the Inspector General's report on financial assurance for closure and post­ closure that "insurance policies issued by "captive" insurance companies do not provide an adequate level of assurance." y Whether to disallow the use of pure captive insurance. A pure captive is a subsidiary that a company establishes to provide insurance to the parent or sibling subsidiaries. (continued) z Requiring a minimum rating of insurers providing financial assurance (Aaa, Aa or A by Moody's, or a rating of AAA, AA or A by Standard& Poor's, or A++, A+, A or A­ from A. M. Best Company). Current Schedule z FR Proposal: October 12, 2001 (66 FR 52192) z www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ permit/ std­ perm. htm z Comment Period Ended: December 11, 2001 z FR Final: Anticipated February 2003 Attachment 3: selected comments summary power point document RCRA Standardized Permit Proposed Rule (October 12, 2001) Environmental Technology Council Meeting Melrose Hotel Washington DC April 16, 2002 Jeff Gaines RCRA Permits Branch EPA Office of Solid Waste 2 Overview z Comment period ended December 11, 2001 z 46 Comments Received (2 are late comments) y 2 from Federal Agencies y 15 from States y 11 from Industry y 9 from trade associations y 9 others 3 Commentors z # 1 (Don Webster) z # 2 (Horace Lee) z # 3 (Cycle Chem) z # 4 (Ross Incineration Services) z # 5 (SOCMA) z # 6 (DOE ) z # 7 ( Waste Management, Inc.) z # 8 (Edison Elect, et al.) z # 9 ( Boeing ) z # 10 (Cal DTSC ) z # 11 (OR ) z # 12 ( CSHEMA) z # 13 ( NE ) z # 14 (ACS) z # 15 (GA) z # 16 (Dominion group) z # 17 (API) z # 18 (PIRG Group) z # 19 (NADA) z # 20 (AR) z # 21 ( WA) z # 22 (Army) z # 23 (TN) z # 24 (Onyx) z # 25 (FL) z # 26 (MI) z # 27 (Safety­ kleen) z # 28 (Paul Hastings, LLP) z # 29 (Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration) z # 30 (ASTSWMO) z # 31 (MO) z # 32 (AISI) z # 33 (American Chemistry Council) z # 34 (ETC) z # 35 (NJ) 4 Commentors z # 36 (Vermont Captive Ins. Assn.) z # 38 (ETC) z # 39 (TNRCC) z # 40 (Andy Maree and Associates) z # 41 (Ohio EPA) z # 42 (GM) z # 43 (Polytek Development Corp.) z # 44 (Onyx Environemtal Services) z # 45 (NSWMA) z # L1 (Illinois EPA) z # L2 (Congressman Sherrod Brown, Ohio ­ #4) 5 Rule Comments z Comments generally supportive of the proposal (e. g., ASTSWMO, industry) z Some not supportive (e. g., GA, CA, WA) y not needed in their state (few facilities affected) y less stringent, conflict with state program y another set of regs to learn 6 Extended to off­ site facilities? y Generally, State commentors are not in favor x Facilities don't have good knowledge of off­ site waste x Facilities that accept offsite waste are generally more complex. y Industry is supportive x Commercial facilities are better prepared and equipped to properly manage their storage facilities. x Commercial facilities have controls in place to assure imported wastes are managed safely. 7 Should a fill­ in­ the­ blank form be developed? z Generally supportive 8 Time frame for draft permit decision (120 days). z Comments go both ways; some saying 120 is enough, others not enough. y Some States think the time is enough, others not enough y Most industry comments thought it was enough. 9 Categories for permit changes ­ modifications y Generally supportive of going with routine and significant categories for permit changes. 10 Security provisions and floodplain waiver z Is an exemption from security provisions appropriate; and should we retain the floodplain waste removal waiver? y Mostly, the answer is no to both 11 Closure Plan Submission z Should we allow closure plan submission 180 days prior to closure? y No, most commentors preferred submitting the closure plan with the application 12 Closure time period z Is an 180 day closure time period appropriate and under what circumstances should it be extended? y Generally, yes; extensions on case­ by­ case 13 Tanks ­ underground and inground z Should underground and in­ ground tank systems be excluded from standardized permits? y Generally, yes, exclude under ground and inground tanks. 14 Comments ­ specific areas z Should waste analysis plans be submitted? Under what circumstances? y Generally, yes, especially if we extend to offsite facilities 15 Other Activities z Ongoing efforts y draft permit application, and checklists y model standardized permit for the three types of units (containers, tanks, cont. buildings) y e­ permitting relationship Attachment 4: Financial Assurance Comments C About 60% of the comments addressed financial assurance C States environmental commissions commenting included California, Missouri, Oregon, Nebraska, Georgia, Arkansas, Washington, Tennessee, Florida, Michigan, Illinois, and New Jersey. C Associations commenting included ASTSWMO, American Petroleum Institute, National Automobile Dealers Association, Vermont Captive Insurance Association, Environmental Technology Council, U. S. Public Interest Research Group, and National Solid Waste Management Association. C Companies commenting included Waste Management, Onyx Environmental Services, SafetyKleen and Dominion Resources. EPA also received comments from a legal association representing Ross Environmental Services and Northeast Indemnity Company, a Vermont captive insurance company, and a representative of hazardous waste TSDFs in California. C Congressman Sherrod Brown attached a copy of Ross's comments and asked EPA to investigate them. C Captive Insurance­ Industry Supporters of Allowing Captive Insurance C Ross Environmental, Waste Management, Incorporated (WMI), Environmental Technology Council (ETC), and NSWMA provided extensive comments calling for the retention of captive insurance. C Ross objected to a requirement for minimum rating of a captive insurer as unnecessary if it is a "fully funded" captive. They did not clarify if this meant that the captive had reserves equal to its environmental obligations as calculated under EPA's regulatory methodology, or if it had some other meaning. C WMI argued that no Vermont licensed captives had failed and that the Inspector General had failed to make a case for disallowing captives. C WMI argued against the assignment requirement of the current regulations and recommended promptly issuing interpretive guidance or a direct final rule. C WMI provided suggestions for minimum requirements for captive insurers. These requirements included minimum financial ratios such as capital to policy limits, and inspection and reporting requirements. C WMI objected to minimum ratings by commercial rating services. C ETC and Ross asserted that requiring a minimum rating could cost $20,000 to $40,000, could affect small businesses. and necessitate a SBRFA analysis. C ETC noted that insurance premiums had risen without any benefit to the hazardous waste companies. C Captive Insurance ­ Objectors C States generally objected to the continued allowance of captive insurance. C One exception was Oregon who neither endorsed not suggested a blanket disallowance of captive insurance. C Oregon also requested EPA address the importance of assignability, particularly for captives. C Insurance Comments C Georgia recommends disallowing insurance as a financial assurance mechanism based upon their experience with a commercial insurer who they will probably have to sue for $8,000,000. C Dominion Resources supported minimum ratings for insurers and recommended that EPA require insurers to maintain a bond to ensure the payment of a claim. C Washington recommended minimum ratings for insurers C Michigan recommended minimum ratings for insurers, and also noted that they disallow captives and require $7 million in unimpaired surplus funds. C Comments supporting and critical of the minimum ratings proposal. C Trust Fund Pay­ In Period C ASTSWMO and most of the states recommended that EPA require fully funded trusts and rejected EPA's proposal to allow a three year pay­ in period. C Industry generally favored the three year pay­ in period or a longer one. C Cost Estimating C Little information on the key information necessary for estimating closure costs. C Industry commenters objected to Option V, default estimates. C General Financial Comments C National Automobile Dealer's Association supports tighter restrictions on financial assurance mechanisms C NADA recommends the application of Part 264 requirements for corrective action, closure and post­ closure, and financial assurance to used oil processors and re­ refiners. C Washington recommended that EPA study all mechanisms and propose changes that would apply to interim status, final status, and standardized permits. C Illinois cited Laclede Steel Company who passed the financial test and then entered bankruptcy. They have now emerged from bankruptcy, but have not fully funded a third party instrument for their closure and post­ closure obligations. ($ 287,000 letter of credit versus over $3.5 million cost estimate) C Support for analyzing the financial comments C Work Assignment with Industrial Economics, Incorporated C Will support analysis of the comments and the appropriations report to Congress. Attachment 5: Summary of Discussion Structure of meeting Jeff Gaines gave introduction Vern Myers provided background of proposed rule using Attachment 2. Jeff Gaines provided summary of comments using Attachment 3. Dale Ruhter provided summary of financial assurance and captive insurance comments using Attachment 4. Comments during meeting: Malcolm Woolf (EPA­ OGC) mentioned that there is a widespread idea that RCRA permitting is in need of streamlining. With this rulemaking, we wanted to provide relief where possible. Malcolm Woolf asked specifically that if we were to "extend to offsite," would that provide any relief to ETC members? Heritage Env. ­ Yes, as it would make adding or replacing tanks easier than the current system. David Case ­ would like operating flexibility to be similar to production facilities: expanding or idling tanks based on market needs. Expanding to offsite would enhance flexibility for tanks and container storage areas. Vernon Myers (EPA­ OSW) commented that: Resolving the corrective action aspects of the proposal are not critical to finalizing the rule. ETC member asked about transitioning from general permit to standardized permit in the light of epermitting relief from renewal process? Vern Myers replied: we're looking at developing clearer guidance for renewals, so that all that may be needed is what has changed for the facility.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.427988

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0044-0006

Proposed Rule

Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Proposed Rule

39662 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2002 / Proposed Rules Dated: May 16, 2002, Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, EPA New England. [FR Doc. 02– 14488 Filed 6– 7– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 70 [FRL– 7223– 6] Clean Air Act Approval of Revisions to Operating Permits Program in Oregon AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve, as a revision to Oregon's title V air operating permits program, a 1999 statute addressing the State's requirements for judicial standing to challenge State­ issued title V permits. In a Notice of Deficiency published on November 30, 1998 (63 FR 65783), EPA notified Oregon of EPA's finding that the State's requirements for judicial standing did not meet minimum Federal requirements for program approval. This program revision would resolve the deficiency identified in the Notice of Deficiency. EPA is also proposing to approve, as a revision to Oregon's title V air operating permits program, changes to Oregon's title V regulations made in 1999 that reorganize and renumber the regulations and increase title V fees. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is publishing its approval as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial determination and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 10, 2002. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to Denise Baker, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Air Quality, Mailcode OAQ– 107, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101. Copies of Oregon's submittal, and other supporting information used in developing this action, are available for inspection during normal business hours at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Baker, Office of Air Quality, Mailcode, OAQ– 107, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553– 8087. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the Direct Final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register. Dated: May 22, 2002. Elbert Moore, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 02– 13973 Filed 6– 7– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 258 [F– 2001– RDMP– FFFFF; FRL– 7228– 3] RIN 2050– AE92 Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to add a new section to the Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLF) to allow states to issue research, development, and demonstration (RD& D) permits for landfill operations at variance with some parts of the MSWLF criteria, provided landfill operators demonstrate that these operations will not result in an increased risk to human health and the environment. EPA is proposing this alternative to promote innovative technologies for the landfilling of municipal solid waste. Variance from the following MSWLF criteria would not be allowed: location restrictions, ground water monitoring, corrective action requirements, the financial assurance criteria, procedures for excluding hazardous waste, and explosive gases control requirements. DATES: EPA must receive your comments or your comments must be postmarked by August 9, 2002. ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their comments referencing docket number F– 2002– RDMP– FFFFF to: (1) if using regular US Postal Service mail: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460– 0002, or (2) if using special delivery, such as overnight express service: RCRA Docket Information Center (RIC), Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA 22202. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments electronically through the Internet to: rcradocket epa. gov. Comments in electronic format should also be identified by the docket number F– 2002– RDMP– FFFFF. You must provide your electronic submittals as ASCII files and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U. S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460– 0002. Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public make an appointment by calling 703 603– 9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/ page. The index and some supporting materials are available electronically. See the `` Supplementary Information'' section for information on accessing them. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the RCRA Hotline at 800 424– 9346 or TDD 800 553– 7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call 703 412– 9810 or TDD 703 412– 3323. For information on specific aspects of this document: contact Dwight Hlustick, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division of the Office of Solid Waste VerDate May< 23> 2002 11: 51 Jun 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 10JNP1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 10JNP1 39663 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2002 / Proposed Rules (mail code 5306W), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, D. C. 20460; 703/ 308– 8647, hlustick. dwight@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting Materials, and Official Record The index and the following supporting materials are available on the Internet: `` Finding a Better Cover, '' Stephen F. Dwyer, Civil Engineering, January 2001, pages 58– 63; `` USEPA Workshop for Bioreactor Landfills, September 6– 7, 2000,'' U. S. EPA, September 2001; `` Prediction and Measurement of Leachate Head on Landfill Liners, '' Debra R. Reinhart, Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Report #98– 3, July 1998; `` Technical Resource Document: Assessment and Recommendations for Improving the Performance of Waste Containment Systems, '' EPA, Office of Research and Development, Grant # CR– 821448– 01– 0, February 2002, (R. Bonaparte, D. Daniel, and R. M. Koerner). You can find these materials at: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ nonhw muncpl/ mswlficr/ index. htm. The official record for this action will be kept in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into paper form and place them in the official record, which will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record is the paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document. EPA responses to comments, whether the comments are written or electronic, will be in a notice in the Federal Register or in a response to comments document placed in the official record for this rulemaking. EPA will not immediately reply to commenters electronically other than to seek clarification of electronic comments that may be garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form, as discussed above. Affected Entities. Entities potentially affected by this action are public or private owners or operators of landfills. Affected categories and entities include the following: Category Examples of affected entities Federal Government Agencies procuring waste services Industry .............. Owners or operators of municipal solid waste landfills Category Examples of affected entities Municipalities, including Tribal Governments. Owners or operators of municipal solid waste landfills This table is a guide for readers that describes which entities are likely to be affected by this action. It lists the types of entities that EPA is aware could potentially be impacted by today's action. It is possible that other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether you would be impacted by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria. If you have questions about whether this action applies to a particular facility, please consult Mr. Dwight Hlustick, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste (5306W), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20460, 703 308– 8647, hlustick. dwight@ epamail. epa. gov. Outline I. Authority for this Proposed Rule II. EPA's Role in Developing Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Criteria III. Proposed Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits A. Duration of RD& D Permit B. Size Limitations C. Testing, Monitoring, and Reporting Requirements IV. State and Tribal Implementation V. Applicable statutes and executive orders A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et. seq. C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act D. Paperwork Reduction Act E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 I. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice J. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects I. Legal Authority for This Proposed Rule The authority for this proposed revision to the Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR part 258) is sections 1008, 2002( a), 4004, 4005( c) and 4010 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, 42 U. S. C. 6907, 6912( a), 6944, 6945( c), 6949a. II. EPA's Role in Developing Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Criteria Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides that states will have the primary authority for regulating municipal solid waste. The role of the federal government is to establish an overall regulatory direction through the development of minimum national standards for nonhazardous solid waste disposal facilities, which include municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs). On October 9, 1991, EPA issued revised Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (56 FR 50978). These criteria, codified in 40 CFR part 258, establish minimum national standards to ensure that `` no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment'' will result from solid waste disposal facilities receiving hazardous household waste and small quantity generator hazardous wastes (56 FR 50979). Today, EPA is proposing an amendment to the MSWLF criteria to allow for the issuance of limited permits for research, development, and demonstration projects. States with permit programs determinated to be adequate pursuant to RCRA section 4005( c) and 40 CFR part 239 (`` approved States'') would decide whether or not to adopt this provision in their approved programs. III. Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits Today's proposed rule would allow the Director of an approved State to issue research, development, and demonstration (RD& D) permits to owners and operators of municipal solid waste landfills. The Director of a nonapproved State would not have the option of issuing RD& D permits. EPA is proposing this provision to stimulate the development of new technologies and alternative operational processes for the landfilling of municipal solid waste. This proposed rule would allow the State director to waive specific provisions of the MSWLF criteria, including the (1) operating criteria, except procedures for excluding hazardous waste and explosive gas control in subpart C; (2) the design criteria in subpart D; and (3) the closure and post­ closure care criteria in subpart F. In order to issue an RD& D permit waiving any of these criteria, the State Director must be satisfied that a landfill operating under an RD& D permit will pose no additional risk to human health and the environment beyond that which would result from a landfill operating under the current MSWLF criteria. Today's proposed rule is modeled on VerDate jun< 06> 2002 17: 01 Jun 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 10JNP1. SGM pfrm15 PsN: 10JNP1 39664 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2002 / Proposed Rules the research, development, and demonstration permit provisions in 40 CFR 270.65. That provision allows states with approved hazardous waste management programs to issue RD& D permits for innovative and experimental treatment technologies or processes at hazardous waste treatment facilities. The permit variance proposed today is similar to that already allowed by some States which have more restrictive or stringent standards than those established in the 1991 MSWLF criteria. However, under the present federal standards set forth in the criteria, these state research permits are very limited in their scope, i. e., state rules cannot be less stringent than the MSWLF criteria. Today's proposed rule would allow more latitude in these existing state programs as well as allowing the development of new programs in other States. EPA is proposing to allow permits for alternative design and operating requirements because EPA has become aware of new or improved technologies for landfill operations and design since the promulgation of the MSWLF criteria in 1991. These include: (1) Improvements in liner system design and materials; (2) improvements in the design of, and materials used in leachate drainage and recirculation systems; (3) new processes for more rapid degradation of waste which require the addition of water or steam; (4) new liquid distribution techniques (see EPA Docket Number F– 2000– ALPA– FFFFF for FR Notice: Alternative Liner Performance, Leachate Recirculation, and Bioreactor Landfills: Request for Information and Data, April 6, 2000, FR18014); and (5) improvements in various monitoring devices (i. e., `` Prediction and Measurement of Leachate Head on Landfill Liners, '' Debra R. Reinhart, Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Report #98– 3, July 1998). As a result, the approved States would have flexibility in allowing the operation of new and innovative technologies in permitting the landfilling of municipal solid waste. The State and the owner/ operator must assure there is no increased risk to human health and the environment when instituting any of the new techniques or processes which would be allowed by today's proposed rule changes. EPA has determined that in order to ensure that human health and the environment are protected, specific criteria developed for municipal solid waste landfills should not be able to be waived. Therefore, today's proposed rule would not allow State directors to deviate from the requirements addressing: (1) Location restrictions in subpart B; (2) ground­ water monitoring and corrective action in subpart E; (3) financial assurance in subpart G; (4) explosive gases control in 40 CFR 258.23 of subpart C; and (5) hazardous waste control in 40 CFR 258.20 of subpart C. EPA believes that these provisions are necessary to assure a national minimum level of protection by requiring (1) landfills to be properly located safe distances from airports, outside of wetlands, and floodplains; (2) ground­ water to be adequately monitored and corrective action measures to be implemented, if needed; (3) adequate financial safeguards to be in place for closure and post­ closure action; (4) explosive gases to be monitored and controlled; and (5) procedures to be in place to prevent the dumping of regulated quantities of hazardous waste in MSW landfills. An example of a modification to the operation of an MSWLF that would be allowed to be issued under an RD& D permit would be the addition of nonhazardous liquids to accelerate decomposition in a MSWLF unit constructed with an alternative liner (i. e., a liner that complies with the performance design criteria in 40 CFR 258.40( a)( 1) rather than a liner that complies with the design specifications in 40 CFR 258.40( a)( 2)). This practice is not allowed under the existing municipal landfill criteria. Today's proposed rule would grant State Directors in approved States the authority to issue permits allowing for the addition of these liquids, provided the owner/ operator demonstrates that there will be no increased risk to human health and the environment. The MSWLF owner/ operator would therefore be required to demonstrate groundwater protection, landfill stability, as well as earlier landfill gas collection and control sooner than is currently required under EPA air regulations (40 CFR part 60, subparts CC and WWW). The plan for landfill gas control would need to be included as a requirement in the RD& D permit. Another example of a variance for which an RD& D permit could be issued is use of an alternate landfill cover rather than that which is specified in the MSWLF criteria. Although the current regulations provide approved States with flexibility regarding covers for landfills, this proposed rule would allow State directors in approved States additional flexibility, while maintaining the assurance that human health and the environment are protected. EPA believes that flexibility is warranted due to varying climates, topography, and waste handling techniques in approved States. However with additional flexibility, there is the need to more closely monitor the operations of those landfills that have been issued RD& D permits. EPA has also considered the applicability of this proposed rule to owners/ operators of small landfills that are exempt from part 258 subparts D and E as specified in 40 CFR 258.1( f). EPA concluded that these small landfills should also be allowed to apply and receive RD& D permits under today's rule for the following reason: EPA is proposing to allow this because permits will be issued on a site­ specific basis and the State Director has the authority to modify or eliminate the above exemptions as is needed to protect human health and the environment. Therefore, the exemptions for these facilities would remain applicable if the owner/ operator applies for a permit under today's proposal, unless the State Director determines otherwise. EPA is not proposing a process or methodology for obtaining an RD& D permit, but is leaving permit application and issuance procedures up to the States wishing to issue these permits. EPA will work with interested States in developing these procedures and will issue guidance if we determine that there is sufficient interest and need for such guidance. A. Duration of RD& D Permits Today's proposed rule would limit the duration of initial RD& D permits to three years. EPA believes that three years is an appropriate length of time to initially test and assess the performance of an innovative technology or process in an MSWLF. Similar to the RD& D permit provision for hazardous waste treatment facilities, this rule would allow the permit to be renewed for three years up to three times. Therefore, this proposal would allow for a maximum permit period of 12 years. While this is a relatively short time in the life of a landfill and a longer time may be needed for some projects, EPA believes that this is sufficient time to determine whether a project will be successful in meeting its stated goals. If a project proves successful and the owner/ operator and State agree that it should continue longer than 12 years, EPA may develop a site­ specific rule or other appropriate regulatory modification to the MSWLF criteria. EPA requests comment on whether three years is an appropriate permit duration and whether three permit renewals for a total project duration of 12 years is also appropriate. VerDate May< 23> 2002 11: 51 Jun 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 10JNP1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 10JNP1 39665 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2002 / Proposed Rules B. Size Limitations EPA considered placing a size limitation on the RD& D projects to be permitted. This included the area of the landfill, as well as the quantity of waste placed in the landfill. EPA determined that due to the variation in types of projects, limitations based on size of landfill, quantity of waste, or other limitations should be determined by the State Director on a site­ specific basis. Therefore, EPA is not proposing to establish any limitations based on size or waste quantity, but rather, recommends that the Directors of approved States consider whether size or capacity limitations are warranted, based on the project goals, in order to protect the environment and human health and stay within the maximum duration of the RD& D permit. However, EPA requests comment on whether there should be any limitations on the size of the landfill or quantity of waste placed in the landfill. C. Testing, Monitoring, and Reporting Requirements To ensure that projects operating under an RD& D permit meet the expectations of the research, development, or demonstration project, EPA is also proposing to require that the permittee test, monitor, and submit information to the State Director as specified in the RD& D permit in order for the Director to determine the progress of the project, insure proper operation of the landfill, and assure protection of human health and the environment. EPA is not proposing particular monitoring testing, or recordkeeping requirements, nor does the proposal specify monitoring frequency. The Agency believes that each project should be evaluated individually to determine the appropriate monitoring, testing, and records to be kept, as well as to determine how often such monitoring or testing should take place. Therefore, under the proposed rule, the State Director would make this assessment and include specific monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping requirements in each permit. Similarly, EPA is proposing that the State Director specify the reporting requirements in the permit on a sitespecific basis. As a separate requirement, the proposed rule would require the landfill owner/ operator to submit an annual report to the State Director summarizing progress on how well the project is attaining its goals. Examples of goals include environmental protection, cost benefits, community benefits, compost recovery, improved ground water protection, more rapid and/ or complete decomposition of waste, improved landfill gas recovery. These goals should be clearly stated in the permit in objective, measurable terms where possible. EPA specifically requests comments on whether these monitoring and reporting requirements are appropriate. IV. State and Tribal Implementation The municipal solid waste landfill criteria are implemented in one of two ways. The first, and preferred alternative, is that each State implements the criteria after EPA reviews its municipal solid waste landfill permit program or other system of prior approval and finds it to be adequate pursuant to 40 CFR part 239. The criteria contain provisions that allow States to develop and rely on alternative approaches to address sitespecific conditions. Therefore, the actual planning and direct implementation of solid waste programs is principally a function of State governments and those owners and operators, including local governments, of MSWLFs, rather than the federal government. The criteria can also be `` self­ implementing'' by landfill owners and operators in those States that have not received EPA approval of their MSWLF permitting programs. In this case, the regulations provide less flexibility for owners and operators. As of January 1, 2002, 49 States and territories had received approval of their programs and are implementing these regulations. As discussed in a prior Federal Register notice (63 FR 57027, October 23, 1998), Tribes are not included in the definition of State under RCRA, and therefore EPA does not have authority under RCRA to approve tribal MSWLF permitting programs. However, tribes can seek the same flexibility as afforded owners and operators located in approved States through a site­ specific rulemaking as discussed in the EPA draft guidance entitled, `` Site Specific Flexibility Requests for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Indian Country, '' EPA530– 97– 016, August 1997. Today's proposed rule to allow RD& D permits would not be self implementing. MSWLF owners/ operators would only be able to obtain an RD& D permit in approved States that adopt authority to issue such permits. Because today's proposed rule provides more flexibility than existing federal criteria, States would not be required to amend their permit programs which have been determined to be adequate under 40 CFR part 239. States would have the option to amend statutory or regulatory definitions pursuant to today's proposed rule. If a State chooses to amend its statutory or regulatory authority, and if doing so modifies the State's solid waste permit program, the State would be required to notify the EPA Regional Administrator of the modification as provided by 40 CFR 239.12. Whether a State chooses to incorporate today's proposed rule into its solid waste program would have no effect on its existing status with respect to EPA approval, i. e., State revisions to issue RD& D permits will not open previously approved solid waste programs for Federal review. Tribes may also receive RD& D permits allowed by today's proposed rule similar to owners and operators located in approved States through a sitespecific rulemaking outlined in the previously referenced draft guidance document, `` Site Specific Flexibility Requests for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Indian Country. '' V. How Does This Proposed Rule Comply With Applicable Statues and Executive Orders? A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. A significant regulatory action is defined by Executive Order 12866 as one that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or rights and obligations or recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866. Today's proposed rule would allow, but would not require, States to provide RD& D permits to individual MSWLFs. The proposed rule would not require any MSWLF to apply for such a permit, but would provide an opportunity to those MSWLFs seeking to try innovative or new technology or processes with respect to landfilling municipal solid waste. VerDate May< 23> 2002 11: 51 Jun 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 10JNP1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 10JNP1 39666 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2002 / Proposed Rules It has been determined that today's proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review. Today's proposed rule would impose no new requirements and is intended to give more flexibility to the regulated community with significant potential net cost savings. Although net cost savings are expected, EPA is unable to estimate the magnitude of the savings because it is yet to be seen how many RD& D permits will be authorized or what kinds of permit changes or innovations might be undertaken. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business that is primarily engaged in the collection and disposal of refuse in a landfill operation as defined by NAICS codes 562212 and 924110 (also defined by SIC codes 4953 and 9511) with annual receipts less than 10 million dollars, as defined in accordance with the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards established for industries listed in the North American Industry Classification System (see http:// www. sba. gov/ size/ NAICS­ cover­ page. html); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not­ forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal Agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE). The following discussion explains EPA's determination. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE), since the rule has direct effects only on state agencies. The purpose of this rule is to add flexibility to the MSWLF criteria. This rule would add no new requirements to the MSWLF criteria for either existing or new facilities, nor will it increase costs for new or existing MSWLFs regardless of size. In conclusion, EPA has determined that this rule would not impose significant new burdens on small entities. Instead, this rule is expected to provide net annual benefits (in the form of regulatory relief; potential research, development, and innovation advancements; and long­ term benefits) from the voluntary participation by facilities in the private sector. C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104– 4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost­ benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost­ effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA's analysis of compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 found that this proposed rule imposes no additional enforceable burden on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, and 205 of UMRA. D. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule will be submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document will be prepared by EPA and a copy, when completed, may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at Collection Strategies Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by email at auby. susan@ epamail. epa. gov, or by calling (202) 260– 2740. A copy can also be downloaded off the internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr when it is available. The ICRs affected by this rule are for 40 CFR parts 239, Requirements for State Permit Program Determination of Adequacy and part 258, MSWLF Criteria. EPA has submitted the ICR for part 239 (ICR# 1608.03, OMB# 2050– 152) to OMB for review. EPA included estimates of the cost for approved States to revise their existing program for today's rule. The estimated cost was $5,680 per respondent. EPA is requesting comments from States which plan to make these revisions so that EPA can better understand the expected burden that would be incurred by states who wish to make these changes. EPA is estimating that approximately five states will revise their rules to take advantage of today's proposal. In addition, EPA is also requesting information from MSWLF owners/ operators on the reporting burden that they would incur due to this rule under the part 258, MSWLF criteria ICR (ICR# 1381.06, OMB# 2050– 0122). Information which States are expected to require include the annual report specified in the rule as well as additional monitoring and testing requirements which may be specified by a State authority. Additional monitoring requirements could include the measurement of leachate head on the liner; landfill temperature at various locations; type, application rate and application method of various wastes including liquid wastes and water that maybe placed in the landfill; additional hydraulic studies; landfill settlement VerDate May< 23> 2002 11: 51 Jun 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 10JNP1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 10JNP1 39667 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2002 / Proposed Rules rate determinations, etc. At present EPA estimates that only two to three landfills a year will be permitted under this proposed rule over the next few years. Reporting requirements are estimated to cost between $15,000 and $25,000 per year per landfill. So total reporting costs are estimated at $30,000 to $75,000 per year for the first year and increasing at a rate of $50,000 per year for the next three years thereafter. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2823); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, DC 20460– 0001; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., N. W., Washington, DC 20503, marked `` Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. '' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after June 10, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by July 10, 2002. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. '' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. '' This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Implementation of this proposed rule by a State would be at the State's discretion and would not be required. Nevertheless, although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA has consulted with States through the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials during the development of this proposal. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule change. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled `` Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications. '' `` Policies that have tribal implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. '' Under section 5( b) of Executive Order 13175, EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. Under section 5( c) of Executive Order 13175, EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications and that preempts tribal law, unless the Agency consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA has concluded that this proposed rule would have no new tribal implications. It would not present any additional burden on the tribes, but would allow more flexibility for compliance with the MSWLF criteria. It would neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt State law. Thus, the requirements of sections 5( b) and 5( c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because it would not affect decisions involving the environmental health or safety risks to children. H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (`` NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104– 113, 12( d) (15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e. g., materials specifications, test methods, VerDate May< 23> 2002 11: 51 Jun 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 10JNP1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 10JNP1 39668 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2002 / Proposed Rules sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide explanations to Congress, through OMB, when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. I. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice. Under Executive Order 12898, `` Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low­ Income Populations, '' as well as through EPA's April 1995, `` Environmental Justice Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Action Agenda Report, '' and National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, EPA has undertaken to incorporate environmental justice into its policies and programs. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns, and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, bears disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and all people live in clean and sustainable communities. The Agency believes that today's proposed rule which would provide for research, development, and demonstration permits for municipal solid waste landfills would not have an adverse environmental or economic impact on any minority or low­ income group, or on any other type of affected community since these standards would not significantly affect the location of any solid waste collection facility. J. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258 Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Municipal Landfills, Waste treatment and disposal. Dated: May 31, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 258 as follows: PART 258—[ AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 258 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U. S. C. 1345( d) and (e); 42 U. S. C. 6902( a), 6907, 6912( a), 6944, 6945( c) and 6949a( c). 2. New § 258.4 is added to part 258 to read as follows § 258.4 Research, development, and demonstration permits. (a) The Director of an approved State may issue a research, development, and demonstration permit for a new or existing municipal solid waste landfill for which the owner or operator proposes to utilize innovative and new methods for operation, design, or landfill cover which vary from any of the following criteria: (1) The operating criteria in subpart C of this part except the procedures for excluding the receipt of hazardous waste in § 258.20 and the explosive gases control requirements in § 258.23; (2) The design criteria in subpart D of this part; and (3) The final cover criteria in § 258.60( a) and (b). (b) Any permit issued under this section must include such terms and conditions as least as protective as the criteria in the part to assure protection of human health and the environment. Such permits shall: (1) Provide for the construction and operation of such facilities as necessary, for not longer than three years unless renewed as provided in paragraph (c) of this section; (2) Provide for the receipt by the landfill of only those types and quantities of municipal solid waste and non­ hazardous wastes which the State Director deems appropriate for the purposes of determining the efficacy and performance capabilities of the technology or process; (3) Include such requirements as necessary to protect human health and the environment (including but not limited to, requirements regarding monitoring, design, operation, financial responsibility, closure and post­ closure, and remedial action), including such requirements as necessary regarding testing and providing information to the State Director with respect to the operation of the facility; (4) Require the owner or operator of a landfill permitted under this section to submit an annual report to the State Director showing whether and to what extent the site is progressing in attaining project goals. The report will also include a summary of all monitoring and testing requirements as well as any other operating information specified by the State Director in the permit; and (5) Require compliance with the criteria in subpart B (location restrictions), subpart E (ground water monitoring and corrective action), and subpart G (financial assurance) of this part. (c) The Director of an approved State may order an immediate termination of all operations at the facility at any time he determines that the overall goals of the projects are not being attained, including protection of human health or the environment. (d) Any permit issued under this section may not be renewed more than three times by the Director of an approved State. Each such renewal shall be for a period of not more than three years. [FR Doc. 02– 14489 Filed 6– 7– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 18 Marine Mammals: Incidental Take During Specified Activities AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we, the Fish and Wildlife Service, intend to prepare an EIS to evaluate the effects of authorizing the incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), we are currently in the process of developing incidental take regulations for government activities related to the operation of watercraft and watercraft access facilities within the geographic area of the species' range in Florida for a period of not more than five years. DATES: We will consider comments on the proposed Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement that are received by July 25, 2002. ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods: VerDate jun< 06> 2002 17: 01 Jun 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 10JNP1. SGM pfrm15 PsN: 10JNP1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.439015

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0048-0002

Supporting & Related Material

Response to Comments to the Proposed Regulation: Land Disposal Restrictions: Notice of Intent to Grant Two Site­ Specific Treatment Variances­ U. S. Ecology Idaho, Incorporated in Grandview, Idaho and CWM Chemical Services, LLC in Model City, New York U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5302 W) 1200 PA Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 May 2002 There were three comments received on the July 24, 2001 proposed regulation. They are: 1. Brian Correa ­ Safety Kleen, Docket Number TVLN­ 00001 2. Safety Kleen, Chemical Services Division, Docket Number TVLN­ 00002 3. Alcoa, Docket Number TVLN­ 00003 Comment #1: It is fine for the 26.1 ppm total arsenic standard to apply to newly­ generated K088. All other mixture, derived­ from and contained­ in K088 should use the 5.0 ppm arsenic TCLP Universal Treatment Standard. Instead of repeating the variance process, EPA should consider permanently fixing it by bifurcating the treatment standard between newly­ generated K088 and derived from KO88. The cost and delay to industry and taxpayers seems unnecessary. Response: EPA does not believe it is an appropriate course of action to bifurcate the treatment standard for arsenic. The existing regulations are sufficient. In cases where site­ specific variances from the 26.1 ppm total arsenic standard are appropriate, EPA's regulations set forth the infrastructure for generators or treaters of hazardous waste to file petitions for variances from treatment. To date, EPA has responded to only four petitions regarding the treatment standard for arsenic in K088 derived­ from waste in the past two years. (66 FR 33887, June 26, 2001 and 65 FR 45978, July 26, 2000, plus the two granted today.) There are no outstanding treatment variance petitions. Comment #2: Based on its own experiences in meeting the relevant Land Disposal Restrictions, Safety Kleen, Chemical Services Division supports EPA's decision to grant site­ specific treatment variances from the 26.1 ppm total arsenic standard. Response: No response needed. Comment #3: Alcoa supports EPA's proposal to grant alternate treatment standards for the relevant wastes, with clarifications and changes as seen in the detailed comments below. A­ 1: "Clarify that the alternate treatment standard for arsenic in the K088­ derived baghouse dust and incinerator residue "generated" at CWM's facility is not limited to the waste currently managed on­ site." Response: The treatment standard granted under this variance applies to existing and future baghouse dust generated at CWM's Model City facility. The treatment standard also applies to existing and future incinerator ash treated at CWM's Model City facility. (The comment did not address filtercake. The variance also applies to any K088 derived­ from filtercake generated in the future at the Model City facility.) A­ 2: Clarify what incinerator residue at CWM's Model City facility are covered by the rule. Response: The variance granted to CWM's Model City facility under this rulemaking is limited to incinerator residue wastes generated at the Model City facility, i. e., from treatment processes occurring at this facility. A­ 3: If EPA would allow CWM to dispose of K088­ derived incinerator residue received from off­ site without further treatment provided the incincerator residue meets the LDR treatment standards, why is EPA limiting the disposal of these residues to CWM's Model City Subtitle C landfill? The result seems unnecessary, since other Subtitle C landfills would be protective. Response: As stated above, the variance granted to CWM's Model City facility under this rulemaking is limited to wastes generated or treated at the Model City facility. Waste from offsite that meets the 26.1 ppm total arsenic standard (i. e., the non­ variance standard), could be disposed in the CWM landfill. Facilities other than CWM's Model City facility who believe their wastes meet the criteria for a variance from the K088 standard can submit their own variance petition to EPA for consideration. A­ 4: Amend the LDR treatment standard for arsenic in K088 wastes as opposed to requiring facilities to submit site­ specific treatability variances. Response: As mentioned in our response to comment #1, EPA does not believe it is an appropriate course of action at this time to bifurcate the treatment standard for arsenic. The existing regulations are sufficient. EPA's regulations set forth the infrastructure for generators or treaters of hazardous waste to file petitions for variances from the treatment standard. To date, EPA has responded to only four petitions regarding the treatment standard for arsenic in K088 derived­ from waste in the past two years. (66 FR 33887, June 26, 2001 and 65 FR 45978, July 26, 2000, plus the two granted today.)

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.456434

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0048-0003

Supporting & Related Material

MEMORANDUM Subject: 10/ 15/ 01 Voice Mail Message for Jill Knickerbocker, Waste Management, Inc. from Laurie Solomon, EPA I left a voice mail message for Jill Knickerbocker inquiring whether Waste Management's Model City facility had an on­ site incinerator or whether it received all of its incinerator ash from other locations. If it is the latter, I requested Ms. Knickerbocker to provide us with a list of facilities that send their ash to the Model City facility for treatment and disposal or simply disposal. Subject: 10/ 16/ 01 Voice Mail Message from Jill Knickerbocker, Waste Management, Inc. Ms. Knickerbocker said that the Model City facility does not have an on­ site incinerator. Some of the ash that they currently have is from Trade Waste's incinerator in Sauget, IL and some of it is from Waste Technologies Industries' (WTI) incinerator in East Liverpool, OH. In the future, the WTI facility may have more K088 that they would like to burn and send the ash to Model City. In addition, the Onyx incinerator in Port Arthur, TX has K088 derived­ from waste that they would like to burn. The resulting ash may go to Model City.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.459573

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0001-0031

Rule

Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking for Implementing Waste Treatment Systems at Two Virginia Landfills

47310 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Commodity Parts per million Apple .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.0 Apple, wet pomace .............................................................................................................................................................. 3.0 Brassica, head and stem, subgroup .................................................................................................................................... 5.0 Alfalfa, forage ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Alfalfa, hay ........................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Cattle, fat ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1.5 Cattle, meat ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.05 Cattle, meat byproducts ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.03 Corn, sweet, forage ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husk removed ............................................................................................................... 0.02 Corn, sweet, stover .............................................................................................................................................................. 15 Cotton gin byproducts .......................................................................................................................................................... 15 Cotton, undelinted seed ....................................................................................................................................................... 2.0 Goat, fat ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1.5 Goat, meat ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.05 Goat, meat byproducts ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.03 Hog, fat ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1.5 Hog, meat ............................................................................................................................................................................ 0.05 Hog, meat byproducts ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.03 Horse, fat ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1.5 Horse, meat ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.05 Horse, meat byproducts ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.03 Lettuce, head ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5.0 Lettuce, leaf ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Milk ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.15 Milk, fat ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4.0 Pear ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.20 Peanut .................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.01 Peanut, hay .......................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Potato ................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.01 Sheep, fat ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1.5 Sheep, meat ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.05 Sheep, meat byproducts ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.03 Soybean, aspirated grain fractions ...................................................................................................................................... 45 Soybean, hulls ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4.0 Soybean, seed ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0.80 Vegetable, fruiting, group .................................................................................................................................................... 0.50 * * * * * [FR Doc. 02Ð 18173 Filed 7Ð 17Ð 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 258 [FRN– 7247– 4] RIN 2090– AA30 Project XL Site­ Specific Rulemaking for Implementing Waste Treatment Systems at Two Virginia Landfills AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Today EPA is promulgating a site­ specific rule proposed on December 28, 2001, to implement a project under the EPA's Project eXcellence and Leadership Program (Project XL). The rule provides site­ specific regulatory flexibility under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for two Virginia landfills ( referred to collectively as the `` Virginia Project XL Landfills''): The Maplewood Recycling and Waste Disposal Facility, located in Amelia County, Virginia (Maplewood Landfill); and the King George County Landfill and Recycling Facility, located in King George County, Virginia (King George Landfill). On September 29, 2000, EPA, USA Waste of Virginia, Inc., and King George Landfills, Inc., signed the Final Project Agreement (FPA) for this project, which would allow for the addition of liquids to these landfills. The addition of liquids to landfills accelerates the biodegradation of landfill waste and is allowed for certain prescribed liner designs under current RCRA municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) regulations. The principal objectives of this XL project are twofold To demonstrate that the alternative liner designs at the Virginia Project XL Landfills will also safely accelerate the biodegradation of landfill waste and thereby decrease the time it takes for the waste to reach stabilization in the landfill, facilitate the management of leachate and other liquid wastes, and promote recovery of landfill gas; and to assess the effects of applying differing amounts of liquids to landfills. The Virginia Project XL Landfills comprise two of several landfills, located in different geographic and climactic regions across the country, that under Project XL are testing this bioreactor technology over alternative liner designs. In order to carry out this project, the Virginia Project XL Landfills need relief from certain requirements in EPA regulations which set forth design and operating criteria for MSWLFs, requirements which would otherwise preclude the addition of liquids at these landfills. Today's rule will allow the Virginia Project XL Landfills to apply collected, non­ containerized nonhazardous bulk liquids (including landfill leachate) to the landfills. DATES: This regulation is effective on July 18, 2002. ADDRESSES: A docket containing supporting information used in developing this final rule is available for public inspection and copying at EPA's RCRA docket office located at Crystal Gateway, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, Virginia. The public is encouraged to phone in advance to review docket materials. Appointments can be scheduled by VerDate Jun< 13> 2002 10: 40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18JYR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JYR1 47311 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2002 / Rules and Regulations phoning the Docket Office at (703) 603Ð 9230. Refer to RCRA Docket Number FÐ 2001Ð WVLPÐ FFFFF and FÐ 2002Ð WVLFÐ FFFFF for the proposed and final rule dockets, respectively. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies are $0.15 per page. Project materials are also available for review on the World Wide Web at: http:// www. epa. gov/ projectxl/ virginialandfills/ index. htm. A duplicate copy of the docket is available for inspection and copying at the EPA Region 3 Library located at 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Appointments can be scheduled by phoning the Library at (215) 814Ð 5254. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Mr. Steven J. Donohue at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, (3EI00), 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Mr. Donohue may be contacted at (215) 814Ð 3215. Further information on today's action may also be obtained on the World Wide Web at http:// www. epa. gov/ projectxl/. Questions to EPA regarding today's action can be directed to Mr. Donohue at (215) 814Ð 3215 donohue. steven@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Outline of Today's Document The information presented in this preamble is arranged as follows: I. Authority II. Background A. What is Project XL? B. What Are Bioreactor Landfills? III. The Virginia Project XL Landfills A. Overview B. What did EPA Propose and What Comments were Received? C. Description of the Project D. What Kind of Liner Is Required by Current Federal Regulations? E. How Are the Liners at the Virginia Project XL Landfills Constructed? F. What Are the Environmental Benefits Expected Through Project XL? G. How Have Various Stakeholders Been Involved in this Project? H. Will this Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork Reduction? I. How Long Will this Project Last and When Will it Be Complete? J. Why is this Rule Immediately Effective? IV. What Regulatory Changes Are Being Made to Implement this Project? A. Existing Liquid Restrictions for MSWLFs (40 CFR 258.28) B. Site­ Specific Rule V. Regulatory Assessment Requirements A. How Does this Rule Comply With Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review? B. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required? C. Is an Information Collection Request Required for this Rule Under the Paperwork Reduction Act ? D. Does This Rule Trigger the Requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act? E. How Does the Congressional Review Act Apply to this Rule? F. How Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks? G. How Does this Rule Comply With Executive Order 13132: Federalism? H. How Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments? I. How Does this Rule Comply with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? J. Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use? I. Authority This rule is being promulgated under the authority of Sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 4010 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (42 U. S. C. 6907, 6912, 6945, and 6949a). II. Background A. What is Project XL? Project XL is an EPA initiative developed to allow regulated entities to achieve better environmental results at less cost. Project XLÑ`` eXcellence and Leadership''Ñ was announced on March 16, 1995 (see 60 FR 27282, May 23, 1995). Detailed descriptions of Project XL have been published previously in numerous public documents which are generally available electronically via the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ projectxl/. Briefly, Project XL gives a limited number of regulated entities the opportunity to develop their own pilot projects and alternative strategies to achieve environmental performance that is superior to what would be achieved through compliance with current and reasonably anticipated future regulations. These efforts are crucial to the Agency's ability to test new regulatory strategies that reduce regulatory burden and promote economic growth while achieving better environmental and public health protection. The Agency intends to evaluate the results of this and other XL projects to determine which specific elements of the projects, if any, should be more broadly applied to other regulated entities for the benefit of both the economy and the environment. Project XL is intended to allow EPA to experiment with new or pilot projects that provide alternative approaches to regulatory requirements, both to assess whether they provide benefits at the specific facility affected, and whether these projects should be considered for wider application. Such pilot projects allow EPA to proceed more quickly than would be possible when undertaking changes on a nationwide basis. EPA may modify rules, on a site­ or Statespecific basis, that represent one of several possible policy approaches within a more general statutory directive, so long as the alternative being used is permissible under the statute. On September 29, 2000, EPA's Region 3 and Office of Solid Waste, joined by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and USA Waste of Virginia, Inc. signed the Final Project Agreement (FPA) for the project (see Docket No. FÐ 2001Ð WVLPÐ FFFFF, Item 2.2, or the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ ProjectXL/ virginialandfills/ fpa. pdf.) The FPA is a non­ binding written agreement between the project sponsor and regulatory agencies which describes the project in detail, discusses criteria to be met, identifies performance goals and indicators, and outlines the administration of the agreement. B. What Are Bioreactor Landfills? A bioreactor landfill is generally defined as a landfill operated to transform and stabilize the readily and moderately decomposable organic constituents of the waste stream by purposeful control to enhance microbiological processes. Bioreactor landfills often employ addition of liquids such as leachate. A byproduct of the waste decomposition process is landfill gas, which includes methane, carbon dioxide, hazardous air pollutants and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Landfill gases are produced sooner in a bioreactor than in a conventional landfill. Therefore, bioreactors typically incorporate state­ of­ the­ art landfill gas collection systems to collect and control landfill gas upon start up of the liquid addition process. On April 6, 2000, EPA published a document in the Federal Register requesting information on bioreactor landfills, because the Agency is considering whether and to what extent the Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 40 CFR part 258, should be revised to allow for leachate recirculation over alternative liners in MSWLFs (65 FR 18015). EPA is seeking information about liquid additions and leachate recirculation in MSWLFs to the extent currently allowed, i. e., in MSWLFs designed and constructed with VerDate Jun< 13> 2002 10: 40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18JYR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JYR1 47312 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2002 / Rules and Regulations a composite liner as specified in 40 CFR 258.40( a)( 2). Proponents of bioreactor technology note that operating MSWLFs as bioreactors provides a number of environmental benefits, including an increased rate of waste decomposition, which in turn would extend the operating life of the landfill and lessen the need for additional landfill space or other disposal options. Bioreactors also decrease, or at times eliminate, the quantity of leachate requiring treatment and offsite disposal. Several studies have shown that leachate quality improves over time when leachate is recirculated on a regular basis. For all of these reasons, bioreactors are expected to decrease potential environmental risks and costs associated with leachate management, treatment and offsite disposal. Additionally, use of bioreactor techniques is expected to shorten the length of time the liner will be exposed to leachate and this should lower the long term potential for leachate migration into the subsurface environment. Bioreactors are also expected to reduce post­ closure care costs and risks, due to the accelerated, controlled settlement of the solid waste during landfill operation. Finally, bioreactors provide for greater opportunity for recovery of methane gas for energy production since a larger quantity of methane is produced earlier than in a normal MSWLF. Several additional related XL pilot projects involving operation of landfills as bioreactors are being implemented throughout the country. These additional bioreactor projects will enable EPA to evaluate benefits of different alternative liners and leachate recirculation systems under various climatic and operating conditions. As expressed in the above­ referenced April 2000 Federal Register document, EPA is interested in assessing the performance of landfills operated as bioreactors, and these XL projects are expected to contribute valuable data. The Virginia Project XL Landfills and other XL projects will provide additional information on the performance of MSWLFs when liquids are added to the landfill. The Agency is also interested in assessing how different types of alternative liners perform when liquids are added to the landfill, including maintaining a hydraulic head at acceptable levels. III. The Virginia Project XL Landfills A. Overview The Virginia Project XL Landfills consists of the Maplewood Landfill and the King George Landfill. The Maplewood Landfill is located in Amelia County, Virginia, approximately 30 miles southwest of Richmond, Virginia. The Maplewood Landfill will cover a total area of about 404 acres upon completion. Construction of the first phases started in 1992. Construction of the most recent phase was completed in 1997. The King George County Landfill is located in King George County, Virginia, approximately 50 miles north­ northeast of Richmond, Virginia. The King George Landfill will cover a total area of about 290 acres upon completion. The first phase of liner system construction began in 1996. Construction of additional liner system areas has been performed every year since 1996. The Maplewood Landfill is owned and operated by USA Waste of Virginia, Inc., and the King George Landfill is owned by King George County and operated by King George Landfills, Inc. USA Waste of Virginia, Inc. and King George Landfills, Inc. are both subsidiaries of Waste Management, Inc., and will be referred to collectively hereinafter as `` Waste Management. '' Maplewood Landfill and King George Landfill, both of which are municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs), will hereinafter be referred to collectively as the `` Virginia Project XL Landfills. '' B. What did EPA Propose and What Comments were Received? Today's action finalizes the sitespecific rule for the Virginia Project XL Landfills without modification of the proposed rule. EPA proposed adding a new subsection (c) to 40 CFR 258.41 that would apply only to the Virginia Project XL Landfills and allow the owner/ operator to add non­ hazardous bulk or non­ containerized liquids, including leachate, to Cell 3 of the King George Landfill and Phases 1 and 2 of the Maplewood Landfill, as long as these areas meet the maintenance, operational, monitoring and other requirements set forth in § 258.41( c). See Section IV of this preamble for a full description of the regulatory relief provided for this project. As a result of the December 28, 2001, proposed rule for the Virginia Project XL Landfills, EPA received two comments from two national organizations, one representing the solid waste management industry and one from a recycling advocacy group. EPA's Response to Comments document (`` Response'') and the comment letters are in the RCRA Docket No. FÐ 2002Ð WVLFÐ FFFFF for this final rule. The solid waste management trade association supported this Virginia XL Project and did not call for any revisions. The recycling advocacy group submitted extensive comments critical of landfilling solid waste and bioreactor technology in general, and the VA Landfills XL Project and site­ specific rule in particular. Generally, some of the recycling advocacy group comments addressed the legal basis or adequacy of EPA's existing municipal solid waste landfill (MWSLF) criteria, 40 CFR part 258, which are beyond the scope of today's rulemaking. Other comments called for EPA to establish uniform design and operating criteria for all bioreactor landfills. These comments are also beyond the scope of today's rulemaking, which addresses only the Maplewood and King George County landfills. This commenter also addressed the adequacy of landfill gas monitoring, collection, control and reporting requirements for the XL Project. The proposed rule did not include any flexibility to existing regulations addressing these requirements, rather requirements pertaining to landfill gas are governed by Clean Air Act regulations and facility­ specific permits (see Section III. C., below). Finally, the comments suggested testing changes for the XL Project. As explained in greater detail in the Response and in Section IV. B.( below), EPA believes the monitoring, testing and reporting requirements contained in this rule, the Final Project Agreement and State solid waste and air permits will provide sufficient information to characterize the bioreactor operations at the Virginia Project XL Landfills and protect human health and the environment. C. Description of the Project This rule will allow for the addition of liquid wastes to certain areas of the Maplewood Landfill and the King George Landfill. The goal for the Maplewood Landfill is to recirculate as much leachate as is generated at the facility. Based on facility records, the facility generated approximately 3,000,000 gallons of leachate in 1999 (a relatively dry year). Under this XL project, between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 gallons of liquid will be applied at the landfill per year. The liquid application rate will be an average of 10,960 gallons per day, based on an application rate of 4,000,000 gallons per year. In order to comply with the requirements of the rule and provide the appropriate test conditions for biodegradation of the waste, the exact liquid application rate will be determined by Waste Management during implementation of the project. The project area in the Maplewood Landfill will be in `` Phase VerDate Jun< 13> 2002 10: 40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18JYR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JYR1 47313 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Development Areas'' 1 and 2 (leachate recirculation areas) and 3, 4, and 11 (monitored control areas without leachate recirculation). The total size of the Phase 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11 Phase Development Areas is approximately 48 acres. During dry periods of lower or no leachate generation, liquids other than leachate could also be added, including non­ hazardous liquids such as storm water and truck wash water. The liquids will be applied in trenches, excavated into the surface of the landfill in the Phases 1 and 2 areas (approximately 10 acres in size). Phases 3, 4, and 11 will be used as control cellsÑ no liquid will be applied to these areas, only rainwater that naturally falls and percolates beneath the landfill surface will enter the waste in these areas or phases. The goal for the King George County Landfill is to recirculate as much leachate as is generated at the facility and to add sufficient additional liquid to make a total liquids application of between 7,000,000 and 8,000,000 gallons per year. Based on facility records for the past three years, the facility generates approximately 3,500,000 gallons of leachate per year. Based on estimates of storm water runoff quantities and the storage capacity of the storm water management ponds at the site, approximately 8,000,000 gallons or more of storm water is expected to be made available for application to the landfill waste. The liquid application rate will be, on average, about 22,000 gallons per day based on an estimated application rate of 8,000,000 gallons per year. In order to comply with the requirements of the rule and provide the appropriate test conditions for biodegradation of the waste, the exact liquid application rate will be determined by Waste Management during implementation of the project. The overall study area in the King George Landfill will be established within the Municipal Solid Waste Cells 2, 3, and 4. The total size of Cells 2, 3, and 4 is approximately 59 acres. Liquid will be applied only in Cell 3, approximately 10 acres in size. Cells 2 and 4 will be control cells in which no liquids will be applied. Cell 1 was being filled with waste in July 2001. As stated earlier, the bioreactor program that will be implemented at the King George County Landfill involves application to the waste of about twice the quantity of liquid that is applied at the Maplewood Landfill. In the bioreactor at this landfill, conditions will be established that are intended to significantly increase the rate of degradation of waste during the operating life of the landfill to achieve the benefits identified in the FPA. Although the process of recirculating leachate provides much of the moisture needed to enhance biological degradation of waste, research reported in `` Active Municipal Waste Landfill Operations: A Biochemical Reactor'' (Reinhart, 1995, see Docket No. FÐ 2001Ð WVLPÐ FFFFF, Item 4.1) found that the quantity of liquid needed to reach water holding or field capacity of the waste to potentially maximize the rate of biodegradation is typically much greater than the quantity of leachate generated at a MSWLF. As part of the comparison of different rates of liquid addition inherent in this project, sources of liquid other than leachate will be used to supply the additional quantity of liquid needed at the King George Landfill. These sources could include storm water, truck wash water and other non­ hazardous liquid waste. For this project, these liquids may be discharged into the landfill leachate storage tanks to supplement the leachate and the resulting mixture will then be distributed over the bioreactor test area. The liquids application system at the Virginia Project XL Landfills will be constructed using typical trench construction methods and may include other methods developed during the implementation of the program. The construction methods are described in detail in the Application for Project XL Landfill Bioreactor Systems King George County Landfill and Maplewood Recycling and Waste Disposal Facility, submitted to U. S. EPA, prepared by GeoSyntec Consultants, May 30, 2000 (see Docket No. FÐ 2001Ð WVLPÐ FFFFF, Item 5.1). The liquids infiltration or `` application capacity'' of each landfill is the amount of liquid that can be expected to flow by gravity from all of the trenches. This quantity has been estimated using the methodology described in `` Analysis Procedures for Design of Leachate Recirculation Systems, '' (T. B. Maier, June 1998, see Docket No. FÐ 2001Ð WVLPÐ FFFFF, Item 4.2). This method involves estimating the moisture content of the waste (typically 15 to 25 percent without liquid application), the hydraulic properties of the waste, the moisture retention capacity (field capacity) of the waste (typically 40 percent), and the depth of liquid in the trench. Using this information, the infiltration rate of liquid into the waste from one 400 foot long trench is calculated; the total application capacity equals the combined infiltration rate of all six trenches. As shown in the May 2000, GeoSyntec Report, the total application capacity of the group of six trenches is calculated to be about 110,000 gallons per day, which is much greater than the average application rate of either 10,960 gallons per day or the 22,000 gallons per day for Maplewood and King George Landfills, respectively. The exact number and length of the trenches will be determined during the implementation of the project but at a minimum will be adequate to provide for the average application rates. EPA's RCRA MSWLF operating criteria require that MSWLFs be designed and constructed with a leachate collection system that can ensure a hydraulic head (leachate layer) above the liner of 30 centimeters (cm) or less, i. e., approximately 12 inches. The operator must monitor the depth of liquid (or thickness of `` head'') and ensure no more than 30 cm of head is on the liner. The impact of the liquid application activities on the thickness of head on the liner systems was evaluated using the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model (see the May 2000, GeoSyntec Report). First, the hydrologic evaluation was performed assuming that no liquid is applied; then the evaluation was performed for the liquid application condition under the assumptions that 4,000,000 and 8,000,000 gallons per year will be recirculated at the Maplewood and King George Landfills, respectively. These calculations show that a head of 30 cm or less is expected on both the Maplewood and the King George liner. The King George Landfill is expected to maintain a lower head than the Maplewood Landfill because the drainage layer material at the King George landfill is approximately 100 times more permeable than the drainage layer material at the Maplewood landfill. This is why the King George Landfill was selected for an application rate of twice the volume of liquids that will be applied to the Maplewood Landfill. The primary liner system of both landfills is underlain by a secondary liner and leachate collection system. Sumps are located at the low point of each cell in each system and will be monitored for the depth of liquid on a monthly basis. As needed and required, liquid in the sumps is collected and controlled as leachate. Samples are collected to evaluate the characteristics of the liquids. If the test results from the sampled liquid or the monitoring of the leachate level indicate that there is a potential leak in the primary liner system, then the need for a larger pump will be evaluated and the liquid level in the primary system will be further evaluated and monitored to minimize the liquid depth above the primary VerDate Jun< 13> 2002 10: 40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18JYR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JYR1 47314 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2002 / Rules and Regulations liner. The liner leakage rate will be evaluated and the leachate injection rate may be reduced, if necessary, to control the rate of flow into the secondary leachate collection system. Waste Management will monitor the depth of liquid on the liners of both landfills throughout the XL project period, and will ensure that less than the 30 cm maximum head is maintained, in accordance with regulations. This rule will not alter Waste Management's obligation to maintain less than 30 cm of head on the liners at the Virginia Project XL Landfills. It is necessary that the on­ site leachate storage structures at both the Virginia Project XL Landfills have enough capacity to store the leachate needed for later application to the test areas in the landfills. Liquid will be collected and stored for application when conditions are relatively dry. The storage capacity of the leachate tanks at the Maplewood Landfill is approximately 500,000 gallons, this represents approximately a two months supply of leachate at a application rate of 4 million gallons per year. During operation of the bioreactor system, leachate storage structures will also be used to temporarily store leachate at times when it is not or cannot be recirculated. At a minimum, the tanks will need to store the quantity of leachate generated over a period of several days. The May 2000, GeoSyntec Report states that the Maplewood Landfill generated approximately 3 million gallons of leachate in 1999. The 500,000 gallon storage at Maplewood Landfill represents over a two month storage capacity of leachate at a generation rate of 3 million gallons per year. Therefore, the facility has adequate leachate storage capacity for operation of the bioreactor system. As a contingency, when leachate generation exceeds the rate of recirculation in and storage capacity, leachate can be hauled off­ site as is currently being done. In the May 2000, GeoSyntec Report, Waste Management's consultant evaluated the physical stability of the waste at the Virginia Project XL Landfills under bioreactor operating conditions. GeoSyntec Consultants submitted this engineering evaluation to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) as a part of their application for a permit modification for the bioreactor testing at the Virginia Project XL Landfills. A static stability analysis conducted for the slopes of the Virginia Project XL Landfills shows a factor of safety (FOS) of greater than the minimum value of 1.5 was maintained even with the addition of the liquid application trenches and a phreatic or subsurface leachate/ water table surface in the landfill cell associated with the addition of liquids in the trench. The calculated FOS for the existing conditions and under the leachate recirculation scenarios remained unchanged in both the Virginia Project XL Landfills since the critical failure surface is located outside the areas that will be wetted by liquid addition during the bioreactor testing or the added liquid does not change the location of the critical surface. The GeoSyntec stability evaluation can be found in the rule docket (see Docket No. FÐ 2001Ð WVLPÐ FFFFF, Items 4.5 and 4.6). EPA and Waste Management expect that the addition of liquids to the landfills will accelerate the production of landfill gases; indeed, one of the benefits of bioreactor landfills is that the time interval during which landfill gas is generated should be compressed, thereby facilitating its collection and potential conversion to a useful energy source. Landfill gas generation will start sooner and end sooner in landfills where liquids are recirculated. EPA's Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, requires large landfills that meet the emissions threshold to perform landfill gas monitoring and install a collection and control system as specified in the regulation in areas where wastes are over a certain age. Effective November 1999, Waste Management installed, and is operating, an active (i. e., vacuum induced) landfill gas collection system in Phases 1, 2 and 3 at the Maplewood Landfill. An active gas collection system became operational at the King George Landfill on December 10, 2000. This XL project will comply with the subpart WWW performance standards for MSWLFs under the Federal Clean Air Act. Waste Management will continue to provide subpart WWWcompliant landfill gas monitoring, collection and control during and following the application of liquids at the landfills. Waste Management's obligations with respect to landfill gas is set forth in a Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit (FESOP). The VADEQ is the regulatory agency which, under the Federal Clean Air Act, has air permitting authority for both landfills. The VADEQ has issued a New Source Review (NSR) permit (9 VAC 5Ð 80Ð 10) for the King George Landfill which contains the enforceable parameters and requirements reflecting the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)Ñ compliant gas collection, control and monitoring. In addition, on July 31, 2001, VADEQ issued a Title V Operating permit (9 VAC 5Ð 80Ð 50 et. seq.), for the King George Landfill. Both the Title V permit and the underlying NSR permit issued by VADEQ are considered Federally enforceable. An NSR permit for the Maplewood Landfill was issued on March 29, 2002. A draft Title V permit is currently being revised by VADEQ. This rule is conditional upon the issuance of a FESOP. The FPA stated that the landfill gas monitoring, collection and control include at least the following provisions: 1. Waste Management will enhance the gas collection and control systems at the landfills (e. g., using additional extraction wells or trenches or by enhancing the cover over affected areas). This will be done at the discretion of Waste Management, or as directed by VADEQ, if it is determined that there is a potential to exceed the applicable air quality permit requirements or NSPS during evaluation of routine monitoring data or if odor problems or air quality problems occur. The system will be expanded as needed (e. g., using additional extraction wells or trenches or by placing additional cover or tarps over affected areas) to ensure compliance with the applicable air quality permit requirements. 2. The performance of the landfill gas extraction systems at the Virginia Project XL Landfills will be documented and assessed by obtaining monitoring data from the gas extraction wells and the landfill surface for parameters such as methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, non­ methane organic compounds (NMOCs) and other constituent concentrations, in accord with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. The gas temperature at the well heads will also be monitored as required by subpart WWW. 3. A baseline round of air monitoring at each landfill will be completed prior to the introduction of liquids, and the monitoring will continue for the duration of the project. 4. Collected landfill gas will be controlled through the use of an active gas control system at both sites. The site stakeholders, listed in Section III. G. of today's rule (below), recognize that the increased production of landfill gas may result in an increase in the flow rate of NOX emissions from any flares or other gas processing equipment installed as part of the project. Air quality permits for these emissions may need to be amended to allow the implementation of the XL project. In the FPA, Waste Management committed to exploring alternative uses for the collected gas other than flaring and on September 1, 2001, Waste Management signed an agreement with VerDate Jun< 13> 2002 16: 33 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18JYR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JYR1 47315 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2002 / Rules and Regulations a private energy development company to construct a 9MW power plant fueled by landfill gas at the Maplewood Landfill. Waste Management is currently negotiating a similar agreement for the King George Landfill. D. What Kind of Liner is Required by Current Federal Regulations? Currently, the Federal regulations outline two methods for complying with liner requirements for municipal solid waste landfills. The first method is a performance standard set out under 40 CFR 258.40( a)( 1). This standard allows installation of any liner configuration provided the liner design is approved by the director of an approved State (defined in § 258.2) and the design ensures that certain constituent concentrations are not exceeded in the uppermost aquifer underlying the landfill facility at the point of compliance. The second method is set out in 40 CFR 258.40( a)( 2) and (b). § 258.40( b) specifies a liner design which consists of two components: (1) An upper component comprising a minimum of 30 mil flexible membrane liner (60 mil if High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) is used); and (2) a lower component comprising at least two feet of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity no greater than 1 10 ¥ 7 cm/ sec. E. How Are the Liners at the Virginia Project XL Landfills Constructed? Both the Maplewood Landfill and the King George County Landfill were constructed to meet or exceed the performance standard set forth in 40 CFR 258.40( a)( 1). The liner under each landfill was built with a geomembrane double synthetic liner system, with primary leachate collection and leak detection (secondary collection) layers. The King George County liner and leachate collection system consists, from top to bottom, 1.5 feet of protective cover, leachate drainage material, 16 oz./ square yard nonwoven geotextile, 60 mil textured HDPE primary geomembrane liner, a geosynthetic clay liner, geocomposite drainage layer, 60 mil textured HDPE secondary geomembrane liner, geosynthetic clay liner, 40 mil textured HDPE tertiary geomembrane liner and 1 foot of geologic buffer material with a permeability (k) of < 1 10 ¥ 5 cm/ sec. The Maplewood Landfill liner and leachate collection system consists of, from top to bottom, 1.5 feet of primary granular drainage layer, 60 mil HDPE geomembrane, geonet layer, 60 mil HDPE geomembrane, bentonite geocomposite, underlain by 1.5 feet of a clayey soil liner with a permeability (k) of < 1 10 ¥ 5 cm/ sec. The 60 mil HDPE upper liner component of both landfills' liners meets the specified upper membrane liner component under RCRA (40 CFR 258.40( b). However, instead of a lower liner component comprising at least two feet of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity no greater than 1 10 ¥ 7 cm/ sec, the Virginia Project XL Landfills were built with a second geosynthetic 60 mil HDPE layer. Additionally, beneath the double liner system at the King George County is a third 40 mil HDPE liner, underlain by one foot of soil compacted to a permeability (k) of < 1 10 ¥ 5 cm/ sec., and the double liner system at the Maplewood Landfill is underlain by 18 inches of soil compacted to a permeability (k) of <1 10 ¥ 5 cm/ sec. The liner systems for the two landfills are illustrated in Figure 2 of the FPA. While the Virginia Project XL Landfills do not have a composite liner as specified in the Design Criteria § 258.40( b), the alternative liner systems meet or exceed the performance requirements for municipal solid waste landfills. Indeed, these landfills' doubleliner systems provide a high level of protection to the environment against potential impacts caused by leakage of leachate. F. What Are the Environmental Benefits Expected Through Project XL? The expected superior environmental benefits from the Virginia Landfills XL Project include: (1) Landfill life extension; (2) minimizing the potential for long­ term leachate­ associated groundwater and offsite surface water concerns; and (3) increasing landfill gas control, minimizing fugitive methane and VOC emissions and minimizing the duration of gas generation. 1. Landfill Life Extension The life of a landfill, when operated as a bioreactor, should be extended by the biodegradation of the waste. The accelerated biodegradation increases the apparent density and decreases the volume of the in­ place waste remaining in the landfill. Reducing the volume of waste translates into either longer landfill life and/ or less need for additional landfill space. Thus, a bioreactor landfill will be able to accept more waste over its working lifetime (subject to applicable State regulatory requirements) and less landfill space may be needed to accommodate the same amount of waste. 2. Minimizing Leachate/ GroundwaterAssociated Concerns Research reported in `` Active Municipal Waste Landfill Operations: A Biochemical Reactor'' (Reinhart, 1995, see Docket No. FÐ 2001Ð WVLPÐ FFFFF, Item 4.1), has shown that bioreactor processes tend to reduce the concentration of many pollutants in leachate, including organic acids and other soluble organic pollutants. Bioreactor operations brings pH to nearneutral conditions and generally, metals are much less mobile under these condition. Reinhart found that metals were largely precipitated and immobilized in the waste of bioreactor landfills. Discussions between Waste Management, the VADEQ, and the host communities for the Maplewood Landfill and the King George County Landfills, indicated that groundwaterrelated issues are of primary concern to the stakeholders, including minimizing the long­ term threat to groundwater quality. This project should provide for accelerated biodegradation of the waste in the landfills and, thereby, minimize the potential for the waste to present a long­ term threat to groundwater quality. Routine groundwater monitoring is, and will continue to be, performed to verify containment. Cleaner leachate also translates into decreased load on the offsite publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) where the leachate from these landfills is now being treated. As described in Section 1.2 of the FPA, both the Maplewood and King George County Landfills were constructed with double­ liner systems, which are highly efficient at preventing leakage of leachate from landfills. 3. Maximizing Landfill Gas Control and Minimizing Fugitive Methane and VOC Emissions Landfill gas contains roughly 50% methane, a potent greenhouse gas. In terms of climate effects, methane is second in importance only to carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Landfill gas also contains volatile organic compounds (VOC's) which are air pollutants of local concern. While the rate of gas generation will be increased by adding liquids to the landfills, the period of post closure landfill gas generation will be compressed. The existing, active gas collection systems in operation at both landfills are expected to efficiently collect and control landfill gas. The systems will be maintained and monitored in accordance with the terms of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW and all applicable permits. In addition, as noted above, Waste Management has signed an agreement with a private VerDate jun< 06> 2002 17: 32 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18JYR1. SGM pfrm15 PsN: 18JYR1 47316 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2002 / Rules and Regulations energy development company to construct a power plant fueled by landfill gas at the Maplewood Landfill and is negotiating a similar gas/ energy recovery agreement for the King George Landfill. It is also anticipated that the information obtained from this XL project will provide the EPA and the waste disposal industry with data concerning the use of bioreactor techniques at MSWLF sites throughout the United States, in accord with the Agency's April 6, 2000, Request for Information and Data regarding Alternative Liner Performance, Leachate Recirculation, and Bioreactor Landfills (65 FR 18014, April 6, 2000). G. How Have Various Stakeholders Been Involved in This Project? Initial public meetings were held on August 1, 2000 (King George County) and August 2, 2000 (Amelia County) to solicit comments from the public on the intent of the sponsors to participate in Project XL. Additional public meetings were also held during the week of September 4, 2000 in King George and Amelia Counties to discuss the draft FPA with the citizens from these localities. Since both landfills have valid State operating permits, the VADEQ intends to amend the permits to allow the construction and operation of the bioreactor systems as an experimental process. Before VADEQ issues a permit amendment, a local public hearing will be held to solicit comments on the draft permit amendments from concerned citizens. The details of the permit amendments for each landfill are outlined in advertisements along with contact information and document viewing locations. The public hearing is also advertised in a local paper. The VADEQ has a standardized mailing list of State agencies to whom a draft permit or notice of permit amendment can be sent to solicit comments. Conditions may be imposed due to additional State requirements or as a result of public comment. In accord with VADEQ regulatory requirements, Virginia will hold public meetings and hearings on the proposed amendments to the solid waste construction and operating permits for the Virginia Project XL Landfills. If requested, these public hearings will be supplemented with additional stakeholder meetings. A stakeholder mailing list maintained by Waste Management will be updated as necessary to include private citizens and other interested parties. Periodically, progress reports and other relevant information will be distributed. If requested, Waste Management has also agreed to provide site tours and briefings to better educate any interested citizens or stakeholders. Transcripts and video tape recordings of all public meetings and hearings will be maintained at the repositories. A repository for the project will be maintained by VADEQ at 629 East Main Street, Richmond, VA, 23219 c/ o Paul Farrell, (804) 698Ð 4214. Additional copies of the repository records will be maintained in the James Hamner Memorial Library, 16351 Dunn Street Amelia, Virginia 23002 and in the L. F. Smoot Lewis Memorial Library, 9533 Kings Highway, King George, Virginia 22485. An Internet Web site for this XL project is also maintained at: http:// www. epa. gov/ ProjectXL/ virginialandfills/ index. htm. Throughout project development, EPA will continue to update the website as the project is implemented. The FPA also includes a detailed description of stakeholder involvement with this XL project (see Docket No. FÐ 2001Ð WVLPÐ FFFFF, Item 2.2, or on the Web site). Waste Management will periodically meet with a representative from each local landfill advisory committee or the entire stakeholder group to discuss issues of concern and to disseminate information. To solicit additional stakeholder involvement, Waste Management may perform its own outreach including contacting nationwide professional and citizen groups that may have an interest in bioreactor technology and will attempt to disseminate information to its members, as well as, attend national workshops or seminars. The following have been identified as VA Project XL Landfill stakeholders: Direct Participants: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Waste Management, Inc. King George County Landfill Maplewood Landfill Maplewood Recycling Waste Disposal Facility Commentors: Members of Local Landfill Advisory Committees H. Will This Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork Reduction? EPA did not prepare an economic assessment of the impacts of today's rule. EPA notes, however, that Waste Management volunteered for this pilot project which will affect only two facilities and is expected to result in an overall cost savings by: accelerating the rate of decomposition of the waste placed in certain areas of the two Virginia Project XL Landfills, which is expected to extend the life of the landfill; improving the quality of leachate generated in those specific areas of the landfills, which is expected to decrease leachate treatment and disposal costs; and increasing methane generation and recovery efficiency, which is expected to facilitate the use of the methane for energy generation. No appreciable direct reduction in paperwork is anticipated at the Virginia Project XL Landfills. I. How Long Will This Project Last and When Will It Be Complete? As with all XL projects testing alternative environmental protection strategies, the term of this XL project is limited. Today's rule will be in effect for ten (10) years. In the event that EPA determines that this project should be terminated before the end of the ten year period and that the site­ specific rule should be rescinded, the Agency may withdraw this rule through a subsequent rulemaking. This will allow all interested persons and entities the opportunity to comment on the proposed termination and withdrawal of regulatory authority. In the event of an early termination of the project term, EPA or the State will establish an interim compliance period, not to exceed six months, such that Waste Management will be returned to full compliance with the existing requirements of 40 CFR part 258. In accordance with 9 VAC 20Ð 80Ð 480. G, VADEQ expects to utilize an experimental permit to provide for operation of the VA Project XL Landfills as bioreactors. If the XL project proves to be feasible, VADEQ expects to modify the permit for the facility to provide for the ten year XL project term. The FPA allows any party to the agreement to withdraw from the agreement at any time before the end of the ten year period. It also sets forth several conditions that could trigger an early termination of the project, as well as procedures to follow in the event that EPA, the State or local agency seeks to terminate the project (FPA, section 11). For example, an early conclusion will be warranted if the project's environmental benefits do not meet the Project XL requirement for the achievement of superior environmental results. In addition, new laws or regulations may become applicable during the project term which might render the project impractical, or might contain regulatory requirements that VerDate Jun< 13> 2002 16: 33 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18JYR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JYR1 47317 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2002 / Rules and Regulations supersede the superior environmental benefits that are being achieved under this XL project. Or, during the project duration, EPA may decide to change the Federal rule allowing recirculation over alternative liners and the addition of outside bulk liquids for all Subtitle D landfills. In that event, the FPA and sitespecific rule for this project will no longer be needed. J. Why is this Rule Immediately Effective? Under 5. U. S. C. 553( d), the rulemaking section of the Administrative Procedure Act, EPA is making this rule effective upon publication. Under 5 U. S. C. 553( d)( 1), EPA is making this rule immediately effective because the rule relieves a restriction in that it allows the Virginia Project XL Landfills to add liquids to the landfills that are currently not allowed under 40 258.28( a) (1) and (2) and § 258.40( b). In addition, under 5 U. S. C. 553( d)( 3), EPA finds good cause exists to make this rule effective immediately because the Virginia Project XL Landfills are the only regulated entity affected by the rule, sought the conditional relief provided in this rule, and have had full notice of the rule. Making the rule immediately effective will allow the Virginia Project XL Landfills to proceed sooner with the bioreactor project. IV. What Regulatory Changes Are Being Made To Implement this Project? A. Existing Liquid Restrictions for MSWLFs (40 CFR 258.28) This site specific rule grants regulatory relief from certain requirements of RCRA that restrict application of liquids in these MSWLFs, because as previously described, both the Maplewood and King George landfills were constructed with alternative liners pursuant to 40 CFR 258.40( a)( 1). When the FPA for this project was signed, RCRA regulations, 40 CFR 258.28( a) allowed bulk or noncontainerized liquid waste to be added to a MSWLF only if the following two conditions were met: ÑThe liquids comprise household waste (other than septic waste), or leachate from the landfill itself, or gas condensate derived from the landfill, and ÑThe MSWLF has been built with a liner designed as prescribed in the design standard set forth in 40 CFR 258.40 (a)( 2) (i. e., not the performance standard set forth in 40 CFR 258.40( a)( 1)). Since then, EPA promulgated a sitespecific rule for the Yolo County, CA, bioreactor landfill project under Project XL, which amended § 258.28( a). The amendment allows bulk liquid wastes to be added to a MSWLF if `` the MSWLF unit is a Project XL MSWLF and meets the applicable requirements of § 258.41'' (66 FR 42441Ð 42449, August 13, 2001). Therefore, the regulatory relief needed for the VA Project XL Landfills is a sitespecific amendment to 40 CFR 258.41. B. Site­ Specific Rule Today's rule will allow the owner/ operator of the Virginia Project XL Landfills to add non­ hazardous bulk or non­ containerized liquids, including: leachate, storm water and truck wash water (`` liquids'') to Cell 3 of the King George Landfill and Phases 1 and 2 of the Maplewood Landfill, as long as these areas meet the maintenance, operational, monitoring and other requirements set forth in § 258.41( c). The owner/ operator of the Maplewood Landfill will add liquids primarily consisting of leachate from the landfill, while the owner/ operator of the King George Landfill will add leachate generated at this facility plus other liquids, including non­ containerized liquids such as storm water, truck wash water and other non­ hazardous liquid waste. Further information on the liquids that will be added to the Maplewood and King George Landfills can be found in the FPA in Section 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2, respectively. Today's rule will add a new subsection to the rules in § 258.41. New § 258.41( c) will specifically apply to the Maplewood Landfill, in Amelia County, Virginia, and the King George Landfill, in King George County, Virginia, and will allow liquids to be applied to these two landfills. This rule imposes certain minimum monitoring, reporting, and control requirements on Waste Management, which, among other things, will ensure that the project is protective of human health and the environment and facilitate EPA's evaluation of the project. The project monitoring and reporting requirements are listed in the FPA (sections 2.2.1.4, 2.2.1.5, 2.2.2.4, and 2.2.2.5, Table 6 and 6A) and specify that Waste Management provide semiannual reporting of the monitoring data to stakeholders and regulators in order to facilitate project evaluation. Existing regulation also requires a leachate collection system as specified in § 258.40( a)( 2) to ensure that contaminant migration to the aquifer is controlled. (56 FR 50978Ð 51056, Oct. 9, 1991). This rule will not change the requirement in § 258.28( a)( 2) that a leachate collection system (as described in § 258.40( a)( 2)) be in place in order for leachate to be recirculated in the landfill unit, and Waste Management will still be required to ensure that leachate collection systems at the landfills maintain the leachate head over the liner at a depth of less than 30 cm. Today's rule does not provide any regulatory flexibility with respect to monitoring requirements, rather it adds monitoring to that which would be required for these landfills if they continued operating as conventional MSWLFs. In addition to the monitoring required in part 258, for example, the Virginia Project XL Landfills must monitor and report whether surface seeps are occurring and determine whether they are attributable to operation of the liquid application system; perform a monthly analysis of leachate quality in both test and control areas; and at least monthly, monitor the gas temperature at well heads. EPA believes this additional information will provide the necessary indicators of any increased risk to human health or the environment in a timely manner and will enable Waste Management, VADEQ and/ or EPA to take whatever steps are necessary, including suspension or termination of the project. to reduce or eliminate any such risk. EPA also believes that this additional information will be valuable in assessing the benefits of bioreactor operation. V. Regulatory Assessment Requirements A. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review? Because this rule affects only two facilities, it is not a rule of general applicability and therefore not subject to OMB review under Executive Order 12866. In addition, OMB has agreed that review of site specific rules under Project XL is not necessary. B. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required? The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and public comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not­ for­ profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. The project sponsor, Waste Management Inc., is the regulated entity for this pilot project. They are not VerDate Jun< 13> 2002 10: 40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18JYR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JYR1 47318 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2002 / Rules and Regulations a small business. This rule does not apply to small businesses, small not­ forprofit enterprises, nor small governmental jurisdictions. Further, it is a site­ specific rule with limited applicability to only two landfills in the nation. After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. C. Is an Information Collection Request Required for This Rule Under the Paperwork Reduction Act? This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. It is exempt from OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act because it is a site specific rule, directed to fewer than ten persons. 44 U. S. C. 3502( 3), (10); 5 CFR 1320.3( c), 1320.4 and 1320.5. D. Does This Rule Trigger the Requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act? Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104Ð 4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost­ effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of the EPA regulatory proposal with significant Federal mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. As used here, `` small government'' has the same meaning as that contained under 5 U. S. C. 601( 5), that is, governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand. As discussed above, this rule will have limited application. It applies only to the Maplewood and King George County Landfills. This rule will result in a cost savings for Waste Management when compared with the costs it would have had to incur if required to adhere to the requirements contained in the current rule. EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has also determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. E. How Does the Congressional Review Act Apply to This Rule? The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non­ agency parties. EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability. F. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks? Executive Order 13045, `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be `` economically significant, '' as defined in Executive Order 12886; and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to potentially effective and feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This rule will allow for the addition of bulk or non­ containerized liquid amendments over a liner that does not meet the design requirements in 40 CFR. 258.40( b), however, the liner systems meet or exceed the performance requirements for municipal solid waste landfills. Indeed, these landfills' doubleliner systems provide a high level of protection to the environment against potential impacts caused by leakage of leachate. Therefore, no additional risk to public health, including children's health, is expected to result from this rule. G. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13132: Federalism? Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. '' The phrase, `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. '' This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule will only affect two local governmental entities and a State, and will provide regulatory flexibility for the State and local governmental entities concerned. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. VerDate Jun< 13> 2002 10: 40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18JYR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JYR1 47319 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2002 / Rules and Regulations H. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments? Executive Order 13175, entitled `` Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications. '' `` Policies that have Tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. '' This rule does not have Tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. I. How Does This Rule Comply With the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (`` NTTAA''), Public Law 104Ð 113, Section 12( d) (15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless such practice is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (for example, material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking however, does not involve any technical standards; therefore EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use? This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258 Environmental protection, Landfill, Solid waste. Dated: July 12, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons set forth, part 258 of Chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 258— CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS [AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 258 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U. S. C. 1345( d) and (e); 42 U. S. C. 6902( a), 6907, 6912( a), 6944, 6945( c), and 6949a( c). Subpart D— Design Criteria 2. Amend 258.41 to add a new paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 258.41 Project XL Bioreactor Landfill Projects. * * * * * (c) Virginia Landfills XL Project Requirements. Paragraph (c) of this section applies solely to two Virginia landfills operated by the Waste Management, Inc. or its successors: The Maplewood Recycling and Waste Disposal Facility, located in Amelia County, Virginia (`` Maplewood Landfill''); and the King George County Landfill and Recycling Facility, located in King George County, Virginia (`` King George Landfill'') collectively hereinafter, `` the VA Project XL Landfills or landfill. '' The VA Project XL Landfills are allowed to add nonhazardous bulk or non­ containerized liquids including, leachate, storm water and truck wash water, hereinafter, `` liquid or liquids'', to Cell 3 of the King George Landfill (hereinafter `` Cell 3'') and Phases 1 and 2 of the Maplewood Landfill (hereinafter `` Phases 1 and 2'') under the following conditions: (1) The operator of the landfill shall maintain the liners underlying Cell 3 and Phases 1 and 2, which were designed and constructed with an alternative liner as defined in § 258.40( a)( 1) in accord with their current installed design in order to maintain the integrity of the liner system and keep it and the leachate collection system in good operating order. The operator of the landfill shall ensure that the addition of any liquids does not result in an increased leakage rate, and does not result in liner slippage, or otherwise compromise the integrity of the landfill and its liner system, as determined by the State Director. In addition, the leachate collection system shall be operated, monitored and maintained to ensure that less than 30 cm depth of leachate is maintained over the liner. (2) The operator of the landfill shall ensure that the concentration values listed in Table 1 of § 258.40 are not exceeded in the uppermost aquifer at the relevant point of compliance for the landfill, as specified by the State Director, under § 258.40( d). (3) The operator of the landfill shall monitor and report whether surface seeps are occurring and determine whether they are attributable to operation of the liquid application system. EPA and VADEQ shall be notified in the semi­ annual report of the occurrence of any seeps. (4) The operator of the landfill shall determine on a monthly basis the leachate quality in test and control areas with and without liquid addition. The operator of the landfill shall collect monthly samples of the landfill leachate and analyze them for the following parameters: pH, Conductivity, Dissolved Oxygen, Dissolved Solids, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Chemical Oxygen Demand, Organic Carbon, Nutrients (ammonia, total kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus), Common Ions, Heavy Metals and Organic Priority Pollutants. (5) The operator of the landfill shall determine on a semi­ annual basis the total quantity of leachate collected in test and control areas; the total quantity of liquids applied in the test areas and determination of any changes in this quantity over time; the total quantity of leachate in on­ site storage structures and any leachate taken for offsite disposal. (6) Prior to the addition of any liquid to the landfill, the operator of the landfill shall perform an initial characterization of the liquid and notify EPA and VADEQ of the liquid proposed to be added. The parameters for the initial characterization of liquids shall be the same as the monthly parameters for the landfill leachate specified in paragraph (c)( 4) of this section. The operator shall annually test all liquids VerDate Jun< 13> 2002 16: 33 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18JYR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JYR1 47320 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 138 / Thursday, July 18, 2002 / Rules and Regulations added to the landfill and compare these results to the initial characterization. (7) The operator of the landfill shall ensure that Cell 3 and Phases 1 and 2 are operated in such a manner so as to prevent any landfill fires from occurring. The operator of the landfill shall monitor the gas temperature at well heads, at a minimum, on a monthly basis. (8) The operator of the landfill shall perform an annual surface topographic survey to determine the rate of the settlement of the waste in the test and control areas. (9) The operator of the landfill shall monitor and record the frequency of odor complaints during and after liquid application events. EPA and VADEQ shall be notified of the occurrence of any odor complaints in the semi­ annual report. (10) The operator of the landfill shall collect representative samples of the landfill waste in the test areas on an annual basis and analyze the samples for the following solid waste stabilization and decomposition parameters: Moisture Content, Biochemical Methane Potential, Cellulose, Lignin, Hemi­ cellulose, Volatile Solids and pH. (11) The operator of the landfill shall report to the EPA Regional Administrator and the State Director on the information described in paragraphs (c)( 1) through (10) of this section on a semi­ annual basis. The first report is due within 6 months after the effective date of this section. These reporting provisions shall remain in effect for the duration of the project term. (12) Additional monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements related to landfill gas will be contained in a Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit (`` FESOP'') for the VA Project XL Landfills issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq. Application of this site­ specific rule to the VA Project XL Landfills is conditioned upon the issuance of such a FESOP. (13) This section applies until July 18, 2012. By July 18, 2012, the VA Project XL Landfills must return to compliance with the regulatory requirements which would have been in effect absent the flexibility provided through this section. If EPA Region 3's Regional Administrator, the Commonwealth of Virginia and Waste Management agree to an amendment of the project term, the parties must enter into an amended or new Final Project Agreement for any such amendment. (14) The authority provided by this section may be terminated before the end of the 10 year period in the event of noncompliance with the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, the determination by the EPA Region 3's Regional Administrator that the project has failed to achieve the expected level of environmental performance, or the promulgation of generally applicable requirements that would apply to all landfills that meet or exceed the performance standard set forth in § 258.40( a)( 1). In the event of early termination EPA in consultation with the Commonwealth of Virginia will determine an interim compliance period to provide sufficient time for the operator to return the landfills to compliance with the regulatory requirements which would have been in effect absent the authority provided by this section. The interim compliance period shall not exceed six months. [FR Doc. 02Ð 18175 Filed 7Ð 17Ð 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [FRL– 7246– 2] National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of deletion of the Compass Industries Landfill Superfund Site from the National Priorities List. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is publishing a Notice of Deletion of the Compass Industries Landfill Superfund Site (Site), located in the Chandler Park area west of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is found at Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Oklahoma, through the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance and five­ year reviews, have been completed. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 18, 2002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katrina Coltrain, Remedial Project Manager (RPM), U. S. EPA Region 6 (6SFÐ LP), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202Ð 2733, (214) 665Ð 8143 or 1Ð 800Ð 533Ð 3508 (coltrain. katrina@ epa. gov). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice of intent to Delete for this Site was published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2002 (67 FR 34886). The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was June 17, 2002. No comments were received, therefore EPA has not prepared a Responsiveness Summary. The EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. As described in § 300.425( e)( 3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions if conditions at a deleted site warrant such action. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability or impede agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Dated: June 28, 2002. Gregg A. Cooke, Regional Administrator, Region 6. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows: PART 300—[ AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U. S. C. 1321( e)( 2); 42 U. S. C. 9601Ð 9657; E. O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E. O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. Appendix B— [Amended] 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended under Oklahoma (`` OK'') by removing the site entry for `` Compass Industries Landfill (Avery Drive), Tulsa. '' [FR Doc. 02Ð 17983 Filed 7Ð 17Ð 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P VerDate Jun< 13> 2002 16: 33 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18JYR1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JYR1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.473544

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0001-0032

Supporting & Related Material

1 The NSWMA letter was postmarked January 30, 2002 but was not received by EPA until mid February. Receipt of this letter by EPA may have been delayed due to the irradiation of mail that was being sent to Federal offices in Washington, DC. Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PROJECT XL VIRGINIA BIOREACTOR PROJECT XL LANDFILLS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS May 13, 2002 Introduction The purpose of this document is to present comments and EPA's responses to comments on a proposed Project XL Site­ Specific Rule for Implementing Waste Treatment Systems at Two Virginia Landfills that was published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2001. Background On December 28, 2001, EPA requested comments on the proposed rule for the Project XL Site­ Specific Rulemaking for Implementing Waste Treatment Systems at Two Virginia Landfills (see 66 FR 67152). The proposal was to provide regulatory flexibility under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, at two Virginia landfills: the Maplewood Recycling and Waste Disposal Facility, located in Amelia County, Virginia (Maplewood Landfill); and the King George County Landfill and Recycling Facility, located in King George County, Virginia (King George Landfill). The Maplewood Landfill is owned and operated by USA Waste of Virginia, Inc., and the King George Landfill is owned by King George County and operated by King George Landfills, Inc. USA Waste of Virginia, Inc. and King George Landfills, Inc. are both subsidiaries of Waste Management, Inc., and will be referred to collectively as "Waste Management". Maplewood Landfill and King George Landfill, both of which are municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs), will be referred to collectively as the "Virginia Project XL Landfills". As a result of the December 28, 2001 proposed rule for the Virginia Project XL Landfills, EPA received two comment letters. The National Solid Waste Management Association (NSWMA) provided comments in a letter dated January 28, 2002 1 . The NSWMA supported the 2 According to the Federal Register Notice the comment period for the proposed rule closed on January 28, 2002. EPA was contacted via telephone by NRC on January 28, 2002 and agreed to include their comments in the record and docket but to designate them as late. Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 2 project and did not call for any revisions. The NSWMA comment letter states, "NSWMA's Landfill Institute supports the Project XL bioreactor landfill projects proposed for the Maplewood Landfill and the King George Landfill in Virginia as proposed in the Federal Register on December 28, 2001 (66 FR 67152)". EPA acknowledges the NSWMA comments; no response is necessary. The National Recycling Coalition, Inc. (NRC) provided comments in a letter dated February 1, 2002. 2 EPA's complete and detailed response to these comments is contained below. Generally, some of the NRCs comments addressed the legal basis or adequacy of EPA's existing municipal solid waste landfill (MWSLF) criteria, 40 CFR Part 258. EPA requested and received comments on Part 258 prior to its issuance, and addressed these comments in the preamble at the time of its publication. See 56 Fed. Reg. 50978, October 9, 1991. In any event, the NRC's comments on the Part 258 MSWLF Criteria itself are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Other NRC comments called for EPA to establish uniform design and operating criteria for all bioreactor landfills. These comments are also beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which addresses only the Maplewood and King George County landfills. NRC's comments also addressed the adequacy of landfill gas monitoring, collection, control and reporting requirements for the XL Project. The proposed rule did not provide any flexibility to existing regulations addressing these requirements, therefore these comments are also beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Finally, the NRC submitted comments on suggested testing changes for the XL Project. EPA has carefully considered these comment and suggestions and discussed them with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and Waste Management and their consultant in a number of phone calls and a meeting and site visit to the landfills. EPA believes the monitoring, testing and reporting requirements contained in this rule, the Final Project Agreement (FPA) and the State solid waste and air permits will provide sufficient information to characterize the bioreactor operations at the Virginia Project XL Landfills and protect human health and the environment. Therefore, no changes have been made to the proposed rule. The remainder of this RTC document responds in detail to comments submitted by the NRC in their letter. EPA Responses to National Recycling Coalition Comments on the Virginia Project XL Landfills Proposed Rule Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 3 Executive Summary 1. Comment: The "superior performance" of the bioreactor design cannot be met in comparison to the dry tomb standards in current regulations because those are fatally flawed and in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Response: Comments regarding the legal basis or adequacy of EPA's current municipal solid waste landfill (MWSLF) criteria are beyond the scope of today's rulemaking. EPA promulgated regulations implementing sections 1008( a)( 3), 4004( a) and 4010( c) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1991, in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The time limit for challenging part 258 has long since passed, and this rulemaking did not reopen part 258 for comment or review. There is no basis for the commenters statement that the regulations are "fatally flawed" or that they violate RCRA. For purposes of the XL Project that is the subject of today's rule, the part 258 criteria are the only basis for evaluating whether this project meets the "superior performance" criterion of Project XL. Under Project XL, EPA may provide project­ specific flexibility to existing rules, regulations and guidance provided the project meets all the Project XL criteria. As set forth in the Final Project Agreement http:// www. epa. gov/ ProjectXL/ virginialandfills/ page1. htm, EPAhas determined that this project meets the "superior environmental performance" criteria. 2. Comment: The artificial cost collar imposed on the design and operation of the bioreactors in order to keep their net costs less than those of dry tomb landfills effectively prioritizes costs over economics (sic), and, this too, is impermissible under law. Response: The commentor assumes a "cost collar" but it is unclear what the commentor means by this term. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, Project XL includes "cost savings and paperwork reduction" as one of eight criteria for determining whether a project proposal should be accepted, along with "superior environmental performance," and " avoidance of shifting risk burden" to name two others. 66 Fed. Reg. 67154. EPA disagrees that the proposed rule, or the XL project to which it applies, prioritizes costs over environmental protection. 3. Comment: EPA must establish uniform protocols for any XL or Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) bioreactor tests to insure that the designs provide additional layers of conservatism to make this type of landfill "fool proof" and the tests produce all relevant information with statistical techniques for reliability. Response: EPA is currently supporting bioreactor testing under the Project XL and CRADA programs. EPA disagrees that the Agency should establish "uniform protocols" for testing bioreactor technology under these programs. The monitoring requirements for each program and the projects under these programs are similar, but not the same. Each project is slightly different and therefore the requirements differ somewhat. However, there are common requirements of bioreactor projects under Project XL and CRADA to ensure that these projects do not pose an Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 4 unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. For example, all the projects require the monitoring of the leachate head on the liner as well as leachate quality and quantity, landfill gas composition and quantity collected, moisture and temperature sensors, waste characteristics as it changes over time, waste settlement as well as ground water quality. Furthermore, as EPA stated in its notice modifying its Guidance for Project XL, 62 Fed. Reg. 19872 (April 23, 1997), EPA expects data and experiences that will help the Agency make sound decisions as we look for ways to improve the current regulatory system." The Federal Register notice also explained that another of the objectives of Project XL is to "transfer successful approaches into the current system of environmental protection." If EPA decides in the future that the federal municipal solid waste landfill criteria in part 258 should be amended to allow more widespread implementation of bioreactor technology, the information learned from various approaches in Project XL and CRADA projects will be the basis for determining what uniform criteria should apply. 4. Comment: Among the design changes that the NRC believes ought to be included in protocols are: pre­ shredding the incoming waste load; lighter in­ place compaction of the waste load; double composite liners; 4: 1 side slopes; and greater redundancy in leachate collection lines. Response: It is important to note that the tests cells in the Project XL bioreactor landfills are already constructed, have been filled with waste and are no longer actively receiving waste. EPA does not believe that any design changes are required for the Virginia Project XL Landfills in order to conduct the bioreactor testing at these sites. Bioreactor operating and testing requirements for the XL Project are described in the FPA, the Final Site Specific Rule and the VADEQ solid waste and air permits for the Virginia Project XL Landfills. As previously stated, one purpose of this XL project is to test and compare various design elements to determine what design criteria should apply generally to bioreactors, if EPA decides in the future to amend part 258. Since the waste is already in place in the bioreactor test cells EPA does not agree that preshredding or lighter in­ place compaction could or should be required for this XL project. See response to Comment 13 (a) regarding pre­ shredding of waste and Comment 13 (b) regarding compaction. There is an existing double (and in the case of the King George Landfill a triple) synthetic liner under the Virginia Project XL Landfill cells. See response to Comment 13 (c) regarding composite liners. A slope stability analysis was conducted for both landfills and considered the effect of bioreactor operations in the test cells. The slope stability analysis for both landfills was determined to exceed the value of 1.5 recommended by EPA. See response to Comment 13 (d) regarding side slopes. The existing design of the leachate collection systems provides for redundant drainage as is explained in the response to Comment 13 (e) below. 5. Comment: Among the test changes that the NRC proposes are: statistical sampling of bore samples to produce reliable data on site stabilization and gas emissions; and in­ line camera surveys of the leachate collection lines. Response: The proposed rule states the operator of the landfill shall collect representative samples of the landfill waste in the test areas on an annual basis and analyze the samples for the following solid waste stabilization and decomposition parameters: Moisture Content, Biochemical Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 5 Methane Potential, Cellulose, Lignin, Hemi­ cellulose, Volatile Solids and pH. EPA believes that the testing agreed to in the Final Project Agreement will provide reliable and representative data on site stabilization and gas emissions. The monitoring and testing requirements specified in the proposed rule go beyond the requirements specified in existing regulations. See response to Comment 14 regarding waste stabilization and Comments 13 (f) and 15 regarding gas emission. The proposed requirements regarding monitoring and testing reflect what was agreed to by the stakeholders in the Final Project Agreement (FPA) which was announced for public comment on September 8, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 54520). The commentor did not submit comments on the proposed FPA. I ­ Correction of the Fundamental Assumption 6. Comment Summary: Misreading of Superior Performance Criteria (page 5) The commentor states that because the current landfill rules in 40 CFR part 258 are the baseline against which to evaluate whether this XL project meets the "superior performance" criteria, "whole sections of [the Final Project] Agreement (FPA) "must be largely revamped." The commentor also argues that "the problem with simply following" the `Superior Environmental Performance' criteria guideline in this case is that it does not take into consideration "whether EPA's current rules that are otherwise applicable protect the environment." Response: This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. See response to Executive Summary, Comment 1 above. 7. Comment Summary: Systemic Long­ Term Fallacy of Dry Tomb Designs (pages 5­ 8) The commentor argues that because landfill liners "will ultimately fail" EPA rules which include "dry tomb" designs violate RCRA and should not be used as the baseline for this rulemaking. The commentor cites several sources which describe the rules prescribing "dry tomb" landfills as protecting the environment initially, but as also failing to address the long­ term potential for leakage of leachate and landfill gas. Response: These comments are beyond the scope of today's rulemaking, as they question the existing rules and not today's rulemaking. See Response to Comment 1 above. However, EPA notes that the commentor's arguments in fact support today's rule. This site­ specific rule is intended to allow for the testing of technologies that, if successful, may be useful in reducing the long­ term risks from MSWLFs. As stated in the proposal, "Several studies have shown that leachate quality improves over time when leachate is recirculated on a regular basis. For all of these reasons bioreactors are expected to decrease potential environmental risks and costs associated with leachate management, treatment and offsite disposal. Additionally, use of bioreactor techniques is expected to shorten the length of time the liner will be exposed to leachate and this should lower the long term potential for leachate migration into the subsurface environment. Bioreactors are also expected to reduce post­ closure care costs and risks, due to the Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 6 accelerated, controlled settlement of the solid waste during landfill operation. Finally, bioreactors provide for greater opportunity for recovery of methane gas for energy production since a larger quantity of methane is produced earlier than in a normal MSWLF." 66 FR 67155. 8. Comment Summary: Other Short­ Term Design Failings (page 9­ 13) (a) Air Emissions. "Chief among them is the issue of air emissions from landfills. The impression that has been left is that the regulation in 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart WWW, requiring a piping system intended to extract gas in large landfills, resolves concerns over landfill gas emissions. Those regulations do not, however, create any emission's limit other than certain piping design requirements. Notwithstanding that fact, the Agency has assumed that the collection efficiency is 75%, without any factual basis for that conclusion." The commentor provides information regarding variations in landfill gas collection efficiencies and reasons for this variation. The commentor also noted that "EPA rules mandating the installation of gas collection systems only covered 54% of the waste in the ground in 2000 ..." andcommentedonthecontributionof landfill gases to global warming and distribution of mercury and other hazardous compounds into the atmosphere. Response: Similar to the commentor's statements regarding the adequacy of the existing MSWLF criteria in 40 CFR part 258, the comments in this section address the adequacy of existing regulations implementing the Clean Air Act at 40 CFR part 60 Subpart WWW. These comments are beyond the scope of today's rulemaking. Neither today's rule nor this XL project as a whole, provide for any flexibility regarding landfill gas monitoring, collection and control required by existing regulations. This project must comply with all applicable existing air regulations. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, Waste Management's obligations with respect to landfill gas will be set forth in a Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit (FESOP). (66 FR 67157) The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) is the regulatory agency which, under the federal Clean Air Act, has air permitting authority for both landfills. The VADEQ was a major stakeholder in the XL Project and has issued a New Source Review Permit 9 VAC 5­ 80­ 10 (NSR) for the King George Landfill which contains the enforceable parameters and requirements implementing the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) regarding gas collection, control and monitoring. In addition, on July 31, 2001, VADEQ issued a Title V Operating Permit 9 VAC 5­ 80­ 50 et. seq. (Title V), for the King George Landfill. Both the Title V permit and the underlying NSR permit issued by VADEQ are considered Federally enforceable. An NSR Permit for the Maplewood Landfill is under development. An NSR Permit will be in place for each landfill prior to the addition of liquids. It is important to note that an active gas collection system is already in place and operating at both landfills. Details on the piping system for the LF gas extraction system are contained in the monitoring plan in the NSPS permits for the landfills. There is currently beneficial reuse of the LF gas at the Maplewood LF which is used for energy production and WM is working towards the beneficial reuse of the methane from the King George LF. Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 7 (b) Leachate Collection Systems "A continuing threat to the ability of these systems to remove excess liquids is the problem of clogging of the pipes from microbial action and clog materials, exacerbated by organic matter and calcium concentrations in the waste load. That is the reason why it is absolutely essential that these lines be cleaned out at least annually for as long as the site remains biologically active in order to preserve their functionality. "However, the ability to clean out the collection pipes becomes substantially more difficult as the length of the pipes, and the number of joints and the problems laying the segments in a straight line, increases. Yet, to our knowledge, EPA has never undertaken any systematic technical review to validate the maximum length which collection pipes can be reliably cleaned out overtime.... Combinedwithsteep3: 1, insteadof4: 1, sideslopes, thesedesignchangeshave facilitated the construction of mega­ landfills covering thousands of acres, hundreds of feet high. . . . . Moreover, so far as we are aware, neither has any regulatory consideration been given to how a clogged line would be repaired in a mega­ fill that would require digging out a cone­ shaped cavity through hundreds of feet of garbage to provide clearance for workers to access the clogged pipe segment." Response: This comment is beyond the scope of today's rulemaking. Today's rulemaking concerns only the site­ specific requirements for operation of specific existing cells in the King George and Maplewood landfills as bioreactor landfills. The commentor's complaints about leachate collection systems are general in nature. Existing regulations (40 CFR 258.28( a)( 2)) allow leachate recirculation in MSWLFs that meet the design specifications in section 258.40( a)( 2), which include the requirement of a leachate collection system that can ensure a hydraulic head (leachate layer) above the liner of 30 centimeters (cm) or less, i. e. approximately 12 inches. With respect to this proposal, the requirement of maintaining less than 30 cm of head on the liner in specifically included (40 CFR 258.41( c)( 1)). Waste Management will not be allowed to add liquids if the requirements for the head on the liner are exceeded. EPA does not agree that it is necessary to specify how such a leachate collection system must be designed. It is the responsibility of the landfill owner/ operator to comply with the leachate control requirements regardless of the length of pipes or number of joints. (c) Monitoring Wells. "EPA requires groundwater monitoring wells in order to detect leakage before it reaches groundwater, generally 150 meters from the direction the groundwater will flow from the landfill and no more than 200 feet apart." The commentor argued that monitoring wells as much as 200 feet apart have an exceedingly low probability of detecting a leak from "a typical two­ foot long tear or rip . . . in a sand aquifer system" that would only be expected "to spread laterally about ten feet within 150 meters of the source." Response: This comment is beyond the scope of today's rulemaking. Today's rulemaking Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 8 concerns only the site­ specific requirements for operation of specific existing cells in the King George and Maplewood landfills as bioreactor landfills. These comments concern the commentor's view of the existing MSWLF criteria with respect to detection monitoring requirements and do not address today's rulemaking. With respect to today's rule, the Project sponsor did not request any regulatory flexibility with regard to groundwater monitoring at the Virginia Project XL Landfills. Waste Management is required to comply with all existing regulations for ground water monitoring at the two sites. EPA considers groundwater monitoring an important indicator for monitoring environmental impact. As of February 2002 there are 12 monitoring wells at the Maplewood Landfill and 14 monitoring wells at the King George County Landfill. The wells are sampled on a quarterly basis. The state solid waste permit contains complete information on the ground water monitoring programs at the Virginia Project XL Landfills. EPA has added figures to the docket for this rule that depict the ground water monitoring well locations on the Virginia Project XL Landfill properties. 9. Comment Summary: Proper Base Line Assumption for Bioreactor Designs and Tests (page 14) "The design must be determined not on the basis of whether it poses less of a threat to the environment than current rules, but rather whether "there is no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment from disposal of solid waste" under the modified rules, regardless of whether the threat is less." It must be structured so as to provide reliable data on which to pattern new rules that would be applicable to all applicants for landfills after the discredited dry tomb standards are repealed. Response: See response to Executive Summary, Comment 1. The criteria in part 258 set out the requirements that implement section 4004( a) of RCRA based on a determination that "there is no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment from" facilities meeting these requirements. The part 258 criteria are the proper and only basis for evaluating whether this project meets the "superior performance" criterion of Project XL. Today's rulemaking is for the purpose of implementing this project as two specific landfill sites and is not a rule to define, as a general rule, the requirements applicable to all bioreactor landfills. II Proposed Changes in Bioreactor Design and Operation 10. Comment: A reading of the technical documents in this docket provides little inkling of the urgent need for any special care in the design or operation of a bioreactor. But, as explained below, we vigorously disagree with this characterization and, because of the actual real­ world problems in bioreactors, we strongly urge that the conditions of their design and operation be made foolproof. Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 9 Response: The commentor misconstrues the purpose of today's rule. EPA is not promulgating a rule setting forth generally applicable design and operation criteria for bioreactor landfills. Rather, today's rulemaking is a site­ specific rule to allow specified techniques to be tested at particular existing landfill facilities. Based on the technical support documents and the Project XL proposal information contained in the Docket for this proposed rule including the Slope Stability studies for the test cells that will be operated as bioreactor landfills (Docket Numbers 4. 5 and 4.6), EPA believes that today's rule is protective of human health and the environment. Furthermore, the monitoring and testing requirements in the rule will allow for evaluation of the processes taking place in the test cells and provide EPA with detailed information on bioreactor operations. As the commentor notes, bioreactors are currently operating in different locations in the United States. Table 2 in the FPA contains a Summary of Field Scale Leachate Recirculation and Bioreactor Projects. Numerous technical writings on the subject show that safe and effective operation is achievable. The commentor rightly states that technical challenges remain, and bioreactors can be operated improperly. This need can be answered, in part, by projects like this one that will provide additional data on bioreactor operations under measured and controlled conditions. 11. Comment Summary: Advocate Role Inappropriate (pages 15­ 16) The commentor notes that EPA listed six reasons why bioreactor technology will provide environmental benefits but did not acknowledge any of the numerous and widely recognized problems of bioreactors. The commentor believes that the record creates the impression that EPA is acting as an advocate for an untested and highly controversial technology. The commentor views EPA's decision to approve the Virginia Project XL Landfills as a product of combined function of promotion and regulation, which the commentor believes is contrary to EPA's obligation to independently and objectively evaluate each application on its merits. Response: EPA objectively evaluated the project XL proposal for the VA landfills project and determined that the project meets the criteria for acceptance under Project XL. The basis for EPA's determination with respect to this project is set out in a Letter to Waste Management, Inc from Thomas C. Voltaggio, regarding selection of the Waste Management, Inc. Project XL Proposal, August 3, 2000 and in the Final Project Agreement. The August 3, 2000 Letter is in the Docket for this rule and posted on the EPA website at: http:// www. epa. gov/ ProjectXL/ virginialandfills/ voltaggio. pdf. The draft FPA was made available for public review and comment (65 FR 54520, Sept. 8, 2000). The FPA is also contained in the Docket for this rule and is posted on the EPA website at: http:// www. epa. gov/ ProjectXL/ virginialandfills/ fpa. pdf. The commentor did not submit comments on the draft Final Project Agreement (FPA) in response to the Agency's Notice of Availability of the FPA and solicitation of public comments. Nevertheless, EPA disagrees that its approval of the Virginia Project XL Landfills project was inappropriate, nor does EPA agree that it's role is one of advocacy. As explained in the above Federal Register notice concerning the FPA, Project XL "gives regulated entities the opportunity to develop alternative strategies that will replace or modify specific regulatory requirements on the condition that they produce greater Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 10 environmental benefits." As further explained in the preamble to the proposed site­ specific rule for this project, "these efforts are crucial to the Agency's ability to test new regulatory strategies that reduce regulatory burden and promote economic growth while achieving better environmental and public health protection." 66 FR 67154. By promulgating today's rule, EPA is not advocating the wide spread use of bioreactor landfills for MSW waste. Promulgation of a site­ specific rule to allow an alternative approach in the context of a given XL project is not an indication that EPA plans to adopt that approach as a general matter. It would be inconsistent with the forward­ looking nature of these pilot projects to adopt such innovative approaches prematurely on a widespread basis without first determining whether or not they are potentially viable in practice and successful for the particular projects that embody them. Alternative policy approaches and/ or interpretations, on a limited, site­ or state­ specific basis and in connection with a carefully selected pilot project, is consistent with the expectations of Congress about EPA's role in implementing the environmental statutes (so long as EPA acts within the discretion allowed by the statute). Congress recognizes that there is a need for experimentation and research, as well as ongoing reevaluation of environmental programs, is reflected in a variety of statutory provisions, e. g., Sec. 8001 of RCRA, (42 U. S. C. 6981). 12. Comment Summary: Special Challenges of Bioreactors (pages 16­ 17) "In order to attempt to accelerate decomposition in the ground, the moisture content and temperature of the waste load must be doubled, increasing the weight of the waste load by approximately one­ third, in an unstable and dynamic state in which there is differential settlement on the bottom liner, the possibility of anticipated seepages threatening side wall stability, the complexity of achieving adequate gas extraction, and so on." The commentor summarized two instances where breaches occurred in landfills where liquids were being recirculated. Response: EPA is aware of the issues mentioned above as being concerns for the operation of bioreactor landfills. It is for these reasons that EPA and the other stakeholders have agreed to evaluate this technology and gather data on these issues at the Virginia Project XL Landfills and other Project XL bioreactor landfill test sites. EPA agrees that careless injection of large quantities of leachate could lead to slope stability problems and these issues must be taken into account at all phases of bioreactor operation. See the response to Comment 13 B, 13 D and 13 G regarding compaction, side slope and buffer zones below. Waste Management has installed temperature monitoring wells in several locations and depths throughout the test areas at both landfills and will be monitoring and recording the temperature at these locations. Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 11 Based on the volume and density of waste measured in the test areas and the volume and mass of liquid that is proposed to be added to the Maplewood and King George Landfills on an annual basis, it is calculated that the weight of waste in the test areas would increase by 1. 7% and 2. 6% at the Maplewood and King George Landfills, respectively (Site Visit to Maplewood and King George Landfills). In addition to the two landfill failures cited by the commentor, there are several other bioreactor landfills that are operating without incident. They include Yolo County in California; Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Management, Bioreactor Landfill Demonstration Project; Outer Loop Landfill in Kentucky and the Delaware Solid Waste Authority, Sussex Landfill which historically recirculated leachate. Table 2 in the FPA contains a Summary of Field Scale Leachate Recirculation and Bioreactor Projects. Technical results of this project coupled with other landfill bioreactor projects will lead to design and operational guidance that the commentor desires. Finally, this rule is only allowing bioreactor landfill operations at two test locations in Virginia. This rule is not meant to address all design concerns for a bioreactor landfill and they are clearly not meant to "serve as the basis for the second generation landfill". 13. Comment Summary: Need to Upgrade Dry Tomb Specifications for Bioreactors (pages 18­ 23) The commentor stated that for a rule change for the second generation landfill design that would be applied across thousands of facilities over time, a heightened level of additional conservatism, beyond that in dry tomb design, must be built into bioreactor design specifications, and that this contrasts with the cost constraint on bioreactor design specifications incorporated into the VA landfills project. The commentor advocated that EPA set up a generic docket for conducting an investigation that can provide a factual basis to set up a generic protocol with which to evaluate project applications and compare results of various experiments. The commentor also stated that no further XL or CRADA bioreactor projects, including the Virginia Project XL Landfills project, should be approved. The commentor proposed a set of recommendations for changing the design and operation requirements in 40 CFR part 258 with respect to (a) pre­ shredding, (b) compaction, (c) liner, (d) side slopes, (e) leachate collection, (f) gas collection, (g) buffer zones, and (h) final flush. Response: These comments are beyond the scope of today's rulemaking. As previously stated, EPA did not propose and is not promulgating today a rule of general applicability regarding bioreactor design specifications. Moreover, the comments regarding the XL Project that is the subject of today's rule concern the terms of the Final Project Agreement (FPA). The commentor did not submit any comments on the draft FPA in response to EPA Federal Register notice and request for comments. However, although the commentor made no mention of any aspect of the proposed site­ specific rule in the comments, the commentor referenced the VA Project XL Landfills in its broad discussions of how the part 258 criteria should be changed prospectively for design of landfills that will be operated as bioreactors. To the extent these comments can be Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 12 applied to today's rule, EPA responds in the context of responding to those recommendations. Regarding a generic protocol and docket for bioreactor projects, EPA notes that the Office of Solid Waste and the Office of Research and Development are developing a centralized Internet page for bioreactor landfills. EPA plans to make annual reports for each project available to the public. (a) Pre­ shredding of waste Comment: Pre­ shredding is needed to maximize distribution of liquid and promote decomposition, due to the heterogeneous nature of solid waste, the omnipresence of plastic bags, extremely high densities, and the difficulty of evenly distributing water in trench works throughout the waste load. Response: As previously stated, these comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. However, if the commentor intended that today's rule should require that waste placed in the VA Project XL Landfills cells to be operated as bioreactors be pre­ shredded, such a requirement would not be possible. The test cells that are the subject of today's rule are generally inactive, meaning that they do not and will not receive waste on an ongoing basis during this XL Project. Additional fill may be added to maintain positive drainage on the surface of the landfill during the project, however this will be a small fraction of the waste volume in the cells and a shredding requirement for additional fill would not provide useful information for evaluating the effect of shredding. None of the existing waste in the landfill test cells was shredded. Moreover, since the existing waste was not shredded, this will provide for a rigorous test of bioreactor operations. (b) Compaction Comment: FPA did not include a discussion of the point at which increased densities prevent liquid additions from reaching a part of the load where compaction is greatest. Detailed information on what those density limits are and what operational practices are necessary to keep compression below those limits in all parts of the affected load are necessary before operational practices can be established. Response: To the extent that this comment requests that this project establish operational practices for all bioreactors, this comment is beyond the scope of today's rulemaking. Since little, if any, additional waste will be added to the cells during the XL Project, EPA does not believe that density limits or operational practices are needed for this project. Compression, settlement and waste characteristics will be monitored during the XL Project. Among the goals for the XL Project as stated in the FPA are the uniform distribution of leachate throughout the waste mass in the test areas. The Project will evaluate the relative effectiveness of different horizontal trench designs for uniformly distributing leachate throughout the waste mass, identify several leachate delivery options to simplify operations and provide monitoring features within the horizontal trenches so that liquid head and distribution rate within the trenches can be measured and Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 13 documented. The application capacity of the trenches has been estimated using the methodology described by Maier [1998]. This evaluation considered the moisture content of the waste, the hydraulic properties of the waste, the moisture retention capacity of the waste, and the head of liquid on the trench. (c) Liners Comment: All bioreactors must be built with two complete Subtitle C composite liner/ leachate collection systems and with additional underliner specifications. The commentor notes that the proposal specified a design for Maplewood and King George that achieves much more than other MSWLF, although not to the specification recommended by the commentor. Response: To the extent the comment recommends a generally applicable liner requirement for bioreactor design, it is beyond the scope of today's rule. EPA agrees that the proposed liner specification, which is in place at the Maplewood and King George landfills should be protective of human health and environment under circumstances of liquids addition. During landfill permitting, VADEQ determined that the design of the liner was equivalent to the composite design specified in 40 CFR Part 258. (d) Side slopes Comment: Bioreactors should be required to have side slopes no steeper than 4: 1 because the introduction of liquids significantly increases the risk of seepages leading to side slope failures. Response: To the extent the comment recommends a generally applicable requirement for bioreactor design, it is beyond the scope of today's rule. In both cases GeoSyntec conducted a site specific slope stability analysis to determine the effect of bioreactor operations on the VA Project XL Landfills. The slope stability analysis for the existing conditions at the landfills calculated a factor of safety of 1.62 for the Maplewood Landfill and 1. 53 for the King George Landfill. These results both exceed the minimum value of 1.5 recommended by EPA in "Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria Document No. EPA 530­ R­ 93­ 017, November 1993. GeoSyntec also evaluated whether bioreactor operations in the test cells would affect the factor of safety. In both landfills GeoSyntec concluded the factor of safety would remain unchanged by bioreactor operations in the test cells. In the results of analyses for the Maplewood Landfill GeoSyntec concluded the critical failure surface is located outside the anticipate zone that would be wetted by liquid application during recirculation events. The side slopes adjacent to the bioreactor test area at the Maplewood Landfill are 4: 1 on threes sides while the fourth side is located adjacent to another cell. The King George Landfill test area is bounded on three sides by adjacent cells. The fourth side is approximately 450 feet long and is adjacent to a 3: 1 slope. Finally, there will be a minimum 50 foot setback from the crest to the outward slope for leachate injection as a safety measure against side slope leachate outbreaks. Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 14 (e) Leachate collection Comment: Problems with increased biofouling, clogging and siltation can be expected to be severe. Increased temperature as the organic material at the bottom of the waste load "cooks" may degrade the performance of the polymer membrane if leachate pools instead of being drained away by high performance leachate lines. Reliance on the HELP model is insufficient for future decision making. There should be enhanced redundancy to cope with unanticipated problems including, a maximum distance between lines, a maximum length of the lines that are more difficult to clean out when clogged, greater grades and more rigorous resilience of the gravel bed to resist clogging. A 100­ foot separation between lines, 1, 000 foot line length, 5
grade and gravel not sand and not calcium­ based gravel for the drainage bed is suggested. Response: EPA believes that there is sufficient information available to reliably predict the performance of the leachate collection systems that are subject to today's rule. There is a dedicated leachate line for each of the test cells. The leachate lines are already in place and adequate for the test at the site. Leachate lines are approximately 1650 feet and are approximately 1500 feet at King George and Maplewood, respectively. The design of the leachate collection system piping provides for the pipe to be embedded in a high permeability stone layer. Geocloth over the stone and the stone itself distributes the weight and load. Further the high permeability stone acts as a redundant pathway for removal of leachate from the landfill if the piping were to become clogged. There is also a second riser extending from the primary leachate collection layer up to the sump house building at both the King George and Maplewood Landfills. Finally, WM has stated that the leachate lines could be cleaned out with a jetting device if they were to become clogged. The cells in question will be operated as anaerobic bioreactors. Elevated temperatures are generally not a problem with anaerobic reactions. Only aerobic processes are of concern since they generate much more heat. Air is not being injected to any of these landfills and therefore there should be no significant aerobic reactions to cause major temperature increases. In addition to the HELP model, monitoring information available from existing landfills operated as bioreactors show that there is some elevation of temperature in the waste but only minimally near the liner. (See "The Potential Effects of Elevated Bioreactor Temperatures on the Interface Shear Strength of Textured Geomembranes and the Hydraulic Transmissivity of Geocomposite Drainage Materials, Waste Tech 2002, Melody A. Adams, Lance Reed, Nathan Ivy, February 2002). In addition, available information indicates the waste appears to be hottest in its core, not near the perimeter. There is also a buffer of sand and/ or gravel above the liners for additional protection against elevated temperatures. WM has installed temperature monitoring wells at three depths at Maplewood and fourth depths at King George in several locations throughout the test cells and the landfills. WM will be monitoring and documenting temperature at these locations. Finally, the FPA provides for collection of data on the temperature of landfill gas. (f) Gas collection Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 15 Comment: The commentor could find no specification in the Application or Final Project Agreement of how the gas collection system would be constructed to address gas emissions from the bioreactor cells. Repeated reference is made that the design will comply with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. Subpart WWW does not address system components needed to capture fugitive gases from a bioreactor landfill. This is totally unacceptable. Before this case proceeds any further, the applicant must be required to submit as part of its proposal detailed plans for how it intends to cope with the unique gas generation patterns of a bioreactor in which the site is highly unstable, making pipe and trench placement extremely difficult and the rate of gas generation is accelerated to a point in time when the geometry of a landfill creates additional hurdles to capturing gas. Response: Today's rule does not address gas collection because it is a site specific rule under RCRA. Thus this comment is beyond the scope of today's rule making. The gas collection and control requirements applicable to MSWLFs (including both dry tomb and bioreactor land fills) are regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA). With respect to this project, the project sponsor did not request any regulatory flexibility for any increased fugitive emissions of landfill gas that might result from the project. The landfills both have undergone New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) permitting and CAA Title V permitting. WM as the operator must comply with all applicable air regulations. EPA and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality permitting staff have reviewed this project and do not believe it represents any increased adverse impact on human health or the environment. As stated in the FPA, the surface test for methane concentration, which is used to determine collection efficiency and surface integrity, will be conducted according to the MSW Landfill NSPS surface monitoring requirements set forth in 40 CFR section 60.755( c). As stated in the FPA, one of the project goals is to minimize landfill gas emissions by maximizing collection and control through early installation and operation of a comprehensive collection and control system in the bioreactor cell. If odor problems or air quality problems occur, then the system will be expanded as needed (e. g., using additional extraction wells or trenches or by placing less permeable cover over affected areas). As stated in the FPA, one of the goals of the monitoring program is to monitor the ground surface of the entire site, including the liquid application area, for the presence of landfill gasses (i. e. methane, NMOCs, etc.,) to ensure that permit and regulatory limits are not exceeded, and evaluate the need for additional landfill gas collection components (i. e., wells and header pipe) during liquid application events to improve the effectiveness of the landfill gas collection system. (see section 3. 1. 2. 4 Potential Environmental Impact to Air) As stated in the rule, effective November 1999, Waste Management installed, and is operating, an active (i. e. vacuum induced) landfill gas collection system in Phases 1, 2 and 3 at the Maplewood Landfill. An active gas collection system became operational at the King George Landfill on Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 16 December 10, 2000. In addition, on September 1, 2001 Waste Management signed an agreement with a private energy development company to construct a 9MW power plant fueled by landfill gas at the Maplewood Landfill. This plant is currently beneficially reusing the landfill gas to generate energy. Waste Management is currently negotiating a similar gas/ energy recovery agreement for the King George Landfill. (g) Buffer Zones Comment: Buffer zone are needed to keep liquids away from side walls in order to avoid seepage that can lead to a side wall failure. The commentor did not see a discussion of buffer zones or how liquid addition would be managed to prevent leakage into the buffer. Response: Buffer zones for the side slopes are discussed in the FPA. The FPA states that in order to minimize the potential for the occurrence of seeps, liquid distribution structures will be placed at least 50 feet away from the crests of outward slopes. The FPA also states that the potential impacts that could be caused by seeps are and will continue to be promptly mitigated at the Maplewood and King George County Landfills through a program of seep detection through visual inspections and of maintenance to quickly repair any seep that would occur. The leachate distribution pipes will be installed along contour lines or perpendicular to the slope. WM agreed to monitor the liquid levels in the landfill gas extraction wells during the project as an additional safe guard against liquid buildup in the landfill and the possibility of surface seeps. WM also will be monitoring gas production. If liquid levels were to rise into the gas extraction wells this could lower the production of landfill gas. This program of inspections and maintenance will continue to be implemented throughout the XL Project. Further, because of the ongoing project, site personnel will be particularly advised to be more sensitive to the potential for seeps. At King George only the south side of the test area is directly adjacent to a side slope, the other three sides are adjacent to other cells of the landfill. (h) Final flush Comment: Before final cap is placed on the cell, clean water should be flushed through the site to leach out hazardous compounds. Response: As stated in proposed rule, at the end of the project term the VA Project XL Landfills must return to compliance with the regulatory requirements which would have been in effect absent the flexibility provided through the site specific rule. As explained in the preamble of the proposed rule, research reported in, "Active Municipal Waste Landfill Operations: A Biochemical Reactor," Reinhart, 1995 (Reinhart 1995), has shown that bioreactor processes tend to reduce the concentration of many pollutants in leachate, including organic acids and other soluble organic pollutants. Bioreactor operations brings pH to near­ neutral conditions and generally, metals are much less mobile under these condition. The Reinhart 1995 study found that metals were largely precipitated and immobilized in the waste of bioreactor landfills. Upon completion of the Project term, the liquid addition to the bioreactor test cells will be stopped and Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 17 the leachate will be drained and the head on the liner will continue to be maintained as specified by standard RCRA Subtitle D landfill regulations. III Proposed Changes in Bioreactor Tests 14. Comment Summary: Stabilization (pages 24­ 27) To determine whether a waste load has been stabilized such that the post­ closure period might be reduced requires a reliable measurement of how much organic material remains undecomposed at closure. This requires statistical sampling techniques, and then reliable measures of remaining carbon values and of the rate of decomposition. The commentor stated its view of what constitutes reliable statistical sampling for the purpose of measuring waste stabilization. Response: The comment is beyond the scope of today's rulemaking. There is nothing in the proposed rule or today's final rule that would shorten or reduce the post­ closure period. Moreover, the comment concerns the FPA, which the commentor did not comment on when the Agency announced the availability of the draft FPA and solicited public comments. The FPA provides for annual testing of solid waste stabilization and decomposition by the collection of 4 test borings per year with 3 samples per boring. The samples will be collected from approximately 5 ­ 10 ft., 25 ­ 30 ft:, 45 ­ 50 ft. and analyzed for moisture content, biochemical methane potential, cellulose, lignin, hemi­ cellulose, volatile solids and pH. 15. Comment Summary: Gas Collection (pages 28­ 29) The FPA relies on measurements of fugitive gas emissions pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, but that rule only requires limited measurement of the concentration of select compounds in grab samples. Measurements of the total quantity of methane emissions are needed, not just concentration levels. Measurements are also essential to determine the collection efficiency of the gas extraction systems for estimating landfills' contributions to global warming. The study by SCS Engineers contains no empirical data to support a claim of enhanced gas collection performance of bioreactors, but rather is purely hypothetical in which the authors assume that bioreactor gas collection is more efficient. The commentor recommended that same statistical sampling techniques it recommended for stabilization tests (see p. 25) should be used to determine how many samples are necessary and which part of the landfill face to sample, but specified the following differences: (1) The additional separation of the waste load by vertical strata is unnecessary, (2) The importance of including the exposed side walls as well as the working face in the array from which samples are pulled is absolutely essential; and (3) Samples should be pulled during each season of the year on a day selected randomly. Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 18 The commentor also recommended that if a cylindrical polypropylene enclosure is placed on the ground surface and a small amount of surrounding dirt is used to provide a seal, with a batteryoperated fan within the enclosure, samples can be collected from within the head space. Response: The comment is beyond the scope of today's rulemaking. As the commentor notes, requirements concerning landfill gas collection and control are contained in Clean Air regulations. These regulatory requirements are implemented through VADEQ permits. However, as part of the XL Project studies agreed to in the Final Project Agreement, Waste Management will measure the flow rate of landfill gas to determine the quantity of gas generated, measure emissions of releases of landfill gas, in order to verify that permit­ specified air quality standards are not being exceeded, and track the frequency of any odor complaints during and after liquid application events. For the first year, tests will be done quarterly and for the following years some test frequencies will be changed to semi­ annually or as otherwise required in the FESOP with the VADEQ for early gas collection, control, and monitoring. Details on this measuring and the LF gas extraction system are contained in the monitoring plan in the NSPS permits for the landfills. There is active gas collection at both Project XL Landfills. WM is currently beneficially reusing the LF gas at the Maplewood LF. WM is working toward the beneficial reuse of the methane at the King George LF. The FPA outlines the goals for the monitoring system which include the monitoring of the ground surface of the entire site, including the liquid application area, for the presence of landfill gasses (i. e. methane, NMOCs, etc.,) to ensure that permit and regulatory limits are not exceeded, and evaluate the need for additional landfill gas collection components (i. e., wells and header pipe) during liquid application events to improve the effectiveness of the landfill gas collection system. The surface test for methane concentration which is used to determine collection efficiency and surface integrity will be conducted according to NSPS surface monitoring requirements in 40 CFR section 60.755 (c). The surface test for methane concentration which is used to determine collection efficiency and surface integrity will be conducted according to NSPS surface monitoring requirements in 40 CFR section 60.755 (c). 16. Comment Summary: Leachate Collection Line (page 30) The commentor stated that the ability to maintain leachate collection lines in dry tomb landfills has not been scientifically qualified and is a serious cause of concern, which is greater in bioreactor landfills due to increased problems of siltation, clogging and biofouling. A key test to evaluate whether the performance of these lines may be compromised is to use an in­ line camera along with the clean out head annually in the test and control cells. Virginia Bioreactor Project XL Landfills ­ Response to Comments ­ Page 19 Response: Today's rule requires that the leachate collection system shall be operated, monitored and maintained to ensure that less than 30 cm depth of leachate is maintained over the liner. The rule also requires the operator to collect monthly sampling of the leachate; determine on a semiannual basis the total quantity of leachate collected in test and control areas; the total quantity of liquids applied in the test areas and determination of any changes in this quantity over time; the total quantity of leachate in on­ site storage structures and any leachate taken for offsite disposal. The collection of this information will provide sufficient information to be able to evaluate how well the leachate collection system is performing. Although a leachate line visual inspection using an in­ line camera is one way of assessing the performance of the leachate collection lines, EPA does not agree that this test should be required as part of today's rule. GeoSyntec performed a leachate pipe strength calculation as part of the evaluation of the landfill leachate system. See response to Comment 13 (e) above. Conclusion 17. Comment Summary: The FPA does not resolve key issues regarding development of bioreactor designs, foremost of which is the assumption that performance equal to dry tomb landfills constitutes superior performance and that economics takes priority over the environmental. Greater scientific rigor is needed in several tests in order to produce reliable data. The commentor does not believe that the rulemaking should go forward until the signification deficiencies identified are corrected. Economic considerations and pressures should not deter EPA from making the necessary corrections. Response: EPA appreciates that the commentor has serious reservations regarding bioreactor landfill technology in general and is concerned in particular about design criteria for bioreactor landfills. However, today's rulemaking does not concern design criteria for bioreactors, rather it concerns site­ specific requirements for operation of existing landfill cells as bioreactors for a finite period of time. EPA does not agree that today's rule or the XL project that it addresses prioritized economics over the environment. As set forth in the FPA and guidelines for Project XL, superior environmental performance means environmental performance that is superior to what would be achieved through compliance with current and reasonably anticipated future regulations. The agency does not agree with the statement that, "performance equal to dry tomb landfills constitutes superior performance" but rather believes bioreactors have the potential to provide superior performance as stated in the Rule and FPA.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.512925

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0001-0033

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.533423

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0001-0034

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.534594

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0001-0035

Supporting & Related Material

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103­ 2029 SUBJECT: Site Visit to Virginia Project XL Bioreactor Landfills DATE: 4/ 8/ 02 FROM: Steven J. Donohue, Environmental Scientist/ Project Manager Office of Environmental Innovation (3EI00) TO: File On April 3 and 4, 2002 I visited the two Virginia Project XL bioreactor landfills and met with representatives of Waste Management and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Under the terms of a Project XL Final Project Agreement, a Proposed Site Specific Rule published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2001, as well as VADEQ solid waste and air permits, one 10 acre test cell at each of the Virginia Project XL landfills will be operated as a bioreactor. Maplewood Landfill On April 3, 2002 I toured the Maplewood Landfill in Amelia County, Virginia with Waste Management (WM) Representatives; Jim Stenborg, Project Manager, Brian McClung, Landfill Manager and Patrick McCann, Landfill Gas Technician. After the tour I met with the WM representatives and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) representatives, E. Paul Farrell, Environmental Engineer, and Robert Timmons, Waste Compliance Manager. During the tour I made note of the following features at the Maplewood Landfill. The side slopes of the landfill were well vegetated with several different species of native and cool seasons grasses. The side slopes on the west, south and east sides of the Phase 1 and 2 test cells consist of a 4 to 1 slope. This slope is broken by a flat, approximately 30 foot, bench located about halfway up the side of the landfill. There are a double riser extending from the primary leachate collection layer up to the sump houses which are located at the toe of the eastern side slope of the landfill. This double risers provides redundant access to the leachate collection pipe under each cell of the landfill. WM representatives stated that each cell has an individual leachate collection pipe and there is an approximately 4 foot high berm between cells to hydraulically separate them. WM representatives stated that if the leachate pipe were to become clogged the stone would act as a redundant conduit for removing leachate from the cell. The leachate lines from the sump of each cell are connected to a common subsurface leachate collection line that runs to two large leachate storage tanks that I observed at the Site. WM reported that the storage capacity of the leachate tanks at the Maplewood Landfill is approximately 500,000 gallons. I noted the presence of the landfill gas collection system which was in operation at the landfill. Gas was being collected from wells located on the top of the landfill and from the leachate collection system where negative pressure was maintained on the riser pipes to prevent gas buildup in the sump house area. Landfill gas lines run across the surface of the landfill from west to east and connect to individual stickups from the gas wells. The gas pipelines are sloped so that any condensate flows downslope to the leachate collection sump house areas for collection. A subsurface landfill gas line at the toe of the landfill collects the individual lines coming down the slope and runs to a flare and power plant located on the site. A series of engines in the power plant can be run on diesel and/ or landfill gas and can utilize all or a portion of the landfill gas to generate power. Any landfill gas not utilized by the power plant is automatically sent to a flare for combustion. I observed a large vacuum pump that pulls the gas to the flare and power plant. WM representatives stated that the contract with the power generating company is structured to encourage them to utilize as much landfill gas as possible for power generation. On the top surface of the landfill, I noted the presence of three well stickups that were nested together (i. e. in close proximity to each other) at several locations in the test cells. WM representatives stated that there nested stickups marked the locations where borings were made into the landfill to collection baseline samples of waste and obtain waste density. After the drilling was completed, wells were constructed at three different depths in the hole left by the boring into the waste. Temperature probes were installed in the wells and they will be monitored during the project. WM stated that from the known volume of the boring and measurement of the mass of the waste removed from the hole they were able to calculate an in place density of the waste at different locations in the landfill. WM reported that the density at Maplewood was .75 tons per cubic yard. Following the tour, EPA and WM discussed issues including compaction, increased density during testing, waste stability and the possibility of leachate seeps in the side walls during the project. WM stated that the total volume of waste in the test area at the Maplewood Landfill was approximately 2.2 million cubic yards (MCY). The depth of the landfill in the foot print of the 10 acre test cell is approximately 80 feet. Therefore, a conservative volume of waste in the 10 acre foot print where liquid is proposed to be injected is approximately 1. 3 MCY. Multiplying 1. 3 MCY times the calculated density of waste of .75 tons per cubic yard yields a value of 975,000 tons of waste in the 10 acre test area footprint. The volume of leachate proposed to be added to the waste each year is 3­ 4 million gallons. Assuming it is 4 million gallons and the leachate has the same weight as water (8. 3 lbs/ gallon), this would be the equivalent of adding 33. 2 million pounds or 16, 600 tons of leachate a year. This annual mass of leachate represents an approximately 1.7% increase in total mass of waste in the test cell. According to Reinhart and Ham 1974 between 25,000 and 50,000 gallons of liquid per 1,000 tons of waste is needed to make the waste achieve field capacity. The proposed addition of liquid to Maplewood is approximately 4,102 gallons of liquid per 1,000 tons of waste per year. In the meeting WM agreed to monitor the liquid levels in the landfill gas extraction wells during the project as an additional safe guard against liquid buildup in the landfill and the possibility of surface seeps. WM also will be monitoring gas production and if liquid levels rise into the wells this can cut the production of landfill gas. King George Landfill On April 4, 2002 I met with WM representatives; Jim Stenborg, Project Manager, Howard Burns, Landfill Manager and Patrick McCann, Landfill Gas Technician and VADEQ representatives; E. Paul Farrell, Environmental Engineer, and Tammy Gumbita, Senior Compliance Specialist and toured the King George Landfill in King George County, Virginia. WM confirmed the side slopes of the King George Landfill were 3: 1 slope. Test Cell 3 where liquid is proposed to be injected is bounded on the north, east and west by cells 5, 4 and 1, respectively. These cells would buttress or support and provide an additional buffer against seepage in the side slopes. The only area where Cell 3 is exposed directly to a 3: 1 slope is an approximately 450 foot distance along the southern side slope of the landfill. I noted the presence of two benches set into the 3: 1 side slope in this area. The leachate sumps are located at the toe of the southern side slope of the landfill. As was the case at the Maplewood Landfill, there is a double riser extending from the primary leachate collection layer up to the sump house building. This provides redundant access to the leachate collection pipe under each cell of the landfill. There is an approximately 5­ 6 foot berm between cells to hydraulically separate them. The leachate lines from the sump of each cell are connected to a common subsurface leachate collection line that runs to two large leachate storage tanks I noted on the site. WM stated the storage capacity of the leachate tanks at the King George Landfill is approximately 500,000 gallons. WM reported that the landfill is producing approximately 1,000 gallons of leachate per day. As was the case at Maplewood, the gas collection system was in operation at the landfill. Gas was being collected from wells on top of the landfill and from the leachate collection system where negative pressure was maintained on the riser pipes to prevent gas buildup in the sump area. Landfill gas lines on top of King George Landfill are buried beneath the surface and run from north to south and collect gas from individual well stickups in the landfill. The lines were sloped so that any gas condensate flows downslope to the leachate collection sump housing areas for collection. A subsurface landfill gas line runs to a vacuum pump and flare. According to instruments monitoring the gas flow at the flare 1200 cubic feet per minute of landfill gas was being flared at the time of my visit. WM stated they are negotiating with the Birchwood Power Station, which is directly adjacent to and clearly visible from the landfill property, for the beneficial reuse of the landfill gas. This facility currently burns coal to produce power but could utilize landfill gas in their boilers. I noted the presence of four nested well stickups on the surface of the King George landfill at several locations in the test cells. WM representatives stated that these stickups marked to location of borings that were made into the landfill to collection baseline samples of waste and obtain in­ place density measurements. After the drilling was completed wells were constructed at four different depths in the hole left by the boring. Temperature probes were installed in the wells and they will be monitored during the project. WM stated, based on the volume of the boring and the mass of the waste removed from the hole, they calculated an in place density of the waste at the King George Landfill of .8 tons per cubic yard. WM stated that the total volume of waste in the test cells at the King George Landfill was calculated by a surveying to be approximately the same as in the test cell at Maplewood or 2. 2 million cubic yards (MCY). However, the depth of the King George landfill under the foot print of the 10 acre test cell is approximately 100 feet. Therefore, a conservative volume of waste in the 10 acre foot print where liquid is proposed to be injected is approximately 1.6 MCY. Multiplying 1.6 MCY times the calculated density of waste of .80 tons per cubic yard yields a value of 1, 280,000 tons of waste in the 10 acre test area footprint at King George. The volume of leachate proposed to be added to the waste each year at King George Landfill is 7­ 8 million gallons. Assuming that it is 8 million gallons and the leachate has the same weight as water (8. 3 lbs/ gallon), this would be the equivalent of adding 66. 4 million pounds or 33, 200 tons of leachate a year. This annual mass of leachate represents an approximately 2.6% increase in total mass of waste in the test cell. The proposed annual addition of liquid to King George is approximately 5,000 gallons of liquid per 1,000 tons of waste or an order of magnitude less than the high end of the range of the total amount of liquid that Reinhart and Ham 1974 found to be necessary to achieve field capacity.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.537485

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0002-0026

Proposed Rule

Extension of Comment Period for Proposed Regulation of Oil-Bearing Secondary Materials From the Petroleum Refining Industry and Other Hazardous Secondary Materials Processed in a Gasification Device to Produce Synthesis Gas

39927 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2002 / Proposed Rules SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of changes to the air resource regulations. The changes will make the Commonwealth's regulations consistent with Federal requirements, delete obsolete and unnecessary provisions, and apply the Commonwealth's monitoring requirements in a consistent fashion for all affected sources. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. DATES: Comments must be received in writing by July 11, 2002. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to David L. Arnold, Chief, Air Quality Planning & Information Services Branch, Air Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP21, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Bureau of Air Quality Control, P. O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto at (215) 814Ð 2182, the EPA Region III address above or by e­ mail at quinto. rose@ epa. gov. Please note that while questions may be posed via telephone and e­ mail, formal comments must be submitted in writing, as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this document. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action for the Pennsylvania's air resource regulations, that is located in the `` Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register publication. Dated: May 8, 2002. Thomas C. Voltaggio, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. 02Ð 14479 Filed 6Ð 10Ð 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [MD062– 3087b; FRL– 7220– 2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Visible Emissions and Open Fire Amendments AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve revisions to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions establish the exemption of certain intermittent visible emissions (VE) at Federal facilities, amend open burning distance limitations, and establish specific requirements for safety determinations at Federal facilities. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response of this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. DATES: Comments must be received in writing by July 11, 2002. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to David L. Arnold, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Information Services Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and the Maryland Department of the Environment, 2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, Maryland, 21224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Betty Harris, (215) 814Ð 2168, at the EPA Region III address above, or by e­ mail at harris. betty@ epa. gov. Please note that while questions may be posed via telephone and e­ mail, formal comments must be submitted in writing, as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this document. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action of Maryland's Visible Emissions and Open Fire Amendments, that is located in the `` Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register publication. Dated: May 21, 2002. James W. Newsom, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. 02Ð 14492 Filed 6Ð 10Ð 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 260 and 261 [FRL– 7228– 8] RIN 2050– AE78 Extension of Comment Period for Proposed Regulation of Oil­ Bearing Secondary Materials From the Petroleum Refining Industry and Other Hazardous Secondary Materials Processed in a Gasification Device To Produce Synthesis Gas AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending by an additional 75 days the comment period on its proposed rule (March 25, 2002 at 67 FR 13684) for revising the RCRA hazardous waste program to allow a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste. This conditional exclusion would be for hazardous oil­ bearing secondary materials generated by the petroleum refining industry when processed in a gasification device manufacturing VerDate May< 23> 2002 19: 01 Jun 10, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 11JNP1. SGM pfrm72 PsN: 11JNP1 39928 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2002 / Proposed Rules synthesis gas fuel and other non­ fuel chemical by­ products. The proposal also solicits comment on a broader conditional exclusion to other hazardous secondary materials generated by industries other than the petroleum refining industry. The comment period is being extended to provide the public with additional time to evaluate and comment on both aspects of the proposed rule. As extended by this action, the comment period will now close on September 10, 2002. DATES: EPA will accept public comment on this proposed rule until September 10, 2002. Comments postmarked after the close of the comment period will be stamped `` late'' and may or may not be considered by the Agency. ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their comments referencing docket number FÐ 2002Ð RPRPÐ FFFFF to: (1) If using regular postal mail: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters EPAHQ 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460Ð 0002; (2) If using special delivery, such as overnight express service: RCRA Docket Information Center (RIC), Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA 22202; or (3) If using the Internet to: rcra­ docket@ epa. gov. All electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII (text) file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. If possible, EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) would also like to receive an additional copy of the comments on disk in WordPerfect 6.1 file format. Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5303W), U. S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460Ð 0002. The official record (i. e., public docket) for the proposed rulemaking is FÐ 2002Ð RPRPÐ FFFFF. In addition to this official record, two additional dockets have material supporting this proposal. They are: FÐ 98Ð PR2AÐ FFFFF and FÐ 98Ð RCSFÐ FFFFF. Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing in the RCRA Docket Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public make an appointment by calling 703Ð 603Ð 9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/ page. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the RCRA Hotline at 1Ð 800Ð 424Ð 9346 or TDD 1Ð 800Ð 553Ð 7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call 703Ð 412Ð 9810 or TDD 703Ð 412Ð 3323. The RCRA Hotline is open MondayÐ Friday, 9 am to 6 pm, Eastern Standard Time. For more detailed information on specific aspects of this proposed rulemaking, contact Elaine Eby at 703Ð 308Ð 8449 or eby. elaine@ epa. gov, or write her at the Office of Solid Waste, 5302W, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ) (5302W), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460Ð 0002. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 25, 2002 (67 FR 13684), EPA proposed a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste. As noted in the proposal, the exclusion would apply to hazardous oil­ bearing secondary materials (i. e., sludges, by­ products, or spent materials) generated by the petroleum refining industry (Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2911), when processed, either on­ site or offsite in a gasification system to produce synthesis gas fuel and other non­ fuel chemical by­ products. As proposed, the exclusion is subject to a set of conditions that specify the following: (1) The system meets the definition of a gasification system; (2) the system generates a synthesis gas fuel that meets the specification of exempted synthesis gas; (3) the materials generated by the gasification system must not be placed on the land if they exceed the nonwastewater Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) for chromium, lead, nickel, vanadium, arsenic, and antimony (found at 40 CFR 268.48); and (4) the excluded materials must not be placed on the land or speculatively accumulated prior to insertion into the gasification system. The proposal also solicits comment on an option to broaden the conditional exclusion to other generated hazardous secondary materials under an expanded set of conditions. These conditions include: (1) Each hazardous secondary material processed in the system contains greater than 20% by weight total organic carbon; (2) the gasification system does not process any hazardous waste which exhibits the characteristic of mercury and any hazardous waste for which mercury is a basis for listing under 40 CFR part 261, Appendix VII as hazardous secondary material; (3) the system meets the definition of a gasification system; (4) the system generates a synthesis gas fuel that meets the specification of exempted synthesis gas; (5) the materials generated by the gasification system are not placed on the land if they exceed the nonwastewater UTS for antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium (total), cyanides (total), cyanides (amenable), lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and vanadium; and (6) the excluded materials are not placed on the land or speculatively accumulated prior to insertion into the gasification system. While the Agency has requested comment on all aspects of the proposal, we specifically solicit comment, information, and data on: (1) The performance of gasification on other hazardous secondary material (that are currently hazardous waste) known to contain concentrations of metals; (2) the performance of gasification on certain hazardous secondary materials that contain certain high concentration of non­ contributing components (namely metals or halides); (3) potential partitioning of metals to the product synthesis gas fuel and their subsequent release during the combustion of the synthesis gas in turbines to produce power: (4) criteria for and the types of hazardous secondary materials that could be processed in a gasification system; (5) specific design and operating conditions for all components of the gasification system; (6) the market for building and operating gasification systems in the future; (7) the market for synthesis gas and other gasification products; and (8) appropriate documentation (reporting and record keeping) for those claiming this exclusion. The Agency is extending the comment period by 75 days to accommodate requests by several parties for additional time to prepare relevant comments and to gather operating and emissions data on gasification systems permitted in Europe and Japan. Dated: May 30, 2002. Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Director, Office of Solid Waste. [FR Doc. 02Ð 14631 Filed 6Ð 10Ð 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P VerDate May< 23> 2002 20: 16 Jun 10, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 11JNP1. SGM pfrm72 PsN: 11JNP1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.553482

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0012-0002

Supporting & Related Material

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT NO. 1 Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21 st Century Public Law No. 106­ 181 Section 503 (49 USC 44718) Note: Exact text retyped from original statute. Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21 st Century, Pub. L. No. 106­ 181 SEC. 503. LANDFILLS INTERFERING WITH AIR COMMERCE. (a) FINDINGS.– Congress finds that– (1) collisions between aircraft and birds have resulted in fatal accidents; (2) bird strikes pose a special danger to smaller aircraft; (3) landfills near airports pose a potential hazard to aircraft operating there because they attract birds; (4) even if the landfill is not located in the approach path of the airport's runway, it still poses a hazard because of the birds' ability to fly away from the landfill and into the path of oncoming planes; (5) while certain mileage limits have the potential to be arbitrary, keeping landfills at least 6 miles away from an airport, especially an airport served by small planes, is an appropriate minimum requirement for aviation safety; and (6) closure of existing landfills (due to concerns about aviation safety) should be avoided because of the likely disruption to those who use and depend on such landfills. (b) LIMITATION ON CONSTRUCTION.– Section 44718( d) is amended to read as follows: "( d) LIMITATION ON CONSTRUCTION OF LANDFILLS.– "( 1) IN GENERAL.– No person shall construct or establish a municipal solid waste landfill (as defined in section 258.2 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of the enactment of thus subsection) that receives putrescible waste (as defined in section 257.3– 8 of such title) within 6 miles of a public airport that has received grants under chapter 471 and is primarily served by general aviation aircraft and regularly scheduled flights of aircraft designed for 60 passengers or less unless the State aviation agency of the State in which the airport is located requests that the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration exempt the landfill from the application of this subsection and the Administrator determines that such exemption would have no adverse impact on aviation safety. "( 2) LIMITATION ON APPLICABILITY.– Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the State of Alaska and shall not apply to the construction, establishment, expansion, or modification of, or to any other activity undertaken with respect to, a municipal solid waste landfill if the construction or establishment of the landfill was commenced on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.". (c) CIVIL PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS OF LIMITATION ON CONSTRUCTION OF LANDFILLS.– Section 46301( a)( 3) is amended– (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking "or" at the end; (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and (3) by adding at the end the following: "( C) a violation of section 44718( d), relating to the limitation on construction or establishment of landfills;". 49 USC 44718

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.578011

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0012-0003

Supporting & Related Material

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT NO. 2 40 CFR Part 258– CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS, Subpart B– Location Restrictions section 258.10( a)­( d) Airport safety Subpart B– Location Restrictions Section 258.10 Airport safety. (a) Owners or operators of new MSWLF units, existing MSWLF units, and lateral expansions that are located within 10,000 feet (3. 048 meters) of any airport runway end used by turbojet aircraft or within 5,000 feet (1, 524 meters) of any airport runway end used by only piston­ type aircraft must demonstrate that the units are designed and operated so that the MSWLF unit does not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. (b) Owners or operators proposing to site new MSWLF units and lateral expansions within a five­ mile radius of any airport runway end used by turbojet or piston­ type aircraft must notify the affected airport and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (c) The owner or operator must place the demonstration in paragraph (a) of this section in the operating record and notify the State Director that it has been placed in the operating record. (d) For purposes of this section: (1) Airport means public­ use airport open to the public without prior permission and without restrictions within the physical capacities of available facilities. (2) Bird hazard means an increase in the likelihood of bird/ aircraft collisions that may cause damage to the aircraft or injury to its occupants.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.581447

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0012-0004

Supporting & Related Material

U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular Subject: CONSTRUCTION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF LANDFILLS NEAR PUBLIC AIRPORTS Date: August 26, 2000 Initiated by: AAS­ 300 AC No: 150/ 5200­ 34 Change: 1. Purpose. This advisory circular (AC) contains guidance on complying with new Federal statutory requirements regarding the construction or establishment of landfills near public airports. 2. Application. The guidance contained in the AC is provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for use by persons considering the construction or establishment of a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) near a public airport. Guidance contained herein should be used to comply with recently enacted MSWLF site limitations contained in 49 U. S. C. § 44718( d), as amended by section 503 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21 st Century, Pub. L. No. 106­ 181 (April 5, 2000), "Structures interfering with air commerce." In accordance with § 44718( d), as amended, these site limitations are not applicable in the State of Alaska. In addition, this AC provides guidance for a state aviation agency desiring to petition the FAA for an exemption from the requirements of § 44718( d), as amended. 3. Related Reading Materials. a. AC ­ 150/ 5200­ 33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractions On or Near Airports, May 1, 1997. b. Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States 1990­ 1998, FAA Wildlife Aircraft Strike Database Serial Report Number 5, November 1998. c. Report to Congress: Potential Hazards to Aircraft by Locating Waste Disposal Sites in the Vicinity of Airports, April 1996, DOT/ FAA/ AS/ 96­ 1. d. Title 14, Code of Federal Regulation, Part 139, Certification and Operations: Land Airports Serving Certain Air Carriers. e. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulation, Part 258, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Criteria. Some of these documents and additional information on wildlife management, including guidance on landfills, are available on the FAA's Airports web site at www. faa. gov/ arp/ arphome. htm. 8/ 26/ 00 AC 150/ 5200­ 34 2 4. Definitions. Definitions for the specific purpose of this AC are found in Appendix 1. 5. Background. The FAA has the broad authority to regulate and develop civil aviation under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U. S. C. § 40101, et. seq., and other Federal law. In section 1220 of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104­ 264 (October 9, 1996), the Congress added a new provision, section (d), to 49 U. S. C. § 44718 to be enforced by the FAA and placing limitations on the construction or establishment of landfills near public airports for the purposes of enhancing aviation safety. Section 503 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21 st Century (AIR­ 21), Pub. L. No. 106­ 181 (April 5, 2000) has replaced section 1220 of the 1996 Reauthorization Act, 49 U. S. C. § 44718 (d), with new language. Specifically, the new provision, § 44718( d), as amended, was enacted to further limit the construction or establishment of a MSWLF near certain smaller public airports. In enacting this legislation, Congress expressed concern that a MSWLF sited near an airport poses a potential hazard to aircraft operations because such a waste facility attracts birds. Statistics support the fact that bird strikes pose a real danger to aircraft. An estimated 87 percent of the collisions between wildlife and civil aircraft occurred on or near airports when aircraft are below 2,000 feet above ground level (AGL). Collisions with wildlife at these altitudes are especially dangerous as aircraft pilots have minimal time to recover from such emergencies. Databases managed by FAA and the United States Air Force show that more than 54,000 civil and military aircraft sustained reported strikes with wildlife from 1990 to 1999 (28,150 civil strikes and 25,853 military strikes). Between 1990­ 1999, aircraft­ wildlife strikes involving U. S. civil aircraft result in over $350 million/ year worth of aircraft damage and associated losses and over 460,000 hours/ year of aircraft down time. From 1990 to 1999, waterfowl, gulls and raptors were involved in 77% of the 2,119 reported damaging aircraft­ wildlife strikes where the bird was identified. Populations of Canada geese and many species of gulls and raptors have increased markedly over the last several years. Further, gulls and Canada geese have adapted to urban and suburban environments and, along with raptors and turkey vultures, are commonly found feeding or loafing on or near landfills. In light of increasing bird populations and aircraft operations, the FAA believes locating landfills in proximity to airports increases the risk of collisions between birds and aircraft. To address this concern, the FAA issued AC 150/ 5200­ 33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractions On or Near Airports, to provide airport operators and aviation planners with guidance on minimizing wildlife attractant. AC 150/ 5200­ 33 recommends against locating municipal solid waste landfills within five statute miles of an airport if the landfill may cause hazardous wildlife to move into or through the airport's approach or departure airspace. 8/ 26/ 00 AC 150/ 5200­ 34 3 6. General. Using guidance provided in the following sections, persons considering construction or establishment of a landfill should first determine if the proposed facility meets the definition of a new MSWLF (see Appendix 1). Section 44718( d), as amended, applies only to a new MSWLF. It does not apply to the expansion or modification of an existing MSWLF, and does not apply in the State of Alaska. If the proposed landfill meets the definition of a new MSWLF, its proximity to certain public airports (meeting the criteria specified in Paragraph 8 below) should be determined. If it is determined that a new MSWLF would be located within six miles of such a public airport, then either the MSWLF should be planned for an alternate location more than 6 miles from the airport, or the MSWLF proponent should request the appropriate State aviation agency to file a petition for an exemption from the statutory restriction. In addition to the requirements of § 44718( d), existing landfill restrictions contained in AC 150/ 5200­ 33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractions On or Near Airports (see Paragraph 5, Background) also may be applicable. Airport operators that have accepted Federal funds have obligations under Federal grant assurances to operate their facilities in safe manner and must comply with standards prescribed in advisory circulars, including landfill site limitations contained in AC 150/ 5200­ 33. 7. Landfills Covered by the Statute. The limitations of § 44718( d), as amended, only apply to a new MSWLF (constructed or established after April 5, 2000). The statutory limitations are not applicable where construction or establishment of a MSWLF began on or before April 5, 2000, or to an existing MSWLF (received putrescible waste on or before April 5, 2000). Further, an existing MSWLF that is expanded or modified after April 5, 2000, would not be held to the limitations of § 44718( d), as amended. 8. Airports Covered by the Statute. The statutory limitations restricting the location of a new MSWLF near an airport apply to only those airports that are recipients of Federal grants (under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 47101, et seq.) and to those that primarily serve general aviation aircraft and scheduled air carrier operations using aircraft with less than 60 passenger seats. While the FAA does not classify airports precisely in this manner, the FAA does categorize airports by the type of aircraft operations served and number of annual passenger enplanements. In particular, the FAA categorizes public airports that serve air carrier operations. These airports are known as commercial service airports, and receive scheduled passenger service and have 2,500 or more enplaned passengers per year. One sub­ category of commercial service airports, nonhub primary airports, closely matches the statute requirement. Nonhub primary airports are defined as commercial service airports that enplane less than 0.05 percent of all commercial passenger enplanements (0.05 percent equated to 328,344 enplanements in 1998) but more than 10,000 annual enplanements. While these enplanements consist of both large and small air carrier operations, most are conducted in aircraft with less than 60 seats. These airports also are heavily used by general aviation aircraft, with an average of 81 based aircraft per nonhub primary airport. 8/ 26/ 00 AC 150/ 5200­ 34 4 In addition, the FAA categorizes airports that enplane 2,500 to 10,000 passengers annually as non­ primary commercial service airports, and those airports that enplane 2,500 or less passengers annually as general aviation airports. Both types of airports are mainly used by general aviation but in some instances, they have annual enplanements that consist of scheduled air carrier operations conducted in aircraft with less than 60 seats. Of the non­ primary commercial service airports and general aviation airports, only those that have scheduled air carrier operations conducted in aircraft with less than 60 seats would be covered by the statute. The statute does not apply to those airports that serve only general aviation aircraft operations. To comply with the intent of the statute, the FAA has identified those airports classified as nonhub primary, non­ primary commercial service and general aviation airports that: 1. Are recipients of Federal grant under 49 U. S. C. § 47101, et. seq.; 2. Are under control of a public agency; 3. Serve some scheduled air carrier operations conducted in aircraft with less than 60 seats; and 4. Have total annual enplanements consisting of at least 51% of scheduled air carrier enplanements conducted in aircraft with less than 60 passenger seats. Persons considering construction or establishment of a new MSWLF should contact the FAA to determine if an airport within six statute miles of the new MSWLF meets these criteria (see paragraph 11 below for information on contacting the FAA). If the FAA determines the airport does meet these criteria, then § 44718( d), as amended, is applicable. An in­ depth explanation of how the FAA collects and categorizes airport data is available in the FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). This report and a list of airports classified as nonhub primary, non­ primary commercial service and general aviation airports (and associated enplanement data) are available on the FAA's Airports web site at http:// www. faa. gov/ arp/ 410home. htm. 9. Separation distance measurements. Section 44718( d), as amended, requires a minimum separation distance of six statute miles between a new MSWLF and a public airport. In determining this distance separation, measurements should be made from the closest point of the airport property boundary to the closest point of the MSWLF property boundary. Measurements can be made from a perimeter fence if the fence is co­ located, or within close proximity to, property boundaries. It is the responsibility of the new MSWLF proponent to determine the separation distance. 10. Exemption Process. Under § 44718( d), as amended, the FAA Administrator may approve an exemption from the statute's landfill location limitations. Section 44718( d), as amended, permits the aviation agency of the state in which the airport is located to request such an exemption from the FAA Administrator. Any person desiring 8/ 26/ 00 AC 150/ 5200­ 34 5 such an exemption should contact the aviation agency in the state in which the affected airport is located. A list of state aviation agencies and contact information is available at the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO) web site at www. nasao. org or by calling NASAO at (301) 588­ 1286. A state aviation agency that desires to petition the FAA for an exemption should notify the Regional Airports Division Manager, in writing, at least 60 days prior to the establishment or construction of a MSWLF. The petition should explain the nature and extent of relief sought, and contain information, documentation, views, or arguments that demonstrate that an exemption from the statute would not have an adverse impact on aviation safety. Information on contacting FAA Regional Airports Division Managers can be found on the FAA's web site at www. faa. gov. After considering all relevant material presented, the Regional Airports Division Manager will notify the state agency within 30 days whether the request for exemption has been approved or denied. The FAA may approve a request for an exemption if it is determined that such an exemption would have no adverse impact on aviation safety. 11. Information. For further information, please contact the FAA's Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Airport Safety and Certification Branch, at (800) 842­ 8736, Ext. 73085 or via email at WebmasterARP@ faa. gov. Any information, documents and reports that are available on the FAA web site also can be obtained by calling the toll­ free telephone number listed above. DAVID L. BENNETT Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards 8/ 26/ 00 AC 150/ 5200­ 34 Appendix 1 6 APPENDIX 1. DEFINITIONS. The following are definitions for the specific purpose of this advisory circular. a. Construct a municipal solid waste landfill means excavate or grade land, or raise structures, to prepare a municipal solid waste landfill as permitted by the appropriate regulatory or permitting authority. b. Establish a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) means receive the first load of putrescible waste on site for placement in a prepared municipal solid waste landfill. c. Existing municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) means a municipal solid waste landfill that received putrescible waste on or before April 5, 2000. d. General aviation aircraft means any civil aviation aircraft not operating under 14 C. F. R. Part 119, Certification: Air carriers and commercial operators. e. Municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) means publicly or privately owned discrete area of land or an excavation that receives household waste, and that is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pile, as those terms are defined under 40 C. F. R. § 257.2. A MSWLF may receive other types of RCRA subtitle D wastes, such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, small quantity generator waste and industrial solid waste, as defined under 40 C. F. R. § 258.2. A MSWLF may consist of either a standalone unit or several cells that receive household waste. f. New municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) means a municipal solid waste landfill that was established or constructed after April 5, 2000. g. Person( s) means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, joint­ stock association, or governmental entity. It includes a trustee, receiver, assignee, or similar representative of any of them (14 C. F. R. Part 1). h. Public agency means a State or political subdivision of a State; a tax­ supported organization; or an Indian tribe or pueblo (49 U. S. C. § 47102( 15)). i. Public airport means an airport used or intended to be used for public purposes that is under the control of a public agency; and of which the area used or intended to be used for landing, taking off, or surface maneuvering of aircraft is publicly owned (49 U. S. C. § 47102( 16)). j. Putrescible waste means solid waste which contains organic matter capable of being decomposed by micro­ organisms and of such a character and proportion as to be capable of attracting or providing food for birds (40 C. F. R. § 257.3­ 8). k. Scheduled air carrier operation means any common carriage passenger­ carrying operation for compensation or hire conducted by an air carrier or commercial operator for 8/ 26/ 00 AC 150/ 5200­ 34 Appendix 1 7 which the air carrier, commercial operator, or their representatives offers in advance the departure location, departure time, and arrival location. It does not include any operation that is conducted as a supplemental operation under 14 C. F. R. Part 119, or is conducted as a public charter operation under 14 C. F. R. Part 380 (14 C. F. R. § 119.3). l. Solid waste means any garbage, or refuse, sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi­ solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges that are point sources subject to permit under 33 U. S. C. § 1342, or source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923) (40 C. F. R. § 258.2).

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.584456

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0013-0001

Supporting & Related Material

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CATHODE RAY TUBE MANAGEMENT, NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste February 15, 2002 Page i Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................ 1 2.0 Overview of the Entities Involved in Generating and Recycling CRTs ............. 2 2.1 Original Users ..................................................... 3 2.2 Establishments that Reuse Monitors ..................................... 4 2.3 Collectors ........................................................ 4 2.4 Reclaimers ........................................................ 6 2.5 Glass Processors ................................................... 7 2.6 Transporters ...................................................... 7 2.7 CSI Handlers ...................................................... 8 3.0 Methodology and Data ................................................... 8 3.1 Estimate the Number of Original Users Discarding Computer Monitors ........... 9 3.2 Estimate the Total Number of Color Computer Monitors Discarded Annually ...... 9 3.2.1 Total Number of Computers in All Business Establishments .............. 9 3.2.2 Discarded Computer Monitors from All Original Users ................ 10 3.2.3 Color Monitors Discarded from All Original Users ................... 10 3.3 Estimate the Number of Regulated Original Users and Collectors and the Number of CRTs They Discard ................................................ 11 3.3.1 Computers Discarded per Original User ........................... 11 3.3.2 Monitor Weight ............................................. 13 3.3.3 Number of Original Users and Collectors that are Regulated Generators in the Subtitle C Baseline Based Only on the Generation of CRTs ............. 13 3.3.4 Number of Original Users that are Regulated Generators in the Subtitle C Baseline Due to a Combination of CRTs and Non­ CRT Hazardous Waste ......................................................... 15 3.3.5 Number of Original Users and Collectors that are Regulated Generators Under the Primary Alternative ........................................ 16 3.3.6 Number of Original Users and Collectors that are Regulated Generators Under the CSI Alternative ........................................... 18 3.4 Flow of CRTs from Generators to Disposal Sites ­ Subtitle C Baseline .......... 19 3.4.1 Disposal Option Assumptions ................................... 24 3.5 Estimate Administrative Compliance Costs ............................... 28 Page ii 3.5.1 Baseline Unit Costs for Original Users (Generating No Non­ CRT Hazardous Waste) .................................................... 28 3.5.2 Baseline Unit Costs for Original Users Also Generating Non­ CRT Hazardous Waste .................................................... 28 3.5.3 Primary Alternative ........................................... 28 3.5.4 CSI Alternative ............................................. 29 3.6 Estimate Disposal Costs ............................................. 31 3.7 Estimate Transportation Costs ........................................ 32 3.8 Estimate Storage Costs ............................................. 35 3.9 Estimate Costs for Glass Processors and Transporters ...................... 37 3.9.1 Costs to Glass Processors ..................................... 37 3.9.2 Costs to CRT Glass Transporters ................................ 37 3.10 Estimate the Impact of Compliance Costs on Affected Entities ................. 38 3.11 Methodology for Subtitle D Management Baseline ......................... 39 3.12 Limitations of the Methodology and Data ................................ 43 3.12.1 Assumptions ............................................... 43 3.12.2 Limitations ................................................. 46 3.12.3 Other Factors .............................................. 47 4.0 Cost Results and Sensitivity Analysis for Subtitle C Management Baseline ....... 49 4.1 Costs Under the Subtitle C Baseline .................................... 49 4.2 Primary Alternative ................................................. 50 4.2.1 Costs Under the Primary Alternative .............................. 50 4.2.2 Incremental Cost Difference Between the Subtitle C Baseline and the Primary Alternative ................................................. 51 4.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis for the Primary Alternative ...................... 52 4.2.4 Incremental Cost Between the Subtitle C Baseline and the Primary Alternative, Including Currently Unregulated Monitors and Televisions .............. 54 4.3 CSI Alternative ................................................... 55 4.3.1 Costs Under the CSI Alternative ................................ 55 4.3.2 Incremental Cost Difference Between the Subtitle C Baseline and the CSI Alternative ................................................. 56 4.3.3 Sensitivity Analysis for the CSI Alternative ......................... 57 4.3.4 Incremental Cost Between the Subtitle C Baseline and the CSI Alternative, Including Currently Unregulated Monitors and Televisions .............. 59 Page iii 5.0 Cost Results and Sensitivity Analysis for Subtitle D Management Baseline ....... 60 5.1 Costs Under the Subtitle D Baseline .................................... 60 5.2 Primary Alternative ................................................. 61 5.2.1 Costs Under the Primary Alternative .............................. 61 5.2.2 Incremental Cost Difference Between the Subtitle D Baseline and the Primary Alternative ................................................. 62 5.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis for the Primary Alternative ...................... 63 5.2.4 Incremental Cost Between the Subtitle D Baseline and the Primary Alternative, Including Currently Unregulated Monitors and Televisions .............. 65 5.3 CSI Alternative ................................................... 66 5.3.1 Costs Under the CSI Alternative ................................ 66 5.3.2 Incremental Cost Difference Between the Subtitle D Baseline and the CSI Alternative ................................................. 67 5.3.3 Sensitivity Analysis for the CSI Alternative ......................... 68 5.3.4 Incremental Cost Between the Subtitle D Baseline and the CSI Alternative, Including Currently Unregulated Monitors and Televisions .............. 70 6.0 Economic Impacts ...................................................... 71 7.0 Qualitative Environmental Benefits ........................................ 79 8.0 Other Administrative Requirements ....................................... 81 8.1 Environmental Justice ............................................... 81 8.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ...................................... 81 8.3 Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ........ 82 8.4 Regulatory Flexibility ............................................... 82 9.0 Discussion of Findings and Summary ....................................... 82 Page iv Appendix A: Number of Establishments and the Number of Employees for all Two­ Digit SIC Codes A­ 1 Appendix B: Ratios of Computers per Employee Calculated for Each SIC Code ............ B­ 1 Appendix C: Disposal Cost Source Details ....................................... C­ 1 Appendix D: Flow of CRTs in Both Number and Tons .............................. D­ 1 Appendix E: Average Shipment Sizes for Each Type of Establishment Distributing CRTs to Each CRT Management Option .......................................... E­ 1 Appendix F: Revenues per Establishment for All Two­ Digit SIC Codes .................. F­ 1 Appendix G: List of Parameters to Which the Analysis Results are Relatively Insensitive ...... G­ 1 Appendix H: Telephone Contacts .............................................. H­ 1 Appendix I: Bibliography ..................................................... I­ 1 Page 1 1.0 Introduction Computers and televisions are in almost every household and business in the United States. Several hundred million computers and televisions are in use and many more millions are believed to be in storage. Both computer monitors and televisions typically contain a cathode ray tube (CRT), which creates the images seen on the television or computer monitor. The glass in CRTs from color computer monitors and color televisions can contain enough lead to qualify these devices as hazardous waste (D008, characteristically hazardous for lead) when they are discarded. Under current Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulation, post­ consumer CRTs from many commercial and industrial generators are hazardous waste whether disposed, or sent for reclamation, such as disassembly and glass recycling (40 CFR §261.2( C)( 3)). CRTs that are sent for refurbishment or reuse are not considered a solid waste under RCRA. Businesses that discard (i. e., "generate") post­ consumer CRTs must comply with RCRA regulations and dispose of computer monitors and televisions by treating them for lead and sending them to a Subtitle C or D landfill or sending them to recyclers or smelters. Households are excluded from RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulation and many smaller businesses do not generate enough CRTs to trigger RCRA generator requirements; these entities tend either to store old electronic equipment or to send it to Subtitle D landfills. Most of the current disposal methods (Subtitle C and D landfilling and lead smelting) do not take advantage of the full intrinsic value contained in CRT glass or in other CRT components that can be recycled back into high value products, such as new CRT glass or recovered gold and copper. While there is already a demand for the CRT glass contained in computer monitors and televisions, RCRA regulations that can apply for applicable hazardous waste generators can be burdensome and may discourage this type of recycling. The requirements under the current RCRA regulations include: storage limits, manifesting, recordkeeping, safety training, and biennial reporting by large generators. The administrative, transportation, treatment, disposal, and storage costs associated with the current regulations add to the cost of recycling old CRT glass back into new CRT glass, and also tend to discourage glass­ to­ glass recycling. To remedy this situation the Common Sense Initiative (CSI) Council tasked the Computers and Electronics Sector Subcommittee with recommending regulations that encourage environmentally sound recovery of CRTs and that eliminate unnecessary regulatory burden for recycling post­ consumer CRTs back into new CRT glass. In June 1998, the CSI Computers and Electronics Sector Subcommittee recommended changes to the current regulations specifically for CRTs that encourage recycling CRT glass back into new CRT glass. The recommendations included extended storage limits, no manifesting, reduced recordkeeping requirements, and no biennial reporting. EPA's proposed regulation builds on the CSI recommendation by further streamlining the requirements and by also reducing the regulatory requirements for CRTs sent to lead smelters. EPA believes that the additional capacity at lead smelters may be necessary to recycle all of the CRTs generated and, therefore, to achieve the greatest reduction in CRTs requiring disposal. The proposed regulation is expected to encourage glass­ to­ glass and other types of recycling, reduce the costs on the regulated community, and maintain or increase the degree of protection provided to human health and the environment. Page 2 The purpose of this analysis is to analyze the costs and economic impacts of EPA's proposed rule (primary alternative) and the CSI alternative related to encouraging environmentally sound recycling of CRTs. To achieve this purpose the analysis estimates the incremental cost of the alternatives over current regulations (the "baseline"). The analysis uses two different baselines: one that models full compliance with RCRA Subtitle C requirements (referred to as the Subtitle C management baseline), and one that reflects what is possibly current CRT disposal practice (referred to as the Subtitle D management baseline). The remainder of this report is organized as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of the types of entities involved in generating and recycling CRTs. Section 3 describes the methodology used to estimate the costs of the proposed rule and to calculate the first order economic impacts associated with the costs. Sections 4 and 5 present, respectively, the results of the cost analysis for each of the two baselines. Section 6 presents impact analysis results. Section 7 discusses environmental benefits associated with the proposed regulatory changes. Other administrative requirements are addressed in Section 8. Finally, Section 9 concludes with a summary of the analytical results. 2.0 Overview of the Entities Involved in Generating and Recycling CRTs This section describes the entities involved in generating, collecting, transporting, reclaiming, and recycling CRTs from televisions and computer monitors. CRTs from televisions and computer monitors are treated the same when discarded, so the same entities typically handle both types of CRTs. However, this analysis models the management of CRTs only from color computer monitors because these CRTs comprise the vast majority of CRTs discarded by regulated entities. CRTs from televisions only are included in a sensitivity analysis that includes televisions from unregulated entities (see Sections 4.2.4 and 4.3.4). The seven economic based entities involved in generating and managing CRTs are: original users, reusers, collectors (including exporters), hazardous waste disposal facilities, reclaimers, glass processors, and CRT glass manufacturers. Exhibit 2­ 1 is a simplified diagram of how CRTs flow between these entities. In this analysis, original users are businesses that first use monitors and televisions for their intended purpose. They may be regulated generators or they may be unregulated under RCRA, as discussed in Section 2.1. Establishments that reuse computers are similar to original users, but are typically not regulated (see Section 2.2). In this analysis, collectors are intermediaries that accept discarded CRTs from original users or reusers prior to sending the CRTs or CRT glass to other entities. Like original users, collectors may be regulated generators or they may be unregulated. Collectors are described in more detail in Section 2.3. Reclaimers considered in this study consist of lead smelters, and are described in more detail in Section 2.4. Glass processors prepare CRT glass for introduction into a CRT glass manufacturer's glass furnace, and are the subject of Section 2.5. Hazardous waste facilities and CRT glass manufacturers are included in Exhibit 2­ 1 for completeness but, because these types of entities are not affected by the proposed alternatives, they are not discussed further in this overview. Section 2.6 briefly discusses the transporters of CRTs that move CRTs from one entity to the next. Finally, under the CSI alternative a category of entities is defined, CSI handlers, that can be either original users or certain collectors. CSI handlers are described in more detail in Section 2.7. Page 3 Exhibit 2­ 1: CRT Life­ Cycle Flow Diagram 2.1 Original Users Original users are establishments that first use and discard CRTs. Original users include entities that use computers and televisions in the normal course of their business operations and that periodically discard them. For example, original users range from large multinational corporations down to small local real estate offices. Original users send CRTs for reuse, recycling, reclamation, disposal, or to collectors. As considered in this analysis, original users do not include entities that are explicitly excluded from hazardous waste requirements (e. g., households). Current RCRA Regulatory Requirements Because color CRTs contain leaded glass that typically qualifies as hazardous waste when disposed, any entity that uses computers or televisions may be a regulated generator. However, under current EPA policy, used CRTs with the potential for reuse are assumed to be products and not wastes if there is the possibility that the CRTs will be refurbished or reused. Therefore, original users that discard intact CRTs are only regulated generators if they send the CRTs for intended disposal (e. g., a landfill), to a lead smelter, or to a glass processor that does not refurbish any of the CRTs it receives. Original users that discard broken CRT glass are regulated generators regardless of where they are sent. This analysis assumes that original users only discard intact CRTs. Original users are regulated if they produce hazardous wastes in quantities above a threshold of 100 kilograms (kg) per month. Original users that produce less than 100 kg per month of hazardous waste are conditionally exempt from RCRA requirements and are not included in this analysis (40 CFR §261.5). Original users that produce between 100 and 1,000 kg per month of hazardous waste are Page 4 small quantity generators (SQGs) and must comply with storage limits, manifesting, recordkeeping, and safety training requirements (40 CFR Part 262 generally). Original users that generate more than 1,000 kg per month of hazardous waste are large quantity generators (LQGs) and must comply with the same or more stringent requirements as SQGs and must also comply with biennial reporting requirements. Due to the 100 kg per month threshold (equivalent to approximately seven CRTs), only relatively large original users are likely to qualify as regulated generators based solely on their generation of postconsumer CRTs. However, facilities that generate hazardous waste other than CRTs may qualify as a regulated generator with less than 100 kg per month of CRTs. The treatment of these generators in this analysis is discussed in Section 3.3.4. Primary and CSI Alternatives Under the primary alternative, CRTs that are sent to reclaimers and glass processors (see Sections 2.4 and 2.5) are excluded from the definition of solid waste. Thus the original users that send CRTs to these CRT management options will no longer be considered generators of CRTs. Original users that send their CRTs for disposal continue to be regulated generators under the primary alternative. Under the CSI alternative, CRTs that are sent to glass processors (see Section 2.5) are excluded from the definition of hazardous waste. Therefore, the original users that send CRTs to glass processors are no longer considered generators of CRTs. Original users that send their CRTs for disposal or to reclaimers continue to be generators under the CSI alternative. Thus the CSI alternative also reduces the number of original users subject to the rule, but not by as many as does the primary alternative. 2.2 Establishments that Reuse Monitors Establishments that reuse CRTs include schools, foundations, and other not­ for­ profit entities. Although reusers of CRTs can face the same regulatory conditions as original users of CRTs (i. e., because RCRA regulations do not define/ distinguish between them), the analysis assumes that establishments that reuse monitors do not discard enough CRTs to trigger the RCRA requirements or they are exempted entities. This category of establishments is included in the analysis for completeness of the CRT life cycle flow. 2.3 Collectors The analysis recognizes a category of entities called CRT "collectors," which includes intermediary entities that collect intact televisions or computer monitors, and then send the CRTs or CRT glass for reuse, recycling, reclamation, or disposal. Because collectors often make a decision to either refurbish/ reuse CRTs or to dispose of them, they frequently trigger the hazardous waste regulations, becoming potentially regulated generators when opting to send CRTs for disposal, reclamation, or recycling. Like original users, collectors are unregulated if they send CRTs to entities (e. g., other collectors) that might refurbish/ reuse them. 1 Collectors that are SQGs are assumed to not crush the CRTs because the large capital costs of the crushing equipment and the relatively low volumes of CRTs that they handle does not make crushing economically viable. Collectors that are LQGs are assumed to crush the CRTs because the larger volumes of CRTs they handle combined with the disposal cost savings for crushed versus whole bare CRTs makes the purchase and operation of the crushing equipment economically feasible. 2 Bare CRTs are televisions or monitors that have had the casing, electronics, and electron gun removed from them, leaving only the panel and funnel glass that are still fused together. Page 5 The category of collectors covers a wide variety of entities. For example, this category includes establishments that primarily refurbish CRTs for reuse and also establishments that primarily dismantle CRTs for recycling. Collectors that primarily refurbish CRTs for reuse tend to be smaller organizations, including non­ profit entities. Collectors that primarily recycle CRTs are typically small to medium for profit businesses. Since not all CRTs can be refurbished for reuse, the collectors that refurbish CRTs typically send unusable CRTs to collectors that primarily recycle CRTs. Some collectors that primarily recycle CRTs break and grind the CRTs to separate out the metal from the glass. Separating the metal from the glass also reduces the CRT management costs of the glass if it is sent to glass processors. The grinding process increases the density of the CRTs, thus reducing shipping costs, and also results in a better price from the glass processor. The collector category also includes brokers that arrange for large quantities of electronic equipment, including CRTs, to be sent to electronics recycling facilities or for export. This analysis assumes that collectors that are SQGs discard bare CRTs and collectors that are LQGs discard broken or crushed CRT glass. 1 Collectors are assumed not to generate hazardous waste other than CRTs. Current RCRA Regulatory Requirements Under current EPA policy, CRTs that are discarded are assumed to be products and not wastes if there is the possibility that the CRTs will be refurbished or reused. Therefore, under current requirements, collectors that discard intact CRTs are only regulated generators if they send the CRTs for intended disposal (e. g., a landfill), to a lead smelter, or to a glass processor that does not refurbish any of the CRTs it receives. Collectors that discard bare CRTs or broken CRT glass are regulated generators regardless of where they are sent because it is assumed they cannot be reused at this point. 2 Collectors are regulated if they produce hazardous wastes in quantities above a threshold of 100 kilograms (kg) per month. Collectors that produce less than 100 kg per month of hazardous waste are conditionally exempt from RCRA requirements and are not included in this analysis (40 CFR §261.5). Collectors that produce between 100 and 1,000 kg per month of hazardous waste are small quantity generators (SQGs) and must comply with storage limits, manifesting, recordkeeping, and safety training requirements (40 CFR Part 262 generally). Collectors that generate more than 1,000 kg per month of hazardous waste are large quantity generators (LQGs) and must comply with the same or more stringent requirements as SQGs and must also comply with biennial reporting requirements. 3 Cutter Information Corp. 's, Product Stewardship Advisor, "The Long­ Term Future of CRT Glass Recycling: How NEC Is Planning Ahead." Volume I, No. 6, November 1997. Page 6 Primary and CSI Alternatives Under the primary alternative, bare intact CRTs that are sent to lead smelters and glass processors (see Sections 2.4 and 2.5) are unconditionally excluded from the definition of solid waste. Used broken CRTs are conditionally excluded when stored in containers or buildings. Therefore, the collectors that send CRTs to these disposal options are no longer considered generators of CRTs. Collectors that send their CRTs for disposal continue to be generators under the primary alternative. Under the CSI alternative, CRTs that are sent to glass processors (see Section 2.5) are excluded from the definition of solid waste. Consequently, the collectors that send CRTs to glass processors are no longer considered generators of CRTs. Collectors that send their CRTs for disposal or to lead smelters continue to be generators under the CSI alternative. Thus, the CSI alternative reduces the number of collectors subject to the rule, but not by as many as does the primary alternative. 2.4 Reclaimers Current RCRA Regulatory Requirements Current requirements do not recognize or specifically define any category of CRT reclaimers. Under current RCRA Subtitle C regulations, entities that disassemble televisions or computer monitors and break CRT glass for land disposal or smelting are "treating" the CRT glass (40 CFR § 260.10). Treatment of hazardous waste is often subject to administrative and technical standards and requires a permit (40 CFR Parts 264, 265, and 270). However, some forms of treatment, such as reclamation, are not subject to regulation (e. g., CRT disassembly for smelting) (40 CFR § 261.6( C)( 1)) or, treatment may be conditionally exempt if the treater generated the waste (40 CFR §§ 262.34, 264.1( g)( 3), and 265.1( c)( 7)). Primary and CSI Alternatives Reclaimers include entities that use CRT glass as a substitute for raw materials. Under the primary alternative only lead smelters are recognized as reclaimers. Other types of reclaimers that are not recognized under the primary alternative include establishments that turn the CRT glass into a usable product, such as glass construction blocks. Another example is a reclaimer that has a value added process that turns the CRT glass into a marketable product called LeadX, which can be used as a sand­ blasting abrasive suitable for the abatement of leaded paint. 3 The primary alternative only changes the RCRA regulatory requirements for lead smelters, but not for other types of reclaimers. The CSI alternative does not change the RCRA regulatory requirements for any reclaimers. 4 Pre­ consumer CRTs are not addressed in this analysis. Page 7 2.5 Glass Processors Current RCRA Regulatory Requirements Current requirements do not define any category of CRT glass processors. CRT glass processors are currently captured under the regulations as treatment, storage, and disposal facilities unless they also conduct refurbishment. Primary and CSI Alternatives Glass processors disassemble the televisions and computer monitors, intentionally break the CRT glass and prepare the CRT glass, by cleaning and sorting it, for shipment to CRT glass manufacturers. Glass processors receive discarded post­ consumer televisions and computer monitors from both original users and collectors, and off­ specification pre­ consumer CRTs from manufacturers of televisions and computer monitors. 4 Although a subset of collectors perform some of the same processing steps as glass processors, the primary difference between glass processors and collectors is that glass processors prepare the glass for input directly into a CRT glass manufacturers furnace, while CRT glass from collectors requires further processing before it can be sent to a CRT glass manufacturer. 2.6 Transporters Current RCRA Requirements Under current requirements, transporters of any hazardous waste, including discarded CRTs, are required to be certified as hazardous waste handlers. (40 CFR Part 263) Primary and CSI Alternatives Under both regulatory alternatives, any non­ hazardous material carrier may transport whole televisions and computer monitors between original users and collectors and between generators and glass processors without being certified hazardous waste handlers. Under the primary alternative, any non­ hazardous material carrier may transport intact or broken CRTs between generators and reclaimers and between glass processors and reclaimers. 2.7 CRT Handlers Current RCRA Regulatory Requirements Current requirements do not recognize or define any category of CRT handlers. Page 8 Primary Alternative The primary alternative does not recognize or define a category of CRT handlers. CSI Alternative The CSI alternative defines handlers as including entities that collect and/ or store whole televisions or computer monitors, including those generated by the entity itself, and then send them to glass­ to­ glass recycling facilities (also called "glass processors") or to other handlers. Handlers also include any entity that disassembles televisions and computer monitors and sends the whole CRTs to a processor or another handler. Note that, under the CSI alternative, entities that are generators under current requirements become handlers for CRTs if they send their CRTs to glass­ to­ glass recycling facilities or to other handlers. Under the CSI alternative, handlers are exempt from RCRA generator requirements. Large quantity handlers (LQH) include handlers that collect and store more than 40 tons of CRTs for more than seven consecutive days. Small quantity handlers (SQH) include handlers that collect or store more than 100 kg per month. Handlers are believed to send CRTs to processors, smelters, or other handlers. 3.0 Methodology and Data This section describes the methodology used to quantitatively estimate (1) the type and number of entities impacted by the proposed rule; (2) the cost savings expected to result from the proposed rule; and (3) the impact on the regulated entities. To obtain these results the analysis models the flow of discarded CRTs from generation to final disposal. The following ten steps broadly outline the analytical methodology: (1) Estimate the number of original users discarding computer monitors; (2) Estimate the total number of color computer monitors discarded annually; (3) Estimate the number of regulated original users and collectors; (4) Estimate the flow of discarded CRTs to each disposal alternative; (5) Estimate the administrative compliance costs for the regulated establishments; (6) Estimate the CRT management costs (i. e., costs for disposal, recycling, reuse); (7) Estimate the transportation costs for shipping CRTs; (8) Estimate the storage costs for storing CRTs; (9) Estimate the costs for glass­ to­ glass processors and transporters; and (10) Estimate the impact of the compliance costs on the regulated establishments. These steps, along with the applicable data and assumptions used, are described below in Sections 3.1 through 3.10. Section 3.11 describes the methodology, data, and assumptions used to analyze the Subtitle D management baseline where a large percentage of CRTs are disposed in Subtitle D landfills without treatment. This baseline may more closely represent current CRT disposal practices. Section 3.12 identifies key assumptions and limitations of the methodology and data. It is worth noting at this time that the CRTs from televisions are addressed only in a sensitivity analysis presented in 5 U. S. Bureau of the Census, "Computer Use in the United States: October 1993." www. census. gov/ population/ socdemo/ computer/ compwork. txt and "Computer Use in the United States: October 1997." September 1999. Page 9 Sections 4.2.4 and 4.3.4. For reasons discussed in Section 3.12, this is not believed to have a significant bearing on the results. While not a limitation to the analysis, note also that the analysis reflects generators of non­ CRT hazardous wastes only to the extent that these entities generate more than 30 CRTs per year. For reasons discussed in Section 3.12, this is consistent with least cost behavior on the part of these entities. 3.1 Estimate the Number of Original Users Discarding Computer Monitors Computers are used in all industries; it is rare to find a business establishment without at least one computer. However, businesses utilize computers at different rates. For example, financial institutions are far more likely to have high ratios of computers per employee than are farms. Given that computers are used, and therefore discarded, by virtually all establishments, the total number of establishments in all two­ digit SIC codes provides an estimate of the number of business original users discarding computer monitors. These data are currently available for 1995 from the U. S. Bureau of the Census. The total number of establishments in all SIC codes in 1995 is 6,613,188. In addition to obtaining the total number of establishments in each two­ digit SIC code, the distribution of establishments by size, as measured by the number of employees per establishment, was obtained for use in subsequent steps in the modeling process. Appendix A contains a table of the number of establishments and the total number of employees for all two­ digit SIC codes. 3.2 Estimate the Total Number of Color Computer Monitors Discarded Annually The second step in the modeling process estimates the number of color computer monitors discarded by the original users identified in the first step. To do this, the analysis estimates, in turn, the total number of computers in use, the number discarded each year and, finally, the number of these discarded monitors that are color monitors. 3.2.1 Total Number of Computers in All Business Establishments To determine the total number of computers in use by all original users, an estimate of the ratio of computers per employee is developed for each two­ digit SIC code based on two surveys taken by the U. S. Bureau of the Census. 5 The first survey, completed in 1993, contained a detailed listing of computer use at work by two­ digit SIC classification. The second survey, completed in 1997, only contained a summary of computer use at work by fifteen major SIC classifications. This analysis uses the less detailed 1997 survey to extrapolate the more detailed 1993 survey results to 2001 by assuming the same percentage increase occurred between 1997 and 2001 as occurred from 1993 to 1997. This assumes a linear growth in computer use. The average increase in the percent of employees using 6 Matthews, Scott H., McMichael, Francis Co., Hendrickson, Chris T., Hart, Deanna, J., Disposition and End­ of­ Life Options for Personal Computers, Carnegie Mellon University: Green Design Initiative Technical Report #97­ 10, July 7, 1997. 7 National Safety Council, Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report, Recycling of Selected Electronic Products in the United States. May 1999. page 29. 8 Monochrome computer monitors are assumed not to contain enough lead to qualify them as hazardous waste when discarded and thus are excluded from the analysis. Source: Overview of Cathode Ray Tube Recycling, February 27, 1997, page 8. The original source in the referenced report is a letter from Robert Dodds, Sony, to Nancy Helm, EPA Region X, dated July 8, 1996. Page 10 computers is six percent. The range of percentage increases in the percent of employees using computers at work is from one to 14 percent. Appendix B lists the ratios of computers per employee calculated for each SIC code. The ratios are multiplied by the total number of employees in each two digit SIC code. The resulting products are summed to obtain an estimate of the total number of computers in use by all original users. The model estimates there are 55,555,000 computers used by all original users. 3.2.2 Discarded Computer Monitors from All Original Users To determine the total number of computers discarded by all original users, the estimated number of computers in use by all original users is divided by an estimate of the average computer monitor life. The analysis assumes that computer monitors last an average of 3.5 years in businesses. A literature search yielded a wide range of estimates for monitor lifetimes. For example, a 1997 study by Carnegie Mellon suggested lifetimes of four to five years, 6 while a 1999 report by the National Safety Council estimates that monitor lifetimes would be 2.8 years in the year 2000. 7 The model results are sensitive to monitor lifetime. The estimated total number of computers discarded per year by all original users is 15,873,000. This value includes monitors that are sent by original users to organizations that will reuse the monitors. An implicit assumption in this calculation is that businesses discard computers continuously, or in small batches annually, rather than replacing all computers once every 3.5 years. This is a reasonable assumption as most businesses purchase new computers on an as needed basis, and the computer stock in any one company is not all of the same age. 3.2.3 Color Monitors Discarded from All Original Users To determine the total number of color monitors discarded, the model subtracts out laptop computers (which do not use CRTs) and monochrome monitors (which do not use glass with high lead concentrations) from the total number of computers discarded. 8 After these subtractions, described 9 National Safety Council, Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report, Recycling of Selected Electronic Products in the United States. May 1999. page 31. 10 U. S. Bureau of the Census, "Computer Use in the United States: October 1993." www. census. gov/ population/ socdemo/ computer/ compwork. txt. Page 11 below, the resulting number of color monitors discarded per year by all original users is estimated at 11,714,000. Percent of Discarded Computers that are Laptops. The model assumes that 18 percent of all discarded computers are laptops. Laptops have become an important segment of the computer market over the last five to eight years. Computer sales estimates from 1998 indicate that 18 percent of computer sales are laptops. 9 The model results are only slightly sensitive to the percent of laptops discarded. Percent of Discarded Monitors that are Color. The Census survey from 1993 reported that 61 percent of households with computers have color monitors. 10 This analysis considers that figure to be a lower­ bound estimate for businesses, based on the assumption that businesses are more likely to have color monitors than households. Since color monitors have become much more common over the last eight years, the model uses an estimate of 90 percent for the percent of color monitors discarded from businesses. The model results are sensitive to the percent of color monitors assumed as a percentage of all monitors discarded. 3.3 Estimate the Number of Regulated Original Users and Collectors and the Number of CRTs They Discard The next step in the methodology is to determine the number of original users and collectors that are subject to RCRA requirements for generators and that would be affected by the regulatory alternatives. This section also estimates the number of CRTs that are discarded by original users and collectors. To complete these calculations, the number of computers discarded per establishment and an estimate of monitor weight is required. The report then explains the methodologies used to estimate the number of establishments for three types of entities: original users that are currently generators solely due to CRTs; original users that are generators due to a combination of CRTs and non­ CRT hazardous waste; and collectors that are currently generators. 3.3.1 Computers Discarded per Original User To estimate the average number of computers discarded annually per original user in each of the two digit SIC codes, the analysis estimates the average number of employees per establishment, Page 12 multiplies this estimate by the number of computers per employee (as discussed in Section 3.2.1), and then adjusts for the number of color computer monitors discarded. Exhibit 3­ 1 contains the summary statistics generated by this analysis for the number of color CRTs discarded per original user for all two­ digit SIC codes. The Census reports the number of establishments by two­ digit SIC code for six size ranges of employees (250 to 499; 500 to 999; 1,000 to 1,499; 1,500 to 2,499; 2,500 to 4,999; and 5,000 or more employees). The midpoint of each range is used as the estimate of the number of employees in each establishment within each defined size range. For the largest category (5,000 or more employees), a value of 10,000 employees per establishment is used. Exhibit 3­ 1: Number of Color CRTs Discarded per Original User for All Two­ Digit SIC Codes Statistic Number of Color CRTs Discarded by Establishment Size As Determined by the Number of Employees 250 ­ 499 500 ­ 999 1000 ­ 1,499 1,500 ­ 2,499 2,500 ­ 4,999 > 5,000 Minimum 13 25 42 66 124 330 25 th Percentile 32 34 107 172 321 854 Median 35 70 117 187 350 931 Average 43 85 141 225 422 1,123 75 th Percentile 56 111 184 294 552 1,470 Maximum 79 157 261 417 781 2,082 11 The table below presents the number and percent of monitors sold in 1997 and 1998 by size of monitor. The source of the sales data is the Electronic Industries Alliance report, Spring 2001. The 15­ inch monitor weight was obtained from the user manuals for a Sony Trinitron Color Computer Display (manufactured in 1998), and for an Apple Multiple Scan 15 Display (manufactured in 1994). The 17­ inch monitor weight was obtained from the user manual for a Sony Trinitron Color Computer Display (manufactured in 1998). The 14­ inch and 19­ to 21­ inch monitor weights are estimated based on the weight of glass in each monitor size, which is 20 pounds and 28 pounds respectively Monitor Size (inches) Monitor Weight (lbs) 1997 1998 Number Sold Percent Sold Number Sold Percent Sold < = 14 26 4,100 14% 2,600 8% 15 31 12,800 45% 12,900 41% 17 41 10,300 36% 13,700 43% 19 ­ 21 48 1,200 4% 2,400 8% Totals 28,400 100% 31,600 100% Page 13 3.3.2 Monitor Weight Throughout the analysis, the model assumes an average monitor weight of 35 pounds, based on the percentage and weight of each size of monitor sold 3.5 years prior to the modeled year. 11 The analysis uses a weighted average of the monitors sold in 1997 and 1998 to determine the average weight of monitors discarded in the model year. In the future, the average monitor weight is expected to increase with the use of larger screens, which would tend to push more original users into the regulated universe. For example, by 2004 the average weight of discarded monitors is expected to be 38 pounds. 3.3.3 Number of Original Users and Collectors that are Regulated Generators in the Subtitle C Baseline Based Only on the Generation of CRTs Original Users To estimate the number of original users that are regulated solely due to their generation of CRTs, assumptions must be made regarding the behavior that establishments will exhibit in discarding computer monitors. The analysis assumes that businesses will exhibit least cost behavior to the extent possible by discarding monitors each month just below the 100 kilogram per month limit for SQGs. An original user becomes an SQG if in any one month it exceeds the 100 kilogram per month threshold. 12 This calculation assumes that, in any one month, an establishment will be subject to RCRA regulation if it discards seven or more color monitors (7 monitors * 15.9 kg/ monitor = 111 kg; 100 kg per month is the threshold for SQGs). Assuming least­ cost behavior, the smallest number of color monitors an establishment could discard annually and trigger the RCRA requirements for SQGs is [( 11 months * (7­ 1 CRTs)) + (1 month * 7 CRTs) =] 73 CRTs per year. Given the assumed monitor lifetime (3.5 years, for a turnover rate of 0.29), SQGs must possess a minimum of 73/ 0.29, or 256 operating color monitors. The numbers for LQGs are calculated using the same method, with the threshold for discard starting at 63 color monitors per month, or 745 in a year, for a total number of computers of 2,608 in each LQG establishment. 13 The database is the International Association of Electronics Recyclers (IAER) industry directory that is located on IAER's web site, www. iaer. org. Page 14 Based on the current SQG threshold (100 kg/ month) and LQG threshold (1,000 kg/ month) under the Subtitle C baseline, and the assumptions made regarding monitor lifetime and weight, and the assumed least cost behavior, original users who discard 73 ­ 744 monitors annually are SQGs and those who discard 745 or more monitors annually are LQGs. 12 Based on the assumed monitor lifetime of 3.5 years, the smallest SQG possesses 256 operating color computer monitors and the smallest LQG possesses 2,608 operating color computer monitors. Under these assumptions and the estimated number of computers discarded per establishment, there are an estimated 12,151 potential SQGs and 356 potential LQGs in the Subtitle C baseline due solely to the generation of CRTs. These entities discard an estimated total of 2,490,000 CRTs per year. Some of these potential SQGs and LQGs only send CRTs to collectors, for reuse, or to glass processors who refurbish and resell some of the monitors they receive. Thus not all of the potential SQGs and LQGs are actually regulated generators. The analysis estimates that there are 2,066 actual SQGs and 61 actual LQGs. The analysis models the flow of all of the CRTs generated by all the potential original user generators, because although the establishments generating these CRTs are not regulated, the CRTs themselves may still become subject to regulation with subsequent handlers. Collectors To estimate the number of collectors the analysis started with a database of establishments involved in the electronics recycling industry. 13 By comparing this database with the names of electronics recyclers mentioned in the literature review, a rough estimate of the number of collectors was obtained. The analysis estimates there are 100 potential SQGs and 500 potential LQGs that are collectors. Collectors are assumed to only be hazardous waste generators due to their discarding of CRTs. The 600 potentially regulated collectors are estimated to process approximately 2.0 million CRTs per year. Some of these potential collectors only send CRTs for reuse or for export, neither of which are regulated activities if the CRTs have the possibility of being reused. Thus, the collectors who send CRTs for reuse or export are not considered regulated generators in this analysis. The analysis assumes that there are 50 SQGs and 250 LQGs. 14 The ratio of all hazardous waste generators to all establishments was calculated from data obtained from the biennial reporting system database (number of LQGs) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) database (number of SQGs in each SIC code) and 1995 U. S. Census data. Page 15 3.3.4 Number of Original Users that are Regulated Generators in the Subtitle C Baseline Due to a Combination of CRTs and Non­ CRT Hazardous Waste The number of generators due in part to non­ CRT hazardous waste is estimated from the number of original users discarding between 30 and 72 CRTs per year and the total number of SQGs and LQGs in each two­ digit SIC code. The lower bound of 30 CRTs discarded per year is based on the assumption that generators discarding fewer than 30 CRTs per year do not send their CRTs to glass­ to­ glass processors due to the high transportation costs and low volume of CRTs discarded. The upper bound of 72 CRTs discarded per year is used because original users generating more than 72 CRTs per year are captured as SQGs or LQGs in the analysis above. The total number of all original users discarding between 30 and 72 CRTs per year in each two­ digit SIC code is estimated using the same methodology as described in Sections 3.3.1 to 3.3.3. The total number of original users generating between 30 and 72 CRTs per year is estimated at 21,842. This number underestimates the total number of these generators because for some SIC codes the number of employees that generate 30 CRTs per year is less than 250, while the analysis uses the total number of establishments with 250 to 499 employees to estimate the number of generators. The analysis uses this larger size category because the Census data source does not have a category for below 250 employees except for 1 ­ 249 employees. Because about 97 percent of all establishments have less than 250 employees, it is likely that the estimated number of establishments discarding 30 to 72 CRTs is low. To estimate the number of hazardous waste generators in each two­ digit SIC code from the number of all establishments discarding 30 to 72 CRTs per year, the ratio of all hazardous waste generators to all establishments in each two­ digit SIC code is multiplied by the total number of establishments discarding between 30 and 72 CRTs per year. 14 To account for the fact that SQGs and LQGs are more likely to be larger organizations, the ratio for SQGs is multiplied by a factor of 1.5 and the ratio for LQGs is multiplied by a factor of 2. Under these assumptions there are 2,136 potential SQGs and 891 potential LQGs because they generate a combination of CRTs and non­ CRT hazardous waste. These generators discard an estimated total of 151,000 CRTs per year. Some of these potential SQGs and LQGs only send CRTs to collectors, so not all of the potential SQGs and LQGs are actually regulated generators. The analysis estimates that there are 534 actual SQGs and 223 actual LQGs. The total number of original user generators under the baseline is estimated at 2,600 SQGs and 284 LQGs. A list of the number of SQG and LQG original users by two­ digit SIC code under the Subtitle C baseline and the proposed rule is shown in Exhibit 3­ 2. Under the baseline there are generators in 66 different two­ digit SIC codes. Page 16 3.3.5 Number of Original Users and Collectors that are Regulated Generators Under the Primary Alternative Under the proposed rule, the generators under the baseline that send their monitors to glass processors or reclaimers are no longer regulated as generators of hazardous waste. However, the baseline generators, whether original users or collectors, that continue to send monitors for hazardous waste disposal will be subject to full RCRA Subtitle C regulation and will qualify as SQGs or LQGs at the RCRA thresholds of 100 and 1,000 kilograms of CRTs generated per month, respectively. The analysis assumes that two percent of original users (both SQGs and LQGs) will send their monitors for disposal under the primary alternative. This assumption is based on the high costs associated with disposal of intact CRTs and anecdotal evidence regarding the current disposal practices. For original users under this assumption, there are 286 SQGs, 25 LQGs, and 2,573 former generators under the primary alternative. For collectors, the analysis assumes that 80 percent of collectors will continue to send at least one shipment per year for disposal. Thus the analysis estimates there are two SQG collectors, ten LQG collectors, and 288 former generators that are collectors under the primary alternative. Exhibit 3­ 2: Original User Generators Under the Baseline by 2­ digit SIC Code Industry SIC Code Potential SQG Establishments Potential LQG Establishments Due to CRTs Only Due to Other Haz. Waste Total Due to CRTs Only Due to Other Haz. Waste Total AGRICULTURE Agriculture service 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 Forestry 8 2 0 2 0 0 0 MINING Metal mining 10 24 7 31 0 1 1 Coal mining 12 21 6 27 0 1 1 Oil & gas extraction 13 52 6 58 0 1 1 Non­ metallic minerals, except fuels 14 5 1 6 0 0 0 Administrative & auxiliary ­ 37 7 44 0 1 1 CONSTRUCTION General contractors 15 8 0 8 0 0 0 Heavy construction 16 24 1 25 0 1 1 Special trade contractors 17 5 0 5 0 0 0 Administrative & auxiliary ­ 0 1 1 0 0 0 MANUFACTURING Food & kindred products 20 178 139 317 3 13 16 Tobacco products 21 10 9 19 1 2 3 Textile mill products 22 56 44 100 0 5 5 Industry SIC Code Potential SQG Establishments Potential LQG Establishments Due to CRTs Only Due to Other Haz. Waste Total Due to CRTs Only Due to Other Haz. Waste Total Page 17 Apparel & other textile products 23 9 2 11 0 0 0 Lumber & wood products 24 3 1 4 0 0 0 Furniture & Fixtures 25 30 18 48 0 6 6 Paper & allied products 26 208 119 327 0 32 32 Printing & publishing 27 328 56 384 0 9 9 Chemicals & allied products 28 297 192 489 4 159 163 Petroleum and coal products 29 44 23 67 0 12 12 Rubber & misc. plastics products 30 225 122 347 0 38 38 Leather & leather products 31 5 2 7 0 1 1 Stone, Clay, and glass products 32 22 8 30 0 2 2 Primary metal industries 33 72 221 293 5 150 155 Fabricated metal products 34 62 251 313 0 112 112 Industrial machinery & equipment 35 483 123 606 7 19 26 Electronic & other electronic equipment 36 578 309 887 12 133 145 Transportation equipment 37 459 202 661 51 100 151 Instrument & related products 38 121 28 149 0 11 11 Miscellaneous manufacturing 39 19 7 26 0 2 2 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ 212 4 216 0 1 1 TRANSPORTATION Local & Interurban passenger transit 41 7 5 12 1 1 2 Trucking & Warehousing 42 98 12 110 12 2 14 Water transportation 44 16 4 20 0 0 0 Transportation by Air 45 78 15 93 20 5 25 Pipelines, except natural gas 46 1 1 2 0 1 1 Communication 48 303 0 303 11 0 11 Electronic, gas, & sanitary services 49 255 81 336 4 55 59 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ 43 3 46 5 1 6 WHOLESALE Wholesale trade­ durable goods 50 168 6 174 0 0 0 Wholesale trade­ nondurable goods 51 213 7 220 0 3 3 Building materials & garden supplies 52 1 0 1 0 0 0 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ 98 5 103 1 1 2 RETAIL TRADE Industry SIC Code Potential SQG Establishments Potential LQG Establishments Due to CRTs Only Due to Other Haz. Waste Total Due to CRTs Only Due to Other Haz. Waste Total Page 18 General merchandise store 53 28 23 51 0 1 1 Food stores 54 2 1 3 1 0 1 Auto dealers & service station 55 1 6 7 0 0 0 Apparel & accessory stores 56 4 0 4 0 0 0 Furniture & home furnishing stores 57 2 0 2 0 0 0 Eating & drinking places 58 6 0 6 0 0 0 Miscellaneous retail 59 31 0 31 0 0 0 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ 96 7 103 1 1 2 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE Depository Institution 60 339 0 339 18 0 18 Nondepository Institution 61 87 0 87 5 0 5 Security & commodity brokers 62 86 0 86 5 0 5 Insurance carriers 63 482 0 482 14 0 14 Insurance agents, brokers, & servicers 64 27 0 27 0 0 0 Real Estate 65 74 0 74 0 0 0 Holding & other investment offices 67 37 0 37 3 0 3 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ 23 6 29 0 1 1 SERVICES Personal services 72 6 1 7 0 0 0 Business services 73 1,432 20 1,452 22 5 27 Auto repair services & parking 75 1 2 3 0 0 0 Miscellaneous repair services 76 2 0 2 0 0 0 Motion picture 78 15 0 15 5 0 5 Amusement & recreation services 79 69 1 70 3 0 3 Health services 80 3,177 20 3,197 65 2 67 Legal services 81 52 0 52 0 0 0 Educational services 82 580 0 580 33 0 33 Social Services 83 18 0 18 0 0 0 Museums, botanical, zoological gardens 84 3 1 4 0 0 0 Membership organization 86 83 0 83 6 0 6 Engineering & management service 87 365 0 365 31 0 31 Services, n. e. c 89 8 0 8 0 0 0 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ 134 0 134 7 0 7 Industry SIC Code Potential SQG Establishments Potential LQG Establishments Due to CRTs Only Due to Other Haz. Waste Total Due to CRTs Only Due to Other Haz. Waste Total 15 See telephone interviews with Noranda and Doe Run in Appendix H. Page 19 Total Original Users Under the Baseline 12,151 2,136 14,287 356 891 1,247 Total Number of Actual Original User Generators Under the Baseline 2,066 534 2,600 61 223 284 Total Number of Actual Original User Generators Under the Primary Alternative 286 SQGs 2,314 Not Regulated 25 LQGs 259 Not Regulated Total Number of Actual Original User Generators Under the CSI Alternative 390 SQGs 2,452 SQHs 42 LQGs 0 LQHs 3.3.6 Number of Original Users and Collectors that are Regulated Generators Under the CSI Alternative Under the CSI alternative, the original user generators under the baseline who send their monitors to glass processors become handlers. However, the baseline original user generators that continue to send monitors for disposal or to lead smelters will be subject to full RCRA Subtitle C regulation and will qualify as SQGs or LQGs at the RCRA thresholds of 100 and 1,000 kilograms of CRTs generated per month respectively. The threshold for SQGs under the baseline is the same as for small quantity handlers (SQH) under the CSI alternative. However, the threshold for large quantity handler (LQH) status is much higher. For a handler to be regulated as an LQH under the proposed rule, the handler must store 36,287 kilograms of computer monitors (40 tons) for more than seven days. This is equivalent to 2,281 monitors, or an approximate total of 7,984 operating monitors on site. The analysis assumes that a total of 17 percent of generators (both SQGs and LQGs) will send their monitors only to glass processors under the CSI alternative. This assumption is based on the fact that there are currently only several processors and thus transportation costs may be prohibitive in some areas of the country. Also smelters are likely to compete on price to obtain discarded monitors. 15 Lead smelters, in particular, value tipping fees from monitors as a secondary revenue source. The primary revenue source for lead smelters is the sale of refined lead. These factors will contribute to limiting the percentage of monitors that are sent for glass­ to­ glass recycling. Under the CSI alternative, all of the LQGs sending their discarded CRTs to processors are reclassified as SQHs because they do not exceed the higher threshold for LQHs. Under these assumptions, there are 390 SQGs, 42 LQGs, 2,452 SQHs, and no LQHs under the CSI alternative. 3.4 Flow of CRTs from Generators to Disposal Sites Under the Subtitle C Baseline 16 National Safety Council, Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report, Recycling of Selected Electronic Products in the United States. May 1999. Page 20 The analysis considers the flow of CRTs from original users, through collectors, reusers, and glass processors, and on to treatment and disposal destinations. Exhibit 3­ 3 presents a simplified diagram of this flow under the Subtitle C baseline, which shows how CRTs flow from original users to the final CRT management options. The exhibit shows that the CRT management options for original users include collectors, establishments that reuse CRTs, hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities, reclaimers, and glass processors. The CRT management options for collectors include establishments that reuse CRTs, hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities, reclaimers, and glass processors. The CRT management options for glass processors include reclaimers and CRT glass manufacturers. The actual flows modeled for this baseline are presented in Exhibit 3­ 4. The analysis recognizes that either of the two regulatory alternatives will provide incentives for behavioral changes and will result in altered flows. Exhibit 3­ 5 shows the flows assumed to occur under the primary alternative. It reflects all CRTs that are regulated in the baseline, even though many of them will be unregulated post­ rule. Similarly, Exhibit 3­ 6 shows the flows assumed to occur under the CSI alternative, including flows to and from the "handlers" that will be unregulated under that alternative. These three exhibits show the estimated percentages for the flow of CRTs from each type of entity to each of the various CRT management options, and the total tons of CRTs sent from each type of entity. Thus, the total tons of CRTs generated multiplied by each percentage yields the tons of CRTs sent from each type of generator to each CRT management option. These three exhibits also show, for reference purposes, representative disposal costs for each CRT management option to provide an indication of the comparative economic advantage of sending CRTs to each CRT management option. Collectors and glass processors are only intermediaries in the flow of CRTs towards their ultimate disposal endpoint. Thus all of the CRTs that collectors and glass processors receive are expected to be sent to other entities. Although reuse is not the ultimate disposal endpoint for CRTs, within the one year time frame of this analysis, CRTs that are sent for reuse are not expected to be discarded again, since the expected lifetime of a reused CRT is two to four years. 16 Exhibit 3­ 3: CRT Life­ Cycle Flow Diagram Page 21 August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 22 Exhibit 3­ 4: Assumed Distribution of Discarded Monitors and CRT Glass Under the Subtitle C Management Baseline Entity Distributing CRTs Reuse Export Intermediate Processors Disposal Options Total Percent Total Tons Disposed Collector Glass Processor Hazardous Waste Facility Reclaimer CRT Glass Manufacturer Disposal Cost* $0/ ton (I) $100/ ton (I) $271/ ton (I) $333/ ton (I) $0/ ton (C) $1,500/ ton (I) $160/ ton (C) $207/ ton (I) $152/ ton (C) ­ $175/ ton (C) Original User SQGs and LQGs Due to CRTs Only 2% (I) 0% 76% (I) 5% (I) 2% (I) 15% (I) NA 100% 43,577 Due to CRTs and Non­ CRT Hazardous Waste 0% (I) 0% 75% (I) 0% 25% (I) 0% NA 100% 2,647 Collectors SQGs 20% (I) 30% (I) NA 25% (B) 2% (B) 23% (B) NA 100% 2,925 LQGs 20% (I) 30% (I) NA 30% (C) 10% (C) 10% (C) NA 100% 32,178 Glass Processors 0% 0% NA NA 0% 2% (C) 98% (C) 100% 7,358 Total Tons 7,892 10,531 35,104 7,538 3,499 9,022 7,387 * Disposal costs shown are representative simplifications of the actual costs used in the analysis. See Exhibit 3­ 10 for further details. (I) = Intact whole monitors. (B) = Bare CRTs without the casing. (C) = Crushed CRT glass. NA = Not Applicable. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 23 Exhibit 3­ 5: Assumed Distribution of Discarded Monitors Under the Primary Alternative Entity Distributing CRTs Reuse Export Intermediate Processors Disposal Options Total Percent Total Tons Disposed Collector Glass Processor Hazardous Waste Facility Reclaimer CRT Glass Manufacturer Disposal Cost* $0/ ton (I) $100/ ton (I) $271/ ton (I) $333/ ton (I) $0/ ton (C) $1,500/ ton (I) $160/ ton (C) $207/ ton (I) $152/ ton (C) ­ $175/ ton (C) Original Users SQGs and LQGs NA NA NA NA 2% (I) NA NA 100% 46,224 Former SQGs and LQGs 2% (I) 0% 76% (I) 5% (I) NA 15% (I) NA Collectors Regulated Post­ Rule SQGs 20% (I) 30% (I) NA 25% (B) 2% (B) 23% (B) NA 100% 59 LQGs 20% (I) 18% (I) NA 45% (C) 2% (C) 15% (C) NA 100% 648 Unregulated Post­ Rule Former SQGs 20% (I) 30% (I) NA 25% (B) NA 25% (B) NA 100% 2,886 Former LQGs 20% (I) 18% (I) NA 45% (C) NA 17% (C) NA 100% 31,743 Glass Processors 0% 0% NA NA 0% 2% (C) 98% (C) 100% 10,546 Total Tons 7,973 6,714 35,335 10,546 931 10,743 10,335 * Disposal costs shown are representative simplifications of the actual costs used in the analysis. See Exhibit 3­ 10 for further details. (I) = Intact whole monitors. (B) = Bare CRTs without the casing. (C) = Crushed CRT glass. NA = Not Applicable. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 24 Exhibit 3­ 6: Assumed Distribution of Discarded Monitors Under the CSI Alternative Entity Distributing CRTs Reuse Export Intermediate Processors Disposal Options Total Percent Total Tons Disposed Collector Glass Processor Hazardous Waste Facility Reclaimer CRT Glass Manufacturer Disposal Cost* $0/ ton (I) $100/ ton (I) $271/ ton (I) $333/ ton (I) $0/ ton (C) $1,500/ ton (I) $160/ ton (C) $207/ ton (I) $152/ ton (C) ­ $175/ ton (C) Original Users SQGs and LQGs NA NA NA NA 15% (I) 85% (I) NA 100% 6,926 Former SQGs and LQGs (SQHs and LQHs) 2% (I) 0% 88% (I) 10% (I) NA NA NA 100% 39,298 Collectors SQGs 20% (I) 30% (I) NA 25% (B) 2% (B) 23% (B) NA 100% 2,882 LQGs 20% (I) 20% (I) NA 45% (C) 2% (C) 13% (C) NA 100% 31,701 Glass Processors 0% 0% NA NA 0% 2% (C) 98% (C) 100% 11,349 Total Tons 7,702 7,205 34,582 11,349 1,454 8,984 11,122 * Disposal costs shown are representative simplifications of the actual costs used in the analysis. See Exhibit 3­ 10 for further details. (I) = Intact whole monitors. (B) = Bare CRTs without the casing. (C) = Crushed CRT glass. NA = Not Applicable. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 25 Under the primary alternative, 3,008 additional tons of CRTs are sent to glass processors relative to the Subtitle C baseline. These CRTs are re­ directed primarily from hazardous waste facilities (decrease of 2,568 tons) and from export (decrease of 3,817 tons) under the baseline. The 2,568 tons of CRTs diverted from landfills translates to a volume of 456,000 cubic feet. The tons of CRTs recycled under the primary alternative increases by 4,669 tons over the baseline. Under the CSI alternative, 3,811 additional tons of CRTs are sent to glass processors relative to the Subtitle C baseline. These CRTs would go to hazardous waste facilities (decrease of 2,045 tons) and for export (decrease of 3,326 tons) under the baseline. The 2,045 tons of CRTs diverted from landfills translates to a volume of 351,000 cubic feet. The tons of CRTs recycled under the CSI alternative increases by 3,697 tons over the baseline. Under the Subtitle C baseline, generators will send the minimum number of shipments to stay in compliance with hazardous waste accumulation limits. For small quantity generators, the storage limit is 180 days; these establishments will make two shipments per year. Large quantity generators have a storage limit of 90 days; they will make four shipments per year. Collectors are assumed to handle relatively larger volumes of CRTs and thus are assumed to ship CRTs when they have full loads or at least four times per year for LQGs and two times a year for SQGs. On average, collectors ship CRTs two and four times per year, respectively for SQGs and LQGs. Glass processors are also assumed to handle relatively larger volumes of CRTs and thus are assumed to ship CRTs when they have full loads or at least four times per year. On average glass processors ship CRT funnel and panel glass 67 and 96 times per year under the baseline and alternatives, respectively. Under the primary and CSI alternatives, each former generator is assumed to send discarded CRTs off­ site once a year or more frequently if the volume of CRTs warrants increased shipment frequency. 3.4.1 Disposal Option Assumptions The following assumptions are used to develop the estimates of the volume of discarded monitors being sent to each of the disposal alternatives (collectors, reuse, hazardous waste facilities, reclaimers, and glass processors): Reuse. The analysis assumes that two percent of discarded CRTs from original users are sent for reuse in the Subtitle C baseline, and that this percentage remains constant under the primary and CSI alternatives. The percentage of CRTs sent for reuse by original users is assumed to be low for several reasons. C Local organizations that can use donated computers are limited in number and need for computers. Most donated computers are used locally, although there is at least one foundation that sends donated computers worldwide for reuse. C Businesses donating computers are concerned about proprietary information that may be left on hard drives. This concern reduces the number of computers that businesses donate. 17 National Safety Council, Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report, Recycling of Selected Electronic Products in the United States. May 1999. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 26 The analysis assumes that 20 percent of discarded CRTs from collectors are sent for reuse under the Subtitle C baseline, and that this percentage remains constant under the primary and CSI alternative. Collectors obtain a higher return on reused monitors than they do on disassembled monitors whose parts are recycled. Thus collectors have a strong economic incentive to resell monitors for reuse. Exports. The analysis assumes that only collectors arrange for the export of CRTs and that only intact CRTs are exported. Under the baseline, collectors are assumed to export 30 percent of CRTs they receive. The literature search indicated that a large, but unknown, percentage of CRTs are exported. 17 Under the primary alternative collectors who are SQGs are assumed to continue to export 30 percent of the CRTs they receive, while LQGs are assumed to export 18 percent of the CRTs they receive. Collectors who are LQGs are assumed to export fewer CRTs under the primary alternative because LQGs have a greater economic incentive to send CRTs to a glass processor than to export them. Under the CSI alternative collectors who are SQGs are assumed to continue to export 30 percent of the CRTs they receive, while LQGs are assumed to export 20 percent of the CRTs they receive. Collectors. Under the baseline, the analysis assumes that 76 percent of CRTs from original users are sent to collectors. CRTs going to collectors are consolidated, reused when possible, demanufactured and recycled, or refurbished. Although collectors are not the least expensive disposal option they become an economically attractive alternative when administrative and transportation costs are considered. Thus, most discarded CRTs are assumed to be sent to collectors. There are two factors that reduce the costs of sending CRTs to collectors. First, collectors are typically located near businesses, and thus the transportation costs are comparatively low. Second, CRTs sent to collectors are considered a product and not a waste and thus do not fall under RCRA control. The collectors typically will consolidate the CRTs from various establishments and send them to reclaimers or glass processors. The collectors demanufacture the monitors and recycle the components that have value. The analysis assumes that LQG collectors have high enough volumes of CRTs to warrant purchasing glass crushing equipment. Thus all shipments of CRTs from LQGs to glass processors, hazardous waste facilities, and reclaimers are assumed to be crushed CRT glass, which has economic benefit. The baseline assumes that 30 percent of the CRTs the LQG collectors receive are crushed and sent to glass processors, 10 percent are crushed and sent to reclaimers, and 10 percent are crushed and sent to hazardous waste facilities. Crushing the CRTs significantly reduces the disposal costs charged by glass processors, reclaimers, and hazardous waste facilities. More CRTs are assumed to be sent to glass processors because the low disposal cost for crushed glass at glass processors often 18 Envirosafe Services of Ohio reported receiving no CRTs last year and approximately 20 to 30 tons the previous year. Clean Harbours in Massachusetts reported that they do receive CRTs, however, all of the CRTs they receive are processed in Clean Harbours Bristol Connecticut recycling facility and none are disposed. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 27 outweighs the higher transportation costs due to longer distances. As mentioned above, 20 percent of the regulated CRTs that collectors receive are refurbished and sold for reuse. Thirty percent of the CRTs received by collectors are assumed to be exported for reuse or recycling. Since SQG collectors do not crush the CRT glass they are assumed to send more CRTs to reclaimers than to hazardous waste facilities, because of the lower tipping fees at reclaimers. Under the regulatory alternatives the analysis assumes that more crushed CRTs are sent to glass processors because of the low tipping fees and absence of administrative costs. Similarly, more crushed CRTs are assumed to be sent to reclaimers and less are sent to hazardous waste facilities because of the administrative burden on CRTs sent to hazardous waste facilities. Glass Processors. The analysis assumes that a relatively small percentage of CRTs from original users are sent directly to glass processors because of the higher disposal cost for intact CRTs and the relatively longer shipping distances. The analysis assumes that only businesses located near glass processors will send CRTs directly to them. Hazardous Waste Facilities. The analysis assumes that original users, who are generators due to CRTs only, will send two percent of discarded CRTs to hazardous waste facilities in the Subtitle C baseline, and that this percentage remains at two percent under the primary alternative. Under the CSI alternative, 15 percent of CRTs from original users are assumed to be sent to hazardous waste facilities. Although the percent of CRTs sent to hazardous waste facilities is higher under the CSI alternative than the baseline, there is still a 60 percent reduction in the number of CRTs sent to hazardous waste facilities due to the smaller number of generators in the CSI alternative. Several contacts at one of the largest Subtitle C facilities in the United States, Chemical Waste Management, reported receiving no CRTs during 1998. Contacts at other commercial hazardous waste disposal facilities also report receiving few CRTs for disposal over the last couple of years. 18 However, a Tufts University study reports that 14 percent of CRTs are sent to landfills or municipal waste combustors. The Tufts data are believed to include monitors from households. Households are more likely to send their CRTs to landfills than are RCRA regulated establishments because households incur no direct costs to send monitors to Subtitle D landfills, but it is expensive for regulated generators to send monitors for treatment and disposal in Subtitle C or D landfills. Sending intact CRTs to a hazardous waste facility is more expensive than sending the CRTs to lead smelters or glass processors. Therefore, most CRTs ending up at hazardous waste facilities are probably originating in areas of the country without nearby lead smelters, glass processors, or collectors. Reclaimers. The analysis assumes that under the Subtitle C baseline, 15 percent of CRTs from original users are sent directly to reclaimers and that this percentage remains constant under the 19 Doe Run indicated that they accept whole monitors. The article by Aanstoos, T., Mizuki, C., Nichols, S., and Pitts, G. CRT Disposition: An Assessment of Limitations and Opportunities in Reuses, Refurbishment, and Recycling in the U. S. (page 75) states that lead smelters accept whole monitors. 20 Conversation with Greg Vorhees of Envirocycle, April 25, 2001. 21 Sony Trinitron Color Computer Display (manufactured in 1998) owners manual. 22 Based on a conversation with Chris Beyus of Clean Harbor. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 28 primary alternative. Lead smelters receive monitors from original users, collectors, and glass processors. Most reclaimed CRTs are sent to lead smelters; however, copper smelters also accept CRT glass. The glass is used as a fluxing agent in the smelting furnaces. Two references indicated that lead smelters take whole monitors, crush them, and then add the crushed monitor to the smelting furnace. 19 However, Noranda indicated that the monitor's plastic casing tends to foul their sulfuric acid plant, so they only accept the glass. Copper smelters put crushed or whole monitors into the smelting furnace to recover the copper from the electronics and use the glass as a fluxing agent. Glass processors send approximately two percent of the glass they receive to reclaimers. 20 This CRT glass is in the form of fines that cannot be sent to CRT glass manufacturers. CRT Glass Manufacturers. Only glass processors are assumed to send recycled post consumer CRT glass to CRT glass manufacturers. Ninety­ eight percent of the CRT glass that glass processors receive is sent to CRT glass manufacturers because of the quality requirements and technical specificaitons. Monitor Shipping Size. A typical 15 inch monitor has a volume of 1.5 cubic feet. 21 Based on the assumption that discarded CRT monitors will be shipped carefully to avoid breakage of the CRT glass, the model includes the assumption that the monitors will, on average, occupy 3.0 cubic feet during shipment. 22 This includes approximately 0.3 cubic feet per monitor for the actual packing material, such as a pallet or box. Whole monitors or whole CRTs are placed on a pallet and wrapped in plastic, or are placed in one cubic yard boxes (Gaylord containers) to minimize breakage and to contain any broken glass during transport. Truck Capacity. The maximum number of monitors that can be shipped in a truck by volume and weight is calculated to determine if the largest individual shipment from a generator or handler could be sent in one truck or would require two trucks. A truck volume of 4,280 cubic feet represents the volume of a semi­ trailer measuring 9.5 by 53 by 8.5 feet, which is the largest standard for trailers. A truck of this size carries up to 1,426 monitors (based on the assumption that the shipping size of a monitor is 3.0 cubic feet). The maximum payload for standard trucks is about 23 tons, which is equivalent to 1,314 thirty­ five pound monitors. Thus the truck weight limit is the limiting factor. The maximum number of CRTs that the largest establishments are August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 29 estimated to generate in one year is 2,082 (see Exhibit 3­ 1). Thus under the alternatives, where generators can accumulate CRTs up to one year, shipments from the largest generators would require two truckloads per year. Under the baseline it is assumed that all SQGs ship twice a year and that all LQGs ship four times per year. Under the primary alternative, for the generators that now send CRTs to glass processors or reclaimers and are thus eligible for regulatory relief, the model assumes that all former SQGs and former LQGs make the number of shipments per year that minimizes the total of their administrative, storage, and transportation costs. The analysis estimates that under the primary alternative former SQGS make one shipments and former LQGs make two shipments per year. 3.5 Estimate Administrative Compliance Costs This section describes the administrative requirements and costs applicable to two groups of generators (i. e., generators due solely to CRTs and generators due to non­ CRT hazardous wastes) under the baseline and the primary and CSI alternatives. Disposal costs, transportation costs, and storage costs in the baseline and under each alternative are addressed in Sections 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8, respectively. 3.5.1 Baseline Unit Costs for Original Users (Generating No Non­ CRT Hazardous Waste) The analysis models the current management of discarded CRTs assuming 100 percent compliance with RCRA Subtitle C requirements under the Subtitle C baseline. Administrative activities required under Subtitle C and the associated unit costs are summarized in Exhibit 3­ 7. 3.5.2 Baseline Unit Costs for Original Users Also Generating Non­ CRT Hazardous Waste The analysis models the current management of discarded CRTs assuming 100 percent compliance with RCRA Subtitle C requirements under the Subtitle C baseline. However, most of the administrative costs (all but manifests for shipments of CRTs to smelters and glass processors that do not refurbish CRTs) are assumed to be due to non­ CRT hazardous waste and thus are not included in the analysis. The manifest costs that are assumed to be due to CRTs are only for shipments to smelters and glass processors that do not refurbish CRTs and have the same cost as contained in Exhibit 3­ 7. 3.5.3 Primary Alternative The full Subtitle C administrative requirements are eliminated under the primary alternative for entities shipping CRTs to collectors, glass processors, and lead smelters. The activities required for these entities are only packaging and labeling requirements for CRTs that are broken. Generators sending CRT waste for disposal are still subject to full RCRA requirements. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 30 Administrative activities required under the primary alternative and the associated unit costs are summarized in Exhibit 3­ 8. 3.5.4 CSI Alternative Subtitle C administrative requirements are significantly reduced under the CSI alternative for entities shipping CRTs to glass processors. The activities required for these handlers are the same types of activities that a facility incurs under the Universal Waste Rule. Generators sending CRT waste to smelters or for disposal are still subject to full RCRA requirements. Administrative activities required under the CSI alternative and the associated unit costs are summarized in Exhibit 3­ 9. Exhibit 3­ 7: Generator Administrative Requirements and Unit Costs Under the Subtitle C Baseline Required Activity Unit Costs SQG LQG One­ Time Costs* Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity $218 $218 Rule Familiarization $477 $1,373 Emergency Planning $533 $787 Total One­ Time Costs per Facility $1,228 $2,378 Annual Costs Annual Review of Regulations $91 $91 Recordkeeping $47 $47 Personnel Safety Training (annualized cost) $384 $482 Manifest Training $37 $180 Biennial Reporting (annualized cost) $0 $194 Total Annual Costs per Facility $560 $994 Variable Costs** Manifest and Land Disposal Restriction Notification (per shipment) $44 $54 Exception Reporting (per report)*** $44 $97 Storage Costs (per square foot of storage area) $8 $8 * Each year one percent of the generators are assumed to be new facilities and thus they incur additional costs as startup facilities. The entry rate is used to determine the number of establishments expected to incur initial costs in any year (one percent of the generator universe). ** Variable costs depend on the number of shipments made by a generator. The number of shipments per year is calculated and used to estimate the administrative costs. *** The analysis uses an estimate of one half of one percent of manifests require an exception report. Sources of Cost Data: Supporting Statement for EPA ICR # 261 "Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Generators of Mercury­ Containing Lamps" June 29, 1994; Supporting Statement for ICR #801 "Requirements for Generators, Transporters, & August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 31 Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System." 2/ 13/ 97; Technical Background Document, Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposes Rule for the Management of Spent Mercury­ Containing Lamps. 1994; and Supporting Statement for EPA ICR # 0976, Amendment to OMB ICR # 2050­ 0024 "Analysis of Costs Under Draft Modifications to The Manifest System, Final Report," August 1, 1997. Exhibit 3­ 8: Generator Administrative Requirements and Unit Costs Under the Primary Alternative Required Activity Unit Costs SQG LQG One­ Time Costs* Rule Familiarization $477 $477 Total One­ Time Costs per Facility $477 $477 Annual Costs Total Annual Costs per Facility $0 $0 Variable Costs** Labeling and Packaging Requirements for Shipments of Broken CRTs $19 $37 Storage Costs (per square foot of storage area) $8 $8 * Each year one percent of the generators are assumed to be new facilities and thus they incur additional costs as startup facilities. The entry rate is used to determine the number of establishments expected to incur initial costs in any year (one percent of the generator universe). ** Variable costs depend on the number of shipments made by a generator. The number of shipments per year is calculated and used to estimate the administrative costs. Sources of Cost Data: Supporting Statement for EPA ICR # 261 "Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Generators of Mercury­ Containing Lamps" June 29, 1994; Supporting Statement for ICR #801 "Requirements for Generators, Transporters, & Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System." 2/ 13/ 97; Technical Background Document, Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposes Rule for the Management of Spent Mercury­ Containing Lamps. 1994; and Supporting Statement for EPA ICR # 0976, Amendment to OMB ICR # 2050­ 0024 "Analysis of Costs Under Draft Modifications to The Manifest System, Final Report," August 1, 1997. Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number[] "Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Proposed Rule on Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Glass Reuse." Working Draft, October 9, 1998. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 32 Exhibit 3­ 9: Handler Administrative Requirements and Unit Costs Under the CSI Alternative Required Activity Unit Costs SQH LQH One­ Time Costs* Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity $0 $185 Rule Familiarization $477 $477 Total One­ Time Costs per Facility $477 $662 Annual Costs Annual Review of Regulations $47 $47 Mark CRT Materials or Storage Area $27 $53 Mark Time/ Date on CRT Material $27 $53 Total Annual Costs per Facility $100 $154 Variable Costs** Recordkeeping of Outbound Shipments (per shipment) $0 $4 * Each year one percent of the handlers are assumed to be new facilities and thus they incur additional costs as startup facilities. The entry rate is used to determine the number of establishments expected to incur initial costs in any year (one percent of the handler universe). ** Variable costs depend on the number of shipments made by a handler. The number of shipments per year is calculated and used to estimate the administrative costs. Source of Cost Data: Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request "Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Proposed Rule on Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Glass Reuse," October 1998. 3.6 Estimate Disposal Costs The CRT management options currently being used by CRT generators include giving CRTs to establishments that will reuse them, and sending CRTs to collectors, glass processors, smelters, or treatment and disposal facilities that dispose of the treated CRTs in Subtitle C or D landfills. The per ton cost for each disposal option is based on a literature search and on contacts at representative facilities. The disposal costs obtained for each disposal option varied considerably. The maximum cost typically is two to four times the minimum cost obtained for each disposal option. For each disposal option the average of the costs obtained is used in the analysis. Exhibit 3­ 10 summarizes the cost per ton for each disposal option. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 33 Exhibit 3­ 10: CRT Disposal Costs (per ton) Disposal Option Cost (Price Paid) per Ton Collectors $ 271 Export $ 107 Reuse $ 0 Treatment and Subtitle C or D Landfill Disposal Whole CRTs $ 1,500 Crushed CRTs $ 160 Reclaimer Whole CRTs $ 295 Whole bare CRTs $ 207 Crushed CRTs $ 152 Glass Processor Broken CRTs with no metal $ 0 Broken CRTs with metal $ 100 Whole bare CRTs $ 192 Broken mixed color and monochrome CRTs $ 325 Whole CRTs $ 333 CRT Glass Manufacturer ($ 175) Details of the disposal costs by source are presented in Appendix C. 3.7 Estimate Transportation Costs Under the baseline and each alternative, either hazardous or non­ hazardous waste transportation costs are used depending on the status of the CRTs being shipped. Different costs are also used for shipments that are assumed to be partial truckloads and full truckloads. Shipments of CRTs from collectors and glass processors are assumed to be full truckloads, except for collector shipments sending CRTs for reuse. Shipment of CRTs for reuse are assumed to be partial truckloads for three reasons: C the collectors get the highest benefit from returning the CRTs to the market place as quickly as possible, and thus are less likely to wait until they have a full truckload. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 34 C the shipping distances for reuse are likely to be relatively short, because most CRTs are reused locally, thus the expense of sending partial loads is roughly equivalent to sending full shipments. C collectors who primarily refurbish CRTs for reuse tend to be smaller and handle smaller volumes and thus may take a long time to generate a full truckload of CRTs for reuse. Exhibit 3­ 12 provides a summary of the two factors (i. e., hazardous or non­ hazardous transport and partial or full truckload) that drive the transportation costs for each of the disposal options. The analysis assumes that shipments of less than one truckload are consolidated by the shipping company prior to trucking the waste CRTs to a disposal facility, and that consolidated rates are passed on to generators. The analysis assumes consolidated shipments because of the low volumes of waste (0.5 to 6 tons for original users and 9 to 16 tons for collectors under the baseline) and because generators are clustered around urban and suburban areas. As discussed in Section 3.4, regulated generators are found in 66 different two­ digit SIC codes. For any individual generator the assumption made in this analysis will not be accurate. However, in the aggregate the assumptions used in the analysis reasonably estimate the actual transportation costs incurred. Exhibit 3­ 12: Transportation Cost Driver Assumptions CRT Management Options Collectors Reuse Treatment & Disposal Reclaimer Glass Processor CRT Glass Manufacturer Baseline Original Users NH ­ LTT NH ­ LTT H ­ LTT H ­ LTT NH ­ LTT NA Collectors NA NH ­ LTT H ­ TL H ­ TL H ­ TL NA Glass Processors NA NA NA H ­ TL NA H ­ TL Primary Alternative Original Users NH ­ LTT NH ­ LTT H ­ LTT NH ­ LTT NH ­ LTT NA Collectors NA NH ­ LTT H ­ TL NH ­ TL NH ­ TL NA Glass Processors NA NA NA NH ­ TL NA NH ­ TL CSI Alternative Original Users NH ­ LTT NH ­ LTT H ­ LTT H ­ LTT NH ­ LTT NA Collectors NA NH ­ LTT H ­ TL H ­ TL NH ­ TL NA Glass Processors NA NA NA H ­ TL NA NH ­ TL NH = Non­ hazardous transport. H = Hazardous material transport. LTT = Less than truck load shipments. TL = Full truck load shipments. 23 The cost to transport CRTs for generators due to non­ CRT waste is estimated to be less than $20 per shipment. This estimate is based on the per ton­ mile rate of $0.16, 250 miles to a treatment and disposal facility, and 0.5 tons of CRTs per shipment. The actual tons shipped by these generators is typically less than 0.5 tons. There are approximately 800 establishments in this category. Thus the total shipping cost is approximately $16,000, or less than one half of one percent of the savings under the primary alternative. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 35 NA = Not applicable. The transportation costs for less than truck load shipments consist of two parts, a fixed fee and a variable fee based on tons shipped and miles driven. The variable portion of the per shipment transportation cost is based on an average shipment size and the assumed miles that the CRTs are shipped to each disposal option. For SQGs the average shipment size is calculated by dividing the total tons of CRTs shipped by the total number of shipments. The total number of shipments is calculated by assuming that each SQG ships twice a year and multiplying by the number of SQGs. The same methodology is used for calculating the average shipment size for LQGs, except LQGs ship CRTs four times per year. Under the regulatory alternatives, unregulated establishments are assumed to ship CRTs once per year, unless they generate enough CRTs to need two shipments. Only formerly regulated collectors generate enough CRTs to need two shipments per year. Glass processors are estimated to make 23 shipments of funnel glass under the baseline, 32 shipments under the primary alternative, and 34 shipments under the CSI alternative. The glass processor shipments only include shipments of funnel glass, because panel glass does not contain enough lead to render it hazardous waste when discarded. The transportation costs for full truck load shipments consists of a variable fee based on the miles the load must be shipped. Appendix E contains the average shipment sizes for each type of entity distributing CRTs to each of the management options. Exhibit 3­ 13 presents the cost functions for hazardous waste and non­ hazardous materials for both less than truckload and full truck loads. These cost functions include the pre­ shipment handling and administrative costs associated with each shipment. Exhibit 3­ 14 presents the estimated or assumed mileage between each type of establishment distributing CRTs and the CRT management options. The transportation costs to collectors and disposal facilities for generators due to non­ CRT hazardous waste are zero because the CRTs are assumed to be shipped with the generator's other hazardous waste. The actual cost is greater than zero but is not significant to the analysis. 23 24 Conversation with Hagerstown Transload Services on February 9, 1999. 25 Conversation with American Moving and Storage on February 9, 1999. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 36 Exhibit 3­ 13: Transportation Cost Functions < 50 miles 50 to 400 miles Hazardous Non­ Hazardous Hazardous Non­ Hazardous Full Truck Loads NA $3.41/ mile $2.98/ mile $2.25/ mile Less Than Truck Load NA $108 + $0.18/ ton­ mile $162 + $0.16/ ton­ mile $108 + $0.12/ ton­ mile Source: ICF Memorandum to Allen Maples, EPA, August 31, 1998. NA = Not applicable. Exhibit 3­ 14: Transportation Distances for Each CRT Management Option (Miles) CRT Management Options Collectors Reuse Treatment & Disposal Reclaimer Glass Processor CRT Glass Manufacturer Original Users 20 20 250 300 200 NA Collectors NA 20 250 300 200 NA Glass Processors NA NA NA 350 NA 100 NA = Not applicable. 3.8 Estimate Storage Costs Storage costs may increase for former generators under the regulatory alternatives because the frequency of shipments decreases relative to shipments by generators. This section contains the storage costs applicable to generators and former generators. Storage costs depend on several assumptions about the type of storage facility that is used by the generator. Some generators may use offsite commercial warehouse space which generally cost three to four dollars per square foot for an annual rental, plus handling fees for each shipment in or out of the warehouse. 24 Other generators may store materials in self storage facilities that generally cost $12 to $15 per square foot per year. 25 Finally other generators may have on site storage that they use. The on site storage cost can be considered to be zero if space is available and the building space is considered a sunk cost. However, for some generators there will be an opportunity cost of storing the 26 The storage cost of eight dollars per square foot is an assumed average cost based on the information from the two storage companies contacted, Hagerstown Transload Services and American Moving and Storage. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 37 CRTs. In this case the storage cost is the cost of the lease or rent per square foot. The analysis assumes an average cost of eight dollars per square foot per year for storage. 26 The model assumes that each CRT will occupy three cubic feet and that the CRTs will be stacked up to eight feet high. Exhibit 3­ 15 summarizes the number of CRTs stored and the annual storage costs for each type of generator. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 38 Exhibit 3­ 15: Storage Costs for Monitors Number of CRTs Stored Storage Area Required (ft 2 ) Cost per Square Foot Annual Storage Cost Generators Due to CRTs Alone Baseline SQG 84 31 $8.30 $261 LQG 319 119 $8.30 $991 Primary Alternative SQG 84 31 $8.30 $261 LQG 319 119 $8.30 $991 Former SQG 168 63 $8.30 $522 Former LQG 637 239 $8.30 $1,983 CSI Alternative SQG 84 31 $8.30 $261 LQG 319 119 $8.30 $991 SQH 170 64 $8.30 $529 LQH NA NA NA NA Generators Due to CRTs and Non­ CRT Hazardous Waste Baseline SQG 25 9 $8.30 $78 LQG 13 5 $8.30 $40 Primary Alternative SQG 25 9 $8.30 $78 LQG 13 5 $8.30 $40 Former SQG 50 19 $8.30 $154 Former LQG 51 19 $8.30 $159 CSI Alternative SQG 25 9 $8.30 $78 LQG 13 5 $8.30 $40 SQH NA NA NA NA LQH NA NA NA NA NA = Not Applicable 27 ICF Incorporated, Economic Impact Analysis for the Military Munitions Final Rule, June 1996. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 39 3.9 Estimate Costs for Glass Processors and Transporters 3.9.1 Costs to Glass Processors Only a small number of dedicated processors exists at present. The analysis estimates there are five glass processors. The glass reclamation process is exempt from RCRA Subtitle C regulation (40 CFR 261.6( c)( 1)). However, under the baseline the storage of CRTs prior to reclamation requires a RCRA Part B Permit. The estimated cost for obtaining a storage permit is $13,300. 27 If a glass processor refurbishes some of the CRTs, then any CRTs sent to the glass processor that possibly will be refurbished are not a solid waste. Exhibit 3­ 16 shows the glass processor activities required under the baseline and regulatory alternatives and the associated unit costs. 3.9.2 Costs to CRT Glass Transporters Current CRT transporters are assumed to transport other hazardous wastes and other nonhazardous materials and, consequently, do not incur savings under the proposed rule. To the extent that new transporters enter the CRT market that do not transport other hazardous wastes, these new transporters will incur minor compliance costs attributable to reviewing regulations. The analysis does not attempt to quantify the costs associated with new transporters shipping CRTs due to the uncertainty in the number of new transporters likely to enter this market and the estimated small impact on the overall analytical results. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 40 Exhibit 3­ 16: Glass Processor Compliance Requirements and Unit Costs Required Activity Unit Costs Baseline Primary Alternative CSI Alternative Initial Fixed Costs Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity $218 $218 $218 Rule Familiarization $1,373 $1,373 $1,373 Emergency Planning $787 $787 $787 Environmental Justice Requirements $0 $0 $159 Total Initial Fixed Costs per Facility $2,378 $2,378 $2,537 Annual Costs Annual Review of Regulations $91 $91 $91 Recordkeeping $47 $47 $47 Personnel Safety Training (annualized cost) $482 $482 $482 Manifest Training $180 $180 $180 Biennial Reporting $194 $194 $194 Total Annual Costs per Facility $994 $994 $994 Variable Costs Manifest and Land Disposal Restriction Notification (per shipment) $54 $0 $0 Recordkeeping of Incoming Shipments (per shipment) $0 $0 $4 Recordkeeping of Outbound Shipments (per shipment) $0 $0 $9 Source of Cost Data: Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number [ ] "Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Proposed Rule on Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Glass Reuse," October 1998; and Supporting Statement for EPA ICR # 261 "Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Generators of Mercury­ Containing Lamps" June 29, 1994. 3.10 Estimate the Impact of Compliance Costs on Affected Entities The analysis estimates first­ order economic impacts of incremental costs by calculating the cost­ to­ sales ratio for each type of original user in each two­ digit SIC code. Census data for the year 1994 served as the source of average sales data for establishments in each two­ digit SIC code. (Appendix F presents the average sales per establishment for all SIC codes used in the calculations for this report.) Incremental compliance costs or cost savings for representative establishments are developed by adding the costs as described previously. For purposes of this analysis, economic impacts are considered significant if costs exceed three percent of sales. The impacts analysis is likely to overstate economic impacts (whether costs or savings) because the sales data used in the analysis represent average values for each SIC code as a whole, whereas the estimated compliance costs arise only for the entities that are large enough to be considered an SQG or August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 41 LQG in the baseline. Such entities are likely to have an average sales value higher than the average for the industry as a whole. 3.11 Methodology for Subtitle D Management Baseline This analysis includes a Subtitle D management baseline because it may more accurately represent current CRT management practices. This baseline uses the same methodology and assumptions as the RCRA Subtitle C baseline except for three changes in assumptions. The first change is the percentage of facilities assumed to manage CRTs using Subtitle D landfills. The second change is the assumed flow of CRTs to each of the disposal options, including Subtitle D landfills. The third change is that estimated costs are different under this baseline. One similarity between the baselines is the percent of CRTs recycled. Although the number of tons of CRTs sent for recycling under the two baselines differs by about a factor of five, the percent of CRTs sent for recycling is approximately the same at about 45 percent. The Subtitle D management baseline assumes that 20 percent of facilities are managing their CRTs as Subtitle C waste and 80 percent of facilities are managing their CRTs as Subtitle D waste. The 20 percent of facilities that are managing their CRTs under Subtitle C incur all of the administrative, disposal, transportation, and storage costs as discussed in Sections 3.5 through 3.8. Under these assumptions in the baseline, there are 213 SQGs, 23 LQGs, and 2,648 establishments sending CRTs to Subtitle D landfills without treatment. The primary alternative is assumed to induce some establishments sending CRTs to Subtitle D landfills to send their CRTs to glass processors or reclaimers. Thus under the primary alternative, there are 58 SQGs, 5 LQGs, 155 former SQGs, 18 former LQGs, and 2,648 establishments sending CRTs to Subtitle D landfills. The CSI alternative is assumed to induce some establishments sending CRTs to Subtitle D landfills to send their CRTs to glass processors. Thus under the CSI alternative, there are 32 SQGs, 4 LQGs, 200 small quantity handlers (CSI SQHs), and 2,648 establishments sending CRTs to Subtitle D landfills. Exhibit 3­ 17 contains the flow assumptions for CRTs under the Subtitle D management baseline. Exhibits 3­ 18 and 3­ 19 contain the flow assumption for CRTs under the primary and CSI alternatives, respectively. The cost for managing CRTs under the Subtitle D baseline are assumed to include only disposal costs of $41 per ton. Thus, facilities managing CRTs under the Subtitle D baseline have no administrative costs, no storage costs, and no transportation costs. There are no administrative costs because these facilities will not prepare manifests, review regulations on an annual basis, or conduct any of the other activities required under Subtitle C management. The storage costs are assumed to be zero because facilities will not store the CRTs, but will place them with their other trash as soon as they discard the CRTs. The transportation costs are approximately zero because facilities will place the CRTs in with their other trash and not ship the CRTs separately. An incremental transportation cost could be attributed to the CRTs based on the weight of the CRTs and the hauling charges companies pay for their trash; however, the analysis assumes that any incremental transportation cost is immaterial to the results. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 42 Exhibit 3­ 17: Assumed Distribution of Discarded Monitors and CRT Glass Under the Subtitle D Management Baseline Entity Distributing CRTs Reuse Export Intermediate Processors Disposal Options Total Percent Total Tons Disposed Collector Glass Processor Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Hazardous Waste Facility Reclaimer CRT Glass Manufacturer Disposal Cost $0/ ton (I) $100/ ton (I) $271/ ton (I) $333/ ton (I) $0/ ton (C) $41/ ton $1,500/ ton (I) $160/ ton (C) $207/ ton (I) $152/ ton (C) ­ $175/ ton (C) Original User SQGs and LQGs* Due to CRTs Only 2% (I) 0% 6% (I) 5% (I) 80% (I) 2% (I) 5% (I) NA 100% 43,577 Due to CRTs and Non­ CRT Hazardous Waste 0% (I) 0% 10% (I) 0% 80% (I) 10% (I) 0% NA 100% 2,647 Collectors SQGs 20% (I) 20% (I) NA 5% (I) 50% (B) 0% (B) 5% (B) NA 100% 240 LQGs 20% (I) 20% (I) NA 10% (C) 43% (B) 2% (C) 5% (C) NA 100% 2,639 Glass Processors 0% 0% NA NA 0% 0% 2% (C) 98% (C) 100% 1,473 Total Tons 1,447 576 2,879 1,473 38,234 1,168 2,295 1,443 * Disposal costs shown are representative simplifications of the actual costs used in the analysis. See 3­ 10 for further details. (I) = Intact whole monitors. (B) = Bare CRTs without the casing. (C) = Crushed CRT glass. NA = Not Applicable. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 43 Exhibit 3­ 18: Assumed Distribution of Discarded Monitors Under the Primary Alternative and the Subtitle D Baseline Entity Distributing CRTs Reuse Export Intermediate Processors Disposal Options Total Percent Total Tons Disposed Collector Glass Processor Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Hazardous Waste Facility Reclaimer CRT Glass Manufacturer Disposal Cost* $0/ ton (I) $100/ ton (I) $271/ ton (I) $333/ ton (I) $0/ ton (C) $41/ ton $1,500/ ton (I) $160/ ton (C) $207/ ton (I) $152/ ton (C) ­ $175/ ton (C) Original Users SQGs and LQGs NA NA NA NA NA 2% (I) NA NA 100% 46,224 Former SQGs and LQGs 2% (I) 0% 10% (I) 6% (I) NA NA 7% (I) NA Out of Compliance SQGs and LQGs NA NA NA NA 75% (I) NA NA NA Collectors Regulated Post­ Rule SQGs 20% (I) 30% (I) NA 10% (B) 40% (B) 2% (B) 13% (B) NA 100% 8 LQGs 20% (I) 18% (I) NA 15% (C) 40% (B) 2% (C) 8% (C) NA 100% 83 Unregulated Post­ Rule Former SQGs 20% (I) 15% (I) NA 10% (B) 40% (B) NA 15% (B) NA 100% 370 Former LQGs 20% (I) 15% (I) NA 15% (C) 40% (B) NA 10% (C) NA 100% 4,070 Glass Processors 0% 0% NA NA 0% 0% 2% (C) 98% (C) 100% 2,027 Total Tons 1,812 680 4,530 2,027 35,788 923 3,494 1,987 * Disposal costs shown are representative simplifications of the actual costs used in the analysis. See 3­ 10 for further details. (I) = Intact whole monitors. (B) = Bare CRTs without the casing. (C) = Crushed CRT glass. NA = Not Applicable. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 44 Exhibit 3­ 19: Assumed Distribution of Discarded Monitors Under the CSI Alternative and the Subtitle D Baseline Entity Distributing CRTs Reuse Export Intermediate Processors Disposal Options Total Percent Total Tons Disposed Collector Glass Processor Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Hazardous Waste Facility Reclaimer CRT Glass Manufacturer Disposal Cost* $0/ ton (I) $100/ ton (I) $271/ ton (I) $333/ ton (I) $0/ ton (C) $41/ ton $1,500/ ton (I) $160/ ton (C) $207/ ton (I) $152/ ton (C) ­ $175/ ton (C) Original Users SQGs and LQGs NA NA NA NA 60% (I) 15% (I) 25% (I) NA 100% 6,926 Former SQGs and LQGs (SQHs and LQHs) 2% (I) 0% (I) 10% (I) 10% (I) NA NA NA NA 22% 8,646 Out of Compliance SQGs and LQGs NA NA NA NA 78% NA NA NA 78% 30,652 Collectors SQGs 20% (I) 20% (I) NA 10% (B) 38% (B) 2% (B) 10% (B) NA 100% 327 LQGs 20% (I) 20% (I) NA 15% (C) 38% (B) 2% (C) 5% (C) NA 100% 3,602 Glass Processors 0% 0% NA NA 0% 0% 2% (C) 98% (C) 100% 2,702 Total Tons 1,572 786 3,930 2,702 36,301 1,086 1,913 2,648 * Disposal costs shown are representative simplifications of the actual costs used in the analysis. See Exhibit 3­ 10 for further details. (I) = Intact whole monitors. (B) = Bare CRTs without the casing. (C) = Crushed CRT glass. NA = Not Applicable. 28 One of the most likely industries to discard a significant quantity of televisions is the hotel industry, which is exempt from the RCRA hazardous waste requirements (40 CFR §261.4( b)( 1)). August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 45 3.12 Limitations of the Methodology and Data The accuracy of the analysis depends on a wide variety of data and assumptions. The following is a list of assumptions, limitations, and other factors affecting the accuracy of the analysis. Some assumptions tend to increase or decrease the savings of the alternatives, as noted in the discussion of the individual assumptions. Except where noted, assumptions are best estimates and are not believed to introduce systematic bias into the results. 3.12.1 Assumptions Life Cycle Flow of CRTs C The assumed percentages of CRTs sent from generators to Subtitle C or D landfills, smelters, glass processors, collectors, and for reuse or export. Information on the flow of CRTs is mostly anecdotal. See Exhibits 3­ 3, 3­ 4, 3­ 5, 3­ 17, 3­ 18, and 3­ 19 for the percentages used in the analysis. In developing the flow percentages, the analysis takes into consideration the stigma of hazardous waste. C The assumed percentage of generators that are no longer regulated under the primary or CSI alternatives. Under the primary alternative 98 percent of baseline generators are assumed to no longer be regulated. Under the CSI alternative 85 percent of generators, who are original users, are assumed to no longer be regulated. More generators become unregulated under the primary alternative because CRTs going to reclaimers are not regulated. C The number of CRTs from televisions discarded by businesses is insignificant compared to the number of CRTs from monitors. Available data on television use in businesses are not adequate to incorporate into the analysis. The number of televisions used in businesses is believed to be relatively insignificant compared with the number of computer monitors. 28 Eliminating televisions from the analysis is not believed to significantly affect the analysis, although this assumption could change if business use of televisions increases (e. g., due to increases in televideo conferencing). This assumption may result in the reported savings of the alternatives being understated because the total number of CRTs generated is underestimated. C Original users do not export CRTs directly. Only collectors export CRTs. C All exports of CRTs are of intact CRTs for refurbishment and reuse. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 46 Monitor Characteristics C The lifetime of a computer monitor in businesses is assumed to be 3.5 years. C The estimated percentage of color monitors in use in businesses 3.5 years prior to the modeled year is 90 percent. C The assumed percentage of laptop computers in use 3.5 years prior to the modeled year is 18 percent. C The estimated average weight of computer monitors being discarded in the modeled year is 35 pounds. Transportation C The assumed transportation costs for hazardous waste generators that are generators due to non­ CRT hazardous wastes. These generators are assumed to include their CRTs in regular shipments of other hazardous waste when the CRTs are sent for treatment and disposal in Subtitle C or D landfills. Thus the cost of shipping the CRTs to these disposal options is only an incremental cost and is assumed to be zero in the analysis for both the baseline and regulatory alternatives. When these generators send CRTs to collectors, smelters, or glass processors the analysis assumes that these are dedicated shipments and the generator incurs transportation costs under both the baseline and regulatory alternatives. This assumption may result in the reported savings of the alternatives being underestimated because the costs of shipping CRTs is underestimated. C Under the baseline, shipments of CRTs are transported as hazardous waste if the shipments are going for disposal, to lead smelters, or to glass processors. Under the primary alternative, shipments of CRTs are transported as hazardous waste only if the shipments are going for disposal. Under the CSI alternative, shipments of CRTs are transported as hazardous waste if the shipments are going for disposal or to lead smelters. C The distances to each of the CRT management options. See Exhibit 3­ 14 for the transportation distances used in the analysis. Generators C The assumed distribution of SQGs across all two­ digit SIC codes. Existing databases do not track the SIC codes of all SQG generators. The analysis assumes that the distribution of SQGs across SIC codes is the same as it is for SQGs that are August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 47 reported in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) database. C The assumed distribution of SQGs and LQGs across establishment size ranges within a two­ digit SIC code. The analysis assumes that SQGs are 1.5 times and LQGs are 2 times more likely to have 250 or more employees than non­ generator establishments. This is based on the presumption that larger facilities with more employees are more likely to meet the thresholds for establishments becoming SQGs or LQGs. C The assumed cost savings for generators that are generators due solely to the disposal of CRTs. The analysis assumes that establishments qualifying as generators solely due to CRTs do not generate any other hazardous waste and thus can achieve the maximum savings possible under the proposed rule. This assumption results in the reported savings of the alternatives being overstated because the total number of these generators is likely to be overestimated. C Under the CSI alternative, all collectors will send some CRTs for disposal or to lead smelters. Therefore, all collectors continue to be fully regulated under the CSI alternative. This assumption results in the reported savings of the CSI alternative being understated because it is unlikely that all collectors will continue to send some CRTs for disposal or to a lead smelter. C Original users only send intact CRTs. This assumption results in the reported savings of the alternatives being overstated because some administrative costs are avoided by generators in the analysis. C Collectors who are SQGs send bare CRTs that have had the casing and electronics removed. C Collectors who are LQGs are the only entities sending any broken CRTs to reclaimers, hazardous waste facilities, and glass processors. This assumption results in the reported savings of the alternatives being overstated because some administrative costs are avoided by SQGs in the analysis. C One half of all collectors are assumed to send CRTs for disposal or reclamation and thus are regulated under the baseline. The other half of the collectors are assumed to send CRTs for reuse, export, or to glass processors who refurbish CRTs. C The number of CRTs that glass processors send for reuse is insignificant compared to the number of CRTs that are processed for new CRT glass. This assumption results in the reported savings of the alternatives being understated because potential savings are not captured. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 48 C Seventeen percent of collectors are assumed to be SQGs. Collectors who are SQGs are assumed to be primarily refurbishers who are able to resell most CRTs with only small volumes that they discard. Collectors who are LQGs are assumed to be primarily recyclers who need to recycle large volumes of CRTs to make their business profitable. C Eight percent of all CRTs are received by collectors who are SQGs. C The analysis models the flow of all CRTs discarded by original users in amounts exceeding the threshold for conditionally exempt small quantity generators (more than 100 kg per month), even though many of these original users are not regulated (because they send their CRTs to collectors, for reuse, or to glass processors that refurbish CRTs), and do not accrue incremental costs. The flow of CRTs from these entities is modeled in order to calculate incremental costs on other regulated entities (e. g., collectors). Disposal Options C The assumed available capacity of U. S. lead smelters to take discarded CRTs. The analysis assumes that all U. S. lead smelters are available to accept discarded CRTs, storing them as necessary. The actual availability of smelters might be less, because CRTs are shipped as a hazardous waste and smelters who store CRTs must obtain a RCRA Part B permit. The resources needed and potential compliance consequences of obtaining a Part B permit discourage most if not all smelters from obtaining the permit, thus disqualifying them for storing CRTs. C The analysis assumes that lead smelters do not refurbish CRTs for reuse. Thus under the baseline all shipments of CRTs to lead smelters are regulated shipments. This assumption results in the reported savings of the alternatives being overstated because it tends to increase the difference between the baseline and alternatives. Storage C The analysis assumes a single storage cost rate ($ 8/ ft 2 ) for all facilities, regardless of potentially available storage alternatives. C Collectors and processors are not allocated storage costs. These entities are not allocated storage costs because their storage of CRTs is not driven by the regulations and is an integral part of their primary business. 3.12.2 Limitations 29 Monchamp, A., Evans, H., Nardone, J., Wood, S., Proch, E., and Wagner, T., Cathode Ray Tube Manufacturing and Recycling: Analysis of Industry Survey. Electronics Industries Alliance, May 2001. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 49 C State and local governments and their discarded CRTs are not included in the model. This assumption results in the reported savings of the alternatives being understated because the total number of generators is underestimated. C The analysis does not model CRTs coming out of or going into long­ term storage. Long­ term storage is defined as more than one year. C The impacts analysis is likely to overstate economic impacts (whether costs or savings) because the sales data used in the analysis represent average values for each SIC code as a whole, whereas the estimated compliance costs arise only for the entities that are large enough to be considered an SQG or LQG in the baseline. Such entities are likely to have an average sales value higher than the average for the industry as a whole. 3.12.3 Other Factors C Consistent with least­ cost behavior, the analysis reflects generators of non­ CRT hazardous wastes only to the extent that these entities generate 30 or more CRTs per year. Generators discarding less than 30 CRTs per year are assumed in the baseline to consolidate their CRTs shipments with shipments of other hazardous waste; in this case, the transportation cost for shipping the CRTs is only an incremental cost (i. e., relative to the cost of shipping the other hazardous wastes). The incremental cost for shipping less than 30 CRTs is less than $18 per shipment. Under the two regulatory alternatives, if these generators were to ship CRTs to glass processors or reclaimers, they would be assumed to ship the CRTs on a separate truck, thereby incurring a significant increase in transportation costs of more than $100 per shipment. Given the increase in transportation cost and the low volume of CRTs (i. e., less than 30), the least cost behavior for these hazardous waste generators is to continue consolidating CRTs with other hazardous waste shipments. The model does not include such generators whose behavior will not be affected by the alternatives. The sensitivity analysis in Sections 4.2.4, 4.3.4, 5.2.4, and 5.3.4 includes the CRTs from these entities as well as from CESQGs. C The amount of CRT glass that CRT glass manufacturers can recycle is a potentially limiting factor in the amount of CRTs that can be economically recycled. A recent study estimates that CRT glass manufacturers could use 125,100 tons of postconsumer cullet using the current sorting technology. 29 If better sorting technology is developed, then the amount the CRT glass manufacturers could use will increase to at 30 The Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC), page 231. 31 ICF communication with Greg Voorhees of Envirocycle, 2001. 32 ICF communication with Greg Voorhees of Envirocycle, 1996 and 2001, and Envirocycle web page. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 50 least 161,600 tons per year. The model estimates that 12 million color CRT monitors enter the waste stream each year from all businesses (regulated and unregulated). At an average weight of 35 pounds per CRT, the total weight of color CRT monitors entering the waste stream is 210,000 tons. The CRT glass constitutes approximately 60 percent of the CRT weight; so the total amount of CRT glass entering the waste stream per year from businesses is 126,000 tons. 30 Thus, all post consumer CRT glass that is estimated to be generated by all businesses, not just those entities considered in this analysis, could be used by CRT glass manufacturers. The amount of CRT glass currently entering the waste stream from regulated establishments is estimated at below 44,000 tons. Therefore, it does not appear that the amount of glass that CRT glass manufacturers can accept should be a limiting factor in CRT glass­ to­ glass recycling. C The production capacity of glass processors is a potentially limiting factor in the amount of discarded CRTs that can be recycled each year, and thus is a limiting factor for the success of the proposed rule. Currently there are only a few glass processors. The largest processor is Envirocycle, with an estimated production capacity of 45,000 tons of CRTs per year. 31 However, the estimated total amount of CRTs generated by regulated generators is 43,750 tons per year. Envirocycle obtains about 10,000 tons of CRTs from computer monitor and television manufacturers. 32 Thus, Envirocycle seems unlikely to have enough current capacity to process all CRTs generated by regulated entities. Envirocycle plans to open two new processing facilities by the end of 2001 that will add additional capacity. Also, the capacity of the second glass processor is likely to be greater than 8,750 tons per year. Therefore, the production capacity of glass processors is not likely to be an active constraint on the number of regulated CRTs that could be recycled each year. C The real­ world conditions that are approximated in the analysis are likely to change significantly over the next several years. For example, both the number of computers used in businesses and the percent of color monitors in use are expected to increase over time, which would increase the savings under the proposed rule. On the other hand, trends towards greater use of laptop computers and other flat screen monitors may eventually lead to reduced savings. C The analysis does not take into consideration State and local laws that prohibit CRTs from being disposed in municipal solid waste landfills and incinerators or the inclusion of August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 51 CRTs in various State's Part 273 regulations. By not considering such information, the analysis tends to overestimate the savings accruing to each regulatory alternative. 4.0 Cost Results and Sensitivity Analysis for Subtitle C Management Baseline The incremental annual savings attributable to both the primary alternative and the CSI alternative are calculated by subtracting the estimated costs under each alternative from the estimated costs under the Subtitle C baseline. 4.1 Costs Under the Subtitle C Baseline The total applicable cost of compliance in the Subtitle C baseline is calculated for several groups of affected entities. As shown in Exhibit 4­ 1, the analysis categorizes affected entities based on whether they are original users or collectors, the amount of waste they generate (SQGs or LQGs), and, for original users, whether they are regulated solely because of CRT generation or because of a combination of CRT and non­ CRT hazardous waste generation. Collectors are all assumed to be regulated solely because of CRT generation. Compliance costs also are calculated for glass processors. Exhibit 4­ 1 presents the cost per establishment for administrative, storage, transportation, and disposal costs, and for the total cost of compliance under the baseline. Administrative costs are assumed to be the same for all generators in each size category (small or large). The other costs vary across the categories (based on RCRA requirements for different types of generators, on the average number of CRTs discarded, and on the disposal method used by that generator). So Exhibit 4­ 1 presents the average cost for each group of generators. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 52 Exhibit 4­ 1: Subtitle C Baseline Compliance Costs Average Costs per Generator Number of Regulated Generators Average Costs per Potentially Regulated Generator Number of Potentially Regulated Generators Total Cost Admin. Storage Transp. Disposal Transp. Disposal Original Users (Generating No Non­ CRT Hazardous Waste) SQG $ 660 $ 261 $ 270 $ 870 2,066 $ 270 $ 870 10,085 $ 15,763,000 LQG $ 1,234 $ 991 $ 739 $ 6,616 61 $ 739 $ 6,616 295 $ 2,754,000 Subtotal $ 18,517,000 Original Users Also Generating Non­ CRT Hazardous Waste SQG $ 88 $ 78 $ 255 $ 501 534 $ 255 $ 501 1,602 $ 1,703,000 LQG $ 217 $ 40 $ 499 $ 517 223 $ 499 $ 517 668 $ 962,000 Subtotal $ 2,665,000 Collectors SQG $ 668 $ 0 $ 828 $ 3,370 50 $ 828 $ 3,370 50 $ 453,000 LQG $ 1,232 $ 0 $ 1,554 $ 3,989 250 $ 1,554 $ 3,989 250 $ 3,080,000 Subtotal $ 3,533,000 Glass Processors $ 2,316 $ 0 $ 6,754 $ (83,960) 5 N/ A N/ A N/ A $ (374,000) Total Baseline Compliance Costs $ 24,342,000 Note: Total cost numbers rounded to nearest thousand. Costs may not add due to rounding. 4.2 Primary Alternative 4.2.1 Costs Under the Primary Alternative The total applicable cost of compliance under the primary alternative is calculated for all of the generators described in Section 4.1, and for all of the entities that were formerly generators but that no longer are required to comply with the hazardous waste regulations. These are called "former generators." Exhibit 4­ 2 presents the cost per establishment for administrative, storage, transportation, and disposal costs, and for the total cost of compliance under the primary alternative. Administrative costs are assumed to be the same for all generators in each size category (small or large). The other costs vary across the categories (based on RCRA requirements for different types of generators, on the average number of CRTs discarded, and on the CRT management method used by that generator). So Exhibit 4­ 2 presents the average cost for each group of generators. The average transportation and disposal cost for SQGs and LQGs changes between the baseline and the primary alternative because, in the baseline, five CRT management options (collector, reuse, processor, smelter, and hazardous waste landfill) are available while in the primary alternative only one disposal option (hazardous waste landfill) is considered for regulated generators and four of 33 Assumes a six year monitor life, an average monitor weight of 30 pounds, and 75 percent of discarded monitors are color. 34 Assumes a two year monitor life, an average monitor weight of 41 pounds, and 90 percent of discarded monitors are color. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 53 the CRT management options are available (collector, reuse, processor, and smelter) for "former" generators. The reason for the changes in average collector costs is similar. Under the baseline, five CRT management options are available (reuse, processor, smelter, hazardous waste landfill, and export). Under the primary alternative, the same five CRT management options are averaged for regulated collectors, while "former" collectors have only four CRT management options (reuse, processor, smelter, and export). Exhibit 4­ 2: Primary Alternative Compliance Costs Under the Subtitle C Baseline Average Costs per Generator Number of Regulated Generators Average Costs per Potentially Regulated Generator Number of Potentially Regulated Generators Total Cost Admin. Storage Transp. Disposal Transp. Disposal Original Users (Generating No Non­ CRT Hazardous Waste) Former SQG $ 0 $ 522 $ 136 $ 798 1,823 $ 136 $ 798 10,085 $ 12,078,000 Former LQG $ 0 $ 1,983 $ 428 $ 6,068 54 $ 428 $ 6,068 295 $ 2,374,000 Subtotal $ 14,452,000 Original Users Also Generating Non­ CRT Hazardous Waste Former SQG $ 0 $ 154 $ 117 $ 236 491 $ 117 $ 236 1,602 $ 813,000 Former LQG $ 0 $ 159 $ 117 $ 243 205 $ 117 $ 243 668 $ 347,000 Subtotal $ 1,160,000 Collectors Former SQG $ 0 $ 0 $ 558 $ 3,436 48 $ 558 $ 3,436 50 $ 391,000 Former LQG $ 0 $ 0 $ 1,135 $ 3,319 240 $ 1,135 $ 3,319 250 $ 2,182,000 Subtotal $ 2,573,000 Total Cost to Regulated Generators $ 1,315,000 Total Compliance Costs under the Primary Alternative $ 19,502,000 Note: Total cost numbers rounded to nearest thousand. Costs may not add due to rounding. 4.2.2 Incremental Cost Difference Between the Subtitle C Baseline and the Primary Alternative The primary alternative generates a net savings relative to the baseline, due primarily to reduced administrative requirements and savings from reduced transportation and disposal costs. Savings from the primary alternative accrue to former generators that would no longer be regulated. The range of potential savings under the primary alternative is estimated to be from $2,401,000 33 to $5,071,000, 34 35 Assumes a 3.5 year monitor life, an average monitor weight of 35 pounds, and 90 percent of discarded monitors are color. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 54 with a best estimate of $4,840,000. 35 Exhibit 4­ 3 summarizes the costs under the baseline and the primary alternative by cost category. Exhibit 4­ 3: Costs of Primary Alternative Relative to Subtitle C Baseline Cost Category Baseline Primary Alternative Saving (Cost) Administrative $ 1,888,000 $ 197,000 $ 1,691,000 Disposal $ 16,373,000 $ 15,128,000 $ 1,245,000 Transportation $ 5,431,000 $ 2,936,000 $ 2,495,000 Storage $ 650,000 $ 1,241,000 $ (591,000) Total $ 24,342,000 $ 19,502,000 $ 4,840,000 Note: Cost numbers rounded to nearest thousand. Costs may not add due to rounding. 4.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis for the Primary Alternative Individual sensitivity and bounding analysis is conducted on the difference between the Subtitle C baseline and the primary alternative for the following four parameters: monitor weight, monitor lifetime, storage costs, and percent of monitors that are color. Appendix G lists the parameters to which the analysis results are relatively insensitive. The individual sensitivity analysis is conducted by changing one parameter at a time while holding all other parameters at their best estimate value. Exhibit 4­ 4 contains the upper and lower bounds and the best estimate values for the four parameters as well as the percent change of the lower and upper bounds from the best estimate. The upper and lower bounds were selected because they represent probable limits on the selected parameters. Exhibit 4­ 5 contains the model results for each individual change. Exhibit 4­ 6 plots the data in Exhibit 4­ 5 from the individual sensitivity analysis for the four parameters. The graph illustrates that the analysis is most sensitive to the monitor weight, monitor lifetime, and the percent of color monitors discarded. The graph also indicates that the model results are not linearly related with respect to percent color, monitor weight, and monitor life, since the lines for these parameters are not straight. To determine a potential maximum upper bound on the savings, a combined sensitivity analysis is conducted using a monitor weight of 41 pounds, a monitor lifetime of 3.5 years, the percent of color monitors discarded of 90 percent, and storage cost of zero dollars per square foot. The savings under the combined sensitivity analysis is $5,723,000. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 55 Exhibit 4­ 4: Parameter Values for Individual Sensitivity Analysis Lower Bound % Change from Best Estimate Best Estimate Upper Bound % Change from Best Estimate Monitor Weight 30 lbs. ­14 % 35 lbs. 40 lbs. 14 % Monitor Life 2 years ­43 % 3.5 years 5 years 43 % Storage Cost $ 0 ­100 % $ 8.30 $ 15 81 % Percent Color 60 % ­33 % 90 % 99 % 10 % Exhibit 4­ 5: Individual Sensitivity Analysis Results Lower Bound Best Estimate Upper Bound Monitor Weight $ 4,326,000 $ 4,840,000 $ 5,091,000 Monitor Life $ 4,753,000 $ 4,840,000 $ 3,934,000 Storage Cost $ 5,431,000 $ 4,840,000 $ 4,364,000 Percent Color $ 3,861,000 $ 4,840,000 $ 4,871,000 Numbers rounded to nearest thousand. Sensitivity analysis is also conducted for disposal costs above and below the best estimate values. By changing the cost for disposal to a hazardous waste landfill to $800 and $1700 per ton for whole CRTs (from a best estimate of $1,500), and to $50 and $250 per ton for crushed CRTs (from a best estimate of $160), the savings ranged from $5,141,000 to $4,175,000. By changing the cost for disposal to a reclaimer to $150 and $500 per ton for whole CRTs (from a best estimate of $295), to $100 and $300 per ton for bare CRTs (from a best estimate of $207), and to $75 and $250 per ton for crushed CRTs (from a best estimate of $152), the savings ranged from $4,642,000 to $4,990,000. By changing the cost for disposal to a collector to $100 and $350 per ton (from a best estimate of $271), the savings ranged from $4,821,000 to $4,879,000. The sensitivity analysis on disposal costs shows that the model is moderately sensitive to hazardous waste disposal costs and only slightly sensitive to the reclaimer and collector disposal costs. 36 The number of televisions disposed of is based on the assumption that there are 100 million households each with two televisions and that the TVs are discarded after ten years. The 20 million TVs discarded is also consistent with the number of televisions sold in 1991, which was 19.5 million. The number of computer monitor CRTs disposed of is based on data from the August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 56 $3,500,000 $3,750,000 $4,000,000 $4,250,000 $4,500,000 $4,750,000 $5,000,000 $5,250,000 $5,500,000 ­150% ­100% ­50% 0% 50% 100% Percent Change from Best Estimate Total Cost Savings from Baseline ($) Monitor Weight Monitor Life Storage Cost Percent Color Exhibit 4­ 6: Plot of Individual Sensitivity Analysis Results for the Primary Alternative Note: Lines with relatively steeper slopes indicate greater sensitivity of the results to changes (or uncertainty) in the given parameters. 4.2.4 Incremental Cost Difference Between the Subtitle C Baseline and the Primary Alternative, Including Currently Unregulated Monitors and Televisions To help understand how the two regulatory alternatives might be affected by capacity issues, the total cost of compliance under the Subtitle C baseline and the primary alternative is calculated including CRTs from conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQG) and households. It is assumed that 20 million unregulated television CRTs are disposed and 16.7 million unregulated computer monitor CRTs are disposed from households and CESQGs. 36 Exhibit 4­ 7 contains a US Census, Survey of Computer Use, 1997, which estimates that 52 percent of households have computers. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 57 summary of the costs under the baseline and the primary alternative by cost category. Disposal costs are higher under the primary alternative than the baseline because it is assumed that a greater percentage of unregulated CRTs are sent to collectors, which increases the number of CRTs that have a non­ zero disposal cost under the primary alternative. Exhibit 4­ 7: Costs of Primary Alternative Relative to Subtitle C Baseline, Including Unregulated Monitors and Televisions Cost Category Baseline Primary Alternative Saving (Cost) Administrative $ 1,984,000 $ 197,000 $ 1,787,000 Disposal $ 20,854,000 $ 21,824,000 $ (970,000) Transportation $ 6,790,000 $ 5,893,000 $ 897,000 Storage $ 650,000 $ 1,241,000 $ (591,000) Total $ 30,278,000 $ 29,155,000 $ 1,123,000 Note: Cost numbers rounded to nearest thousand. Costs may not add due to rounding. The analysis estimates that 51,800 tons of CRT glass are sent to glass processors and that, of this, 50,700 tons of CRT glass are sent to CRT glass manufacturers. The quantity of CRTs sent to glass processors may be above the capacity limit for glass processors, since the capacity of one of the processors is not precisely known. The quantity sent to CRT glass manufacturers is below the capacity limits for CRT glass manufacturers. As the CRT recycling infrastructure grows and additional unregulated CRTs are recycled, the capacities of both glass processors and glass manufacturers will be exceeded. This analysis does not attempt to predict when this might occur. 4.3 CSI Alternative 4.3.1 Costs Under the CSI Alternative The total applicable cost of compliance under the CSI alternative is calculated for all of the entities described in Section 4.1, and for all of the entities that were formerly generators but that no longer are required to comply with the hazardous waste regulations. These are called CSI handlers. Exhibit 4­ 8 presents the cost per CSI handler for administrative, storage, transportation, and disposal, and for the total cost of compliance under the CSI alternative. Administrative costs are assumed to be the same for all CSI handlers in each size category (small or large). The other costs vary across the categories (based on RCRA requirements for different types of generators, on the average number of 37 Assumes a six year monitor life, an average monitor weight of 35 pounds, and 75 percent of discarded monitors are color. 38 Assumes a 3.5 year monitor life, an average monitor weight of 41 pounds, and 89 percent of discarded monitors are color. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 58 CRTs discarded, and on the CRT management method used by that generator). So Exhibit 4­ 8 presents the average cost for CSI handlers. The average transportation and disposal cost for SQGs and LQGs changes between the baseline and the CSI alternative because, in the baseline, five CRT management options (collector, reuse, processor, smelter, and hazardous waste landfill) are available while in the CSI alternative only two CRT management options (lead smelter and hazardous waste landfill) are available for regulated generators, and only three of the CRT management options are available (collector, reuse, and processor) for CSI handlers. Exhibit 4­ 8: CSI Alternative Compliance Costs Under the Subtitle C Baseline Average Costs per Generator Number of Regulated Generators Average Costs per Potentially Regulated Generator Number of Potentially Regulated Generators Total Cost Admin. Storage Transp. Disposal Transp. Disposal CSI Handlers SQH $ 100 $ 529 $ 125 $ 809 2,452 $ 125 $ 809 10,752 $ 13,874,000 LQH $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 Subtota l $ 13,874,000 Total Cost to Regulated Generators 7,371,000 Total Compliance Costs under the CSI Alternative $ 21,244,000 Note: Total cost numbers rounded to nearest thousand. Costs may not add due to rounding. 4.3.2 Incremental Cost Difference Between the Subtitle C Baseline and the CSI Alternative The CSI alternative generates a net savings relative to the baseline, due primarily to reduced administrative requirements and savings from reduced transportation and disposal costs. Savings from the CSI alternative accrue to CSI handlers that would no longer be regulated. The range of potential savings under the CSI alternative is estimated to be from $1,504,000 37 to $3,402,000, 38 with a best 39 Assumes a 3.5 year monitor life, an average monitor weight of 35 pounds, and 90 percent of discarded monitors are color. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 59 estimate of $3,098,000. 39 Exhibit 4­ 9 summarizes the costs under the baseline and the CSI alternative by cost category. Exhibit 4­ 9: Costs of CSI Alternative Relative to Subtitle C Baseline Cost Category Baseline Primary Alternative Saving (Cost) Administrative $ 1,888,000 $ 826,000 $ 1,062,000 Disposal $ 16,373,000 $ 15,356,000 $ 1,017,000 Transportation $ 5,431,000 $ 3,667,000 $ 1,764,000 Storage $ 650,000 $ 1,395,000 $ (745,000) Total $ 24,342,000 $ 21,244,000 $ 3,098,000 Note: Cost numbers rounded to nearest thousand. Costs may not add due to rounding. 4.3.3 Sensitivity Analysis for the CSI Alternative Individual sensitivity and bounding analysis is conducted on the difference between the Subtitle C baseline and the CSI alternative for the following four parameters: monitor weight, monitor lifetime, storage costs, and percent of monitors that are color. Appendix G lists the parameters to which the analysis results are relatively insensitive. The individual sensitivity analysis is conducted by changing one parameter at a time while holding all other parameters at their best estimate value. Exhibit 4­ 10 contains the upper and lower bounds and the best estimate values for the four parameters as well as the percent change of the lower and upper bounds from the best estimate. The upper and lower bounds were selected because they represent probable limits on the selected parameters. Exhibit 4­ 11 contains the model results for each individual change. Exhibit 4­ 12 plots the data in Exhibit 4­ 11 from the individual sensitivity analysis for the four parameters. The graph illustrates that the analysis is most sensitive to the monitor weight, monitor lifetime, and the percent of color monitors discarded. The graph also indicates that the model results are not linearly related with respect to percent color, monitor weight, and monitor life, since the lines for these parameters are not straight. To determine a potential maximum upper bound on the savings, a combined sensitivity analysis is conducted using a monitor weight of 35 pounds, a monitor lifetime of 2 years, the percent of color monitors discarded of 99 percent, and storage cost of zero per square foot. The savings under the combined sensitivity analysis is $4,221,000. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 60 Exhibit 4­ 10: Parameter Values for Individual Sensitivity Analysis Lower Bound % Change from Best Estimate Best Estimate Upper Bound % Change from Best Estimate Monitor Weight 30 lbs. ­14 % 35 lbs. 40 lbs. 14 % Monitor Life 2 years ­43 % 3.5 years 5 years 43 % Storage Cost $ 0 ­100 % $ 8.30 $ 15 81 % Percent Color 60 % ­33 % 90 % 99 % 10 % Exhibit 4­ 11: Individual Sensitivity Analysis Results Lower Bound Best Estimate Upper Bound Monitor Weight $ 2,677,000 $ 3,098,000 $ 3,365,000 Monitor Life $ 2,735,000 $ 3,098,000 $ 2,386,000 Storage Cost $ 3,843,000 $ 3,098,000 $2,496,000 Percent Color $ 2,343,000 $ 3,098,000 $3,157,000 Numbers rounded to nearest thousand. Sensitivity analysis is also conducted for disposal costs above and below the best estimate values. By changing the cost for disposal to a hazardous waste landfill to $800 and $1700 per ton for whole CRTs (from a best estimate of $1,500), and to $50 and $250 per ton for crushed CRTs (from a best estimate of $160), the savings ranged from $3,336,000 to $2,580,000. By changing the cost for disposal to a reclaimer to $150 and $500 per ton for whole CRTs (from a best estimate of $295), to $100 and $300 per ton for bare CRTs (from a best estimate of $207), and to $75 and $250 per ton for crushed CRTs (from a best estimate of $152), the savings ranged from $3,171,000 to $3,050,000. By changing the cost for disposal to a collector to $100 and $350 per ton (from a best estimate of $271), the savings ranged from $3,139,000 to $3,008,000. The sensitivity analysis on disposal costs shows that the model is moderately sensitive to hazardous waste disposal costs and only slightly sensitive to the reclaimer and collector disposal costs. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 61 $2,200,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $2,800,000 $3,000,000 $3,200,000 $3,400,000 $3,600,000 $3,800,000 $4,000,000 ­150% ­100% ­50% 0% 50% 100% Percent Change from Best Estimate Total Cost Savings from Baseline ($) Monitor Weight Monitor Life Storage Cost Percent Color Exhibit 4­ 12: Plot of Individual Sensitivity Analysis Results for the CSI Alternative Note: Lines with relatively steeper slopes indicate greater sensitivity of the results to changes (or uncertainty) in the given parameters. 4.3.4 Incremental Cost Difference Between the Subtitle C Baseline and the CSI Alternative, Including Currently Unregulated Monitors and Televisions To help understand how the two regulatory alternatives might be affected by capacity issues, the total cost of compliance under the Subtitle C baseline and the CSI alternative is also calculated including CRTs from households and CESQGs. It is assumed that 20 million unregulated television CRTs are disposed and 16.7 million unregulated computer monitor CRTs are disposed from 40 The number of televisions disposed of is based on the assumption that there are 100 million households each with two televisions and that the TVs are discarded after ten years. The 20 million TVs discarded is also consistent with the number of televisions sold in 1991, which was 19.5 million. The number of computer monitor CRTs disposed of is based on data from the US Census, Survey of Computer Use, 1997, which estimates that 52 percent of households have computers. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 62 households and CESQGs. 40 Exhibit 4­ 13 contains a summary of the costs under the baseline and the CSI alternative by cost category. Exhibit 4­ 13: Costs of CSI Alternative Relative to Subtitle C Baseline, Including Unregulated Monitors and Televisions Cost Category Baseline CSI Alternative Saving (Cost) Administrative $ 1,984,000 $ 855,000 $ 1,129,000 Disposal $ 20,854,000 $ 18,834,000 $ 2,020,000 Transportation $ 6,790,000 $ 4,988,000 $ 1,802,000 Storage $ 650,000 $ 1,395,000 $ (745,000) Total $ 30,278,000 $ 26,072,000 $ 4,206,000 The analysis estimates that 32,000 tons of CRT glass is sent to glass processors and that, of this, 31,300 tons of CRT glass is sent to CRT glass manufacturers. These quantities are below the capacity limits for glass processors and CRT glass manufacturers. As the CRT recycling infrastructure grows and additional unregulated CRTs are recycled, the capacities of both glass processors and glass manufacturers will be exceeded. This analysis does not attempt to predict when this might occur. 5.0 Cost Results and Sensitivity Analysis for Subtitle D Management Baseline The incremental annual savings attributable to both the primary alternative and the CSI alternative are calculated by subtracting the estimated costs under each alternative from the estimated costs under the Subtitle D baseline. 5.1 Costs Under the Subtitle D Baseline The total applicable cost of the Subtitle D management baseline is calculated for several groups of entities. As shown in Exhibit 5­ 1, the analysis groups affected entities based on whether they are original users or collectors, the amount of waste they generate (SQGs or LQGs), and, for original users, whether they are regulated solely because of CRT generation or because of a combination of CRT and non­ CRT hazardous waste generation. Collectors are all assumed to be regulated solely August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 63 because of CRT generation. Compliance costs also are calculated for glass processors. Exhibit 5­ 1 presents the cost per establishment for administrative, storage, transportation, and disposal, and for the total cost of compliance under the baseline. Administrative costs are assumed to be the same for all generators in each size category (small or large). The other costs vary across the categories (based on RCRA requirements for different types of generators, on the average number of CRTs discarded, and on the disposal method used by that generator). So Exhibit 5­ 1 presents the average cost for each group of generators. As discussed in Section 3.11, generators sending CRTs to Subtitle D landfills only incur a disposal cost. Exhibit 5­ 1: Subtitle D Baseline Compliance Costs Average Costs per Generator Number of Regulate d Generator s Average Costs per Potentially Regulated Generator Number of Potentiall y Regulate d Generator s Total Cost Admin. Storag e Transp . Disposal Except Subtitle D Subtitle D Disposal Transp. Disposal Except Subtitle D Subtitle D Disposal Original Users (Generating No Non­ CRT Hazardous Waste) SQG $ 663 $ 1,304 $ 120 $ 1,139 $ 485 170 $ 120 $ 1,139 $ 485 2,260 $ 4,571,000 LQG $ 1,327 $ 3,314 $ 682 $ 8,681 $ 3,696 5 $ 682 $ 8,681 $ 3,696 66 $ 950,000 Subtota l $ 5,521,000 Original Users Also Generating Non­ CRT Hazardous Waste SQG $ 87 $ 386 $ 73 $ 768 $ 143 43 $ 73 $ 768 $ 143 384 $ 441,000 LQG $ 325 $ 134 $ 182 $ 792 $ 148 18 $ 182 $ 792 $ 148 160 $ 208,000 Subtota l $ 649,000 Collectors SQG $ 647 $ 0 $ 234 $ 95 $ 50 10 $ 234 $ 95 $ 50 90 $ 44,000 LQG $ 1,290 $ 0 $ 630 $ 166 $ 94 85 $ 630 $ 166 $ 94 415 $ 554,000 Subtota l $ 598,000 Glass Processors $ 1,284 $ 0 $ 1,542 $ (16,405) N/ A 5 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ (68,000) Total Baseline Compliance Costs $ 6,700,000 Note: Total cost numbers rounded to nearest thousand. Costs may not add due to rounding. 5.2 Primary Alternative 5.2.1 Costs Under the Primary Alternative August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 64 The total applicable cost of compliance under the primary alternative is calculated for all of the entities described in Section 5.1, and for all of the entities that were formerly generators but that no longer are required to comply with the hazardous waste regulations. These are called "former generators." Exhibit 5­ 2 presents the cost per establishment for administrative, storage, transportation, and disposal, and for the total cost of compliance under the primary alternative. Administrative costs are assumed to be the same for all generators in each size category (small or large). The other costs vary across the categories (based on RCRA requirements for different types of generators, on the average number of CRTs discarded, and on the disposal method used by that generator). So Exhibit 5­ 2 presents the average cost for each group of generators. As discussed in section 3.11, generators sending CRTs to Subtitle D landfills only incur a disposal cost. The average transportation and disposal cost for SQGs and LQGs changes between the baseline and the primary alternative because, in the baseline, six CRT management options (collector, reuse, processor, smelter, hazardous waste landfill, and municipal landfill) are available while in the primary alternative only one disposal option (hazardous waste landfill) is available for regulated generators and five of the CRT management options are available (collector, reuse, processor, smelter, hazardous waste landfill, and municipal landfill) for former generators. The reason for the changes in average collector costs is similar. Under the baseline, six CRT management options are available (reuse, processor, smelter, hazardous waste landfill, municipal landfill, and export). Under the primary alternative, the same six CRT management options are available for regulated collectors, while former generators have five CRT management options (reuse, municipal landfill, processor, smelter, and export). 41 Assumes a two year monitor life, an average monitor weight of 40 pounds, and 95 percent of discarded monitors are color. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 65 Exhibit 5­ 2: Primary Alternative Compliance Costs Under the Subtitle D Baseline Average Costs per Generator Number of Regulate d Generator s Average Costs per Potentially Regulated Generator Number of Potentiall y Regulate d Generator s Total Cost Admin. Storag e Trans p. Disposal Except Subtitle D Subtitle D Dispos al Transp . Disposal Except Subtitle D Subtitle D Disposal Original Users (Generating No Non­ CRT Hazardous Waste) Former SQG $ 0 $ 1,304 $ 119 $ 993 $ 455 121 $ 119 $ 993 $ 455 2,260 $ 3,888,000 Former LQG $ 0 $ 3,295 $ 654 $ 7,527 $ 3,445 4 $ 654 $ 7,527 $ 3,445 66 $ 827,000 Subtotal $ 4,715,000 Original Users Also Generating Non­ CRT Hazardous Waste Former SQG $ 0 $ 772 $ 47 $ 294 $ 134 34 $ 47 $ 294 $ 134 384 $ 225,000 Former LQG $ 0 $ 798 $ 48 $ 304 $ 139 14 $ 48 $ 304 $ 139 160 $ 97,000 Subtotal $ 322,000 Collectors Former SQG $ 0 $ 0 $ 94 $ 199 $ 62 8 $ 94 $ 199 $ 62 90 $ 35,000 Former LQG $ 0 $ 0 $ 120 $ 255 $ 137 75 $ 120 $ 255 $ 137 415 $ 251,000 Subtotal $ 286,000 Total Cost to Regulated Generators $ 1,484,000 Total Compliance Costs under the Primary Alternative $ 6,806,000 Note: Total cost numbers rounded to nearest thousand. Costs may not add due to rounding. 5.2.2 Incremental Cost Difference Between the Subtitle D Baseline and the Primary Alternative The primary alternative generates a net savings relative to the baseline, due primarily to reduced administrative requirements and savings from reduced transportation and disposal costs. Savings from the primary alternative accrue to former generators that would no longer be regulated. The range of potential savings under the primary alternative is estimated to be from a net cost of 1,301,000 41 to a net 42 Assumes a six year monitor life, an average monitor weight of 30 pounds, and 75 percent of discarded monitors are color. 43 Assumes a three and one half year monitor life, an average monitor weight of 35 pounds, and 90 percent of discarded monitors are color. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 66 savings of $291,000, 42 with a best estimate of a cost of $106,000. 43 Exhibit 5­ 3 summarizes the costs under the baseline and the primary alternative by cost category. Exhibit 5­ 3: Costs of Primary Alternative Relative to Subtitle D Baseline Cost Category Baseline Primary Alternative Saving (Cost) Administrative $ 251,000 $ 56,000 $ 195,000 Disposal Except Subtitle D $ 3,863,000 $ 4,485,000 $ (622,000) Subtitle D Disposal $ 1,580,000 $ 1,479,000 $ 101,000 Transportation $ 749,000 $ 507,000 $ (242,000) Storage $ 257,000 $ 279,000 $ 22,000 Total $ 6,700,000 $ 6,806,000 $ 106,000 Note: Cost numbers rounded to nearest thousand. Costs may not add due to rounding. 5.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis for the Primary Alternative Individual sensitivity and bounding analysis is conducted on the difference between the Subtitle D baseline and the primary alternative for the following four parameters: monitor weight, monitor lifetime, storage costs, and percent of monitors that are color. The individual sensitivity analysis is conducted by changing one parameter at a time while holding all other parameters at their best estimate value. Exhibit 5­ 4 contains the upper and lower bounds and the best estimate values for the four parameters as well as the percent change of the lower and upper bounds from the best estimate. The upper and lower bounds were selected because they represent probable limits on the selected parameters. Exhibit 5­ 5 contains the model results for each individual change. Exhibit 5­ 6 plots the data in Exhibit 5­ 5 from the individual sensitivity analysis for the four parameters. The graph illustrates that the analysis is most sensitive to the monitor weight, monitor lifetime, and the percent of color monitors discarded. To determine a potential maximum upper bound on the savings, a combined sensitivity analysis is conducted using a monitor weight of 30 pounds, a monitor lifetime of 6 years, the percent of color monitors discarded of 85 percent, and storage cost of zero dollars per square foot. The savings under the combined sensitivity analysis is $349,000. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 67 Exhibit 5­ 4: Parameter Values for Individual Sensitivity Analysis Lower Bound % Change from Best Estimate Best Estimate Upper Bound % Change from Best Estimate Monitor Weight 30 lbs. ­14 % 35 lbs. 40 lbs. 14 % Monitor Life 2 years ­43 % 3.5 years 5 years 43 % Storage Cost $ 0 ­100 % $ 8.30 $ 15 81 % Percent Color 60 % ­33 % 90 % 99 % 10 % Exhibit 5­ 5: Individual Sensitivity Analysis Results Lower Bound Best Estimate Upper Bound Monitor Weight $ 17,000 $ (106,000) $ (247,000) Monitor Life $ (916,000) $ (106,000) $ 93,000 Storage Cost $ (84,000) $ (106,000) $ (123,000) Percent Color $ 120,000 $ (106,000) $ (191,000) Note: Cost numbers rounded to nearest thousand. Sensitivity analysis is also conducted for disposal costs above and below the best estimate values. By changing the cost for disposal to a hazardous waste landfill to $800 and $1700 per ton for whole CRTs (from a best estimate of $1,500), and to $50 and $250 per ton for crushed CRTs (from a best estimate of $160), the savings ranged from $ (61,000) to $( 259,000). By changing the cost for disposal to a reclaimer to $150 and $500 per ton for whole CRTs (from a best estimate of $295), to $100 and $300 per ton for bare CRTs (from a best estimate of $207), and to $75 and $250 per ton for crushed CRTs (from a best estimate of $152), the savings ranged from $( 330,000) to $54,000. By changing the cost for disposal to a collector to $100 and $350 per ton (from a best estimate of $271), the savings ranged from $( 236,000) to $176,000. The sensitivity analysis on disposal costs shows that the model is moderately sensitive to hazardous waste, reclaimer, and collector disposal costs. 44 The number of televisions disposed of is based on the assumption that there are 100 million households each with two televisions and that the TVs are discarded after ten years. The 20 August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 68 ($ 950,000) ($ 700,000) ($ 450,000) ($ 200,000) $50,000 ­150% ­100% ­50% 0% 50% 100% Percent Change from Best Estimate Total Cost Savings from Baseline ($) Monitor Weight Monitor Life Storage Cost Percent Color Exhibit 5­ 6: Plot of Individual Sensitivity Analysis Results for the Primary Alternative Note: Lines with relatively steeper slopes indicate greater sensitivity of the results to changes (or uncertainty) in the given parameters. 5.2.4 Incremental Cost Difference Between the Subtitle D Baseline and the Primary Alternative, Including Currently Unregulated Monitors and Televisions To help understand how the two regulatory alternatives might be affected by capacity issues, the total cost of compliance under the Subtitle D baseline and the primary alternative is also calculated including CRTs from households and CESQGs. It is assumed that 20 million unregulated television CRTs are disposed and 16.7 million unregulated computer monitor CRTs are disposed from households and CESQGs. 44 Exhibit 5­ 7 contains a summary of the costs under the baseline and the million TVs discarded is also consistent with the number of televisions sold in 1991, which was 19.5 million. The number of computer monitor CRTs disposed of is based on data from the US Census, Survey of Computer Use, 1997, which estimates that 52 percent of households have computers. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 69 primary alternative by cost category. Transportation and disposal costs are higher under the primary alternative than the baseline because it is assumed that a greater percentage of unregulated CRTs are sent to collectors, which increases the number of CRTs that have a non­ zero disposal cost under the primary alternative. Exhibit 5­ 7: Costs of Primary Alternative Relative to Subtitle D Baseline Including Unregulated Monitors and Televisions Cost Category Baseline Primary Alternative Saving (Cost) Administrative $ 269,000 $ 56,000 $ 213,000 Disposal Except Subtitle D $ 6,155,000 $ 6,677,000 $ (522,000) Subtitle D Disposal $ 3,007,000 $ 2,789,000 $ 218,000 Transportation $ 1,063,000 $ 1,213,000 $ (150,000) Storage $ 257,000 $ 279,000 $ (22,000) Total $ 10,751,000 $ 11,014,000 $ (263,000) Note: Cost numbers rounded to nearest thousand. Costs may not add due to rounding. The analysis estimates that 9,600 tons of CRT glass is sent to glass processors and that, of this, 8,800 tons of CRT glass is sent to CRT glass manufacturers. These quantities are below the capacity limits for glass processors and CRT glass manufacturers. As the CRT recycling infrastructure grows and additional unregulated CRTs are recycled, the capacities of both glass processors and glass manufacturers will be exceeded. This analysis does not attempt to predict when this might occur. 5.3 CSI Alternative 5.3.1 Costs Under the CSI Alternative The total applicable cost of compliance under the CSI alternative is calculated for all of the entities described in Section 5.1, and for all of the entities that were formerly generators but that no longer are required to comply with the hazardous waste regulations. These are called CSI handlers. Exhibit 5­ 8 presents the cost per establishment for administrative, storage, transportation, and disposal, and for the total cost of compliance under the CSI alternative. Administrative costs are assumed to be the same for all CSI handlers in each size category (small or large). The other costs vary across the 45 Assumes a two year monitor life, an average monitor weight of 40 pounds, and 95 percent of discarded monitors are color. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 70 categories (based on RCRA requirements for different types of generators, on the average number of CRTs discarded, and on the CRT management method used by that generator). So Exhibit 5­ 8 presents the average cost for CSI handlers. As discussed in section 3.11, generators sending CRTs to Subtitle D landfills only incur a disposal cost. The average transportation and disposal cost for SQGs and LQGs changes between the baseline and the CSI alternative because, in the baseline, six CRT management options (collector, reuse, processor, smelter, hazardous waste landfill, and municipal landfill) are available while in the CSI alternative only three CRT management options (lead smelter, hazardous waste landfill, and municipal landfill) are available for regulated generators, and four of the CRT management options are available (collector, reuse, processor, and municipal landfill) for CSI handlers. Exhibit 5­ 8: CSI Alternative Compliance Costs Under the Subtitle D Baseline Average Costs per Generator Number of Regulated Generator s Average Costs per Potentially Regulated Generator Number of Potentially Regulated Generators Total Cost Admin . Storage Transp. Disposal Except Subtitle D Subtitle D Disposal Transp. Disposal Except Subtitle D Subtitle D Disposal CSI Handlers SQH $ 100 $ 883 $ 114 $ 900 $ 480 200 $ 114 $ 900 $ 480 2,439 $ 4,138,000 LQH $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 Subtotal $ 4,138,000 Total Cost to Regulated Generators $ 2,996,000 Total Compliance Costs under the CSI Alternative $ 7,134,000 Note: Total cost numbers rounded to nearest thousand. Costs may not add due to rounding. 5.3.2 Incremental Cost Difference Between the Subtitle D Baseline and the CSI Alternative The CSI alternative generates a net savings relative to the baseline, due primarily to reduced administrative requirements and savings from reduced transportation and disposal costs. Savings from the CSI alternative accrue to CSI handlers that would no longer be regulated. The range of potential savings under the CSI alternative is estimated to be from a net cost of $1,521,000 45 to a net cost of 46 Assumes a six year monitor life, an average monitor weight of 30 pounds, and 86 percent of discarded monitors are color. 47 Assumes a three and one half year monitor life, an average monitor weight of 35 pounds, and 90 percent of discarded monitors are color. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 71 $33,000, 46 with a best estimate of a net cost of $434,000. 47 Exhibit 5­ 9 summarizes the costs under the baseline and the CSI alternative by cost category. Exhibit 5­ 9: Costs of CSI Alternative Relative to Subtitle D Baseline Cost Category Baseline Primary Alternative Saving (Cost) Administrative $ 251,000 $ 129,000 $ 122,000 Disposal Except Subtitle D $ 3,863,000 $ 4,435,000 $ (572,000) Subtitle D Disposal $ 1,580,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 80,000 Transportation $ 749,000 $ 875,000 $ (126,000) Storage $ 257,000 $ 195,000 $ 62,000 Total $ 6,700,000 $ 7,134,000 $ (434,000) Note: Cost numbers rounded to nearest thousand. Costs may not add due to rounding. 5.3.3 Sensitivity Analysis for the CSI Alternative Individual sensitivity and bounding analysis is conducted on the difference between the Subtitle D baseline and the CSI alternative for the following four parameters: monitor weight, monitor lifetime, storage costs, and percent of monitors that are color. The individual sensitivity analysis is conducted by changing one parameter at a time while holding all other parameters at their best estimate value. Exhibit 5­ 10 contains the upper and lower bounds and the best estimate values for the four parameters as well as the percent change of the lower and upper bounds from the best estimate. The upper and lower bounds were selected because they represent probable limits on the selected parameters. Exhibit 5­ 11 contains the model results for each individual change. Exhibit 5­ 12 plots the data in Exhibit 5­ 11 from the individual sensitivity analysis for the four parameters. The graph illustrates that the analysis is most sensitive to the monitor weight, monitor lifetime, and the percent of color monitors discarded. To determine a potential maximum upper bound on the savings, a combined sensitivity analysis is conducted using a monitor weight of 26 pounds, a monitor lifetime of 5.5 years, the percent of color monitors discarded of 75 percent, and storage cost of $15 per square foot. The savings under the combined sensitivity analysis is $5,000. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 72 Exhibit 5­ 10: Parameter Values for Individual Sensitivity Analysis Lower Bound % Change from Best Estimate Best Estimate Upper Bound % Change from Best Estimate Monitor Weight 30 lbs. ­14 % 35 lbs. 40 lbs. 14 % Monitor Life 2 years ­43 % 3.5 years 5 years 43 % Storage Cost $ 0 ­100 % $ 8.30 $ 15 81 % Percent Color 60 % ­33 % 90 % 99 % 10 % Exhibit 5­ 11: Individual Sensitivity Analysis Results Lower Bound Best Estimate Upper Bound Monitor Weight $ (315,000) $ (434,000) $ (568,000) Monitor Life $ (1,153,000) $ (434,000) $ (259,000) Storage Cost $ (496,000) $ (434,000) $ (383,000) Percent Color $ (223,000) $ (434,000) $ (509,000) Numbers rounded to nearest thousand. Sensitivity analysis is also conducted for disposal costs above and below the best estimate values. By changing the cost for disposal to a hazardous waste landfill to $800 and $1700 per ton for whole CRTs (from a best estimate of $1,500), and to $50 and $250 per ton for crushed CRTs (from a best estimate of $160), the savings ranged from $( 417,000) to $( 499,000). By changing the cost for disposal to a reclaimer to $150 and $500 per ton for whole CRTs (from a best estimate of $295), to $100 and $300 per ton for bare CRTs (from a best estimate of $207), and to $75 and $250 per ton for crushed CRTs (from a best estimate of $152), the savings ranged from $( 349,000) to $( 493,000). By changing the cost for disposal to a collector to $100 and $350 per ton (from a best estimate of $271), the savings ranged from $( 577,000) to $( 255,000). August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 73 ($ 1,200,000) ($ 1,100,000) ($ 1,000,000) ($ 900,000) ($ 800,000) ($ 700,000) ($ 600,000) ($ 500,000) ($ 400,000) ($ 300,000) ($ 200,000) ­150% ­100% ­50% 0% 50% 100% Percent Change from Best Estimate Total Cost Savings from Baseline ($) Monitor Weight Monitor Life Storage Cost Percent Color Exhibit 5­ 12: Plot of Individual Sensitivity Analysis Results for the CSI Alternative Note: Lines with relatively steeper slopes indicate greater sensitivity of the results to changes (or uncertainty) in the given parameters. 5.3.4 Incremental Cost Difference Between the Subtitle D Baseline and the CSI Alternative, Including Currently Unregulated Monitors and Televisions To help understand how the two regulatory alternatives might be affected by capacity issues, the total cost of compliance under the Subtitle D baseline and the CSI alternative is also calculated including CRTs from households and CESQGs. It is assumed that 20 million unregulated television CRTs are disposed and 16.7 million unregulated computer monitor CRTs are disposed from 48 The number of televisions disposed of is based on the assumption that there are 100 million households each with two televisions and that the TVs are discarded after ten years. The 20 million TVs discarded is also consistent with the number of televisions sold in 1991, which was 19.5 million. The number of computer monitor CRTs disposed of is based on data from the US Census, Survey of Computer Use, 1997, which estimates that 52 percent of households have computers. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 74 households and CESQGs. 48 Exhibit 5­ 13 summarizes the costs under the baseline and the CSI alternative by cost category. Exhibit 5­ 13: Costs of CSI Alternative Relative to Subtitle D Baseline, Including Unregulated Monitors and Televisions Cost Category Baseline Primary Alternative Saving (Cost) Administrative $ 269,000 $ 136,000 $ 133,000 Disposal Except Subtitle D $ 6,155,000 $ 6,934,000 $ (779,000) Subtitle D Disposal $ 3,007,000 $ 2,745,000 $ 262,000 Transportation $ 1,063,000 $ 1,224,000 $ (161,000) Storage $ 257,000 $ 195,000 $ 62,000 Total $ 10,751,000 $ 11,234,000 $ (483,000) The analysis estimates that 9,600 tons of CRT glass is sent to glass processors and that, of this, 9,400 tons of CRT glass is sent to CRT glass manufacturers. These quantities are below the capacity limits for glass processors and CRT glass manufacturers. As the CRT recycling infrastructure grows and additional unregulated CRTs are recycled, the capacities of both glass processors and glass manufacturers will be exceeded. This analysis does not attempt to predict when this might occur. 6.0 Economic Impacts This section presents the estimated first­ order economic impacts associated with the incremental cost savings from the primary and CSI alternatives over the Subtitle C management baseline using the cost to sales ratio. As noted in Section 3.10, the impacts analysis is likely to overstate economic impacts (whether costs or savings) because the sales data used in the analysis represent average values for each SIC code as a whole, whereas the estimated compliance costs arise only for the entities that are large enough to be considered an SQG or LQG in the baseline. Such entities are likely to have an average sales value higher than the average for the industry as a whole. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 75 Primary Alternative Exhibit 6­ 1 shows the impacts of the cost savings for original users that were baseline small quantity generators (SQGs). Their average savings is $606 per year, due primarily to reduced administrative requirements and transportation savings. The highest impact on SQGs is on the "Personal Services" sector (SIC code 72). Establishments in SIC code 72 have average annual sales of $219,582. The incremental cost savings represents 0.28 percent of the average annual sales. Establishments in all but one other SIC code have impacts of less than 0.17 percent of the average annual sales. Exhibit 6­ 2 presents the results for original users that were baseline large quantity generators (LQGs). Their average savings is $1,101 per year, due to reduced administrative requirements, and transportation and disposal costs. The LQGs under the baseline are in 25 SIC codes. The highest impact for LQHs is on the Retail Trade Administrative and Auxiliary category. The maximum incremental cost savings represents 0.30 percent of the average annual sales. Establishments in all other SIC codes have impacts of less than 0.23 percent of the average annual sales. Exhibit 6­ 1: Estimated Impact of Savings Under the Primary Alternative on Former SQGs that were Baseline SQGs Industry SIC Code Average Sales per Establishment Number of Baseline Potential SQGs Savings (Cost) Impact of Primary Alternative MINING Metal Mining 10 $9,642,717 24 0.01% Coal Mining 12 $8,841,349 21 0.01% Oil & Gas Extraction 13 $5,338,313 52 0.01% Non­ metallic minerals, except fuels 14 $2,338,749 5 0.03% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $1,545,768 37 0.04% CONSTRUCTION General contractors 15 $1,280,404 8 0.05% Heavy construction 16 $2,570,507 24 0.02% Special trade contractors 17 $590,600 5 0.10% MANUFACTURING Food & kindred products 20 $19,567,362 178 0.00% Tobacco products 21 $308,752,632 10 0.00% Textile mill products 22 $12,020,557 56 0.01% Apparel & other textile products 23 $3,103,014 9 0.02% Lumber & wood products 24 $2,277,901 3 0.03% Furniture & Fixtures 25 $3,759,298 30 0.02% Paper & allied products 26 $20,760,708 208 0.00% Industry SIC Code Average Sales per Establishment Number of Baseline Potential SQGs Savings (Cost) Impact of Primary Alternative August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 76 Printing & publishing 27 $2,540,878 328 0.02% Chemicals & allied products 28 $25,443,194 297 0.00% Petroleum and Coal Products 29 $70,728,296 44 0.00% Rubber & miscellaneous plastics products 30 $7,170,357 225 0.01% Leather & leather products 31 $4,751,863 5 0.01% Stone, clay, and glass products 32 $3,846,475 22 0.02% Primary metal industries 33 $21,271,651 72 0.00% Fabricated metal products 34 $4,571,413 62 0.01% Industrial machinery & equipment 35 $4,793,932 483 0.01% Electronic & other electronic equipment 36 $12,809,615 578 0.00% Transportation equipment 37 $35,374,262 459 0.00% Instrument & related products 38 $11,884,834 121 0.01% Miscellaneous manufacturing 39 $2,318,656 19 0.03% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $3,156,356 212 0.02% TRANSPORTATION Local & Interurban passenger transit 41 $ 710,436 7 0.09% Trucking & Warehousing 42 $1,296,519 98 0.05% Water transportation 44 $3,585,027 16 0.02% Transportation by Air 45 $2,338,134 78 0.03% Pipelines, except natural gases 46 $8,368,550 1 0.01% Communication 48 $5,877,769 303 0.01% Electronic, gas, & sanitary services 49 $15,510,062 255 0.00% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $1,766,775 43 0.03% WHOLESALE Wholesale trade­ durable goods 50 $5,084,711 168 0.01% Wholesale trade­ nondurable goods 51 $9,036,867 213 0.01% Bldg. Materials & garden supplies 52 $1,422,393 1 0.04% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $781,548 98 0.08% RETAIL TRADE General merchandise store 53 $7,089,224 28 0.01% Food stores 54 $2,044,651 2 0.03% Auto dealers & service station 55 $4,100,193 1 0.01% Apparel & accessory stores 56 $699,117 4 0.09% Furniture & home furnishing stores 57 $846,766 2 0.07% Eating & drinking places 58 $450,446 6 0.13% Miscellaneous retail 59 $607,995 31 0.10% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $370,918 96 0.16% Industry SIC Code Average Sales per Establishment Number of Baseline Potential SQGs Savings (Cost) Impact of Primary Alternative August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 77 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE Depository Institution 60 $5,091,211 339 0.01% Nondepository Institution 61 $3,432,819 87 0.02% Security & commodity brokers 62 $3,491,738 86 0.02% Insurance carriers 63 $20,422,940 482 0.00% Insurance agents, brokers, & servicers 64 $424,989 27 0.14% Real Estate 65 $617,331 74 0.10% Holding & other investment offices 67 $3,237,932 37 0.02% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $1,054,687 23 0.06% SERVICES Personal services 72 $219,582 6 0.28% Business services 73 $896,726 1,432 0.07% Auto repair, services, and parking 75 $407,237 1 0.15% Misc. repair services 76 $429,359 2 0.14% Motion picture 78 $1,040,439 15 0.06% Amusement & recreation services 79 $793,715 69 0.08% Health services 80 $677,073 3,177 0.09% Legal services 81 $641,030 52 0.09% Educational services 82 $491,509 580 0.12% Social services 83 $225,786 18 0.27% Museums, botanical, zoological gardens 84 $611,305 3 0.10% Membership organization 86 $500,857 83 0.12% Engineering & management service 87 $827,956 365 0.07% Services, n. e. c 89 $546,119 8 0.11% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $1,053,680 134 0.06% Exhibit 6­ 2: Estimated Impact of Savings Under the Primary Alternative on Former LQGs that were Baseline LQGs Industry SIC Code Average Sales per Establishment Number of Baseline Potential LQGs Savings (Cost) Impact of Primary Alternative MANUFACTURING Food and kindred products 20 $19,567,362 3 0.01% Tobacco products 21 $308,752,632 1 0.00% Chemicals & allied products 28 $25,443,194 4 0.01% Primary metal industries 33 $21,271,651 5 0.01% Industry SIC Code Average Sales per Establishment Number of Baseline Potential LQGs Savings (Cost) Impact of Primary Alternative August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 78 Industrial machinery & equipment 35 $4,793,932 7 0.02% Electronic & other electronic equipment 36 $12,809,615 12 0.01% Transportation equipment 37 $35,374,262 51 0.00% TRANSPORTATION Local & Interurban passenger transit 41 $710,436 1 0.16% Trucking & Warehousing 42 $1,296,519 12 0.08% Transportation by Air 45 $2,338,134 20 0.05% Communication 48 $5,877,769 11 0.02% Electronic, gas, & sanitary services 49 $15,510,062 4 0.01% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $1,766,775 5 0.06% WHOLESALE Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $781,548 1 0.14% RETAIL TRADE Food stores 54 $2,044,651 1 0.05% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $370,918 1 0.30% FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE Depository Institution 60 $5,091,211 18 0.02% Nondepository institution 61 $3,432,819 5 0.03% Security and commodity brokers 62 $3,491,738 5 0.03% Insurance carriers 63 $20,422,940 14 0.01% Holding and other investment offices 67 $3,237,932 3 0.03% SERVICES Business services 73 $896,726 22 0.12% Motion picture 78 $1,040,439 5 0.11% Amusement & recreation services 79 $793,715 3 0.14% Health services 80 $677,073 65 0.16% Educational services 82 $491,509 33 0.22% Membership organization 86 $500,857 6 0.22% Engineering & management service 87 $827,956 31 0.13% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $1,053,680 7 0.10% CSI Alternative Exhibit 6­ 3 shows the impacts of the cost savings for small quantity handlers (SQHs) that were baseline small quantity generators (SQGs). Their average savings is $498 per year, due primarily to reduced administrative requirements and transportation savings. The highest impact on SQGs is on the August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 79 "Personal Services" sector (SIC code 72). Establishments in SIC code 72 have average annual sales of $219,582. The incremental cost savings represents 0.23 percent of the average annual sales. Establishments in all but one other SIC codes have impacts of less than 0.14 percent of the average annual sales. Exhibit 6­ 4 presents the results for the small quantity handlers (SQHs) that were baseline large quantity generators (LQGs). Their average savings is $8,017 per year, due primarily to reduced administrative requirements and disposal costs. Fifteen percent of the LQGs under the baseline are assumed to continue following RCRA regulations because they send their waste to destinations other than glass processors. These establishments realize no cost savings under the CSI alternative. The former LQGs are regulated as SQHs under the CSI alternative, and are the main beneficiaries of the regulatory burden reduction. The model estimates that no large quantity handlers will exist under the CSI alternative. Thus, the baseline large quantity generators that become SQHs by sending discarded CRTs to processors under the CSI alternative realize the most cost savings. The LQGs under the baseline are in 25 SIC codes. The highest impact for LQHs is on the Retail Trade Administrative and Auxiliary category. The maximum incremental cost savings represents 2.16 percent of the average annual sales. Establishments in all other SIC codes have impacts of less than 1.64 percent of the average annual sales. Exhibit 6­ 3: Estimated Impact of Savings Under the CSI Alternative on Small Quantity Handlers that were Baseline SQGs Industry SIC Code Average Sales per Establishment Number of Baseline Potential SQGs Savings (Cost) Impact of Primary Alternative MINING Metal Mining 10 $9,642,717 24 0.01% Coal Mining 12 $8,841,349 21 0.01% Oil & Gas Extraction 13 $5,338,313 52 0.01% Non­ metallic minerals, except fuels 14 $2,338,749 5 0.02% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $1,545,768 37 0.03% CONSTRUCTION General contractors 15 $1,280,404 8 0.04% Heavy construction 16 $2,570,507 24 0.02% Special trade contractors 17 $590,600 5 0.08% MANUFACTURING Food & kindred products 20 $19,567,362 178 0.00% Tobacco products 21 $308,752,632 10 0.00% Textile mill products 22 $12,020,557 56 0.00% Apparel & other textile products 23 $3,103,014 9 0.02% Lumber & wood products 24 $2,277,901 3 0.02% Industry SIC Code Average Sales per Establishment Number of Baseline Potential SQGs Savings (Cost) Impact of Primary Alternative August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 80 Furniture & Fixtures 25 $3,759,298 30 0.01% Paper & allied products 26 $20,760,708 208 0.00% Printing & publishing 27 $2,540,878 328 0.02% Chemicals & allied products 28 $25,443,194 297 0.00% Petroleum and Coal Products 29 $70,728,296 44 0.00% Rubber & miscellaneous plastics products 30 $7,170,357 225 0.01% Leather & leather products 31 $4,751,863 5 0.01% Stone, clay, and glass products 32 $3,846,475 22 0.01% Primary metal industries 33 $21,271,651 72 0.00% Fabricated metal products 34 $4,571,413 62 0.01% Industrial machinery & equipment 35 $4,793,932 483 0.01% Electronic & other electronic equipment 36 $12,809,615 578 0.00% Transportation equipment 37 $35,374,262 459 0.00% Instrument & related products 38 $11,884,834 121 0.00% Miscellaneous manufacturing 39 $2,318,656 19 0.02% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $3,156,356 212 0.02% TRANSPORTATION Local & Interurban passenger transit 41 $ 710,436 7 0.07% Trucking & Warehousing 42 $1,296,519 98 0.04% Water transportation 44 $3,585,027 16 0.01% Transportation by Air 45 $2,338,134 78 0.02% Pipelines, except natural gases 46 $8,368,550 1 0.01% Communication 48 $5,877,769 303 0.01% Electronic, gas, & sanitary services 49 $15,510,062 255 0.00% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $1,766,775 43 0.03% WHOLESALE Wholesale trade­ durable goods 50 $5,084,711 168 0.01% Wholesale trade­ nondurable goods 51 $9,036,867 213 0.01% Bldg. Materials & garden supplies 52 $1,422,393 1 0.04% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $781,548 98 0.06% RETAIL TRADE General merchandise store 53 $7,089,224 28 0.01% Food stores 54 $2,044,651 2 0.02% Auto dealers & service station 55 $4,100,193 1 0.01% Apparel & accessory stores 56 $699,117 4 0.07% Furniture & home furnishing stores 57 $846,766 2 0.06% Eating & drinking places 58 $450,446 6 0.11% Industry SIC Code Average Sales per Establishment Number of Baseline Potential SQGs Savings (Cost) Impact of Primary Alternative August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 81 Miscellaneous retail 59 $607,995 31 0.08% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $370,918 96 0.13% FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE Depository Institution 60 $5,091,211 339 0.01% Nondepository Institution 61 $3,432,819 87 0.01% Security & commodity brokers 62 $3,491,738 86 0.01% Insurance carriers 63 $20,422,940 482 0.00% Insurance agents, brokers, & servicers 64 $424,989 27 0.12% Real Estate 65 $617,331 74 0.08% Holding & other investment offices 67 $3,237,932 37 0.02% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $1,054,687 23 0.05% SERVICES Personal services 72 $219,582 6 0.23% Business services 73 $896,726 1,432 0.06% Auto repair, services, and parking 75 $407,237 1 0.12% Misc. repair services 76 $429,359 2 0.12% Motion picture 78 $1,040,439 15 0.05% Amusement & recreation services 79 $793,715 69 0.06% Health services 80 $677,073 3,177 0.07% Legal services 81 $641,030 52 0.08% Educational services 82 $491,509 580 0.10% Social services 83 $225,786 18 0.22% Museums, botanical, zoological gardens 84 $611,305 3 0.08% Membership organization 86 $500,857 83 0.10% Engineering & management service 87 $827,956 365 0.06% Services, n. e. c 89 $546,119 8 0.09% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $1,053,680 134 0.05% Exhibit 6­ 4: Estimated Impact of Savings Under the CSI Alternative on Small Quantity Handlers that were Baseline LQGs Industry SIC Code Average Sales per Establishment Number of Baseline Potential LQGs Savings (Cost) Impact of Primary Alternative MANUFACTURING Food and kindred products 20 $19,567,362 3 0.04% Tobacco products 21 $308,752,632 1 0.00% Industry SIC Code Average Sales per Establishment Number of Baseline Potential LQGs Savings (Cost) Impact of Primary Alternative August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 82 Chemicals & allied products 28 $25,443,194 4 0.03% Primary metal industries 33 $21,271,651 5 0.04% Industrial machinery & equipment 35 $4,793,932 7 0.17% Electronic & other electronic equipment 36 $12,809,615 12 0.06% Transportation equipment 37 $35,374,262 51 0.02% TRANSPORTATION Local & Interurban passenger transit 41 $710,436 1 1.13% Trucking & Warehousing 42 $1,296,519 12 0.62% Transportation by Air 45 $2,338,134 20 0.34% Communication 48 $5,877,769 11 0.14% Electronic, gas, & sanitary services 49 $15,510,062 4 0.05% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $1,766,775 5 0.45% WHOLESALE Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $781,548 1 1.03% RETAIL TRADE Food stores 54 $2,044,651 1 0.39% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $370,918 1 2.16% FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE Depository Institution 60 $5,091,211 18 0.16% Nondepository institution 61 $3,432,819 5 0.23% Security and commodity brokers 62 $3,491,738 5 0.23% Insurance carriers 63 $20,422,940 14 0.04% Holding and other investment offices 67 $3,237,932 3 0.25% SERVICES Business services 73 $896,726 22 0.89% Motion picture 78 $1,040,439 5 0.77% Amusement & recreation services 79 $793,715 3 1.01% Health services 80 $677,073 65 1.18% Educational services 82 $491,509 33 1.63% Membership organization 86 $500,857 6 1.60% Engineering & management service 87 $827,956 31 0.97% Administrative & Auxiliary 1 $1,053,680 7 0.76% * The only LQGs under the CSI Alternative are those required to follow RCRA regulations because they send their waste to destinations other than Glass­ to­ Glass recyclers. Eighty­ five percent of the Baseline LQGs are regulated as SQHs under the proposed rule, the others remain RCRA LQGs and therefore realize no cost savings. 7.0 Qualitative Environmental Benefits August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 83 The shift of waste CRTs from landfills and incinerators to glass processors, and thus to CRT glass manufacturers, has four major potential qualitative environmental benefits. The four potential qualitative benefits are (1) increase in the availability of landfill space; (2) increase in resource efficiency; (3) increase in recycling by non­ regulated entities; and (4) reduction of lead emissions from incinerators. This section discusses these four qualitative environmental benefits. Landfill Capacity A qualitative benefit of both alternatives is the shift of CRTs from Subtitle C and D landfills to CRT glass processors. The analysis estimates that approximately 2,600 tons or 456,000 cubic feet of CRTs will be redirected away from landfills each year under the primary alternative. This additional space can be used for other waste. By not disposing of CRTs in Subtitle C and D landfills, the landfill capacity will not be reached as quickly and new landfills will not be needed as soon. This unused Subtitle C and D landfill capacity is seen as a minor qualitative benefit, because so few regulated CRTs currently are being sent to these landfills. Increase in Resource Efficiency The resources that could be used more efficiently under the two regulatory alternatives include energy, CRT glass, raw materials for glass manufacturing, and landfill space. The amount of energy required to turn discarded televisions and computer monitors into an input for CRT glass manufacturers may be less than the energy required to mine, process, and transport the raw materials for glass making. Discarded CRTs are a direct replacement for raw materials to glass manufacturing, thus reserving those raw materials for future use. Recycling by Non­ Regulated Entities The alternatives are designed to stimulate an increase in glass­ to­ glass CRT recycling in certain effected entities (i. e., firms that disposition a sufficient number of CRTs that they could potentially qualify as SQGs or LQGs). If the initiative is successful, the glass­ to­ glass recycling industry may develop and expand its operations. As CRT recycling infrastructure develops, it will become a more attractive option for smaller entities and for the general public. Thus, some additional entities may shift the management of their waste from Subtitle D landfills to glass recycling. This shift has the benefit of saving additional landfill space, and provides for more environmentally sound disposal of unregulated CRTs. The increased recycling infrastructure is already proving itself to be a valuable incentive for increased non­ regulated CRT recycling in states such as Massachusetts and Minnesota. Reduction of Lead Emissions Exposure to lead may result in health problems to adults and children. These effects include hypertension, stroke, cancer in adults and decreased IQ and gestational age, reduced birth weight, and other neurological effects in infants and children. By shifting disposal of CRTs from municipal waste incinerators, the total lead emitted from CRT incineration can be reduced. However, the benefits of 49 Macauley et al., 2001, page 51. 50 Macauley et al., 2001, page 45. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 84 reducing lead emissions from CRT incineration are reported to be small. 49 One report estimates that the value of the health effects due to a complete ban on incineration of any CRTs is on the order of $5 million. 50 8.0 Other Administrative Requirements This section describes the Agency's response to other rulemaking requirements established by statute and executive order, within the context of the proposed rule for CRTs. 8.1 Environmental Justice The EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income bears disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts as a result of the EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and that all people live in clean and sustainable communities. In response to Executive Order 12898 and to concerns voiced by many groups outside the Agency, the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response formed an Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of environmental justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop an overall strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER Directive No. 9200.3­ 17). Because CRTs are ubiquitous, it is not certain whether the environmental problems addressed by the proposed rule could disproportionately affect minority or low income communities. CRTs are used throughout the country and many are located within highly populated areas. Because the proposed rule establishes general environmental performance requirements to minimizes breakage, and helps prevent the release of glass particulates, the Agency does not believe that this rule will increase risks from CRT wastes. Moreover, the CSI alternative establishes an environmental justice procedure for new CRT processors. The procedure calls for new processors to advise the local community through notice and possibly public meeting regarding the nature of the activities conducted, including the potential for residential or worker exposure to lead or chemical coatings. It is, therefore, not expected to result in any disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low income communities relative to affluent or non­ minority communities. 51 An economically significant rule is defined by Executive Order 12866 as any rulemaking that has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affects in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health, or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 85 8.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA must prepare a statement to accompany any rule for which the estimated costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, will be $100 million or more in any one year. Under Section 205, the EPA must select the most cost­ effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly affected by the rule. An analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed rule was conducted and it was determined that this rule does not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate. The private sector also is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million per year in this EA. 8.3 Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, entitled "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" requires all economically significant rules 51 that concern an environmental health risk or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children to comply with requirements of the Executive Order. Because the EPA does not consider the proposed rule to be economically significant, it is not subject to Executive Order 13045. Because this rulemaking establishes general environmental performance requirements, minimizes breakage, and prevents of release of glass particulates, the EPA believes that the proposed rule will not result in increased exposures to children. For these reasons, the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action do not have a disproportionate effect on children. 8.4 Regulatory Flexibility The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act, 5 U. S. C. §§ 601­ 612, generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not­ for­ profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This proposed rule does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because today's proposed rule relieves regulatory burden for CRT handlers through reduced regulatory requirements. In addition, the Agency estimates that this proposed rule August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 86 leads to an overall cost savings in the range of $4 to 5 million annually. Accordingly, EPA believes that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 9.0 Discussion of Findings and Summary The main conclusion of this analysis is that both the overall savings and the savings for individual establishments are small, and that the results are sensitive to a few key parameters (CRT life in businesses, the average weight of CRTs, storage costs, and the percent of color monitors discarded). A second conclusion is that both the glass processing and CRT glass manufacturer capacities are adequate to handle all regulated CRTs. However, if a new rule induces significantly more unregulated CRTs to be recycled than is modeled in this analysis, then both the glass processing and CRT glass manufacturer capacities may become inadequate to handle this larger volume of CRT glass. The primary alternative, as modeled in this analysis, is expected to impact approximately 2,900 establishments in 66 different two­ digit SIC codes. Under the Subtitle C baseline the proposed rule will lead to total savings of approximately $4,840,000 for current generators that elect not to send their discarded CRTs for disposal. These savings are due primarily to reduced administrative, disposal, and transportation costs. Under the Subtitle D baseline the proposed rule will lead to a total savings of approximately $106,000, due to reduced administrative and transportation costs. The CSI alternative, as modeled in this analysis, is expected to impact approximately 2,500 establishments in 66 different two­ digit SIC codes. Under the Subtitle C baseline the proposed rule will lead to total savings of approximately $3,098,000 for current generators that elect not to send their discarded CRTs for disposal. These savings are due primarily to reduced administrative, disposal, and transportation costs. Under the Subtitle D baseline the proposed rule will lead to a total savings of approximately $434,000, due to reduced administrative and transportation costs. Relative to the Subtitle C baseline, the economic impacts on the entities in the regulated community are expected to be negligible because the rule provides savings for all entities managing CRTs. A significant benefit of the proposed rule is the possible increase in glass­ to­ glass recycling by the non­ regulated community. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page 87 Appendices Appendix A: Number of Establishments and the Number of Employees for all Two­ Digit SIC Codes Appendix B: Ratios of Computers per Employee Calculated for Each SIC Code Appendix C: Disposal Cost Source Details Appendix D: Flow of CRTs in Both Number and Tons Appendix E: Average Shipment Sizes for Each Type of Establishment Distributing CRTs to Each CRT Management Option Appendix F: Revenues per Establishment for All Two­ Digit SIC Codes Appendix G: List of Parameters to Which the Analysis Results are Relatively Insensitive Appendix H: Telephone Contacts Appendix I: Bibliography August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page A­ 1 Appendix A Total Employees, Establishments, and Number of Establishments by Number of Employees, and by 2­ Digit SIC Code Industry SIC code Total Employees Total Est. Number of Establishments per Employee Size Range 250 to 499 500 to 999 1,000 to 1,499 1,500 to 2,499 2,500 to 4,999 5,000 or more AGRICULTURE Agricultural services 7 595,842 103,543 51 18 4 1 Forestry 8 20,488 2,512 4 1 1 Fishing, hunting, trapping 9 11,871 2,236 5 0 1 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ 0 62 2 0 MINING Metal Mining 10 48,105 921 20 16 5 3 Coal Mining 12 104,204 2,294 82 21 Oil & Gas Extraction 13 295,990 17,513 87 37 10 5 Non­ metallic minerals, except fuels 14 99,182 5,572 18 3 2 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ 80,002 1,056 48 29 6 1 1 CONSTRUCTION General contractors 15 1,222,061 190,316 141 49 10 5 2 1 Heavy construction 16 707,811 34,168 174 60 13 11 8 5 Special trade contractors 17 3,091,307 409,114 325 66 9 5 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ 17,660 402 11 3 MANUFACTURING Food & kindred products 20 1,525,070 21,285 872 408 118 50 10 3 Tobacco products 21 30,411 112 16 4 1 5 1 Textile mill products 22 624,005 6,452 492 200 38 11 7 Apparel & other textile products 23 910,919 24,216 513 186 19 7 2 Lumber & wood products 24 730,144 37,601 254 50 9 1 3 Furniture & Fixtures 25 505,956 11,611 291 113 16 9 4 1 Paper & allied products 26 634,737 6,552 305 153 40 15 Printing & publishing 27 1,505,794 64,690 531 200 78 37 13 Chemicals & allied products 28 826,839 12,328 352 190 58 35 14 4 Petroleum and coal products 29 111,369 2,042 53 26 12 6 Rubber & miscellaneous plastics products 30 1,001,010 16,611 526 169 26 26 4 Leather & leather products 31 95,151 1,957 68 23 3 2 Stone, clay, and glass products 32 491,795 16,214 190 75 16 6 Primary metal industries 33 684,703 6,768 365 165 34 21 17 5 Fabricated metal products 34 1,450,089 36,314 606 192 34 18 10 Industry SIC code Total Employees Total Est. Number of Establishments per Employee Size Range 250 to 499 500 to 999 1,000 to 1,499 1,500 to 2,499 2,500 to 4,999 5,000 or more August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page A­ 2 Industrial machinery & equipment 35 1,883,431 55,476 686 338 74 46 25 7 Electronic & other electronic equipment 36 1,503,923 17,058 775 373 101 67 37 12 Transportation equipment 37 1,543,731 11,256 463 255 75 62 67 51 Instrument & related products 38 832,706 11,378 361 177 55 33 23 10 Miscellaneous manufacturing 39 394,287 17,899 153 57 11 7 1 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ 1,326,527 12,105 560 315 104 64 32 12 TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC UTILITIES Local & Interurban passenger transit 41 403,025 18,900 101 22 4 2 1 1 Trucking & Warehousing 42 1,808,949 124,190 306 150 30 12 56 12 Water transportation 44 164,920 8,707 45 31 13 2 1 Transportation by Air 45 715,137 12,076 150 78 32 27 19 20 Pipelines, except natural gases 46 16,395 1,091 4 0 1 Transportation services 47 391,340 50,172 50 17 Communication 48 1,340,061 44,713 563 224 51 28 7 4 Electronic, gas, & sanitary services 49 908,820 22,455 340 152 57 35 11 4 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ 175,605 2,682 57 30 6 3 4 5 WHOLESALE Wholesale trade­ durable goods 50 3,683,301 327,640 488 135 19 13 1 Wholesale tradenondurable goods 51 2,582,397 184,384 550 146 39 15 13 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ 340,488 5,713 177 69 15 11 3 1 RETAIL TRADE Bldg. Materials & garden supplies 52 739,615 64,436 35 1 General merchandise store 53 2,290,572 36,216 1,541 217 14 13 1 Food stores 54 3,188,462 181,870 452 51 2 1 Auto dealers & service station 55 2,189,767 199,791 79 5 1 Apparel & accessory stores 56 1,147,856 135,270 37 44 4 Furniture & home furnishing stores 57 859,460 116,727 36 5 2 Eating & drinking places 58 7,208,158 456,732 209 46 4 2 Miscellaneous retail 59 2,610,918 360,787 110 53 16 8 7 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ 849,766 16,055 433 254 65 19 12 1 Industry SIC code Total Employees Total Est. Number of Establishments per Employee Size Range 250 to 499 500 to 999 1,000 to 1,499 1,500 to 2,499 2,500 to 4,999 5,000 or more August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page A­ 3 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE Depository Institution 60 2,079,264 104,666 491 223 68 48 13 5 Nondepository Institution 61 489,804 45,408 136 62 15 10 5 Security & commodity brokers 62 522,895 40,961 115 63 14 9 5 Insurance carriers 63 1,502,920 41,330 594 287 93 80 22 14 Insurance agents, brokers, & servicers 64 676,602 125,361 70 20 2 5 Real Estate 65 1,402,828 246,119 212 64 8 1 1 Holding & other investment offices 67 255,044 23,202 71 27 5 5 3 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ 68,799 1,452 50 18 3 2 SERVICES Hotels & other lodging places 70 1,575,077 54,130 669 261 66 35 30 4 Personal services 72 1,281,898 202,349 156 12 3 2 1 Business services 73 6,824,962 352,658 2,651 1,031 217 123 61 22 Auto repair, services, & parking 75 990,658 181,336 62 18 1 Misc. repair services 76 456,425 73,562 33 5 2 Motion picture 78 511,651 42,946 40 17 5 5 5 5 Amusement & recreation services 79 1,324,194 93,500 242 107 42 19 8 3 Health services 80 10,851,331 478,286 2,528 1,525 731 611 310 65 Legal services 81 960,693 163,554 167 49 2 1 Educational services 82 2,066,531 46,224 521 323 140 80 37 33 Social services 83 2,263,314 155,846 475 97 12 6 Museums, botanical, zoological gardens 84 76,079 3,790 40 7 1 1 1 Membership organization 86 2,151,350 243,592 274 61 15 7 3 3 Engineering & management service 87 2,795,304 269,243 673 255 50 60 21 10 Service 89 100,472 14,877 14 6 1 1 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ 477,226 9,639 221 92 31 11 4 3 Unclassified ­ 105,336 68,916 1 Note: (D) Data withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual companies: data included in broader industry totals. Source: US Bureau of Census, County Business Patterns 1995. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page B­ 1 Appendix B Computer Use By Employees SIC Category Number of Survey Respondents Employed Respondents Using a Computer at Work Computer Use per Employee in 1993 Estimated Computer Use per Employee in 2001 All industries 118,400 51,106 0.43 0.56 Agriculture services 968 160 0.17 0.24 Other agriculture 2006 219 0.11 0.16 Mining 689 307 0.45 0.46 Construction 7,567 1,182 0.16 0.25 Lumber and wood 841 114 0.14 0.17 Furniture 665 161 0.24 0.30 Stone, clay 568 165 0.29 0.36 Primary metals 653 217 0.33 0.42 Fabricated metals 1,290 442 0.34 0.43 Machinery, excluding electric 2,238 1,233 0.55 0.69 Electrical machinery 1,689 950 0.56 0.70 Motor vehicles 1,120 428 0.38 0.48 Aircraft and parts 502 335 0.67 0.84 Other transportation 624 376 0.60 0.75 Professional photo equipment 680 406 0.60 0.75 Toys, sporting goods 128 44 0.34 0.43 Miscellaneous manufacturing 437 100 0.23 0.29 Food and kindred products 1,776 532 0.30 0.37 Tobacco manufacturing 52 25 0.48 0.60 Textile mill products 664 177 0.27 0.33 Apparel & other finished goods 970 143 0.15 0.18 Paper and allied products 740 339 0.46 0.57 Printing, publishing 1,705 857 0.50 0.63 Chemicals and allied products 1,220 729 0.60 0.75 Petroleum, coal 145 88 0.61 0.76 Rubber and plastics 791 293 0.37 0.46 Leather and leather products 107 24 0.22 0.28 Transportation 5,410 1,866 0.34 0.42 Communications 1,637 1,283 0.78 0.96 Utilities & sanitary 1,501 807 0.54 0.66 Wholesale trade 4,531 2,226 0.49 0.66 Retail trade 18,706 5,837 0.31 0.42 Banking and finance 3,417 2,888 0.85 0.99 Insurance & real estate 4,561 3,094 0.68 0.79 Private household services 1,099 16 0.01 0.02 Business services 5,038 2,646 0.53 0.75 SIC Category Number of Survey Respondents Employed Respondents Using a Computer at Work Computer Use per Employee in 1993 Estimated Computer Use per Employee in 2001 August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page B­ 2 Repair services 1,915 382 0.20 0.28 Personal services 3,220 662 0.21 0.29 Entertainment, recreation 1,735 538 0.31 0.44 Hospitals 5,182 3,105 0.60 0.85 Health services, excluding hospitals 5,377 1,963 0.37 0.52 Education services 9,845 5,066 0.51 0.73 Social services 2,721 753 0.28 0.39 Other professional 5,578 3,735 0.67 0.95 Forestry, fisheries 166 56 0.34 0.48 Justice, public order 2,179 1,324 0.61 0.69 Administration human resource 834 632 0.76 0.86 National security 802 597 0.74 0.85 Other public administration 2,112 1,584 0.75 0.85 Sources: 1993 Census Data, Table 7WK Uses of Computers at work, by Sex and Intermediate Industry, in "Computer Use in the United States: October 1993." and Table D Use of Computers at Work by People 18 Years and Older by Gender: October 1997, "Computer Use in the United States: October 1997." August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page C­ 1 Appendix C Disposal Cost Source Details Disposal Option Source Source Cost per Ton Year of cost estimate Cost (Price Paid) per Ton (2001$) Collectors 1 $ 240 1998 2 $ 400 2001 3 $ 0 2001 4 $ 383 1997 Average $ 250 1998 $ 271 Export 4 $ 100 1999 $ 107 Reuse None $ 0 2001 $ 0 Treatment and Subtitle C or D Landfill Disposal Whole CRTs 5 $ 1,196 1998 6 $1,300 2001 7 $ 1,500 2001 Value used in analysis $ 1,500 2001 $ 1,500 Crushed CRTs 7 $ 160 2001 8 $ 100 2000 9 $ 125 2000 Value used in analysis $ 160 2001 $ 160 Subtitle D Landfill Disposal 8 $ 40 2000 $ 41 Reclaimer 4 $ 667 1997 8 $ 200 2000 8 $ 420 2000 10 $ 200 1998 Disposal Option Source Source Cost per Ton Year of cost estimate Cost (Price Paid) per Ton (2001$) August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page C­ 2 10 $ 350 1998 11 $ 140 1998 12 $ 200 1997 12 $ 500 1997 13 $ 200 1997 13 $ 300 1997 14 $ 200 1998 Whole CRTs ­ Average $ 284 2000 $ 295 Whole bare CRTs ­ Average $ 200 2000 $ 207 Crushed CRTs ­ Average $ 140 1998 $ 152 Glass Processor Broken CRTs with no metal 15,16 $ 0 2001 $ 0 Broken CRTs with metal $ 100 2001 $ 100 Whole bare CRTs $ 192 2001 $ 192 Broken mixed color and monochrome CRTs $ 325 2001 $ 325 Whole CRTs $ 333 2001 $ 333 CRT Glass Manufacturer 15 ($ 175) 2001 ($ 175) August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page C­ 3 Source Number Source Title 1 DMC Recycling Inc, 1998. 2 F& M Bay Electronics Co. Inc./ SEER Inc., 2001. 3 WasteNot Recycling, 2001. 4 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1. Analysis of Five Community Consumer/ Residential Collections, End­ of­ Life Electronic and Electrical Equipment. EPA­ 901­ R­ 98­ 003, April 1999. 5 Personal communications with Chem Waste Management, 1998. 6 Personal communications with Clean Harbors of Braintree, 2001. 7 Personal communications with Envirosafe Services of Ohio, 2001. 8 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Economics, Methods and Risk Analysis Division. Unit Cost Compendium. September 30, 2000. 9 ETC's landfill cost survey, 2000. 10 Personal communications with Noranda, 1998. 11 Personal communications with Doe Run, 1998. 12 Aanstoos, T., Mizuki, C., Nichols, S., and Pitts, G. CRT Disposition: An Assessment of Limitations and Opportunities in Reuses, Refurbishment, and Recycling in the U. S., IEEE International Symposium on Electronics & the Environment, 1997. 13 Cutter Information Corp. 's "Product Stewardship Advisor" Vol. I, No. 4, 1997. 14 National Safety Council, Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report, Recycling of Selected Electronic Products in the United States. May 1999. 15 Personal communications with Greg Voorhees of Envirocycle, 2001. 16 Price list from Envirocycle, 2001. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page D­ 1 Appendix D Flow of CRTs under Subtitle C (Number) Total Number of CRTs To Collector To Reuse To MSW Landfill (Subtitle D) To HW Landfill (Subtitle C) To Reclaimer To Glass Processor To Exporter To CRT Manufacturer Baseline Original Users SQGs CRT only 2,036,512 1,547,749 40,730 40,730 305,477 101,826 SQGs all HW 105,753 79,315 26,438 LQGs CRT only 453,584 344,724 9,072 9,072 68,038 22,679 LQGs all HW 45,517 34,138 11,379 Collectors SQGs 167,160 33,432 3,343 38,447 41,790 50,148 LQGs 1,838,765 367,753 183,877 183,877 551,630 551,630 Glass Processor Funnel glass 245,826 4,917 240,910 Panel glass 472,098 9,442 462,656 All CRTs 2,005,925 450,987 0 274,839 610,196 717,924 601,778 703,566 Primary Alternative Original Users SQGs CRT only 40,727 40,727 SQGs all HW 2,129 2,129 LQGs CRT only 8,919 8,919 LQGs all HW 920 920 Former SQG ­ CRT only 1,995,785 1,556,712 39,916 299,368 99,789 Former SQG ­ all HW 103,624 80,827 2,072 15,544 5,181 Total Number of CRTs To Collector To Reuse To MSW Landfill (Subtitle D) To HW Landfill (Subtitle C) To Reclaimer To Glass Processor To Exporter To CRT Manufacturer August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page D­ 2 Former LQG ­ CRT only 444,665 346,839 8,893 66,700 22,233 Former LQG ­ all HW 44,597 34,786 892 6,690 2,230 Collectors SQGs 3,365 673 67 774 841 1,010 LQGs 37,018 7,404 740 5,553 16,658 6,663 Former SQG 164,898 32,980 41,225 41,225 49,470 Former LQG 1,813,882 362,776 308,360 816,247 326,499 Glass Processor Funnel glass 343,921 6,878 337,042 Panel glass 660,484 13,210 647,274 All CRTs 2,019,164 455,606 0 53,502 764,300 1,004,405 383,641 984,317 CSI Alternative Original Users SQGs CRT only 305,535 45,830 259,705 SQGs all HW 15,843 2,376 13,467 LQGs CRT only 67,528 10,129 57,399 LQGs all HW 6,845 1,027 5,819 Collectors SQGs 164,678 32,936 3,294 37,876 41,170 49,404 LQGs 1,811,462 362,292 36,229 235,490 815,158 362,292 Glass Processor Funnel glass 370,110 7,402 362,708 Panel glass 710,779 14,216 696,563 CSI Handlers CSI SQHs 2,245,614 1,976,140 44,912 224,561 Total Number of CRTs To Collector To Reuse To MSW Landfill (Subtitle D) To HW Landfill (Subtitle C) To Reclaimer To Glass Processor To Exporter To CRT Manufacturer August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page D­ 3 CSQ LQHs All CRTs 1,976,140 440,140 0 98,886 631,373 1,080,889 411,696 1,059,271 Flow of CRTs under Subtitle C (Tons) Total Tons of CRTs To Collector To Reuse To MSW Landfill (Subtitle D) To HW Landfill (Subtitle C) To Reclaimer To Glass Processor To Exporter To CRT Manufacturer Baseline Original Users SQGs CRT only 35,639 27,086 713 713 5,346 1,782 SQGs all HW 1,851 1,388 463 LQGs CRT only 7,938 6,033 159 159 1,191 397 LQGs all HW 797 597 199 Collectors SQGs 2,925 585 35 404 439 878 LQGs 32,178 6,436 1,931 1,931 5,792 9,654 Glass Processor Funnel glass 2,581 52 2,530 Panel glass 4,957 99 4,858 All CRTs 35,104 7,892 3,499 9,022 7,538 10,531 7,387 Primary Alternative Original Users SQGs CRT only 713 713 SQGs all HW 37 37 LQGs CRT only 156 156 LQGs all HW 16 16 Total Tons of CRTs To Collector To Reuse To MSW Landfill (Subtitle D) To HW Landfill (Subtitle C) To Reclaimer To Glass Processor To Exporter To CRT Manufacturer August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page D­ 4 Former SQG ­ CRT only 34,926 27,242 699 5,239 1,746 Former SQG ­ all HW 1,813 1,414 36 272 91 Former LQG ­ CRT only 7,782 6,070 156 1,167 389 Former LQG ­ all HW 780 609 16 117 39 Collectors SQHs 59 12 1 8 9 18 LQHs 648 130 8 58 175 117 Former SQH 2,886 577 433 433 866 Former LQH 31,743 6,349 3,238 8,571 5,714 Glass Processor Funnel glass 3,611 72 3,539 Panel glass 6,935 139 6,796 All CRTs 35,335 7,973 931 10,743 10,546 6,714 10,335 CSI Alternative Original Users SQGs CRT only 5,347 802 4,545 SQGs all HW 277 42 236 LQGs CRT only 1,182 177 1,004 LQGs all HW 120 18 102 Collectors SQHs 2,882 576 35 398 432 865 LQHs 31,701 6,340 380 2,473 8,559 6,340 Glass Processor Total Tons of CRTs To Collector To Reuse To MSW Landfill (Subtitle D) To HW Landfill (Subtitle C) To Reclaimer To Glass Processor To Exporter To CRT Manufacturer August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page D­ 5 Funnel glass 3,886 78 3,808 Panel glass 7,463 149 7,314 CSI Handlers CSI SQHs 39,298 34,582 786 3,930 CSQ LQHs All CRTs 34,582 7,702 0 1,454 8,984 11,349 7,205 11,122 Bolded entries include the weight of the CRT glass only. Non­ bolded entries include the weight of the entire monitor. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page D­ 6 Flow of CRTs under Subtitle D (Number) Total Number of CRTs To Collector To Reuse To MSW Landfill (Subtitle D) To HW Landfill (Subtitle C) To Reclaimer To Glass Processor To Exporter To CRT Manufacturer Baseline Original Users SQGs CRT only 2,036,512 122,191 40,730 1,629,210 40,730 101,826 101,826 SQGs all HW 105,753 10,575 84,602 10,575 LQGs CRT only 453,584 27,215 9,072 362,867 9,072 22,679 22,679 LQGs all HW 45,517 4,552 36,414 4,552 Collectors SQGs 13,711 2,742 6,856 686 686 2,742 LQGs 150,822 30,164 64,853 3,016 7,541 15,082 30,164 Glass Processor Funnel glass 48,031 961 47,070 Panel glass 92,241 1,845 90,397 All CRTs 164,533 82,708 2,184,802 67,945 135,537 140,273 32,907 137,467 PrimaryAlternative Original Users SQGs CRT only 40,727 40,727 SQGs all HW 2,129 2,129 LQGs CRT only 8,919 8,919 LQGs all HW 920 920 Former SQG CRT only 1,995,785 199,579 39,916 1,496,839 139,705 119,747 Former SQG ­HW 103,624 10,362 2,072 77,718 7,254 6,217 Former LQG­ CRT only 444,665 44,467 8,893 333,499 31,127 26,680 Total Number of CRTs To Collector To Reuse To MSW Landfill (Subtitle D) To HW Landfill (Subtitle C) To Reclaimer To Glass Processor To Exporter To CRT Manufacturer August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page D­ 7 Former LQG ­HW 44,597 4,460 892 33,448 3,122 2,676 Collectors SQGs 431 86 173 9 56 43 65 LQGs 4,746 949 1,898 95 380 712 712 Former SQG 21,141 4,228 8,456 3,171 2,114 3,171 Former LQG 232,549 46,510 93,020 23,255 34,882 34,882 Glass Processor Funnel glass 66,110 1,322 64,788 Panel glass 126,962 2,539 124,422 All CRTs 39,031 17,564 405,924 9,793 29,046 30,086 5,855 29,485 CSIAlternative Original Users SQGs CRT only 305,535 183,321 45,830 76,384 SQGs all HW 15,843 9,506 2,376 3,961 LQGs CRT only 67,528 40,517 10,129 16,882 LQGs all HW 6,845 4,107 1,027 1,711 Collectors SQGs 18,713 3,743 7,111 374 1,871 1,871 3,743 LQGs 205,848 41,170 78,222 4,117 10,292 30,877 41,170 Glass Processor Funnel glass 88,106 1,762 86,344 Panel glass 169,204 3,384 165,820 CSI Handlers CSI SQHs 2,245,614 224,561 44,912 1,751,579 224,561 CSI LQHs All CRTs 258,867 103,547 2,045,051 52,798 211,930 193,072 38,830 189,210 August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page D­ 8 Flow of CRTs under Subtitle D (Tons) Total Tons of CRTs To Collector To Reuse To MSW Landfill (Subtitle D) To HW Landfill (Subtitle C) To Reclaimer To Glass Processor To Exporter To CRT Manufacturer Baseline Original Users SQGs CRT only 35,639 2,138 713 28,511 713 1,782 1,782 SQGs all HW 1,851 185 1,481 185 LQGs CRT only 7,938 476 159 6,350 159 397 397 LQGs all HW 797 80 637 80 Collectors SQGs 240 48 120 0 7 7 48 LQGs 2,639 528 1,135 32 79 158 528 Glass Processor Funnel glass 504 10 494 Panel glass 969 19 949 All CRTs 2,879 1,447 38,234 1,168 2,295 1,473 576 1,443 PrimaryAlternative Original Users SQGs CRT only 713 713 SQGs all HW 37 37 LQGs CRT only 156 156 LQGs all HW 16 16 Former SQG CRT only 34,926 3,493 699 26,195 2,445 2,096 Former SQG HW 1,813 181 36 1,360 127 109 Former LQGCRT only 7,782 778 156 5,836 545 467 Former LQG HW 780 78 16 585 55 47 Total Tons of CRTs To Collector To Reuse To MSW Landfill (Subtitle D) To HW Landfill (Subtitle C) To Reclaimer To Glass Processor To Exporter To CRT Manufacturer August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page D­ 9 Collectors SQHs 8 2 3 0 1 0 1 LQHs 83 17 33 1 4 7 12 Former SQH 370 74 148 33 22 55 Former LQH 4,070 814 1,628 244 366 610 Glass Processor Funnel glass 694 14 680 Panel glass 1,333 27 1,306 All CRTs 4,530 1,812 35,788 923 3,494 2,027 680 1,987 CSI Alternative Original User SQGs CRT only 5,347 3,208 802 1,337 SQGs all HW 277 166 42 69 LQGs CRT only 1,182 709 177 295 LQGs all HW 120 72 18 30 Collectors SQGs 327 65 124 4 20 20 65 LQGs 3,602 720 1,369 43 108 324 720 Glass Processor Funnel glass 925 19 907 Panel glass 1,777 36 1,741 CSI Handlers CSI SQHs 39,298 3,930 786 30,653 3,930 CSI LQHs All CRTs 3,930 1,572 36,301 1,086 1,913 2,702 786 2,648 Bolded entries include the weight of the CRT glass only. Non­ bolded entries include the weight of the entire monitor. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page E­ 1 Appendix E Average Shipment Sizes for Each Type of Establishment Distributing CRTs to Each CRT Management Option To Collector To Reuse To HW (Subtitle C) To Reclaimer To Glass Processor To Exporter To CRT Manufacturer Baseline ­ Subtitle C SQGs CRT only 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 SQGs all HW 0.4 ­ 0.4 ­ ­ LQGs CRT only 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.1 LQGs all HW 0.2 ­ 0.2 ­ ­ SQHs 11.8 7.1 7.4 7.4 11.8 LQHs 13.0 8.1 8.1 8.1 13.0 Glass Processor ­ Funnel 9.3 13.2 Glass Processor ­ Panel 13.4 13.6 Primary Alternative ­ Subtitle C SQGs CRT only ­ ­ 1.4 ­ ­ SQGs all HW ­ ­ 0.4 ­ ­ LQGs CRT only ­ ­ 5.2 ­ ­ LQGs all HW ­ ­ 0.2 ­ ­ SQHs 9.5 0.6 6.6 7.1 7.1 LQHs 13.1 6.3 7.8 7.8 11.8 Glass Processor ­ Funnel 12.7 13.5 Glass Processor ­ Panel 12.2 13.8 Former SQG ­ CRT only PA 2.8 2.8 ­ 2.8 2.8 Former SQG ­ HW PA 0.8 0.8 ­ 0.8 0.8 Former LQG ­ CRT only PA 20.7 19.8 ­ 20.7 19.8 Former LQG ­ HW PA 0.8 0.7 ­ 0.8 0.8 Former SQH 11.6 ­ 7.4 7.4 11.8 Former LQH 21.9 ­ 13.7 13.8 21.9 CSI Alternative ­ Subtitle C SQGs CRT only ­ ­ 1.4 1.4 ­ SQGs all HW ­ ­ 0.4 0.4 ­ LQGs CRT only ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ LQGs all HW ­ ­ 0.6 0.6 ­ SQHs 11.6 7.0 7.3 7.3 11.6 LQHs 12.8 7.9 8.0 8.0 12.8 Glass Processor ­ Funnel 13.2 13.6 Glass Processor ­ Panel 12.7 13.6 CSI SQHs ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ CSI LQHs ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ Number of Shipments each Year Under Subtitle C August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page E­ 2 Collectors Reuse Subtitle C Disposal Reclaimers Glass Processors Exporters CRT Glass Manufacturers Totals Baseline Original Users SQGs CRT only 15,526 409 409 3,065 1,022 20,431 SQGs all HW 3,342 1,114 4,456 LQGs CRT only 888 24 24 176 59 1,171 LQGs all HW 2,763 921 3,684 Collectors SQGs 40 4 44 48 60 196 LQGs 400 192 192 574 600 1,958 Glass Processors Funnel glass 2 94 96 Panel glass 4 172 176 Primary Alternative Original Users SQGs CRT only 408 408 SQGs all HW 90 90 LQGs CRT only 24 24 LQGs all HW 72 72 Former SQG CRT only 15,616 401 3,003 1,001 20,021 Former SQG ­all HW 1,703 44 328 110 2,185 Former LQG CRT only 2,454 63 472 158 3,147 Former LQG ­all HW 705 19 136 46 906 Collectors SQGs 1 1 1 1 2 6 LQGs 8 1 6 18 8 41 Former SQGs 40 47 47 59 193 Former LQGs 294 211 633 294 1,432 Glass Processors Funnel glass 3 128 131 Panel glass 5 241 246 CSI Alternative Collectors Reuse Subtitle C Disposal Reclaimers Glass Processors Exporters CRT Glass Manufacturers Totals August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page E­ 3 Original Users SQGs CRT only 460 2,605 3,065 SQGs all HW 101 568 669 LQGs CRT only 27 150 177 LQGs all HW 83 470 553 Collectors SQHs 40 4 44 48 60 196 LQHs 400 39 287 861 360 1,947 Glass Processors Funnel glass 3 138 141 Panel glass 6 260 266 CSI Handlers CSI SQHs 30,643 697 3,483 34,823 CSI LQHs August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page F­ 1 Appendix F Average Annual Sales per Establishment by 2­ Digit SIC Code Industry SIC Code Average Sales per Establishment ($) AGRICULTURE Agricultural services 7 $ ­ Forestry 8 $ ­ Fishing, hunting, trapping 9 $ ­ Administrative & Auxiliary MINING Metal Mining 10 $ 9,642,717 Coal Mining 12 $ 8,841,349 Oil & Gas Extraction 13 $ 5,338,313 Non­ metallic minerals, except fuels 14 $ 2,338,749 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ $ 1,545,768 CONSTRUCTION General contractors 15 $ 1,280,404 Heavy construction 16 $ 2,570,507 Special trade contractors 17 $ 590,600 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ $ 2,207,600 MANUFACTURING Food & kindred products 20 $ 19,567,362 Tobacco products 21 $ 308,752,632 Textile mill products 22 $ 12,020,557 Apparel & other textile products 23 $ 3,103,014 Lumber & wood products 24 $ 2,277,901 Furniture & Fixtures 25 $ 3,759,298 Paper & allied products 26 $ 20,760,708 Printing & publishing 27 $ 2,540,878 Chemicals & allied products 28 $ 25,443,194 Petroleum and coal products 29 $ 70,728,296 Rubber & miscellaneous plastics products 30 $ 7,170,357 Leather & leather products 31 $ 4,751,863 Stone, clay, and glass products 32 $ 3,846,475 Primary metal industries 33 $ 21,271,651 Fabricated metal products 34 $ 4,571,413 Industrial machinery & equipment 35 $ 4,793,932 Electronic & other electronic equipment 36 $ 12,809,615 Industry SIC Code Average Sales per Establishment ($) August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page F­ 2 Transportation equipment 37 $ 35,374,262 Instrument & related products 38 $ 11,884,834 Miscellaneous manufacturing 39 $ 2,318,656 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ $ 3,156,356 TRANSPORTATION Local & Interurban passenger transit 41 $ 710,436 Trucking & Warehousing 42 $ 1,296,519 Water transportation 44 $ 3,585,027 Transportation by Air 45 $ 2,338,134 Pipelines, except natural gases 46 $ 8,368,550 Transportation services 47 $ 512,735 Communication 48 $ 5,877,769 Electronic, gas, & sanitary services 49 $ 15,510,062 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ $ 1,766,775 WHOLESALE TRADE Wholesale trade­ durable goods 50 $ 5,084,711 Wholesale trade­ nondurable goods 51 $ 9,036,867 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ $ 781,548 RETAIL TRADE Bldg. Materials & garden supplies 52 $ 1,422,393 General merchandise store 53 $ 7,089,224 Food stores 54 $ 2,044,651 Auto dealers & service station 55 $ 4,100,193 Apparel & accessory stores 56 $ 699,117 Furniture & home furnishing stores 57 $ 846,766 Eating & drinking places 58 $ 450,446 Miscellaneous retail 59 $ 607,995 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ $ 370,918 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE Depository Institution 60 $ 5,091,211 Nondepository Institution 61 $ 3,432,819 Security & commodity brokers 62 $ 3,491,738 Insurance carriers 63 $ 20,422,940 Insurance agents, brokers, & servicers 64 $ 424,989 Real Estate 65 $ 617,331 Holding & other investment offices 67 $ 3,237,932 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ $ 1,054,687 Industry SIC Code Average Sales per Establishment ($) August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page F­ 3 SERVICES Hotels & other lodging places 70 $ 1,423,393 Personal services 72 $ 219,582 Business services 73 $ 896,726 Auto repair, services, & parking 75 $ 407,237 Misc. repair services 76 $ 429,359 Motion picture 78 $ 1,040,439 Amusement & recreation services 79 $ 793,715 Health services 80 $ 677,073 Legal services 81 $ 641,030 Educational services 82 $ 491,509 Social services 83 $ 225,786 Museums, botanical, zoological gardens 84 $ 611,305 Membership organization 86 $ 500,857 Engineering & management service 87 $ 827,956 Services, n. e. c 89 $ 546,119 Administrative & Auxiliary ­ $ 1,053,680 Unclassified ­ NA Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census (1992). Includes County Business Patterns data and data from the Enterprise Statistics Program. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page G­ 1 Appendix G Detailed Sensitivity Analysis Results on All Parameters Tested Parameter Names Sensitivity Test Parameter Values Percent Change from Best Estimate Savings Under Primary Alternative Savings Under Primary Alternative Using the Sensitivity Test Parameter Values Percent increase (decrease) in amount saved Savings Under CSI Alternative Savings Under CSI Alternative Using the Sensitivity Test Parameter Values Percent increase (decrease) in amount saved Entry/ exit rate for establishments Best Estimate 1 % Low Range 0.10 % ­90 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,811,000 ­1 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,095,000 0 % High Range 5 % 400 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,962,000 3 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,109,000 0 % Percent laptops disposed Best Estimate 18 % Low Range 10 % ­44 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,830,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,127,000 1 % High Range 33 % 83 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,132,000 ­15 % $ 3,098,000 $ 2,582,000 ­17 % Percent funnel glass (vs panel glass) Best Estimate 34 % Low Range 30 % ­12 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,840,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,098,000 0 % High Range 40 % 18 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,840,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,098,000 0 % Percent of shipments that include broken CRTs Best Estimate 100 % Low Range 25 % ­75 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,754,000 ­2 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,005,000 ­3 % High Range 100 % 0 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,840,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,098,000 0 % Percent of CRTs sent to SQ Collectors Best Estimate 8 % Low Range 2 % ­75 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,812,000 ­1 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,152,000 2 % High Range 50 % 525 % $ 4,840,000 $ 5,002,000 3 % $ 3,098,000 $ 2,850,000 ­8 % Percent of CRTs sent to former SQ Collectors (Primary Alternative only) Best Estimate 98 % Low Range 50 % ­49 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,347,000 ­10 % N/ A N/ A N/ A High Range 99 % 1 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,849,000 0 % N/ A N/ A N/ A Percent of generators sending to reuse Parameter Names Sensitivity Test Parameter Values Percent Change from Best Estimate Savings Under Primary Alternative Savings Under Primary Alternative Using the Sensitivity Test Parameter Values Percent increase (decrease) in amount saved Savings Under CSI Alternative Savings Under CSI Alternative Using the Sensitivity Test Parameter Values Percent increase (decrease) in amount saved August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page G­ 2 Best Estimate 2 % Low Range 0 % ­100 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,767,000 ­2 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,195,000 3 % High Range 15 % 650 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,893,000 1 % $ 3,098,000 $ 2,851,000 ­8 % Percent of CRTs sent for export (Baseline only) Best Estimate 30 % Low Range 10 % ­67 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,630,000 ­4 % $ 3,098,000 $ 2,888,000 ­7 % High Range 50 % 67 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,764,000 ­2 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,022,000 ­2 % Percent of CRTs sent for export (Primary Alternative only) Best Estimate 30 % or 18 % Low Range 5 % ­83 % or ­72 % $ 4,840,000 $ 5,244,000 8 % N/ A N/ A N/ A High Range 30 % 0 % or 66 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,523,000 ­7 % N/ A N/ A N/ A Percent of CRTs sent for export (CSI Alternative only) Best Estimate 30 % or 20 % Low Range 5 % 0 % or ­75 % N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 3,098,000 $ 3,487,000 13 % High Range 40 % 33 % or 100 % N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 3,098,000 $ 2,627,000 ­15 % Maximum shipment weight (in tons) for whole CRTs Best Estimate 22 Low Range 18 ­18 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,670,000 ­4 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,085,000 0 % High Range 24 9 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,897,000 1 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,104,000 0 % Maximum shipment weight (in tons) for crushed CRTs Best Estimate 23 Low Range 20 ­13 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,932,000 2 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,104,000 0 % High Range 25 9 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,788,000 ­1 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,091,000 0 % Shipping Distances (in miles): to Handler Best Estimate 20 Low Range 5 ­75 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,840,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,096,000 0 % High Range 50 150 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,838,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,100,000 0 % to Reuse Best Estimate 20 Parameter Names Sensitivity Test Parameter Values Percent Change from Best Estimate Savings Under Primary Alternative Savings Under Primary Alternative Using the Sensitivity Test Parameter Values Percent increase (decrease) in amount saved Savings Under CSI Alternative Savings Under CSI Alternative Using the Sensitivity Test Parameter Values Percent increase (decrease) in amount saved August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page G­ 3 Low Range 5 ­75 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,840,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,097,000 0 % High Range 50 150 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,839,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,099,000 0 % to Subtitle C Landfill Best Estimate 250 Low Range 100 ­60 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,738,000 ­2 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,018,000 ­3 % High Range 500 100 % $ 4,840,000 $ 5,008,000 3 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,230,000 4 % to Glass Processor Best Estimate 200 Low Range 100 ­50 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,767,000 ­2 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,137,000 1 % High Range 400 100 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,984,000 3 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,017,000 ­3 % to CRT Glass Manufacturer Best Estimate 100 Low Range 50 ­50 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,844,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,104,000 0 % High Range 200 100 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,829,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,085,000 0 % to Reclaimer (from Generator or Collectors) Best Estimate 300 Low Range 100 ­67 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,744,000 ­2 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,116,000 1 % High Range 500 67 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,935,000 2 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,080,000 ­1 % to Reclaimer (from Glass Processors) Best Estimate 350 Low Range 200 ­43 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,839,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,099,000 0 % High Range 500 43 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,839,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,096,000 0 % Costs for Disposal to Glass Processor (per ton): Broken CRTs, no metal Best Estimate $ 0 Low Range $ 0 N/ A $ 4,840,000 $ 4,840,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,098,000 0 % High Range $ 10.00 N/ A $ 4,840,000 $ 4,820,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,136,000 1 % Broken CRTs, with metal Best Estimate $ 100.00 Low Range $ 50.00 ­50 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,859,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,115,000 1 % Parameter Names Sensitivity Test Parameter Values Percent Change from Best Estimate Savings Under Primary Alternative Savings Under Primary Alternative Using the Sensitivity Test Parameter Values Percent increase (decrease) in amount saved Savings Under CSI Alternative Savings Under CSI Alternative Using the Sensitivity Test Parameter Values Percent increase (decrease) in amount saved August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page G­ 4 High Range $ 150.00 50 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,818,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,077,000 ­1 % Whole Bare CRTs Best Estimate $ 192.00 Low Range $ 100.00 ­48 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,859,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,115,000 1 % High Range $ 300.00 56 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,814,000 ­1 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,073,000 ­1 % Broken mixed color/ monochrome Best Estimate $ 325.00 Low Range $ 250.00 ­23 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,868,000 1 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,124,000 1 % High Range $ 400.00 23 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,808,000 ­1 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,067,000 ­1 % Whole CRTs with casing Best Estimate $ 333.33 Low Range $ 200.00 ­40 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,853,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,332,000 8 % High Range $ 450.00 35 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,825,000 0 % $ 3,098,000 $ 2,889,000 ­7 % Exporter, Disposal Best Estimate $ 107.00 Low Range $ 0 ­100 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,431,000 ­8 % $ 3,098,000 $ 2,741,000 ­12 % High Range $ 200.00 87 % $ 4,840,000 $ 5,195,000 7 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,407,000 10 % CRT Glass Manufacturer, Disposal Best Estimate $ (175.00) Low Range $ (250.00) 43 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,914,000 2 % $ 3,098,000 $ 3,191,000 3 % High Range $ 0 ­100 % $ 4,840,000 $ 4,661,000 ­4 % $ 3,098,000 $ 2,871,000 ­7 % Number of TVs from unregulated users Best Estimate 20,000,000 LowRange 15,000,000 ­25 % $ 1,117,000 $ 1,660,000 49 % $ 4,202,000 $ 4,024,000 ­4 % High Range 30,000,000 50 % $ 1,117,000 $ (10,000) ­101 % $ 4,202,000 $ 4,552,000 8 % Number of monitors from unregulated users Best Estimate 16,886,411 Low Range 10,000,000 ­41 % $ 1,117,000 $ 1,621,000 45 % $ 4,202,000 $ 4,033,000 ­4 % High Range 25,000,000 48 % $ 1,117,000 $ 434,000 ­61 % $ 4,202,000 $ 4,402,000 5 % August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page G­ 5 August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page H­ 1 Appendix H Telephone Contacts Contacts made by Sue Chotikajan: Tony Catareno, I. G. Inc., 3476 Saint Rocco CT., Cleveland, OH 44109, (216) 631 ­7710. November 6, 1998. Questions: (1) Where do you get your discarded CRTs? (2) What types of industries/ manufacturers are your sources (TV and computer manufacturers or post­ consumer)? (3) How much do you charge for taking discarded CRTs (Specifically for a 30 pound monitor)? (4) What do you with the glass? Is it landfilled, sent to smelters, or sent to CRT glass manufacturers? (5) What is the percentage of this allocation? (6) What is the cost of sending glass to each disposal or recycling alternative? (7) What is the total number of CRTs processed annually and total weight processed? (8) Do you have information on the number of color vs. monochrome monitors processed? Responses: C I. G. Inc. receives used CRTs from leasing companies, a few from households, but none from manufacturers. C I. G. Inc. charges $3­$ 5 per monitor for pick­ up services of discarded computers, and leasing companies pay for their own transportation. C CRTs are pulled out of monitor and processed. Some parts (phosphorous, metals, glass) are sent to recycling companies and glass manufacturers. C All CRT glass is sent to CRT glass manufacturers. C Information on cost sent to each glass manufacturers isn't shared with the public. C The total number of CRTs processed annually is approximately 5,000 monitors. C Since I. G., Inc. is only processing CRTs as a sideline, we do not track down the types of monitors processed. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page H­ 2 Jim Weber, Federal Prison Industries, Ohio, (330) 424 –7448 (ext. 1313). November 6, 1998. Questions: (1) Where do you get your discarded CRTs? (2) What types of industries/ manufacturers are your sources (TV and computer manufacturers or post­ consumer)? (3) How much do you charge for taking discarded CRTs (Specifically for a 30 pound monitor)? (4) What do you with the glass? Is it landfilled, sent to smelters, or sent to CRT glass manufacturers? (5) What is the percentage of this allocation? (6) What is the cost of sending glass to each disposal or recycling alternative? (7) What is the total number of CRTs processed annually and total weight processed? (8) Do you have information on the number of color vs. monochrome monitors processed? Responses: C Federal Prison Industries receives discarded computers from GE, Motorola, computer manufacturers, and schools. Federal Prison Industries doesn't receive any discarded televisions. C Federal Prison Industries charges $4­$ 5 per monitor, and the manufacturer or entity discarding the computer monitors pays for the shipping. C Generally, Federal Prison Industries' picks up and sorts the computer monitors and then sends them to Envirocycle, a CRT glass­ to­ glass recycling center. None of the discarded CRTs are landfilled or sent to smelters. C All discarded CRTs are sent to CRT glass manufacturers, through CRT glass­ to­ glass recyclers, such as Envirocycle. C Envirocycle pays $0.25 per pound of glass or $500 per ton of glass. C Federal Prison Industries processes around 4,000 monitors per year. C On average, they process an equal number of color and monochrome monitors. The most common types of color monitors discarded are GEA and CEA. They separate the glass into four types: PB, color, NPHS, and miscellaneous plastic filament. Gary DiRusso, DMC Recycling, New Hampshire, gdirusso@ dmcrecycling. com. October 30, 1998. Questions: (1) Where do you get your discarded CRTs? August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page H­ 3 (2) What types of industries/ manufacturers are your sources (TV and computer manufacturers or post­ consumer)? (3) How much do you charge for taking discarded CRTs (Specifically for a 30 pound monitor)? (4) What do you with the glass? Is it landfilled, sent to smelters, or sent to CRT glass manufacturers? (5) What is the percentage of this allocation? (6) What is the cost sent to each? (7) What is the total number of CRTs processed annually and total weight processed? (8) Do you have information on the number of color vs. monochrome monitors processed? Responses: C DMC receives monitors from a government agency (NSA), businesses such as (SunMicro, AT& T, etc) and computer monitor manufacturers, such as Nissei, Sangyo (Hitachi). C Approximately 50 percent by weight of the monitors that DMC receives from the government can be reused; the other 50 percent is disassembled and recycled. Reusable computer monitors represent approximately 30 percent of the total materials received from the government. The remaining 70 percent is computers, telecommunications equipment, and other electronic equipment. C DMC charges $0.11 – 0.13 per pound (based on quantity) for recycling monitors. C DMC receives shipments of 10,000 to 30,000 pounds at a time from monitor manufacturers. C DMC currently processes approximately 1 million pounds of monitors per year with expectations that this could increase considerably because of the landfill ban pending in Massachusetts effective July 1999. [One million pounds of monitors is approximately 33,000, 30 pound computer monitors.] C DMCs current capacity is 6.5 million pounds in a 40­ hour workweek. DMC can process this large capacity because all of their equipment is automated to recycle whole monitors or CRTs. C DMC recycles glass, steel, copper, plastic, and aluminum from the computer monitors. C All the glass from CRTs that DMC recycles is sent to a lead smelter. Typically they ship the glass by rail in quantities of about 100,000 pounds (50 tons). C The primary lead smelter uses the glass silicate in place of a commercial fluxing agent and recovers the lead. C DMC's recycling process entails 5 steps to breakup and separate the computer monitor materials: (1) shredding; (2) ferrous separation; (3) pulverizing the glass; (4) sifting the glass; (5) containerizing the copper, aluminum, and plastic. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page H­ 4 Contacts made by Tom Uden: Robert Bouma, Noranda, Toronto, Ontario, (416) 982­ 7237. November 4, 1998. Questions: (1) What is the cost for disposal/ recycling of CRTs at your facility? (2) Where do CRTs fit in your process? (3) How many CRTs are processed each year? (4) What types of companies/ organizations typically provide you CRTs? (5) Any other general information? Responses: C The price for taking CRTs is several hundred dollars, but typically less than $500 per ton. This value is closely guarded, because various companies "compete" for monitors. The fee is the money maker in this operation, not the copper, silica, and precious metal values recovered. CRT glass is less valuable than a whole monitor, because there are no precious metals or copper in the CRT glass. C CRTs are introduced whole, or shredded into a copper smelter. Copper (principally from the yoke) and small amounts of precious metal are recovered. Lead is discarded in the furnace slag to a secure impoundment. CRTs also contain silica, which is useful as a fluxing agent. C Noranda accepts approximately 1,000 ­ 2,000 tons of monitors per year. [This weight range represents between 50,000 to 130,000 monitors.] Weight assumptions would allow calculation of absolute numbers. The principle input is whole monitors, as opposed to broken CRT glass, or only the CRT. TVS are generally too large for the shredder. Some non­ viable TV tubes are obtained from OEMs. C Generally electronic scrap brokers supply the CRTs. Often, these brokers will go into an office facility, to obtain the highest value components (the computer "boxes"). They may attempt to refurbish and sell monitors. However, most brokers take the monitors even though they do not want them. They take the monitors as part of a package deal, to get the computers which contain much greater levels of precious metals. Another source of monitors is from OEMs. If an OEM (e. g., IBM, Digital, HP) replaces an entire office's PCS, the broker, as part of a package deal, will take away the old systems, including monitors. Taking the monitors is part of the service. C CRT glass direct from OEMs (broken in manufacturing for example) is an ideal input for their lead smelter in New Brunswick. The glass must be clean, because plastic fouls the sulfuric acid plant that is part of the process. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page H­ 5 Cliff Asbury, Doe Run, Glover, MO, (573) 546­ 7492, x­ 237. November 10, 1998. Questions: (1) What is the cost for disposal/ recycling of CRTs at your facility? (2) Where do CRTs fit in your process? (3) How many CRTs are processed each year? (4) What types of companies/ organizations typically provide you CRTs? (5) Any other general information? Responses: C A general number for disposal of CRTs at Doe Run is $140 per ton of CRT glass. The number will vary depending on the quality of the glass, and the volume (Doe Run offers high­ volume discounts). C CRT glass is introduced as a fluxing agent at the primary smelter. Some lead is recovered from the lead content in the glass, but the primary value is as a fluxing agent. The CRTs are exempt from being manifested to the smelter, under a 50% material substitution provision. C 100­ 125 tons of CRT glass are processed each year. [This weight range represents between 5,000 to 8,000 monitors.] CRT glass is generally shipped in "gaylord" boxes. These are 1 cubic yard cardboard boxes. Doe Run would like to receive the glass in dump trucks, or rail cars. This would eliminate the need to dispose of several thousand boxes a year. C CRT glass comes from recovery services, that scavenge used computers. Some try to refurbish the computers, often sending them overseas. A lot of these companies are primarily interested in the precious metal and copper values in the computer "box." They take the monitors as part of the deal, and have to get rid of the glass. They only dump the glass after fully disassembling and recovering valuable components from the monitor. C One broker/ processor (DMC) sends glass to Doe Run crushed to 3/ 8 inch particles. The crushing is good for the broker/ processor (because they can use magnetic separation techniques to get the metal out), and for Doe Run (because fewer contaminants remain in the glass, and the glass is already crushed for introduction into the smelting furnace). C Mr. Asbury mentioned three brokers/ processors: C Asset Recovery, MN; 612­ 602­ 0789, Bruce Janovic. This may be an affiliate of Digital Corp. C DMC, NH; 603­ 772­ 7236, Mike Mogliano. C SEER, FL; 800­ 376­ 7888, Mike Flynn. C Mr. Asbury expressed concern that the current CSI proposal favors glass­ to­ glass recycling. Doe Run does not want to lose CRTs as an input and revenue generator. [CRTs may represent an important revenue source, especially when the price of lead is low.] August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page H­ 6 Mike Flynn, SEER (Secure Environmental Electronic Recovery), Tampa, FL. (888) 600­ 7337. November 11, 1998. Questions: (1) What is the cost for disposal/ recycling of CRTs at your facility? (2) Where do CRTs fit in your process? (3) How many CRTs are processed each year? (4) What types of companies/ organizations typically provide you CRTs? (5) Any other general information? Responses: C SEER charges $7.50 per computer monitor, $12.50 per table­ top television, and $35.00 per console television. C Typically whole computer systems are recovered from companies. Usually this results from a modernization of company hardware. Very often, these companies have old equipment in a warehouse that is removed at the same time. SEER determines if the equipment (including monitor) has resale or refurbishment value. If re­ sale or refurbishment is not an option (as with older equipment that has been stored for a while) demanufacturing occurs. Some consumers give SEER computer monitors and televisions, if they are concerned with "doing the right thing" environmentally. C For monitors, the mercury switches, and valuable parts are removed. The vacuum is released. The front panel is cut away. CRTs are shipped in gaylord boxes. 950 pounds of CRTs fit in one box, although Mike could not say how many CRTs this represents. [950 pounds of CRTs is approximately 30 CRTs.] They currently ship to Doe Run only. Mr. Flynn is going to visit Envirocycle next week to look into sending some CRT glass to them. He predicts that there will be increased disposal in the near future, and that he will need more than one outlet for CRTs. If SEER contracts with Envirocycle, the monitor flow would be: (1) end user, (2) SEER, (3) Envirocycle, (4) Techniglass. C Mr. Flynn did not have the number of CRTs processed per year available at the time of the call. C Companies with a large computer base, usually located in large office buildings or complexes, are SEER's typical customers. They find out about SEER through Subtitle D landfills. For instance, many CWM Inc. Subtitle D landfills in the area refer companies with large CRT volumes to SEER. It was not apparent whether this is a formal arrangement, although it seems unlikely. C Florida recently adopted Universal Waste Regulations, and SEER is a Universal Waste Handler and Transporter. This allows them to handle batteries and mercury switches. Mr. Flynn claimed that when the CRTs are brought to SEER, they are in monitor format and are August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page H­ 7 therefore still potentially a viable product. They are therefore exempt from RCRA manifest and other requirements. When they are sent to Doe Run, they are exempt because they are primary process feed. He is not sure what the RCRA status of shipping to Envirocycle would be; he intends to find out next week. C Mr. Flynn also expressed concern that the CSI proposal will preferentially treat the glass­ toglass channel. He thinks that any increased regulations on smelters would create a problem, because the glass­ to­ glass processors do not have the capacity to handle the projected increase in CRT disposal. Various, Chemical Waste Management (CWM). November 2­ 3, 1998. Questions: (1) What is the cost for disposal/ recycling of CRTs at your facility? (2) Where do CRTs fit in your process? (3) How many CRTs are processed each year? (4) What types of companies/ organizations typically provide you CRTs? (5) Any other general information? Responses: C The disposal cost is $285/ cu yard for macroencapsulation, and $150­ 175 for 55 gal drum of whole monitors/ CRTs (Street, AL). In addition, for Model City NY, if the shipment is from out of state it is subject to a $27/ ton state hazardous waste tax. All shipments to the facility are subject to a 6% town tax, and a 7% sales tax (Customer Service, NY). Mr. Street mentioned that LA has a more favorable tax structure. C CWM is a RCRA Subtitle C facility, with the ability to stabilize lead leaching components. Monitors would be encapsulated (without crushing/ breakage) in impermeable containers, with a concrete type substance poured around them (Customer Service, NY). C Model City (Buffalo) NY and Emelle AL could not think of specific instances of CRT disposal. (Although Dr. Street in Emelle thought that the NY facility would likely deal with CRTs; he suggested talking to their environmental person, Jill Knickerbocker, who did not return my calls). The Lake Charles LA facility contact could recall one shipment of CRTs that was macroencapsulated (Grant, LA). C The contact at Emelle thought that shipments of monitors would likely come from Fortune 500 companies with strong environmental programs. He thinks that many monitors are being recycled, some by the same facilities that recycle Hg lamps (Street, AL). C Contacts: CWM Model City NY (716) 754­ 8231 Jill Knickerbocker August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page H­ 8 CWM Emelle AL (205) 652­ 9721 Dr. Jim Street CWM Lake Charles LA (318) 583­ 2144 Chuck Grant Heather McCarthy, Clean Harbors of Braintree. May 9 and 24, 2001. Questions: (1) Have you mostly received CRTs from the users, brokers, or other types of businesses? (2) Are the CRTs mostly sent to you whole or crushed? (3) What are your rates for stabilization and disposal of bulk waste? (4) Can you estimate how many CRTs or how many tons of CRTs your facility has processed in the last year? (5) Does your company provide transportation services? Responses: C CRTs are mostly received from businesses, but some are received from brokers. C CRTs are received whole in flex bins, which are similar to but smaller than gaylord boxes. C CRTs are dismantled and recycled to the maximum extent possible in their Bristol, CT facility. Clean Harbors charges $300 to $500 per flex bin depending on the size and frequency of shipments. The CRT glass is sent to Canada where it is crushed, treated, and disposed. Clean Harbors does not have a minimum charge for shipments of CRTs C Do not have a current estimate of the number or tons of CRTs processed. C Clean Harbors provides transportation services and charges a flat rate of $150 per shipment for the Boston area. For locations farther away (e. g., Maine) they charge about $300 per shipment. Lisa Humfry, Envirosafe Services of Ohio. May 10, 2001. Questions: (1) Have you mostly received CRTs from the users, brokers, or other types of businesses? (2) Are the CRTs mostly sent to you whole or crushed? (3) What are your rates for stabilization and disposal of bulk waste? (4) Can you estimate how many CRTs or how many tons of CRTs your facility has processed in the last year? (5) Does your company provide transportation services? Responses: August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page H­ 9 C CRTs are mostly received from brokers, but some are received from businesses. One customer consolidated CRTs from many of its facilities and crushed the CRTs before sending them to Envirosafe. Envirosafe macro­ encapsulates CRTs sent in poly drums, and encapsulates whole CRTs. If the CRTs are sent crushed in a roll­ off container, they will stabilize the CRTs for disposal. C CRTs sometimes are received whole, but mostly crushed in roll off containers. C The rate for crushed CRTs in a roll­ off container is $160 per ton. The rate for whole monitors is $360 per cubic yard. The rate for whole CRTs in drums is $150 per drum. Envirosafe does not have a minimum charge for shipments of CRTs. C Envirosafe received no CRTs last year and about 20 to 30 tons the previous year. C Envirosafe subcontracts out transportation. Mark Cardamone, F& M Bay Electronics Co. Inc./ SEER Inc., Tampa, FL. (813) 621­ 8870. May 14, 2001. Questions: (1) What do you do with the CRTs you receive? (2) Who do you receive CRTs from? e. g., the users, brokers, or other types of businesses? (3) What are your rates for processing monitors? (4) Can you estimate how many CRTs or how many tons of CRTs your facility has processed in the last year? (5) What do you do with the CRT glass? (6) Does your company provide transportation services? Responses: C All monitors that were manufactured during or after 1996 are tested to see if they are operational. About 10 percent of the CRTs received are resold. The remaining monitors are demanufactured and the plastic, steel, aluminum, and copper are recycled. The bare CRTs are cut in half to separate the panel from the funnel. The CRT glass is sent to Envirocycle and to Dlubeck Glass. C Most of the monitors are received from original users. Monitors are also obtained from municipal solid waste facilities that remove the CRTs from the solid waste stream at landfills or transfer stations. C For monitors that are 17 inches or less, they charge $6 to $7.50 per monitor. For monitors that are larger than 17 inches, they charge $9.50 per monitor. For bare CRTs, they charge $4.00 per bare CRT. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page H­ 10 C The facility processed 40,000 CRTs in the last year. This includes both TVs and monitors. C The CRT glass is sent to Envirocycle and to Dlubeck Glass. C Transportation services are provided and include scheduled pickups through common carriers and their own trucks. Local pickup includes a range of 50 miles and costs $25 per pickup. In Florida transportation costs are generally $25 to $150 per pickup. Jack Hope, WasteNot Recycling, Sterling, VA. (703) 787­ 0200. May 15, 2001. Questions: (1) What do you do with the CRTs you receive? (2) Who do you receive CRTs from? e. g., the users, brokers, or other types of businesses? (3) What are your rates for processing monitors? (4) Can you estimate how many CRTs or how many tons of CRTs your facility has processed in the last year? Responses: C WasteNot Recycling is a not for profit organization that trains and employs developmentally disabled adults. They only take functional monitors right now. They are looking into the options for demanufacturing monitors in the future. C Monitors are received from local companies, such as ATT, SAIC, and Boeing. C There is no charge for donating monitors. C Mr. Hope did not have an estimate of the number of computer or monitors received. Greg Voorhees, Envirocycle, Halstead, PA. (570) 879­ 2862. April 25, 2001. Questions: (1) What percent of the CRT glass that you receive is sold as fines? (2) What percent of Envirocycle's processed CRT glass is sent to lead smelters? (3) What is Envirocycle's recycling capacity? (4) Is the facility in North Carolina that is mentioned on your web site open yet? (5) What do you charge for intact whole monitors? (6) What percent of CRTs are received as whole monitors, bare CRTs, or crushed glass? Responses: August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page H­ 11 C None. C All of the fines generated in the processing of CRTs are sent to a primary lead smelter, for which Envirocycle must pay. The processing of CRTs generates about two percent fines by weight. Envirocycle is working to improve the efficiency of its process to reduce the generation of fines. C Envirocycle is currently operating at about 20 percent of its capacity in its Halstead, PA facility. Envirocycle's current operating tempo is about 1.5 million pounds per month C The North Carolina facility will not be opened. Two other locations are being pursued and will be open by the end of the year. One facility will be located in the north east and the other will be on the west coast. C Envirocycle charges about $5 to $6 per monitor for whole monitors. The actual price paid is volume dependant. C About 50 to 60 percent of the glass received is "dirty­ mix with no metals." This glass comes from other demanufacturing facilities. Envirocycle still receives about the same amount of CRT glass from OEMs as in 1996. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page I­ 1 Appendix I Bibliography Aanstoos, T., Mizuki, C., Nichols, S., and Pitts, G. CRT Disposition: An Assessment of Limitations and Opportunities in Reuses, Refurbishment, and Recycling in the U. S., IEEE International Symposium on Electronics & the Environment, 1997. "April Showers Grew May Color TV Sales," Consumer Electronics Manufacturing Association Homepage, www. cemacity. org/ cemacity/ gazette/ files2/ vidmay98. htm, October 6, 1998. "Closed­ Loop CRT Recycling: Why Europe and the U. S. Differ?" Cutter Information Corporation, Product Stewardship Advisor, www. cutter. com/ psa/ fulltext/ 1997/ 09, Volume I, No. 4: September 1997. "Consumer Electronics Industry Forecast for 1997 – 27.6 Million New TV Sets and Much More," Consumer Electronics Manufacturing Association Homepage, www. cemacity. org/ cemacity/ gazette/ files2/ vidmay98. htm. DPRA Incorporated. "Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Rule for a 180­ Day Accumulation Time for F006 Wastewater Treatment Sludges," August 4, 1998. Notes from personal communication with Greg Voorhees from Envirocycle, 1996. Data series for Personal Computers, Color TV Receivers, Color TV Receivers, Monochrome TV Receivers – U. S. Sales to Dealers, Electronic Industries Alliance, 1998. Department of Environmental Protection, DEP's 1998 CRT/ Electronics Recycling Strategy Cost/ Benefit Analysis, May 1, 1998. DMC Monitor Recycling, DMC Electronics Homepage, www. nh. ultranet. com/~ dmc/ monitor. html, accessed October 20, 1998. Electronic Industries (EIA) Sector, Cathode Ray Tube Industry Subsector Presentation, September 26­ 28, 1994. Electronics Industry Sector­ Cathode Ray Tube Industries, Alternative Strategies Work Group, Green Paper on the Environmental Issues and Needed Research in Color Displays, September 27­ 28, 1995. Energy and Environmental Analysis, Analysis of Heavy Duty Truck Fuel Efficiency to 2001. September 1991. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page I­ 2 Envirocycle History, Envirocycle Homepage, www. enviroinc. com/ env2. html, accessed October 16, 1998. Fisher, Jim. "Poison PCs," Salon. com, September 18, 2000. Fox, Barry. "Green TV Laws Store Up Mountain of Trouble," New Scientist, September 4, 1993. Goldberg, Carey. "Where Do Computers Go When They Die?" The New York Times, March 12, 1998. Holusha, John. "Where Old Computers Parts Are Given New Lives, The New York Times, June 10, 1996. ICF Inc., Overview of Cathode Ray Tube Recycling, February 27, 1997. ICF Inc., Economic Impact Analysis for the Military Munitions Final Rule, June 1996. ICF Inc., Memorandum to Allen Maples, EPA. "Baseline Costs and Cost Comparisons Between Hazardous Waste, Hazardous Material, and Non­ Hazardous Shipments." August 31, 1998. Joyce, Amy. "Reduce, Reuse, Reboot." The Washington Post, January 21, 2000. "The Long­ Term Future of CRT Glass Recycling: How NEC Is Planning Ahead." Cutter Information Corporation, Product Stewardship Advisor, www. cutter. com/ psa/ fulltext/ 1997/ 09, Volume I, No. 6: November 1997. Macauley, Molly, Palmer, K., Shih, Shih, J., Cline, S., Holsinger, H., Modeling the Costs and Environmental Benefits of Disposal Options for End­ of­ Life Electronic Equipment: The Case of Used Computer Monitors. Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper 01­ 27, June 2001. Matthews, Scott H., McMichael, Francis Co., Hendrickson, Chris T., Hart, Deanna, J., Disposition and End­ of­ Life Options for Personal Computers, Carnegie Mellon University: Green Design Initiative Technical Report #97­ 10, July 7, 1997. The Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC), Environmental Consciousness: A Strategic Competitiveness Issue for the Electronics and Computer Industry. Comprehensive Report: Analysis and Synthesis, Task Force Reports and Appendices. March 1993 Monchamp, A., Evans, H., Nardone, J., Wood, S., Proch, E., and Wagner, T., Cathode Ray Tube Manufacturing and Recycling: Analysis of Industry Survey. Electronics Industries Alliance, Spring 2001. August 24, 2001 ­ DRAFT Page I­ 3 National Recycling Coalition, "Proper Management of Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs)." January 13, 2000. www. nrc­ recycle. org/ Programs/ electronics/ crtmgmt. htm# export1 National Safety Council, Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report, Recycling of Selected Electronic Products in the United States. May 1999. Paik, Angela. "Garbage In, Value Out." The Washington Post, December 30, 1999. Summary of Envirocycle, Inc, Electronics Processing Associates, Inc., Summary of Conversion Technology, November 07, 1996. U. S. Bureau of Census. "Computer Use in the United States: October 1993," www. census. gov/ population/ socdemo/ computer/ compwork. txt. U. S. Bureau of Census. Newburger, Eric, C. "Computer Use in the United States: October 1997," September 1999. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1. Analysis of Five Community Consumer/ Residential Collections, End­ of­ Life Electronic and Electrical Equipment. EPA­ 901­ R­ 98­ 003, April 1999. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. "List of Computer & Electronic Reuse & Recycling Options." EPA web site: epanotes1. rtpnc. epa. gov: 7777/ r10/ owcm. nsf, October 1998. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Economics, Methods and Risk Analysis Division. Unit Cost Compendium. September 30, 2000. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal Restrictions ­ Phase IV: newly Identified Toxicity Characteristic Metal Wastes and Mineral Processing Wastes (Final Rule), Background Document. April, 1998. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number[] "Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Proposed Rule on Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Glass Reuse." Working Draft, October 9, 1998. "Video and Computer Industry Facts," Consumer Electronics Manufacturing Association Homepage, www. cemacity. org/ cemacity/ digital/ files/ hdtvfact. htm, accessed October 6, 1998.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.609737

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0013-0002

Supporting & Related Material

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF INCLUDING MERCURY CONTAINING DEVICES IN THE UNIVERSAL WASTE SYSTEM, NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste February 15, 2002 1. Introduction .............................................................. 1 2. General Overview of Devices and Regulated Entities ................................. 1 2.1 Mercury­ Containing Devices ............................................ 2 2.2 Regulated Entities Under Current RCRA Regulations .......................... 2 2.3 Regulated Entities Under Universal Waste Regulations ......................... 5 3. Preliminary Research and Analysis ............................................. 6 3.1 Number of Potentially Affected Generators of MCDs ........................... 6 3.1.1 MCD­ Only Generators .......................................... 6 3.1.2 MCD­ Plus Generators .......................................... 7 3.2 Number of Potentially Affected Handlers of MCDs ............................ 10 3.3 Number of Potentially Affected Treaters of MCDs ............................ 10 3.3 Number of Potentially Affected Transporters of Discarded MCDs (Baseline and Universal Waste Requirements) ........................................ 11 3.4 Disposal Price Research ............................................. 12 3.5 Transportation Costs for Regulated Generators and Handlers .................... 13 3.6 Administrative Compliance Costs for Regulated Generators and Handlers ........... 14 4. MCD Management Practices ................................................ 16 4.1 Baseline Practices ................................................. 16 4.2 Post Rule Practices ................................................. 18 5. Cost Results ............................................................ 19 5.1 Methodology ...................................................... 20 5.2 Cost Results ...................................................... 21 6. Economic Impact Results .................................................. 22 7. Qualitative Benefits ....................................................... 27 8. Discussion of Findings ..................................................... 29 9. Assumptions, Limitations, and Sensitivity Analyses ................................ 29 Appendix A: MCD­ Only Generators .................................................. 32 Appendix B: Phone Logs ......................................................... 35 Appendix C: Subtitle D Baseline Analysis ............................................. 51 Appendix D: References ......................................................... 53 1 Specifically, most MCDs have a mercury concentration of 0.2 mg/ L (ppm) or greater when tested using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Profile (TCLP). 1. Introduction Mercury­ containing devices (MCDs) might be found in almost any household, business, industry, and institution in the United States. Mercury is commonly used in thermometers, electrical components (such as switches and relays), gauges, meters, and other devices. The amount of mercury in a single device generally ranges from less than one gram to more than 400 grams, although some devices may contain more than 200 pounds of mercury. The mercury contained in most MCDs is sufficient to classify them, once discarded, as D009 characteristic mercury wastes under RCRA. 1 As a result, commercial, industrial, and institutional entities that discard (i. e., generate) post­ consumer MCDs must comply with RCRA generator requirements, which include storage limits, manifesting, recordkeeping, safety training, and biennial reporting by large generators. Under current RCRA regulations at 40 CFR 268.40, discarded MCDs must be sent to a recycler for roasting or retorting or to a Subtitle C landfill (only if the mercury content in the device is less than 260 parts per million and the mercury has been treated to below certain standards). Households and conditionally exempt small quantity generators (those that produce less than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste per month) are not subject to these requirements. Due in part to the ubiquitous nature of MCDs, the sporadic frequency with which they are discarded, and the fact that many consumers of these devices are not aware of the hazards associated with them, many post­ consumer MCDs are often disposed of (both accidentally and non­ accidentally) in municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills or incinerators, rather than being recycled. The additional administrative, storage, transportation, treatment, and disposal costs associated with recycling RCRA hazardous waste also serve to discourage recycling of postconsumer MCDs. In order to encourage more recycling of post­ consumer MCDs, EPA is considering adding these devices to the list of Universal Wastes under 40 CFR Part 273. The inclusion of these devices under the Universal Waste regulations is expected to decrease the costs of complying with RCRA requirements (e. g., by exempting MCDs from manifesting and interim storage permit requirements) and, as a result, will make recycling a relatively more economical disposal option. The purpose of this analysis is to analyze the incremental costs and costs savings associated with including post­ consumer MCDs (excluding thermostats) in the Universal Waste system. The remainder of this analysis is organized in nine sections and three appendices. 2. General Overview of Devices and Regulated Entities This section provides information on the types of MCDs that are of concern to EPA, and generally describes the entities involved in generating, handling, transporting, and recycling them. 2 2 EPA has previously classified discarded mercury­ containing thermostats and lamps as universal wastes (60 FR 25491, 64 FR 36465). In addition, Title II of the Mercury­ Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act (1996) mandated a phase out of mercury­ containing batteries in the U. S. 3 Households that generate post­ consumer MCDs are excluded from RCRA regulations and are not modeled in the analysis. 2.1 Mercury­ Containing Devices For purposes of this report, MCDs are defined as any device that contains metallic mercury as a component necessary for its operation, with the exception of thermostats, lamps, and batteries. 2 MCDs can be divided into four general categories: C Thermometers; C Switches and relays; C Gauges and meters; and C "Other devices." For each of these categories, Exhibit 2­ 1 lists a number of specific MCDs along with quantities of mercury commonly found in them. 2.2 Regulated Entities Under Current RCRA Regulations Under current RCRA regulations, entities involved in the MCD lifecycle are regulated if they fall into one of the following categories: generators; transporters; or treatment (including recycling), storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs). Generators Because MCDs contain mercury and are hazardous wastes when discarded, any entity that uses these devices may be a regulated generator. 3 Moreover, the ubiquitous nature of MCDs suggests that the number of regulated generators may be large. Generators can be grouped into three categories: 3 *** DRFAT ­ September 5, 2001 *** Exhibit 2­ 1 Overview of Mercury­ Containing Devices Potentially Generated by Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Entities Device Category Example Devices Reported Mercury Content (grams per device) Thermometers Clinical thermometers (oral/ rectal/ baby and basal temperature), laboratory thermometers, industrial thermometers, air/ water temperature thermometers, veterinary thermometers, Mason's Hygrometers, sling psychrometers 2 (" typical") 0.5 ­ 0.61 (fever) 2.25 (basal temperature) 3 ­ 10 (laboratory) 5 (veterinary) 5.56 ­ 19.78 (industrial) Switches and Relays Tilt switches, float switches, silent light switches, mercury reed switches, metal switches, telephone switches, glass switches, alarm switches, limit switches, mercury­ wetted relays, displacement/ plunger relays, reed relays, flame sensors, pilot light sensors, gas safety valves, rectifiers, ignitron tubes, G­ sensors, oscillators, phanatrons, proximity sensors, capacitors 3.5 (" typical") 2.6 (silent light switch) 3.5 ­ 3,600 (industrial switch) 1 (float switch) 0.5 ­ 1 (automotive light switch) 2 (chest freezer light switch) 2 (washing machine light switch) 3 (anti­ lock brake switch) 1 ­ 2 (ride control system switch) 0.14 ­ 3 (mercury reed relay) 160 (displacement relay) 2.5 (flame sensor) Gauges and Meters Manometers, barometers, sphygmomanometers, vacuum meters, flow meters, temperature gauges, pressure relief gauges, water treatment pressure gauges, regulators, airway controllers, permeters, hagenmeters, ring balances 330 (sphygmomanometer) 395 (barometer) 85 ­ 355 (typical manometer) 91,000 (large manometer) Other Devices Tubes/ dilators (gastrointestinal tubes, esophageal tubes, cantor tubes, Miller Abbot tubes, feeding tubes), recoil suppressors, variable­ force counterweight wheels, printed circuit boards 170 (recoil suppressor) 1,000 (dilator) Sources: Lake Michigan Forum (1999), Michigan Mercury Pollution Prevention Task Force (1996), The Pollution Prevention Partnership and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (1997), SAIC and RTI (1999), U. S. EPA (1992), U. S. EPA (1997a), USWAG (1996), and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (1997). 4 4 In order to not be classified as a high mercury waste, a device would need to have less than one gram of mercury for every 8.5 pounds of total device weight. This is not likely for most MCDs given that MCDs with small amounts of mercury (e. g., thermometers, temperature probes, switches) also tend to be relatively lighter in weight. Any post­ consumer MCDs with a total mercury concentration less than 260 mg/ kg (or ppm) would be classified as "low mercury wastes." These wastes are not required to be recycled, but must be treated (stabilized) in order to meet a standard of 0.025 mg/ L TCLP mercury prior to be land disposed. 5 In contrast to post­ consumer MCDs, high mercury wastes that contain organics may be either incinerated (" IMERC") or recycled. C Entities that produce less than 100 kilograms (kg) per month of post­ consumer MCDs and/ or other hazardous wastes are conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs). CESQGs are subject to limited waste management requirements (40 CFR 261.5), and are not modeled in this analysis. C Entities that produce between 100 and 1,000 kg per month of post­ consumer MCDs and/ or other hazardous wastes are small quantity generators (SQGs) and must comply with manifesting, recordkeeping, and safety training requirements (40 CFR Part 262 generally). SQGs may store hazardous wastes on site for up to 180 days without a permit. C Entities that generate more than 1,000 kg per month of post­ consumer MCDs and/ or other hazardous wastes are large quantity generators (LQGs). LQGs must comply with the same requirements as SQGs, except that they may store hazardous wastes on site for no more than 90 days, rather than 180, without a permit. LQGs must also comply with biennial reporting requirements. Transporters Under current RCRA regulatory requirements, transporters of post­ consumer MCDs are required to be certified as hazardous waste handlers (40 CFR Part 263), and must follow DOT's hazardous materials regulations in 49 CFR 171 through 180. Transporters must obtain an EPA identification number, comply with the manifest system, and properly handle discharges of hazardous waste. In addition, transporters may store post­ consumer MCDs at transfer facilities (e. g., loading docks, parking areas) for up to 10 days. Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (including Recyclers) Based on the quantities of mercury in MCDs along with the overall weight of these devices (which can vary from less than one pound to over 1,500 pounds), discarded MCDs are likely to fall into the category of inorganic "high mercury wastes," which are defined as inorganic wastes with a total mercury concentration of greater than or equal to 260 mg/ kg (or ppm). 4 As a result, post­ consumer MCDs are required, under 40 CFR 268.40, to be recycled through roasting or retorting, which entails placing the waste in a thermal processing unit that allows for volatilization of the mercury and subsequent condensing of the mercury for recovery. This process is referred to as "RMERC" in 40 CFR 268.40. 5 5 6 Households that are handlers of post­ consumer MCDs would be excluded from the Universal Waste regulations. 7 An example of such a handler would be the Honeywell Corporation, which established a "reverse distribution network" in 1994 whereby it collects discarded mercury­ containing thermostats from other users and recycles them. (U. S. EPA, 1997c) Entities that recycle MCDs are subject to full RCRA Subtitle C regulations, and must obtain a permit and meet administrative and technical standards (40 CFR Parts 264, 265, and 270). 2.3 Regulated Entities Under Universal Waste Regulations Under the Universal Waste regulations (40 CFR Part 273), entities involved in the MCD lifecycle would be regulated if they fall into one of the following categories: handlers, transporters, or destination facilities. Handlers MCD handlers would include all entities that discard post­ consumer MCDs and that are not explicitly excluded from the Universal Waste requirements. 6 These include LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs. Regulated handlers would also include entities that receive discarded MCDs from other handlers, accumulate the devices over a period of time, and then send the devices on to other handlers, recyclers, or TSDFs. 7 These handlers are generally referred to as "consolidation facilities." Handlers can be grouped into two categories based on the amount of waste they accumulate: C Entities that accumulate less than 5,000 kg of universal waste at any time are small quantity handlers of universal waste (SQHUWs), and are subject to requirements for accumulation time (up to one year), proper management of waste, response to releases, and employee training. C Entities that accumulate 5,000 kg or more of universal waste at any time are large quantity handlers of universal waste (LQHUWs). LQHUWs are subject to the same requirements as SQHUWs, but also must maintain basic shipment records, obtain an EPA identification number, and comply with stricter employee training requirements. Also, designation as a LQHUW is retained through the end of the calendar year in which LQHUW status is attained (i. e., 5,000 kg or more of universal waste is accumulated). Transporters Under the Universal Waste regulations, transporters of discarded MCDs would be defined as any entity that transports these devices from handlers to other handlers, TSDFs/ recyclers, or foreign destinations (40 CFR 273.10). Transporters of discarded MCDs 6 8 For example, under 49 CFR 173.64( c)( 1), exceptions are provided for thermometers, switches, and relays that (1) each contain no more than 15 grams of mercury, (2) are installed as an "integral part" of a machine or apparatus, and (3) are fitted such that shocks from impacts are unlikely to cause leakages of mercury. would not be required to be certified as hazardous waste handlers under 40 CFR Part 263 and would not be required to prepare shipping manifests. In addition, transporters would be able to store discarded MCDs at transfer facilities (e. g., loading docks, parking areas) for up to 10 days. Although not required to meet RCRA hazardous waste regulations, transporters shipping post­ consumer MCDs generally would be required to meet DOT's hazardous materials requirements (49 CFR Parts 171 through 180) unless the total quantity of mercury in each package (i. e., the "reportable quantity," or "RQ") is less than one pound (49 CFR 172.101, Appendix A). Additional conditions for the exemption of post­ consumer MCDs from the DOT hazardous materials requirements are found in 49 CFR 173.164. 8 Destination Facilities (including Recyclers) Under the Universal Waste regulations, destination facilities for discarded MCDs would include any facility that treats, disposes of, or recycles these devices. Like the TSDFs described in Section 2.2, these facilities are subject to full RCRA Subtitle C regulations, including permit requirements and both general and unit­ specific facility standards. Destination facilities must also maintain records of shipments of discarded MCDs that are received, but they are not required to complete, transmit, and file manifests (i. e., because manifests are not required for universal waste shipments). 3. Preliminary Research and Analysis This section describes the results of preliminary research conducted in order to identify the number of entities potentially affected by the rule and to characterize MCD disposal prices, transportation costs, and administrative costs. 3.1 Number of Potentially Affected Generators of MCDs For the purpose of this analysis, an "MCD­ only" generator is defined as one that is regulated as a hazardous waste generator for MCDs only, and not any other type of hazardous waste. An "MCD­ plus" generator is defined as a generator that is regulated for other types of hazardous waste but also generates MCDs. As described in Section 3.1.1, MCD­ only generators are not expected to be affected by this rulemaking because they are all estimated to be CESQGs. 3.1.1 MCD­ Only Generators Preliminary research conducted for this analysis yielded insufficient data to identify, characterize, and quantify users (generators) of MCDs. Consequently, in order to assess the likelihood that MCD­ only generators would be affected by the rule, the analysis estimated the number of MCDs a generator would have to dispose of to be classified as a SQG or LQG. 7 9 A discussion with one mercury retorter confirmed that there are no MCD­ only generators. See Appendix B. 10 BRS data are divided into generator data and treater data. Generator data are reported by LQGs only. Treater data include data on all shipments received by a treater, including shipments by CESQGs, SQGs and LQGs. Because both SQG and LQG shipments are of interest, the analysis used the treater data, rather than the generator data. This process may inadvertantly might inadvertently capture CESQG data. 11 The results of this analysis are not particularly sensitive to this 25 percent estimate. See Section 9. 12 As discussed in Section 9, the number of MCD­ plus generators may be understated and the tons of MCDs may be overstated. Further, based on the estimated lifetime of each MCD, the analysis estimates the number of devices that would need be in use at a facility. As discussed in more detail in Appendix A, MCDonly generators would have to use and discard very large numbers of MCDs to be classified as either SQGs or LQGs. As a result, this analysis assumes that all MCD­ only generators are CESQGs. 9 Because CESQGs are exempt from the both Subtitle C baseline requirements and Universal Waste system requirements, these generators would not be affected by the inclusion of MCDs in the Universal Waste system and are thus excluded from this analysis. 3.1.2 MCD­ Plus Generators To identify the number of MCD­ Plus generators (those that generated MCDs but qualify as SQGs or LQGs on the basis of other hazardous wastes), this analysis examined 1997 BRS treater data. 10 Specifically, data were extracted for all generators that send potential MCD waste to retorters known to accept MCDs. Waste was assumed likely to contain MCDs if (1) the waste code was mercury (D009) (only), (2) the form code was other waste inorganic solids (B319) or blank, and (3) the treatment code was retorting (M012), high temperature metal recovery (M011), other metal recovery for reuse (M014), or metal recovery­ type unknown (M019). Based on information from a retorting facility (Mercury Waste Solutions) that 25 percent of the waste it handles is MCD waste, this analysis assumed 25 percent of potential MCD waste actually was MCD waste. 11 When available from BRS or the RCRAinfo database in Envirofacts (accessed in August 2001), SIC codes were obtained for each generating facility. Exhibit 3­ 1 summarizes of the number of generating facilities and average MCD quantities by two digit SIC code. Based on this analysis, 1,877 facilities generated over 550 tons of MCDs in 1997. The average annual quantity of MCDs generated at a single facility is approximately 590 pounds (0.295 tons). 12 8 Exhibit 3­ 1. MCD­ Plus Generators, Based on BRS Data 2 Digit SIC Number of Generators Average MCDs (tons) Total MCDs (tons) 10 1 2.000 2.00 13 4 0.013 0.05 14 1 0.023 0.02 15 1 0.049 0.05 16 1 0.009 0.01 17 1 0.023 0.02 20 62 0.056 3.49 22 17 0.181 3.08 24 7 0.167 1.17 25 16 0.044 0.70 26 43 0.082 3.52 27 34 0.037 1.27 28 148 0.283 41.86 29 9 0.314 2.83 30 45 0.116 5.22 31 2 0.035 0.07 32 31 0.042 1.31 33 57 0.143 8.16 34 66 0.038 2.50 35 66 0.096 6.33 36 92 0.313 28.77 37 44 0.301 13.24 38 23 0.124 2.86 39 11 0.063 0.69 40 3 0.085 0.26 41 1 0.090 0.09 42 10 2.304 23.04 43 3 0.039 0.12 44 1 0.025 0.02 45 2 0.150 0.30 46 3 0.005 0.01 47 2 0.456 0.91 48 22 0.051 1.13 49 81 1.111 89.97 50 20 0.565 11.31 51 15 0.067 1.00 52 2 0.035 0.07 53 1 0.830 0.83 9 2 Digit SIC Number of Generators Average MCDs (tons) Total MCDs (tons) 55 3 0.009 0.03 63 1 1.756 1.76 65 1 0.019 0.02 72 1 0.006 0.01 73 38 0.171 6.48 75 2 0.081 0.16 76 7 0.036 0.25 77 1 0.009 0.01 80 10 0.124 1.24 82 11 0.581 6.39 83 1 0.027 0.03 87 14 0.069 0.97 89 4 5.933 23.73 91 1 0.075 0.08 95 5 1.540 7.70 96 3 0.080 0.24 97 22 0.335 7.37 99 7 0.260 1.82 unknown 797 0.298 237.74 Total 1877 0.295 554.29 10 13 A representative of Bethlehem Apparatus (a retorter) estimated that MCDs make up no more than one to five percent of a generators total waste. 14 The actual LQG threshold quantity is 1000 kg/ month (1.1 tons/ month). Using 10 tons per year as the threshold assumes an LQG exceeds the threshold approximately nine months out of the year. 15 CESQGs under RCRA also qualify as SQHUWs under the Universal Waste regulations. However, as specified in 40 CFR 273.5, CESQGs may choose to manage their universal wastes according to either the full RCRA requirements or the Universal Waste requirements. Given that CESQGs are subject to minimal waste management requirements under RCRA, this analysis assumes that all CESQGs continue to manage post­ consumer MCDs under these requirements. To determine whether each facility in the analysis is an LQG or SQG, this analysis assumes that MCDs make up between one and five percent of the generator's total waste. 13 Estimates of MCD quantities were divided by five percent to estimate total waste quantity for each facility. The analysis compared this estimate with 10 tons per year. 14 If a facility generated more than 10 tons of total waste per year, this analysis assumed it was an LQG. Otherwise, the facility was assumed to be an SQG. Using this methodology this analysis estimates that 131 of the 1877 generators were LQGs. 3.2 Number of Potentially Affected Handlers of MCDs As discussed in Section 2.3 above, the Universal Waste regulations define two types of "handlers" of Universal Waste, SQHUWs and LQHUWs, which can be either generators or consolidation facilities. All generators in the baseline are considered handlers under Universal waste requirements. Consolidation facilities would include facilities that collect MCD waste and ship it to a retorter, and could operate within a company, serve as collection points for community collection efforts, or act as a waste broker. Due to uncertainty concerning the number of potential consolidation facilities that may be established, this analysis does not assume any new consolidation facilities will be established. However, any firm serving as a broker in the baseline would be considered a handler under the Universal Waste regulations. These regulations allow a handler to accumulate waste for up to one year. The threshold accumulation amount that determines whether an entity is an SQHUW or an LQHUW is 5,000 kg at any one time. Assuming least­ cost behavior, each SQHUW and LQHUW that generates post­ consumer MCDs is assumed to make only one shipment to a TSDF (i. e., recycler) per year. Based on this assumption, only 13 of the 1,877 handlers will be LQHUWs. The remainder will be SQHUWs. 15 3.3 Number of Potentially Affected Treaters of MCDs To identify the number of treaters of MCD­ plus waste, this analysis used 1997 BRS treater data. Data for all D009 (the hazardous waste code for mercury) waste using the retorting treatment code (M012) were extracted, and the names of the treaters were compiled. This generated a list of 18 facilities. Through a review of Internet sites for these 18 facilities, and limited contact with a few facilities, this analysis determined six firms with a total of ten facilities accepted MCDs in 1997 and still exist today. This research also indicated that there has been consolidation within the retorting industry (mergers, buyouts, etc) since 1997. It appears that at 11 16 This figure is derived from 1997 estimates for SIC codes 4210 (Trucking and courier services, except air) and 4730 (Freight transportation arrangement). least two of these facilities (the National Environmental Services facilities) act as brokers rather than retorters. These two broker facilities would be considered TSDFs in the Subtitle C baseline and handlers in the Universal Waste system. The other retorters would be considered TSDFs in the baseline and destination facilities in the Universal Waste system. Exhibit 3­ 2 presents a list of these facilities from BRS. Exhibit 3­ 2. MCD Retorters and Brokers Manager ID 1997 Manager Name Current Manager Name (if Different) AZR000005454 Earth Protection Svc. FL0000207449 Recyclights, Inc. National Environmental Services FLD984262782 AERC/ Mercury Technologies International MN0000903468 Recyclights, Inc. National Environmental Services NYD048148175 Mercury Refining Company, Inc. Mercury Waste Solutions Inc PA0000453084 Bethlehem Apparatus Co, Inc. PAD002390961 Bethlehem Apparatus Co, Inc. PAD987367216 AERC WID071164032 Superior Special Services, Inc. WIR000000356 Mercury Waste Solutions, Inc. 3.3 Number of Potentially Affected Transporters of Discarded MCDs (Baseline and Universal Waste Requirements) Data on the number of transporters shipping mercury wastes are not readily available. However, EPA has previously estimated that there are approximately 500 hazardous waste transporter companies in total (U. S. EPA, 1999). For lack of better data, this analysis assumes that 20 percent of these companies (i. e., 100 companies) currently ship post­ consumer MCDs. Under the Universal Waste regulations, transporters do not need to be certified hazardous waste transporters. Thus, any type of trucking company could potentially be a transporter of post­ consumer MCDs. Based on data from the U. S. Bureau of the Census, the number of transporters of post­ consumer MCDs under the Universal Waste requirements could be as high as 140,000. 16 This analysis assumes that 0.5 percent of these companies (i. e., 700 companies) will ship post­ consumer MCDs under the Universal Waste requirements. Of these 700 transporters, 600 are assumed to be new entrants in the market for shipping post­ consumer MCDs. 12 17 Because these devices are ultimately destined for retorting, the term disposal may seem inappropriate. However, while the mercury is recovered at the retorter, the rest of the device is discarded. 18 See also Appendix B. 19 A mercury retorter representative stated that the firm does not publish price lists in order to protect the information from competitors. 3.4 Disposal Price Research MCD generators are known to dispose of their MCDs by sending them to retorters, to non­ retorting TSDFs (along with their other hazardous waste), and to waste brokers. 17 This study contacted a small sample of such facilities in order to obtain information on prices charged for MCD disposal. The results of this research, summarized in Exhibit 3­ 5, 18 show relatively large variability in prices across retorters, non­ retorting TSDFs, and waste brokers. Several possible factors might account for this variability: C Pricing schemes may anticipate certain shipment sizes and therefore may not be directly comparable. For example, some firms may set prices on a per drum basis, while other firms might cater to smaller generators by charging on a per pound basis. Similarly, some brokers and non­ retorting TSDFs may be able to receive volume discounts from retorters that are not obtainable by original MCD users. C The prices may reflect a non­ homogenous national marketplace that is heavily influenced by location and, therefore, by transportation costs. (There were only an estimated eight retorters operating in the U. S. in 1997.) C The market may reflect imperfect information. That is, the price of alternative disposal destinations may not be widely known, either by generators or by waste brokers, retorters, and non­ retorting TSDFs. 19 This possibility is also consistent with the fact that MCDs, despite their ubiquitous nature, are not recognized as MCDs by most people. (These factors also might help explain the counterintuitive finding that prices charged by retorters are not consistently lower than those charged by brokers or by non­ retorting TSDFs, both of which would be expected to pass along to their customers, with a mark­ up, the prices charged by retorters. Another potential explanation could be that non­ retorting TSDFs, in order to maintain a reputation for providing full­ service hazardous waste management, may be willing to charge lower prices for MCDs given that relatively few MCDs are received from generators.) The two key findings for this analysis are as follows: (1) the amount of MCDs to be disposed of is a key factor in evaluating relative disposal prices; and (2) given the significant variation in disposal prices, other factors frequently predominate over disposal costs in driving the decision of where to ship MCDs. In particular, it is worth noting that, because generators are likely to be sending other hazardous wastes to a non­ retorting TSDF, least­ cost behavior may be relatively complex and non­ uniform. Other factors influencing the decision may include 13 20 See Section 2.3 for a discussion of transportation requirements. geographic location and transportation costs, corporate contracts to handle other hazardous waste, convenience, and imperfect information. Exhibit 3­ 3. Disposal Prices for MCDs Facility Code Facility Type Unit Price( s) Unit Price (volume Discount) Volume Needed for Discount A TSDF (non­ retorting) $925/ drum NA NA B TSDF (non­ retorting) $245 ­ up to 5 gallons $653 ­ up to 25 gallons $783 ­ up to 31 gallons $1002 ­ up to 55 gallons $1,002/ drum 1 drum C TSDF (non­ retorting) $800/ 5­ gallon pail >$ 2,000/ drum D Broker $4.50 ­ $5.50/ lb $2,500/ drum drum price assumes 800 pounds E Retorter $1,700/ drum $1,000/ drum NA F Retorter $1,300/ drum or $250 fee + $2 ­ $2.75/ lb $900/ drum 50­ 60 drums/ yr 3.5 Transportation Costs for Regulated Generators and Handlers Under the baseline, transportation costs are those associated with certified hazardous waste transporters. Under the Universal Waste requirements, the analysis assumes that postconsumer MCDs will be packaged in manner that precludes them from being defined as hazardous substances under DOT regulations (i. e., with less than one pound of mercury per package). 20 As a result, transportation costs for non­ hazardous materials were used for shipments under the Universal Waste requirements. The transportation costs used in the model consist of two parts: (1) a fixed fee, and (2) a variable fee based on tons shipped and miles driven. The analysis assumes that generators are 200 miles from all types of recyclers (retorters, brokers, and non­ retorting TSDFs). Exhibit 3­ 6 presents the fixed and variable costs to ship under Subtitle C requirements and under Universal Waste requirements. For both type of shipments, this analysis assumes the minimum quantity for which these equations is valid is one ton. Quantities lower than one ton have been rounded up to one ton. 14 21 Appendix C presents an alternative scenario where some facilities are not in full compliance with Subtitle C requirements. Exhibit 3­ 6 Transportation Costs for Post­ Consumer MCDs Under the Baseline (2001 dollars) Type of Shipment Transportation Costs* Fixed Variable** ($/ ton­ mile) Hazardous Waste $159 0.16 Universal Waste $106 0.12 * Source: ICF (1998) ** The variable cost per ton­ mile is valid for shipping distances between 50 and 400 miles. The analysis assumes an average shipping distance of 200 miles in the baseline. 3.6 Administrative Compliance Costs for Regulated Generators and Handlers This section presents the administrative requirements and costs applicable to generators under the baseline and to handlers under the Universal Waste requirements. It is important to note the because all SQGs and LQGs that generate MCDs also generate other types of hazardous waste, not all of these costs will be affected for all entities. Baseline Unit Costs: RCRA Subtitle C The analysis models the current management of discarded post­ consumer MCDs assuming 100 percent compliance with Subtitle C requirements. 21 Administrative activities required under Subtitle C and the associated unit costs are summarized in Exhibit 3­ 7. These unit costs were taken from prior EPA analyses on mercury­ containing lamps and cathode ray tubes (ICF, 1999a; ICF, 1999b). In calculating total costs for generators in the baseline, the analysis assumes that SQGs and LQGs incur the low costs. Universal Waste Requirements Administrative activities required under the Universal Waste regulations and the associated unit costs are summarized in Exhibit 3­ 8. These unit costs also were taken from prior EPA analyses on mercury­ containing lamps and cathode ray tubes (ICF, 1999a; ICF, 1999b). In calculating total costs for handlers under the Universal Waste requirements, the analysis assumes that the SQHUWs and LQHUWs incur the low costs. 15 Exhibit 3­ 7 Administrative Unit Costs for Generators Under the Baseline (Full RCRA Subtitle C) (2001 dollars) Required Activity Unit Costs LQG SQG High Estimate Low Estimate High Estimate Low Estimate One­ Time Costs* Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity $161 $89 $161 $89 Rule Familiarization $1,186 $356 $1,186 $139 Emergency Planning $629 $230 $423 $124 Waste Characterization $334 $0 $334 $0 Annual Costs Annual Review of Regulations $67 $67 $67 $67 Subtitle C Recordkeeping $35 $15 $35 $15 Biennial Reporting (annualized cost) $387 $138 $0 $0 Personnel Safety Training (annualized cost) $508 $223 $79 $31 Manifest Training $175 $4 $37 $2 Variable Costs** Manifesting and Land Disposal Restriction Notification (per shipment) $45 $33 $35 $32 Exception Reporting (per report)*** $69 $34 $32 $18 * One percent of the generators are assumed to be new facilities and thus they incur additional costs as startup facilities. This percentage was used to determine the number of establishments expected to incur initial costs in any year (one percent of the generator universe). ** Variable costs depend on the number of shipments made by a generator. The number of shipments per year was calculated and used to estimate the administrative costs. *** The analysis assumes that no MCD manifests require an exception report. 16 22 In addition, it appears that some generators may be sending MCDs to MSW incinerators or landfills. Appendix C evaluates the impact of the rule on these generators. Exhibit 3­ 8 Administrative Unit Costs for Handlers Under the Universal Waste Requirements (2001 dollars) Required Activity Unit Costs LQHUW SQHUW High Estimate Low Estimate High Estimate Low Estimate One­ Time Costs* Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity $161 $89 $0 $0 Rule Familiarization $1,186 $177 $1,186 $89 Waste Characterization $334 $0 $334 $0 Annual Costs Annual Review of Regulations $33 $33 $33 $33 Personnel Safety Training (annualized cost) $92 $28 $35 $10 Variable Costs** Shipping Recordkeeping (per shipment) $9 $9 $0 $0 * One percent of the handlers are assumed to be new facilities and thus they incur additional costs as startup facilities. This percentage was used to determine the number of establishments expected to incur initial costs in any year (one percent of the handler universe). ** Variable costs depend on the number of shipments made by a large quantity handler. The number of shipments per year was calculated and used to estimate the administrative costs. 4. MCD Management Practices This section discusses the baseline and post­ rule options available to MCD generators, as well as a discussion of the factors influencing a generators selection of each option. 4.1 Baseline Practices As shown in Exhibit 4­ 1, in the baseline MCD generators can send MCDs to a nonretorting TSDF (along with the other types of hazardous waste they generate), to the retorter directly, or to a broker. 22 The non­ retorting TSDF and the broker would then have to send the MCDs on to a retorter. The retorter may then directly sell the mercury or send it on to a retorter that produces a higher purity mercury. Based on the research conducted for this analysis, including conversations with industry representatives (see Appendix B) and analysis of BRS data, all of the pathways shown in the exhibit are used. The factors driving generators to select between a retorter, broker, or nonretorting TSDF include disposal prices and geography (i. e., actual distance from the generator to a particular disposal option), but the decision also is likely to be influenced by other factors. In fact, least­ cost behavior may be relatively complex and non­ uniform given that generators are 17 likely to be sending other hazardous wastes to a non­ retorting TSDF. For instance, by sending MCDs to the same non­ retorting TSDF to which other waste from the facility is sent, a 18 *** DRAFT ­ September 5, 2001 *** Exhibit 4­ 1. Baseline Management Practices Subtitle D Landfill Retorter High Purity Retorter Mercury Buyers TSDF Non­ Retorting Broker Generators: 19 23 These generators include facilities such as waste brokers and non­ retorting TSDFs to the extent that they originated shipments/ manifests in the baseline. generator might reduce manifest and shipping costs, and simplify facility operations. Alternatively, a generator might choose to send waste to a broker if the broker offers a substantially lower price on a small quantity of MCDs. Or, a generator might choose to send waste to a retorter directly if the retorter is located nearby or if the generator is already sending other waste to that retorter. 4.2 Post Rule Practices In the post rule scenario, compliance costs will decrease for MCDs that are managed as a Universal Waste rather than as other Subtitle C hazardous waste. At a minimum, all MCDs shipped directly from generators 23 to waste brokers or retorters (i. e., to post­ rule Universal Waste Handlers) will result in such savings, because management practices corresponding to current practices will cost less. For example, if a generator continues to ship MCDs to a retorter post­ rule, then savings will accrue due to the reduced Universal Waste requirements. This is true regardless of the fact that the generator's other hazardous waste continues to be sent to a TSDF under full Subtitle C regulation. Exhibit 4­ 2 summarizes the changes in a generator's transportation and administrative unit costs to send MCD waste to a broker or retorter post­ rule while continuing to send other hazardous waste to a non­ retorting TSDF. These costs assume that no new cost will be incurred for activities required under both regulatory schemes (e. g., notification of hazardous waste activity, safety training). For a generator sending less than one ton per year in a single baseline shipment, the savings would be $34. If the generator sent the same amount in two baseline shipments, but only one post­ rule shipment, the savings would be $225. MCDs that continue to be shipped from generators to non­ retorting TSDFs post­ rule, however, probably will not result in any savings. Recall that, in the baseline, some generators ship MCDs to non­ retorting TSDFs along with their other hazardous wastes. Post­ rule, such generators must continue to ship hazardous waste to the TSDF under full Subtitle C regulation, thereby eliminating most of the opportunity for regulatory savings. Even though the generator's MCDs could be sent to the TSDF as a Universal Waste, doing so would require the generator and the TSDF to operate under both the Universal Waste requirements and under full Subtitle C regulation. This is likely to be more expensive than simply sending the small amount of MCDs as if it were regular hazardous waste. 20 24 This $189 is the sum of $26 (the annualized cost to become familiar with the Universal Waste regulations), $33 (the annual cost to review regulations), and $130 (cost to transport one ton 200 miles). Exhibit 4­ 2. Unit Cost Changes for Generators Sending MCDs to a Broker or Retorter in the Post Rule Scenario New Universal Waste Costs Eliminated Subtitle C Costs Universal Waste Rule Familiarization: $89 (one time)* Annual Review of Regulations: $33 Shipping Recordkeeping: $ 9 per shipment (LQHUW only) Manifest Cost: $32 per shipment Transportation Costs: $106 + $0.12/ ton­ mile** Transportation Costs: $159 + $0.16/ ton­ mile** * Rule familiarization = $26 when annualized over 4 years at a 7 percent discount rate. ** A 200 mile shipping distance is assumed regardless of destination. Shipment sizes are rounded up to next full ton. Theoretically, greater savings might result from the rule if MCDs that had been shipped from generators to non­ retorting TSDFs in the baseline were, post­ rule, shipped to waste brokers or retorters. However, in reality, any savings would be minimal. For example, consider a generator that in the baseline is sending one drum of MCDs along with four tons of hazardous waste to a non­ retorting TSDF twice a year; there is essentially no baseline manifest cost (the manifest must be completed regardless of the MCDs) and only a negligible baseline transportation cost (the truck is needed regardless of the MCDs). Post­ rule, there is an additional $189 in new costs, 24 that must be more than offset by any savings in disposal costs (i. e., the generator would have to save more than $189 in disposal costs for such a switch to be economical). 5. Cost Results This section describes how the incremental compliance costs of the proposed rule are calculated, assuming 100 percent compliance with all applicable requirements. The incremental annual cost savings attributable to the proposed rule (i. e., under the Universal Waste system) are calculated by subtracting the new costs under the Universal Waste requirements from the eliminated costs under the baseline. 21 25 These generators include original generators and brokers and non­ retorting TSDFs that ship MCDs to retorting facilities. 26 Brokers both send and receive waste. The costs of sending wastes are captured in the costs for generators as discussed above. The costs of receiving waste are described in this subsection. 5.1 Methodology The analysis estimates savings as applicable for entities that will incur reduced costs as a result of the rule. The methodology does not assume any shifts in the flow of MCDs (i. e., in the percentage distribution of MCDs from original users to retorters, waste brokers, and nonretorting TSDFs) as a result of the rule because such shifts seem unlikely (as discussed in Section 4). Costs to Generators To calculate the savings to MCD generators (SQHUW and LQHUW under the Universal Waste System) 25 sending waste to a broker or retorter, this analysis used the following data from the BRS analysis as discussed in Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2: two­ and four­ digit SIC codes, assumed annual MCD generation rate, status as an LQG or SQG in the baseline, and status as an LQHUW or SQHUW in the post rule scenario. This analysis first calculated the number of shipments in the baseline based on LQG or SQG status: For LQGs, the baseline number of shipments was the greater of four or the annual waste quantity divided by 20 tons per truckload. For SQGs, the number of shipments was the smaller of two or the number of waste streams reported in BRS. The post rule number of shipments was calculated as the greater of one per year or the annual waste quantity divided by 20 tons per truckload. This analysis then calculated the average shipment size by dividing the annual MCD generation rate by the number of shipments in the baseline and post­ rule scenarios. The incremental unit costs from Exhibit 4­ 2 were then applied to each facility to calculate the new and eliminated costs for each facility. The eliminated costs were then subtracted from the new costs to calculate the savings for each facility. Costs to Retorters and Brokers For the most part, retorter and brokers 26 of universal wastes must comply with the same requirements that apply to recyclers of hazardous wastes. However, universal waste retorters and brokers are not required to comply with the manifest requirements under full RCRA Subtitle C, and instead are required only to keep basic records of shipments received. As a result, MCD retorters and brokers will realize cost savings under the Universal Waste requirements. In the baseline, retorter and brokers are assumed to incur a cost of $36 per shipment for manifest recordkeeping. This unit cost estimate is calculated by taking the average across the unit costs for manifest recordkeeping that apply to SQGs and LQGs. Under the Universal Waste requirements, retorters and brokers are assumed to incur a cost of $9 per shipment for 22 basic recordkeeping. This unit cost estimate is calculated by taking the average across the unit costs for recordkeeping that apply to LQHUWs. Thus the cost saving for recyclers was calculated by multiplying $36 by the number of shipments in the baseline (2,497), and subtracting the product of $9 multiplied by the number of shipments in the post rule scenario (1,885). 5.2 Cost Results The total savings associated with the rule is $273,000. Of this total, $200,000 is estimated to accrue to MCD generators, with an average savings of $106 per generator. The remaining $73,000 in savings accrues to retorters and waste brokers. Exhibit 5­ 1 presents the average savings for a typical facility within each two­ digit SIC code known to be affected based on BRS data. Exhibit 5­ 1. Average Cost Savings per Facility (by SIC Code) 2­ digit SIC Number of Facilities Average Savings Total Savings 10 1 $678.73 $678.73 13 4 $33.73 $134.91 14 1 $33.73 $33.73 15 1 $33.73 $33.73 16 1 $33.73 $33.73 17 1 $33.73 $33.73 20 62 $69.31 $4,297.09 22 17 $86.20 $1,465.36 24 7 $129.30 $905.09 25 16 $61.60 $985.64 26 43 $106.33 $4,572.27 27 34 $73.08 $2,484.72 28 148 $125.51 $18,575.65 29 9 $152.28 $1,370.54 30 45 $97.62 $4,392.72 31 2 $33.73 $67.45 32 31 $62.50 $1,937.54 33 57 $90.73 $5,171.45 34 66 $54.00 $3,564.00 35 66 $87.29 $5,761.00 36 92 $134.89 $ 12,409.92 37 44 $118.18 $5,200.02 38 23 $120.99 $2,782.73 39 11 $74.27 $ 817.00 40 3 $108.06 $ 324.18 23 2­ digit SIC Number of Facilities Average Savings Total Savings 41 1 $33.73 $33.73 42 10 $294.03 $2,940.34 43 3 $182.39 $ 547.18 44 1 $33.73 $33.73 45 2 $256.73 $ 513.45 46 3 $33.73 $ 101.18 47 2 $368.23 $ 736.45 48 22 $33.73 $ 742.00 49 81 $261.63 $ 21,191.99 50 20 $241.18 $4,823.54 51 15 $48.59 $ 728.91 52 2 $33.73 $67.45 53 1 $702.73 $ 702.73 55 3 $33.73 $ 101.18 63 1 $678.73 $ 678.73 65 1 $33.73 $33.73 72 1 $33.73 $33.73 73 38 $80.89 $3,073.63 75 2 $145.23 $ 290.45 76 7 $65.58 $ 459.09 77 1 $33.73 $33.73 80 10 $145.23 $1,452.27 82 11 $156.09 $1,717.00 83 1 $33.73 $33.73 87 14 $65.58 $ 918.18 89 4 $381.48 $1,525.93 91 1 $33.73 $33.73 95 5 $544.93 $2,724.64 96 3 $33.73 $ 101.18 97 22 $ 169.77 $3,735.00 99 7 $ 285.16 $1,996.09 unknown 797 $87.36 $ 69,627.62 Total 1877 $ 106.43 $199,765.25 6. Economic Impact Results The analysis estimates first­ order economic impacts of incremental costs by calculating an industry average cost­ to­ sales ratio and cost­ to­ profit ratio for entities in two­ digit SIC codes known to be affected by the rule, based on BRS data. Census data for the year 1997 served as the source of average sales data for establishments in each two­ digit SIC code. Profits data 24 27 Two­ digit SIC codes containing fewer than five affected facilities were excluded from the profits analysis. Profits data were available only at the four­ digit SIC level based on data for selected publicly held companies. The analysis modeled profit at the two­ digit SIC level based on the associated four­ digit SIC code containing the most affected entities. Alternative four­ digit SICs were selected as necessary where the summary data represented relatively few publicly held companies. Several relevant two­ digit SIC codes were not modeled due to data limitations. Source: DIALOG Media General 2001, accessed August 2001. were obtained for those two­ digit SIC codes containing the most affected entities. 27 Incremental compliance costs or savings for representative establishments were estimated as described previously. The impacts analysis based on costs/ sales is likely to overstate economic impacts (whether costs or savings) because the sales data used in the analysis represent average values for each SIC code as a whole, whereas the estimated compliance costs arise only for the entities that are large enough to be considered an SQG or LQG in the baseline. Such entities may have an average sales value that is slightly higher than the average for the industry as a whole. Conversely, the profits analysis is likely to understate economic impacts because profits data are estimated based on data for publicly held companies, which tend to be relatively larger than other companies and to have higher nominal profits. Given that the proposed rule will result in savings, rather than costs, neither of these limitations are significant. However, the combined effect is to make impacts appear more significant when measured as a percent of sales than as a percent of profit. Exhibit 6­ 1 shows the impacts of the cost savings (as a percentage of sales) for the average affected entity in each two­ digit SIC code. Cost as a percentage of sales is very small for all SICs (e. g., relative to the average savings per generator of $106 per year). The highest impact for a classifiable industry sector is on the "transportation services" sector (SIC code 47). Establishments in SIC code 47 have average annual sales of $800,280. The incremental savings represents 0.05 percent of the average annual sales. Exhibit 6­ 2 shows the impacts of the cost savings (as a percentage of profits) for the average affected entity in the two­ digit SIC codes containing the most affected entities. Cost as a percentage of profit is very small for all SICs. The highest impact for a classifiable industry sector is on the "electric, gas, and sanitary services" sector (SIC code 49), which contains TSDFs and electric and gas utilities, which are known to use relatively significant quantities of MCDs. Establishments in SIC code 49 have modeled average annual profits of $5,247,531. The incremental savings represents 0.005 percent of the average annual sales. 25 Exhibit 6­ 1: Estimated Impact (Cost/ Sales) Industry SIC Code Average Sales (per establishment) Affected Facilities Savings as Percent of Sales MINING Metal Mining 10 $15,444,022 1 0.004% Oil and Gas Extraction 13 $7,099,539 4 0.0005% Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels 14 $3,067,481 1 0.001% CONSTRUCTION General Building Contractors 15 $1,918,732 1 0.002% Heavy construction other than buildings construction­ contractors 16 $3,651,692 1 0.001% Construction­ special trade contractors 17 $869,084 1 0.004% MANUFACTURING Food and kindred products 20 $23,452,928 62 0.0003% Textile mill products 22 $13,459,297 17 0.001% Lumber and wood products 24 $3,164,898 7 0.004% Furniture and fixtures 25 $5,300,519 16 0.001% Paper and allied products 26 $25,534,243 43 0.000% Printing and publishing 27 $3,512,951 34 0.002% Chemicals and allied products 28 $31,829,039 148 0.0004% Petroleum and coal products 29 $77,749,139 9 0.0002% Rubber and misc plastics products 30 $9,900,988 45 0.001% Leather and leather products 31 $5,645,731 2 0.001% Stone, clay, and glass products 32 $5,484,777 31 0.001% Primary metal industries 33 $29,069,529 57 0.0003% Fabricated metal industries 34 $6,304,917 66 0.001% Industrial machinery and equipment 35 $7,649,689 66 0.001% Electronic and electric equipment 36 $20,102,162 92 0.001% Transportation equipment 37 $42,369,196 44 0.0003% Instruments and related products 38 $13,732,146 23 0.001% Miscellaneous manufacturing industries 39 $2,988,227 11 0.002% TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, AND UTILITIES Railroad Transportation 40 NA 3 NA Local and interurban passenger transportation 41 $1,000,929 1 0.003% Motor freight transportation and warehousing 42 $1,554,880 10 0.02% U. S. Postal Service 43 NA 3 NA Water transportation 44 $3,886,447 1 0.001% Transportation by air 45 $13,768,621 2 0.002% Pipelines, except natural gas 46 $8,642,919 3 0.0004% Transportation services 47 $800,280 2 0.05% Communications 48 $8,007,019 22 0.0004% Electric, gas, and sanitary services 49 $21,082,044 81 0.001% WHOLESALE TRADE Wholesale trade­ durable goods 50 $7,179,142 20 0.003% Wholesale trade­ nondurable goods 51 $10,953,407 15 0.0004% 26 Industry SIC Code Average Sales (per establishment) Affected Facilities Savings as Percent of Sales RETAIL TRADE Building materials, hardware, garden supply, and mobile home dealers 52 $2,332,525 2 0.001% General merchandise stores 53 $9,835,465 1 0.007% Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations 55 $4,169,625 3 0.001% FINANCIAL, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE INDUSTRIES Security and commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges, and services 63 $25,071,924 1 0.003% Real Estate 65 $799,821 1 0.004% SERVICE INDUSTRIES Personal services 72 $277,326 1 0.01% Business services 73 $1,407,270 38 0.006% Automotive repair, services, and parking 75 $566,325 2 0.03% Misc repair services 76 $611,188 7 0.01% Health services 80 $1,747,423 10 0.008% Educational services 82 $2,920,852 11 0.005% Social services 83 $616,590 1 0.005% Engineering, accounting, research, management, and related services 87 $1,182,153 14 0.006% Services, not elsewhere classified 89 $1,234,760 4 0.03% PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Executive, legislative, and general government 91 NA 1 NA Environmental quality and housing 95 NA 5 NA Administration of economic programs 96 NA 3 NA National security and international affairs 97 NA 22 NA Nonclassifiable Establishments 99 $85,596 7 0.3% 27 Exhibit 6­ 2: Estimated Impact (Cost/ Profit) Industry SIC Code Affected Entities "Model" 4 Digit SIC Average Profit (pre­ tax) Savings as a Percent of Profit MANUFACTURING Food and kindred products 20 62 2086 $537,317,489 0.00001% Furniture and fixtures 25 16 2511 $62,090,151 0.0001% Paper and allied products 26 43 2621 $465,125,659 0.00002% Printing and publishing 27 34 2752 $37,154,933 0.0002% Chemicals and allied products 28 148 2821 $291,631,063 0.00004% Petroleum and coal products 29 9 2911 $3,433,070,006 0.000004% Rubber and misc plastics products 30 45 3011 $64,959,888 0.0002% Stone, clay, and glass products 32 31 3241 $488,914,002 0.00001% Primary metal industries 33 57 3312 $41,447,275 0.0002% Industrial machinery and equipment 35 66 3585 $117,416,497 0.00005% Electronic and electric equipment 36 92 3679 $8,174,795 0.002% Transportation equipment 37 44 3714 $174,385,355 0.00007% Instruments and related products 38 23 3841 $52,688,738 0.0002% Miscellaneous manufacturing industries 39 11 3999 $37,205,970 0.0002% TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, AND UTILITIES Motor freight transportation and warehousing 42 10 4213 $36,927,454 0.0008% Communications 48 22 4813 $818,495,404 0.000004% Electric, gas, and sanitary services 49 81 4953 $5,247,531 0.005% WHOLESALE TRADE Wholesale trade­ durable goods 50 20 5013 $103,109,313 0.0002% SERVICE INDUSTRIES Health services 80 10 8062 $212,556,327 0.00007% Educational services 82 11 8221 $16,638,061 0.0009% Effect of Market Structure Given the extremely low magnitude of the savings per facility that will result from this rule, the effects of market structure of affected industry sectors are insignificant to the incidence of the proposed rule's economic impacts. Regulatory Flexibility The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act, 5 U. S. C. §§ 601­ 612, generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not­ for­ profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This proposed rule does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because today's proposed rule 28 relieves regulatory burden for affected entities through reduced regulatory requirements. In addition, the Agency estimates that this proposed rule leads to an overall cost savings of approximately $270,000. Accordingly, EPA believes that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 7. Qualitative Benefits Including post­ consumer MCDs in the Universal Waste system is expected to result in three major potential benefits: (1) increase in regulatory efficiency and improvement in the implementation of the hazardous waste program; (2) establishment of consolidation facilities; (3) increase in recycling by regulated and non­ regulated entities; and (3) reduction in mercury emissions. This section discusses these three qualitative benefits. Regulatory Efficiency and Improvement in the Implementation of the Hazardous Waste Program Post­ consumer MCDs are usually generated in small quantities by large numbers of generators at many commercial, industrial, and institutional locations. This factor makes regulation of these devices difficult for both generators and regulatory agencies. Including postconsumer MCDs in the Universal Waste system will allow regulated entities greater flexibility in dealing with these wastes (e. g., due to increased accumulation time limits and the potential for waste consolidation), which in turn will allow them to manage these wastes more efficiently and with greater regulatory compliance. Adding post­ consumer MCDs to the Universal Waste system will also provide clearer, more streamlined requirements for post­ consumer MCDs, which may reduce problems associated with a lack of understanding of certain requirements. Under current RCRA Subtitle C regulations, generators, transporters, and TSDFs that handle post­ consumer MCDs must spend a significant amount of time, money, and other resources following the RCRA hazardous waste requirements. If MCDs were included in the Universal Waste system, this administrative and logistical burden would be reduced, as discussed above in Section 4.2. Finally, regulating post­ consumer MCDs as universal wastes could potentially reduce identification problems associated with having some mercury­ containing wastes, such as lamps and thermostats, included in the Universal Waste system while others are not. Under current RCRA requirements, generators and other waste handlers may have problems identifying which mercury­ containing wastes can be managed according to the Universal Waste requirements, which may lead to improper disposal (e. g., in a MSW landfill). Including other MCDs in the Universal Waste system could help to reduce this confusion. Establishment of Consolidation Facilities Research on the regulated community for post­ consumer MCDs did not yield information on the potential number of entities that serve as consolidation facilities for these devices (other than brokers or non­ retorting TSDFs). EPA's prior analyses of mercury­ containing lamps indicates that recyclers generally have lamps shipped directly to their facilities and do not offer substantial discounts on larger volumes of lamps (ICF, 1999b). If this is also the case for MCDs, one would not expect to find a substantial number of consolidation facilities under either the current RCRA baseline or the Universal Waste requirements. 29 28 According to 1997 data from the U. S. Bureau of the Census, there are approximately 16,000 establishments that manufacture MCDs or products containing MCDs. However, a petition filed by USWAG requesting that MCDs be added to the Universal Waste System suggested the rule would reduce the burden associated with managing small quantities of waste generated at remote and sometimes unstaffed locations such as electric substations and along gas distribution lines. Essentially, by including MCDs as a Universal Waste, utilities could collect wastes from remote locations and bring them back to their main facilities, which would function as consolidation facilities. These consolidation facilities would be considered Handlers of Universal Waste rather than TSDFs. As a result, full RCRA permitting as a TSDF would not be required for the facility. In addition, this same ability to consolidate waste without becoming a permitted TSDF may apply to two other types of facilities. First, some manufacturers of MCDs or manufacturers of products that contain MCDs (e. g., gas ranges) may serve as consolidation facilities to receive discarded MCDs from their customers and from other generators. 28 Second, some generators such as hospitals may establish product swaps (e. g., trade­ ins of mercury thermometers for digital thermometers) to promote responsible handling of discarded MCDs. Due to uncertainty concerning the number of potential consolidation facilities that may be established, this analysis does not model costs or cost savings associated with these facilities. Increase in Recycling by Regulated and Non­ Regulated Entities One of the primary goals of RCRA is to conserve valuable material and energy resources. Shifting post­ consumer MCDs from the RCRA hazardous waste system to the Universal Waste system should increase resource conservation by encouraging recovery of mercury from discarded MCDs. Including post­ consumer MCDs in the Universal Waste system will permit regulated entities (including those that are not in full compliance with hazardous waste requirements) to accumulate the devices they generate (or send the devices to consolidation facilities) for future shipment to an off­ site recycling facility. Allowing facilities to accumulate larger quantities of MCDs could make recycling a more cost­ effective option due to economies of scale. An increase in the demand for recycling of post­ consumer MCDs might then encourage the recycling industry to develop and expand its operations, which in turn could make recycling a more attractive option for the regulated and non­ regulated communities. Thus, both noncompliant generators and some non­ regulated entities may shift their disposal of post­ consumer MCDs from landfills or incinerators to recyclers. In addition, manufactures of MCDs may be further encouraged to establish reverse distribution networks for discarded devices to assist both regulated and non­ regulated generators in recycling discarded MCDs. Reduction in Mercury Emissions More recycling of MCDs should occur as a result of including MCDs in the Universal Waste system. Recycling decreases the amount of mercury emissions that result from landfill and incineration disposal because it diverts waste from disposal. Mercury in recycled MCDs is separated, distilled, and recovered, rather than released to the air via incineration or landfilling. 30 29 Amber Bollman, Boston Globe, Nov. 16 30 http:// www. dep. state. fl. us/ dwm/ programs/ mercury/ lamps/ htm 31 http:// www. state. ma. us/ dep/ files/ mercury/ hgch3b. htm# background The disposal of post­ consumer MCDs in landfills and incinerators often results in mercury emissions to air, water, and other media. Mercury emissions are a serious problem because of the volatility of this metal: one gram of mercury (the amount usually found in a household thermometer) can foul up to 5 million gallons of water. 29 Due to the volatility of mercury and the fragility of many MCDs, mercury vapor is readily released into the environment when waste containing MCDs is managed improperly. 30 Mercury emissions are particularly detrimental because they pollute both air and water. Most mercury pollution to water is the result of mercury deposition from air into watersheds. 31 8. Discussion of Findings The primary conclusion drawn from the analysis is that the total cost savings of the rule and the average savings per affected entity are very small. Total savings, which are estimated to be $273,000 per year, appear particularly small when compared to the $70 million annual savings estimated for the original Universal Waste rulemaking, which covered nickel cadmium and other batteries, certain hazardous waste pesticides, and mercury­ containing thermostats. Both the RCRA Subtitle C baseline and the Universal Waste requirements modeled in this analysis assume that almost 1,900 entities will be affected if post­ consumer MCDs are included in the Universal Waste system. Almost 75 percent of the $273,000 annual savings from this action will accrue to existing generators of these devices, with the remaining savings going to MCD retorters or brokers. Relative to the Subtitle C baseline, the economic impacts on the entities in the regulated community are expected to be negligible because the rule provides savings for all affected entities. 9. Assumptions, Limitations, and Sensitivity Analyses The accuracy of the analysis depends on a wide variety of data and assumptions. The following is a list of key assumptions, limitations, and other factors affecting the accuracy of the analysis. Some assumptions tend to increase or decrease the savings of the alternatives, as noted below. Except where noted, assumptions are best estimates and are not believed to introduce systematic bias into the results. C When analyzing the BRS data, this analysis assumes 25 percent of potential MCD waste is actually MCD waste (See Section 3.1.2). This estimate is based on information from a single retorter and may not be true across all retorters that accept MCD waste. In fact, some retorters may specialize in some type of devices (like flourescent light recyclers) and handle relatively little MCD waste. As a sensitivity analysis, the savings of the rule were also calculated assuming 12.5 percent and 50 percent figures. In both cases, the savings of the rule are essentially unchanged at $273,000. 31 C Most of the incremental costs in this analysis are fixed per facility, rather than variable per shipment. As a result, the number of regulated facilities generating MCDs is a more significant variable in calculating savings associated with this rule than are the quantities of MCDs per facility. Because the number of facilities was derived from BRS data, it is believed to be the best estimate available and should be accurate given the assumptions of full compliance with Subtitle C regulations. C To some extent, this analysis may undercount the number of regulated generators of MCDs, because the BRS data used do not capture all generators that send MCDs to a non­ retorting TSDF. Specifically, of the 1,877 generators identified in this analysis, approximately 36 appear to be non­ retorting TSDFs (based on a four­ digit SIC code of either 4953 or 8999.) These 36 facilities generated an estimated 94 tons of MCDs in 1997. All of the original generators of these MCDS are not captured in the analysis, resulting in a potential to have underestimated the number of generators. However, because these original generators are not assumed to shift management to sending waste directly to a retorter or broker (see Section 4.2), these generators would not incur any costs or savings as a result of this rule. Hence, this analysis may undercount the number of regulated generators, but it does not undercount the number of affected regulated generators. C Finally, the estimate of generators and quantities of MCDs may be slightly overstated if CESQGs send MCDs to retorters and are captured by BRS. To minimize this effect, obvious CESQGs (e. g., facilities with identification numbers like PACESGQ) were removed from the data set. Thus, it is unlikely that the effect of any CESQGs being captured in the analysis is significant. C As described in Section 3.1.2, MCDs are assumed to comprise five percent of a facility's total waste stream. This assumption is used to calculate whether a facility is an LQG or SQG. In reality, the amount of MCDs may not be systematically related to total waste generation rates. The facility classification of LQG or SQG is subsequently used to calculate the number of baseline shipments. If the number of LQGs is overestimated, the overall savings of the rule would be slightly overstated. C As described in Section 3.1.2, SIC codes could be identified for slightly more than half the facilities. Thus, the economic impact analysis does not address all affected entities. C The impacts analysis based on costs/ sales is likely to overstate economic impacts (whether costs or savings) because the sales data used in the analysis represent average values for each SIC code as a whole, whereas the estimated compliance costs arise only for the entities that are large enough to be considered an SQG or LQG in the baseline. Such entities may have an average sales value that is slightly higher than the average for the industry as a whole. Conversely, the profits analysis is likely to understate economic impacts because 32 profits data are estimated based on data for publicly held companies, which tend to be relatively larger than other companies and to have higher nominal profits. Given that the proposed rule will result in savings, rather than costs, neither of these limitations are significant. However, the combined effect is to make impacts appear more significant when measured as a percent of sales than as a percent of profit. C This analysis assumes average device weights and lifetime for varying classes of MCDs to calculate the number of devices needed to be an SQG or LQG (as discussed in Appendix A). These assumptions are not likely to impact the finding that MCD­ only generators are likely to be CESQGs. C The assumed distance for transportation is 200 miles regardless of type of generator or recycler (non­ retorting TSDF, broker, or retorter). In reality, the distance to one type of recycler may be significantly higher for a particular generator. Because no shift in management has been modeled, the distance to recyclers will be the same in the baseline and post rule scenario, and this assumption is not a significant factor in the analysis. C All MCDs shipped under the Universal Waste requirements are assumed to qualify as non­ hazardous materials. This assumption was made based on the fact that most MCDs contain relatively small (i. e., less than 10 grams) amounts of mercury (see Exhibit 2­ 1). The analysis assumes that discarded MCDs will be packaged in manner that precludes them from being defined as hazardous substances under DOT regulations. For shipments of post­ consumer MCDs that are subject to the DOT hazardous materials requirements, the transportation cost savings calculated in the analysis would decrease. C This analysis assumes full Subtitle C compliance in the baseline. This assumption understates the potential savings of the rule. 33 32 A representative from Bethlehem Apparatus confirmed that there are no MCD­ only generators. Appendix A: MCD­ Only Generators Preliminary research conducted for this analysis yielded insufficient data to identify, characterize, and quantify users (generators) of MCDs. Consequently, in order to assess the likelihood that MCD­ only generators would be affected by the rule, the analysis estimated the number of MCDs a generator would have to dispose of to be classified as a SQG or LQG. Through Internet research and limited contacts with vendors and manufacturers, this analysis obtained data on "typical" weights of several different kinds of MCDs. When unable to obtain weights for certain types of MCDs, this analysis calculated MCD weights using a ratio of mercury content to device weight for similar devices. This analysis then divided the SQG and LQG thresholds (100 kg/ month and 1,000 kg/ month) by the device weights to calculate the number of devices that an MCD­ only generator would need to dispose of in order to be a SQG or an LQG. Exhibit A­ 1 presents the number of devices an MCD­ only generator would need to dispose of in one month to be an SQG or LQG. For example, to be an SQG, a facility would need to dispose of over 12,000 veterinary thermometers during one month. Further, based on the estimated lifetime of each MCD, Exhibit A­ 2 presents the number of devices that would need be in use at a facility if all discarded MCDs were disposed of on an annual basis, or in equal amounts on a quarterly or monthly basis to be an SQG or LQG. As can be seen in Exhibit A­ 2, MCD­ only generators would have to use and discard very large numbers of MCDs to be classified as SQGs or LQGs. As a result, this analysis assumes that all MCD­ only generators are CESQGs. 32 Because CESQGs are exempt from the both Subtitle C baseline requirements and Universal Waste system requirements, these generators would not be affected by the inclusion of MCDs in the Universal Waste system and are thus excluded from this analysis. Exhibit A­ 1. MCDs Required to be Disposed of to be Small or Large Quantity Generator Device Category Reported Mercury Content (grams per device) Weight of device (grams) Number of Devices Needed to be Disposed in one month to be classified as: SQG LQG Thermometers 2 (" typical") 1 3.3 30,303 303,030 0.5 (fever ­ low) 2 0.83 120,482 1,204,819 0.61 (fever ­ high) 1.01 99,010 990,099 2.25 (basal temperature) 3.74 26,738 267,380 3 (lab ­ low) 4.98 20,080 200,803 10 (lab ­ high) 16.61 6,020 60,205 5 (veterinary) 8.3 12,048 120,482 5.56 (industrial ­ low) 9.24 10,823 108,225 19.78 (industrial ­ high) 32.86 3,043 30,432 3.5 (" typical") 5.81 17,212 172,117 34 Device Category Reported Mercury Content (grams per device) Weight of device (grams) Number of Devices Needed to be Disposed in one month to be classified as: SQG LQG Switches 2.6 (silent light switch) 5.2 19,231 192,308 and Relays 3.5 ­ 3,600 (industrial switch) 7200 14 139 1 (float switch) 3 142 704 7,042 0.5 ­1 (automotive light switch) 4 1 100,000 1,000,000 2 (chest freezer light switch) 4 25,000 250,000 2 (washing machine light switch) 4 25,000 250,000 3 (anti­ lock brake switch) 6 16,667 166,667 1 ­ 2 (ride control system switch) 4 25,000 250,000 0.14 ­ 3 (mercury reed relay) 6 16,667 166,667 160 (displacement relay) 320 313 3,125 2.5 (flame sensor) 5 20,000 200,000 Gauges and 330 (sphygmomanometer) 5 450 222 2,222 Meters 395 (barometer ­ 2 3/ 4" face) 6 159 629 6,289 395 (barometer ­ 6" face) 1542 65 649 340 (typical manometer) 7 907 110 1,103 91,000 (large manometer) 8 566,990 0 2 Other Devices 170 (recoil suppressor) 340 294 2,941 1,000 (dilator) 2000 50 500 Shaded Cells indicated known device weight Other Device Weights were calculated based on known weights of similar devices and a ratio of mercury content. 1 The weights of the thermometer types listed were calculated using a ratio of amount of mercury to weight of device. The ratio was derived by obtaining the weight of a veterinary thermometer from the Colorado Serum Company (colorado­ serum@ colorado­ serum. com), which is 8.3 g. This was then used to calculate the other thermometers. 2 MCDs denoted by low and high indicate that a range of mercury content was estimated. 3 The weight of a plastic float switch was estimated to be 5 oz by Dave Bornhorst at Gateway Supply Co. 4 The weight of an automotive light switch was derived by averaging estimates from two documents, one a letter from The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials, Region 9, regarding the development of an automotive switch collection program, and the other a spreadsheet originating from the Clean Car Campaign's initiative to remove mercury switches from automotives, titled A Method for Estimating Mercury in Recalled Ford Vehicles. The ratio of estimated mercury content (~ 0.5 g) to the estimated device weight (~ 1 g) was used to calculate the remaining switches, except for float switches. 5 The weight of a sphygmomanometer was estimated at 1 lb by Richard Najarian at Bruce Medical Supply (brucemedi@ aol. com). 6 The weights of brass barometers with 2 3/ 4" and 6" faces were estimated to be 0.35 lbs and 3.4 lbs, respectively, by Calvin Smith at Red Sky At Night (info@ redskyatnight. com). 7 A typical manometer containing 12 oz of mercury is estimated to weigh 2 lbs by Erica Thurner at Dwyer Instruments, Inc. (Tech@ dwyer­ inst. com). 8 The weight of a large manometer was estimated to be between 1,000 and 1,500 pounds (~ 1,250 lbs) based on the model 1025LX manometer manufactured by Schwien Engineering, Inc. (See www. schwien. com/ specs. htm) 35 *** DRAFT ­­ September 5, 2001 *** Exhibit A­ 2. MCDs Required to be in Use to be Small or Large Quantity Generator Device Category Reported Mercury Content (grams per device) Estimated or Assumed Device Lifetime (years) Number of devices needed to be in use per facility, when disposed of Number of devices needed to be in use per facility, when disposed of Number of devices needed to be in use per facility, when disposed of on SQG LQG SQG LQG SQG LQG Thermometers 2 (" typical") 5 151,515 1,515,152 606,061 6,060,606 1,818,182 18,181,818 0.5 (fever ­ low) 5 602,410 6,024,096 2,409,639 24,096,386 7,228,916 72,289,157 0.61 (fever ­ high) 5 495,050 4,950,495 1,980,198 19,801,980 5,940,594 59,405,941 2.25 (basal temperature) 5 133,690 1,336,898 534,759 5,347,594 1,604,278 16,042,781 3 (lab ­ low) 5 100,402 1,004,016 401,606 4,016,064 1,204,819 12,048,193 10 (lab ­ high) 5 30,102 301,023 120,409 1,204,094 361,228 3,612,282 5 (veterinary) 2 24,096 240,964 96,386 963,855 289,157 2,891,566 5.56 (industrial ­ low) 5 54,113 541,126 216,450 2,164,502 649,351 6,493,506 19.78 (industrial ­ high) 5 15,216 152,161 60,864 608,643 182,593 1,825,928 3.5 (" typical") 5 86,059 860,585 344,234 3,442,341 1,032,702 10,327,022 Switches 2.6 (silent light switch) 50 961,538 9,615,385 3,846,154 38,461,538 11,538,462 115,384,615 and Relays 3.5 ­ 3,600 (industrial switch) 20 278 2,778 1,111 11,111 3,333 33,333 1 (float switch) 20 14,085 140,845 56,338 563,380 169,014 1,690,141 0.5 ­1 (automotive light switch) 20 2,000,000 20,000,000 8,000,000 80,000,000 24,000,000 240,000,000 2 (chest freezer light switch) 20 500,000 5,000,000 2,000,000 20,000,000 6,000,000 60,000,000 2 (washing machine light switch) 20 500,000 5,000,000 2,000,000 20,000,000 6,000,000 60,000,000 3 (anti­ lock brake switch) 20 333,333 3,333,333 1,333,333 13,333,333 4,000,000 40,000,000 1 ­ 2 (ride control system switch) 20 500,000 5,000,000 2,000,000 20,000,000 6,000,000 60,000,000 0.14 ­ 3 (mercury reed relay) 20 333,333 3,333,333 1,333,333 13,333,333 4,000,000 40,000,000 160 (displacement relay) 20 6,250 62,500 25,000 250,000 75,000 750,000 2.5 (flame sensor) 20 400,000 4,000,000 1,600,000 16,000,000 4,800,000 48,000,000 Gauges and 330 (sphygmomanometer) 4 889 8,889 3,556 35,556 10,667 106,667 Meters 395 (barometer ­ 2 3/ 4" face) 4 2,516 25,157 10,063 100,629 30,189 301,887 395 (barometer ­ 6" face) 4 259 2,594 1,038 10,376 3,113 31,128 340 (typical manometer) 4 441 4,410 1,764 17,641 5,292 52,922 91,000 (large manometer) 4 1 7 3 28 8 85 Other Devices 170 (recoil suppressor) 4 1,176 11,765 4,706 47,059 14,118 141,176 1,000 (dilator) 4 200 2,000 800 8,000 2,400 24,000 36 Appendix B: Phone Logs 37 Bethlehem Apparatus, Inc. 890 Front St., P. O. Box Y Hellertown, PA 18055 Date: August 16, 2001 Contact: John Boyle Contact made by: Yvonne Stone Bethlehem Apparatus Bethlehem Apparatus is the largest commercial mercury recycling facility in North America. It accepts all types of mercury waste from free­ flowing liquid mercury to mercury containing devices to mercury contaminated soil. Bethlehem is a global supplier of prime virgin and high purity mercury. Procedures C Profiling: All mercury is profiled before it is accepted. (Website) C Waste Separation: MCDs do not typically arrive with universal waste, but this is due to shipping requirements, not company policies. A client with a broken manometer, which spilled and contaminated other materials may send a drum with the broken manometer, the directly contaminated material, the material contaminated in the process of cleaning up the spill, and a set of unbroken manometers the company decided to retire or replace. Bethlehem's price quotes are for generic mixed material. Clients C Composition: Bethlehem's clients run the gamut in terms of size and industry. Significant MCD client industries include brokers and utilities. Although Boyle guessed that more than half of MCDs arrive from brokers, he wrote off all further attempts to characterize the industry. "There is so little that is typical… there is no standard mercury generator." It appears that the reason it is so hard to characterize mercury generators is that the measuring devices and industrial equipment that make use of MCDs have such a wide range of applications in a wide range of fields. Thermometers and barometers may be used in households, research laboratories, health care facilities, or industry­ each category of which has a different characteristic size, use pattern, and applicable regulatory code. Similarly, mercury tilt switches are the technology behind "silent switches" used in households as well as in heavy machinery which could be found in some capacity in almost any industry category or description. Any company with a boiler possesses a mercury containing device. C Volume: If little can be said about a "typical" MCD generator, it appears that something can be said about the amount of MCDs handled and its volume relative to a generator's other waste. Boyle confirmed that no company becomes and SQG or LQG from mercury containing devices alone; mercury and/ or MCD generation is typically a byproduct of a set of operations that generate some other waste, which gives a company SQG or LQG 38 generator status in the first place. Boyle estimates that MCDs probably account for around 1% to 5% of generator waste. C Motivation for Disposal: Firms dispose of MCDs when they need to be replaced, not when new products become available. This means that there is no constant stream of MCD generation. Although there may be estimates of MCD lifespan, Boyle speculates that life depends on usage, and therefore varies significantly from case to case. Some companies collect and replace mercury products that they manufacture, resulting in a shipment of MCDs. This represents a rather small proportion of MCD shipments, but it has picked up lately as awareness of the hazards of mercury grows. C Use of a Broker: Whether a firm goes through a broker depends on whether it already uses one for its other waste. If it does, it is likely to ask that broker to deal with its mercury waste also. If the firm is not otherwise involved with a broker, it tends to be cheaper to ship the mercury waste to the retorter direct. Shipments C Content: Bethlehem sees a wide variety of MCDs. Devices normally arrive post­ consumer. C Packaging: MCDs arrive in different containers depending the type of device and regulations applicable to the generator. Bethlehem sells reusable 76 and 2,250 lb. steel flasks, presumably for liquid mercury. Bethlehem offers a prepaid shipping container and retorting program, not only for lamps, but for thermometers, for use by CESQGs and households who need not ship MCDs under manifest. A thermometer shipping container holds up to 450 household thermometers. Prices C Disclosure: Price lists are given freely. C Prices: Prices depend on the type of material and packaging. There is no standardization of prices and the range is large. A 55­ gallon drum of mixed MCDs would be accepted for between $1,000 and $1,700 dollars. Some devices, such as water meters, require less labor to retort; these receive price discounts to as low as $400­$ 500 per 55­ gallon drum. Universal Waste Rule In Boyle's opinion, a universal waste rule for MCDs would be wonderful. It would help a lot of people. Companies are currently hurt when they have just a very small quantity of MCDs and must ship this waste separately under manifest. Boyle described pick up services arriving at companies with a tractor trailer and then picking up a 2 Quart container, which the driver would drop off to the retorter from his cab. Boyle points out that thermostats can contain larger bulbs than thermometers, creating what generators see as an "illogical exclusion" of the latter from universal waste status. 39 Chemical Waste Management Model City, NY (716) 754­ 8231 Date: August 17, 2001 Contact: Jill Knickerbocker Contact made by: Yvonne Stone Chemical Waste Management (CWM) Chemical Wastes Management is a TSDF that accepts MCD waste, which it ships on to a mercury retorter. Mercury transhipment makes up a very small proportion of its business. CWM currently receives just a couple of containers of MCDs a month. Knickerbocker speculates that if MCDs were no longer sent to her business, any effect would be negligible. Procedures Mercury containing devices may arrive mixed together, but may not be mixed with universal waste because of differing regulatory requirements for shipping. Mercury containing devices often arrive in a "lab pack" which contains all waste associated with a broken MCD (the broken device, materials contaminated by the device, materials used to clean up the spill). The lab pack is placed in a 55­ gallon drum, which arrives at Chemical Waste Management and is shipped on to the retorter. Knickerbocker remarks that the retorter does not care if the waste is separated. Clients Mercury generally comes to Chemical Waste Management from labs, hospitals, or drug stores. Knickerbocker guesses that a number of hospitals would be LQGs, but that LQG status would not be due to MCD generation. On a very rare occasion, CWM would handle mercury switches from a broken machine sent by industry. CWM does not receive MCDs from demolition sites. Pricing The gate price for a 55­ gallon drum of MCDs at Chemical Waste Management is $925. Knickerbocker did not have specific information about whether or at what price CWM would charge for MCDs by the pound but guessed that this could be an option for customers who had a small amount of MCD waste. She said that it was likely that clients with national accounts with Chem Waste would receive discounts of some sort, but that MCDs were such a rare item that she didn't know of specific examples. Similarly, Knickerbocker guessed that few discounts were given out for volume, not because it would not make economic sense, but because clients rarely have more than one or two drums to begin with. Universal Waste Rule Knickerbocker admits that she sees such small quantities of mercury coming to her company's facility that she assumes there is not much mercury in use out there. She suspects that a universal waste rule would help those involved, but that considering what she estimates to be the size of the industry, that number would be low. 40 41 Mercury Waste Solutions 302 North Riverfront Drive Mankato, Minnesota 56001­ 3548 (800) 741­ 3343 Date: August 9, 2001 Contact: Scott Taylor Contact made by: Yvonne Stone Mercury Waste Solutions Mercury Waste Solutions is one of only about six mercury retorters in the United States. Although MWS purifies some mercury on­ site for resale to small firms or producers of dental amalgam, the majority of retorted mercury is shipped as scrap grade to D. F. Goldsmith, who purifies the mercury for resale. Taylor explains that MWS has not focused its efforts on sales, and so has a smaller network of buyers than D. F. Goldsmith, who is able to find demand to keep up with supply. Taylor guesses that MCDs make up at least 25% of the waste MWS receives. Procedures C Profiling: All waste is profiled before it is accepted. Waste that arrives that does not match specifications will still be accepted in most cases, but the customer will be charged a ~30% off­ specification surcharge. C Waste Separation: MWS separates waste according to regulatory status. If the client has only small amounts of two different types of MCDs, MWS will usually allow that client to ship them in the same 55­ gallon drum. Similarly, if a small number of batteries, for example, were included in a shipment of MCDs, these would also be accepted without penalty. However, if a large amount of MCD and non­ MCD objects arrive together in the same drum, the customer will be required to pay a surcharge to cover the costs of hand separation. Clients C Location: Clients come from throughout the lower 48 states, although MWS' business is strongest in the Midwest and Northeast, where the company has retorting facilities. Few clients come from the West Coast. Taylor explains that one reason why distant clients may choose MWS over a closer retorter is that not all retorting facilities are approved, narrowing retorter choices. A second reason is that the clients of some brokers request that MWS be used. Some large companies have corporate accounts with MWS, giving them access to more competitive pricing. C Composition: Although MWS sees a wide variety of clients, the majority are waste brokering firms as opposed to individual generators. The generators who use their services tend to be large manufacturers in industries such as lighting (Sylvania, for 42 example), auto makers, and manufacturers of heavy machinery that make use of mercury switches. Shipments C Content: The size and type of devices sent varies. C Packaging: Shipments arrive in 55­ gallon drums. Drums are generally full since MWS prices per drum. C Frequency: The number of shipments clients make vary considerably. MWS sees everything from SQGs and CESQGs clients, who may make only one shipment per year or one shipment ever, to large firms that may deliver 50­ 60 55­ gallon drums per year. Prices C Disclosure: Prices were quoted freely. C Prices: The price for accepting a 55­ gallon drum of MCDs varies from $1300 for a single small shipment to $900 per drum for large corporate clients shipping 50­ 60 drums a year. The prices for mid­ sized shipment falls between these figures, varying inversely with volume. There are about 10 or 12 price schedules for MCDs. One 55­ gallon drum filled with MCDs weighs about 400 to 800 lbs. Sometimes drums run into DOT weight limits, and thus arrive only partially full. In general, however, drums arrive full since shipments are generally priced per container rather than by weight. MWS sometimes accommodate customers who would like their shipments priced per pound. The price per pound ranges from around $2.75 to $2 per pound, with a $250 dollar minimum per drum. Universal Waste Rule Commentary C Prepaid return program for MCDs: Taylor believes that a prepaid return program for MCDs, similar to MWS' Lamptracker program for florescent lights, would be both beneficial and feasible, given a universal waste rule for mercury containing devices. He does not foresee different MCD sizes as a barrier to such a program. Firms would be given 5­ gallon (potentially 3­ gallon) pails in which to collect and then ship MCDs. C Effect on Recycling : Taylor believes that lowering transportation costs through a universal waste rule could increase the level of mercury recycling. He notes that for many small companies, transportation costs are currently prohibitive. A firm with only 5­ 10 lbs of mercury would have to pay about $300­$ 500 just for trucking. C Effect on MWS: MWS currently operates at about 80 percent of capacity. An increase in the number of MCDs retorted would make a noticeable difference in MWS operations. MWS stores mercury waste by regulatory level, and so would have to make accommodations if the amount of universal waste coming in was much larger than usual. MWS does have options to address short­ term influxes of products. On occasion, when the inflow of mercury at one plant exceeds capacity, the excess mercury is 43 transported to its other retorting facility. When inflow exceeds capacity at both plants, as happens during the seasonal variation of November and December (large manufacturers clear out their inventories for the start of the next year), the excess mercury products are stored for later processing when business slows (usually January). 44 MTI/ AERC West Melbourne, FL (800) 808­ 4684 Date: August 7, 2001 Contact: Tracy DePaola Date: August 9, 2001 Contact: Bob Blanchfield Contact made by: Yvonne Stone MTI/ AERC MTI/ AERC is a mercury retorter and a member of the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers (ALMR). MTI/ AERC processes and then retorts the mercury it receives. For example, lamps are crushed and then the lamp powder processed [Blanchfield]. MTI/ AERC accepts all types of MCDs. Procedures C Waste Separation: MCDs must arrive sorted by material composition. For example, two different devices both comprised of liquid mercury and glass could come shipped together, but neither device could arrive in the same package with batteries or a florescent light [DePaola]. Clients C Composition: MTI/ AERC sees a variety of contractors from small labs to demolition contractors and industrial sites. A large contract for the firm involves Becton­ Dickenson, a thermometer manufacturer, who is pulling one quarter million of its thermometers out of circulation [Blanchfield]. C Noncompliance: Blanchfield believes that one of the large sources of noncompliance is property management. Although transportation costs are high, Blanchfield believes that noncompliance by property managers is driven by a desire not to enter the entire retorting process. They would rather "stick their heads in the sand." Blanchfield speculates that a scenario in which property managers would be brought into compliance would be partnership with a large firm whose business was already inextricably linked with regulation, such as a large pharmaceutical company. In this case, the partnering company would demand that its products be disposed of correctly for liability reasons. Shipping C Composition: Drums of MCDs often arrive with drums of other mercury waste. This is because there are almost never enough drums of MCDs to fill an entire truck when it comes time to transport mercury within the company. Trucks usually arrive full [Blanchfield]. 45 Prices C Prices: MTI/ AERC does not generally give out price lists. Prices are not published to shield that information from competitors. To this end, prices are not given out to public studies [DePaola]. Universal Waste Rule MTI/ AERC was very involved with the creation of the universal waste rule for florescent lights, working with the EPA on the issue since 1993. MTI/ AERC is interested in seeing a universal waste rule come out for MCDs [Blanchfield]. A universal waste rule would make mercury recycling more cost effective by lowering transportation costs [DePaola]. 46 National Environmental Services (NES) Minneapolis, MN (952) 830­ 1348 Dates: August 7 and 28, 2001 Contact: Dale Borton Contact made by: Yvonne Stone National Environmental Services (NES) National Environmental Services is a mercury broker with locations in Tampa, FL and Minneapolis, MN. It does not retort mercury. NES accepts all types of MCDs, which it ships immediately to one of two retorters depending on where the MCD waste originated. Waste that arrives from within Minnesota is sent to Superior at Fort Washington. Waste that arrives from out of state is sent to Lighting Resources' retorting facility in Phoenix, AZ. NES does not deal in mercury waste laced with any other type of contaminant. MCDs make up less than 10 percent of the mercury waste that NES receives. Procedures C Profiling: NES requires that all waste be profiled before it is brokered (and typically before price of service information is given out). Virtually all waste is shipped under manifest. C Waste Separation: Devices must be separated by type to be accepted. It would be possible, however, to ship two different types of MCD in one 55­ gallon drum as long as the devices were in separated by containers inside that drum. Devices C Size: The devices that NES receives most frequently are switches and barometers. While switches are quite small, a standard barometer measures three to four feet in length and measures about 15 lbs. Barometers are the largest MCDs that NES generally receives. C Pre­ processing: Many devices have broken down before they are sent to NES. In a typical scenario, a customer might have a jar of mercury or have a consolidated mercury from a collection of units, breaking off a glass part of a device from a mercury bead. Barometers typically cannot be broken down because they have a large, long bead of liquid mercury. Clients C Location: Clients come from throughout the lower 48 states. C Composition: Most client companies have 250 or more employees. 47 C Noncompliance: While the typical MCD shipment that NES receives is a batch of switches, these switches very rarely come from demolition projects, leading Borton to believe that most demolition projects do not recycle. Similarly, NES sees very few small companies (< 250 employees), which Borton believes reflects a status quo of non­ compliance among these companies. Shipping C Size: Most MCD shipments consist of a couple of 55­ gallon drums. A four drum shipment would be considered large and reach the threshold for receiving a discount. C Packaging: Most devices, whether large or small, are packaged in 55­ gallon drums. Borton notes that 55­ gallon drums appear to be the industry standard. NES does often provide special containers for waste disposal. C Frequency: The size and number of shipments varies by client industry and generator status (CESQG, SQG, LQG). Barometers generally come to NES one or two at a time. The average number of MCD shipments in a year is around two. Prices C Disclosure: NES avoids giving price lists; it wants to know about the waste it is dealing with before giving quotes. Borton emphasizes that the company must operate according to strict regulations. Presumably NES does not want to enter a situation in which a client is quoted a low standard price, further information reveals new necessary procedures that raise costs, and the client is displeased. C Prices: Transhipment of MCD waste is usually billed by the pound. The average cost for accepting a pound of MCDs is about $5.50. Large shipments (about four 55­ gallon drums) could be discounted as much as a dollar to $4.50 per pound. Borton describes mercury brokering as a "volume driven industry." As the volume of waste brokered through NES rises, prices for each type of waste fall. For example, if a company shipped 2,000 florescent lamps to NES along with a drum of MCDs, the drum of MCDs would be priced at a discount. NES passes along a lot of the low prices it receives from retorters for shipping making many shipments a year. For a good customer with an 800 lb drum of MCDs, NES said they might charge $2,500 (~$ 3.13/ lb). Universal Waste Proposal C Prepaid return program for MCDs: Borton believes that MCDs could be "an easy fit" for a prepaid return program like the Green Kit program NES has in place for florescent lamps. C Effect on Mercury Recycling: Anything that brings down transportation and/ or administrative costs could make recycling more accessible and bring more firms into compliance with disposal regulations. Borton notes that 100 devices is a lot for a smaller firm to generate in a year. A firm in Texas with a couple of switches probably does not comply today, but could be likely to comply in the future, given lower transportation costs. 48 C Effect on NES: A universal waste rule would also be advantageous to NES since it would allow NES to store MCDs before shipping them, raising the volume of MCDs per shipment and lowering both shipping and disposal costs. In both transportation and retorting, prices fall as quantity rises. Borton predicts that NES savings would be reflected in the price of their services. Competition between brokers would drive prices down. 49 Onyx Environmental Services 1 Eden Lane Flanders , NJ 07836 (973) 347­ 7111 Date: August 30, 2001 Contact: Sales Department Contact made by: Yvonne Stone Onyx Environmental Services Onyx Environmental Services is the new name for Waste Management, Inc. The company is a national waste brokering and disposal facility. Onyx Environmental Services, formerly Waste Management, Inc., owns Chemical Waste Management and Rust International. (See http:// www. greenlink. org/ grassroots/ soc/ wastenot/ 97i02799. html). Some facilities appear to still operate under the name Waste Management, Inc., for example the facility at Port Arthur, Tx, Phone: (409) 736­ 2821. Company services include: landfill, stabilization, solidification, macro encapsulation, and drum bulking for transshipment. The company accepts MCD waste. In addition to transshipment, the company can be hired to package and transport mercury waste from the client facility (Information at: http:// www. chwmeg. org/ asp/ search/ detail. asp? ID= 18). Prices Onyx has a very wide range of prices. In addition to waste volume, type of mercury containing device and client location are significant variables in what Onyx charges for MCD disposal. The New Jersey facility alone handles 10 different territories, each with its own price schedule. Although prices vary tremendously, the sales department was able to provide ballpark figures. Disposal costs for 5 gallons of MCD waste through their company, not including transportation costs to their facility or the cost of packaging, will cost around $800 to $900. To dispose of a 55­ gallon drum of MCDs, a customer will pay over $2,000. Clients It may be noted that the sales department first offered the 5­ gallon price when asked for price schedule information (the full drum price was offered in response to a specific question). Although this may not be significant, it may be indicative of the scale of typical MCD shipments received. (The contact was not asked follow up questions as she specifically stated that information requests not from non­ clients were low priority and that she was pressed for time.) 50 Safety­ Kleen Corporation Salt Lake City, UT (801) 323­ 8100 Date: August 30, 2001 Contact: Sherm Monson Contact made by: Yvonne Stone Safety­ Kleen Corporation Safety­ Kleen, also known as Laidlaw, is a TSDF that offers Incineration, landfill, hazardous liquids (acid) broker and transfer services (Information at: http:// www. chwmeg. org/ asp/ search/ detail. asp? ID= 3). It is a broker for MCD waste, all of which it ships to Superior at Fort Washington. Procedures C Waste Separation: Different types of MCDs may arrive packaged together, but they may not be mixed with items such as lamps or batteries that are subject to a different set of regulations. C Transshipment: MCD waste received from clients is consolidated, but not repackaged. Safety­ Kleen stores the MCDs waste at its facilities until it has enough for a full load, at which time it remanifests the waste and ships it to its retorter. Prices Safety­ Kleen has one price list for all clients, regardless of location and/ or type of MCD. Its price list, based on MCD waste volume, is as follows: 1­ 5 gallons $245 6­ 25 gallons $653 26­ 30 gallons $783 31­ 55 gallons $1,002 More than one 55 gallon drum $1,002 per drum Safety­ Kleen does not offer further discounts for frequent customers or extra large shipment volumes. Safety­ Kleen does not offer customers the option of pricing per pound. 51 52 U. S. Geological Survey Reston, VA, (703) 648­ 4981 Date: July 31, 2001 Contact: Robert Reese Contact made by: Yvonne Stone The Market for Mercury C Price: The price of mercury has followed a downward trend. Mercury now sells for around $150/ ton. C Import/ Export: As to why the amount exported and imported varies so considerably, Reese speculated that the observed import/ export patterns may arise from firms taking advantage of opportunities in foreign exchange markets, changes in buyer/ seller prices, or other economic circumstances of the firm. The mercury shipped abroad is not qualitatively different from that imported into the United States. C Future: The amount of mercury used in products is falling in all industries. Retorters would have a hard time selling more mercury. The market for mercury is a "dead horse." Universal Waste Rule Reese was not familiar with universal waste regulations or with changes over time in the market for recycling batteries and florescent lamps. Even if shipping costs were significantly reduced, there would be little incentive for new consolidation companies to arise to sell retorted mercury. 53 Appendix C: Subtitle D Baseline Analysis The main analysis in this document assumes full baseline compliance with Subtitle C regulations for all SQGs and LQGs. This appendix evaluates an alternative baseline that assumes some Subtitle D disposal of MCDs both before and, to a lesser extent, after the rule. The first step is to estimate the percent of the regulated universe disposing of MCDs as MSW. This is equivalent to asking "what percent of the LQG and SQG universe is out of compliance with the Subtitle C regulations in the baseline?" Neither a literature review or phone interviews with selected individuals involved in mercury recycling and disposal suggested a noncompliance rate, although one vendor indicated that his firm does not receive switches from demolition contractors, suggesting that mercury switches generated during demolition may commonly be disposed of as MSW. In the absence of further information, this analysis assumes that half of the universe is out of compliance. Because the universe in the main analysis is based on BRS data (i. e., data on generators known to comply with Subtitle C regulations), this analysis assumes that LQGs and SQGs disposing of MCDs as MSW are in addition to the 1,877 generators identified in the main analysis. The second step is to determine if any portion of generators disposing of MCDs as MSW will change management practices as a result of the rule. This analysis assumes there are two major reasons for noncompliance: (1) cost, and (2) ignorance that waste contains MCDs or that MCDs should be disposed of as Subtitle C waste. As seen in the main analysis, the savings associated with the rule for a generator are small, estimated at just over $100 per facility. Given the relative magnitude of the disposal costs ($ 1,000 to $2,500 per drum), this savings is not likely to motivate noncompliant generators to change their management practices. In addition, the rule does not provide for any major public awareness campaigns about MCDs, and is not likely to inform generators that their devices are hazardous. However, mercury retorters and brokers may attempt to raise public awareness of the new regulatory status of MCDs, at least to their customers who may be sending mercury lamps or mercury thermostats for disposal. Consequently, this analysis assumes that a small percentage (five percent) of the generators incorrectly disposing of MCDs as MSW will change their management practices. As a result, approximately 94 additional generators will manage MCDs as a Universal Waste in the post rule scenario. The third step is to estimate the cost or savings for these additional 94 generators. The cost of a generator moving from Subtitle D management to Universal Waste management include (1) new transportation costs, (2) new disposal costs, and (3) additional administrative costs. Baseline transportation and disposal costs for the 94 generators are assumed to be essentially zero, as the generators were previously disposing of MCDs as MSW, and the quantities of MCDs are small. In other words, the relative baseline disposal cost of throwing a few devices in with the facility's normal MSW is negligible. Therefore, assuming a MCD quantity of less than one ton per year, the annual transportation and administrative cost will be $189. (See Section 4.2 for more information on the derivation of this cost.) The disposal cost will increase from essentially zero to approximately $1,500 (the average retorting cost for one drum from Exhibit 3­ 3). section the average for a single drum at Bethlehem Apparatus and Mercury Waste Solutions). The total of these costs ($ 1,689) pre facility per year is multiplied by the 94 generators assumed to switch management practices to result in a total new cost of $158,766. 54 Subtracting this cost from the $273,000 savings estimated in Section 5.2 results in a total savings under the Subtitle D baseline of approximately $114,000. The preceding result considers the added cost to generators of managing MCDs according to the Universal Waste regulations as opposed to the considerably less expensive Subtitle D regulations. An alternative view would be to consider the rule as reducing the cost of compliance for these facilities because these generators would incur the relatively less expensive costs of Universal Waste regulations instead of the somewhat higher cost of full Subtitle C regulations. If the rule is viewed as creating savings because these generators would spend less to come into compliance, the savings can be calculated by multiplying the average facility savings calculated in the main analysis ($ 106/ generator) by the number of facilities likely to change management practices (94 facilities). The resulting savings is $9,964 for these facilities. Adding in the $273,000 savings estimated in section 5.2 results in total savings under the Subtitle D baseline of approximately $283,000. 55 Appendix D: References Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc. web page (www. bethapp. thomasregister. com). Florida Department of Environmental Protection, "Mercury­ Containing Lamps & Devices." (http:// www. dep. state. fl. us/ dwm/ programs/ mercury/ lamps. htm) Franklin Associates (1999), "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1998 Update," prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, July 1999. ICF Incorporated (1998), "Baseline Costs and Cost Comparisons Between Hazardous Waste, Hazardous Material, and Non­ Hazardous Shipments," prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 31, 1998. ICF Incorporated (1999a), "Draft Assessment of the Cost and Economic Impacts of the CSI Regulatory Option for Glass­ to­ Glass Recycling of CRTs," prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, February 24, 1999. ICF Incorporated (1999b), "Modification of the Hazardous Waste Program: Hazardous Waste Lamps (Final Economic Assessment)," prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, March 11, 1999. Jasinski, Stephen M. (1994), The Materials Flow of Mercury in the United States, U. S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 9412, 1994. Lake Michigan Forum (1999), "Mercury Sources of Three Indiana Steel Mills," September 1999. (www. lkmichiganforum. org/ mercury) Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (1996), "Mercury in Massachusetts: An Evaluation of Sources Emissions, Impacts and Controls," June 1996. (www. magnet. state. ma. us/ dep/ files/ mercury. html) Mercury Waste Solutions, Inc. web page (www. mwsi. com). Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (1998), "Companies that Accept Elemental (Free Flowing) Mercury," March 12, 1998. (http:// www. deq. state. mi. us/ ead/ p2sect/ mercury/ mtable1. html) Michigan Mercury Pollution Prevention Task Force (1996), "Mercury Pollution Prevention in Michigan: Summary of Current Efforts and Recommendations for Future Activities (Final Report)," April 1996. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2000), "Report to the Advisory Council of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Mercury Contamination Reduction Initiative: Options and Strategies for Reducing Mercury Releases," Policy & Planning Division, April 2000. (http:// www. pca. state. mn. us/ air/ mercury­ mn. html) 56 The Pollution Prevention Partnership and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (1997), "Mercury Source Sector Assessment for the Greater Milwaukee Area," September 1997. (http:// www. epa. gov/ glnpo/ bnsdocs/ milwaukeehg/ mercury. pdf) Schwien Engineering, Inc. web page (www. schwien. com). Science Applications International Corporation (1998), "Analysis of Current Mercury Waste Generation and Treatment," June 19, 1998. Science Applications International Corporation and Research Triangle Institute (1999), "Nationwide Generation of Mercury Bearing Wastes: Pollution Prevention Analysis and Technical Report," prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 17, 1999. U. S. Bureau of the Census (1997), County Business Patterns, 1997. U. S. Bureau of the Census (1999), Statistical Abstract of the United States: National Data Book, Edition 119, October 1999. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Background Information on Mercury Sources and Regulations." (http:// www. epa. gov/ glnpo/ bnsdocs/ mercsrce/) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Mercury in Medical Institutions." (http:// www. epa. gov/ glnpo/ seahome/ mercury/ src/ mercmed. htm) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste web page (www. epa. gov/ osw). U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992), "Characterization of Products Containing Mercury In Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1970 to 2000," Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, April 1992. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997a), "Mercury in The Environment: The Waste Connection," March 1997. (www. epa. gov/ glnpo/ p2/ mercpam. html) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997b), "National Analysis: The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Based on 1995 Data)," August 1997. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997c), "Mercury Study Report to Congress, Volume II: An Inventory of Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the United States," Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards and Office of Research and Development, December 1997. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1999), "Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number 801, `Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System'," October 22, 1999. U. S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries: Mercury, various years (1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000). 57 U. S. Geological Survey, Minerals Yearbook: Mercury, various years (1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998). Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (1996), "Petition of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, the Edison Electric Institute, the American Public Power Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association to Include Mercury Containing Equipment in the Universal Waste Management Program, 40 C. F. R. Part 273," submitted to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 11, 1996. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (1997), "Wisconsin Mercury Sourcebook: A Guide to Help Your Community Identify and Reduce Releases of Elemental Mercury," May 1997. (http:// www. epa. gov/ glnpo/ bnsdocs/ hgsbook/)

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.667907

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0013-0003

Supporting & Related Material

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST NUMBER 1189.10 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED RULE ON CATHODE RAY TUBES November 2001 Table of Contents 1. IDENTIFICATIONOFTHE INFORMATIONCOLLECTION ............. Page2 1( a) Title and Number of Information Collection ....................... Page2 1( b) Characterization of the Information Collection ..................... Page2 2. NEEDFORANDUSE OFTHECOLLECTION ........................ Page3 2( a) Need and Authority for the Collection ........................... Page3 2( b) Use and Users of the Data .................................... Page3 3. RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED .............. Page3 3( a) Respondents and SIC Codes ................................... Page3 3( b) Information Requested ....................................... Page6 4. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED ­ AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT .............. Page7 4( a) Agency Activities ........................................... Page8 4( b) Small Entity Flexibility ....................................... Page8 5. NON­ DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA .............................................................. Page8 5( a) Non­ duplication ............................................ Page8 5( b) Consultations .............................................. Page8 5( c) Effects of Less Frequent Collection ............................. Page8 5( d) General Guidelines .......................................... Page9 5( e) Confidentiality ............................................. Page9 5( f) Sensitive Questions .......................................... Page9 6. ESTIMATINGTHE BURDENANDCOSTOFCOLLECTION ............ Page9 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden ................................. Page9 6( b) Number of Respondents ...................................... Page9 6( c) Estimating Respondent Costs ................................. Page13 6( d) Reasons for Change in Burden ................................ Page13 6( e) Burden Statement .......................................... Page16 LIST OF TABLES Table1 EstimatedNumber ofCRTShipments .............................. 11 Table 2 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Used CRT Regulated Entities: AnnualEstimatedRespondentBurdenandCost ....................... 12 Table 3 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Used CRT Generators and Processors: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost Summary (All Respondents) 14 Table4 AverageandTotalAnnualAvoidedRespondentBurden( Hours) .......... 15 Table5 AverageAnnualBurdenper Respondent( Hours) ...................... 16 i Page 1 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION A. Background 1( a) Title and Number of Information Collection This Information Collection Request (ICR) is entitled "Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Proposed Rule on Cathode Ray Tubes, Number 1189.10. . 1( b) Characterization of the Information Collection Section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended, requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify substances that must be managed as hazardous waste during treatment, storage, or disposal. Under this authority, EPA established four hazardous waste characteristics (toxicity, reactivity, ignitability, and corrosivity), and listed specific wastes that must be managed as hazardous. Used cathode ray tube (CRT) glass often is hazardous because it exhibits the characteristic of toxicity by exceeding the regulatory level for lead. As a result, currently many CRTs are subject to controls under RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations. From 1994 through 1998, EPA's Common Sense Initiative (CSI) Council explored the environmental regulation of six industry sectors and looked for ways to make environmental regulation "cleaner, cheaper, and smarter." EPA established the CSI Council as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The CSI Council included representatives from each of the industry sectors, from non­ government environmental and community organizations, from state government, and from academia. EPA also established a subcommittee of the Council for each of the industry sectors that included representatives of the various stakeholders represented in the CSI Council. One of the industry sectors selected for this initiative was the computer and electronics industry. The CSI Computers and Electronics Subcommittee (CES) set up a workgroup to address regulatory barriers to pollution prevention and recycling. The "Overcoming Barriers Workgroup," explored the problems of managing mounting volumes of outdated computer and electronics equipment. One of the concerns investigated by the Overcoming Barriers Workgroup and the CES Subcommittee was the barrier to CRT glass recycling created by some existing hazardous waste management regulations. The Subcommittee stated that removing this barrier was essential to fostering CRT recycling, especially glass­ to­ glass recycling. As a result of the finding of the CES Subcommittee, the CSI Council issued a document titled Recommendation on Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Glass­ to­ Glass Recycling. Page 2 To encourage CRT glass recycling and improve the management of hazardous waste CRTs, EPA is excluding used CRTs and processed CRT glass sent for recycling from the definition of solid waste, subject to certain minimal conditions. The Agency believes these materials resemble articles in commerce more than wastes when handled appropriately. By excluding used CRTs and processed CRT glass that are to be recycled from the definition of solid waste, the proposal streamlines management requirements for these materials. The streamlined requirements will lead to better management and more recycling while affording full protection to human health and the environment. B. Introduction Most of the proposal's information collection requirements consist of recordkeeping. EPA is not proposing any permitting requirements for entities recycling used CRTS or processed CRT glass. Following is a brief description of the proposal's information collection requirements. It should be noted that this ICR does not examine the burden or cost associated with the generation and management of hazardous waste CRTs or processed CRT glass that is destined for disposal. This category of CRTs continues to be considered hazardous waste and must be managed in accordance with the existing Subtitle C requirements. Marking Broken used CRTs destined for recycling must be clearly labeled or marked. Processed CRT glass need not be labeled and marked, unless it is going to a recycler other than a glass­ toglass manufacturer or a lead smelter. These requirements are necessary in order to identify and distinguish used CRTs and processed CRT glass from other materials and to prevent inadvertent mixing with other wastes. Storage Time Limits Broken used CRTs and processed CRT glass, in order to be excluded from the definition of solid waste, may not be speculatively accumulated. 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need and Authority for the Collection The requirements covered in this ICR are necessary for EPA to ensure proper management of used CRTs and processed CRT glass and to facilitate enforcement of the regulations. Page 3 2( b) Use and Users of the Data EPA will use the collected information to ensure that used CRTs and processed CRT glass are being managed in a protective manner. Information marked on containers with broken used CRTs or processed CRT glass will assist handlers, processors, and transporters in ensuring proper management during storage and shipment. 3. RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 3( a) Respondents and SIC Codes The following is a list of Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes associated with entities handling CRTs likely to be affected by the information collection requirements covered under this ICR: SIC Code * Industry * AGRICULTURE 7 Agricultural services 8 Forestry 9 Fishing, hunting, trapping ­ Administrative & auxiliary MINING 10 Metal mining 12 Coal mining 13 Oil & gas extraction 14 Non­ metallic minerals, except fuels ­ Administrative & auxiliary CONSTRUCTION 15 General contractors 16 Heavy construction 17 Special trade contractors 1 Administrative & auxiliary MANUFACTURING 20 Food & kindred products 21 Tobacco products 22 Textile mill products 23 Apparel & other textile products 24 Lumber & wood products 25 Furniture & fixtures SIC Code * Industry * Page 4 26 Paper & allied products 27 Printing & publishing 28 Chemicals & allied products 29 Petroleum and coal products 30 Rubber & miscellaneous plastics products 31 Leather & leather products 32 Stone, clay, and glass products 33 Primary metal industries 34 Fabricated metal products 35 Industrial machinery & equipment 36 Electronic & other electronic equipment 37 Transportation equipment 38 Instrument & related products 39 Miscellaneous manufacturing 1 Administrative & auxiliary TRANSPORTATION 41 Local & interurban passenger transit 42 Trucking & warehousing 44 Water transportation 45 Transportation by air 46 Pipelines, except natural gases 47 Transportation services 48 Communication 49 Electronic, gas, & sanitary services 1 Administrative & auxiliary WHOLESALE TRADE 50 Wholesale trade­ durable goods 51 Wholesale trade­ nondurable goods 52 Bldg. materials & garden supplies 1 Administrative & auxiliary RETAIL TRADE 53 General merchandise store 54 Food stores 55 Auto dealers & service station 56 Apparel & accessory stores 57 Furniture & home furnishing stores SIC Code * Industry * Page 5 58 Eating & drinking places 59 Miscellaneous retail 1 Administrative & auxiliary FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE 60 Depository institution 61 Nondepository institution 62 Security & commodity brokers 63 Insurance carriers 64 Insurance agents, brokers, & servicers 65 Real estate 67 Holding & other investment offices 1 Administrative & auxiliary SERVICES 70 Hotels & other lodging places 72 Personal services 73 Business services 75 Auto repair, services, & parking 76 Misc. repair services 78 Motion picture 79 Amusement & recreation services 80 Health services 81 Legal services 82 Educational services 83 Social services 84 Museums, botanical, zoological gardens 86 Membership organization 87 Engineering & management service 89 Services 1 Administrative & auxiliary 1 Unclassified * Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census (1992). Includes County Business Patterns data and data from the Enterprise Statistics Program. Page 6 3( b) Information Requested This section describes information collection requirements applicable to CRT regulated entities that would be affected by the proposed rule. Marking (i) Data items: Generators of broken used CRTs sent for recycling, and generators of processed CRT glass sent for any kind of recycling other than a glass­ to­ glass manufacturer or a lead smelter, must mark or label their broken used CRTs and processed CRT glass in accordance with the following procedures:
Each container or package with broken used CRTs must be labeled or marked clearly with one of the following phrases: "Used cathode ray tube( s) ­ contains leaded glass," or "Used cathode ray tube( s) ­ contains leaded glass." In addition, it must also be labeled: "Do not mix with other glass or materials." (ii) Respondent Activities:
Generators and processors must mark or label containers with broken used CRTs or processed CRT glass. Storage Time Limits (i) Data items: Broken used CRTs and processed CRT glass may not be accumulated speculatively. Generators and processors are required to demonstrate the length of time that the CRT materials have been accumulated from the date it was received or became a waste. The demonstration may be made by using any of the following methods:
Placing the broken used CRTs in a container and marking the container with the earliest date that any CRT in the container became a waste or was received.
Marking each individual broken CRT with the date it became a waste or was received.
Maintaining an inventory system on site that identifies the date the broken CRTs being accumulated became wastes or were received.
Maintaining an inventory system on site that identifies the earliest date any broken CRT in a group of CRT items or a group of containers of CRTs became a waste or was received.
Placing the broken CRTs in a specific accumulation area and identifying the Page 7 earliest date that any CRT material in the area became a waste or was received.
Any other method which clearly demonstrates the length of time that the broken CRTs has been accumulated from the date it became a waste or was received. (ii) Respondent Activities:
Generators and processors must demonstrate the length of time that broken CRTs has been accumulated since it became a waste or was received. 4. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED ­ AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT The following section discusses how EPA and implementing agencies would collect and manage the information received from respondents. This section also includes a discussion of the steps EPA will take to ensure that the information collection is not overly burdensome on small entities. 4( a) Agency Activities The information that is required of CRT generators and processors would be kept on site and not submitted to EPA formally. Therefore, there are no follow­ up activities by the Agency in response to this information. 4( b) Small Entity Flexibility By excluding hazardous waste CRTs and processed CRT glass intended for recycling from the definition of solid waste under certain minimal conditions, the proposed rule provides regulatory relief from the full Subtitle C management requirement for all entities involved in CRT management and willing to recycle CRT glass. These entities include generators, CRT recycling facilities, and CRT glass manufacturers. EPA believes this exclusion will encourage small businesses to safely manage broken CRTs or processed CRT glass in compliance with the proposed rule. In addition, EPA allows conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) to manage their hazardous waste CRTs either under the existing CESQG exemption in 40 CFR 261.5 or under the specific provisions of the proposed rule. Page 8 5. NON­ DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 5( a) Non­ duplication Most of the information required by the proposed regulations covered by this ICR is not available from any source but the respondents. Some of the respondents may be able to use current facility records and practices to comply with the labeling, marking and storage requirements. In addition, the proposal relieves affected CRT entities from RCRA's current information collection requirements. 5( b) Consultations For more than two years, EPA has worked on a collaborative basis with the Computers and Electronics Sector of the CSI Council in developing the proposed CRT standards. This workgroup consisted of representatives of environmental groups, industry trade associations, CRT glass manufacturers, CRT glass recyclers, electronics Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), academic experts, States (California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey), EPA, and expert consultants in the environmental, legal/ regulatory, worker health and safety, and environmental justice issues. In addition, EPA will consider public comments submitted in response to the proposed rulemaking prior to promulgating the final rule. 5( c) Effects of Less Frequent Collection EPA will consider carefully the burden imposed upon the regulated community by the proposed regulations, and to the extent possible, will attempt to minimize the burden imposed. EPA believes strongly that if the minimum requirements specified under the proposed regulations are not met, neither the facilities nor EPA will be able to ensure that used CRTs are being managed in a manner protective of human health and the environment. 5( d) General Guidelines This ICR adheres to the guidelines stated in the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, OMB's implementing regulations, OMB's Information Collection Review Handbook, and other applicable OMB guidance. 5( e) Confidentiality Section 3007( b) of RCRA and 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, which define EPA's general policy on public disclosure of information, contain provisions for confidentiality. The information provided by the entities regulated under the proposed regulations will be treated in accordance with these provisions, as appropriate. Page 9 5( f) Sensitive Questions No questions of a sensitive nature are included in any of the information collection requirements. 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden This ICR presents a comprehensive characterization of the reporting and recordkeeping burden and costs to CRT generators and processors under the proposed rule. 6( b) Number of Respondents The number of facilities that would be covered by the proposed rule was obtained from EPA's "Draft Economic Analysis of Cathode Ray Tube Management, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking," dated August 24, 2001. EPA estimates that 2, 116 small quantity handlers/ collectors, 311 large quantity handlers/ collectors and 5 processors will generate CRTs or processed CRT glass that is exempt from the definition of solid waste under this rule. Further, EPA expects that each year one percent of the generators will be new generators. Reading the Regulations EPA expects that regulated CRT entities will read the applicable waste CRT regulations as a one­ time activity in order to familiarize themselves with the new rule. Marking EPA expects that all generators and processors will label packages or containers containing broken CRTs. Generators and processors are not expected to mark each individual, broken CRT, but rather accumulate them in clearly marked containers or vehicles, thus minimizing the recordkeeping burden. Storage Time Limits EPA expects that some CRT entities will keep records on their storage time according to procedures specified in the regulations. EPA believes the remaining entities will use standard business practices. EPA estimates that 75 percent of CRT regulated entities will keep records by marking storage containers or storage areas with the earliest date that broken CRTs became a waste or were received. EPA estimates that the remaining 25 percent of CRT regulated entities will use standard business practices which account for storage time and satisfy the proposed rule requirements; these entities therefore are not burdened in this ICR. EPA expects that the burden imposed by the proposed rule is associated with rule Page 10 familiarization and marking and labeling packages or containers with broken CRTs. Table 1 provides background data on the number of used CRT entities and shipments. Shipments are based on two per small quantity handler/ collector and four for large quantity handlers/ collectors per year. Table 2 shows the one time rule familiarization cost and the average annual burden and costs for generators, collectors, and processors to comply with each CRT requirement. The table includes estimated labor costs and operation and maintenance (O& M) costs. Table 3 summarizes, by respondent type, the total annual burden and costs. Table 1 Estimated Number of CRT Shipments Type of Regulated Entity Number of Regulated Entities Total # of Shipments Sent Off Site Small Quantity Handlers/ Collectors 2,116 4,232 Large Quantity Handlers/ Collectors 311 1,244 Processors 5 128 Total 2,432 5,604 Page 11 TABLE 2 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR CRT REGULATED ENTITIES: ONE TIME COST PER ENTITY O& M Costs per Respondent Number of Respondents Hours per Respondent Postage/ Shipping Photocopies Contractor Support Hours per Respondent Cost Per Respondent Total Cost All Respondents Legal Manager Technical Clerical @ $3/ doc @ $0.10/ page @ $80.00/ hr @ $116.53/ hr @ $110.95/ h r @ $60.89/ hr @ $43.44/ hr CRT RULE FAMILIARIZATION Small Quantity Handlers/ Collectors 2,116 0.0 1. 0 1.5 0. 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2.5 $202.28 $428,024.48 Large Quantity Handlers/ Collectors 311 0.5 1. 0 1.5 0. 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3.0 $260.56 $81,034.16 Processors 5 0. 0 1.0 1. 5 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2.5 $202.28 $1,011.40 SUBTOTAL 2,432 0.5 3. 0 4.5 0. 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 8.0 $665.12 $510,070.04 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT FOR CRT REGULATED ENTITIES ANNUAL ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST O& M Costs per Respondent Number of Respondents Hours per Respondent Postage/ Shipping Photocopies Contractor Support Hours Per Year Per Respondent Cost Per Year Per Respondent Total Cost Per Year Per All Respondents Legal Manager Technical Clerical @ $3/ doc @ $0.10/ page @ $80.00/ hr @ $116.53/ hr @ $110.95/ h r @ $60.89/ hr @ $43.44/ hr Mark the broken CRTs or containers Small Quantity Handlers/ Collectors 2,116 0.0 0. 0 0.5 0. 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.5 $30.45 $64,432.20 Large Quantity Handlers/ Collectors 311 0.0 0. 0 2.0 0. 5 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2.5 $143.50 $44,628.50 Processors 5 0. 0 0.0 0. 5 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.5 $30.45 $152.25 Page 12 SUBTOTAL 2,432 0.0 0. 0 3.0 0. 5 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3.5 $204.39 $109,212.95 Page 13 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT FOR CRT REGULATED ENTITIES ANNUAL ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST O& M Costs per Respondent Number of Respondents Hours per Respondent Postage/ Shipping Photocopies Contractor Support Hours Per Year Per Respondent Cost Per Year Per Respondent Total Cost Per Year Per All Respondents Legal Manager Technical Clerical @ $3/ doc @ $0.10/ page @ $80.00/ hr @ $116.53/ hr @ $110.95/ h r @ $60.89/ hr @ $43.44/ hr Mark storage container or area used to store CRTs or CRT glass with the date the waste was received or became a waste Small Quantity Handlers/ Collectors 2116 0.0 0. 0 0.25 0.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.5 $26.08 $55,185.28 Large Quantity Handlers/ Collectors 311 0.0 0. 0 0.50 0.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.75 $41.31 $12,847.41 Subtotal 2427 0.0 0. 0 0.75 0.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1.25 $67.39 $68,032.69 TOTAL ONE TIME COST PER FACILITY SQH/ Collectors 2116 0.0 1. 0 1.50 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6.0 $202.28 $428,024.48 LQH/ Collectors 311 0.5 1. 0 1.50 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3.0 $260.56 $81,034.16 Processors 5 0. 0 1.0 1. 50 0. 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2.5 $202.28 $1,011.40 TOTAL 2432 0.5 3. 0 4.50 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 11.5 $665.12 $510,070.04 TOTAL ANNUAL ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST SQH Total 2116 0.0 0. 0 0.75 0.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1.00 $56.53 $119,617.48 LQH Total 311 0.0 0. 0 2.50 0.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3.25 $184.81 $57,475.91 Processors 5 0. 0 0.0 0. 50 0. 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.50 $30.45 $152.25 TOTAL 2432 0.0 0. 0 3.75 1.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 4.75 $271.79 $177,245.64 Page 14 6( c) Estimating Respondent Costs Labor The average annual salaries of the professionals listed in Table 2 are based on data found in the U. S. Department of Labor Statistics (BLS) "National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, 1997." Wages were calculated using the BLS rate with the labor multiplier. The labor rates are based on a full­ time employee with a 40­ hour work week. Total annual respondent labor costs, summarized in the 3 rd column of Table 3, are estimated to be $510,070 for the initial one time cost and $177,245.64 for the annual variable costs. Operation and Maintenance O& M costs are those costs associated with a paperwork requirement incurred continually over the life of the ICR. They are defined by the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act as "the recurring dollar amount of cost associated with O& M or purchasing services." For this ICR, EPA estimates that there are no respondent O& M costs. Capital Capital costs usually include any produced physical good needed to provide or keep records of the needed information, such as machinery, computers, and other equipment. For this ICR, EPA estimates that there are no respondent capital costs. TABLE 3: REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLERS, COLLECTORS AND PROCESSORS: ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST SUMMARY (ALL RESPONDENTS) Respondent Type Total Hours for Annual Variable Costs Labor Costs Capital Costs O& M Costs Total Costs Small quantity handlers/ collectors 14,812 $119,617 $0 $0 $119,617 Large quantity handlers/ collectors 1,011 $57,476 $0 $0 $57,476 Processors 33 $152 $0 $0 $152 TOTAL 15,855 $177,245 $0 $0 $177,245 Page 15 6( d) Reasons for Change in Burden EPA expects that the proposed rule will result in a reduction in burden to the regulated waste CRT community. CRT entities sending broken CRTs or CRT glass for recycling would no longer be subject to full Subtitle C requirements. Following is a list of primary RCRA reporting and recordkeeping requirements that CRT entities may be relieved of:
Reporting waste generation data for the EPA's Biennial Report, as covered in ICR No. 976, Biennial Report ICR;
EPA notification of hazardous waste activity;
Reporting and recordkeeping under the land disposal restrictions (LDRs) program of 40 CFR Part 268, as covered in ICR No. 1442, Land Disposal Restrictions ICR;
Reporting and recordkeeping under the hazardous waste manifest requirements, as covered in ICR No. 801, Manifest ICR; and
Recordkeeping and/ or reporting of personnel training, contingency plan, and emergency procedures under the generator standards of 40 CFR Part 262, as covered in ICR No. 820, Hazardous Waste Generator Standards ICR. Table 4 presents the average and the total avoided respondent burden resulting from the proposed rule. This avoided burden is based on the average annual burden per respondent as estimated in the ICRs listed above. Table 4 also presents the total estimated avoided entity burden by multiplying the average avoided burden per respondent by the total number of CRT entities expected to be affected by the proposed rule. Page 16 Table 4 Average and Total Annual Avoided Respondent Burden (Hours) Primary RCRA Requirements No Longer Applicable to CRT Glass­ toglass Regulated Entities Average Annual Respondent Burden Savings per Regulated Entity (in hours) Small Quantity Handler Large Quantity Handler Processor Prepare and Submit Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity 1 (RP) 1. 5 (RP) N/ A Prepare and submit Hazardous Waste Biennial Report Forms N/ A 12 (RP) 12 (RP) Prepare and transmit LDR notifications to treatment and disposal facilities and keep records 1 (RP) 2( RP) 6 (RP) 0.5 (RK) 1( RK) 2 (RK) Prepare and transmit manifests and keep records 1 (RP) 2( RP) 8 (RP) 0.5 (RK) 1( RK) 2 (RK) Personnel training 0.5 (RK) 4 (RK) 8 (RK) Contingency plan N/ A 3 (RK) 6 (RK) Emergency procedures 0 2 (RK) 2 (RK) Total Avoided Burden per Regulated Entity 3 (RP) 17.5 (RP) 26 (RP) 1.5 (RK) 11 (RK) 20 (RK) Number of Regulated Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule 2116 311 5 Total Avoided Burden 6,348 (RP) 5,443 (RP) 130 (RP) 3,174 (RK) 3,421 (RK) 100 (RK) RP: Reporting; RK: Recordkeeping Page 17 6( e) Burden Statement Table 5 presents the estimated average burden hours per respondent per year for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements covered by this ICR. The reporting burden includes time to comply with the proposed notification, environmental justice, and exporting requirements. The recordkeeping burden includes time to follow the proposed labeling/ marking and storage time limit requirements. Table 5 Average Annual Burden per CRT Respondent (Hours) Type of Regulated Entity Estimated Annual Reporting Burden Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden Estimated Number of Each Entity Estimated Total Burden Small Quantity Generators/ Collectors 0 1 2,116 2,116 Large Quantity Generators/ Collectors 0 3. 25 311 1011 Processors 0 0. 5 5 2. 5 As shown in Table 5, the total annual burden is estimated to be 1 hour for small quantity handlers, 3.25 hours for large quantity handlers, and 0.5 hour for processors. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB numbers for EPA's regulation are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. Send comments regarding these burden statements or any other aspect of this collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Office of Policy, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20460 and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20503. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.696577

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0013-0004

Supporting & Related Material

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST NUMBER 1597.05 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED RULE ON MERCURY­ CONTAINING EQUIPMENT REUSE AND RECYCLING DRAFT November 2001 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION ........................ 1 1( a) Title and Number of Information Collection ................................. 1 1( b) Characterization of the Information Collection ................................ 1 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION ................................... 3 2( a) Need and Authority for the Collection ...................................... 3 2( b) Use and Users of the Data ............................................... 3 3. RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ......................... 3 3( a) Respondents and SIC Codes ............................................. 3 3( b) Information Requested ................................................. 4 4. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED ­ AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ......................... 7 4( a) Agency Activities ..................................................... 7 4( b) Collection Methodology and Management ................................... 7 4( c) Small Entity Flexibility ................................................. 7 4( d) Collection Schedule .................................................... 8 5. NON­ DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA ..... 8 5( a) Non­ duplication ...................................................... 8 5( b) Effects of Less Frequent Collection ........................................ 8 5( c) General Guidelines .................................................... 9 5( d) Confidentiality ....................................................... 9 5( e) Sensitive Questions .................................................... 9 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION ....................... 9 6( a) Number of Respondents ................................................ 9 6( b) Estimating Respondent Burden ........................................... 9 6( c) Estimating Respondent Costs ........................................... 14 6( d) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost ...................................... 14 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs ..................................... 15 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden .......................................... 17 6( g) Burden Statement .................................................... 19 Page ii LIST OF TABLES Table1 EstimatedNumber ofMCEShipments ................................... 10 Table 2 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Universal Waste MCE Regulated Entities: One time costs and Annual Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost .............. 11 Table 3 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Universal Waste MCE Handlers, TSDFs, and Transporters: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost Summary (All Respondents) . 16 Table 4 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Universal Waste MCE Regulated Entities: AnnualEstimatedAgencyBurdenandCost................................ 16 Table 5 Average and Total Annual Avoided Respondent Burden (Hours) ................ 18 Table 6 Average Annual Burden per Respondent (Hours) ......................... 19 Page 1 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION Background 1( a) Title and Number of Information Collection This Information Collection Request (ICR) is entitled "Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Proposed Rule on Mercury­ Containing Equipment Reuse and Recycling", ICR Number 1597.05 1( b) Characterization of the Information Collection Section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended, requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify which solid wastes are hazardous wastes and therefore must be managed as hazardous waste during treatment, storage, or disposal. Under this authority, EPA established four hazardous waste characteristics (toxicity, reactivity, ignitability, and corrosivity), and listed specific wastes that must be managed as hazardous wastes. Waste mercury­ containing equipment (MCE) are often hazardous because they exhibit the characteristic of toxicity by exceeding the regulatory level for mercury. As a result, currently most waste MCE are subject to strict controls under RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations. After consideration of the issues, EPA added hazardous waste MCE to the existing universal waste regulations at 40 CFR Part 273. The existing universal waste regulations, published on May 11, 1995, provide streamlined procedures for certain widely generated wastes identified as universal wastes (60 FR 25492). The universal waste standards are designed to accomplish the following general goals: ° Encourage resource conservation while ensuring protection of human health and the environment; ° Improve implementation of the Subtitle C hazardous waste program through a simplified set of requirements that are easily understood by handlers of MCE waste; and ° Separate universal waste from the municipal waste stream by encouraging individuals and organizations to collect these wastes and to manage them in an appropriate hazardous waste management system. The final universal waste MCE rule requires generators of this equipment to follow procedures for maintaining the condition of the MCE (e. g., proper packaging), storing MCE (e. g., accumulation time limits, labeling), notifying EPA as specified, and responding to releases. The universal waste standards establish management standards for two types of MCE generators: small quantity handlers (SQHUWs) and large quantity handlers (LQHUWs) of MCE wastes. SQHUWs are universal waste handlers who do not accumulate more than 5,000 kilograms total of universal waste at any one time. LQHUWs are universal waste handlers that accumulate 5,000 Page 2 kilograms or more total of universal waste at any time. Destination sites receiving waste MCE are subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations at 40 CFR Parts 264­ 270 and 124, as applicable. This ICR is a comprehensive description of the information collection requirements for handlers of hazardous waste MCE under the universal waste requirements. 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need and Authority for the Collection The requirements covered in this ICR are necessary for EPA to obtain general information on universal waste MCE regulated entities and to facilitate enforcement of Part 273 regulations. The notification requirements are needed to assist the Agency in identifying and tracking large quantity handlers of universal waste MCE. EPA requires large quantity handlers to mark and track MCE shipments to help ensure that universal waste MCE are being accumulated responsibly. EPA requires tracking of universal waste MCE shipments to help ensure that universal waste MCE is being properly treated, recycled, or disposed. 2( b) Use and Users of the Data EPA will use the collected information to ensure that universal waste MCE are being managed in a protective manner. This information aids the Agency in tracking universal waste MCE shipments and identifying improper management practices. In addition, information kept in facility records will help handlers demonstrate, and on­ site inspectors ensure, that facilities are managing MCE properly. Information marked on MCE or MCE containers will assist handlers, and transporters in ensuring proper management during storage and shipment. 3. RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 3( a) Respondents and SIC Codes The following is a list of Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes associated with entities handling MCE likely to be affected by the information collection requirements covered under this ICR: SIC Code * Industry * AGRICULTURE 7 Agricultural services CONSTRUCTION 15 General contractors 17 Special trade contractors SIC Code * Industry * Page 3 MANUFACTURING 20 Food & kindred products 34 Fabricated metal products 35 Industrial machinery & equipment 36 Electronic & other electronic equipment 37 Transportation equipment 38 Instrument & related products PUBLIC UTILITIES 49 Electronic, gas, & sanitary services WHOLESALE TRADE 50 Wholesale trade­ durable goods RETAIL TRADE 58 Eating & drinking places SERVICES 72 Personal services 73 Business services 75 Auto repair, services, & parking 76 Misc. repair services 80 Health services 82 Educational services * Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census (1997). 3( b) Information Requested This section describes information collection requirements applicable to universal waste MCE regulated entities that would be affected by the proposed rule. Notification (i) Data items: The proposed rule requires large quantity handlers to send written notification of universal waste MCE management to the Regional Administrator, and receive an EPA identification number. Specifically, large quantity handlers must send written notification before meeting or exceeding the 5,000 kilogram accumulation limit of universal waste. Large quantity handlers who have already notified EPA of their hazardous waste management activities under RCRA or Page 4 pesticide management under FIFRA and have received an EPA Identification number are not required to renotify. The notification must include the following data items: ° The universal waste handler's name and mailing address; ° The name and business telephone number of the person at the universal waste handler's site who should be contacted regarding universal waste management activities; ° The address or physical location of the universal waste management activities; ° A list of all types of universal waste managed by the handler; and
A statement indicating that the handler is accumulating 5,000 kilograms or more of universal waste at one time and a description of the types of waste accumulated. (ii) Respondent activities:
Large quantity handlers must prepare and submit written notification of universal waste MCE management to the Regional Administrator. Marking (i) Data items: Small and large quantity handlers are required to mark or label their universal waste MCE materials in accordance with the following procedures:
Mercury­ containing equipment or containers must be marked or labeled with the words: "Universal Waste­ Mercury­ Containing Equipment" or "Waste­ MercuryContaining Equipment" or "Used Mercury­ Containing Equipment". (ii) Respondent Activities:
Handlers must mark or label the universal waste MCE or the containers holding universal waste MCE. Page 5 Accumulation Time Limits (i) Data items: Small quantity handlers and large quantity handlers are required to demonstrate the length of time that the MCE has been accumulated from the date it was received or became a waste. The demonstration may be made by using any of the following methods:
Placing the universal waste MCE in a container and marking or labeling the container with the earliest date that any MCE in the container became a waste or was received.
Marking or labeling each individual item of universal waste MCE with the date it became a waste or was received.
Maintaining an inventory system on site that identifies the date the MCE being accumulated became wastes or were received.
Maintaining an inventory system on site that identifies the earliest date any MCE in a group of MCE items or a group of containers of MCE became a waste or was received.
Placing the MCE in a specific accumulation area and identifying the earliest date that any MCE in the area became a waste or was received.
Any other method which clearly demonstrates the length of time that the MCE has been accumulated from the date it became a waste or was received. (ii) Respondent Activities:
Handlers must demonstrate the length of time that MCE has been accumulated since it became a waste or was received. Tracking MCE Shipments (i) Data items: The proposed rule requires large quantity handlers to keep records of each incoming or outgoing universal waste MCE shipment. Records of shipments must be kept for a period of three years from the day of receipt or the day the shipment left the facility. The data items required are:
Records of incoming and outgoing shipments must contain the following information: Page 6  Name and address of the originating or destination facility;  Quantity of universal waste MCE received or sent; and  Date the shipment was sent or received. (ii) Respondent activities:
Large quantity handlers must:  Maintain records of all shipments for a period of three years. Exports (i) Data Items: Under the proposed rule, shipments of MCE to a foreign destination must comply with the same requirements as shipments of hazardous waste (i. e., 40 CFR 262, Subparts E or H). These reporting and recordkeeping activities are not evaluated in this ICR because they already are addressed in the "Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System" (ICR No. 801) and in the "Exports from and Imports to the U. S. under the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Decision" (ICR No. 1647). 4. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED ­ AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT The following section discusses how EPA and implementing agencies would collect and manage the information received from respondents. This section also includes a discussion of how EPA would take steps to ensure that the information collections are not overly burdensome on small entities. 4( a) Agency Activities Most of the information that is required of universal waste MCE handlers would be kept on site and not be submitted to EPA formally. The Agency will conduct the following activities in response to information submittals:
Review and file notification of universal waste MCE management provided by large quantity handlers;
Send an EPA identification number to large quantity handlers; and Page 7
Enter notification information into a database. 4( b) Collection Methodology and Management In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this ICR, EPA will use electronic equipment such as personal computers and applicable database software. EPA will ensure the accuracy and completeness of the collected information by reviewing each submittal. EPA then would enter the information into a database and aggregate data to monitor universal waste MCE program. 4( c) Small Entity Flexibility By adding hazardous waste MCE intended for recycling into the federal list of universal waste, the proposed rule will provide regulatory relief from the full Subtitle C management requirement for all entities involved in MCE management and willing to recycle MCE. These entities include generators, transporters, and MCE recycling facilities. Small quantity generators of hazardous waste MCE will become small quantity handlers of universal waste MCE. The regulatory requirements associated with small quantity handlers of universal waste are considerably simpler than those applicable to small quantity generators of hazardous waste. Further, EPA relieved small quantity handlers from several administrative requirements applicable to large quantity handlers. For example, the proposed rule does not require small quantity handlers to submit notifications of universal waste MCE management or to obtain an EPA identification number. EPA also does not require small quantity handlers to keep records of their universal waste MCE shipments. EPA believes these exemptions would encourage small businesses to safely manage universal waste MCE in compliance with the proposed rule. In addition, EPA allows conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) to manage their hazardous waste MCE either under the specific provisions of the proposed rule or under the existing CESQG exemption in 40 CFR 261.5. Finally, the universal waste MCE rule is a regulatory relief initiative that should reduce regulatory burden and costs for all universal waste handlers, but should particularly benefit small entities. 4( d) Collection Schedule EPA does not collect any information on a regular schedule, except for annual notification schedule for exports of MCE to non­ OECD countries and annual report of exports of MCE to OECD countries. 5. NON­ DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 5( a) Non­ duplication Page 8 The streamlined MCE requirements minimize the paperwork activities respondents must undertake in relation to the full hazardous waste program, and enable them to follow standard industry practices and other Federal agency requirements, where appropriate, to satisfy the universal waste MCE requirements. The information required by the proposed regulations covered by this ICR is not available from any source but the respondents. 5( b) Effects of Less Frequent Collection EPA will consider carefully the burden imposed upon the regulated community by the proposed regulations, and to the extent possible, will attempt to minimize the burden imposed. EPA believes strongly that if the minimum requirements specified under the proposed regulations are not met, neither the facilities nor EPA will be able to ensure that waste MCE are being managed in a manner protective of human health and the environment. 5( c) General Guidelines This ICR adheres to the guidelines stated in the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, OMB's implementing regulations, OMB's Information Collection Review Handbook, and other applicable OMB guidance. 5( d) Confidentiality Section 3007( b) of RCRA and 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, which define EPA's general policy on public disclosure of information, contain provisions for confidentiality. The information provided by the entities regulated under the proposed regulations will be treated in accordance with these provisions, as appropriate. 5( e) Sensitive Questions No questions of a sensitive nature are included in any of the information collection requirements. Page 9 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION 6( a) Number of Respondents The number of facilities that would be covered by the proposed rule was obtained from EPA's "Draft Economic Analysis of Including Mercury­ Containing Devices (MCD) in the Universal Waste System, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" dated September 5, 2001. The report estimated that there would be 1, 864 small quantity handlers, 13 large quantity handlers, 18 TSDFs, and 600 transporters. For the purpose of evaluating the annual costs associated with new facilities, the Agency also estimates that one percent of the facilities are new facilities. 6( b) Estimating Respondent Burden This ICR presents a comprehensive characterization of the reporting and recordkeeping burden and costs to universal waste MCE handlers, TSDFs and transporters under the proposed rule. Except for manifest requirements, recyclers of universal waste (destination facilities/ TSDFs) must comply with the same requirements that apply to recyclers of hazardous wastes. Reading the Regulations EPA expects that regulated universal waste MCE entities will read the applicable universal waste MCE regulations as a one­ time activity in order to familiarize themselves with the new rule. Notification All large quantity handlers would be required to send EPA a written notification of universal waste MCE management under the proposed rule. EPA expects that one percent of the generators are new facilities. Marking EPA expects that all handlers will mark or label universal waste MCE or containers holding universal waste MCE. Handlers are expected to mark containers rather than individual MCE, thus minimizing the recordkeeping burden. Accumulation Time Limits EPA expects that some MCE entities will keep records on their storage time limits according to procedures specified on the regulations. EPA believes the remaining entities will use standard business practices. Page 10 Tracking MCE Shipments Table 1 provides background data on the number of universal waste MCE entities and shipments. Table 2 shows the one time cost for rule familiarization and notification of hazardous waste activity and the average annual burden and costs for handlers, TSDFs, and transporters to comply with each MCE requirement. The table includes estimated labor costs and operation and maintenance (O& M) costs. Table 3 summarizes, by respondent type, the total annual burden and costs. Table 3 also includes capital costs for respondents (i. e., file cabinets). Table 1 Estimated Number of MCE Shipments Type of Regulated Entity Number of Regulated Entities Total # of Shipments Sent Off Site/ Year # of Shipments Received/ Year Small Quantity Handlers 1, 864 1, 864 0 Large Quantity Handlers 13 13 0 TSDFs 18 0 1,877 Transporters 600 0 1, 877 Total 2,495 3,000 1,877 Page 11 TABLE 2 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR UNIVERSAL WASTE MCE REGULATED ENTITIES: ONE TIME COST PERFACILITY O& M Costs per Respondent Number of Respondents Hours per Respondent Postage/ Shipping Photocopies Contractor Support Hours per Respondent Cost per Respondent Total Cost All Respondents Legal Manager Technical Clerical @ $3/ doc @ $0.10/ page @$ 88.05/ hr @$ 116.53/ hr @$ 110.95/ hr @$ 60.89/ hr @$ 43.44/ hr Rule Familiarization Small Quantity Handlers 1,864 0.0 1. 0 1.5 0. 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2.5 $202.28 $377,049.92 Large Quantity Handlers 13 0.5 1. 0 1.5 0. 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3 $260.55 $3,387.15 TSDFs 18 0. 5 1.0 1. 5 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2.5 $260.55 $4,689.90 Transporters 600 0.5 1. 0 1.5 0. 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3 $260.55 $156,330.00 SUBTOTAL 2,495 1.5 4. 0 6.0 0. 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 11 $983.93 $541,456.97 Prepare and submit written notification of MCE management Large Quantity Handlers 13 0.0 0. 5 1.0 0. 5 $3.00 $1.00 $0.00 2 $145.09 $1,886.17 TOTAL ONE TIME COST PER ENTITY Small Quantity Handlers 1,864 0.0 1. 0 1.5 0. 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2.5 $202.28 $377,049.92 Large Quantity Handlers 13 0.5 1. 5 2.5 0. 0 $3.00 $1.00 $0.00 4.5 $402.64 $5,234.32 TSDFS 18 0. 5 1.0 1. 5 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2.5 $260.55 $4,689.90 Transporters 600 0.5 1. 0 1.5 0. 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3 $260.55 $156,330.00 TOTALS 2,495 1.5 4. 5 7.0 0. 0 $3.00 $1.00 $0.00 12.5 $1,126.02 $543,304.14 Page 12 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR UNIVERSAL WASTE MCE REGULATED ENTITIES: ANNUAL ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST O& M Costs per Respondent Number of Respondents Hours per Respondent Postage/ Shipping Photocopies Contractor Support Hours per Year per Respondent Cost per Year per Respondent Total Cost per Year All Respondents Legal Manager Technical Clerical @ $3/ doc @ $0.10/ page @$ 88.05/ hr @$ 116.53/ hr @$ 110.95/ hr @$ 60.89/ hr @$ 43.44/ hr LABELING AND MARKING Mark the MCE or MCE containers Small Quantity Handlers 1,864 0.0 0. 0 1.0 0. 5 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1.5 $82.61 $153,985.04 Large Quantity Handlers 13 0.0 0. 0 1.0 1. 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 $104.33 $1,356.29 TSDFs 18 0. 0 0.0 2. 0 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 $121.78 $2,192.04 SUBTOTAL 1,895 0.0 0. 0 4.0 1. 5 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5.5 $308.72 $157,533.37 STORAGE TIME LIMITS Mark MCE or MCE containers with the date the waste was received or became a waste Small Quantity Handlers 1,864 0.0 0. 0 0.5 0. 5 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1 $52.17 $97,244.88 Large Quantity Handlers 13 0.0 0. 0 1.0 0. 5 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1.5 $82.61 $1,073.93 Subtotal 1,877 0.0 0. 0 1.5 1. 0 $0.0 $0.00 $0.00 2.5 $134.78 $98,318.81 TRACKING MCE SHIPMENTS Keep a record of each shipment of MCE Large Quantity Handlers 13 0.0 0. 0 0.5 0. 0 $0.00 $1.80 $0.00 0.5 $32.25 $419.25 TSDFs 18 0. 0 0.0 15.0 10.0 $0.00 $5.00 $0.00 25 $1,352.75 $24,349.50 SUBTOTAL 31 0.0 0. 0 15.5 10.0 $0.00 $6.80 $0.00 25.5 $1,385.00 $24,768.75 Page 13 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR UNIVERSAL WASTE MCE REGULATED ENTITIES: ANNUAL ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST O& M Costs per Respondent Number of Respondents Hours per Respondent Postage/ Shipping Photocopies Contractor Support Hours per Year per Respondent Cost per Year per Respondent Total Cost per Year All Respondents Legal Manager Technical Clerical @ $3/ doc @ $0.10/ page @$ 88.05/ hr @$ 116.53/ hr @$ 110.95/ hr @$ 60.89/ hr @$ 43.44/ hr Small Quantity Handler Total 1,864 0.0 0. 0 1.5 1. 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2.5 $134.78 $251,229.92 Large Quantity Handler Total 13 0.0 0. 0 2.5 1. 5 $0.00 $1.80 $0.00 4 $219.19 $2,849.47 TSDF Total 18 0.0 0. 0 17.0 10.0 $0.00 $5.00 $0.00 27 $1,479.53 $26,631.54 TOTAL 1, 895 0.0 0. 0 21.0 12.5 $0.00 $6.80 $0.00 33.5 $1,833.50 $280,710.93 Page 14 6( c) Estimating Respondent Costs Labor The average annual salaries of the professionals listed in Table 2 are based on data found in the U. S. Department of Labor Statistics (BLS) "National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, 1997." Wages were calculated using the BLS rate with the labor multiplier. The labor rates are based on a full­ time employee with a 40­ hour work week. Total one­ time costs are estimated to be $543,304 from Table 2 and the annual respondent labor costs summarized in t Table 3 are estimated to be $280,615. Operation and Maintenance O& M costs are those costs associated with a paperwork requirement incurred continually over the life of the ICR. They are defined by the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act as "the recurring dollar amount of cost associated with O& M or purchasing services." For this ICR, O& M costs cover postage and for reports sent to other parties ($ 3 per package) and photocopying ($ 0.10 per page). In addition, O& M costs include contractor costs (i. e., costs charged by firms acting as agents for their customers). Total annual respondent O& M costs, summarized in the 5 th column of Table 3, are estimated to be $113. Capital In the following paragraphs, EPA estimates capital costs associated with the information requirements covered by this ICR. Capital costs usually include any produced physical good needed to provide or keep records of the needed information, such as machinery, computers, and other equipment. For this ICR, the only required capital is file cabinets for maintaining reports. The file cabinet costs are based on the assumption that large quantity handlers would need to buy approximately one cabinet every five years and TSDFs and transporters would not need any additional file storage capacity. EPA estimates that the purchasing price for one file cabinet is $550, including delivery. Total annual respondent capital costs, summarized in the 4 th column of Table 3, are estimated to be $1,430. 6( d) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Table 4 estimates EPA's annual burden hours and costs associated with the requirements covered in this ICR. Since Regional Offices generally would process all the information collected under the requirements covered in this ICR, Regional labor costs are used in the calculation of Federal Agency costs. EPA estimates an average Regional labor cost of $60 per hour for legal staff, $43 per hour for managerial staff, $30 per hour for technical staff, and $18 per hour for clerical staff. To derive these estimates, EPA used the U. S. Office of Personnel Management 2000 Federal Pay Schedule salary figures to estimate the annual compensation of these staff. EPA estimates an annual Agency burden of 29.2hours, at an annual cost of $832. For the purposes of this ICR, EPA assigned Regional staff the following government service levels: Page 15
Legal staff GS­ 15, Step 1 ($ 77,614 per year, or $60 per hour)
Managerial staff GS­ 13, Step 1 ($ 55,837 per year, or $43 per hour)
Technical staff GS­ 11, Step 1 ($ 39,178 per year, or $30 per hour)
Clerical staff GS­ 06, Step 1 ($ 23,820 per year, or $18 per hour) To derive hourly estimates, EPA divided annual compensation estimates by 2, 080, the number of hours in a Federal work year. EPA then multiplied the rates by the standard government overhead factor of 1.6. 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs The bottom line burden to respondents over the three­ year period covered by this ICR is estimated at 15,694 hours with a cost of approximately $924,012. The bottom­ line burden for the Agency is 87.6 hours, with a cost of $2,496. EPA expects, however, that the regulatory relief resulting from the proposed regulations will lead to a net decrease in the overall respondent burden (see Section 6( f) below). Page 16 TABLE 3 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR UNIVERSAL WASTE MCE HANDLERS, TSDFs and TRANSPORTERS: ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST SUMMARY (ALL RESPONDENTS) Respondent Type Total Hours Labor Costs Capital Costs O& M Costs Total Costs Small quantity handlers 4,660 $251,230 $0 $0 $251,230 Large quantity handlers 52 $2, 826 $1, 430 $23 $4, 279 TSDFs 486 $26,560 $0 $90 $26,650 TOTAL 5,198 $280,615 $1,430 $113 $282,158 TABLE 4 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTSFORUNIVERSALWASTEMCE REGULATED ENTITIES: ANNUAL ESTIMATED AGENCY BURDEN AND COST O& M Review Costs per Respondent Review Hours Review Cost Total Review Cost Number of Review Hours per Respondent Postage/ Photocopies per Year per Year per Year Respondents Legal Managerial Technical Clerical Shipping @ All per Alll @$ 60/ hr @$ 43/ hr @$ 30/ hr @$ 18/ hr @$ 3/ doc $0.10/ page Respondents Respondent Respondents NOTIFICATION Review notification for completeness and accuracy Large Quantity Handlers 13.0 0. 0 0.5 0. 5 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 13.0 $36.5 $474.5 Issue EPA ID number to regulated entities Large Quantity Handlers 13.0 0. 0 0.0 0. 3 0.0 $3.00 $1.00 5.4 $11.5 $201.5 Enter information into database Large Quantity Handlers 13.0 0. 0 0.0 0. 3 0.3 $0.00 $0.00 10.8 $12.0 $156.0 TOTAL 0. 0 0.5 1. 1 0.3 $3.00 $1.00 29.2 $60.0 $832.0 Page 17 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden EPA expects that the proposed rule will result in a reduction in burden to the regulated waste MCE community. Universal waste MCE entities no longer would be subject to full Subtitle C requirements. Following is a list of primary RCRA reporting and recordkeeping requirements that MCE entities may be relieved of:
Reporting waste generation data for the EPA's Biennial Report, as covered in ICR No. 976, Biennial Report ICR;
Reporting and recordkeeping under the land disposal restrictions (LDRs) program of 40 CFR Part 268, as covered in ICR No. 1442, Land Disposal Restrictions ICR;
Reporting and recordkeeping under the hazardous waste manifest requirements, as covered in ICR No. 801, Manifest ICR; and
Recordkeeping and/ or reporting of personnel training, contingency plan, and emergency procedures under the generator standards of 40 CFR Part 262, as covered in ICR No. 820, Hazardous Waste Generator Standards ICR. Table 5 presents the average and the total avoided respondent burden resulting from the proposed rule. This avoided burden is based on the average annual burden per respondent as estimated in the ICRs listed above. Table 5 also presents the total estimated avoided entity burden by multiplying the average avoided burden per respondent by the total number of MCE entities expected to be affected by the proposed rule. Page 18 Table 5 Average and Total Annual Avoided Respondent Burden (Hours) Primary RCRA Requirements No Longer Applicable to MCE Regulated Entities Average Annual Respondent Burden Savings per Regulated Entity (in hours) Small Quantity Handler Large Quantity Handler TSDF Transporter Prepare and submit Hazardous Waste Biennial Report Forms N/ A 12 (RP) 0 N/ A Prepare and transmit LDR notifications to treatment and disposal facilities and keep records 2 (RP) 2( RP) N/ A N/ A 1 (RK) 1 (RK) N/ A Prepare and transmit manifests and keep records 1 (RP) 2( RP) 8 (RP) 12 (RP) 0.5 (RK) 1( RK) 2 (RK) 3( RK) Personnel training 0. 5 (RK) 4 (RK) 0 1( RK) Contingency plan N/ A 3 (RK) 0 N/ A Emergency procedures 0 0 0 0 Total Avoided Burden per Regulated Entity 3 (RP) 16 (RP) 8( RP) 12( RP) 1.5 (RK) 9( RK) 2 (RK) 4( RK) Number of Regulated Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule 1,864 13 18 600 Total Avoided Burden 5,592 (RP) 208 (RP) 144 (RP) 7,200 (RP) 2,796 (RK) 117 (RK) 36 (RK) 2,400 (RK) RP: Reporting; RK: Recordkeeping Page 19 6( g) Burden Statement Table 6 presents the estimated average burden hours per respondent per year for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements covered by this ICR. The reporting burden includes time to comply with the proposed notification, environmental justice, and exporting requirements. The recordkeeping burden includes time to read and understand the regulations, and to follow the proposed labeling/ marking, storage time limits, and shipment tracking requirements. Table 6 Estimated Annual Burden per MCE Respondent (Hours) Type of regulate Entity Estimated Annual Reporting Burden Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden Estimated Number of Each Entity Estimated Total Burden Small Quantity 3 1. 5 1, 864 8, 388 Large Quantity 9 16 13 325 TSDFs 8 2 18 180 Transporters 12 4 600 9600 As shown in Table 6, the total annual burden is estimated to be 4. 5 hours for small quantity handlers, 25 hours for large quantity handlers, 10 hours for TSDFs, and 16 hours for transporters. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB numbers for EPA's regulation are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. Send comments regarding these burden statements or any other aspect of this collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Office of Policy, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20460 and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20503. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.702369

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0013-0005

Supporting & Related Material

6/ 4/ 98 C:\ dmautop\ temp\ dwcgi­ 8736­ 1018355395­ 273436000. wpd 1 COMMON SENSE INITIATIVE (CSI) COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION ON CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) GLASS­ TO­ GLASS RECYCLING Based on in­ depth work conducted by the CSI Computers and Electronics Sector Subcommittee, the CSI Council has determined that properly conducted Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) glass­ to­ glass recycling is a cleaner, cheaper, smarter approach to waste CRT management that should be increased. To facilitate accomplishing that goal, the CSI Council recommends that the Environmental Protection Agency: 1. Revise the applicable Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste management regulations to facilitate CRT glass­ to­ glass recycling as outlined in Attachment 1. The revised CRT glass­ to­ glass recycling regulations should be clear and simple to understand. The Council asks that, as appropriate, EPA discuss with members of the Computers and Electronics Sector Subcommittee any new issues that arise during rule development and implementation. 2. Complete and implement this CRT rulemaking as soon as possible, and in the intervening period, take appropriate steps to realize the environmental benefits of CRT glass­ to­ glass recycling. Finally, the CSI Council recognizes that there may be CRT glass recycling methods or end uses other than CRT manufacturing that are also cleaner, cheaper, and smarter approaches to waste CRT management. On the other hand, some recycling methods or end uses may pose risks to human health and the environment. The Computers and Electronics Subcommittee will be working to determine which recycling methods and end uses are preferable and to propose appropriate standards for such methods, but the Council is aware that the future of the Common Sense Initiative is undefined at this time. Thus, the Council asks that EPA consider any additional work completed by the Sector, and if appropriate, design the CRT glass­ to­ glass rule so that other legitimate recycling methods or end uses may be added in the future, including standards tailored to the risks and benefits of the recycling method or end use. The Council takes no position on the question of whether states should be allowed to add additional recycling methods or end uses without a prior determination by EPA. 6/ 4/ 98 1 Processed CRT glass is glass that has been separated from non­ glass components (e. g., TV/ monitor plastic and metal components, implosion band, shadow mask, deflection yoke, electron gun, inner shield) and which has been cleaned to remove coatings (e. g., day, phosphors). C:\ dmautop\ temp\ dwcgi­ 8736­ 1018355395­ 273436000. wpd 2 ATTACHMENT 1 COMMON SENSE INITIATIVE COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) GLASS­ TO­ GLASS RECYCLING 1. Add to the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste management regulations new standards specific to CRT glass­ to­ glass recycling which will apply in place of the standard RCRA hazardous waste requirements. These new standards are to be structured in a manner similar to the Universal Waste rule (40 CFR Part 273). The regulation will include an exclusion from the definition of solid waste clarifying that processed CRT glass 1 that is to be reused in CRT glass manufacturing is not a solid waste subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations (including the new CRT standards described here). The Council recommends that EPA promulgate this exclusion because the processed CRT glass is sufficiently commodity­ like based on the following factors: 1) the degree of processing the material has undergone is such that it requires little, if any, further processing, 2) the material has economic value, 3) the material is like an analogous raw material, and 4) there is a guaranteed end market for the material. Based on the information currently available to it, the Council also believes that the material is handled to minimize loss, but requests that EPA conduct whatever investigation EPA determines is appropriate to reach a final conclusion regarding this factor. 2. The new CRT glass­ to­ glass recycling standards will explain that they apply only to materials that are currently regulated hazardous waste. However, the standards will explain that the goal is that the standards be simple enough that one infrastructure develops for voluntarily managing all CRT materials in the same system. 3. The new CRT glass­ to­ glass recycling standards will define the following three categories of regulated entities: Collectors: Persons who collect/ store whole TVS/ monitors. Within this category, some requirements will apply only to large collectors (those who store 40 tons or more (~ 4,000 units) on­ site for longer than 7 consecutive days). Processors: Persons who: 6/ 4/ 98 2 EPA will consider other refurbishing activities that should be addressed in the same manner. C:\ dmautop\ temp\ dwcgi­ 8736­ 1018355395­ 273436000. wpd 3 ­­ intentionally break CRTs; ­­ manage intentionally broken CRT glass or cullet; or ­­ clean coatings (e. g., dag, phosphors) from CRT glass. Transporters: Persons who transport TVS/ monitors, whole CRTs, broken CRT glass, or cullet. Entities involved in refurbishment and disassembly of products containing CRTs (not to include taking apart the CRT 2 ) are not subject to this standard or the RCRA hazardous waste regulations (40 CFR Parts 260 through 270) (on the basis of the CRT itself) until it is determined that these materials are not repairable or reusable. EPA will consider what safeguards are necessary, if any, to address environmental concerns associated with accumulation of large volumes of CRTs. 4. The new CRT glass­ to­ glass recycling standards will include the provisions illustrated in the following Table and detailed in Annex 1. 6/ 4/ 98 C:\ dmautop\ temp\ dwcgi­ 8736­ 1018355395­ 273436000. wpd 4 PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CRT GLASS­ TO­ GLASS REGULATED ENTITIES REGULATED ENTITY PROVISION Collector Processor Transporter 1. Notification large collectors only X 2. Marking (on­ site and for transport) X X 3. Storage Limit X X X 4. Shipping CRT Glass Materials large collectors only: shipments out X 5. General Performance Standard X X X 6. Prevent Releases of Glass Particulate X 7. General Good Management X X X 8. Minimize Breakage X X 9. No Cross Contamination X 10. Manage Residues Appropriately X 11. Environmental Justice Provision X 12. Package for Transport X X 13. Exports X X 6/ 4/ 98 C:\ dmautop\ temp\ dwcgi­ 8736­ 1018355395­ 273436000. wpd 5 ANNEX 1: CRT GLASS­ TO­ GLASS RECYCLING PROVISIONS 1. Notification: One­ time notice to the agency implementing the hazardous waste regulations (EPA or the state) of company name, location, activities, etc. 2. Marking: Materials must be marked in accordance with either (1) or (2) below. (1) CSI/ CRT approach: (a) Whole TVS/ monitors visible when looking at primary packaging (container or vehicle body): no marking required. (b) TVS/ monitors, bare CRTs, and glass in packages (i. e., containers or vehicle bodies) or storage areas: mark container or storage area with the following words: "Cathode ray tubes (CRT) or CRT glass to be used in CRT glass manufacturing. Contains lead. Do not mix with other glass or materials." (2) Universal Waste approach for materials in transportation: If the state in which the shipment originated has Universal Waste marking standards (i. e., labeling with text) for the material: mark (label) the material as required under the originating state's Universal Waste program. 3. Storage Limit: Collectors ­­ 1 year+ as described in 40 CFR 273.15. Processors ­­ 1+ year as described in 40 CFR 261.1( c)( 8). Transporters ­­ 10 days as described in 40 CFR 273.53. 4. Shipping CRT Materials: Maintain records for 3 years. No specified form for records. Small and large collectors ­­ may send shipments only to other collectors or to processors in CRT system. Large collectors ­­ for each outgoing shipment, keep records of quantity, date, name and address of person shipped to, and an acknowledgment of receipt from the recipient. Processors ­­ 1) all TC hazardous glass that is technically and economically usable in CRT glass manufacturing must be sent to a CRT glass manufacturer for use in CRT glass manufacturing. 2) for each incoming and outgoing shipment, keep records of quantity, date, name, and address of person shipped to, and an acknowledgment of receipt from the recipient. 3) Annually, prepare a certified statement stating that all TC hazardous glass that is technically and economically 6/ 4/ 98 C:\ dmautop\ temp\ dwcgi­ 8736­ 1018355395­ 273436000. wpd 6 usable in CRT glass manufacturing was sent to a CRT glass manufacturer for use in CRT glass manufacturing. 5. General Performance Standard: Manage and/ or transport CRT materials in a way that prevents releases to the environment of glass pieces, glass particulate, other components, and materials used in processing (e. g., cleaning or sorting media). Immediately contain any releases to the environment and manage contained material under applicable waste management requirements. 6. Prevent Releases of Glass Particulate: For any storage or management activities involving breaking glass or managing broken glass, install and maintain systems sufficient to minimize releases of glass and glass particulate via wind dispersal, runoff, and direct releases to soil. (Examples of wind dispersal control systems may include: a good condition building; closed containers; closed tanks; keeping materials stored or managed outdoors covered, or wet, as appropriate. Examples of systems for preventing releases to soil directly may include: an impervious floor or pad; a good condition building. Examples of systems for preventing releases via runoff may include: a good condition building; implementing an approved storm­ water management plan; adequate run­ off controls.) 7. General Good Management: ­­ Collectors, Processors, Transporters ­­ no disposal on­ site ­­ Collectors and Transporters ­­ no dilution, no treatment (dismantling, intentional breakage, processing) ­­ Processors ­­ no combustion or treatment activities using temperatures high enough to volatilize lead from CRT glass, no storage or processing in surface impoundments 8. Minimize breakage: Collectors ­­ manage to minimize breakage of TVS/ monitors. Transporters ­­ transport to minimize breakage of TVS/ monitors, CRTs, glass pieces. 9. No Cross­ Contamination: Do not mix TC hazardous CRT glass with other glass that is not going to CRT glass manufacturing. Blending of glass that is going to glass manufacturing is allowed. 10. Manage Residues Appropriately: Manage any components removed during dismantling, any residues separated from glass (e. g., coatings), and residues from processing glass (e. g., blast media, cleaning media, dust, floor sweepings, glass 6/ 4/ 98 3 `Siftproof' packaging means packaging impermeable to dry contents, including fine solid material produced during transportation, or packaging that prevents particles from being released from the package. C:\ dmautop\ temp\ dwcgi­ 8736­ 1018355395­ 273436000. wpd 7 fines) under applicable waste management requirements (hazardous waste, solid waste). 11. Environmental Justice: For new processors ­­ implement a procedure for advising the local community of the nature of the activities to be conducted, including the limited potential for resident and worker exposure to lead or chemical coatings. This procedure should include notice to the community, and a public meeting if requested by the community. A local, state, or federal governmental authority must approve the text of the notice and the notice procedure, and must conduct the meeting, if any. If preexisting state or local siting/ zoning or other procedures meeting these standards are followed, no additional action is necessary. 12. Package for Transport: Materials must be packaged in accordance with either (1) or (2) below. (1) CSI/ CRT approach: (a) Package TVS, monitors, or whole CRTs in a way that minimizes breakage during normal shipping conditions. The packaging must minimize releases to the environment if unintentional breakage does occur. For example, if TVS and monitors are shrink wrapped onto pallets in such way that broken pieces of glass might not be contained, the packed pallets should be placed in an outside package (e. g., a box or vehicle body) that will minimize releases. b) Package broken CRTs, CRT glass pieces, or CRT glass cullet in siftproof 3 packaging (i. e., a container or vehicle) that is constructed, filled, and closed so that: (I) There will be no identifiable releases of CRT glass to the environment, and (II) The effectiveness of the package will not be reduced during normal shipping conditions. For example, packages should be resistant to puncture by glass pieces. (2) Universal Waste approach for materials in transportation: If the state in which the shipment originated has Universal Waste packaging standards for the material: package the material as required under the originating state's Universal Waste program. 6/ 4/ 98 C:\ dmautop\ temp\ dwcgi­ 8736­ 1018355395­ 273436000. wpd 8 13. Exports: For shipments of materials that are hazardous waste, other than processed CRT glass (without coatings) ­­ comply with 40 CFR 262 Subparts E or H (export notice and consent procedures for non­ OECD and OECD countries), revised to specifically identify the recipient as a CRT glass manufacturer, or a collector/ processor shipping to a CRT glass manufacturer (also identify the manufacturer). For shipments of processed CRT glass (without coatings) to OECD countries: annual report to EPA summarizing the number of shipments and volume sent to each recipient (by country), and identifying the recipient CRT glass manufacturer. For shipments of processed CRT glass (without coatings) to non­ OECD countries: annual notification to EPA 90 days prior to first shipment to each recipient, identifying the country, the recipient CRT glass manufacturer, and the expected number and volume of shipments to be sent that year. Imports: Once a shipment of CRT materials that is to be used in CRT glass manufacturing enters the country, comply with the CRT glass­ to­ glass standards.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.708190

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0013-0006

Supporting & Related Material

ANALYSIS OF FIVE COMMUNITY CONSUMER/ RESIDENTIAL COLLECTIONS OF END­ OF­ LIFE ELECTRONIC AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Analysis of Five Consumer/ Community Residential Collections of End­ of­ life Electronic and Electrical Equipment was prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by Ecobalance, Inc., Bethesda, MD. Ecobalance is an international environmental consulting firm that specializes in Life Cycle Management. This report was drafted by Ecobalance, Inc. and written by Brian Glazebrook with the assistance of Remi Coulon. This project was managed by Christine Beling, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I (EPA – New England) and directed by a workgroup formed under EPA's Common Sense Initiative which included: Thomas Bartel, Unisys Corporation; Tony Hainault, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance; Patricia Dillon, Tufts University – The Gordon Institute; David Isaacs, Electronic Industries Alliance; Rick Reibstein, Massachusetts OTA; John Alter, U. S. EPA; Mike Winka, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Gregory Cobbs, Rutgers University. This report was peer reviewed by several members of the workgroup as well as Mark Mahoney, EPA – New England; Cheryl Lofrano­ Zaske, Hennepin County Department of Public Works; Joe Carpenter, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Frank Peluso, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Please note that while the above individuals contributed to and reviewed the report, they do not necessarily endorse all of its analysis or conclusions. CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary _______________________________________________________ 1 2. Introduction _____________________________________________________________ 6 2.1 Project Background / the Common Sense Initiative ........................................................ 6 2.2 Project Scope.............................................................................................................. 6 3. Summary of Collection Programs_____________________________________________ 7 3.1 Binghamton, New York/ Somerville, Massachusetts ....................................................... 8 3.2 San Jose, California .................................................................................................... 13 3.3 Hennepin County, Minnesota....................................................................................... 17 3.4 Union County, New Jersey ......................................................................................... 22 3.5 Naperville and Wheaton, Illinois................................................................................... 27 3.6 Summary Data for the Pilot Projects............................................................................ 31 4. Economic Analysis of Pilot Projects __________________________________________ 37 4.1 Net Economics........................................................................................................... 37 4.2 Cost Analysis ............................................................................................................. 38 4.2.1 Demanufacturing Versus Disposal 38 4.2.2 CRT Recycling 40 4.3 Revenue Analysis....................................................................................................... 41 4.3.1 Resale 41 4.3.2 Offsetting Costs 42 4.4 Equipment Collection .................................................................................................. 43 4.4.1 Collection Efficiency 44 4.4.2 Equipment Collected per Resident 46 5. Beyond the Example Collection Programs _____________________________________ 47 5.1 Identifying the Different Stakeholders.......................................................................... 47 5.2 The Demanufacturer .................................................................................................. 48 5.2.1 Role 48 5.2.2 Demanufacturing Costs 49 5.2.3 Revenue 49 5.3 The Collection Agency ............................................................................................... 55 5.3.1 Role 56 5.3.2 Costs – Influence of Collection Method 58 5.3.3 Minimizing Costs 63 5.3.4 Revenue 64 5.3.5 Avoided Costs 64 5.3.6 The Collection Agency and Demanufacturing 66 5.3.7 Retailers 67 5.4 The Participant........................................................................................................... 68 5.5 Other Stakeholders..................................................................................................... 69 5.5.1 Government 69 5.5.2 Private Industry 67 6. Conclusions ____________________________________________________________ 71 6.1 Data Gaps and Future Research.................................................................................. 71 6.2 Conclusions................................................................................................................ 72 7 Appendix A: US EPA CRT Recommendation___________________________________ 76 8 Appendix B: The San Francisco Area Collection Program ________________________ 82 9 Appendix C: Calculating Net Cost ___________________________________________ 86 10 Appendix D: Bibliography________________________________________________ 87 TABLES Table 1: Available Cost and Revenue Data ........................................................................................... 1 Table 2: Collection Program Summary Table ......................................................................................... 2 Table 3: Summary of Advantages and Barriers to Collection Models....................................................... 4 Table 4: Collection Models Used by Collection Program......................................................................... 7 Table 5: Binghamton/ Somerville Demographics ..................................................................................... 8 Table 6: Promotional Expenses for Binghamton and Somerville Pilots...................................................... 9 Table 7: Participation Rates for Binghamton and Somerville Pilots .......................................................... 9 Table 8: Items Collected During Binghamton and Somerville Pilots ....................................................... 10 Table 9: Pounds of Equipment Collected During Binghamton and Somerville Events .............................. 10 Table 10: Binghamton and Somerville Transportation Costs .................................................................. 10 Table 11: Binghamton and Somerville Demanfacturing Costs................................................................ 11 Table 12: Binghamton and Somerville Gross Revenues......................................................................... 11 Table 13: Binghamton/ Somerville Net Costs ........................................................................................ 12 Table 14: Pallets Collected During San Jose Pilot................................................................................. 14 Table 15: Items Collected During San Jose Pilot .................................................................................. 14 Table 16: Distribution of Commodities by Weight and Value ................................................................. 15 Table 17: Items Collected During Hennepin County Program ............................................................... 18 Table 18: Hennepin County Net Cost.................................................................................................. 20 Table 19: Union County Demographics ............................................................................................... 22 Table 20: Items Collected During Union County Pilot........................................................................... 24 Table 21: Union County Transportation Distances and Costs ................................................................ 24 Table 22: Demanufacturing Charges per Item Collected....................................................................... 25 Table 23: Union County Net Cost ....................................................................................................... 26 Table 24: Naperville/ Wheaton Demographics ...................................................................................... 27 Table 25: Items Collected During Naperville/ Wheaton Pilots ................................................................ 28 Table 26: Naperville/ Wheaton Net Cost .............................................................................................. 30 Table 27: Available Cost and Revenue Data........................................................................................ 31 Table 28: Binghamton/ Somerville and San Jose Summary Cost Data..................................................... 32 Table 29: Union County Summary Cost Data ...................................................................................... 33 Table 30: Union County Summary Cost Data (cont.)............................................................................ 34 Table 31: Hennepin County Summary Cost Data ................................................................................. 35 Table 32: Naperville/ Wheaton Summary Cost Data ............................................................................. 36 Table 33: Resale Revenue Per Pound Collected .................................................................................. 41 Table 34: Items Targeted by Collection Program ................................................................................. 43 Table 35: Potential Revenue for Extracted Materials............................................................................ 52 Table 36: Circuit Board Metal Content................................................................................................ 52 Table 37: Motivation Behind Collection Programs: Summary Table ....................................................... 56 Table 38: Summary of Advantages and Barriers to Collection Models ................................................... 62 Table 39: Changes in Metal Concentration for Union County Incinerator Ash........................................ 65 Table 40: Provisions Applicable To Crt Glass­ To­ Glass Regulated Entities ............................................ 78 Table 41: San Francisco/ Hayward/ Oakland Demographics................................................................... 82 Table 42: Collection Program Participation Rates................................................................................. 83 Table 43: Items Collected During Oakland Collection Pilot ................................................................... 83 FIGURES Figure 1: Location Map for Collection Programs .................................................................................... 7 Figure 2: Economic Interaction Between Stakeholders ......................................................................... 37 Figure 3: Disposal vs. Recycling Cost Comparison: One­ day Drop­ off Collection Events........................ 39 Figure 4: Disposal vs. Recycling Cost Comparison: Other Collection Models ......................................... 39 Figure 5: Items Containing CRTs as a Percentage of Total Equipment Collected ................................... 40 Figure 6: Reaching the Break­ Even Point for Collection Models ........................................................... 43 Figure 7: Percentage­ by­ Type of Number of Items Collected............................................................... 44 Figure 8: Collection Efficiency of Collection Models............................................................................. 45 Figure 9: Pounds of End­ of­ life Electronic and Electrical Waste Collected Per Resident......................... 46 Figure 10: Economic Interaction Between Stakeholders ....................................................................... 47 Figure 11: Cost and Revenue Streams for the Demanufacturer............................................................. 48 Figure 12: Cost and Revenue Streams for the Collection Agency.......................................................... 56 Figure 13: Cost and Revenue Streams for the Participant ..................................................................... 68 page 1 1. EXECUTIVESUMMARY The goal of this study was to produce a written report that aggregates and analyzes existing data from five Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling (EPR2) programs in order to: · Identify a common format for data collection for materials and cost; · Evaluate and aggregate existing collection and demanufacturing materials and cost data sets; · Identify common opportunities and barriers for different collection and transportation models; · Define the advantages and disadvantages of different collection and transportation models; · Identify commodities that are most viable economically (positive revenue) for collection and demanufacturing; · Identify successful motivators and strategies for marketing collection events; · Identify key issues and motivators for various groups that have or may participate in electronic equipment collection including consumers, local government officials, small businesses, recyclers, demanufacturers, shippers, etc.; · Identify data gaps and infrastructure needs to increase residential participation; and · Analyze what motivates the public to participate in collection events The collection programs that were studied consisted of two Common Sense Initiative (CSI) sponsored programs (San Jose, CA and Somerville, MA/ Binghamton, NY), as well as programs in Union County, NJ; Hennepin County, MN; and Naperville/ Wheaton, IL. These collection programs represented a range of different collection models – from one­ day collection events to permanent collection depots – and subsequently a range of costs and revenues. The costs and revenues for each of these collection programs were gathered in order to calculate the net costs. The following table indicates the available data. Since only two of the programs included the upfront promotional costs, which were quite high, these costs were not included in the calculation. On the revenue end, all of the programs had some revenue from scrap, but only Somerville, Union County, and San Jose received revenue from the resale of equipment. Table 1: Available Cost and Revenue Data Collection Agency Publicity Operating Transport Demanufacturing Disposal Binghamton/ Somerville X X X Naperville/ Wheaton X X X Union County X X X X X Hennepin County X X X X San Jose X X X The costs and volumes associated with these programs are outlined in the following table. The table shows that the cost per pound of material collected varies from less than $0.10 per pound to $0.50 per page 2 pound. The range of values reflects not only the different collection and management models, but also the different sets of data that were available for each program. Table 2: Collection Program Summary Table Program Period Net Cost* Pounds Collected Cost Per Pound Somerville Fall 1996 $3,299 7,448 $0.44 Spring 1997 $1,091 13,723 $0.08 Binghamton Fall 1996 $444 2,372 $0.19 Spring 1997 $1,863 9,031 $0.21 San Jose Oct. 1997 $4,373 61,600 $0.29 Union Co. $5,858 42,886 $0.14 Cranford $13 120 $0.10 Westfield $234 2,240 $0.10 Clark $2,003 10,640 $0.19 Kenilworth $1,075 6,680 $0.16 Linden $15,155 87,060 $0.17 New Providence $767 5,180 $0.15 Rahway $8,843 26,560 $0.33 Summit Oct. 96 to Mar. 98 $11,957 51,500 $0.23 Hennepin Co. Average 1995­ 1997 $278,000 552,000 $0.50 Naperville Fall 1996 $8,000 24,267 $0.33 Fall 1997 $8,000 60,000 $0.13 Wheaton Spring 1998 $8,000 22,414 $0.36 * See Appendix C for an explanation of how this value was calculated. While these differences in net costs among programs would seem to imply that some programs were more successful than others, the differences in how the data was collected and provided for each programs makes such a cursory assessment impossible. However, while making a comparison between these programs is not possible based on a comparison of the net costs, it was still possible to use this cost data to make some limited assessment of the economics and dynamics of these collection programs: Ø The net costs of the programs were driven by the demanufacturing costs; the operational costs for many of the case studies were either not accounted for or very small. However, since a number of these collection programs were pilots, this may not be the case for programs operating over longer periods. Ø In terms of pounds of material collected per resident, the curbside collection programs appeared to be more efficient than the other collection models, while the one­ day collection events appeared to the least efficient. More and better collection data is necessary to confirm this. Ø In contrast to the previous point, the number of items collected per dollar of collection program cost was higher for the curbside events than the other collection models. This was evidently due to the high transportation costs associated with collection. For the one­ day collection events, the cost per item collected was lower than the other collection models. However, the one­ day collection events that were studied did not incur any operating costs, which would likely narrow the differences between the two collection models. page 3 Ø A weighted average of all of the collection programs indicates that over 75% of the equipment that was collected fell into five categories: 36% of the items were televisions, 16% consisted of audio and stereo equipment, 11% were monitors, 8% were computers and CPUs, and 6% were VCRs. The remaining equipment consisted of keyboards (5%), printers (4%), telephones (3%), peripherals (1%), microwaves (1%), and miscellaneous other equipment (9%). Ø The residential EEE waste collected by these programs was generally outdated and in poor condition. Consequently, the material was expensive to manage and little valuable scrap was extracted from this equipment. Of the equipment that was collected, computers and CPUs provided most of material that generated revenue for the programs. Ø Items that contained CRTs (e. g., televisions and monitors) predominated in the five collection programs. Since the cost to manage these materials is quite high, the large number of CRTs had a substantial impact on the net cost values. Ø Promotion and planning of the events were essential to the effectiveness of the collection programs. This was made evident by the lack of turnout for the first week of the San Jose pilot, for which there was little prior publicity. Additionally, the first Binghamton collection event was affected by a number of factors, including a local football game that was being held at the same time. Ø The public is interested in EPR2 programs. This is evident from the fact that the amount of equipment that was collected increased over time for all the programs that had more than one collection. In addition, the CSI­ sponsored events (Somerville, Binghamton­ One day drop off model and San Jose­ retail collection model) will be continuing due to the positive public reception in their communities. In addition to the specific conclusions from the analysis of these collection models, some general comments may be drawn on the basis of the assembled information provided by these case studies. Since these general comments are based on qualitative information, additional data and research into these areas would be beneficial. Ø Most demanufacturers focus exclusively on commercial EEE waste. According to the Hennepin County program coordinators, the low quality of the residential equipment keeps many demanufacturers from getting involved in a residential collection program. A collection program for both residential and small business waste may generate more interest from demanufacturers simply because the quality of EEE waste may be better. Ø Total transportation, demanufacturing, and disposal costs may overwhelm all other program costs. These costs relate to the variety of material collected, local labor market, the distance required to transport materials to a demanufacturing facility, the distance to end markets and the disposal costs of unmarketable materials. Ø The loading of heavy metals in the municipal solid waste stream was a fundamental driver for the two collection programs (Union County and Hennepin County) where most of the residential solid waste stream is incinerated. Both counties believe that removal of EEE waste from the waste stream may play an important role in reducing the heavy metal burdens in the fly and bottom ash, which can result in an indirect economic benefit for the community by lowering ash disposal fees. page 4 Ø The ultimate disposition of demanufactured materials should be evaluated to determine if these venues (e. g., glass to glass recycling, smelting, overseas disposition for CRTs) meet the objectives of the program. Ø The advantages and barriers to different collection models are such that determining the best collection method depends on the motivations of the collection agency. The following table summarizes these factors for the different collection models. The definition of each model is provided in Section 5.3.2.4 of the report. Table 3: Summary of Advantages and Barriers to Collection Models Collection Model Barriers Advantages Drop­ off Events · Ineffective or insufficient publicity can result in low participation · Conflicts with other events may affect participation · Resident's unfamiliarity with drop­ off events can affect participation · Low up­ front costs · Short time­ frame but high collection amount Regional Approach · Potential unequal distribution of costs among communities · Economies of scale over single community drop­ off event model · Planning of the events is shared · Larger base of residents to participate Permanent Collection Depot · Not effective for every community size · Need for staff may increase operational costs · Year­ round collection of equipment · Convenient for most residents · Economies of scale are possible Curbside Collection · Potential of theft of equipment for parts, and then abandonment · Operational costs can be higher than other models · Easy for residents used to curbside collection · Residents without transportation can more easily participate Point of Purchase (Retail) Collection · Retailer's active participation is essential · Retailer may not be able to collect the data on participation · Logistical issues · Low up­ front and operational costs for the collection agency · Promotion of the program by retailers ensures high visibility Combined/ Coordinated Collection Methods · The economies of scale are uncertain. · Requires large population to be viable · The gaps created by one model can be filled by another model · Year­ round collection · Good if inhabitants are spread over a large area Ø The experiences from other recycling programs indicate that these EEE residential waste collection programs are in their infancy and have the potential to evolve and eventually become more cost effective. As these programs expand and markets for the recovered materials grow, the net cost per pound collected can be expected to decrease. The potential economies of scale from the expansion of these programs and the creation of demanufacturing businesses will also help to reduce costs. However, based on the quality and varied nature of the collected materials, it seems likely that the costs of these programs will remain relatively high compared to other traditional solid waste disposal methods. page 5 Overall, these case studies provided insight into the costs associated with the operation of an EEE waste collection program. Additional research into the effects of economies of scale and the development of secondary markets would be useful to get a better understanding of how the economics of these programs will change over time. page 6 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND / THE COMMON SENSE INITIATIVE The Common Sense Initiative (CSI) is an innovative approach to environmental protection and pollution prevention developed by the U. S. EPA. The Common Sense Initiative addresses environmental management by industrial sector rather than environmental media (air, water, land). EPA selected six industries to serve as CSI pilots: automobile manufacturing, computers and electronics, iron and steel, metal finishing, petroleum refining, and printing. Six sector subcommittees, each consisting of representatives from industry, environmental justice organizations, labor organizations, environmental organizations, the U. S. EPA, and state and local governments address environmental issues facing these industries. The Common Sense Initiative (CSI) Computers and Electronics Sector has been discussing, researching, and evaluating pilots focusing on consumer and community Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling (EPR2) collections of End­ of­ Life Electronics and Electrical (EEE) waste from the municipal solid waste stream. To date, CSI has supported several efforts to collect and analyze data on EEE waste recovery and processing, including the Somerville/ Binghamton pilot and the San Jose pilot. 1 The collection pilots test various collection models: residential collection; ongoing drop­ off at retail establishments; one­ day drop­ off programs versus curbside collection; and small business programs. The three collection pilots were independently sponsored and implemented, with CSI providing support for data collection and analysis. CSI was also instrumental in the Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling (EPR2) roundtable, which works on end­ of­ life issues for electronics. 2.2 PROJECT SCOPE The goal of the project was to produce a written report that aggregates and analyzes existing data from the CSI­ sponsored pilots as well as from other EEE waste collection programs in Union County, Hennepin County, and Naperville/ Wheaton into a summary report. No new collection data was generated for this report, which: · Identifies a common format for data collection for materials and cost; · Evaluates and aggregates existing collection and demanufacturing materials, and cost data sets; · Identifies common opportunities and barriers across different collection and transportation models; · Defines the advantages and disadvantages of different collection and transportation models; · Identifies commodities that are most viable economically (positive revenue) for collection and demanufacturing; · Identifies successful motivators and strategies for marketing collection events; · Identifies key issues and motivators for various groups that have or may participate in electronic equipment collection including consumers, local government officials, small businesses, recyclers, demanufacturers, shippers, etc.; · Identifies data gaps and infrastructure needs to increase residential participation; and · Analyzes what motivates the public to participate in collection events. 1 A collection pilot in the San Francisco area was also sponsored by CSI, and summary information is provided in Section 8. page 7 3. SUMMARY OF COLLECTION PROGRAMS The collection programs included in this report represent different geographic locations, collection methods, and data sets (see the map and table below). Since some of the programs were pilots, much of the data regarding operational and other costs were not available. Therefore, the differences in the amount of data available for each program make direct comparisons between the programs difficult. The following summaries include discussions of the design of the collection program, the participation rate, estimated cost and revenue, and any important comments relative to the program's operation. Table 4: Collection Models Used by Collection Program Collection Agency Drop­ off Event Permanent Depot Curbside Point­ ofPurchase (Retail) Binghamton/ Somerville ¨ Naperville/ Wheaton ¨ Union County ¨ Cranford ¨ Westfield ¨ Clark ¨ Kenilworth ¨ Linden ¨ Rahway ¨ Westfield ¨ Summit ¨ ¨ Hennepin County ¨ ¨ ¨ San Jose ¨ Hennepin County Naperville Wheaton Binghamton Somerville Union County San Jose Figure 1: Location Map for Collection Programs page 8 3.1 BINGHAMTON, NEW YORK/ SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS Collection Method: One­ day drop­ off events Number of Collections: Two events in each city Collection Dates: Fall 1996, Spring 1997 Demanufacturer: Envirocycle, Inc. Motivation Behind Collection: Under the Common Sense Initiative, the U. S. EPA sponsored a pilot residential EEE waste recycling and demanufacturing program in Binghamton, NY and Somerville, MA. The goals of the project were to: § Characterize the types and volumes of EEE waste in the municipal solid waste stream; § Assess the viability of collecting, demanufacturing, and recycling these materials; and § Gauge the consumers' willingness to offset the cost of such a program 2 Binghamton was initially chosen to participate in the project because of its existing relationship with the demanufacturer (Envirocycle, Inc.) and its proximity to their demanufacturing plant in Hallstead, PA. Somerville was included as the second community for the pilot study because of its demographic similarity to Binghamton, and its existing recycling program and its household hazardous waste (HHW) drop­ off program. Demographics: Although Binghamton has historically been a blue­ collar community, its population of white­ collar workers is growing. It is the largest community in Broome County, which is located near the northeast corner of Pennsylvania. Somerville has a mixture of blue­ and white­ collar workers, although the whitecollar population has been rising due to a shrinking manufacturing sector. It is located just outside of Boston. The following demographics are available for the two communities: 3 Table 5: Binghamton/ Somerville Demographics Municipality Population Households Median Income Binghamton 53,000 25,000 $29,169 Somerville 72,280 30,000 $44,866 Event Promotion: The participation rate for recycling programs in the two communities is about 48% in Binghamton and 15% in Somerville 4 , which reflects the general public's awareness and interest in recycling. A number of 2 Unless noted, all information was gathered from Residential Collection of Household End­ of­ Life Electrical and Electronic Equipment: Pilot Collection Project, Common Sense Initiative – Computer and Electronics Sector, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, EPA­ 901­ R­ 98­ 002, February 1998. 3 Census of Population and Housing, 1990. Bureau of the Census, Washington: The Bureau, 1992. 4 Participation rates for HHW collection programs generally range from one to three percent, and can be as high as 10 percent. Household Hazardous Waste Mangement: A Manual for One­ Day Community Collection Programs. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA­ 530­ R­ 92­ 026. Washington. August 1993. page 9 methods were used to promote the specific EEE waste collection event. An informational flyer was sent to every household in both cities and also was made available to residents in retail stores and public buildings. The flyer outlined the collection program, listed the items that would be accepted by the municipality, and gave directions to the collection site. In addition, members of the local chambers of commerce who had an interest in electronic and electrical appliances (i. e., repair shops, electronics retailers) were contacted and notified of the program. The events also were promoted on the community calendar listings on local radio and TV stations, and in press releases. Finally, a press conference, attended by local government officials, was organized in both cities to promote the events. These promotional events required expenditures for the printing of the direct mailing, the labels for the mailing, and the postage. The costs of each of these expenses are listed below. Table 6: Promotional Expenses for Binghamton and Somerville Pilots Municipality Direct Mail Costs Printing Costs Labels Postage (both locations) Binghamton $1,380 $4,387 $1,242 Somerville $1,439 $4,359 $384 $9,707 Resident Participation: Both communities saw an increase in participation during the second event: about a 30% increase for Somerville and a 170% increase for Binghamton in the number of cars that dropped off equipment. The following table indicates the number of households that participated in the events, and the percentage of total households that this number represents (participation rate). These numbers do not reflect the participation of the residents of Broome County, who were also allowed to participate in the Binghamton events. Table 7: Participation Rates for Binghamton and Somerville Pilots No. of Households Participation Rate Municipality 1996 1997 1996 1997 Net Increase Binghamton 47 128 0.2% 0.5% 172% Somerville 193 250 0.6% 0.8% 30% Considering the rather high participation rate for general recycling programs in Binghamton, the participation numbers for their first event is interesting. This modest turnout is believed to be due to circumstances that were beyond the control of the organizers, notably the poor weather (snow), construction outside the drop­ off facility, and the high school football championship being held that day. The attendance may have also been affected by the implementation of a user fee. All of these deterrents were not in evidence during the second collection event. Since only 10 of the 128 cars that dropped off equipment in the second event had participated in the first event, it is reasonable to assume that these elements did have some impact on participation. Collection: The pilot was modeled after a typical one­ day collection event for household hazardous waste held on a Saturday morning/ afternoon. Both communities have experience in managing a recycling program and a HHW drop­ off program. page 10 The collection took place at existing municipal facilities – in Somerville at the public works facility, and in Binghamton at the Broome County Transit Garage, so there was no property cost associated with the collection. Additionally, the volunteer workers minimized any labor costs associated with collection. No limitations were applied to the types of EEE waste that would be accepted. One of the goals of the program was to determine the types of equipment that could be collected during a municipal collection program, and the demanufacturer agreed to accept anything that came in. This equipment consisted of the following. Table 8: Items Collected During Binghamton and Somerville Pilots Computers Monitors Keyboards Printers TVs VCRs Microwaves Stereos Binghamton Fall 1996 7 8 7 2 23 4 3 30 Spring 1997 19 33 26 9 52 23 12 111 Somerville Fall 1996 21 17 18 12 54 27 12 134 Spring 1997 72 52 44 40 61 46 12 96 In addition, the collection events also took in a number of telephones, household electrical appliances, and air conditioners. The following table shows the total weight of equipment that was collected for each collection event. Table 9: Pounds of Equipment Collected During Binghamton and Somerville Events Fall 1996 Spring 1997 Binghamton 2,372 lbs 9,031 lbs Somerville 7,448 lbs 13,729 lbs During the collection events, participants were surveyed to determine their willingness to pay for the ability to drop­ off EEE waste. They were given a range of values to choose from: $1 to $5; $5 to $10; and over $10. A majority of the respondents (> 80% in both communities) indicated they would pay between a $1 and $5 fee for the drop­ off program. In fact, during the first Binghamton event, a $2 user fee was charged of those people dropping off equipment. The fee was abandoned during the second event, in part because the city believed that it contributed to the low turnout in the first event. Transportation: All transportation costs associated with a drop­ off event are those for transporting EEE waste to the demanufacturer. Due to the distance between Somerville and the Envirocycle facility (312 miles), transportation costs for the Somerville pilot were more than 6 times those for the Binghamton pilot. Table 10: Binghamton and Somerville Transportation Costs Municipality Transport Costs per 53' Truckload Binghamton $96 page 11 Somerville $646 Demanufacturing: Envirocycle, a large firm with experience in EEE waste recycling, was the contractor for the demanufacturing. They provided in­ kind services for the pilot project, including free transport to and from the collection site, and free demanufacturing of the material. Even though the municipalities were not charged for the demanufacturing, Envirocycle provided data on their total costs to assist with the analysis of the project. These costs are based on a labor rate of $26.50 per hour, which include all of their overhead and wages: Table 11: Binghamton and Somerville Demanfacturing Costs Fall 1996 Spring 1997 Municipality Hours Total Cost Hours Total Cost Binghamton 31.5 $835 111 $2,942 Somerville 118.3 $3,135 85 $2,253 Revenue: The resale of electronics and electrical appliances occurred only during the second Somerville collection event, where Envirocycle collected about $962 from the sale of working equipment. All the rest of the equipment was disassembled and the valuable material sold for scrap, except for the wood which was landfilled. The revenue from scrap per event can be broken down as shown. Table 12: Binghamton and Somerville Gross Revenues Municipality Fall 1996 Spring 1997 Binghamton $487 $1,175 Somerville $481 $845 Envirocycle's total yield from the sale of scrap from the four events came to $2,889 most of which derived from the sale of metal, plastic and CRTs. The materials that were extracted for revenue include the following. · Metal 26% · Radiators 4% · Fans 1% · Scrap Plastic 13% · Motors 4% · Yokes 1% · CRTs 12% · Wire 3% · Disc Drives 1% · Carcass 12% · Copper 2% · Refine Boards 1% · Clean Plastic 8% · Aluminum 1% · Capacitors <1% The percentages represent the weight percentage of material extracted for the total of all four collection events. Data on which materials contributed most to the net revenue is not available. Net Cost: page 12 The costs for the four collection events are derived from the costs of promotion and the demanufacturing costs. The net costs, taking into consideration the revenue, are as shown. Table 13: Binghamton/ Somerville Net Costs Municipality Fall 1996 Spring 1997 Binghamton $444 $1,863 Somerville $3,299 $1,091 For Binghamton, these costs translate to $0.19/ pound collected for the first event and $0.21/ pound collected for the second event. For Somerville, the costs equate to $0.44/ pound collected for the first event and $0.08/ pound collected for the second event. These values do not include the promotional costs, which would substantially increase the cost per pound collected. Project Comments: The participating municipalities considered both collection programs to be successful because the participation rates increased from one collection event to the next while the cost per pound collected decreased. The positive public attitude toward these collections has motivated both communities to continue the collection programs. Somerville had an additional collection event in the spring of 1998 and Binghamton is planning another event for 1999. A number of conclusions came from these two pilot events: · The demanufacturing rate (lbs of equipment dismantled per hour) increased between the first and second collection events. According to Envirocycle, this was largely due to increased efficiency on the part of their staff members. For the Somerville collection pilot, the increased demanufacturing rate was also influenced by a growth in the amount of computer equipment that was collected, since computer equipment is generally easier to dismantle than some of the older EEE waste that was collected. · The timing of the event is key to guaranteeing adequate participation. The low turnout at the first Binghamton event was due in part to adverse weather conditions and a local high school football game that was going on at the same time. · The transport distance to the demanufacturer had a noticeable impact on the net costs of the program, thus indicating that the presence of a local demanufacturer can be important. · The implementation of a user fee during the first Binghamton event may have affected the public turnout; however, other mitigating factors make it difficult to confirm this assumption. In fact when surveyed, residents of both Binghamton and Somerville indicated their willingness to subsidize the collection program with a minimal user fee. page 13 3.2. SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA Collection Method: Point of Purchase (Retail) Dropoff Number of Collections: Three participating retailers Collection Dates: The period from October 1 to November 2, 1997 Demanufacturer: Berman's Diversified Industries Motivation Behind Collection: A Common Sense Initiative sponsored data collection for a computer­ equipment collection program conducted in San Jose, CA, in October of 1997. The goals of this pilot project were to: § Determine the feasibility of a point of purchase (consumer retail store) collection scheme for EOL computer equipment; § Identify potential barriers, regulatory and other, which might inhibit a collection/ recycling program of this nature; and § Determine the economics of collecting consumer equipment via this approach 5 . Demographics: San Jose is located in Santa Clara County, about 56 miles south of San Francisco. The population of Santa Clara County is over 1.6 million (1995); San Jose covers 174 square miles, with an estimated (1994) population of over 873,000 residents. San Jose is described as the capital of Silicon Valley, making it a good focus community for the pilot study. The community is a mix of white­ collar and bluecollar residents; the median household income is approximately $50,000. Event Promotion: Extensive publicity was planned for the pilot program, including: countywide mailing of a missing children/ computer collection "marriage card"; billboard messages; public service announcements; press releases; and electronic equipment retail store flyers, posters and advertisements. Much of this publicity never took place because of timing and scheduling conflicts. The only publicity that actually occurred before the event was a bulletin published on the U. S. Environmental Recycling Hotline (1800 Cleanup) website, which was just coming on­ line at the time. This lack of advance publicity appeared to have a significant impact on the program since no equipment was collected during the first week of the pilot. To remedy this lack of participation, EPA held a press event on October 9 to promote the collection program; television and newspaper coverage of the event helped increase the pilot's visibility. This event was followed by distribution of flyers promoting the drop­ off program with the San Jose City employees' paychecks. An email notice was also distributed to Santa Clara County employees. 5 All information was gathered from San Jose Computer Collection and Recycling Pilot: Draft, Common Sense Initiative – Computer and Electronics Sector, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, February 1998, pp. 1. page 14 The participating stores also ran some publicity for the event. One of the stores ran a newspaper advertisement for the event; the other two stores publicized the pilot via ads stuffed in customers' bags. Resident Participation: Residents and small businesses dropped off equipment at the three participating stores; however, no data was collected on the participation of the two consumer groups. A one­ page questionnaire was developed for the collection program to determine the demographics of the participants. However, no statistical data on participation is available since not all of the participating stores decided to use the questionnaire and not all of the participants chose to fill it out. Resident participation seemed to be affected by the aggressiveness of the participating stores. Only one store actively promoted the pilot program, making the drop off of equipment easy for consumers. This store also collected most of the equipment during the pilot program. Collection: The program consisted of a 5­ week drop­ off program that was organized with the participation of three local electronic and computer retailers distributed throughout the city. The stores were charged with collecting the equipment, surveying the residents to determine a participation rate, and stockpiling the equipment until the demanufacturer came to collect it each week The retailers themselves covered the operational costs. These costs included the labor for collecting the equipment from residents' cars, the construction of displays, and any storage space allocated to the EEE waste. No information on each individual store's cost for the program is available. No fees were charged by the stores to the municipality or of the participants to cover their costs. The items collected were limited to computer­ related EEE waste – e. g., monitors, keyboards, printers, and computers. The number of items collected was tallied in terms of the number of pallets collected per store. Each pallet consisted of an estimated 64 cubic feet of equipment, leading to a total of 4,220 cubic feet of equipment collected during the pilot. The following table shows the number of pallets that were collected per store, per week. Table 14: Pallets Collected During San Jose Pilot Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Store 1 4 2 2 4 Store 2 1 1 1 3 Store 3 13 10 11 14 Totals 18 13 14 21 In all, 61,600 lbs of equipment was collected over the five­ week program. The equipment collected consisted of the following items: Table 15: Items Collected During San Jose Pilot Computers Monitors Keyboards Printers Peripherals Laptops Misc. Parts page 15 Total All Stores 972 937 341 413 66 27 63 More detail on the number of items collected per store is not available. Transportation: The transportation distance to the manufacturer depended on the location of the store. Stores 1 and 2 were about 15 miles from the demanufacturer, whereas Store 3 was only 10 miles away. The equipment was picked up from the stores once a week over the five­ week period, although Store 3 required two additional pickups per week. A total of 20 trips were made over the duration of the project. The total cost of transport for the pilot collection project amounted to $480. Transportation was calculated to include the costs of standard loading and unloading time. The large loads and small entryways for the participating stores were determined to require excessive labor, the cost of which was estimated to have the potential to increase total transportation costs by up to 60%. Demanufacturing: Berman's Diversified Industries, a San Jose­ based recovery/ resale/ recycle service provider, conducted the demanufacturing. The firm dismantled all of the computer equipment that had no resale value. Overall costs for sorting and dismantling was given as $7,500. Monitors predominated in terms of the weight of material collected ­ 30,000 lbs or 49% of the total weight collected. Berman's did not itself demanufacture the monitors, but rather shipped them overseas for demanufacturing. The monitors were exported at a net cost of $0.05 per pound, which yielded a total cost of approximately $1,500 for the 30,000 lbs of monitors. This gave a total demanufacturing cost for the pilot program of around $9,000. It is interesting to note that the cost of demanufacturing CRTs overseas is estimated to be only 1/ 10 th of the equivalent costs in the San Jose area. Had the CRTs been demanufactured in the area, the cost would have increased tenfold, to around $15,000. This would have led to a total cost of $23,000 for the demanufacturing component of the program. It should be noted that the numbers for demanufacturing CRTs around San Jose are based on Berman's estimates of local costs, and are not necessarily equivalent to demanufacturing costs elsewhere in the United States. Revenue: Resale of working equipment accounted for 40% of the total revenue, most of which came from the sale of black and white monitors. These black and white monitors represented only 10% of all the monitors that were collected. No working computers were successfully sold because of the age of the equipment. The remainder of the revenue came from the extracted scrap. The breakdown of material recovered from the collected equipment is as follows, shown as percent composition by weight and by revenue yield for the entire collection period. Printed circuit boards and high­ grade breakage (hard drives, motors and mixed metal parts) comprised the majority of the revenue from scrap, which was supplemented by the sale of mixed page 16 Table 16: Distribution of Commodities by Weight and Value Commodity Weight Revenue CRTs 49% Steel 20% Scrap Plastic 13% High Grade "Breakage" 10% 48% Mixed Metals 3% 6% Plastic 3% Circuit Boards 3% 42% Wire 1% 4% metals and wire. Aside from CRTs, most of the material recovered from the disassembled equipment was steel and plastic; this material produced no revenue since it had little market value. The total revenue for the five­ week pilot totaled $5,120. Net Cost: The net cost of the five­ week pilot project was $4,373. This is equivalent to a cost of $0.07 per pound of material collected. The management of the CRTs had a large impact on the net cost of the program. As explained previously, the shipment of the CRTs overseas resulted in costs that were substantially lower than they would have been had the demanufacturing occurred in the San Jose area. In a scenario where the monitors are recycled locally, the net cost would be more than four times greater-$ 17,990. This is equivalent to a cost of $0.29 per pound of material collected. Note that the retailers' costs were not included but were donated as in­ kind services. Project Comments: The extensive publicity that resulted from the EPA press conference appears to have affected participation since the collection went from zero pallets of equipment the first week to 18 pallets the second week. Despite the perception of some of the participants that the stores were profiting from the collection program, the program coordinators indicated that the overall attitude of the participants seemed to be positive. This perceived positive attitude has motivated one of the participating chains to continue the program at a number of its other stores. During the pilot program, some barriers to EOL computer equipment collection were identified: · The slow start in promotion of the event led the consultant assessing the project to conclude that "marketing efforts should be established at least six months in advance and should be monitored regularly before and throughout the collection event." This conclusion is based on the fact that the program relied on volunteer groups to promote the program, many of whom in the end did not provide the promised service. · In California, special approvals and permits must be granted before CRT glass can be handled or shipped. Special permits are also required for CRT glass recyclers, which has the effect of limiting the number of firms that recover this material. The end result is a high cost for demanufacturing of CRTs. Considering that almost half of the equipment (by weight) consisted of computer monitors, these monitors were shipped overseas to avoid excess costs. · Contrary to the results from the Binghamton/ Somerville pilot, a survey designed for this program indicated that most participants (over 60%) would not pay a fee to drop off electronics. page 17 3.3 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Collection Method: Permanent Drop­ off One­ day Drop­ off Events Mobile Collection Events Curbside Collection Retail Collection 6 Number of Collections: Permanent facilities and drop­ off events (ongoing) Collection Dates: 1997 Demanufacturer: Hennepin County Motivation Behind Collection: Hennepin County, MN, began recycling EEE waste in 1992, with the goal of eliminating the metal content, specifically mercury, lead, and cadmium, from the county's municipal solid waste (MSW) stream. Most of this waste is managed as waste­ to­ energy or refuse­ derived fuel. The county uses both front­ end removal of materials and back­ end facility control equipment to manage heavy metals in MSW. The residents had an accepting attitude toward environmental programs before the EEE waste recovery program began since Hennepin County was already managing a number of other similar programs, e. g., collection and recycling of used tires and HHW. 7 Demographics: Hennepin County, which consists of some 45 communities, is located in the eastern portion of Minnesota. The median household income for the entire county is $35,659. The county (population: over 1 million) includes metropolitan Minneapolis, consists of around 439,000 households. One­ third of the county's population resides in Minneapolis. 8 Event Promotion: Since Hennepin County manages a number of different recycling programs, publicity for EEE waste collection is covered by newspaper advertisements and flyers that are produced for the collection of all "problem materials" (i. e., HHW, tires, batteries, and EEE waste). 9 Some advertisements highlight the EEE waste collection component of the program. Brochures and radio advertisements are used as well. 6 A regional retail collection pilot that focused on the collection of CRTs was held in the summer of 1998. Data on this collection was not available at the time of publication. 7 The budget for the EOL electronics collection program in Hennepin County is 1/ 10 th of the budget for the HHW collection program. 8 Census of Population and Housing 9 Unless noted, all information was gathered from personal communication with Cheryl Lofrano­ Zaske, Principal Planning Analyst/ Problem Materials Program, Hennepin County Environmental Management Division, April 13, 1998. page 18 The county sponsors most of the publicity, although the cities may advertise to their residents as well. There is also word­ of­ mouth publicity for the program. Resident Participation: The equipment is collected with other HHW and problem materials and is not recorded separately. For this reason, no data is available as to resident participation in the EEE waste collection program. The county estimates that participation in the HHW program may be around 15%. Collection: The county operates two drop­ off sites: one at Brooklyn Park in the north and the other in Bloomington in the south. While residents are invited to drop­ off materials year­ round at the permanent facilities, collection events are also held throughout the county. EEE waste is also collected through city cleanup days, and facility and curbside collection in the city of Minneapolis (initiated in November 1997). Participation in the collection program is limited to households and residents. Hennepin County has permanent facilities that accept HHW, recyclables, brush, auto waste, white goods, and EEE waste. Fees are charged for the white goods ($ 10 to $30) and tires ($ 1), but not for EEE waste. One site also takes in MSW from county residents for a fee. The cost of all facility operations that can be allocated to the collection of EEE waste has not been determined. For mobile events, the county covers all of the setup, organizational, and transportation costs. For city events, the county covers the labor to collect and transport the equipment. In its promotion of the EEE waste collection program, the County indicates what types of materials will be accepted. The program targets materials with CRTs, but also is used to manage the inflow of camcorders, stereos, radios, computers, tape players, VCRs, and telephones. Rechargeable and cordless appliances that contain batteries are also accepted and disassembled by PPL (the county's contractor), and then disposed of via the battery recycling program. The bulk of the material collected in 1997 came from the permanent facility (62%), with about 26% from the city/ county collection events, and 12% from the curbside collection in Minneapolis. Since the curbside program has been going on for only a few months, and participation has been higher than expected, it is expected that the curbside collection percentage will increase in the coming year. The following table lists the number of items and tons collected for the years 1995 to 1997. The county collects a wide range of equipment; the miscellaneous/ other category encompasses equipment such as answering machines, typewriters, and dust busters. The county estimates that approximately 800 tons of material will be collected in 1998. Table 17: Items Collected During Hennepin County Program Computer / CPUs Monitors Keyboards Printers TVs VCRs Audio / Stereo Telephone Copiers Misc. Other Tons 1997 1,331 1,734 899 554 7,376 1,184 2,813 514 4 1,686 366 1996 661 1,156 517 261 5,115 617 1,898 357 43 1,249 262 1995 67 673 254 189 4,428 407 1,932 340 81 1,388 200 Transportation: page 19 Hennepin County generally covers the transfer of the collected equipment to the demanufacturer. The county pays PPL to staff and transport the equipment from most city events. Demanufacturing: The county contracts with a local train­ to­ work not­ for­ profit organization (PPL) to provide labor and space for the disassembly of the collected material. The county is responsible for management of the disassembled components from the demanufacturing process. PPL's fee accounts for the bulk of the county's demanufacturing costs for the program. The main motivation behind the initiation of the EEE collection program was the elimination of heavy metals from the waste stream, which led to the choice of target materials – CRTs, CPUs, PWBs, batteries, mercury relays, and PCBs. Plastics and wood are managed by the county's Solid Waste Management System. All of the extracted scrap metals are recycled. The demanufacturing process is labor intensive and the yield can be affected by the lower productivity of workers who are new to the program. Yield can also be affected by the quality of the material that is taken in since most is old and of little value (old TVs, electronics). Virtually all circuit boards collected are low­ grade. Furthermore, there are costs associated with management and disposal of the heterogeneous materials stream. The county has estimated that the cost of demanufacturing approaches about $20 per item collected. That includes any overhead, transportation, labor, and hazardous/ non­ hazardous material disposal associated with collection and disassembly. This cost is paid directly from the county's solid waste management fees. Revenue: No revenue is received from resale of working electronics and electrical equipment – any material that is in working condition is offered to residents free of charge at the collection facilities. In 1997, roughly 350 units (of the 18,100 units collected) were placed on a re­ use shelf and taken by residents. The county estimates that the average age of materials is over 20 years old and thus there is little reuse opportunity. Minimal revenue comes from the sale of the scrap material that is extracted (copper wire and other metals) – around $25,000 in 1997. For 1996, the revenue was a bit less at $20,000 while for 1995 the amount was even smaller, around $10,000. The revenue per commodity ranges from between $0.01 and $0.50 per pound. The county has found that the market for most of the commodities that are extracted is not strong enough to generate sufficient income from the material collected. The county pays about $10 per CRT (at an average weight of 30 pounds) to dispose of them via a secondary lead smelter. Over 50% of the units collected contain a CRT. There are also costs associated with disposal of other materials including plastics, wood, and other waste (PCBs, mercury switches, and batteries). The overall program operates as a cost center. Net Cost: page 20 The gross cost for the EEE waste collection program in 1997 was $350,000. For the previous two years, the costs were very similar: $350,000 in 1996 and $190,000 in 1995. Based on these costs, the following table outlines the net cost and net cost per pound of equipment collected for all three years. Table 18: Hennepin County Net Cost Hennepin County Year Net Cost Net Cost per Pound of Material Collected 1997 $325,000 $0.48 1996 $320,000 $0.67 1995 $180,000 $0.48 This is estimated, since not all of the material that is collected in a year is demanufactured and/ or disposed of in that same year. Over 90% of this cost is attributed to demanufacturing – labor and transportation to PPL's facilities, labor for demanufacturing, and the transportation of CRTs to the secondary smelter and disposal. Project Comments: According to Hennepin County, the collection program has been effective in reducing the equipment containing heavy metal that enters the municipal solid waste stream. Since the inflow of equipment has increased annually, the community attitude toward recycling seems to be positive. However, there are a couple of concerns that affect the program's operation: · In the development of Hennepin County's program, the decision was made to collect only material from the residential sources through the collection program, targeting electronics containing a CRT. Within the state of Minnesota, CRTs have been identified as the number one remaining source of lead in MSW and there is an existing infrastructure to handle electronics, i. e., computers, generated from commercial sources. In developing the infrastructure for demanufacturing and the end markets for the recovered materials, both economic and environmental considerations are evaluated. Material is managed in accordance with the state's waste management hierarchy as listed in Minnesota Statute 115A. 02: reduction and reuse, recycling, resources recovery, and landfilling. The county also verifies and reviews end sites for final management · The design of the demanufacturing scheme means that the operation of the program is greatly influenced by disruptions in the outflow of demanufactured material. The demanufacturer has limited storage capacity for the collected materials, so a shutdown at the secondary lead smelter or any other end market for materials may lead to additional storage and handling costs. · In 1997, 9,000 CRTs were collected. It cost the county about $10 to dispose of each CRT; almost one third of the County's budget is allocated to CRT disposal. The county has evaluated CRT disposal options including glass­ to­ glass recycling, primary smelting, and overseas export. They page 21 determined that secondary lead smelting recovers most of the lead from the CRTs (estimated by the smelter at over 99%) and is the most cost­ effective option for a mid­ western operation at this time. page 22 3.4 UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Collection Method: Curbside Permanent Drop­ off One­ day Drop­ off Events Number of Collections: Seven Countywide Events and ongoing city programs Collection Dates: October 1996 to September 1997 (ongoing) Demanufacturer: Electronics Processing Associates, Inc. Motivation Behind Collection: In May of 1995, the Union County Utilities Authority (UCUA) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) began planning the implementation of an EEE waste collection program. The move was intended specifically to reduce the flows of lead, cadmium, mercury, and other heavy metals entering the Union County Resource Recovery Facility (UCRRF), therefore improving the quality of its air emissions and ash residue. 10 Union County began by signing an agreement with Electronics Processing Associates, Inc. (EPA, Inc.) of Lowell, MA, to demanufacture the collected equipment. One requirement of the contract was that EPA, Inc. set up a facility in Union County. 11 In October 1996, NJDEP issued a Research Development and Demonstration approval to EPA, Inc. to operate their facility under a Universal Waste Exemption. Demographics: Union County has a population of around 500,000, with an estimated 180,000 households. The median family income is approximately $49,000. Each participating municipality in the county was invited to develop its own collection standards, based on its labor, transportation, and storage capacities, as well as its experience with waste collection. Six communities signed contracts with the county to participate and develop a collection system. Four other communities also signed contracts to participate in regional collection programs, two of which have since held collection events: Table 19: Union County Demographics Municipality Population Households Median Income Cranford 22,633 8,407 $60,659 Westfield 28,870 10,588 $77,022 Scotch Plains 21,160 8,407 $64,920 Mountainside 6,657 2,454 $80,639 Clark 14,629 5,638 $54,521 Kenilworth 7,574 2,449 $45,774 Linden 36,701 11,877 $42,634 New Providence 11,399 4,312 $70,618 10 Unless noted, all Union County information was gathered from the Union County Demanufacturing Program Semi Annual Report, Union County Utilities Authority, October 1, 1997­ March 31, 1998. 11 EPA, Inc. has consolidated its activities in New Hampshire. Union County is currently collecting proposals to manage the demanufacturing locally. page 23 Rahway 25,327 9,844 $46,962 Summit 19,757 5,997 $83,876 Event Promotion: The program was initially promoted via flyers distributed to 120,000 households in the county. Countywide events were also promoted through newspaper advertisements in the five county newspapers. A presentation was made to the Rutgers University Demanufacturing Partnership Program and the Rutgers University Eco­ Policy Center Solid Waste Workshop for Mercer County to promote the program. The flyers cost $0.105 a piece, plus an additional $2,000 for printing costs, resulting in a net cost of $14,600. Most of these flyers (and their cost) went toward the countywide events. The additional newspaper advertisements cost around $1,800 per event (with four events), for a total cost of $7,200. The estimated net cost for publicity was $21,800. Resident Participation: The participation rate for all programs was estimated to be about 5% of the County's households. 12 No specific information is available about the participation of specific municipal programs, or the County programs versus the municipal programs. Collection: Due to variances in municipal resources and experience, each municipality developed its own collection scheme. The municipalities followed the curbside recycling program experience in NJ, by piggybacking on the current infrastructure for bottle and can recycling in the state. The county found it necessary to also provide countywide collection for residents and businesses that were interested in participating only if no personal transportation or processing costs were incurred. As of the end March 31, 1998, the county has held seven such events. The agreement between Union County and the demanufacturer provides that participating municipalities receive free processing of their EEE waste, and are paid $50 per ton for their collection. Residents, government agencies, schools, and small businesses were invited to participate. Large businesses can participate by working directly with EPA, Inc. Among the ten municipalities participating in the program, Clark, Kenilworth, and Summit have permanent collection depots where residents can drop off materials. The collected material is delivered to EPA, Inc. once a month. Summit supplements this facility with a curbside collection program that is tied in with its bulk waste (by appointment) collection. Linden and Rahway also operate curbside collection programs. Rahway's curbside program operates as part of its bulky item and recyclable collection scheme, and the costs for the EEE waste collection cannot be disassociated from the other program costs. Four other communities (Westfield, Scotch Plains, Mountainside, and Cranford) agreed to participate in the program under a "regional approach." (They alternately host a quarterly collection event solely for their residents, with labor and transport covered by the host municipality.) Through March 31, 1998, one regional collection event has been held in Cranford and another was held in Westfield. 12 Personal communication with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. page 24 Union County focuses on collecting items that were determined to have some environmental impact, namely monitors, TVs, computers, VCRs, keyboards, telephones, copiers, audio/ stereo equipment, printers, peripherals, and microwaves. The following table lists the items collected in each location: Table 20: Items Collected During Union County Pilot Computers Monitors Keyboards Telephones TVs VCRs Microwaves Audio/ Stereo County 258 273 268 136 157 103 38 261 Cranford 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Westfield 24 20 19 1 4 0 1 2 Clark 22 149 22 18 67 16 21 41 Kenilworth 7 48 0 8 55 12 9 36 Linden 138 176 48 67 931 97 145 429 New Providence 3 10 0 2 44 0 4 6 Rahway 33 44 27 76 198 17 24 81 Summit 243 317 115 68 462 39 46 224 Totals 730 1,039 501 376 1,918 284 288 1,080 Transportation: In the following table, the transportation costs given for the curbside programs include the cost of collecting the material and delivering it to EPA, Inc. The two regional collection events in Cranford and Westfield generated no information on transportation costs. Table 21: Union County Transportation Distances and Costs Program Trips Made Transport Costs Clark 6 $389 New Providence 1 $360 Kenilworth 3 $233 Linden 15 $4,620 Rahway 62 $6,200 Summit 40 $5,622 Union County 7 $1,437 Transportation costs for Rahway and Linden, which have curbside collection programs, is high relative to the other municipalities. This is due to the frequency of equipment collection and the additional need to transport the equipment to EPA, Inc. Demanufacturing: Demanufacturing is managed by EPA, Inc., which opened a new location in Union County after winning a competitive bid between eight demanufacturing companies in the US. After selecting EPA, Inc., the page 25 county completed an environmental survey of six original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and a number of demanufacturers to rank the importance and relevance of eliminating EEE waste from the waste stream. Of "high" environmental benefit were monitors and TVs (due to the CRT). Of medium impact were computers (CPUs), VCRs, keyboards, telephones, copiers, audio/ stereo equipment, and microwaves. Of "low" ' benefit were printers and peripherals. The focus of the collection was to remove most of these high­ impact items from the waste stream. EPA, Inc. charged a set cost per type of equipment collected. The price per unit reflects the demanufacturing and disposal costs. The charges are provided in the following table. Table 22: Demanufacturing Charges per Item Collected Price Per Unit Computers/ CPUs $1.00 Monitors $5.75 Large TVs $9.50 Small TVs $7.00 Printers $2.00 VCRs $2.00 Keyboards $0.75 Telephones $2.00 Peripherals $0.75 Copiers $5.00 Audio/ Stereo $2.50 Microwaves $2.00 While they generate revenue from most of the material that they extract, EPA, Inc. must pay about $0.10 per pound for disassembly of the CRTs.. With 28,000 lbs collected every 4 months, it costs the company $8,400 for one year of CRT disposal. In addition, the cost of disposing of the solid waste that was generated came to about $200 per week, for a total cost of over $10,000 per year. This disposal cost was not included in the cost data; however, since it was not possible to determine what percent of this waste was derived from the residential demanufacturing program. Revenue: Many of the items collected in Union County are technologically obsolete or broken beyond repair, so EPA, Inc. is only able to sell about $40 worth of equipment (VCRs, TVs, consumer electronics) a week, providing roughly $2,000 per year in revenue from the resale of used electronics and electrical equipment. This does not, however, include any resale value from working computers (about 1% of input), since they are shipped to EPA's other facilities. Data on the income from this equipment is not available. The bulk of the income comes from the sale of recovered scrap. Scrap metal, wire, and components yield EPA around $0.06 per pound of scrap sold. The outflow of scrap is estimated to be about 7,000 lbs per month, resulting in about $5,000 per year in revenue. Additionally, circuit boards net about page 26 $0.85 per pound, so with about 1 pound of circuit board per computer, the annual revenue from this source equals about $458. The net revenue from all sources comes to around $3,358 for the first year of the program. Net Cost: The net cost for each program is outlined in the table below. The initial infrastructure costs of the program make the net cost for the time period look higher than they currently are because initial costs flatten out as the program matures and the tonnage of collected material increases. Table 23: Union County Net Cost Municipality Net Cost Net Cost per Pound Collected Clark $2,003 $0.19 Cranford $13 $0.10 Westfield $234 $0.10 Kenilworth $1,075 $0.16 Linden $15,155 $0.17 New Providence $767 $0.15 Rahway $8,843 $0.33 Summit $11,957 $0.23 UCUA Countywide $5,858 $0.14 Project Comments: The Union County program was funded via a grant from the NJDEP and a $120,000 grant, over two years, from U. S. EPA Region II. Participation appears to be consistent, and the attitude of the public is generally positive. A tracking system to determine the source of incoming material has not been fully coordinated, since loads arrived infrequently and in low volumes at the beginning of the program. For the first few months, there was not enough volume to justify tracking and billing on a monthly basis. After 18 months, testing of the incinerator stack and ash has indicated that the EEE program has been effective in diverting materials containing heavy metals from the MSW waste stream since concentration levels are lower than the baseline values. This conclusion is supported by the information provided in Table 39, which shows the calculated concentration of heavy metals in MSW, based on metals in the ash residue and air emissions. However, the specific contribution of the demanufacturing program to these reductions has not been calculated. page 27 3.5 NAPERVILLE AND WHEATON, ILLINOIS Collection Method: One­ day Drop­ off Event Number of Collections: Three events Collection Dates: October 1996, 1997 (Naperville), and April 1998 (Wheaton) Demanufacturer: The Electronic Recovery Specialist, Inc. Motivation Behind Collection: Naperville and Wheaton organized their EEE waste collection events with the cooperation of a local demanufacturer, The Electronic Recovery Specialist, Inc. (ERS). The goals of these events were to: § Reduce the amount of material that the municipality sends to the landfill; § Safely dispose of the potentially hazardous materials; and § Promote the collection of EEE waste on a municipal level 13 The demanufacturer got involved with the intention of increasing interest in residential collection events, which would ultimately result in a greater volume of EEE waste for them to demanufacture. With the completion of their first event in October 1996, Naperville followed with another event in October 1997. Wheaton then followed suit by working with ERS to conduct a drop­ off collection event in April 1998. Demographics: Naperville, IL, is a western suburb of Chicago and one of the fastest growing cities in the state. The town is largely white collar. The neighboring suburb of Wheaton is similar in profile to Naperville. Both towns are active in waste management, with collection programs for HHW, tires, books, and recyclable materials. In fact, Naperville was the first city in Illinois to implement a HHW collection scheme. Table 24: Naperville/ Wheaton Demographics Municipality Population Households Median Income Naperville 85,000 32,000 $60,000 Wheaton 50,000 18,000 $52,000 Event Promotion: Promotion in Naperville began six weeks before the first event and consisted of the placement of door hangers by meter readers at all single­ family homes in the city. The door hangers outlined the date, time, and location of the program as well as what items would be accepted. Since ERS cannot demanufacture equipment that is 110V or 220V, people were asked not to bring household electrical equipment and appliances. This was combined with publicity in the local Chamber of Commerce newsletter a couple of 13 Unless noted, all Naperville background information was gathered via personal communication with Marta Keane, the City of Naperville and all Wheaton background information was gathered via personal communication with Kay McKeen, DuPage County, Illinois. page 28 weeks before the event. The city produced the door hangers in­ house at "no net cost" to the municipality. The second Naperville event was publicized using notices and flyers sent to every library, chamber of commerce, municipality, township office, and park district within the county. There was also good coverage by some of the local papers promoting the event. The city also sent flyers home with school children that attended the public and private schools serving the Naperville area. These flyers were also produced in­ house. For the Wheaton event, publicity consisted of an advertisement in the city newsletter during the months of March and April. Notices were also sent to the local churches, where they were placed on church bulletin boards. Additionally, there was comprehensive newspaper coverage of the event, resulting from the strong competition between newspapers in the community. All of this publicity came at no net cost to the municipality. Resident Participation: Over 250 households (measured by the number of cars) dropped off material during the first event, 185 of which were from Naperville. For the second event, there were 670 cars measured, but the household participation is uncertain since there were a number of businesses, schools, and organizations that dropped off equipment as well. Overall, the total number of cars increased by almost 170% from the first to the second event. At the Wheaton event, 906 cars were counted but the city estimated the actual participation to be more than 1000 households since a number of residents parked on the streets, or delivered their EEE waste on foot. The high attendance is due in part to the fact that the event combined EEE waste collection with a book and tire collection. Collection: All three events were Saturday drop­ off collections held on municipal property. Volunteers handled some of the greeting and unloading of the incoming cars, although a large number of ERS employees were present to sort, unload, and stack the material. The events targeted electronic equipment – e. g., computers, TVs, VCRs, microwaves, and stereos – since the demanufacturer did not have the ability to work with electrical equipment (110 or 220 V items). The items listed in the table were collected at the events, 1996 and 1997 held in Naperville, and 1998 in Wheaton: 14 Table 25: Items Collected During Napervill/ Wheaton Pilots Computers Monitors Keyboards Printers TVs VCRs Microwaves Stereos Naperville 1996 367 152 160 113 111 54 28 286 1997 305 290 65 130 292 236 40 120 Wheaton 14 Naperville data provided in City of Naperville Memorandum dated October 10, 1996 and Memorandum dated November 21, 1997. Wheaton data provided via personal communication with Bob Bell, The Electronic Recovery Specialist, Inc. page 29 1998 99 226 0 102 102 109 33 115 Telephones, copiers, and miscellaneous other items were also collected. In terms of weight, 24,267 lbs were collected in Naperville in 1996, around 60,000 lbs in Naperville in 1997, and 22,414 lbs in Wheaton in 1998. Although the demanufacturer, ERS did not charge the municipalities for their labor, the company's cost per event was given at around $8,000. A portion of these costs derive from the labor for the event (e. g., sorting, stacking of the equipment) and the rental of the truck. Transportation: The total transportation distance from Naperville/ Wheaton to the ERS facility in Niles, IL, is about 30 miles. Because both a 53­ ft and a 23­ ft truck were being used to transport the equipment, multiple trips were required at each event. The cost of these trips makes up the portion of the $8,000 event cost not due to labor. After the Wheaton event, Tire Grinders Transporters, Inc., a company that was participating in Wheaton's tire collection program, voluntarily hauled one­ half of a 53­ ft truck's worth of material to ERS. Their transportation costs are not included in the estimate. Demanufacturing: 15 ERS explained what they could and could not take to the volunteers and participants, in order to limit the collection of useless material. They do not have the capacity to demanufacture many electrical appliances (i. e., those that run on 110 to 220V). ) Most of the electrical equipment that was collected was thrown away during the event. The equipment was broken down into wiring, circuit boards, and high­ grade breakage. The monitors and televisions were disassembled and the CRTs recycled. The process used to disassemble and recycle the CRTs was considered proprietary. It is unclear what type of recycling occurred and if it was domestic or international. The demanufacturer did not provide the exact type and percentage yield of commodities from these events. Revenue: No exact data was provided on the revenue from any of the demanufacturing; however, ERS estimated that their total income from the material comes to around $6,000 per event. ERS indicated, however, that for each event an additional $6,000 was spent in disposing of unusable material. This disposal cost includes the extra cost of the sorting, storage, and shipment of broken electronics to re­ training programs throughout the U. S. and to overseas markets. Net Cost: The demanufacturer carried the net cost for all of the events, which they estimated to be around $8,000 per event. The net cost per pound decreased more than 60% between the two Naperville events. 15 Demanufacturing, revenue and cost data gathered via personal communication with Bob Bell, The Electronic Recovery Specialist Inc. page 30 Table 26: Naperville/ Wheaton Net Cost Municipality Net Cost Net Cost per Pound Collected Naperville 1996 $8,000 $0.33 Naperville 1997 $8,000 $0.13 Wheaton 1998 $8,000 $0.36 Project Comments: According to the municipalities, the collection programs were successful because they had a large turnout for each event. The coordinator in Naperville indicated that despite the high yields for the two events, only a periodic collection would be the most cost­ effective choice for her community. In her opinion, additional collection events would probably not lead to substantially greater amounts of equipment collected. The demanufacturer explained that these events could have broken even with better collection support during the events. ERS employees covered most of the labor for sorting and loading, a cost that could have been offset by more coordinated volunteer help. All the same, they have been working with other municipalities to continue expansion of these collection events in the area. ERS also noted that an essential element in coordinating the event is the existence of an "exit plan," meaning a client for the demanufactured material or equipment. This was especially relevant to ERS since they had limited storage space, and ended up shipping some of the collected material to re­ training programs. page 31 3.6 SUMMARYDATAFOR THE PILOT PROJECTS The range of data gathered from these five collection programs makes it impossible to develop a linear relationship between collection method, costs, and equipment yield. This is due to the different collection models used in the programs, the variety of the equipment collected, the management of the equipment that was collected, and the ultimate disposal of the equipment. The following table shows what cost data was available for each collection program. Table 27: Available Cost and Revenue Data Collection Agency Publicity Operating Transport Demanufacturing Disposal Binghamton/ Somerville X X X Naperville/ Wheaton X X X Union County X X X X X Hennepin County X X X X San Jose X X X The summary tables in this section provide data for all available data sets (aside from upfront costs), with the caveat that the values are not directly comparable. Some data regarding the cost of pre­ program publicity was available. However, this information was only available for Union County and Binghamton/ Somerville. The impact of the large up­ front outlay for publicity was enough that including these values in the summary table would skew the values for these two programs. Therefore the available data on upfront costs was not taken into account. It should also be noted that the cost associated with the Hennepin County program is an aggregate of all costs paid by the county – labor for some collection, demanufacturing, staff salaries, transport, disposal, supplies, overhead, etc. Due to the design of the program and the selection of vendors, many of the costs could not be divided into specific categories such as collection type or total transportation cost. Finally, for curbside collection programs that coincide with other collection programs (bulk items, HHW, appliances), no attempt was made to allocate costs to the EEE waste collection. The costs that are presented include some of the costs associated with the collection of both the EEE waste and other items. However, these costs are assumed to be small in comparison to the cost of transporting the EEE waste to the demanufacturer. page 32 Table 28: Binghamton/ Somerville and San Jose Summary Cost Data Binghamton / Somerville San Jose Location Somerville Somerville Binghamton Binghamton San Jose Event Date Fall 1996 Spring 1997 Fall 1996 Spring 1997 October 1997 total revenue $481 $1,807 $487 $1,175 $5,100 total cost a $3,781 $2,898 $931 $3,038 $23,110 net income (cost) ($ 3,299) ($ 1,091) ($ 444) ($ 1,863) ($ 18,010) total inflow (lbs) 7,448 13,723 2,372 9,031 61,600 total cost/ lb $0.51 $0.21 $0.39 $0.34 $0.38 revenue/ lb $0.06 $0.13 $0.21 $0.13 $0.08 Note: Total cost per pound is equal to the total cost divided by the pounds collected, not the net cost divided by the pounds collected. a: Binghamton and Somerville total cost values consist only of the cost of transporting the EEE waste to the demanufacturer and the cost of the demanufacturing labor. The San Jose costs include the cost of transporting the EEE waste to the demanufacturer, the cost of the demanufacturing, and the disposal costs associated with disposing the CRTs. page 33 Table 29: Union County Summary Cost Data Union County Location Union Co. Cranford Westfield Clark Kenilworth Event Date October 1, 1996 to March 31, 1998 total revenue $456 $2 $34 $77 $46 total cost b $6,314 $15 $268 $2,080 $1,122 net income (cost) ($ 5,858) ($ 13) ($ 234) ($ 2,003) ($ 1,075) total inflow (lbs) 42,886 120 2,240 10,640 6,680 total cost/ lb $0.15 $0.13 $0.12 $0.20 $0.17 revenue/ lb $0.01 $0.02 $0.02 $0.01 $0.01 Note: Total cost per pound is equal to the total cost divided by the pounds collected, not the net cost divided by the pounds collected. b: The Union County total cost values include the cost of transportation to the demanufacturer and the cost of demanufacturing the EEE waste and disposing of the unsold scrap and CRTs. page 34 Table 30: Union County Summary Cost Data (cont.) Union County (cont.) Location Linden New Providence Rahway Summit Event Date October 1, 1996 to March 31, 1998 total revenue $592 $34 $184 $454 total cost b $15,747 $801 $9,027 $12,412 net income (cost) ($ 15,155) ($ 767) ($ 8,843) ($ 11,957) total inflow (lbs) 87,060 5,180 26,560 51,500 total cost/ lb $0.18 $0.15 $0.34 $0.24 revenue/ lb $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 Note: Total cost per pound is equal to the total cost divided by the pounds collected, not the net cost divided by the pounds collected. b: The Union County total cost values include the cost of transportation to the demanufacturer and the cost of demanufacturing the EEE waste and disposing of the unsold scrap and CRTs. The curbside collection program in Linden also includes some small operating expenses, which could not be separated from the transportation costs. page 35 Table 31: Hennepin County Summary Cost Data Hennepin County Location Hennepin Co. Event Date 1995 1996 1997 total revenue $10,000 $20,000 $25,000 total cost c $190,000 $350,000 $350,000 net income (cost) ($ 180,000) ($ 330,000) ($ 325,000) total inflow (lbs) 400,000 524,000 732,000 total cost/ lb $0.48 $0.67 $0.48 revenue/ lb $0.03 $0.04 $0.03 Note: Total cost per pound is equal to the total cost divided by the pounds collected, not the net cost divided by the pounds collected. c: The Hennepin County total cost values include the operating costs, costs of transportation to the demanufacturer, demanufacturing costs, and disposal costs for the unsold scrap and CRTs. page 36 Table 32: Naperville/ Wheaton Summary Cost Data Naperville/ Wheaton Location Naperville Naperville Wheaton Event Date Fall 1996 Fall 1997 Spring 1998 total revenue $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 total cost d $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 net income (cost) ($ 8,000) ($ 8,000) ($ 8,000) total inflow (lbs) 24,267 60,000 22,414 total cost/ lb $0.58 $0.23 $0.62 revenue/ lb $0.25 $0.10 $0.27 Note: Total cost per pound is equal to the total cost divided by the pounds collected, not the net cost divided by the pounds collected. d: The Naperville and Wheaton total cost values include the costs of transportation to the demanufacturer, demanufacturing costs, and disposal costs for the unsold scrap. page 37 4. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PILOT PROJECTS This section provides a more detailed analysis of the collection programs, which covers the following items: · Net economics; · Analysis of cost; · Analysis of revenue; and · Collection efficiency. 4.1 NET ECONOMICS The net economics of an EEE waste collection program is defined by the sum of the revenue and costs associated with the program. The experience shown by the previous five collection examples is that collection programs generally run at a net cost. Note that this is a purely economic statement. Some of the programs and pilots have other objectives that have not been translated into cost. In looking at the net economics, it is helpful to understand what costs and revenue sources are contributing to this value. The following graphic indicates the economic interactions between the important stakeholders in these collection programs. Transport Costs User Fees Disposal Costs Participant Up Front Costs Operational Costs Revenue from Demanufacturing Collection Agency Demanufacturing Fee Demanufacturer Demanfacturing Costs Figure 2: Economic Interaction Between Stakeholders Each of these stakeholders has its own specific cost and revenue structure, and not every one will bear the same economic burden. However, it is important to note that the net cost of the five collection models for this report includes the sum of all of the available cost and revenue data; not all of the following cost and revenue data was available for every program: Cost = demanufacturing + transport + operating + publicity + disposal costs Revenue = revenue from scrap + revenue from resale + revenue from fees or services While the data that was gathered for these programs was useful in determining the total cost of a program, it is not as helpful in assessing the economic role that each individual stakeholder has in the total economics. Each stakeholder's economic role is expanded upon in the discussion in Section 5. page 38 4.2 COST ANALYSIS Looking at the program summary tables in Section 3 indicates that even for similar collection models and geographic locations, costs were not consistent or predictable. Specifically, this irregularity is due to differences in data collection methods. The short­ term nature of many of these pilot programs resulted in services provided "in­ kind" or "in­ house." The end result is that the demanufacturing costs had the most significant impact on the apparent cost of the programs. In fact, almost all of the available cost data is related to demanufacturing. 4.2.1 Demanufacturing Versus Disposal The two charts below indicate the net cost per pound recycled for each of these programs in comparison to the average disposal fees per pound (either for landfilling or incineration). The charts show how widely the costs for recycling vary, both between and within communities. This is likely due to both the limited amounts of data that are available for each model, and the fact that, with the exception of Hennepin County, none of the programs have been running a long time. The charts are organized by collection model, with the first chart presenting one­ day drop­ off events and the second chart presenting the other collection methods. Each data set has two separate columns – the net cost per pound for recycling and the disposal costs per pound. The recycling cost column incorporates the cost data for demanufacturing the collected equipment and disposal of any scrap that was not sold, and any income from scrap and resale. Hennepin County is not included in the graphs so as not be misleading, since their demanufacturing costs cannot be dissociated from their collection and transport cost. The disposal costs column represents the tipping fees or incinerator fees for each locality. Collection and transport were not included since collection costs for MSW were not available. In examining these charts, it is obvious that the recycling programs are more costly than disposal of the material via incineration or landfilling, and this difference appears to be independent of the type of collection program. It should be noted that these charts do not incorporate any non­ quantified costs, such as the costs associated with disposing of incinerator ash containing heavy metals, which may increase the disposal cost per pound. page 39 Disposal vs. Recycling Cost Comparison: One­ day Drop­ off Collection Events $0.00 $0.05 $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25 $0.30 $0.35 $0.40 Somerville, Fall 1996 Somerville, Spring 1997 Binghamton, Fall 1996 Binghamton, Spring 1997 Naperville, Fall 1996 Naperville, Fall 1997 Wheaton, Spring 1998 Union Co. Cranford Westfield $/ lb collected Net recycling cost/ lb (Demanufacturing + Disposal ­ Revenue) Disposal cost/ lb (Incineration or Tipping Fee) Figure 3: Disposal vs. Recycling Cost Comparison: One­ day Drop­ off Collection Events Disposal vs. Recycling Cost Comparison: Other Collection Models $0.00 $0.05 $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25 $0.30 $0.35 $0.40 San Jose Clark Kenilworth Linden New Providence Rahway Summit $/ lb collected Net recycling cost/ lb (Demanufacturing + Disposal ­ Revenue) Disposal cost/ lb (Incineration or Tipping Fee) Retail Collection Permanent Collection Depot Curbside Collections Curbside/ Permanent Collection Figure 4: Disposal vs. Recycling Cost Comparison: Other Collection Models page 40 4.2.2 CRT Recycling The commodity that predominated in most of the five collection programs is the CRT (see the following chart). Televisions, monitors, and some other electronic equipment (e. g., oscilloscopes) all contain CRTs. It is obvious then that a demanufacturing program can be greatly affected by what is done with this material. There are a number of options that were used by these five collection programs – domestic glass recycling, smelting, and export – that have varying costs. Items Containing CRTs as a Percentage of Total Equipment Collected 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Somerville Binghampton Union County Events Clark Kenilworth Linden Rahway Summit Hennepin County San Jose Naperville Wheaton Figure 5: Items Containing CRTs as a Percentage of Total Equipment Collected One optimum demanufacturing option, at least in terms of the net economics, may be the recycling of the CRT into glass. Demanufacturers who recycled CRTs received some revenue for the glass that they generated. However, it is difficult to determine just how much revenue they received per CRT since glass recyclers consider their process to be proprietary. The complexity of this option is also technically related to the multiple formulations of CRT glass (over 200 chemical formulations), and the demand by manufacturers for product specifications of the secondary material. In addition, federal and state regulations regarding CRTs are complex, which may also increase the cost of the recycling process and ultimately limits the number of companies that can do the recycling. For the collection agency, the lack of a local demanufacturer to provide this service could result in high transportation costs that outweigh the revenue generated from the recycled material. Smelters were also used as a disposal option for the CRTs. A smelter uses the silica in the CRT glass as flux in its operations and recovers some of the lead. Most smelters are located in remote locations, which can make transportation costs high relative to the value of the material. Further, since secondary smelters have moderate feedstock needs, the outflow of CRTs from the collection program sent to a smelter can become dependent on the smelter's demand. Such is the situation for Hennepin County, page 41 where the demanufacturing program is affected when the smelter shuts down (the county is affected by the shutdown of any end market, not just the smelter). The county then has to store the CRTs it collects. A third option for CRT disposal is export to developing nations. The cost for demanufacturing may be much lower in other countries than it is in the United States ­ as much as ten times lower, as indicated in the San Jose study. There is an open debate as to what actually constitutes demanufacturing and/ or disposal in an overseas market. While this overseas disposal option does reduce the costs to a demanufacturer, there are issues to consider before exporting the material. Worker health and safety laws, and hazardous waste disposal laws overseas may be less stringent than in the U. S. and may contribute to cost savings when CRTs are shipped abroad for management, disposal, or recycling. The demanufacturing of CRTs therefore may lead to health problems for overseas workers. 16 Because of the hazardous nature of some of the materials in CRT glass (lead and cadmium) and the less stringent environmental standards in developing countries, the shipment of these materials overseas may in fact just be a displacement of pollution. The disposal of CRTs is consistently a cost for the collection agency. While a demanufacturer may generate some revenue from the sale of the CRT glass that they generate, the revenue does not fully offset costs that the demanufacturer will transfer to the collection agency for the transport and disposal of the material. 4.3 REVENUE ANALYSIS The revenue for these programs was derived either from resale of the collected material or sale of the demanufactured scrap. Most of the programs received a notable amount of revenue; however, the amounts were not sufficient to offset the collection agency's costs for collection and demanufacturing. The following section analyzes in more detail some of the revenue streams from these programs. 4.3.1 Resale The following table lists the collection programs that received revenue from the resale of equipment. Revenue/ pound collected is the economic yield of resold equipment per pound of equipment that was collected. The cost/ pound collected is the gross cost of collection/ demanufacturing per pound of equipment that was collected. Table 33: Resale Revenue Per Pound Collected Collection Agency Resale Revenue Total Pounds Collected Resale/ Pound Collected Cost/ Pound Collected San Jose $1,940 61,600 $0.03 $0.38 Somerville (1997) $962 13,723 $0.07 $0.21 Union Co. Total $3,120 232,866 $0.01 $0.21 Note: Values for Union Co. Total are for all of the collection programs over the collection period of 18 months. The cost/ pound collected for San Jose is for the scenario in which CRTs are exported for demanufacturing. As is evident from this table, the resale revenue per pound is only a fraction of the cost per pound. Additionally, there does not appear to be any linear correlation between the amount of equipment collected and revenue from resale, which leads to the conclusion that a large amount of equipment 16 The San Jose Computer Collection and Recycling Pilot, pp 9. page 42 collected does not necessarily translate into a large amount of revenue from resale. This is likely because the quality of equipment that is collected varies depending on the specific community, its locations, and time. 4.3.2 Offsetting Costs For these collection programs, revenue was not sufficient to offset all of the costs associated with the program's organization and operation. Most of this revenue is dependent on factors that are beyond the direct control of the collection agency, such as the market price for the extracted materials, the quality of the extracted material, and the presence of demanufacturing firms. Considering this, in order to reduce the net cost of collection, collection agencies would do best to either focus on reducing program costs, work with a demanufacturer to develop a revenue share on any resale of collected equipment, or assess the community's willingness to pay. However, it is helpful to understand how far these collection programs are from a "break­ even point", i. e., the point where the revenue per pound is equal to the cost per pound. Also note that because of the disparity in the data between pilots not all costs are included and may cause the break­ even point to increase. To illustrate this, the cost per pound collected was divided by the revenue per pound collected (see Section 3.6 for these numbers) to calculate the ratio of cost to revenue. This ratio is essentially equal to how many times larger the cost is than the revenue, e. g., a ratio of 2 means that the cost per pound collected is twice the revenue per pound collected. Therefore, this ratio gives an idea as to how much the revenue per pound would have to increase to be equal to the cost per pound. These ratios are shown for all five of the collection programs in the following chart. Since the revenue received from demanufactured materials is linearly dependent on the market price of the material, these ratios can be interpreted as how much the market price would have to increase for the revenue per pound to equal the cost per pound. This assumes that only the market values received for the demanufactured materials change and not the type and weight of materials collected or the cost for the collection program. This chart illustrates that most of the one­ day drop­ off events have costs that are around twice the revenues. As the markets for some of the extracted materials develop, these programs have the potential to break even, assuming that their costs per pound stay at least the same, and they collect equipment that contain material with some market value. The other collection models have higher break­ even costs, which is due both to their higher costs and lower revenues. 17 The very high breakeven point for the Rahway curbside collections is mainly due to the transportation costs associated with the frequent number of collections. Since this break­ even point is skewed due to the organization of this particular collection model, it should not be seen as representative of the typical curbside collection program. 17 It should be noted that the revenue numbers for the Union County events are based on average data provided by the demanufacturer and the actual revenue values may be somewhat greater than those that are included in the analysis. page 43 Reaching the Break­ Even Point Ratio of Cost per Pound Collected to Revenue per Pound Collected 7.9 1.6 1.9 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 11.6 6.2 7.9 4.5 24.3 22.7 22.8 23.8 46.2 22.4 19.0 17.5 14.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 Somerville, Fall 1996 Somerville, Spring 1997 Binghamton, Fall 1996 Binghamton, Spring 1997 Naperville, Fall 1996 Naperville, Fall 1997 Wheaton, Spring 1998 Union Co. Cranford Westfield San Jose Clark Kenilworth Linden New Providence Rahway Summit Hennepin Co. 1995 Hennepin Co. 1996 Hennepin Co. 1997 ratio of cost/ lb / to revenue/ lb Figure 6: Reaching the Break­ Even Point for Collection Models 4.4 EQUIPMENT COLLECTION Despite the differences in motivations behind the individual collection programs, the items that each program targeted were mostly similar. The following table outlines the items that were requested by each of the collection programs (some of the programs received items that they did not target), which shows these similarities. The San Jose pilot is obviously different since the goal was to collect only computer­ related equipment. Hennepin County also collects microwaves, but under its appliance collection program. Table 34: Items Targeted by Collection Program Somerville/ Binghamton Naperville/ Wheaton Union County Hennepin County San Jose Computer Monitors X X X X X Computers X X X X X Televisions X X X X Stereo equipment X X X X Speakers X X X X VCRs X X X X Microwaves X X X Fax Machines X X X X Printers X X X X Telephones X X X page 44 The following chart gives some indication of the average composition of a collection event in terms of the percentage of total items collected. The average was calculated to give more weight to the collections with the greatest yield. The chart gives a rough approximation of what a collection program can expect to collect, even though it does not take into account the impacts that a particular collection model or geographic area may have on the type of equipment collected. The chart does indicate that TVs and monitors made up almost 50% of the items collected, which as was mentioned above can substantially affect the cost of the EEE waste collection program. The substantial percentage of equipment that fits into the Misc. Other category shows that the range of what is collected is generally not limited to the equipment that is targeted. Percentage by Type of Number of Items Collected: Weighted Average of All Collection Events Computers/ CPUs 8% Monitors 11% Keyboards 5% Printers 4% Audio/ Stereo 16% TVs 36% Telephones 3% Misc. Other 9% Peripherals 1% Microwaves 1% VCRs 6% Figure 7: Percentage­ by­ Type of Number of Items Collected 4.4.1 Collection Efficiency While there were similarities among the collection models in terms of what equipment was collected, they were quite different in terms of how economically this equipment was collected. One of the ways to assess these differences is to calculate the collection efficiency of a program, which is the number of items that are collected per dollar spent on the collection. The larger this value is, the more cost effective the collection model. The following chart shows the collection efficiency values for all of the programs. The Cranford, Westfield, Somerville (1997), and Union County programs stand out because they appear to have very high collection efficiencies compared to the other collection programs. All four of these data sets come from programs that are organized as one­ day drop­ off events. Although these four examples would seem to indicate that drop­ off events are the most efficient collection models, the low values for some of page 45 the other drop­ off events contradict this conclusion. This variation within collection models is likely due to the fact that the cost values that were used to calculate the collection efficiency include demanufacturing costs. Therefore, items that are more costly to demanufacture (e. g., CRTs) can increase the cost of the program. In addition, since advertising factors and weather affect program turnout, this can affect the number of items collected, without directly affecting the program cost. Transportation costs, which depend on the distance to the demanufacturer, are also a factor that has less to do with the collection model than with the location of the municipality. Therefore, without a more detailed data set for each collection program, the impact that a particular collection model has on the collection efficiency is unclear. Collection Efficiency (# of items collected /$ of program cost) 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 Naperville 1996 Naperville 1997 Wheaton 1998 Somerville 1996 Somerville 1997 Binghampton 1996 Binghampton 1997 Union Co. Cranford Westfield San Jose Clark Kenilworth Linden Summit New Providence Rahway Hennepin Co. 1995 Hennepin Co. 1996 Hennepin Co. 1997 Items collected / per $ of cost Figure 8: Collection Efficiency of Collection Models page 46 4.4.2 Equipment Collected per Resident Examining the weight of equipment that is collected per resident can also be used to assess the efficiency of the collection model. The following chart shows these values as they were calculated for all collection programs using summary data. That is, the pounds of equipment collected per resident for Somerville represents the total weight of equipment over both collection events. The chart indicates that the Linden, Summit, and Rahway programs collected the most per resident, whereas most of the one­ day collection events (Cranford, Union County, Somerville…) collected the least. This appears to indicate that the curbside collection programs are more efficient in collecting material than the other collection models. While this conclusion seems intuitively correct, some factors independent of the collection model, such as the difference in the kinds of material collected per event (e. g., TVs or microwaves), may skew these values. Pounds of EEE Waste Collected Per Resident 0.88 0.45 0.73 2.61 0.01 1.05 0.08 2.37 0.44 0.11 0.15 0.49 0.09 0.07 0.71 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Kenilworth New Providence Clark Summit Cranford Rahway Westfield Linden Wheaton Binghamton Avg. Somerville Avg. Naperville Avg. Union Co. San Jose Hennepin County (1997) lbs collected/ resident Figure 9: Pounds of End­ of­ life Electronic and Electrical Waste Collected Per Resident page 47 5. BEYOND THE EXAMPLE COLLECTION PROGRAMS In Section 4, the focus of the analysis was on the total economics of the five example collection programs. However, each stakeholder involved in the development and implementation of such a program had its own unique cost and revenue streams. Therefore, the examination of the total cost does not help to identify what specific costs an individual stakeholder is incurring. This section uses the examples presented in Section 3 to identify these stakeholders and outline their individual economic roles in the collection process, with the intention of highlighting the difference between their roles. The section is organized into the following sections: 5.1 Identifying the Different Stakeholders 5.2 The Demanufacturer 5.3 The Collection Agency 5.4 The Participant 5.5 Other Stakeholders Throughout this section, text boxes outlining the experiences of HHW collection programs and European EEE waste collection programs are included to supplement the information provided by the case studies. 5.1 IDENTIFYING THE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS The following graphic, repeated from section 4.1, illustrates the economic interactions among the program participants, the collection agency and the demanufacturer, as if a separate actor fulfilled each role. In this broader discussion, the term "collection agency" is used to encompass municipal and county government or retail establishments, as well as other bodies that would possibly coordinate an EEE waste collection program. Although this relationship is somewhat simplistic, since the case studies have indicated that not all of these costs are relevant to all collection models, it does indicate that not every stakeholder has the same economic concerns. Transport Costs User Fees Disposal Costs Participant Up Front Costs Operational Costs Revenue from Demanufacturing Collection Agency Demanufacturing Fee Demanufacturer Demanfacturing Costs Figure 10: Economic Interaction Between Stakeholders In determining the economics of a collection model, these three actors have the most direct influence. Other actors can also affect the economics of an EEE waste collection model as well, but not always to the same degree: page 48 · For a point­ of­ purchase collection model, such as in San Jose, the retailers were the collection agent and subsequently incurred many of the costs related to the collection operation. · State or national governments play a role when implementing regulations that either directly promote EEE waste recycling or indirectly promote it through landfill bans. · Private industry/ OEMs (aside from demanufacturers and retailers) can also play a role at either end of the collection model by affecting the market value of extracted materials or by modifying the design of the electronic or electrical equipment that they produce. OEMs have assisted in developing the demanufacturing industry to manage off­ specification and return equipment. The roles and impact of each of these actors/ stakeholders are developed in more detail in the following sections. 5.2 THE DEMANUFACTURER 5.2.1 Role The role of the demanufacturer is to take in the collected equipment and to either resell this equipment, sell the material extracted from it, or pay for disposal. The discussion in this section focuses on the economics of a demanufacturer that is separate from the collection agency. While the analysis of costs and revenue are also relevant to a demanufacturing program run by the collection agency, the focus is on the economic drivers specific to the demanufacturing. The following graphic illustrates the revenue and cost flows associated with demanufacturing. The arrow out of the box labeled "Demanufacturer" indicates the costs to the demanufacturer, which consist of labor, disposal, storage, and permitting. Setup costs such as property, equipment or permitting are not included. The arrows pointing inward toward the box indicate the revenues that the demanufacturer receives. At "steady state" (i. e., over the long term) the sum of these revenues will at least offset the cost of the demanufacturing. This is because the demanufacturer will likely adjust its fees to offset costs that are not offset by the demanufacturing revenue. These dynamics are discussed in more detail below. * Demanufacturing Labor * Storage * Permits Transport Costs Disposal Costs Up Front CostsOperational Costs User Fees Participant Revenue from Demanufacturing Collection Agency Demanufacturing Fees Demanufacturer Demanfacturing Costs Figure 11: Cost and Revenue Streams for the Demanufacturer Although the main motivation driving private demanufacturing is revenue (and profit), some other shortterm drivers may exist. Demanufacturers were willing to participate in a residential collection pilot to evaluate entering into this type of business arrangement. Additionally, they may decide to participate for page 49 the sake of their public image. Of course, the program must provide at least the promise of stability and sufficient quantities of equipment for a demanufacturer to absorb the potential losses. 5.2.2 Demanufacturing Costs The experiences from the collection pilots indicate that the demanufacturing program has the greatest overall impact on the net economics of a collection program. However, since few of the other costs associated with the collection programs were available for these case studies, the real costs of demanufacturing relative to, for example, program operation is not clear. The high cost of demanufacturing is likely due to the labor­ intensive nature of the process. All of the programs examined for this report used manual labor for most of their disassembly processes. This manual focus leads to a threshold of efficiency for disassembly. Since the effect of technology advances on the ability of a worker to take apart a TV or stereo is unknown, once all employees reach their maximum productivity, it can be assumed that the demanufacturer will have reached a maximum output of demanufactured material. At this point, the cost per pound demanufactured is at its lowest. Therefore, any increase in the inflow of EEE waste would require a concurrent increase in the size of the labor force, if the rate of outflow is to be maintained. While this will result in an incremental cost due to the increased labor, there will also be an increase in profit due to this increase in inflow. There are other costs beyond the actual costs of demanufacturing labor, such as those for storage of equipment overflow. The demanufacturer may need to store some of the equipment it collects, since at least in the case of one­ day drop­ off collection events the demanufacturing rate is unlikely to be able to match the speed of equipment inflow. The impact and size of this cost is unknown, since it is highly dependent on the demanufacturer's capacity as well as the yield from the collection program. One demanufacturer, ERS, Inc., mentioned that storage costs for the drop­ off events that it participated in had a substantial impact on the net cost, since the inflow of equipment it received was much greater than anticipated. One other cost of relevance to demanufacturing is the cost of material disposal. It is obviously in the best interest of the demanufacturer to sell as much of the material that it extracts from the used equipment. It must dispose of all of the material that it cannot sell. The amount of waste that is produced depends on the amount of valueless material that is accepted from the collection program. The cost for this disposal varies since it depends on market prices for materials, the quality of the residential equipment that is collected, and the local disposal costs. Disposal costs may include those for refuse (plastics and wood) and waste materials (PCBs, batteries, low­ grade circuit boards, CRTs, mercury switches). The NJDEP is going to undertake research, with funding from the U. S. EPA, to expand markets for plastics derived from EEE waste collection. This research will require the assistance and participation of OEMs and plastic resin manufacturers, and may help determine ways to improve the current market for secondary materials. 5.2.3 Revenue For the demanufacturer, revenue is the main business driver. Revenue can come from three sources: the resale of refurbished or working equipment, the sale of recovered scrap, and the assessment of a demanufacturing fee. The income from each of these sources depends on a number of variables: the market value of equipment/ commodities, the efficiency of the demanufacturing program, the quality of the page 50 equipment that is collected (as well as its source-commercial versus residential), end­ of­ life management concerns, and relationship with the collection agency. 5.2.3.1 Resale The evidence from the collection programs is that most of the equipment collected is either nonfunctional or outdated; refurbishment (i. e., repair) is generally not cost­ effective. 18 However, for items that are working and have some economic value, resale can yield more revenue from an item than demanufacturing. The number of items that are available for resale is dependent on the age and type of the equipment that is collected. While there was no data on the average age of the items collected, anecdotal evidence suggests that much of it is relatively old and outdated (e. g., 286 series computers, console televisions, analog radios). Hennepin County estimates that the collected TVs are between 20 and 25 years old; the computers are 10 to 15 years old. The data from the pilot programs indicates that there is no linear correlation between the amount of equipment collected and revenue from resale, which leads to the conclusion that a large amount of equipment collected does not necessarily translate into a large amount of revenue from resale. It is more related to the type of equipment that is collected. While reuse of equipment can be a preferable waste management strategy, there is a potential cost that should be taken into consideration before equipment is resold. One demanufacturer commented about 18 The cost of parts and labor to repair a 286 computer, for example, generally exceeds the value of the repaired machine on the open market. No data was available on the costs or effectiveness of this option. REFURBISHMENT / REUSE IN EUROPE The refurbishment of EEE waste is a well­ established practice in Europe, but it is often done by OEMs and involves primarily the collection of commercial waste. One OEM has processed over 20,000 tons in a four­ year period. The large scale of this operation is the key to its viability (and represents the problem for U. S. demanufacturers). The OEM handles distribution, repair, and spare parts, and assesses all of the incoming equipment in the following fashion: 1. Systems and equipment that have value on the open market are refurbished as required and then sold. The company finds that there is still demand for second­ hand systems from companies that cannot afford new equipment. 2. Spare parts/ assemblies from equipment that are not suitable for resale are removed and tested. Tested items are used by the OEM's repair service. 3. Components are removed and sold to traders. The remaining materials from dismantling operations are sent to specialized recycling vendors. The OEM considers, however, that the amount of equipment recycled may increase over time, since items are becoming technologically out­ ofdate more quickly, making much of the collected equipment unusable. A study in the Netherlands has shown that demanufacturing of EEE waste may be a better environmental option than either reuse in the Netherlands or export to other countries. One of the reasons cited for this conclusion is that older electronic and electrical equipment is much less energy efficient than current equipment. SOURCE: Recovery of Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment: Economic and Environmental Impacts, A report produced for the European Commission DGXI, AEA Technology, AEAT/ 2004 Issue 1, July 1997 page 51 the problem of liability attached to the sale of working equipment received from a collection program. 19 If an item is sold and subsequently found to be defective, or if it injures the purchaser in some way, the costs of litigation would likely exceed the revenue derived from the initial sale. There are also potential liability concerns about data that may be left on an old computer system. This is an issue that should be anticipated, since the potential cost of the liability may not be worth the moderate revenue that is collected. While the revenue that comes from the resale of EEE waste has the potential to be substantial, this was not the widespread fact in the pilots and programs examined in Section 3. There does not appear to be a positive correlation between the amount of equipment collected and the amount of revenue derived from resale. Therefore, it is not likely that this source of income will offset the costs of the demanufacturing programs. Resale revenue per pound collected is generally a fraction of the cost for collection and demanufacturing and disposal. 5.2.3.2 Sale of Scrap Material The sale of scrap is the demanufacturer's bread and butter. The revenue from the commodities that make up EEE waste is dependent on two factors: Revenue per commodity = commodity yield X commodity market price While this is a simplistic relationship, the collection program can directly affect only one of its components ­ the commodity yield. The market price of the commodity is generally a result of elements outside the demanufacturer's control (in the short term), such as the price of virgin material or the demand for demanufactured material. However, understanding the variables that affect the yield of a commodity is useful in determining what items to target for collection. Commodity Market Price The following table 20 shows the ranges in revenue that can be collected for the commodity materials coming from EEE waste. The values are based on the value paid to one demanufacturer (Envirocycle, Inc.) for separated equipment at their loading dock at one point in time. The ranges indicate the possible value depending on market conditions and quality of the material. In general, the higher values come from commercial EEE waste; most residential equipment that is collected will yield at most the lower of these values. In some cases, the poor quality of the residential equipment will yield no revenue or will even represent a cost. These values are presented merely to illustrate the potential range in value for these extracted commodities: 19 Personal communication with The Electronic Resource Specialists, Inc., June 9, 1998. The demanufacturer also indicated concern about the chance that once the resold item does finally stop working, it will get thrown away rather than recycled, especially if the electronics collection is a periodic event. This would defeat the purpose of the collection program. 20 CSI Pilot Collection Project. February 1998, pp 46. page 52 Table 35: Potential Revenue for Extracted Materials Commodity Potential Revenue Range (per lb of material)* Clean Plastic $0.05 to $0.30 Printed Circuit Boards $0.50 to $1.30 Fans $0.07 to $0.10 Disc Drives $0.15 to $0.25 Phone Plastic $0.05 to $0.20 Cast Aluminum $0.20 to $0.28 CRTs $0.056 Metal $0.01 to $0.025 Carcass $0.01 to $0.05 Scrap Plastic $0.00 to $0.01 Transistors $0.01 to $0.05 Wire $0.15 to $0.18 Aluminum $0.35 to $0.40 Yokes $0.15 to $0.19 Motors $0.03 to $0.05 Capacitors $0.02 to $0.05 Copper $0.55 to $0.66 Radiators $0.15 Power Supply $0.06 *Prices are derived from off spec/ commercial materials and not residential materials. Essentially, the commodities with the highest value for the demanufacturer are those that have high precious metal content in their circuitry. Such is the case for a printed circuit board, which contains copper, gold, and silver, among other metals. The following table shows the average constitution of both a low grade 21 and high­ grade 22 printed circuit board. Note that the low­ grade circuit board reflects that quality of the material from residential collections (Section 3). The high­ grade boards come from equipment that is generally collected from commercial entities. Table 36: Circuit Board Metal Content Metal Low Grade Circuit Board High Grade Circuit Board Copper 16 to 18% 16 to 21% Gold <0.5 ounce/ ton 2.5 to 46.5 ounces/ ton Silver <5 ounce/ ton 41.8 to 57.3 ounces/ ton Tin Not analyzed 2.5 to 46.5 ounces/ ton Iron Not analyzed 0 to 9% Nickel Not analyzed 1% Lead Not analyzed 0.7% 21 Data is provided by Cheryl Lofrano­ Zaske, Principal Planning Analyst, Problem Materials Program, Department of Public Works, Hennepin County Minnesota. 22 Mining discarded electronics. H. Veldhuizen and B. Sippel. Industry and Environment. Volume 17, No. 3. JulySeptember 1994, pp 9. page 53 Arsenic Not analyzed 0.02 to 0.03% Cadmium Not analyzed Less than 0.01% Other materials not found on circuit boards, such as copper wire or aluminum parts, also yield high revenues per pound. Under current market conditions, metals and electrical parts yield the best revenue from scrap. Based on this information, a demanufacturer needs to collect computers (containing metal parts, circuit boards, chips, and electrical parts) to gain the maximum revenue from demanufactured equipment. All of the collection programs that were profiled focused on collecting this type of equipment. Commodity Yield The amount of the commodity that is extracted is also affected by the type and volume of the inflow of equipment, so the greater the participation, the greater the inflow, and the greater the volume of extracted material (assuming that demanufacturing efficiency stays constant). Therefore, one way for a demanufacturer to increase its profit is to work with the collection agency to promote the collection of equipment that is economically valuable from a commodity standpoint– computers and other commercial grade electronics. The quality of the items that are collected greatly affects what commodities are extracted. A computer in bad condition will yield less revenue for its components than a similar computer in very good condition. A hypothesis that came from the Binghamton/ Somerville report was that, as most of the older equipment is collected and leaves the residents' households, the collection events would start to take in newer equipment. This assumption has merit considering the inexpensive and disposable nature of most of today's technology. Continuing the assumption, this would mean that as time goes by, more high­ grade material would be available for potential reuse, leading to higher revenues. While the validity of this scenario is unknown, there are some points that contradict this: · There seems to be a lag time associated with the disposal of equipment. It is IMPROVING DEMANUFACTURING Recent studies in Japan have examined the amount of work required to disassemble electronic products. The results show that most of the improvement burden is on the OEM. For example, for PCs, the time required can be lowered by reducing the number of inter­ connections, and by making fastenings, particularly screws, more easily accessible. Of course, the impact of these modifications will only have a long­ term impact since these case studies have indicated that most electronic or electrical equipment is discarded when it is very old. Also in Japan, steps have been taken to automate demanufacturing. In March of 1996 Sony constructed a pilot plant for the automated dismantling of TV sets. The $4 million plant was designed to handle around 100,000 TVs (from between 12 and 29 inches in size) a year. The size of the TV is determined using a video camera, and a circular saw makes cuts in the front and sides of the cabinet. The CRT is then dismantled using automated procedures. While no exact data is available on the cost of this system, the evidence suggests that the expense of the process outweighs its value. SOURCE: Recovery of Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment: Economic and Environmental Impacts, A report produced for the European Commission DGXI, AEA Technology, AEAT/ 2004 Issue 1, July 1997. page 54 logical to assume that if residents are now turning in 286 series computers or analog stereo equipment (items that are at least 10 years old) the lag in the disposal of today's Pentiums or digital VCRs would at least parallel this. · In response to the concerns of consumers, OEMs are evaluating making computers that are easier to upgrade, which could minimize the need to buy a new computer (and dispose of the older one). · Much of today's equipment is made with fewer precious metal components as companies try to reduce their production costs. This will lead to a smaller amount of valuable scrap material once the item is recycled. The amount of revenue generated from the sale of commodities is dependent on the yield of revenue per commodity. To maximize this yield, the quality of the collected material must be high, the demanufacturing process must be at its optimum level, and the materials collected must contain commodities that have high market values. A collection agency can only directly affect the latter, and ELECTRONICS RECYCLING IN EUROPE AND JAPAN Before the 1990s in Europe, the main items that were dismantled were mainframe computers for which the primary environmental concerns were relays and switches containing mercury. Items currently being disposed of contain lower concentrations of precious metals, but higher concentrations of other elements of concern, notably leaded glass from CRTs. This has lead to a change in the demanufacturing scheme: whereas originally demanufacturers paid companies for old mainframes, now companies must pay the demanufacturers to take the equipment. The general practice in Europe is to first remove any hazardous components from the discarded equipment, such as batteries, mercury switches, and capacitors containing PCBs. Most items are then dismantled into components, one exception being products such as hi­ fi equipment, which demanufacturers consider not economical for dismantling. These products are usually shredded, with metal and plastics then recovered from the shredded product. The equipment is dismantled into four main components: metal, plastics, CRTs, and printed circuit boards. Some components are recovered for reuse. Hazardous components are sent to treatment facilities. Metal is sent to metal processors for recovery. Circuit boards are generally sent to a copper refiner, who is able to deal with brominated flameretardants in the circuit boards. The price paid to the smelter per board depends on their copper and precious metal contents. Shredding before smelting enables recovery of the steel and aluminum in the boards, but also distributes the precious metals between the two streams. A technique being developed in Japan by NEC would first heat the circuit board to a temperature at which the solder melts, after which the components would be mechanically removed. The circuit board is then shredded and separated into glass fiber and copper. Whether this method is economically viable is not yet known. SOURCE: Recovery of Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment: Economic and Environmental Impacts, A report produced for the European Commission DGXI, AEA Technology, AEAT/ 2004 Issue 1, July 1997. page 55 should focus its efforts on promoting the collection of economically valuable items while also evaluating relevant environmental impacts. 5.2.3.3 Demanufacturing Fee A demanufacturing fee is charged of the collection agency running the program in order to cover the demanufacturer's disassembly costs. None of the collection pilots indicated that the participating demanufacturer charged a fee to cover the costs of its services. This is due to the fact that most of the programs were pilots, in which the demanufacturer provided in­ kind services. In Hennepin County, no demanufacturing fee was charged because the county is the demanufacturer. However, it seems logical that a demanufacturer would assess a fee over the long term since in­ kind services are not economically feasible for a demanufacturer. This fee would be a function of the amount of equipment taken in and the estimated revenue share and associated costs that could be obtained from that equipment. It is possible that, as the yield from the collected equipment increases and the demanufacturer begins to offset its costs, this fee could decrease over time. 5.3 THE COLLECTION AGENCY Costs related to the setup, operation, and maintenance of an EEE waste collection program can vary, depending on the type of collection model that is in place. Most of these varying costs are directly incurred by the collection agency. For the collection agency, the program cost and demanufacturing fee appear to be the elements most affecting the net economics of their program. A user fee for service can also be evaluated on a site­ specific basis. In the following figure, the arrows leading out of the box labeled "Collection Agency" indicate the types of costs that a collection agency can incur from the organization and operation of an EEE waste collection program. The degree to which each of these individual costs affects the total cost for the program depends on the type of collection model. The costs range from short­ term (up­ front costs) to long­ term (operational costs), and can be highly variable. Unlike the demanufacturer, the collection agency does not have many options available to offset these costs, except possibly from the implementation of a user fee (the arrow leading into the box). All of these issues will be discussed in the following sections. page 56 Transport Costs Up Front Costs Operational Costs * Collection Labor * Collection Transport * Promotion * Equipment Maintenance * Storage * Program Staff * Property Acquisition * Facility Construction/ Acquisition * Collection Equipment * Program Promotion * Transport to the Demanufacturer User Fees Participant Revenue from Demanufacturing Collection Agency Demanufacturing Fees Demanufacturer Disposal Costs Demanfacturing Costs Figure 12: Cost and Revenue Streams for the Collection Agency 5.3.1 Role The collection agency plays the central role in the design of a collection program since it organizes the program around its own needs and motivations. Prior to beginning the design and implementation of a program, the collection agency determines its overall goal. Determining the goal requires formulating not only the motivation (the `why') behind the collection program but also the `what to collect' and "how much to collect." The following table recaps what was covered in Section 3, and also outlines some of the motivations behind setting up a collection program. Table 37: Motivation Behind Collection Programs: Summary Table Motivation for the Program Program 1. Feasibility of a program (CSI sponsored), resource conservation, Source Reduction Binghamton/ Somerville; San Jose 2. Source reduction, removal of heavy metals from MSW stream going to incinerator, resource conservation Hennepin County; Union County 3. General community interest in recycling Hennepin County; Naperville; Somerville (post­ pilot), Binghamton (post­ pilot), San Jose (post­ pilot) 4. Reduction in landfilled material, resource conservation Naperville/ Wheaton 5. Interest from / involvement with a demanufacturer Naperville/ Wheaton Not all of these motivations are relevant to all collection agencies; e. g., the removal of heavy metals from incinerator emissions and ash is of less concern to a community that landfills all of its waste. page 57 It is interesting to note that all three of the CSI­ sponsored events will be continuing. Since the impetus behind the continuation is public interest, it is possible that, over time, the net cost per pound collected will decrease for each of these programs. While there are various motivations behind the creation of a program, there are essentially only three drivers behind "what to collect": the economic value of equipment, the environmental impact/ toxicity of equipment, and the volume of equipment. Economic value drives the collection program only if the collection agency is the demanufacturer or if the demanufacturer's participation is dependent on the value received from the items collected. A discussion of items to collect for economic reasons is covered in Section 5.2.3.2. For the programs concerned about the potential environmental burdens of EEE waste, the Union County and Hennepin County programs indicated that the items to target are those that contain metals such as cadmium, mercury, and lead. More specifically, these programs focused on: · TVs · Monitors · computers · VCRs · keyboards · copiers · microwaves · audio/ stereo equipment · telephones Finally, if the motivation is to reduce the amount of material that is landfilled, large volumes of equipment, such as TVs, monitors, computers, and microwaves, should be targeted. Of course, to reduce the volume as much as possible, all available EEE waste should be collected. The final element for a collection agency to consider, or "how much to collect," should be based both on how much the demanufacturer can accept, and what equipment exists within the community. As was outlined earlier, once the efficiency threshold of a demanufacturer is reached, additional inflows of equipment require additional manpower. If collecting as much equipment as possible is the goal, the collection agency will need to consider the storage requirements for excess equipment. This is the case in Hennepin County, where, if the secondary smelter or any other end market shuts down, it must store the collected equipment until the demand for equipment resumes. MOTIVATIONS FOR COLLECTION: HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE For Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) collection programs, one of the greatest benefits may be the fact that consumers are educated on HHW issues. According to a spokesperson for a hazardous waste handling firm, GSX Chemical Services, Inc "it is difficult to change peoples' behavior through public service announcements or pamphlets, …collection programs are attractive, and receive a lot of media attention". This implies that collection programs have an inherent value in that they change people's behavior. The implementation of a collection program for EEE waste not only reduces the electronics in the MSW flow, but it also makes people aware of the importance of the issue and the benefits of recycling in general. SOURCE: The Costs and Benefits of Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs, Paddock, T., Academy of Natural Sciences, October 1989. page 58 One important tool for determining "what" and "how much" to collect is a survey of the participating community. For example, if the participating community consists of predominately low­ income residents, implementing a collection program that selectively targets computers will not likely return the greatest yield. Therefore, it is useful to determine what equipment exists in the community, and what volume is available. Unfortunately, the programs that were examined did not give much insight into the role of demographics in determining participation rates and the volume of equipment collected. All the same, it is suggested that the demographics of the community, as well as the existing solid waste infrastructure, be taken into account before the planning of a collection program. 5.3.2 Costs – Influence of Collection Method The costs related to the method of collection are of interest to collection agencies considering an EEE waste collection program. These costs can be broken down into three categories: up­ front, operational, and transport costs. Each of these categories is defined below. 5.3.2.1 Up­ front Costs The up­ front, or setup, costs are the expenditures needed before the operation of a collection program. These costs can potentially include: § Promotion of the event and public education on the program; § Staff; § Equipment acquisition; § Building construction; and § Land acquisition. These are one­ time outlays needed to cover the necessary infrastructure and setup for a program. Over time, these outlays are minimal in comparison to the operational costs. These costs are not all necessary; among the five EEE waste collection programs that were examined, only promotional costs were accounted for. In fact, the last three elements, equipment acquisition, building construction, and land acquisition are not likely to be costs that a collection agency will incur since no community would build an EEE waste collection program from scratch. They are included merely to give an idea of some of the potential costs. 5.3.2.2 Operational Costs These costs cover the expenses of collecting, sorting, and storing the equipment, but exclude demanufacturing. They include: § Collection labor; § Collection transportation; § Additional publicity; § Storage; § Equipment maintenance; and § Waste management. The operating expenses for a collection program are driven by the price of labor. The more manpower hours required collecting equipment, the greater the program cost. These labor costs can be reduced through the use of volunteer labor to cover traffic direction, vehicle unloading, equipment sorting, and the like. Additional publicity costs will undoubtedly be necessary throughout the life of the collection program. Operational costs relating to transportation, storage, and maintenance are dependent on the choice of collection model. The more action that is required by a collection agency to collect equipment, the higher these operational costs can be. page 59 One consideration that a collection agency should keep in mind is the potential to collect equipment that may need special management. Such is that case in Hennepin County where equipment containing PCBs, older batteries and mercury switches frequently are collected. The waste management costs, depending on regulations governing the material, can potentially be high. 5.3.2.3 Transportation Costs Transportation costs relate to the expense of transporting equipment to demanufacturing facilities. The experience pulled from these examples is that the distance that items are transported is highly variable, and is dependent on the demanufacturing scheme. Considering that the number of demanufacturers in a community may be very small, the transportation portion of the costs can have significant impacts on the net cost. While the collection agency cannot generally control the transportation distance, they can control the size of the load, which can have an effect on the transportation costs per pound. 5.3.2.4 Different Collection Models The following sections examine the relationship between different collection models and the cost categories that were outlined above. The collection models each have a range of up­ front, operational and transportation costs that depend on the specific structures of the programs. That is to say that not every drop­ off event is going to be the same. The discussion also presents a number of the perceived advantages and barriers to the implementation of each particular model ¨ Drop­ off Events A drop­ off event is a one­ day event that is usually held over a weekend to maximize resident participation. The event generally is organized using existing municipal facilities (e. g., a parking lot, waste collection facility) and the up­ front costs can be negligible. Publicity for the event is paramount since participation seems to require substantial advance warning of the event. The expense of this publicity depends on the size of the community, as well as the opportunities for free publicity. Volunteer participation during the event-for sorting, unloading, and stacking ­ can make operational costs minimal. Without volunteer help, the operating cost depends on the local labor rate and the turnout for the event. The transportation costs can vary greatly (see the transportation cost difference between Somerville and Binghamton) depending on the location of a suitable demanufacturer. Barriers to the effectiveness of this model: · Since the event is held on one day, ineffective or insufficient publicity can result in lower participation than is expected and desired. · The timing of the event is essential to avoid creating conflicts with other events that might have a large attendance. · Participation could be low if citizens are not used to participating in drop­ off events for other recyclables. · Work tasks for volunteers must be restricted to reduce potential liabilities (i. e., volunteers do not do any heavy lifting). Advantages of this model: · The up­ front costs for this event can be low. · The amount of material collected can be high, for a short amount of time. ¨ Regional Approach page 60 Using the regional approach, multiple communities host coordinated events on a rotating basis. This is essentially the same as a drop­ off event. The costs are similar to those for a drop­ off event, except that the participating collection agencies share the costs. Barriers to the effectiveness of this model: · The distribution of costs related to participation can be unequal since not all communities may contribute the same amount of items to the collection. · Rotating the location of the event may reduce participation if residents do not want to drive too far to drop off their EEE waste. · Work tasks for volunteers must be restricted to reduce potential liabilities (i. e., volunteers do not do any heavy lifting). Advantages of this model: · There are economies of scale for the regional approach compared to the drop­ off event model, since the cost per pound collected is split among the participating communities in the regional approach. · Planning of the events is less complicated if the responsibility is shared. · There is a larger base of residents from which EEE waste can be collected. ¨ Permanent Collection Depot A permanent collection depot is essentially a year­ round collection event. The up­ front costs could be high for this model if the depot is developed solely for EEE waste. However, this is not likely to be the case since acquiring land, constructing a storage facility, and hiring staff are too costly for the small yield that would come from EEE waste collection. Normally the program would co­ locate with a collection site for other items (glass, HHW, MSW), which would result in negligible up­ front costs. The same principle would apply to operational costs. There are no costs for collection, but other operational costs, such as sorting of the materials and utilities would be split among the multiple materials. The transportation costs, of course, depend on the location of the demanufacturer relative to the collection site. Barriers to the effectiveness of this model: · The size of the community may not warrant the extra expense of year­ round collection. · The collection of data relative to the demographics of the participants and the type of equipment that is dropped off may require staff, which would increase operational costs. Advantages of this model: · Equipment can be collected year round, which could produce higher annual yields than would occur during periodic events; however, there was insufficient data to understand how much the yield would be affected. THE BENEFITS OF PERMANENT FACILITIES: HHW COLLECTION EXPERIENCES Some communities in the United States are moving away from typical one­ day collections for HHW and moving toward permanent centers that can accept the collected material. Experience from HHW programs indicates that permanent programs are more efficient because a person with waste can get rid of it properly when they have it, instead of having to wait until the next collection day. Permanent centers may also be cheaper in the long run because liaisons can be established for the reuse and recycling of wastes such as paint and used oil. The experience from HHW collection may help guide the development of programs for EEE waste collection. SOURCE: Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Management, Dana Duxbury & Associates, Andover, MA, November, 1990. page 61 · The collection model is more convenient for residents, who can drop off material when they prefer to do so. · Economies of scale are possible since costs are reduced as the amount of equipment collected increases over time. ¨ Curbside Collection The curbside collection model consists of the collection of EEE waste either on a periodic basis or by request. Beginning a curbside collection model from scratch would result in substantial up­ front costs; however, the presence in the community of a curbside program for MSW or other recyclables would allow for an allocation of these up­ front costs among the various programs. Publicity costs could be low as well since the presence of an existing program would indicate that the residents were aware of a collection program. Considering the small percentage of residential solid waste that consists of EEE waste, construction of a curbside collection program solely for these items would not make sense. Coexistence of the EEE waste collection with an existing curbside collection program could also substantially reduce the operational costs, assuming that EEE waste collection occurs at the same time as the collection of other items. Transportation costs, as with the other collection models, vary depending on the location of the demanufacturing facility. Barriers to the effectiveness of this model: · Equipment sitting on the curb could potentially be stolen for parts, with any remaining material being thrown away. This would certainly affect yield from the demanufacturing. · Even if the operation of the collection program coincides with the collection of other material, operational costs can be much higher than for other collection models. Advantages of this model: · Curbside pickup minimizes the "hassle" for residents, especially if they are used to curbside collection for other recyclables. · Residents without transportation can more easily participate in the collection program. ¨ Point­ of­ Purchase (Retail) Collection The point­ of­ purchase collection model implies that a retailer covers the costs for the collection and storage of EEE waste. Therefore, the only up­ front costs for the collection agency consist of those for event publicity. Operational costs are minimal for a collection agency since a retailer's employees handle the operation. The transportation costs can vary, depending on the location of the retailer relative to the demanufacturer. This cost could increase if the retailer is not be able to set aside adequate storage space for the collected material and more frequent collections are required. Barriers to the effectiveness of this model: · The active participation of the retailer is essential to ensure good resident participation. · Collection of data on participation is dependent on the retailer, who may not be able to collect the information. · Logistical issues (storage space, collection from participants, etc.) can complicate the implementation. Advantages of this model: · The collection agency has low up­ front and operational costs. · There is the potential for a high yield, as was indicated by from the results of the San Jose pilot. · The promotion of the program by retailers ensures high visibility. page 62 ¨ Combined/ Coordinated Collection Methods: This model is a combination of the various other collection models: drop­ off events, curbside collection, permanent drop­ off collection, and point­ of­ purchase drop­ off. The costs of such a program is really just the sum of the costs of the individual models, so the net cost for the combined collection model should be higher than for a singular method. This approach is good when maximum coverage is desired and there is a suitable population to support the mix of models, such as in Hennepin County. Barriers to the effectiveness of this model: · The economies of scale are uncertain. · The large scale of this model requires a large population to be viable. Advantages of this model: · The gaps created by one collection model can be filled by another model– i. e., residents who are far from a drop­ off facility can participate in a local drop­ off event. · The regime allows for year­ round collection of EEE waste. · The combination may be good for a collection agency that has inhabitants spread over a large area. Taking into consideration the analysis presented above on categories of cost, it is difficult to determine the most economical collection model. In fact, the choice of a model really hinges upon the goals of the program, the existing infrastructure for collection, and the demanufacturing capacity, rather than which model costs the least to run. The following is a table summarizing the barriers and advantages of each collection model, as presented above. Table 38: Summary of Advantages and Barriers to Collection Models Collection Model Barriers Advantages Drop­ off Events · Ineffective or insufficient publicity can result in low participation. · Conflicts with other events may affect participation. · Residents unfamiliarity with drop­ off events can affect participation. · Low up­ front costs. · Short timeframe but high collection amount. Regional Approach · Potential unequal distribution of costs among communities. · Economies of scale over single community drop­ off event model. · Planning of the events is shared. · Larger base of residents to participate. Permanent Collection Depot · Not effective for every community size. · Need for staff may increase operational costs. · Year­ round collection of equipment. · Convenient for most residents. · Economies of scale are possible. Curbside Collection · Potential of theft of equipment for parts, and then abandonment. · Minimal hassle for residents. accustomed to curbside collection. page 63 · Operational costs can be higher than other models. · Residents without transportation can more easily participate. Point of Purchase (Retail) Collection · Retailers active participation is essential. · Retailer may not be able to collect the data on participation. · Logistical issues. · Low up­ front and operational costs for the collection agency. · Promotion of the program by retailers ensures high `visibility. ' Combined/ Coordinated Collection Methods · The economies of scale are uncertain. · Requires large population to be viable. · The gaps created by one model can be filled by another model. · Year­ round collection is possible. · Good if inhabitants are spread over a large area. 5.3.3 Minimizing Costs The collection agency has some opportunities to minimize the cost of the collection that are not directly dependent on the collection model. The following points are relevant to nearly all collection models. Use of Volunteers: Using volunteers to assist with collection labor can be cost effective in that it reduces operational costs and allows more of the budget to be used for publicizing the program. The key to the effective use of volunteers is to clearly train them on their duties. This is especially true for volunteers who are charged with sorting equipment. Ineffective sorting could increase the cost of demanufacturing since the sorting would have to be done at the demanufacturing facility, which is not efficient. On the downside, liability issues related to the use of volunteers must be examined. Assistance with Publicity: The promotion of a collection event or program is essential to getting the maximum yield of EEE waste. The community newsletter, local chamber of commerce publications, and newspapers can be sources of free publicity. This will not only reduce the up­ front costs but also promote the program to a wide audience. As an example, the news conference put on by the OFFSETTING COSTS: HHW COLLECTION EXPERIENCES Some communities have imposed user fees to create a fund for the management of HHW. However, these fees can be a deterrent to participation since residents in many states can legally throw HHW in the trash. In Anchorage, Alaska, for example, when the modest drop­ off fee for HHW is waived during the month of May, the participation among residents jumps dramatically. Rather than implement user fees, some states have instituted specific taxes for HHW programs. In New Hampshire, a tax on hazardous waste generators funds matching grants to communities for HHW collection. Retailers in Iowa selling products covered under a state shelf labeling law pay a $25 registration fee that covers HHW program costs. Since it is legal to dispose of EEE waste in many states, the implementation of a user fee may lead to experiences similar to those for HHW collections. The experiences from HHW management programs should be considered when cost reduction options are examined. SOURCE: Household Hazardous Waste Mangement: A Manual for One­ Day Community Collection Programs. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, US page 64 U. S. EPA during the San Jose pilot received a large amount of free coverage from local papers and television stations, which sparked a surge in resident participation. Piggybacking on Existing Recycling Program: The existing waste collection infrastructure can make the setup costs of a curbside or permanent EEE waste collection program negligible. Operational costs can also be shared among the various collection programs, making the long­ term collection of EEE waste more feasible. In a number of communities in Union County, the curbside collection program is held in conjunction with the curbside collection of bulk items, which leads to lower collection costs than would occur if the collection were solely for EEE waste. In addition, piggybacking on programs that residents are already familiar with can help to boost the participation rate for the program. Formulating a Relationship with a Demanufacturer: Most demanufacturers, at least over the long­ term operation of a program, will charge a fee for demanufacturing services. However, if a demanufacturer becomes an integral part of the design of a collection program, it may be possible to convince that company to reduce or split any fee that they would charge. A demanufacturer would benefit from this through the ready access to a constant flow of equipment and the promotion of residential collection programs. The more collection programs that come into existence over the long run, the greater the potential economies of scale for a demanufacturer. 5.3.4 Revenue Unless a collection agency has direct control over the demanufacturing scheme, they generally have little ability to generate revenue from a collection program. One exception is through the implementation of user fees. User fees refer to charging the participant a set fee per pound or per item of equipment that is dropped off. The effectiveness of such a tool is highly dependent on the population's desire to recycle. User fees in a community with low interest in recycling may have a deleterious effect on the overall participation rate. For example, the Binghamton pilot implemented user fees ($ 2 per vehicle) during their first collection event, for which turnout was noticeably low – only 47 households out of 25,000. The user fee was abandoned during the second event, and turnout improved substantially – 128 households, of which only 10 had participated in the first event. However, whether this user fee was a disincentive to participation or not is unclear since there were other mitigating factors (the climate, construction, etc.) that affected the first event and not the second event. It is interesting to note that a high percentage of program participants surveyed in Binghamton and Somerville (over 80% in each community) indicated their willingness to pay between $1 and $5 to dispose of their EEE waste. There are some issues to consider before implementing a user fee, particularly what alternative residents might have to paying the fee. Anecdotal data from the collection programs highlighted in Section 3 indicates that much of the EEE waste is either stored in the home because of some presumed economic value (e. g., an old computer) or is disposed of via the residential solid waste stream. These choices are relatively easy for a resident to make, especially for someone who is not overly concerned about recycling. Paying a fee for disposal can be seen as a more difficult choice to make. 23 5.3.5 Avoided Costs 23 A number of municipalities charge fees for tire or appliance disposal, which may be more viable because unwanted appliances and car tires take up large amounts of space and disposing of them in the trash is normally not an option. page 65 Up to this point, the discussion of costs and revenue has focused on costs that were incurred either by the collection agency or the demanufacturer. There are, however, additional costs that are not easily quantifiable. These are termed the avoided costs. Avoided costs are defined as the reduction in costs of one MSW activity or path that results from use of a different MSW activity or path. Typically, avoided cost implies the reduction in the costs of collecting, transferring, transporting, and landfilling MSW that results from source reduction, recycling, composting, or waste­ to­ energy. The value of the avoided costs is dependent on whether the focus is on (1) specific MSW activities or paths, (2) the total costs of the entire system, (3) near­ term marginal changes, or (4) longer­ term major changes in the MSW program. 24 If the focus of an assessment of avoided costs is merely a comparison of specific waste management activities, in this case EEE waste recycling and landfilling, then it is incorrect to assume that the cost per pound of the recycling should be subtracted from the avoided cost of landfilling to calculate a `net cost' of recycling. That is, if the net cost for recycling is $100 per ton and the net cost of disposal is $90 per ton, then it is incorrect to say that the net cost of recycling is $10 per ton, taking into account the avoided cost of $90 per ton. The full costs per ton of recycling are not affected by any resulting avoided cost of landfilling. From this point of view, avoided costs for these programs cannot realistically be calculated. However, if avoided costs are looked at on a larger scale, lower landfilling costs could occur as a result of the diversion of waste via an EEE waste collection program over a period of time. Over the long term, the recycling of EEE waste will reduce the collection agency's total outlay for landfilling. The reduction in total landfilling or incineration fees can be quantified; this value is the avoided cost. These avoided costs should not be considered as revenue, however, since they do not necessarily reduce the total costs of MSW management or the fees and taxes that residents must pay for solid waste management. Even though the avoided costs for an EEE waste collection program should not be viewed in terms of the waste management costs that are offset, they are a good measure of the added value of a collection program. For the programs examined in Section 3, the avoided costs were associated with landfilling, whose cost per pound is small relative to that for collection and demanufacturing. However for the counties that use incineration, the avoided costs not only relate to the disposal of the ashes, but also to the avoided pollution. Both Union County and Hennepin County initiated their EEE waste collection program based on their desire to reduce and eventually eliminate the environmental impacts of heavy metals in their incinerator ash. These programs seem to have had an effect, based on the data in the following table, which shows the calculated concentration of heavy metals in MSW, based on metals in the ash residue and air emissions. However, the specific contribution of the demanufacturing program to these reductions has not been calculated. Table 39: Changes in Metal Concentration for Union County Incinerator Ash Period Cd (mg/ kg) Pb (mg/ kg) Hg (mg/ kg) Baseline Feb 94 to Nov 96 6.49 210.1 2.46 24 Full Cost Accounting for Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Handbook. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. September 1997. EPA 530­ R95 041. pp. 52­ 55. page 66 Since Debut of Collections Dec 96 to Aug 97 5.43 141.27 2.15 Apr 97 to Feb 98 3.75 117.41 2.22 Disposal of incinerator ash is controlled via Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure analysis that is used to determine whether or not a material is hazardous. The tipping fee for incinerator ash is dependent on this determination. Disposal of ash is typically more expensive than disposal in a solid waste landfill and the avoided costs will reflect this. Removing toxic constituents (e. g., EEE waste containing lead or cadmium) from the MSW stream may reduce the toxicity of the ash, and subsequently lead to lower management and disposal costs. 5.3.6 The Collection Agency and Demanufacturing Just as there are drivers for a collection agency to develop an EEE waste collection program, there also are drivers that determine how the collected equipment should be demanufactured. a collection agency may take two approaches. The first is a private sector approach, which was the approach used in four of the case studies. The second is a public sector approach whose drivers are not solely economic. Both of these approaches are outlined below. Private Sector: The pilots have a unique relationship with the demanufacturer providing in­ kind services or being subsidized by grant funding. More typically, a collection agency would enter a contractual relationship with a local demanufacturer. Ideally this relationship would allow the collection agency to transfer the collected equipment for free or even receive a portion of the revenue yield. However, it is more likely that there will be a fee based upon the volume or weight of equipment that is accepted. In this situation, the net costs for the collection agency would depend on those costs that are associated with the collection of the items. It is not known what a demanufacturer would actually charge a collection agency for accepting EEE waste since not enough data was available. Public Sector/ Non­ profit: This approach is the development of a public sector program to cover the demanufacturing of equipment. This could entail, for instance, the creation of a job­ training program for lower­ income residents or outsourcing of work to an association for the handicapped. Creating jobs and promoting job training are clear advantages to this approach. Another benefit is that any revenue from the demanufactured material can go toward offsetting the program costs. Additionally, it is possible that funding from social programs could offset some of the cost of this labor. The difficulty with this method for most collection agencies is that they will bear all of the costs that were originally covered by the demanufacturer. As was pointed out earlier, demanufacturing costs are a substantial portion of the net costs for collection programs. The additional financial burden might be too large for most small­ and medium­ sized collection programs. The following factors also influence the development of an EEE waste collection program: Government Regulations Regarding CRTs: The designation of some CRTs as hazardous waste by the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, may limit the viability of an EEE waste collection program since items containing CRTs seem to make up a large portion of the total number of items collected. These regulations can affect the implementation of a program since permit requirements for the handling of hazardous waste restrict the page 67 number of firms that can recycle CRTs. This leads to higher overall demanufacturing costs because of high transportation and permitting costs if a remote demanufacturer is used. In the absence of an available demanufacturer to handle CRTs, the material will need to be disposed of by other means. While this is the current situation for CRTs, some changes are occurring that may remove this barrier. In early 1999, the U. S. EPA expects to propose a rule under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act that may streamline the requirements for managing CRTs while retaining controls to protect human health and the environment. The rule will also specify that once the CRT glass is processed such as to be usable as a raw material in CRT glass manufacturing, it is not subject to hazardous waste regulations (Appendix A). In addition, states have adopted their own policies and regulations for CRT management. Limited Market for Demanufactured Material: The quality and type of the equipment gathered in residential collections may also limit the market for recovered material. Currently, many local demanufacturers do not want to manage TVs. A large amount of the material that is recovered is plastic, which at the moment has little economic value compared to most of the other materials that are extracted. Additionally, few OEMs are willing to accept recycled material for use in their production processes. This is mainly due to incompatibility between different types of plastics, technical difficulties in sorting plastics, and problems with matching the colors of recycled and virgin material. In addition, some materials are a cost to market, including CRTs and lowgrade boards, as well as the plastics. 5.3.7 Retailers Retailers are crucial in the implementation of a point­ of­ purchase collection program, which, as presented in the case study, is really a partnership between retailers and government agencies. In this type of collection model, the retailer acts as the collection agency. The retailer absorbs many of the operational costs associated with the collection program, such as labor for sorting and storage costs. This shift allows the cooperating government agencies to focus on increasing participation to generate greater yields. Full cooperation is essential between the retailer and the interested government agencies to forge a public/ private partnership. For the retailer, there are number of benefits to participating in the collection program, namely: · An inflow of potential customers who are disposing of used equipment;. · A source of spare parts for equipment repair; · Positive public relations – a "green" image; and · Free publicity for the store via the collection agency's promotion of the event. The benefits retailers receive from this cooperation obviously depend on the participation rate for the program. Therefore full coordination with the collection agency is in the retailer's best interest. In San Jose, the extensive publicity from the press conference had a marked effect on participation, which reflects an overall positive local attitude towards EEE waste collection in the area. The positive attitude of the public has motivated one the participating chains (Fry's Electronics) to continue the program at a number of its other stores. page 68 5.4 THE PARTICIPANT Transport Costs User Fees Disposal Costs Participant Up Front Costs Operational Costs Revenue from Demanufacturing Collection Agency Demanufacturing Fees Demanufacturer Demanfacturing Costs Figure 13: Cost and Revenue Streams for the Participant Participants are essential to a collection program since strong resident turnout is vital for a program to generate sufficient amounts of equipment. A participant's involvement usually comes without any cost burden, aside from the situation where there is a user fee for the drop off of equipment (see discussion in Section 5.3.4). However, a free recycling program is not in and of itself a motivator for participation. Resident participation depends on more qualitative elements such as a predisposition toward recycling or adequate publicity for the program. Some elements that may motivate a resident to participate may include: · Easy access to events or drop­ off facilities; · Timing of the event to avoid poor weather or conflicting events (to the degree possible); · Coordination of the event with other collection programs such as for tires, books, or bulky items; and · Incentives, such as discount coupons for the purchase of new electronics or electrical equipment made available when equipment is dropped off. The most important driver for participation is the promotion of the collection program; awareness is fundamental to a program's effectiveness. The programs that were profiled in Section 3 used a variety of methods to ensure that there was sufficient public knowledge of the event. These methods included (not an exhaustive list): · Door hangers; · Flyers sent to area schools; · Articles promoting the program in local community newsletters; · Newspaper coverage; and · Flyers added to government employees' paychecks. One of the methods that seemed to have the most impact on participation was the staging of a press conference in San Jose, which resulted in both television and newspaper coverage of the pilot. This allowed the program to reach a wide range of potential participants. The free press from this event provided a real boost to the collection event, which up to that point had collected no equipment. Whether any collection agency can duplicate the effectiveness of such an event is uncertain, however, since there were a number of dignitaries present at the San Jose publicity event that helped boost the coverage of the event. page 69 According to a number of the collection program coordinators, one of the keys to effective publicity for a collection event is planning. This is certainly the case for drop­ off events when a specific date has set aside for the collection. The experience of the San Jose pilot is that the lack of adequate publicity before the beginning of the event led to the zero yield during the first week. 5.5 OTHER STAKEHOLDERS The previous sections outlined the roles that the collection agency, demanufacturer, and participant play in the development of an EEE waste collection program. Beyond these three essential stakeholders are some other actors who can have an effect on the design and function of an EEE waste collection program. 5.5.1 Government In the context of this analysis, the federal government sponsored the discussion of EEE waste management programs under the Common Sense Initiative­ Computer and Electronics Sector. However, no formal policy recommendation has been made at this time. In addition, a number of states are currently considering banning the landfilling of EEE waste or CRTs. Such a regulation would lead to the need for alternative waste management practices for such materials. This may actually force many communities to quickly implement programs that end up being costly to them in the short­ term. The advantage may be that over time, an increase in the number of collection programs will lead to economies of scale as more demanufacturing firms are created to meet the demand for labor. 5.5.2 Private Industry For the Union County program, Sharp Electronics, Lucent Technologies, Panasonic, and the Electronic Industries Alliance all provided in­ kind support for the design and implementation of the pilots. However, aside from this program, private industry 25 did not play a direct role in the development of the EEE waste collection programs. Rather its influence has been on the upstream and downstream ends of the collection model, i. e., during the manufacturing of equipment, through the purchasing of recycled material, or in developing the demanufacturing sector to manage off­ specification or return products. However, the Union County experience indicates that private industry will work directly with a collection agency to assist with the design and implementation of a collection program. Private industry could also become the collection agency via equipment take­ back schemes, although the economics of this collection model is outside the scope of the study. Private industry's indirect impacts are examined below. Upstream Impacts: 25 Private industry is includes Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), their suppliers and primary materials manufacturers. page 70 Changes in both consumer demand and technology can affect the lifespan of consumer equipment. While some of the EEE waste collected was mechanically sound, the technology was obsolete or undesirable, making reuse at end­ of­ life less viable than demanufacturing or disposal. Considering this, private industry has the greatest potential to make an impact on the end­ of­ life of this kind of waste by affecting the disassembly of the equipment. A modification in manufacturing methods, such as minimizing the number of fasteners in an item, could lead to a reduction in the amount of time required to demanufacture equipment. This reduction in time would eventually result in a decrease in the cost of demanufacturing. Another production change that would assist the recycling of EEE waste would be the use of fewer heavy metal components in equipment. This could also have the effect of reducing many of the environmental concerns about landfilling or incinerating EEE waste. Realistically, however, OEMs and their suppliers face some limitations in how their equipment and components are designed. These upstream changes would not have an immediate impact; current changes in manufacturing will not affect collections for a number of years because of the time lag between equipment purchase and disposal. Over the long­ term, however, the impact on the net costs of such a collection program would be favorable. Downstream Impacts: The most direct effect that private industry (predominantly parts suppliers and primary material producers) has on an EEE waste collection program is through the purchase of recycled material and parts. The market for some of the materials that are extracted from electronics is governed by demand from companies that produce the parts or the materials used in electronics or electrical equipment. Demand, however, is affected by concerns about the quality and quantity of the extracted material. In fact, it has become a Catch­ 22 since the insufficient supply of a recycled material leads to low demand by private industry, which in turn leads to fewer demanufacturers and less output of material. For private industry to assist in the expansion of EEE waste collection programs, demand for the recycled material needs to be increased. With the expansion of EEE waste collection programs, the supply of useful material will at least be guaranteed. EEE WASTE COLLECTION AND PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY IN EUROPE Currently in the European Union there are discussions as to what role OEMs should play in the collection of EEE waste. Debates on a new directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment initially focused on placing most of the financial burdens of collection and demanufacturing on equipment producers. However, current plans have changed to place the burden of residential EEE waste collection on municipalities, while OEMs would still be obligated to accept the collected equipment. Although this directive has not yet been finalized, the current debate indicates that the approach to EEE waste collection in Europe is to incorporate OEMs into the process, which will distribute the costs of the collection program. SOURCE: Product Stewardship Advisor, Cutter Information Corp., September 4, 1998. page 71 6. CONCLUSION The focus of this report is to examine different collection programs and develop some general conclusions about the dynamics of an EEE waste collection program. All five of the case studies provided a large amount of information on demanufacturing costs, publicity, the volume of materials collected, etc., and although no clear picture was formed as to the best collection method, some general conclusions were reached. The precision of these conclusions, however, is limited by the data that was available. The following sections cover data gaps, future areas of research, and the general conclusions. 6.1 DATA GAPS AND FUTURE RESEARCH One reason that a more in­ depth assessment of these collection programs was not possible is that the data that was gathered for the study was not uniform. As was mentioned at the beginning of Section 4, the net cost for these programs was calculated using both demanufacturing and collection program costs. The advantage of this approach is that it gives a better picture of the true cost of managing such a program. The disadvantage is that costs that are specific to the collection agency or the demanufacturer are hidden in this net cost value. Therefore, it was difficult to break out what specific costs were the drivers for the program. To provide for a more concise analysis in the future, the data gaps should be filled in. This would require more specific data from the collection agency on the following costs: · Up­ front costs – · Publicity · Staff; · Operational costs – · Staff time allocated to the program · Costs of publicity for a program, including work that is completed in­ house · Maintenance costs for facilities; · Transportation to the demanufacturer; · Fees paid to the demanufacturer (aside from transportation costs); and · Ultimate disposal practices including CRT export for demanufacture and disposal. This additional data would provide the collection agency with a clearer assessment of the real costs associated with the implementation of a collection program. This detailed information would also allow a collection agency to track the progress of its collection program. The limitations on data also prevented an analysis of the effects that economies of scale can have on a program. With the existence of economies of scale, the expansion of a local collection program either in participation, frequency of events, or volume collected would result in a reduction in the net cost per pound collected. While this seems intuitively correct, there was not enough long­ term data available to confirm that greater size leads to lower expenses. Data on changes in the program costs during the growth of a program would also be needed to accurately determine the effect of program size. Determining the effects of economies of scale would be important in helping to define the appropriate size of a collection program for a community. Aside from the evident data gaps, there were a couple of areas of research, outside the scope of this report, that would provide information useful in the implementation of a residential EEE waste collection program. page 72 One area is an analysis of the potential markets for many of the materials that are extracted from EEE waste. This would certainly be useful in the case of plastics, since a lot of the engineered plastics that are generated from EEE waste have no value in the marketplace. An analysis of potential markets for these secondary materials would allow a collection agency to determine whether the revenue from the extracted material may offset more of the program costs. Parallel to this would be analysis of the equipment that was collected, and cost and revenue associated with each type of equipment. The results could be useful in structuring a collection program. Unfortunately, much of the data necessary for such a study was unavailable for this report. An assessment of the environmental impact of EEE waste was also beyond the scope of this study, but could be useful in calculating the avoided or added costs associated with a collection program. It could also indicate what equipment a program should target. Considering that all of the collection programs operated at a net cost, more data on avoided costs could provide more complete information on the relative costs or benefits of initiating a collection program. An environmental life cycle assessment could also be useful in presenting the environmental trade­ offs that exist for different EEE waste management options. Finally, an investigation into the value of the regulation of demanufacturers could be another subject for future research. Representatives from both Hennepin County and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection have indicated that demanufacturers may be tempted to accept EEE waste and store it in warehouses, without having legitimate markets for the extracted materials. While there was no indication from the five case studies that this could be the case, the potential exists if EEE waste collection becomes a mandate in some areas. 6.2 CONCLUSIONS While these differences in net costs among programs would seem to imply that some programs were more successful than others, differences in how the data was collected and provided for each programs makes such a judgment difficult. However, while making a comparison between these programs is not possible based a comparison of the net costs, it was still possible to use this data to make a limited assessment of the economics and dynamics of these collection programs: Ø The net costs of the programs were driven by the demanufacturing costs; the operational costs for many of the case studies were either not accounted for or very small. However, since a number of these collection programs were pilots, this may not be the case for programs operating over longer periods. Ø In terms of pounds of material collected per resident, the curbside collection programs appeared to be more efficient than the other collection models, while the one­ day collection events appeared to the least efficient. More and better collection data is necessary to confirm this. Ø In contrast to the previous point, the number of items collected per dollar of collection program cost was higher for the curbside events than for the other collection models. This was evidently due to the high transportation costs associated with collection. For the one­ day collection events, the cost per item collected was lower than the other collection models. However, the one­ day collection events that were studied did not incur any operating costs, which would likely narrow the differences between the two collection models. Ø A weighted average of all of the collection programs indicates that over 75% of the equipment that was collected fell into five categories: 36% of the items were televisions, 16% consisted of audio page 73 and stereo equipment, 11% were monitors, 8% were computers and CPUs, and 6% were VCRs. The remaining equipment consisted of keyboards (5%), printers (4%), telephones (3%), peripherals (1%), microwaves (1%), and miscellaneous other equipment (9%). Ø The residential EEE waste collected by these programs was generally outdated and in poor condition. Consequently, the material was expensive to manage and little valuable scrap was extracted from this equipment. Of the equipment that was collected, computers and CPUs provided most of material that generated revenue for the programs. Ø Items that contained CRTs (e. g., televisions and monitors) predominated in the five collection programs. Since the cost to manage these materials is quite high, the large number of CRTs had a substantial impact on the net cost values. Ø Promotion and planning of the events was essential to the effectiveness of the collection programs. This was made evident by the lack of turnout for the first week of the San Jose pilot, for which there was little prior publicity. Additionally, the first Binghamton collection event was affected by a number of factors, including a local football game that was being held at the same time. Ø There is apparent public interest in EEE waste collection programs. This is evident from the fact that the amount of equipment that was collected increased over time for all the programs that had more than one collection. In addition, the CSI­ sponsored events (Somerville, Binghamton-one day drop off model and San Jose-retail collection model) will be continuing due to the positive public reception in their communities. In addition to the specific conclusions from the analysis of these collection models, more general points were drawn from the information provided by these case studies. Since these general comments are based on qualitative information, additional research on these points would be beneficial. Ø Most demanufacturers focus exclusively on commercial EEE waste. According to Hennepin County, the low quality of the residential equipment inhibits many demanufacturers from getting involved in a residential collection program. A collection program that takes in both residential and small business waste may generate more interest from demanufacturers, simply because the quality of EEE waste may be better. Ø Total transportation, demanufacturing, and disposal costs may overwhelm all other program costs. These costs relate to the variety of material collected, local labor market, the distance required to transport materials to a demanufacturing facility, the distance to end markets, and the disposal costs of unmarketable materials. Ø The loading of heavy metals in the Municipal Solid Waste stream was a fundamental driver for the two collection programs (Union County and Hennepin County) where most of the residential solid waste stream is incinerated. The counties advocate that the removal of EEE waste from the waste stream may play an important role in reducing the heavy metal burdens in the fly and bottom ash, which can result in an indirect economic benefit for the community by lowering ash disposal fees. Ø The ultimate disposition of demanufactured materials should be evaluated to determine if these venues (e. g., glass­ to­ glass recycling, smelting, overseas disposition for CRTs) are in accordance with the objectives of the program. Ø The advantages and barriers to different collection models are such that determining the best collection method is dependent on the motivations of the collection agency. page 74 To put the current situation for these collection programs in perspective, it is useful to examine the experiences of other recycling programs. The proliferation of recycling programs in the 1980s resulted in a supply­ driven market since the infrastructure required to accept recycled materials was still in development. 26 As a result, the net cost for many of these programs remained high since there was little revenue derived from the recycled materials. In the beginning, collection of recyclables tended to run ahead of capacity, with materials being made available to the recycling marketplace independent of the demand for the materials that were recovered. This mirrors the situation for EEE residential waste recycling today. Today the issue of markets is still a critical issue. Public interest in recycling and private sector demand for products with recycled content have driven an increased industrial recycling capacity. While the capacity now exists, further market development still is needed to assure market stability and accessibility. For the collection agency involved in recycling, it is important to understand that commodity­ like marketplaces can be very volatile, sometimes demanding more scrap, sometimes demanding less scrap. Movements are traditionally difficult to predict. This volatility is driven by a number of factors. For ferrous and non­ ferrous scrap metals, the price is generally related to the value of the virgin raw materials. For paper, plastic, and glass from MSW, the relationship is less direct, since it is dependent somewhat on the quality of the material. During the recovery of typical recyclables, some contamination is evident. Consequently, the recyclables may not be of as high a quality as the market demands. The experiences collected from appliance or white goods recycling programs have some relevance to EEE waste collection. With space at a premium in the early 1990s, at least 16 states banned the disposal of white goods in landfills. This led to a jump in the recycling rate, which went from 20% in 1988 to 75% in 1995. 27 A similar growth in the recovery rate for EEE waste would not be surprising. Like EEE waste, white goods have a high initial cost, and because of their perceived value, many people simply kept their old appliances rather than disposing of them. This is apparent when you consider that the typical age at disposal is from 10 to 20 years. Many municipalities rely on curbside collection, either through appointment or on designated days, as a means of collecting this material. However, according to a representative of the Appliance Recycling Centers of America, one­ day collection events remain a popular method of collecting old units from the public. For appliance recycling, not including the use of an auto shredder, labor costs account for 84% to 86% of the total operation costs. The labor costs are insensitive to volume, and increasing throughput has a relatively minor impact on the total cost per unit. This coincides with the current situation for EEE waste demanufacturing since it is also very labor intensive. The difference between the two types of demanufacturing is the materials that are recovered. Appliances contain a lot of ferrous metals, but little else of economic value. Electronics include a number of precious metals that makes their disassembly more cost affective, especially if markets develop over time. Experiences with other types of recycling programs indicate that EEE residential waste collection programs are in their infancy, and have the potential to evolve and eventually become more cost effective. It could be expected that as these programs expand, and markets for the recovered materials grow, the net cost per pound collected should decrease. The potential economies of scale from the 26 The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management to the Year 2000. Keep America Beautiful, Inc. Stamford, CT. 1994. pp. 5­ 1 to 5­ 6. 27 Handling Difficult Materials. Waste Age. Randy Woods. May 1994. pp. 71­ 73. page 75 expansion of these programs and the creation of demanufacturing businesses will also help to reduce costs. However, considering the quality and varied nature of the collected materials, it seems likely that the costs of these programs will remain high relative to other traditional solid waste disposal methods. page 76 7 APPENDIX A: US EPA CRT RECOMMENDATION COMMON SENSE INITIATIVE (CSI) COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION ON CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) GLASS­ TO­ GLASS RECYCLING Based on in­ depth work conducted by the CSI Computers and Electronics Sector Subcommittee, the CSI Council has determined that properly conducted Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) glass­ to­ glass recycling is a cleaner, cheaper, smarter approach to waste CRT management that should be increased. To facilitate accomplishing that goal, the CSI Council recommends that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency: 1. Revise the applicable Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste management regulations to facilitate CRT glass­ to­ glass recycling as outlined in Attachment 1. The revised CRT glass­ to­ glass recycling regulations should be clear and simple to understand. The Council asks that, as appropriate, EPA discuss with members of the Computers and Electronics Sector Subcommittee any new issues that arise during rule development and implementation. 2. Complete and implement this CRT rulemaking as soon as possible, and in the intervening period, take appropriate steps to realize the environmental benefits of CRT glass­ to­ glass recycling. Finally, the CSI Council recognizes that there may be CRT glass recycling methods or end uses other than CRT manufacturing that are also cleaner, cheaper, and smarter approaches to waste CRT management. On the other hand, some recycling methods or end uses may pose risks to human health and the environment. The Computers and Electronics Subcommittee will be working to determine which recycling methods and end uses are preferable and to propose appropriate standards for such methods, but the Council is aware that the future of the Common Sense Initiative is undefined at this time. Thus, the Council asks that EPA consider any additional work completed by the Sector, and if appropriate, design the CRT glass­ to­ glass rule so that other legitimate recycling methods or end uses may be added in the future, including standards tailored to the risks and benefits of the recycling method or end use. The Council takes no position on the question of whether states should be allowed to add additional recycling methods or end uses without a prior determination by EPA. ATTACHMENT 1: COMMON SENSE INITIATIVE COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) GLASS­ TO­ GLASS RECYCLING 1. Add to the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste management regulations new standards specific to CRT glass­ to­ glass recycling which will apply in place of the standard RCRA hazardous waste requirements. These new standards are to be structured in a manner similar to the Universal Waste rule (40 CFR Part 273). The regulation will include an exclusion from the definition of solid waste clarifying that processed CRT glass28 that is to be reused in CRT glass manufacturing is not a solid waste subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations (including the new CRT standards described here). The Council recommends that EPA promulgate this exclusion because the processed CRT glass is sufficiently commodity­ like based on the following factors: 1) the degree of processing the material has undergone is such that it requires little, if any, further processing, 2) the material has economic value, 3) the material is like an analogous raw material, and 4) there is a guaranteed end market for the material. Based on the information 28 Processed CRT glass is glass that has been separated from non­ glass components (e. g., TV/ monitor plastic and metal components, implosion band, shadow mask, deflection yoke, electron gun, inner shield) and which has been cleaned to remove coatings (e. g., day, phosphors). page 77 currently available to it, the Council also believes that the material is handled to minimize loss, but requests that EPA conduct whatever investigation EPA determines is appropriate to reach a final conclusion regarding this factor. 2. The new CRT glass­ to­ glass recycling standards will explain that they apply only to materials that are currently regulated hazardous waste. However, the standards will explain that the goal is that the standards be simple enough that one infrastructure develops for voluntarily managing all CRT materials in the same system. 3. The new CRT glass­ to­ glass recycling standards will define the following three categories of regulated entities: Collectors : Persons who collect/ store whole TVS/ monitors. Within this category, some requirements will apply only to large collectors (those who store 40 tons or more (~ 4,000 units) onsite for longer than 7 consecutive days). Processors : Persons who: - intentionally break CRTs; - manage intentionally broken CRT glass or cullet; or - clean coatings (e. g., dag, phosphors) from CRT glass. Transporters: Persons who transport TVS/ monitors, whole CRTs, broken CRT glass, or cullet. Entities involved in refurbishment and disassembly of products containing CRTs (not to include taking apart the CRT 29 ) are not subject to this standard or the RCRA hazardous waste regulations (40 CFR Parts 260 through 270) (on the basis of the CRT itself) until it is determined that these materials are not repairable or reusable. EPA will consider what safeguards are necessary, if any, to address environmental concerns associated with accumulation of large volumes of CRTs. 4. The new CRT glass­ to­ glass recycling standards will include the provisions illustrated in the following Table and detailed in Annex 1. 29 EPA will consider other refurbishing activities that should be addressed in the same manner. page 78 Table 40: Provisions Applicable To CRT Glass­ To­ Glass Regulated Entities REGULATED ENTITY PROVISION Collector Processor Transporter 1. Notification large collectors only X 2. Marking (on­ site and for transport) X X 3. Storage Limit X X X 4. Shipping CRT Glass Materials large collectors only: shipments out X 5. General Performance Standard X X X 6. Prevent Releases of Glass Particulate X 7. General Good Management X X X 8. Minimize Breakage X X 9. No Cross Contamination X 10. Manage Residues Appropriately X 11. Environmental Justice Provision X 12. Package for Transport X X 13. Exports X X page 79 ANNEX 1: CRT GLASS­ TO­ GLASS RECYCLING PROVISIONS 1. Notification: One­ time notice to the agency implementing the hazardous waste regulations (EPA or the state) of company name, location, activities, etc. 2. Marking: Materials must be marked in accordance with either (1) or (2) below. (1) CSI/ CRT approach: (a) Whole TVS/ monitors visible when looking at primary packaging (container or vehicle body): no marking required. (b) TVs/ monitors, bare CRTs, and glass in packages (i. e., containers or vehicle bodies) or storage areas: mark container or storage area with the following words: "Cathode ray tubes (CRT) or CRT glass to be used in CRT glass manufacturing. Contains lead. Do not mix with other glass or materials." (2) Universal Waste approach for materials in transportation: If the state in which the shipment originated has Universal Waste marking standards (i. e., labeling with text) for the material: mark (label) the material as required under the originating state's Universal Waste program. 3. Storage Limit: Collectors ­­ 1 year + as described in 40 CFR 273.15. Processors ­­ 1+ year as described in 40 CFR 261.1( c)( 8). Transporters ­­ 10 days as described in 40 CFR 273.53. 4. Shipping CRT Materials: Maintain records for 3 years. No specified form for records. Small and large collectors ­­ may send shipments only to other collectors or to processors in CRT system. Large collectors ­­ for each outgoing shipment, keep records of quantity, date, name and address of person shipped to, and an acknowledgment of receipt from the recipient. Processors ­­ 1) all TC hazardous glass that is technically and economically usable in CRT glass manufacturing must be sent to a CRT glass manufacturer for use in CRT glass manufacturing. 2) for each incoming and outgoing shipment, keep records of quantity, date, name, and address of person shipped to, and an acknowledgment of receipt from the recipient. 3) Annually, prepare a certified statement stating that all TC hazardous glass that is technically and economically usable in CRT glass manufacturing was sent to a CRT glass manufacturer for use in CRT glass manufacturing. 5. General Performance Standard: Manage and/ or transport CRT materials in a way that prevents releases to the environment of glass pieces, glass particulate, other components, and materials used in processing (e. g., cleaning or sorting media). Immediately contain any releases to the environment and manage contained material under applicable waste management requirements. 6. Prevent Releases of Glass Particulate: For any storage or management activities involving breaking glass or managing broken glass, install and maintain systems sufficient to minimize releases of glass and glass particulate via wind dispersal, runoff, and direct releases to soil. (Examples of wind dispersal control systems may include: a good condition building; closed containers; closed tanks; keeping materials stored or managed outdoors covered, or wet, as appropriate. Examples of systems for preventing releases to soil directly may include: an impervious floor or pad; a good condition building. Examples of systems for preventing releases via runoff may include: a good condition building; implementing an approved storm­ water management plan; adequate run­ off controls.) page 80 7. General Good Management: ­­ Collectors, Processors, Transporters ­­ no disposal on­ site ­­ Collectors and Transporters ­­ no dilution, no treatment (dismantling, intentional breakage, processing) ­­ Processors ­­ no combustion or treatment activities using temperatures high enough to volatilize lead from CRT glass, no storage or processing in surface impoundments 8. Minimize breakage: Collectors ­­ manage to minimize breakage of TVS/ monitors. Transporters transport to minimize breakage of TVS/ monitors, CRTs, glass pieces. 9. No Cross­ Contamination: Do not mix TC hazardous CRT glass with other glass that is not going to CRT glass manufacturing. Blending of glass that is going to glass manufacturing is allowed. 10. Manage Residues Appropriately: Manage any components removed during dismantling, any residues separated from glass (e. g., coatings), and residues from processing glass (e. g., blast media, cleaning media, dust, floor sweepings, glass fines) under applicable waste management requirements (hazardous waste, solid waste). 11. Environmental Justice: For new processors ­­ implement a procedure for advising the local community of the nature of the activities to be conducted, including the limited potential for resident and worker exposure to lead or chemical coatings. This procedure should include notice to the community, and a public meeting if requested by the community. A local, state, or federal governmental authority must approve the text of the notice and the notice procedure, and must conduct the meeting, if any. If preexisting state or local siting/ zoning or other procedures meeting these standards are followed, no additional action is necessary. 12. Package for Transport: Materials must be packaged in accordance with either (1) or (2) below. (1) CSI/ CRT approach: (a) Package TVs, monitors, or whole CRTs in a way that minimizes breakage during normal shipping conditions. The packaging must minimize releases to the environment if unintentional breakage does occur. For example, if TVs and monitors are shrink wrapped onto pallets in such way that broken pieces of glass might not be contained, the packed pallets should be placed in an outside package (e. g., a box or vehicle body) that will minimize releases. (b) Package broken CRTs, CRT glass pieces, or CRT glass cullet in siftproof packaging (i. e., a container or vehicle) that is constructed, filled, and closed so that: (I) There will be no identifiable releases of CRT glass to the environment, and (II) The effectiveness of the package will not be reduced during normal shipping conditions. For example, packages should be resistant to puncture by glass pieces. (2) Universal Waste approach for materials in transportation: If the state in which the shipment originated has Universal Waste packaging standards for the material: package the material as required under the originating state's Universal Waste program. 13. Exports: For shipments of materials that are hazardous waste, other than processed CRT glass (without coatings) ­­ comply with 40 CFR 262 Subparts E or H (export notice and consent procedures for non­ OECD and OECD countries), revised to specifically identify the recipient as a page 81 CRT glass manufacturer, or a collector/ processor shipping to a CRT glass manufacturer (also identify the manufacturer). page 82 8 APPENDIX B: THE SAN FRANCISCO AREA COLLECTION PROGRAM Collection data for the San Francisco Area collection program was not available in time for this report. However, a summary of the program's structure and the general summary data that was available is presented below. Collection Method: Drop­ off event and curbside collection Number of Collections: 10 days (Oakland and San Francisco), 1 day Hayward Collection Dates: March 28, 1998 and May 11­ 22, 1998 Demanufacturer: East Bay Conservation Corps (EBCC) in Oakland Motivation Behind Collection: Materials for the Future Foundation, a San Francisco area NGO, initiated three collection programs in the San Francisco Bay Area with the help of local community­ based organizations and businesses. The collection program consisted of a drop­ off event in the City of Hayward, a Residential Super Recycling Day in San Francisco, curbside collection in San Francisco, and curbside collection paired with bulky waste pickup in Oakland. At the time of publication, detailed information was only available for the Oakland collection pilot. The motivation behind all of the collection pilots was to document the flow of electronic and electrical products into the residential waste stream and to determine if the recovered EEE waste could be recycled in a cost­ effective manner. In addition, the collection program in Oakland was designed to determine: · Whether a youth employment training organization (East Bay Conservation Corps) can recycle materials for the Oakland Bulky Waste Collection Program; and · Whether Oakland residents would participate in a curbside EEE waste collection program. Demographics: The end­ of­ life electronic and electrical waste was collected in three communities. The area is a mixture of blue­ collar and white­ collar workers. The Oakland collection program was organized so that the collection would cover a diverse range of household income and property values. Table 41: San Francisco/ Hayward/ Oakland Demographics Municipality Population Households Median Income San Francisco 723,959 305,984 $40,561 Hayward 111,498 40,246 $40,246 Oakland 372,242 144,766 $37,000 Event Promotion: page 83 The Oakland Collection program was advertised using fliers for the Bulky Waste Pick­ up sent to Oakland neighborhoods approximately three weeks prior to the collection program. A special insert that outlined the EEE waste collection component was included within the flyer. Informal interviews with residents during the collection programs indicated that the residents were aware of the EEE waste collection program. However, many appeared not to have separated the EEE waste from the other bulky waste, as was requested in the flyer. Resident Participation: The following table outlines the data that was collected on the participation of residents in the various collection pilots. Table 42: Collection Program Participation Rates Municipality No. of Households Participation Rate San Francisco 13,392 4.4% Hayward 222 0.6% Oakland 3,692 2.6% Collection: The collection of EEE waste in Oakland coincided with the collection of residential bulky waste. Residents of Oakland can participate in an annual Bulky Waste Pick­ up day during which Waste Management, Inc. (the city contractor) collects white goods, tires, furniture, and yard trimmings. The program collects from approximately 300 households a day. The bulky waste collection is timed to correspond with residential garbage collection. Two trucks are allocated to the collection of white goods and tires, and the rest of the collected material is picked up by a garbage truck carrying a hopper. Materials for the Future Foundation worked with the Oakland Recycling/ Solid Waste staff to coordinate the collection of the EEE waste. The collection program occurred over a period of 10 days. To accommodate the extra collection, a driver was added. The cost of the additional driver for the collection was given as $4,300 for the 10­ day project. The EEE waste was collected from the curbside, and placed in Gaylords aboard a flat bed truck. When the collection truck was full, the material was transported to the EBCC location for demanufacturing. The following table outlines the equipment that was collected: Table 43: Items Collected During Oakland Collection Pilot Computer s Vacuum s Heaters Fans TVs VCR s Microwav es Stereo s Oakland 55 93 23 31 198 20 54 117 In addition, the collection events also took in a number of toasters, carpet cleaners, answering machines, and other equipment. In total, 15,623 pounds of equipment was collected during the 10­ day program. Transportation: page 84 The transportation of the collected equipment occurred whenever the truck was full and generally took 15 to 25 minutes, depending on the location of the Bulky Waste collection in relation to EBCC (demanufacturing contractor). No data was available on the costs associated with the transportation. Demanufacturing: The East Bay Conservation Corps (EBCC), a youth employment training organization, was the demanufacturer. The collected EEE waste was off­ loaded at the EBCC facility, where the employees labeled and itemized the equipment. The employees had not been specifically trained to demanufacture EEE waste, and the volume of TVs and microwaves proved to be a challenge to disassemble. The program required a total of 4 workers and a supervisor working 40 hours per week for two weeks to demanufacture the collected equipment. The off­ loading of equipment took time away from the dismantling, at least an hour per shipment. The itemizing of the equipment also took some time. Since the contract was for a limited duration, not all of the equipment was disassembled. No data was available on the cost of the demanufacturing of the collected equipment. Revenue: The EBCC initially anticipated that the circuit boards and other computer components might generate some revenue. However, since not enough time was available for them to disassemble the equipment, most of the material that was recycled consisted of scrap metal from vacuum cleaners, heaters, and small appliances. Some of the plastics were sent to a company, MBA Polymers for recovery. Most of material that MBA Polymers was able to recover consisted of plastic from TV housings. No data was available on any revenue from the recovered materials. Net Cost: Since the only data available consisted of the additional cost of collection for the Oakland pilot ($ 4,300), net cost was not calculated for this collection pilot. Project Comments: The summary reports for all three collection pilots are not yet published, so data was not available for a more detailed analysis. According to the draft report on the Oakland collection program, there were a number of barriers and opportunities that came out of this collection program: · The residents did not sort their material as requested in the flyers that were sent out, and subsequently the collection process took longer. The Waste Management, Inc. supervisor in charge of the Bulky Waste collection indicated that the drivers should not separate out the EEE waste. · The demanufacturer was not prepared to demanufacture all of the equipment in the time period of the contract. A number of TVs were left on the curbside because of lack of space in the EPCC facility. In addition, off­ loading and itemization of the equipment took time away from the actual demanufacturing. The EPCC employees' inexperience with disassembly may have contributed to the partial demanufacturing of much of the equipment. page 85 · MBA Polymers, the company that accepted much of the plastic from EPCC's operations, indicated that the recovery of plastic from residential EEE waste was feasible. The television and computer housing appeared to be the best candidates for recovery. MBA stressed that a sufficient volume of material would be necessary to sustain such an operation, and that a proper level of dismantling would be required to make plastic recovery possible. page 86 9 APPENDIX C: CALCULATING NET COST The cost and revenue values for each of the five collection programs were calculated using data provided by the respective program organizers. No additional data was collected for this report. The total costs and revenue were calculated according to the way in which the data was provided by the participating collection agency: Per Event Somerville; Binghamton; Wheaton; Naperville Per Period San Jose (5 week period); Union County Municipalities (6 month periods) Per Year Hennepin County For calculation of the net cost, the following two equations were used: Total Cost = CT + CD + CU + CO where CT = costs associated with the transport to the demanufacturer CD = costs from the demanufacturing of the equipment CU = upfront costs (publicity etc.) CO = operating costs. Total Revenue = RR + RS where RR = revenue from resale RS = revenue from scrap. Only those costs and revenues for which data was available were used in the equations; that is, if no upfront costs were available (CU ), the value was assumed to be zero. The net cost per program is essentially the difference between these two values: Net Cost = Total Cost – Total Revenue The net cost per pound collected was calculated as the net cost divided by the number of pounds of material collected for the program. The total cost per pound collected was calculated as the total cost divided by the number of pounds of material collected for the program. page 87 10 APPENDIX D: BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Residential Collection of Household End­ of­ Life Electrical and Electronic Equipment: Pilot Collection Project (EPA­ 901­ R­ 98­ 002), prepared by Northeast Resource Recovery Association for the Common Sense Initiative – Computer and Electronics Sector, Region I, Boston, MA, February 1998. 2. US Environmental Protection Agency, San Jose Computer Collection and Recycling Pilot: Draft, prepared by Vista Environmental for the Common Sense Initiative – Computer and Electronics Sector, Region IX, San Francisco, CA, February 1998. 3. Union County Utilities Authority, Union County Demanufacturing Program ­ Semi­ Annual Report, Union County, NJ, October 1, 1997­ March 31, 1998. 4. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1990, Washington, DC, 1992. 5. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Household Hazardous Waste Management: A Manual for One­ Day Community Collection Programs (EPA­ 530­ R­ 92­ 026), prepared by the Waste Watch Center for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, August 1993. 6. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Full Cost Accounting for Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Handbook (EPA 530­ R­ 95­ 041), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, September 1997. 7. European Commission, Recovery of Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment: Economic and Environmental Impacts (AEAT/ 2004 Issue 1), prepared by AEA Technology for the European Commission DGXI, Oxfordshire, UK, July 1997. 8. Keep America Beautiful, Inc., The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management to the Year 2000, prepared by Franklin Associates, Stamford, CT, 1994. 9. Dana Duxbury & Associates, Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Management, Andover, MA, November, 1990. 10. H. Veldhuizen and B. Sippel, "Mining discarded electronics", Industry and Environment, Volume 17, No. 3, United Nations Environment Program, July­ September 1994. 11. R. Woods, "Handling Difficult Materials", Waste Age. May 1994. 12. Cutter Information Corp., "Europe Moves Toward Integrated Product Policy", Product Stewardship Advisor, September 4, 1998. 13. T. Paddock, "The Costs and Benefits of Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs", Academy of Natural Sciences, October 1989.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.715373

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0013-0008

Supporting & Related Material

IMPORTANT NOTE TO USER: This OMB form has been recreated in WP6.0 by OPPTS staff. The margins and lines are NOT block protected, so you must fill the form with caution, paying attention to any shifting of the existing text. The following tips should make this a simple task: ­ Fill in the spaces by using the type over command. Otherwise you'll have to delete a space for each letter you add. ­ Use the same font (Times New Roman 8pt). ­ Do not change table lines (although you can delete an extra space line to provide more space elsewhere. ­ It is not recommended that you convert this form to WP5.1, some of these features are not available in WP5. 1, so the text will scramble. If you have any problems or questions, please call your RID Desk Officer @ 260­ 2706. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503. 1. Agency/ Subagency originating request: United States Environmental Protection Agency/ Office of Solid Waste 2. OMB control number b. G None a_ 2050­ 0053 3. Type of information collection (check one) a. X New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested (check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency ­ Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes G No For b­ f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___ 7. Title: Cathode Ray Tubes 8. Agency form number( s) (If applicable) EPA ICR# 1189.10 9. Keywords: Cathode Ray Tubes, exclusion from hazardous waste 10. Abstract The Agency is proposing to exclude cathode ray tubes (CRT) from the definition of solid waste and clarify the status of used cathode ray tubes and processed CRTs sent for reuse and recycling. The rule proposes a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for CRTs sent for recycling. 11. Affected public (Mark primary with "P" and all others that apply with "X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for­ profit e. X Federal Government c. X Not­ for­ profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond (Mark primary with "P" and all others that apply with "X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. X Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 2, 432 b. Total annual responses 0 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 47,679 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 47,565 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change Newly proposed requirements 2. Adjustment 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden (in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs (O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 687.3 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 687.3 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change Newly proposed requirements 2. Adjustment 15. Purpose of information collection (Mark Primary With "P" and all others that apply with "X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting (check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi­ annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other (describe) 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods? Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact (person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Teena Wooten Phone: 703­ 308­ 8751 OMB 83­ I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9. NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions. The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers: (a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions; (b) It avoids unnecessary duplication; (c) It reduces burden on small entities; (d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents; (e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices; (f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements; (g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): (I) Why the information is being collected' (ii) Use of information; (iii) Burden estimate; (iv) Nature of response (voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); (v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and (vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number; (h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected (see note in Item 19 of the instructions); (I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and (j) It makes appropriate use of information technology. If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement. Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83­ I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads "As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency (through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify (and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information "( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility; "( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency; "( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as: "( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof; "( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond; "( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond; "( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified; "( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [see below] "( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public; "( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public." NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information: "( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection (together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit (citing authority), or mandatory (citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any (citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number." OMB 83­ I (Instructions) 10/ 95

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.748577

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0013-0009

Supporting & Related Material

IMPORTANT NOTE TO USER: This OMB form has been recreated in WP6.0 by OPPTS staff. The margins and lines are NOT block protected, so you must fill the form with caution, paying attention to any shifting of the existing text. The following tips should make this a simple task: ­ Fill in the spaces by using the type over command. Otherwise you'll have to delete a space for each letter you add. ­ Use the same font (Times New Roman 8pt). ­ Do not change table lines (although you can delete an extra space line to provide more space elsewhere. ­ It is not recommended that you convert this form to WP5.1, some of these features are not available in WP5. 1, so the text will scramble. If you have any problems or questions, please call your RID Desk Officer @ 260­ 2706. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503. 1. Agency/ Subagency originating request: United States Environmental Protection Agency/ Office of Solid Waste 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2050­ 0145 3. Type of information collection (check one) a. X New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested (check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency ­ Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b­ f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___ 7. Title: Mercury­ Containing Equipment Reuse and Recycling 8. Agency form number( s) (If applicable) EPA ICR# 1597.05 9. Keywords Hazardous waste mercury containing equipment, universal waste rule 10. Abstract The Agency has decided to add mercury containing equipment (MCEs) to the existing universal waste regulations at 40 CFR Part 273. The hazardous waste MCE rule requires universal waste entities involved with the management of MCEs to follow procedures for maintaining the condition of MCEs (e. g., proper packaging), storing (e. g., accumulation time limits, labeling), notifying EPA as specified, and responding to releases. 11. Affected public (Mark primary with "P" and all others that apply with "X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for­ profit e. X Federal Government c. X Not­ for­ profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond (Mark primary with "P" and all others that apply with "X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 2, 495 b. Total annual responses 2,495 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 15,630 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 15,630 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change Newly proposed requirements 2. Adjustment 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden (in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 1. 4 b. Total annual costs (O& M) 113 c. Total annualized cost requested 825.5 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 825.5 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change Newly proposed requirements 2. Adjustment 15. Purpose of information collection (Mark Primary With "P" and all others that apply with "X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P_ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting (check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi­ annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other (describe) 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods? Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact (person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Teena Wooten Phone: 703­ 308­ 8751 OMB 83­ I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9. NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions. The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers: (a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions; (b) It avoids unnecessary duplication; (c) It reduces burden on small entities; (d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents; (e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices; (f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements; (g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): (I) Why the information is being collected' (ii) Use of information; (iii) Burden estimate; (iv) Nature of response (voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); (v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and (vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number; (h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected (see note in Item 19 of the instructions); (I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and (j) It makes appropriate use of information technology. If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement. Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83­ I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads "As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency (through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify (and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information "( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility; "( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency; "( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as: "( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof; "( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond; "( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond; "( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified; "( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [see below] "( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public; "( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public." NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information: "( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection (together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit (citing authority), or mandatory (citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any (citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number." OMB 83­ I (Instructions) 10/ 95

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.751802

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0013-0010

Proposed Rule

Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Program; Cathode Ray Tubes and Mercury-Containing Equipment; Proposed Rule

Wednesday, June 12, 2002 Part IV Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 260 et al. Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Program; Cathode Ray Tubes and Mercury­ Containing Equipment; Proposed Rule VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40508 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 264, 268, 270, and 273 [FRL– 7217– 7] RIN 2050– AE52 Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Program; Cathode Ray Tubes and Mercury­ Containing Equipment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Many used cathode ray tubes (CRTs) and items of mercury­ containing equipment are currently classified as characteristic hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). They are therefore subject to the hazardous waste regulations of RCRA Subtitle C unless they come from a household or a conditionally exempt small quantity generator. Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes and seeks comment on an exclusion from the definition of solid waste which would streamline RCRA management requirements for used cathode ray tubes (CRTs) and glass removed from CRTs sent for recycling. In today's notice, the Agency also clarifies the status of used CRTs sent for reuse. In addition, EPA proposes and seeks comment on streamlining management requirements for used mercury­ containing equipment by adding it to the federal list of universal wastes. DATES: To make sure EPA considers your comments or suggested revisions to this proposal, they must be postmarked on or before August 12, 2002. ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their comments referencing docket number F– 2002– CRTP– FFFFF to: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the Arlington, VA address listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Comments may also be submitted electronically to rcradocket epamail. epa. gov. See the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on electronic submissions. Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing in the RCRA Docket and Information Center (RIC) located at Crystal Gateway 1, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The docket is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public make an appointment by calling (703) 603– 9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from the regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/ page. The index is available electronically. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on accessing it. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the RCRA/ Superfund/ EPCRA/ UST Call Center at (800) 424– 9346 (toll free) or TDD (800) 553– 7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC metropolitan area, call (703) 412– 9810 or TDD (703) 412– 3323. For more detailed information on specific aspects of this rulemaking, contact Ms. Marilyn Goode, Office of Solid Waste (5304W), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308– 8800, electronic mail: goode. marilyn@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Comment Submission You may submit comments electronically through the Internet to: rcra­ docket@ epa. gov. You should identify comments in electronic format with the docket number F– 2002– CRTP– FFFFF. All electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII (text) file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. If possible, EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) would also like to receive an additional copy of the comments on disk in WordPerfect 6.1 file format. Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U. S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. If possible, please provide two non­ CBI summaries of any CBI information. Some of the supporting documents in the docket also are available in electronic format on the Internet at URL: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ recycle/ electron/ crt. htm. EPA will keep the official record for this action in paper form. Accordingly, we will transfer all comments received electronically into paper form and place them in the official record, which also will include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official administrative file is the paper file maintained at the RCRA Docket, the address of which is in ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document. EPA's responses to public comments, whether the comments are received in written or electronic format, will be published in the Federal Register or in a response to comments document placed in the public docket. We will not reply immediately to commenters electronically other than to seek clarification of electronic comments that may be garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form, as discussed above. You may view public comments and the supporting materials for the issues and memoranda discussed below in the RCRA Information Center (RIC) located at Crystal Gateway 1, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review file materials, we recommend that you make an appointment by calling (703) 603– 9230. You may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any file maintained at the RCRA Docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15 per page. Preamble Outline I. Legal Authority II. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms III. Cathode Ray Tubes A. What Is the Purpose of EPA's Proposal? B. What Are Cathode Ray Tubes? C. Why Are Cathode Ray Tubes An Environmental Concern? D. How Are Used Cathode Ray Tubes Currently Managed? E. How Do EPA's Current Regulations Apply to CRTs and Other Electronic Materials? F. What Are The Common Sense Initiative (CSI) Recommendations? G. Proposed Requirements for Used CRTs Undergoing Recycling H. Solicitation of Comment on EPA's Proposed Management Requirements for Used CRTs and Processed CRT Glass IV. Mercury­ Containing Equipment A. What Is `` Mercury­ Containing Equipment? '' B. Why Is EPA Proposing to Add MercuryContaining Equipment To The List of Universal Wastes? C. What Are EPA's Proposed Management Requirements for Used MercuryContaining Equipment? D. Solicitation of Comment on Universal Waste Notification Requirements V. State Authority A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States B. Effect on State Authorization C. Interstate Transport VI. Regulatory Requirements A. Executive Order 12866 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40509 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. C. Paperwork Reduction Act D. Unfunded Mandates E. Executive Order 13132 F. Executive Order 13175 G. Executive Order 13045 H. Executive Order 13211 I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 J. Environmental Justice I. Legal Authority These regulations are proposed under the authority of sections 2002( a), 3001, 3002, 3004, and 3006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), and as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U. S. C. 6912( a), 6921, 6922, 6924, and 6926. II. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms CES Computers and Electronics Subcommittee CFR Code of Federal Regulations CRT Cathode Ray Tube CSI Common Sense Initiative DOT Department of Transportation FPD Flat Panel Display HDTV High Definition Television LCD Liquid Crystal Display LDR LQHUW Large Quantity Handler of Universal Waste OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SQHUW Small Quantity Handler of Universal Waste TC Toxicity Characteristic TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure TSDF Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility TV Television USWAG Utility Solid Waste Activities Group UWR Universal Waste Rule WTE Waste­ to­ Energy III. Cathode Ray Tubes A. What Is The Purpose of EPA's Proposal? Technological advances in information management and communication have improved the quality of people's lives in countless ways. However, our growing use of electronic products at home and in the workplace has given us a new environmental challenge: Electronics waste. Today's proposed rule is an important step towards meeting the challenge of managing electronics waste in a way that is environmentally sound while at the same time encouraging the reuse and recycling of these materials. EPA estimates that about 57 million televisions and computers are sold annually to households and businesses in the United States. These purchasers often do not discard older models when buying newer versions of the same products. Consumers (both business and household) frequently store their retired products. Experts agree that the average household may have between two and three units in storage. The numbers of units (mainly computers) stored by businesses are of course much greater. In total, approximately 20 to 24 million computers and televisions are added to storage each year. Over the next decade, storage is expected to increase at a faster rate because of advances in digital technology for televisions. Just as advances in computer speed and software have made older computers uneconomical to repair, newer digital broadcast standards are likely to reduce the repair and resale value of older televisions. Recycling glass from computers and televisions is still largely a new industry. However, the number of units available for reuse or recycling is growing rapidly, and state and industry initiatives to promote recycling are increasing. EPA is eager to see this industry grow, in part because reusing and recycling these materials saves valuable natural resources and avoids their disposal in landfills and incinerators. The Agency must, of course, assure that materials under RCRA jurisdiction are managed in a way that protects human health and the environment. Today, the Agency seeks comment on streamlining management requirements for used CRTs and processed CRT glass by proposing a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for these materials when they are recycled (see proposed 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 23) and 261.4( b)( 39)). The purpose of these proposed simplified requirements is to encourage greater reuse, recycling, and better management of this growing wastestream, while maintaining necessary environmental protection. We are also soliciting comment on certain conditions intended to ensure that the materials are handled as commodities rather than wastes. B. What Are Cathode Ray Tubes? Cathode ray tubes (CRTs) are vacuum tubes, made primarily of glass, which constitute the video display components of televisions and computer monitors. CRT sizes are typically measured from one corner; the diagonal of a CRT display generally ranges from 1 to 38 inches. Other types of CRTs include medical, automotive, oscilloscope, and appliance CRTs, which are typically 12 inches diagonal or smaller, while military and aircraft control tower CRTs may be much larger. CRTs are built of a specialized glass that often contains lead. They consist of four major parts: A glass panel (faceplate); a shadow mask; a glass funnel; and a glass neck which houses the electron gun. The glass panel is the front of the CRT that the viewer sees when looking at a TV or computer screen. The shadow mask is a thin metal sheet with holes that is located immediately behind the glass panel. Attached to the back of the glass panel is the glass funnel. The panel and funnel are joined with the shadow mask and sealed together with a lowtemperature glass frit, consisting of solder glass containing organic binders. The back end of the CRT is the glass neck that holds the electron gun. This gun produces the electrons that strike the glass panel, resulting in viewable images on the display surface. A CRT is assembled into a monitor, a unit that includes several other parts, including a plastic cabinet, electromagnetic shields, circuit boards, connectors, and cabling. C. Why Are Cathode Ray Tubes an Environmental Concern? Under Subtitle C of RCRA, a solid waste is a hazardous waste if it exhibits one or more of the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C, or if it is a listed hazardous waste in part 261, subpart D. The RCRA regulations set forth requirements for hazardous waste generators, transporters, and owners and operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs). EPA regulations also contain exclusions for certain wastes from the definition of solid waste or hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.4)( a) and (b)). In addition, EPA has developed streamlined rules for particular wastes, including recyclable wastes (40 CFR part 266) and universal wastes such as batteries, pesticides, thermostats, and lamps that are widely generated by different industries (40 CFR part 273). Manufacturers generally use significant quantities of lead to make color cathode ray tubes. Televisions and color computer monitors contain an average of four pounds of lead (the exact amount depends on size and make). Lead is present in the panel glass, funnel, neck, and glass frit of color CRTs, with the highest concentrations usually found in the frit and funnel glass. The amount of lead used in some manufacturing processes of CRTs appears to be decreasing. However, according to a study of CRTs published by the University of Florida, the average concentration of lead in leachate from VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40510 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules colored CRT glass generated through EPA's toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) was 22.2 milligrams per liter (mg/ l). This level is considerably above the toxicity characteristic regulatory level of 5 milligrams per liter that is used to classify lead­ containing wastes as hazardous (40 CFR 261.24( b)). For monochrome CRTs, the average lead leachate concentration was 0.03 mg/ l. These data appear to indicate that black and white monitors do not generally fail the TC. The faceplate also does not usually fail the TC. Other hazardous constituents sometimes present in CRT glass are mercury, cadmium, and arsenic. However, these constituents are found in very low concentrations that are unlikely to exceed the TC concentration limits (see Characterization of Lead Leachability from Cathode Ray Tubes Using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, T. G. Townsend et al., University of Florida, 1999). Flat panel displays (FPDs) have emerged on the electronics market as a replacement for CRTs in certain applications, primarily because FPDs are lighter, smaller, and more portable, and they consume less energy during operation. FPDs generally contain no lead, but may contain encapsulated mercury in small amounts. D. How Are Used Cathode Ray Tubes Currently Managed? 1. Reuse Many used computers are resold or donated so that they can be used again, either as is or after minor repairs. Although the Agency has no legal jurisdiction over reused computers, we encourage this option as a responsible way to manage these materials, because preventing or delaying the generation of waste often conserves resources. This option extends the lives of valuable products and keeps them out of the waste management system for a longer time. Reuse also allows schools, nonprofit organizations, and individual families to use equipment that they otherwise could not afford. Many markets for reuse of computers are located abroad, particularly in countries where few may be able to purchase state­ of­ the­ art new equipment. Organizations which handle used computers vary from area to area. In some cases, nonprofit organizations such as charities and school districts take donations of used computer equipment. These organizations may test the equipment, and, if necessary, rewire it and replace various parts, including the electron gun, before sending them for reuse. In other cases, the entities that collect the CRTs send them to another organization with more expertise for evaluation and possible repair and reuse. CRTs that cannot be used after such minor repairs may be sent to recycling or disposal. CRTs from televisions are more likely to be repaired by appliance dealers or small repair shops before reuse. 2. Recycling a. Collection of used CRTs. If reuse or repair is not a practical option, CRTs can be sent for recycling, which typically consists of disassembly for the purpose of recovering valuable materials from the CRTs, especially glass. A growing number of municipalities are offering to collect computers and electronics for recycling. In addition, public and private organizations have emerged that accept CRTs for the same purpose. Examples of such organizations include county recycling drop­ off centers, television repair shops, charities, electronics recycling companies, and electronics manufacturers and retailers. An increasing number of electronics manufacturers are offering to take back computer CRTs for recycling. In some cases, these services are provided free. In other cases, a fee is charged, usually for shipping and handling. Take­ back programs have been available for some time to major corporations and large purchasers of electronic equipment. Now, electronics manufacturers are beginning to offer similar services for computer CRTs to small businesses and households. b. Recycling of unused CRTs and unused CRT glass. Makers of glass for CRTs recycle some of the glass they produce because it does not meet product specifications. EPA estimates that about one or two percent of glass production results in unused, offspecification products. This glass is generally recycled into new CRT glass. The glass may be recycled on­ site at a CRT glass manufacturing facility, or it may be sent to a glass processor. Computers and television manufacturers also find that a small percentage of assembled monitors are `` offspecification They may send these unused devices to a glass processor. c. Glass processing and other materials recovery. CRT glass processors that accept used CRTs generally receive them from three sources: the glass manufacturers described above (who supply most of the glass), manufacturers of monitor units who decide not to sell off­ specification monitors, and businesses who provide used computers or televisions, which at present are a much smaller source. The used CRTs are typically stored in a warehouse. When the processing begins, the CRT display unit is dismantled, and the bare CRT is separated from all other parts (usually glass, plastic, or metal). Next, the vacuum is released by drilling through the anode, a small metal button in the funnel. The different glass portions of the CRT (faceplate, funnel, and neck) are then separated and classified according to chemical composition, especially by the amount of lead contained. The same sorting takes place for broken glass received from CRT glass manufacturers, which is separated into leaded and non­ leaded glass. All glass is then cleaned and the coatings removed. The sorted and cleaned cullet (i. e., processed glass) is then typically stored in enclosed areas before it is shipped off­ site to a CRT glass manufacturer (or sometimes to a smelter or to manufacturers of other kinds of glass). When a CRT glass manufacturing facility receives a shipment of processed CRT glass, it removes the anode button and further crushes the glass, which then enters a furnace to be heated and made into new CRT glass. Sometimes the processed glass is sent to a lead smelter where it is recycled to reclaim the lead and to provide silica, which acts as a fluxing agent in the smelter. These uses often occur if the glass does not meet the specifications for CRT glass. The cleaning process described above also generates glass fines that are collected and sold to lead smelters to be used as a fluxing agent. In addition, processed CRT glass may be sent to copper smelters, also for use as a flux. Sometimes other types of production facilities use processed CRT glass to make objects such as radiation shielding, acoustical barriers, optical glass beads, or decorative glass and tile products. The market for these recycled glass items is currently limited, but may grow in the future. 3. Disposal Many consumers do not wish to discard monitors and TVs if they can be recycled. Many or most CRTs therefore remain in storage. Of the CRTs that are disposed of by households, most go to municipal landfills, and others to municipal waste­ to­ energy (WTE) facilities. Only a small percentage are recycled (see Life Cycle Assessment of the Disposal of Household Electronics, D. McKenna et al., August 1996, which indicated that only one percent of CRTs from households were recycled). Some CRTs from non­ household sources are also placed in municipal landfills. Some VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40511 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules states (such as Massachusetts and California) have banned CRTs from all sources from landfills. E. How Do EPA's Current Regulations Apply to CRTs and Other Electronic Materials? As described above, CRT glass often exhibits the toxicity characteristic (TC) for lead because this constituent is used to make most CRT glass. Whether a person or facility is currently subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations depends on several factors, including whether the CRT will be recycled or disposed and the type of user. Following is a brief description of how different entities are currently regulated. 1. Who Is Regulated And Who Is Not? a. Households. Households that dispose of CRTs are exempt from hazardous waste management requirements under 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 1). They may therefore send their used computer and television monitors to any facility or collector for recycling or disposal without being subject to regulation. Other facilities managing household hazardous waste (such as collectors, recyclers, or disposers) continue to be exempt from hazardous waste requirements unless the household waste is mixed with other regulated hazardous waste. b. Non­ residential generators. Nonresidential generators of less than 100 kilograms (about 220 lbs) of hazardous waste (including CRTs) in a calendar month are known as conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) and are not subject to most RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste management standards. The Agency notes that about 7 or 8 CRTs would be sufficient to weigh 220 lbs (assuming that each monitor weighed 30 lbs). These CESQGs may choose to send their wastes to a municipal solid waste landfill or other facility approved by the state for the management of industrial or municipal non­ hazardous wastes, including recycling facilities (40 CFR 261.5). Generators of more than 100 kilograms (about 220 lbs) and less than 1,000 kilograms (about 2,200 lbs) of hazardous waste (including CRTs) in a calendar month are subject to the RCRA hazardous waste management standards, but are allowed to comply with certain reduced regulatory requirements (40 CFR 262.34). Generators of more than 1,000 kilograms (about 2,200 lbs) of hazardous waste in a calendar month are considered large quantity generators and are subject to all the applicable hazardous waste regulations for generators (40 CFR 262.34). CRTs that are not considered wastes should not be counted in determining whether a generator is a CESQG, SQG, or LQG. 2. When Do CRTs Become Wastes? To determine whether a nonresidential facility with used CRTs must comply with the RCRA hazardous waste regulations, the user must first determine if its used CRTs are solid wastes. Following is a brief description of how solid waste determinations for CRTs are made under federal law. a. Reuse and repair of used CRTs. EPA has consistently taken the view that materials used and taken out of service by one person are not wastes if a second person puts them to the same type of use without first `` reclaiming'' them (see 50 FR 624, January 5, 1985). Many CRTs are taken out of service by both businesses and households not because they can no longer be used, but because users are upgrading their systems to take advantage of the rapid advances that have resulted in better and faster electronics. Businesses and organizations upgrading their computers often replace the entire computer system, including the monitors. A working CRT­ containing unit considered obsolete by one user is therefore likely to be capable of reuse as a computer monitor or a television monitor by another user. Many businesses and organizations that take CRTs out of service do not have the specialized knowledge needed to determine whether the unit can be reused as a computer or television display unit. Moreover, those entities often do not decide whether a particular CRT will, in fact, be reused. Many businesses and other organizations send used computers and televisions to resellers. Resellers often test CRTs or otherwise decide if the CRTs can be reused directly, if they can be reused after minor repairs, or if they must be sent for further processing or disposal. Because the typical original user usually lacks the specialized knowledge needed to decide the future of a CRT, EPA is today clarifying that we do not consider a user sending a CRT to a reseller for potential reuse to be a RCRA generator. Furthermore, EPA today clarifies that used CRTs undergoing repairs before resale or distribution are not being `` reclaimed, '' and are considered to be products `` in use'' rather than solid wastes. Resellers of used CRTs generally test and identify equipment that can be resold or is economically repairable. Sometimes the equipment is collected and redistributed for reuse with no repairs. If repairs are necessary, they typically consist of rewiring, replacing defective parts, or replacing the electron gun. Under these circumstances, the CRT would still be considered a commercial product rather than a solid waste. EPA believes that these repairs and replacement activities do not constitute waste management. b. Unused CRTs sent for recycling. Sometimes manufacturers of computers and televisions send unused CRTs (usually off­ specification CRTs) directly to glass processors who break the CRTs and separate out the glass components. Generally, the processor then sends the processed glass to a glass­ to­ glass recycler or to another recycling facility, such as a lead smelter. Although EPA could consider these activities to constitute reclamation, the Agency does not regulate the reclamation of either listed or characteristic unused commercial chemical products (see 50 FR 14219, April 11, 1985). EPA considers unused CRTs to be unused commercial chemical products. Therefore, these materials are not solid wastes when sent for reclamation. c. Used CRTs sent for recycling. Under the current RCRA regulations, used CRTs sent directly to glass processors or other recyclers could under some circumstances be considered spent materials undergoing reclamation, and could therefore be solid wastes. However, as explained elsewhere in this notice, EPA believes that under some circumstances used CRTs sent for recycling do not resemble spent materials. Therefore, users and resellers sending used CRTs to recyclers should check with their authorized States to see which Subtitle C requirements, if any, are applicable to their activities. EPA encourages States to take approaches consistent with today's proposal. The Agency is today proposing an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for used CRTs being recycled if they are managed under certain conditions. This proposal is discussed later in this notice. d. Disposal. If a non­ household entity decides to send used or unused CRTs directly to a landfill or an incinerator for disposal, that entity would be considered the generator of a solid waste. The person making the decision must determine if the CRTs exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic under 40 CFR part 261, subpart C. He may either test the CRTs or use process knowledge to make this determination. As stated above, many or most CRTs from color computer or television monitors exhibit the toxicity characteristic for lead. Although EPA's data indicate that most CRTs from black and white monitors do not fail the TC, those that do are subject to all applicable hazardous waste management requirements. When a VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40512 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules decision is made to dispose of hazardous waste CRTs, the nonresidential user, reseller, or manufacturer must comply with all applicable hazardous waste generator requirements of 40 CFR part 262, including packaging and labeling, 90­ day accumulation requirements, use of the hazardous waste manifest, and recordkeeping and reporting (unless the generator is a CESQG). Some companies ship their waste CRTs to hazardous waste landfills for disposal. Used CRTs generated by a non­ residential facility that fail the TC for lead must meet applicable land disposal restrictions (LDRs) before being placed in a land­ based unit, such as a landfill. These restrictions do not apply to CRTs generated by households or CESQGs. To meet LDRs, the CRT glass must be treated so that the TCLP lead concentration does not exceed 0.75 mg per liter. This concentration level is generally achieved by crushing and stabilizing the glass through the addition of chemicals which reduce the solubility of lead when contacted by leachate. 3. When Do Non­ CRT Electronic Materials Become Wastes? In 1992, the Agency issued a memorandum to its EPA Regional Waste Management Directors stating that used whole circuit boards are considered to be scrap metal when sent for reclamation, and therefore exempt from regulation under RCRA. The Agency has also addressed printed circuit boards in the Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV rulemaking (see 62 FR 25998, May 12, 1997). In that rulemaking, the Agency provided an exclusion from the definition of solid waste at 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 14) for shredded circuit boards being reclaimed, provided they are stored in containers sufficient to prevent a release to the environment prior to recovery and provided they are free of mercury switches, mercury relays, nickel­ cadmium batteries and lithium batteries. Subsequently, on May 26, 1998 (63 FR 28556), the Agency clarified that the scrap metal exemption applies to whole used circuit boards that contain minor battery or mercury switch components and that are sent for continued use, reuse, or recovery. In that notice, EPA stated that it was not the Agency's intent to regulate under RCRA circuit boards containing minimal quantities of mercury and batteries that are protectively packaged to minimize dispersion of metal constituents. Once these materials are removed from the boards, they become a newly generated waste subject to a hazardous waste determination. If they meet the criteria to be classified as a hazardous waste, they must be handled as hazardous waste; otherwise they must be managed as a solid waste. The Agency is studying certain nonCRT electronic materials to determine whether they consistently exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste. However, we are not currently aware of any non­ CRT computer components or electronic products that would generally be hazardous wastes. With respect to these materials, the Agency would use the same line of reasoning that is outlined above for CRTs to determine if the materials are solid wastes. That is, if an original user sends electronic materials to a reseller because he lacks the specialized knowledge needed to determine whether the units can be reused as products, the original user is not a RCRA generator. The materials would not be considered solid wastes until a decision was made to recycle them in other ways or dispose of them. F. What Are The Common Sense Initiative (CSI) Recommendations? From 1994 through 1998, EPA's Common Sense Initiative (CSI) explored the environmental regulation of six industry sectors and looked for ways to make environmental regulation `` cleaner, cheaper, and smarter. '' EPA established CSI as an advisory committee (the `` CSI Council'') under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The CSI Council included representatives from each industry sector, from non­ governmental environmental and community organizations, from state governments, and from colleges and universities. EPA also established subcommittees of the Council for each industry sector. The subcommittees included representatives of the various stakeholders represented in the CSI Council. One of the industry sectors selected for this initiative was the computer and electronics industry. The CSI Computers and Electronics Subcommittee (CES) then formed a workgroup to examine regulatory barriers to pollution prevention and recycling. The workgroup (known as the `` Overcoming Barriers Workgroup'') explored the problems of managing mounting volumes of outdated computer and electronics equipment. One of the concerns investigated by the Overcoming Barriers Workgroup and the CES was the barrier to CRT recycling created by some existing hazardous waste management regulations. The CES urged that removing such barriers was essential to fostering CRT recycling, especially glass­ to­ glass recycling. The Subcommittee believed that CRT recycling would provide the following benefits: (1) Less lead sent to landfills and combustors; (2) added resource value of specialty glass and lead; (3) lower waste management costs; (4) less regulatory uncertainty about CRT recovery and recycling; (5) less use of raw lead in CRT glass manufacturing; (6) better melting characteristics, improved heat transfer, and lower energy consumption in CRT glass manufacturing furnaces; (7) improved CRT glass quality; and (8) lower emissions of lead from CRT glass manufacturing. The CES Subcommittee indicated that some recycling methods or end products (other than those associated with glass­ to­ glass recycling) may pose risks to human health and the environment and would require further investigation. As a result of the finding of the CES Subcommittee, the CSI Council issued a document titled Recommendation on Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Glass­ to­ Glass Recycling. In this document, the Council recommended streamlined regulatory requirements for CRTs that would encourage recycling and better management. The recommendations included streamlined requirements for packaging, labeling, transportation; general performance standards for glass processors; and export provisions. The CSI Council also recommended an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for processed glass that is used to make new CRT glass. In today's document, EPA proposes an exclusion from the definition of solid waste which would streamline management requirements for used CRTs. Although the requirements proposed today are more streamlined that those recommended by the CSI Council, we believe that they will be just as effective in fostering the goals of the Council. The Agency is also soliciting comment on several alternative management requirements. G. Proposed Requirements for Used CRTs Undergoing Recycling 1. What Will Not Be Affected by Today's Proposed Rule? All materials discussed above that are not currently regulated under RCRA will remain unaffected by today's proposal. Used CRTs from households and CESQGs will retain their current regulatory exemptions. Used CRTs from any source that are sent for reuse as is or after minor repairs are not wastes. Proposed § 261.4( a)( 23) will provide better notice of this interpretation of our current regulations. Unused CRTs sent for recycling will still be classified as commercial chemical products which are not solid wastes even if they are VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40513 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules reclaimed or speculatively accumulated. Finally, both used and unused CRTs sent for disposal will also remain regulated as before. 2. What Is Covered by Today's Proposed Rule and What Are the Proposed Management Requirements? Today's proposal principally addresses used CRTs destined for recycling and processed glass from CRTs. The regulations we are proposing distinguish between intact CRTs and CRTs that are broken. An intact CRT is a CRT remaining within the monitor whose vacuum has not been released. A broken CRT means glass removed from the monitor after the vacuum has been released. EPA notes that these proposed definitions would also cover nonconsumer CRTs such as medical, automotive, oscilloscope, and appliance CRTs. a. Used, Intact CRTs Destined for Recycling. Today's proposal would exclude intact CRTs from the definition of solid waste unless they are disposed. Consequently, these units would not be subject to Subtitle C regulation, including the speculative accumulation limits of 40 CFR 261.2( c)( 4). They could therefore be held indefinitely without becoming solid wastes. Intact CRTs are highly unlikely to release lead to the environment because the lead is contained in the plastic housing and the glass matrix. Because of this low likelihood of release, EPA is today proposing reduced requirements for broken CRTs which are based on findings that these materials merit exclusion from the definition of solid waste. For the sake of regulatory simplicity, the Agency is proposing to codify all of the reduced requirements for CRTs in one section of the Code of Federal Regulations, under the list of exclusions from the definition of solid waste. As noted above, unused CRTs are currently considered commercial chemical products which are excluded from the definition of solid waste when recycled, even if they are reclaimed or speculatively accumulated. We believe that it would be very difficult to distinguish between used and unused intact CRTs destined for recycling. Moreover, there appears to be no environmental basis for such a distinction. Therefore, EPA is proposing to grant relief from Subtitle C requirements for all intact CRTs unless they are disposed, whether used or unused. b. Used, Broken CRTs Destined for Recycling. Some users and collectors of CRTs separate the CRT from the monitor and release the vacuum, after which they send the resulting broken glass to a recycler (often a glass processor). This practice saves shipping costs and enables the glass processor to pay more for the broken CRTs received. At other times, the CRTs are first broken by the processor or other recycler. CRTs whose glass has been broken by releasing the vacuum are non­ reusable and nonrepairable they are therefore solid wastes at the time such breakage occurs. EPA is proposing today to amend 40 CFR part 261 to add a new § 261.39( a), which will provide that used, broken CRTs are excluded from the definition of solid waste if they meet specified conditions. Under today's proposal, used, broken CRTs sent for recycling would not be solid wastes if they are stored in a building with a roof, floor, and walls. If they are not stored in a building, they must be stored in a container (i. e., a package or a vehicle) that is constructed, filled, and closed to minimize identifiable releases of CRT glass (including fine solid materials) to the environment. The packages must also be labeled or marked clearly. When transported, the broken CRTs must also be in a container meeting the conditions described above. Used, broken CRTs destined for recycling would also not be allowed to be speculatively accumulated as defined in 40 CFR 261.1. The Agency believes that if these materials are properly containerized and labeled when stored or shipped prior to recycling, they resemble articles in commerce or commodities more than wastes. Breakage is a first step toward recycling the leaded glass components of the CRT. Also, materials held in conditions that safeguard against loss are more likely to be regarded as valuable commodities destined for legitimate recycling. In addition, the proposed packaging requirements would ensure that the possibility of releases to the environment from the broken CRTs is very low. For these reasons, an exclusion from the definition of solid waste is appropriate if the broken CRTs are handled under the conditions proposed today. Today's proposal would require used, broken CRTs that are imported for recycling to comply with the packaging and labeling requirements specified above when they enter the borders of the United States in order to be eligible for the exclusion. Similarly, they could not be speculatively accumulated after arriving in the country. However, they would not be subject to any of the hazardous waste import requirements of 40 CFR part 262, subparts F and H. Used, broken CRTs that are exported would not be solid wastes if they were packaged and labeled as described above, and if they were not speculatively accumulated. Exports of broken CRTs meeting these conditions would therefore not be subject to the hazardous waste export requirements of 40 CFR part 262, subparts E and H, including the hazardous waste notification requirements. c. Used, broken CRTs Undergoing Glass Processing. The Agency also proposes today an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for used CRTs undergoing glass processing, as long as the processing meets certain conditions. CRT glass processing is defined in proposed 40 CFR 260.10 as receiving intact or broken used CRTs, intentionally breaking them, sorting or otherwise managing glass removed from CRT monitors, and cleaning coatings from the glass. As noted above, CRT users and collectors sometimes break CRTs before sending them to a processor. Therefore, breaking used CRTs would not by itself subject a facility to the CRT glass processing conditions. In order to be classified as a used CRT glass processor, the facility must perform all of the activities listed above. The provisions of today's proposed 40 CFR 261.39( b) state that used, broken CRTs undergoing glass processing would not be considered solid wastes if they are stored in a building with a roof, floor, and walls. If they are not stored inside a building, they must be packaged and labeled under conditions identical to those proposed above for used, broken CRTs prior to processing. In addition, all glass processing activities must take place within a building with a roof, floor, and walls, and no activities may be performed that use temperatures high enough to volatilize lead from used, broken CRTs. In order to be eligible for the exclusion proposed today, the used, broken CRTs could not be speculatively accumulated as defined in 40 CFR 261.1. As discussed above, EPA is today proposing an unconditional exclusion for used, intact CRTs if they are sent for recycling (including glass processing). Under today's proposal, no other conditions would apply to intact CRTs. EPA believes that the packaging and storage conditions proposed today indicate that the materials in question are more commodity­ like than wastelike Used, broken CRTs that are not stored or packaged in accordance with these requirements would not be valuable, product­ like materials. The opportunity for loss or releases of the materials would indicate that they are wastes. As specifically recommended by the CSI Council, we are also proposing VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40514 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules that processors be required to conduct their activities without using temperatures high enough to volatilize lead from broken CRTs. Besides increasing the risk of releases to the environment, such practices could be a sign of waste treatment rather than production. d. Processed Glass From Used CRTs Sent for Recycling to Glass Manufacturers and Lead Smelters. In today's document, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 261.39( d) to exclude processed glass from used CRTs from the definition of solid waste if it is sent for recycling to a CRT glass manufacturer or to a lead smelter, as long as the processed glass is not speculatively accumulated, and as long as it is not used in a manner constituting disposal. EPA believes that processed glass from used CRTs destined for CRT glass manufacturing or sent to a lead smelter meets the regulatory criteria in 40 CFR 260.31( c) for a variance from the definition of solid waste. This variance applies to materials that have been reclaimed but must be reclaimed further before recovery is completed, if, after initial reclamation, the resulting material is commodity­ like. The following paragraphs discuss the characteristics of processed CRT glass and how they meet the criteria. i. The degree of processing a material has undergone and the degree of further processing that is required (40 CFR 260.31( c)( 1)). Processed CRT glass needs minimal further processing by CRT glass manufacturers or lead smelters. CRT glass cullet is shipped to these facilities already cleaned and sorted. CRT manufacturers and smelters perform processing steps consisting only of magnetic separation of anode buttons and studs and, if necessary, further crushing of the glass. Following these steps, the partially reclaimed CRT glass enters the furnace or smelter, similar to other feedstocks used in glass manufacturing and smelting. ii. The economic value of the material that has been initially reclaimed (40 CFR 260.31( c)( 2)). The initial processing of CRT glass satisfies this criterion. CRT glass is usually purchased by CRT glass manufacturers from processors for at least $170 per ton (approximately threefourths of the price of virgin glass). In contrast, lead smelters are usually paid at least $150 per ton by processors for CRT glass used as fluxing material and lead feedstock. However, lead smelters only pay an average of about six dollars per ton for industrial sand used as a fluxing material. Broken glass from CRTs resembles industrial sand in composition and can therefore serve as a substitute for this sand in the fluxing process. The sand, however, is not expensive. CRT glass manufacturers and lead smelters currently obtain processed CRT glass from processors and are working with the processors to increase the supply and quality of processed CRT glass, which may further increase value. The value of processed CRT glass depends on whether manufacturers' specifications are met, and some glass chemistries require exacting specifications that make the processed glass more valuable if it meets those specifications. CRT glass manufacturers have stricter quality standards than lead smelters about the type of material that they can accept (e. g., cleaned, sized, free of coating and debris). Further evidence of the economic value of reclaimed CRT glass is demonstrated by the cost savings realized by CRT glass manufacturers and lead smelters when using processed CRT glass. The use of processed CRT glass cullet benefits the manufacturer in several ways, such as improving heat transfer and melting characteristics in the furnaces, lowering energy consumption, and maintaining or improving the quality of the final product. iii. The degree to which the reclaimed material is like an analogous raw material (40 CFR 260.31( c)( 3)). Under this criterion, the partially reclaimed material must be similar to an analogous raw material or feedstock for which the material may be substituted in a production or reclamation process. Processed CRT glass is similar to offspecification glass and cullet that manufacturers currently use as feedstock. Glass­ making furnaces require between approximately 30 and 70 percent cullet. With respect to lead smelters, processed CRT glass is similar to industrial sand that would otherwise be used as feedstock or flux in the smelter. iv. An end market for the partially reclaimed material is guaranteed (40 CFR 260.31( c)( 4)). The Agency believes that there is a strong end market for processed CRT glass. CRT glass manufacturers and lead smelters have developed relationships with CRT glass processors to increase the amount and quality of reclaimed CRT glass cullet available for glass­ to­ glass recycling and lead reclamation. In addition, CRT glass manufacturers have developed programs in which off­ specification CRTs may be delivered directly to CRT processors for initial processing. The processed CRT glass is delivered to CRT glass manufacturers for use as feedstock in glass­ to­ glass manufacturing, or to lead smelters for recycling. v. The extent to which the partially reclaimed material is handled to minimize loss (40 CFR 260.31( c)( 5)). The Agency believes that current CRT glass industry practices are effective in minimizing losses and preventing releases. Processed CRT glass generally is stored indoors on a cement or asphalt pad. In most cases, the material is shipped in large capacity trucks that are covered with a tarp to minimize loss during transport. When the CRT glass manufacturers or lead smelters receive shipments, the glass is unloaded into a temporary holding area, inspected, and either loaded onto a conveyor belt for further processing or stored under cover. Following these steps, the reclaimed CRT glass enters the furnace feedstock stream or the smelter. e. Processed glass from Used CRTs Sent For Other Types of Recycling. Under today's proposal, processed glass from used CRTs sent for recycling at a facility other than a glass manufacturer or a lead smelter would be excluded from the definition of solid waste only if additional conditions were met. The processed glass would have to be packaged and labeled in accordance with the requirements of proposed 40 CFR 261.39( a). Also, speculative accumulation limits would apply. As stated previously, processed glass is sometimes sent to copper smelters for recycling. It also may be sent for recycling into objects such as radiation shielding, acoustical barriers, optical glass beads, or decorative glass and tile products. The Agency believes that processed glass sent for such uses resembles a commodity more than a waste if it is packaged and labeled under these conditions. In addition, such packaging ensures that the possibility of releases to the environment is minimal. f. Processed Glass From Used CRTs Used in a Manner Constituting Disposal. If processed glass is sent for any kind of recycling that involves land placement, it would be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart C, for recyclable materials used in a manner constituting disposal. The Agency is currently unaware of processed glass being recycled in this manner. g. Imports and Exports. Import requirements were discussed above for used, broken CRTs prior to recycling. Similar import requirements would apply to used, broken CRTs sent to the United States and held at glass processing facilities, as well as already processed glass from used, broken CRTs sent to the United States. In all cases, the material would be subject to the VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40515 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules conditions proposed today, rather than the import requirements of 40 CFR part 262. Similarly, as long as used CRTs (or processed glass from used CRTs) met the conditions proposed today, the export requirements of 40 CFR part 262 would not apply. H. Solicitation of Comment on EPA's Proposed Management Requirements for Used CRTs and Processed CRT Glass EPA believes that today's proposed exclusion from the definition of solid waste is the regulatory scheme which will best promote the CSI Council goals of improved management and increased recycling of the CRT wastestream. The requirements proposed in today's notice are more streamlined than those recommended by the CSI Council. However, we believe that these requirements, if finalized, will lead to better management and more recycling while affording full protection to human health and the environment. The Agency is also soliciting comment today on several other recommendations of the CSI Council, on certain other regulatory alternatives for CRTs that are not proposed today, and on a proposed change to the universal waste rule. These solicitations are discussed below. 1. Universal Waste Alternative The CSI Council envisioned that CRTs would be added to the universal waste rule, which distinguishes between small quantity handlers of universal waste (SQHUWs) and large quantity handlers of universal waste (LQHUWs). The accumulation limit for LQHUWs recommended by the CSI Council was 36,287 kilograms (for CRTs stored onsite for longer than seven consecutive days). Other universal waste requirements applicable to both SQHUWs and LQHUWs that are not proposed today for regulated entities include employee training requirements. The Agency also is not proposing to require that regulated entities notify the appropriate EPA Region of their CRT waste management activities, and track shipments of CRTs sent and received, which would have been required of LQHUWs under the CSI recommendations. The Agency solicits comment on whether these requirements would be appropriate or burdensome for any entities engaged in breaking or processing CRT glass, or for collectors who send used CRTs or CRT glass to glass processors. 2. Definition of `` Broken CRT'' EPA is today proposing streamlined requirements for broken CRTs sent for recycling. `` Broken CRT'' is defined as `` glass removed from the monitor after the vacuum has been released''. Data available to the Agency indicate that after the vacuum has been released and the glass removed, the CRT is generally no longer reusable as a product. However, EPA solicits comment on whether it might be possible to repair and reuse a CRT after the vacuum has been released and the glass removed from the monitor, as well as suggested alternative definitions for `` broken CRT'. 3. Alternative Approaches to Speculative Accumulation and Use Constituting Disposal (Land Placement) EPA notes that under today's proposal, broken CRTs (but not intact CRTs) that are sent for recycling in accordance with the packaging and labeling requirements of proposed 40 CFR 261.39 would be subject to the speculative accumulation provisions of 40 CFR 261.1( c)( 8). The Agency solicits comment on whether a longer accumulation time period (such as two or more years) should be provided for CRTs, in order to allow recycling markets to develop more fully for this relatively new wastestream and because there appear to be few environmental concerns with storage as long as these materials are packaged and labeled properly. EPA also solicits comment on whether intact CRTs sent for recycling should be subject to the speculative accumulation provisions, or whether they resemble commercial chemical products being reclaimed. In addition, the Agency requests comment on whether to add a condition prohibiting use constituting disposal or land placement of broken CRTs (as is proposed today for processed CRT glass). The Agency is not aware of any current uses for broken CRTs or processed CRT glass that involve use constituting disposal, and we solicit comment on the existence of any such uses and their implications. 4. Alternative Standards for Processing Used CRTs EPA also solicits comment on the appropriateness of requiring additional performance standards for glass processors. The CSI Council recommended that glass processors install and maintain systems sufficient to minimize releases of glass and glass particulates via wind dispersal, runoff, and direct releases to soil. It also recommended that processing be performed at temperatures low enough to avoid volatilization of lead from the glass. Today's proposal contains the requirement for processing temperatures, but took a different approach than proposing the general performance standard recommended by the CSI Council. Today's proposed conditions for excluding glass being processed from the definition of solid waste are very similar to management standards cited by the CSI Council as examples of conformance to its recommended performance standards. For example, the Council stated that storing broken CRTs and CRT glass in buildings or closed containers were examples of ways to control wind dispersal, runoff, and direct releases to soil. EPA therefore believes that today's proposed requirements, in addition to being indications that the materials in question resemble commodities rather than wastes, are adequate to fulfill the concerns of the CSI Council. However, the Agency solicits comment on whether to require the general performance standards recommended by the Council. EPA also solicits comment on whether to retain today's proposed requirement that glass processing be conducted at temperatures that are not sufficiently high to volatilize lead. We note that worker health and safety would be covered under the provisions of 29 CFR part 1910 of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The Agency seeks comment on whether today's proposed temperature requirement is necessary to prevent volatilization of lead, and also on whether glass processing conducted at high temperatures is an indication of waste management. EPA would also like to solicit comment on the CSI Council recommendation that glass processors implement a procedure for advising local communities of the nature of their activities, including the potential for resident and worker exposure to lead or chemical coatings. In general, EPA has not required public participation for hazardous waste recycling facilities, unless they obtain RCRA permits for storage of hazardous waste prior to recycling. Usually, local notice and public meetings are governed by preexisting state or local requirements concerning siting, zoning, or licensing. The Agency believes that matters of local notice and public participation are generally best decided at the state, county, or municipal level, but solicits comment on whether to require additional procedures under federal regulations in the case of CRT recycling, and the reasons why these procedures are needed. VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40516 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules 5. Alternative Standards for Processed Glass From Used CRTs Sent for Recycling In addition, EPA solicits comment on whether to exclude from the definition of solid waste under 40 CFR 261.4( b))( 39) only processed glass recycled by being sent to CRT glassmaking, as recommended by the CSI Council. EPA notes that the recommendations of the CSI Council did not include an exclusion for processed glass sent to lead smelters, and that the Council expressed concerns about possible environmental risks associated with this practice. However, after evaluation of this question, the Agency has decided, as explained previously in this preamble, that processed glass sent to lead smelters is more like a commodity than a waste. EPA believes that such an exclusion would be desirable because recycling CRTs at lead smelters appears to be just as legitimate as glass­ to­ glass recycling. The proposed exclusion may also turn out to be useful if the increased use of flat screens decreases the potential for glass­ to­ glass recycling. EPA is also soliciting comment today on whether to exclude from the definition of solid waste CRT glass sent to copper smelters or other glass uses without packaging and labelling requirements. The Agency is aware that processed CRT glass has been shipped for recycling to copper smelters, but we lack much information about this practice. We request comment on whether this glass is as commodity­ like as that sent to glass­ to­ glass recycling or lead smelters. We also solicit comment on whether the exclusion should be allowed for other glass uses. These glass uses are currently being developed and include optical beads, decorative objects, radiation shielding materials, and acoustic barriers for use in the aerospace industry and in equipment manufacturing where sound control is essential. EPA believes that CRT glass being recycled into some of these products would likely be a commoditylike material which would meet the variance criteria described above. We therefore solicit additional information about these uses, or other uses of which commenters may be aware, and on whether CRT glass used for these purposes is commodity­ like. 6. Exports of Used CRTs With respect to exports, the Agency notes that the CSI Council also developed recommendations for exporting CRT glass. The recommendations include exporting provisions for CRTs, coated (i. e, unprocessed) CRT glass, and uncoated (processed) CRT glass. For each category, the CSI Council recommended administrative requirements, depending on whether or not the shipment is destined for an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) country. Under the CSI recommendations, entities exporting CRTs and coated CRT glass would be subject to the same exporting provisions as generators of hazardous waste in Subparts E or H of Part 262 (export notice and consent procedures for non­ OECD and OECD countries); such provisions would be revised to specifically identify the recipient as a collector or processor. For shipments of uncoated CRT glass to those OECD countries specified in 40 CFR 262.58( a)( 1), the exporter would be required to provide an annual report to EPA summarizing the number of shipments and volume sent to each recipient (by country), and identifying the recipient CRT glass collector and processor. For shipments of uncoated CRT glass to non­ OECD countries, the exporter would be required to send annual notification to EPA 90 days prior to the first shipment to each recipient, identifying the country, the recipient CRT glass collector or processor, and the expected number and volume of shipments to be sent that year. EPA notes that today's proposal would exclude from the definition of solid waste used intact CRTs sent for recycling, along with used, broken CRTs sent for recycling if they are packaged and labeled in accordance with the conditions proposed in 40 CFR 261.39. Similarly, processed glass would be exempt from the definition of solid waste if sent to CRT glassmaking or a lead smelter. Since these materials would no longer be considered solid or hazardous wastes, the Agency would not have the legal authority to require notification under 40 CFR part 262, subparts E and H, or the authority to require additional notifications. The Agency notes that if used CRTs were added to the universal waste program, EPA would have authority to require notification at least for exported broken CRTs. EPA solicits comment on whether the need for the export notification requirements recommended by the CSI would warrant adding used CRTs to the universal waste program, and whether these requirements would be unduly burdensome. 7. Disposal of CRTs Finally, the Agency requests comment on whether to allow CRTs sent for disposal in hazardous waste facilities (i. e., landfills or incinerators) to comply with streamlined packaging and labeling requirements similar to those proposed today for broken CRTs sent for recycling, rather than comply with full Subtitle C requirements. EPA also seeks comment on whether adding used CRTs to the universal waste program, which would provide packaging and labeling requirements (as well as tracking requirements for larger quantities of CRTs) would provide better management of these wastes through improved compliance, and whether such requirements would adequately protect human health and the environment. IV. Mercury­ Containing Equipment A. What Is `` Mercury­ Containing Equipment? ' In response to the 1993 universal waste proposal (58 FR 9346, February 11, 1993), some commenters suggested adding used mercury­ containing equipment (such as switches, relays, and gauges) to the universal waste rule at 40 CFR part 273. In the 1995 final rule, however, the Agency did not include these materials in the universal waste program, stating in the preamble that we lacked sufficient information to justify such a decision (60 FR 25942, 25508, May 11, 1995). In particular, EPA did not have data about which kinds of wastes should be included in the suggested category, the amount of mercury in the wastes, and which management controls would be effective. We stated that we would welcome a petition which would provide enough information to add some forms of mercury­ containing equipment to the universal waste program. On October 11, 1996, the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), the Edison Electric Institute, the American Public Power Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association submitted a petition to add mercury­ containing equipment to the universal waste program. This petition identified many types of mercurycontaining equipment, including several kinds of instruments that are used throughout the electric utility and other industries, municipalities, and households. These devices include manometers, barometers, hagenmeters, relay switches, mercury wetted switches, mercury regulators, meters, temperature gauges, pressure relief gauges, water treatment pressure gauges, sprinkler system contacts, power plant water treatment gauges, and variable force counterweight wheels used in coal conveyor systems. VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40517 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules B. Why Is EPA Proposing To Add Mercury­ Containing Equipment To The List of Universal Wastes? The USWAG petition contained useful information describing how such equipment would meet the regulatory criteria for adding wastes to the universal waste program set forth at 40 CFR 273.81. After examining the information contained in the petition, we have decided to propose adding spent mercury­ containing equipment to the universal waste rule. Following is a description of the regulatory criteria for adding wastes to the universal waste rule, and why the Agency believes that used mercury­ containing equipment meets these criteria. In particular, EPA believes that adding these wastes to the universal waste rule will facilitate collection of mercury­ containing equipment, thereby reducing the amount of mercury reaching municipal landfills and incinerators. USWAG has estimated that approximately 3,000 pounds of such equipment is generated annually by electric and gas utilities and by other businesses. 1. The Waste, as Generated by a Wide Variety of Generators, Should Be a Listed or Characteristic Hazardous Waste (40 CFR 273.81( a)) The category of mercury­ containing equipment consists of such devices as thermometers, manometers, barometers, relay switches, mercury regulators, meters, pressure relief gauges, water treatment pressure gauges, and sprinkler system contacts. Most mercurycontaining equipment has a few grams of mercury, although devices such as large manometers may contain much more. Many of these devices would fail the TCLP toxicity level for mercury of 0.2 mg per liter, and would be classified as D009 characteristic hazardous waste. They would therefore meet the first regulatory criterion. 2. The Waste, or Category of Waste, Should Not Be Exclusive To a Particular Industry or Group of Industries, but Generated by a Wide Variety of Establishments (40 CFR 273.81( b)) Used mercury­ containing equipment meets this criterion because it is discarded by many different kinds of generators. Although electric and gas utilities generate the largest number of such devices, many other businesses use instruments designed to measure or regulate pressure or temperature, such as thermometers, barometers and manometers. In addition, regulators, switches, and relays often contain mercury for use as an electric conductor. These devices are used widely in manufacturing industries, retail and commercial establishments (including the dairy industry), office complexes, hospitals, municipalities, and (in the case of certain wastes such as thermometers and mercury switches) domestic households. Sources of this wastestream are many and varied. 3. The Waste Should Be Generated by a Large Number of Generators and Generated Frequently, but in Relatively Small Quantities (40 CFR 273.81( c)) Spent mercury­ containing equipment would meet this criterion even if electric utilities alone were counted. Some large electric utilities have several hundred individual generation points throughout their distribution network, including generating stations, service centers, substations, and transformer vaults. In addition, utilities perform servicing operations on meters, regulators, and other mercurycontaining equipment at many customer locations; a large utility may have more than 1,000 customer sites. Most facilities, whether utilities or not, tend to generate mercury­ containing wastes sporadically and in relatively small quantities because equipment failures are relatively numerous (due to the large number of generation points) and unpredictable, while not producing large quantities of waste equipment. The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group estimates that a single mid­ sized electric utility generates from 2,000 to 4,000 pieces of mercury­ containing equipment annually. 4. Systems To Be Used for Collecting the Waste (Including Packaging, Marking, and Labeling Practices) Should Ensure Close Stewardship of the Waste (40 CFR 273.81( d)) EPA believes that the universal waste program is a very effective way to ensure such stewardship. The Agency is today proposing to require small and large­ quantity universal waste handlers of spent mercury­ containing equipment to label or mark such equipment clearly, similar to the requirements for other handlers of universal wastes in 40 CFR 273.14 and 273.34. To further encourage responsible stewardship, EPA is also proposing to require universal waste handlers of mercury­ containing equipment to manage it in accordance with the universal waste management standards currently in place for used thermostats, because both kinds of devices contain mercury in ampules which are sometimes removed. Today's proposal would require handlers who remove ampules from spent mercury­ containing equipment to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR 273.13 (described later in this notice). 5. The Risks Posed by the Waste During Accumulation and Transport Should Be Relatively low Compared to the Risks Posed by Other Hazardous Waste, and Specific Management Standards Would Be Protective of Human Health and the Environment During Accumulation and Transport (40 CFR 273.81( e)) The Agency believes that spent mercury­ containing equipment poses risks that are relatively low compared to other hazardous wastes because they tend to be generated in relatively small amounts at any one time by each generator. In addition, the elemental mercury contained in such devices is generally fully enclosed within the equipment. The danger of spills and leaks during accumulation and transport is therefore low when the equipment is packaged correctly. In addition, USWAG has suggested, and the Agency is today proposing, that spent mercurycontaining equipment be managed in accordance with the requirements of the universal waste rule at 40 CFR 273. These requirements will ensure that the devices are handled safely during accumulation and transport. Besides the provisions discussed above that are specific to accumulation, packaging, and transport of mercury­ containing universal wastes, the universal waste program requires handlers to train employees in proper handling and emergency procedures and to contain all releases of universal wastes immediately. Handlers may accumulate universal wastes for no longer than one year. The universal waste rule also contains several provisions which ensure safe transport. For example, handlers may send universal waste only to another universal waste handler, a destination facility, or a foreign destination. If the handler sends a universal waste off­ site which meets the definition of hazardous materials under the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations (49 CFR parts 171 through 180), the handler must package and label the shipment in accordance with those regulations and prepare the proper DOT shipping papers. If a handler of universal waste sends a shipment which is rejected, the handler must either take the waste back or agree with the rejecting facility to send the waste to a destination facility. If a handler receives a shipment containing hazardous waste that is not universal waste, the handler must immediately notify the appropriate EPA regional office. Finally, large quantity handlers of universal waste must keep records of each shipment of universal VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40518 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules waste received or sent off­ site. These requirements ensure that spent mercurycontaining devices will be transported safely. 6. Regulation of the Waste Under 40 CFR Part 273 Will Increase the Likelihood That the Waste Will Be Diverted From Non­ Hazardous Waste Management Systems (e. g., the Municipal Waste Stream, NonHazardous Industrial or Commercial Waste Stream, Municipal Sewer or Stormwater Systems) to Recycling, Treatment, or Disposal in Compliance With Subtitle C of RCRA (40 CFR 273.81( f)) If spent mercury­ containing equipment was added to the universal waste program, thousands of sites that generate such devices would be considered handlers of universal wastes, rather than individual hazardous waste generators. Because the hazardous waste manifest would no longer be required, it would be easier to transport these wastes to central consolidation points. Collecting the wastes at such central points makes it easier to send them for recycling or for proper disposal, which makes it less likely that the wastes will be improperly disposed of in municipal landfills or incinerators. In addition, waste handlers that wish to consolidate large volumes of waste from conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) must now obtain a RCRA permit if they accumulate more than 1000 kg of such waste on­ site, pursuant to 40 CFR 261.5( g)( 2). This requirement severely discourages the central collection of large amounts of CESQG waste. If spent mercurycontaining equipment is included in the universal waste system, collectors of these wastes would be encouraged to gather these wastes (along with nonCESQG waste and household waste) for recycling or proper disposal. More of these materials would be kept out of the municipal wastestream if they were available for removal of elemental mercury and recycling of scrap metal. In addition, if spent mercurycontaining equipment is included in the universal waste program, handlers will be less likely to try to separate the hazardous and non­ hazardous portions of this waste. Because the requirements of the universal waste rule are relatively streamlined, and because sampling of mercury­ containing devices can sometimes be difficult, handlers will find it easier to manage the entire wastestream as universal waste. Therefore, waste that would otherwise go to municipal landfills or combustors would be sent for recycling or proper disposal. For these reasons, EPA believes that adding mercury­ containing equipment to the universal waste program will help fulfill the criterion in 40 CFR 273.81( f). 7. Regulation of the Waste Under 40 CFR part 273 Will Improve the Implementation and Compliance With the Hazardous Waste Regulatory Program (40 CFR 273.81( g)) EPA believes that the requirements of the universal waste rule are particularly suited to the circumstances of handlers of spent mercury­ containing equipment, and that their participation in the universal waste program will improve compliance with hazardous waste regulations. As stated earlier, spent mercury­ containing equipment is generated sporadically and in small quantities by many geographically dispersed operations. The existence of so many distribution points, along with the small quantities of waste, makes compliance with full Subtitle C requirements very difficult. Compliance with full hazardous waste generator requirements is particularly difficult for electric or gas utility operations which are located on customers' properties. The requirements of the universal waste rule are clear and should be easily understood by the diverse community affected by this proposal, who will not need to spend an excessive amount of time and effort interpreting the regulations. In addition, because the rule does not require handlers to count universal wastes toward their monthly quantity determination, many handlers will find it easier to determine their hazardous waste generation rates. The Agency believes that the streamlined requirements of this proposal will make compliance more achievable, and that human health and the environment will benefit as a result. C. What Are EPA's Proposed Management Requirements for Used Mercury­ Containing Equipment? 1. Summary of Proposed Requirements The universal waste rule classifies regulated persons managing universal waste into four categories: small quantity handlers of universal waste (SQHUWs), large quantity handlers of universal waste (LQHUWs), transporters, and destination facilities. The term `` universal waste handler'' is defined in 40 CFR 273.9 as a generator of universal waste; or the owner or operator of a facility that receives universal waste from other universal waste handlers, accumulates universal waste and sends it to another universal waste handler, a processor, a destination facility, or a foreign destination. The definition of `` universal waste handler'' does not include: (1) a person who treats (except under the provision of § 273.13( a) or (c), or § 273.33( a) or (c)), disposes of, or recycles universal waste; or (2) a person engaged in the off­ site transportation of universal waste by air, rail, highway, or water, including a universal waste transfer facility. Whether a universal waste handler is a SQHUW or LQHUW depends on the amount of universal waste being accumulated at any time. A SQHUW is defined under 40 CFR 273.9 as a universal waste handler who accumulates less than 5,000 kilograms of universal waste, calculated collectively at any time. The 5,000 kilogram accumulation limit applies to the total quantity of all universal waste handled on­ site, regardless of the category of universal waste. If at any time a SQHUW accumulates 5,000 kilograms or more of universal waste, then the universal waste handler becomes a LQHUW for the calendar year in which 5,000 kilograms or more of universal waste was accumulated. A handler may re­ evaluate his status as a LQHUW in the following calendar year. LQHUWs are subject to certain additional regulatory requirements. The management requirements proposed today for mercury­ containing equipment are generally the same as the existing requirements for mercurycontaining thermostats. Under these proposed requirements, management standards for these universal wastes would not significantly differ from the current requirements of 40 CFR part 273. Our proposed definition of mercury­ containing equipment was adapted from the regulatory definitions used by States which have added these materials to their universal waste programs. Following is a more detailed description of today's proposed requirements for mercury­ containing equipment. 2. Proposed Requirements for Small and Large Quantity Handlers Under today's proposal, most of the existing universal waste requirements currently applicable to SQHUWs and LQHUWs would also apply to handlers of mercury­ containing equipment. For both SQHUWs and LQHUWs, these requirements include waste management standards, labeling and marking, accumulation time limits, employee training, response to releases, requirements related to off­ site shipments, and export requirements. LQHUWs are subject to additional notification and tracking requirements. VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40519 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules The Agency is proposing today to require SQHUWs and LQHUWs to manage mercury­ containing equipment in accordance with the universal waste management standards currently in place for used thermostats, because both kinds of devices contain mercury in ampules which are sometimes removed. Today's proposal would require handlers who remove ampules from spent mercury­ containing equipment to remove them in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 273.13. These provisions state that the ampules must be removed in a manner designed to prevent breakage, and that they must be removed only over or in a containment device. A mercury clean­ up system would have to be readily available to immediately transfer any mercury from leaks or spills from broken ampules to a container. Handlers would be required to ventilate and monitor the area in which ampules are removed to ensure compliance with applicable standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for exposure to mercury. Employees of SQHUWs and LQHUWs would need to be thoroughly familiar with proper waste mercury handling and emergency procedures. They would be required to store removed ampules in closed, non­ leaking containers, and pack removed ampules in containers with packing materials adequate to prevent breakage. Handlers who remove mercury­ containing ampules would have to determine whether residues from spills or leaks exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste. They would also be required to make this determination for any other solid waste generated during removal of the ampules. If the residues or other solid waste exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, it would have to be managed in accordance with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 260 through 279, rather than as a universal waste. The notification requirement proposed today for large quantity handlers of universal waste mercurycontaining equipment is consistent with the existing notification requirement for LQHUWs of all other universal wastes (40 CFR 273.32). Under today's proposed rule, a large­ quantity handler of mercury­ containing equipment would be required to notify the Regional Administrator and receive an identification number before meeting or exceeding the accumulation limit. In addition, these handlers would be required to keep records of universal waste shipments received or sent offsite These records may take the form of a log, invoice, manifest, bill of lading, or other shipping document. 3. Proposed Requirements for Transporters Under 40 CFR 273.9, the definition of a universal waste transporter is `` a person engaged in the off­ site transportation of universal waste by air, rail, highway, or water. '' Persons meeting the definition of universal waste transporter include those persons who transport universal waste from one universal waste handler to another, to a processor, to a destination facility, or to a foreign destination. These persons are subject to the universal waste transporter requirements of subpart D of part 273. The existing provisions apply to transporters of all types of universal waste, and, therefore, they would also apply to transporters of mercurycontaining equipment. EPA notes that today's proposed rule would not affect the applicability of shipping requirements under the hazardous materials regulations of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Transporters would continue to be subject to these requirements if applicable (see 49 CFR 173.164 (Metallic Mercury and Articles Containing Mercury)). 4. Proposed Requirements for Destination Facilities Today's notice does not propose to change any existing requirements applicable to destination facilities (subpart E of part 273). 5. Effect of Today's Proposed Rule on Household Wastes and ConditionallyExempt Small Quantity Generators Adding mercury­ containing equipment to the definition of universal wastes would not substantially change the way households and conditionallyexempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) manage these devices. Household waste continues to be exempt from RCRA Subtitle C regulations under 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 1). However, under the universal waste rule, households and CESQGs may voluntarily choose to manage their mercury­ containing equipment in accordance with either the CESQG regulations under 40 CFR 261.5 or as universal waste under part 273 (40 CFR 273.8( a)( 2)). If CESQG waste or household wastes are mixed with universal waste subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 273, the comingled waste must be handled as universal waste in accordance with part 273. Under today's rule, such comingled waste would be subject to the 5000 kilogram threshold limit for large quantity handlers. Hazardous waste mercury­ containing equipment that is managed as universal waste under 40 CFR part 273 would not have to be included in a facility's determination of hazardous waste generator status (40 CFR 261.5( c)( 6)). Therefore, if a generator were to manage such devices under the universal waste rule and did not generate any other hazardous waste, that generator would not be subject to other Subtitle C hazardous waste management regulations, such as the hazardous waste generator regulations in part 262. A generator that generates more than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste in addition to universal waste mercurycontaining equipment would be regulated as a hazardous waste generator and would be required to manage all hazardous wastes not included within the scope of the universal waste rule in accordance with all applicable Subtitle C hazardous waste management standards. 6. Land Disposal Restriction Requirements (LDRs) Under existing regulations (40 CFR 268.1( f)), universal waste handlers and transporters are exempt from the LDR notification requirements in 40 CFR 268.7 and the storage prohibition in § 268.50. Today's proposal would not change the regulatory status of destination facilities; they would remain subject to the full LDR requirements. D. Solicitation of Comment on Universal Waste Notification Requirements EPA is soliciting comment on a proposed change to the notification requirements of the universal waste rule. The current rule (40 CFR 273.32( b)( 5)) requires large quantity handlers of universal waste (LQHUWs) to include in the notification sent to the Regional Administrator a statement indicating that the handler is accumulating more than 5,000 kg of universal waste at one time and the types of universal waste (i. e., batteries, pesticides, thermostats, lamps, and mercury­ containing equipment) the handler is accumulating above this quantity. The Agency believes that requiring LQHUWs to specify which types of universal waste exceed the 5,000 limit is unnecessary because the regulations already require LQHUWs to provide a list of all the types of universal waste managed by the handler (see 40 CFR 273.32( b)( 4)). In addition, the requirement appears irrelevant because the 5,000 limit for determining whether a handler is a LQHUW applies to all universal waste accumulated by the handler, not to any particular universal waste. The Agency is therefore VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40520 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules proposing today to delete from 40 CFR 273.32( b)( 5) the requirement to notify the Regional Administrator of which particular universal wastes exceed the 5,000 kg. accumulation limit. EPA solicits comment on whether this requirement serves a valid purpose for regulatory authorities, and on whether it is unduly burdensome for LQHUWs. V. State Authority A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified states to administer and enforce the RCRA hazardous waste program within the state. Following authorization, EPA retains enforcement authority under sections 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized states have primary enforcement responsibility. The standards and requirements for state authorization are found at 40 CFR part 271. Prior to enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a State with final RCRA authorization administered its hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of EPA administering the federal program in that state. The federal requirements no longer applied in the authorized state, and EPA could not issue permits for any facilities in that state, since only the state was authorized to issue RCRA permits. When new, more stringent federal requirements were promulgated, the state was obligated to enact equivalent authorities within specified time frames. However, the new federal requirements did not take effect in an authorized state until the state adopted the federal requirements as state law. In contrast, under RCRA section 3006( g) (42 U. S. C. 6926( g)), which was added by HSWA, new requirements and prohibitions imposed under HSWA authority take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. EPA is directed by the statute to implement these requirements and prohibitions in authorized states, including the issuance of permits, until the state is granted authorization to do so. While states must still adopt HSWA related provisions as state law to retain final authorization, EPA implements the HSWA provisions in authorized states until the states do so. Authorized states are required to modify their programs only when EPA enacts federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than existing federal requirements. RCRA section 3009 allows the states to impose standards more stringent than those in the federal program (see also 40 CFR 271.1). Therefore, authorized states may, but are not required to, adopt federal regulations, both HSWA and nonHSWA that are considered less stringent than previous federal regulations. B. Effect on State Authorization Today's proposed rule is less stringent than the current federal program. Because states are not required to adopt less stringent regulations, they do not have to adopt the streamlined regulations for CRTs or the universal waste regulations for mercurycontaining devices, although EPA encourages them to do so. Some states may already be in the process of streamlining their regulations for these materials or adding them to their list of universal wastes. If a state's standards for used CRTs or mercury­ containing equipment are less stringent than those in today's rule, the state will need to amend its regulations to make them equivalent to today's standards and pursue authorization. C. Interstate Transport Because some states may choose not to seek authorization for today's proposed rulemaking, there will probably be cases when used CRTs, processed CRT glass, or mercurycontaining equipment will be transported through states with different regulations governing these wastes. First, a waste which is subject to an exclusion from the definition of solid waste or to the universal waste regulations may be sent to a state, or through a state, where it is subject to the full hazardous waste regulations. In this scenario, for the portion of the trip through the originating state, and any other states where the waste is excluded or is a universal waste, neither a hazardous waste transporter with an EPA identification number per 40 CFR 263.11 nor a manifest would be required. However, for the portion of the trip through the receiving state, and any other states that do not consider the waste to be excluded or a universal waste, the transporter must have a manifest, and must move the waste in compliance with 40 CFR part 263. In order for the final transporter and the receiving facility to fulfill the requirements concerning the manifest (40 CFR 263.20, 263.21, 263.22; 264.71, 264.72, 264.76 or 265.71, 265.72, and 265.76), the initiating facility should complete a manifest and forward it to the first transporter to travel in a state where the waste is not excluded or is not a universal waste. The receiving facility must then sign the manifest and send a copy to the initiating facility. EPA recommends that the initiating facility note in block 15 of the manifest (Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information) that the wastes are covered by an exclusion or under the universal waste regulations in the initiating state but not in the receiving facility's state. Second, a hazardous waste generated in a state which does not provide an exclusion for the waste or regulate it as a universal waste may be sent to a state where it is excluded or regulated as a universal waste. In this scenario, the waste must be moved by a hazardous waste transporter while the waste is in the generator's state or any other states where it is not excluded or not a universal waste. The initiating facility would complete a manifest and give copies to the transporter as required under 40 CFR 262.23( a). Transportation within the receiving state and any other states that exclude the waste or regulate it as a universal waste would not require a manifest and need not be transported by a hazardous waste transporter. However, it is the initiating facility's responsibility to ensure that the manifest is forwarded to the receiving facility by any non­ hazardous waste transporter and sent back to the initiating facility by the receiving facility (see 40 CFR 262.23 and 262.42). EPA recommends that the generator note in block 15 of the manifest (Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information) that the waste is excluded or covered under the universal waste regulations in the receiving facility's state but not in the generator's state. Third, a waste may be transported across a state in which it is subject to the full hazardous waste regulations although other portions of the trip may be from, through, and to states in which it is excluded or covered under universal waste regulations. Transport through the State must be conducted by a hazardous waste transporter and must be accompanied by a manifest. In order for the transporter to fulfill its requirements concerning the manifest (subpart B of Part 263), the initiating facility must complete a manifest as required under the manifest procedures and forward it to the first transporter to travel in a state where the waste is not excluded or is not a universal waste. The transporter must deliver the manifest to, and obtain the signature of, either the next transporter or the receiving facility. As more states streamline their regulatory requirements for these wastes, the complexity of interstate transport will be reduced. VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40521 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 Note: Many CRTs that exhibit the toxicity characteristic for lead are nonetheless not solid wastes that are also hazardous wastes for a number of different reasons. Some are considered household hazardous wastes which are excluded from the federal definition of hazardous wastes. See 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 1). Other CRTs which are postmanufacturing but not post­ consumer are excluded as commercial chemical products being reclaimed. See 40 CFR 261.2( c)( 3). Thus, the fact that a CRT exhibits the toxicity characteristic for lead is not sufficient in and of itself to know that the monitor is a hazardous waste and affected by this rule. VI. Regulatory Requirements A. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), the Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to formal review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and to the requirements of the Executive Order, which include assessing the costs and benefits anticipated as a result of the proposed regulatory action. The Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, the Agency has determined that today's proposed rule is a significant regulatory action because this proposed rule contains novel policy issues. As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are documented in the docket to today's proposal. To estimate the cost savings, incremental costs, economic impacts and benefits from this rule to affected regulated entities, we completed an economic analyses for this rule. Copies of these analyses (entitled `` Economic Analysis of Cathode Ray Tube Management, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'' and `` Economic Analysis of Including Mercury­ Containing Devices In the Universal Waste System, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'') have been placed in the RCRA docket for public review. The Agency solicits comment on the methodology and results from the analysis as well as any data that the public feels would be useful in a revised analysis. 1. Methodology To estimate the cost savings, incremental costs, economic impacts and benefits of this rule, the Agency estimated both the affected volume of cathode ray tubes (CRTs) 1 and regulated entities. Because CRTs are often not managed as hazardous wastes but rather along with municipal refuse, the Agency has evaluated two baseline preregulatory scenarios: (1) A Subtitle C scenario which modeled a distribution of affected monitors as if all affected entities were in compliance with Subtitle C regulation, and (2) a Subtitle D scenario which models a high percentage of CRTs being discarded untreated in municipal solid waste landfills. There is a lower degree of compliance with Subtitle C regulation in the Subtitle D scenario. However, this scenario is being analyzed to evaluate the real­ world effect of this rule on affected entities. The Agency has then modeled two post­ regulatory scenarios: (1) The regulation being proposed today (hereafter referred to as the `` primary alternative''), and (2) the Common Sense Initiative recommendation (hereafter referred to as the `` CSI alternative''). The chief differences between the primary alternative and CSI alternative is that the former applies to both glass­ to­ glass recycling and lead smelters whereas the latter only applies to glass­ to­ glass recycling. The CSI alternative also includes additional management requirements for CRT handlers. Finally, the CSI alternative envisions streamlined management requirements for monitors but keeping them within RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction as hazardous waste. By contrast, the primary alternative of today's proposal excludes previously regulated volumes of CRTs from the federal definition of solid and hazardous waste. In our economic analysis, we have calculated administrative, storage, transportation and disposal/ recovery costs for both baseline and postregulatory scenarios and estimated the net cost savings and economic impacts for each combination of baseline/ postregulatory pair (Subtitle C/ primary alternative, Subtitle C/ CSI alternative, Subtitle D/ primary alternative, Subtitle D/ CSI alternative). The Subtitle C/ primary alternative pair is the scenario that we are using to meet our administrative requirements following this section. This is so because it is appropriate to use a baseline scenario that reflects compliance with existing federal law and a post­ regulatory scenario that is the leading scenario being proposed. For mercury­ containing equipment, we used a similar methodology in our economic analysis to the one we are using for CRTs. Again, because mercurycontaining equipment is often managed in municipal solid waste, we have modeled two baselines, one reflecting compliance with Subtitle C management under existing law and the other reflecting ongoing management of a portion of discarded mercury­ containing equipment in the municipal solid wastestream. The benefits from today's proposed rulemaking are presented qualitatively. EPA solicits comment on the need and means to evaluate quantitative benefits from today's rule. 2. Results a. Volume. Estimated volumes of CRTs subject to RCRA regulation are 16,100 tons of monitors under the Subtitle C baseline. We have estimated the affected volume of CRTs (including both previously regulated and diverted volumes of monitors) under the primary alternative at 17,500 tons and 17,700 under the CSI alternative when paired with the Subtitle C baseline. We believe that between 1500 and 1700 tons of CRTs would be diverted from export or hazardous waste landfill to CRT glass manufacturing under both the primary alternative and the CSI alternative. Estimated volumes of mercurycontaining equipment affected by today's rule are 550 tons. b. Cost/ Economic Impact. We estimate that the primary alternative would save CRT handlers $3.5 million per year relative to the Subtitle C baseline. This cost savings comes from reduced administrative, transportation and disposal/ management cost. We estimate that CSI alternative would save CRT handlers $1.15 million relative to the Subtitle C baseline, again primarily due to reduced administrative and disposal costs. However, unlike the primary alternative, transportation costs could actually be higher for the CSI alternative because this option does not include lead smelters. Thus, longer transportation distances to glass processors would be required. To estimate the economic impact of the primary alternative and CSI alternative on CRT handlers, the Agency evaluated the cost savings or incremental costs as a percentage of firm sales. In virtually all cases economic impacts are cost savings at less than one VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40522 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules percent of firm sales. The average savings for a previously regulated small quantity generator is $755 per year and $1740 per year for a previously regulated large quantity generator under the primary alternative. The average cost savings for previously regulated small and large quantity generators under the CSI alternative are estimated at $703 and $7819 respectively. For mercury­ containing equipment, we estimate cost savings resulting from today's proposal would be approximately $273,000 per year. Of this, about $200,000 in savings is attributed to generators of mercurycontaining equipment, an average of $106 per generator per year. The remaining $73,000 is attributable to retorters and waste brokers. As with CRTs, the economic impact of these savings relative to firm sales is very small, i. e., less than 0.1 percent of firm sales. c. Benefits. EPA has evaluated the qualitative benefits and to a lesser extent, the quantitative benefits of the proposed rule for CRTs and mercurycontaining equipment. Some of the benefits resulting from today's rule include conservation of landfill capacity, increase in resource efficiency, growth of a recycling infrastructure for CRTs and possible reduction of lead emissions to the environment from CRT recycling. EPA estimates that approximately 2600 tons or 456,000 cubic feet of CRTs per year would be redirected away from landfills towards recycling under the Agency's proposal today. In addition, as mentioned above, the use of processed CRT glass benefits the manufacturer in several ways, such as improving heat transfer and melting characteristics in the furnaces, lowering energy consumption, and maintaining or improving the quality of the final product. This rule will facilitate the growth and development of the CRT glass processing industry in the United States by reducing regulatory barriers to new glass processing firms becoming established. Finally, this rule will reduce lead emissions to the environment by diverting CRTs from municipal landfills and waste­ to­ energy facilities. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has fewer than 1000 or 100 employees per firm depending upon the SIC code the firm primarily is classified; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not­ for­ profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The small entity analysis conducted for today's proposal indicates that streamlining requirements for CRTs and mercury­ containing equipment would generally result in savings to affected entities compared to baseline requirements. Under the full compliance scenario, the rule is not expected to result in a net cost to any affected entity. Thus, adverse impacts are not anticipated. Costs could increase for entities that are not complying with current requirements, but even these costs, which are not properly attributable to the current rulemaking, would not be expected to result in significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. Information Collection Request (ICR) documents have been prepared (ICR No. 1189.10) for the proposed CRT requirements, and ICR No. 1597.05 for the proposed requirements for mercury­ containing equipment. Copies may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division (Mail Code 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460– 0001, by email at auby. susan@ epa. gov, or by calling (202) 260– 4901. A copy may also be downloaded off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr. The information requirements established for this action, and identified in the Information Collection Request (ICR) supporting today's proposed rule, are largely selfimplementing This process will ensure that: (i) Regulated entities managing CRTs or mercury­ containing equipment are held accountable to the applicable requirements; and (ii) state inspectors can verify compliance when needed. For example, the universal waste standards require LQHUWs and SQHUWs to demonstrate the length of time that mercury­ containing equipment has been accumulated from the date they were received or became a waste. The standards also require LQHUWs and destination sites to keep records of all shipments received and sent. Further, the standards require waste handlers and processors to notify EPA under certain circumstances (e. g, when large amounts are accumulated or when illegal shipments are received). EPA will use the collected information to ensure that mercurycontaining equipment is being managed in a protective manner. These data aid the Agency in tracking waste shipments and identifying improper management practices. In addition, information kept in facility records helps handlers, processors, and destination sites to ensure that they and other facilities are managing these wastes properly. Section 3007( b) of RCRA and 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, which define EPA's general policy on the public disclosure of information, contain provisions for confidentiality. However, no questions of a sensitive nature are included in any of the information collection requirements associated with today's action. EPA has carefully considered the burden imposed upon the regulated community by the regulations. EPA is confident that those activities required of respondents are necessary and, to the extent possible, has attempted to minimize the burden imposed. EPA believes strongly that if the minimum requirements specified under the regulations are not met, neither the facilities nor EPA can ensure that used CRTs and mercury­ containing equipment are being managed in a manner protective of human health and the environment. For the proposed requirements applicable to CRTs, the aggregate annual burden to respondents over the threeyear period covered by this ICR is estimated at 10,426 hours, with a cost of approximately $687,000. Average annual burden hours per respondent are estimated to be 7 hours; there are an estimated 2400 respondents. This represents a reduction in burden to respondents of approximately 18,616. There are no capital or start­ up costs, VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40523 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules operation or maintenance costs, and no costs for purchases of services. Nor is there any burden to the Agency. For the proposed requirements affecting mercury­ containing equipment, the aggregate annual burden to respondents over the three­ year period covered by this ICR is estimated at 114,770 hours, with a cost of approximately $825,158. Average annual burden hours per respondent are estimated to be 4.5 hours for small quantity handlers, 15 hours for large quantity handlers, 10 hours for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, and 16 hours for transporters; there are an estimated 2495 respondents. This represents a reduction in burden of approximately 18,493 hours. The aggregate burden to the Agency is estimated at 377 hours, with a cost of $10,816.00. Total capital costs are estimated to be $1430 annually for all respondents, and operation and maintenance costs are estimated to be $113 annually for all respondents. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (Mail Code 2823), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460– 0001; and to the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked `` Attention: Desk Officer for EPA''. Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after June 12, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by July 12, 2002. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. D. Unfunded Mandates Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104– 4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost­ benefit analysis, for the proposed and final rules with `` federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost­ effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost­ effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enable officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. The Agency's analysis of compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 found that today's proposed rule imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal government or the private sector. This proposed rule contains no federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The Act generally excludes from the definition of `` federal intergovernmental mandate'' (in sections 202, 203, and 205) duties that arise from participation in a voluntary federal program. Today's proposed rule is voluntary, and because it is less stringent than the current regulations, state governments are not required to adopt the proposed changes. The UMRA generally excludes from the definition of `` Federal intergovernmental mandate'' duties that arise from participation in a voluntary federal program. The UMRA also excludes from the definition of `` Federal private sector mandate'' duties that arise from participation in a voluntary federal program. Therefore we have determined that today's proposal is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. '' This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. F. Executive Order 13175 Executive Order 13175, entitled `` Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications. '' `` Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40524 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. G. Executive Order 13045 `` Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potential effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. H. Executive Order 13211 This rule is not a `` significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Today's proposed rule streamlines hazardous waste management requirements for used cathode ray tubes and mercury­ containing equipment. By encouraging reuse and recycling, the rule may save energy costs associated with manufacturing new materials. It will not cause reductions in supply or production of oil, fuel, coal, or electricity. Nor will it result in increased energy prices, increased cost of energy distribution, or an increased dependence on foreign supplies of energy. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (`` NTTAA''), Public Law 104– 113, section 12( d) (15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, though OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rule does not establish technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, `` Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low­ Income Populations'' (February 11, 1994) is designed to address the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low­ income populations. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and has assumed a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all citizens of the United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, income, or net worth bears disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities. In response to Executive Order 12898, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) formed an Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of environmental justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop an overall strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER Directive No. 9200.3– 17). To address this goal, EPA conducted a qualitative analysis of the environmental justice issues under this proposed rule. Potential environmental justice impacts are identified consistent with the EPA's Environmental Justice Strategy and the OSWER Environmental Justice Action Agenda. Today's proposed rule would streamline hazardous waste management requirements for used cathode ray tubes sent for recycling. It would also streamline such requirements for mercury­ containing equipment by adding this equipment to the federal universal waste rule. Facilities that would be affected by today's rule include any facility generating hazardous waste computers and televisions sent for recycling, and any facility generating hazardous waste mercury­ containing equipment sent for recycling or disposal. Also affected would be facilities which recycle these materials. Disposal facilities themselves would not be affected by today's proposed rule. The wide distribution of affected facilities throughout the United States does not suggest any distributional pattern around communities of concern. Any building in any area could be affected by today's proposal. Specific impacts on low income or minority communities, therefore, are undetermined. The Agency believes that emissions during transportation would not be a major contributor to communities of concern through which used CRTs and mercury­ containing equipment may be transported. Any such material broken during transport would be contained in the required packaging. Overall, no disproportional impacts to minority or low income communities are expected. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 260 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Waste treatment and disposal. 40 CFR Part 261 Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 264 Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds. 40 CFR Part 265 Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Packaging and containers, Security measures, Surety bonds. 40 CFR Part 268 Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 270 Environmental protection, Hazardous materials transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 273 Environmental protection, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste. VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40525 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules Dated: May 17, 2002. Christine T. Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 260, 261, 264, 265, 268, 270 and 273, are amended as follows: PART 260— HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL 1. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6921– 6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939, and 6974. Subpart B— Definitions 2. Section 260.10 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the definitions of `` Cathode ray tube, '' `` CRT glass manufacturing facility, '' `` CRT glass processor, '' and `` Mercurycontaining equipment'' and by republishing the introductory text of and adding paragraph (5) to the the definition of `` Universal Waste'' to read as follows: § 260.10 Definitions. * * * * * Cathode ray tube or CRT means a vacuum tube, composed primarily of glass, which is the video display component of a television or computer monitor. An intact CRT means a CRT remaining within the monitor whose vacuum has not been released. A broken CRT means glass removed from the monitor after the vacuum has been released. * * * * * CRT glass manufacturing facility means a facility or part of a facility that uses a furnace to manufacture CRT glass. * * * * * CRT processing means conducting all of the following activities: (1) Receiving broken or intact CRTs; (2) Intentionally breaking intact CRTs or further breaking or separating broken CRTs; (3) Sorting or otherwise managing glass removed from CRT monitors; and (4) Cleaning coatings off the glass removed from CRTs. * * * * * Mercury­ containing equipment means a device or part of a device (excluding batteries, thermostats, and lamps) that contains elemental mercury necessary for its operation. * * * * * Universal Waste means any of the following hazardous wastes that are managed under the universal waste requirements of part 273 of this chapter: * * * * * (5) Mercury­ containing equipment as described in § 273.6 of this chapter. * * * * * PART 261— IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 3. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6921, 6922, 6924( y), and 6938. Subpart A— General 4. Section 261.4 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)( 23) to read as follows: § 261.4 Exclusions. (a) * * * (23) Used cathode ray tubes (CRTs) (i) Used intact CRTs as defined in § 260.10 are not solid wastes unless disposed. No restrictions on speculative accumulation as defined in § 261.1 apply. (ii) Used, broken CRTs as defined in § 260.10 are not solid wastes provided that they meet the requirements of § 261.39. * * * * * 5. Section 261.9 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows: § 261.9 Requirements for universal waste. * * * * * (e) Mercury­ conteaining equipment as described in § 273.6 of this chapter. 6. Section 261.38 of subpart D is transferred to Subpart E which is added to read as follows: Subpart E— Exclusions/ Exemptions Sec. 261.38 Comparable/ Syngas Fuel Exclusion. 261.39 Conditional Exclusion for Broken, Used Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) Undergoing Recycling. Subpart E— Exclusions/ Exemptions § 261.38 Comparable/ Syngas Fuel Exclusion. * * * * * § 261.39 Conditional Exclusion for Broken, Used Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) Undergoing Recycling. Broken, used CRTs are not solid wastes if they meet the following conditions: (a) Prior to processing: These materials are not solid wastes if they are destined for recycling and if they meet the following requirements: (1) Storage. The broken CRTs must be either: (i) Stored in a building with a roof, floor, and walls, or (ii) Placed in a container (i. e., a package or a vehicle) that is constructed, filled, and closed to minimize identifiable releases to the environment of CRT glass (including fine solid materials). (2) Labeling. Each container in which the used, broken CRT is contained must be labeled or marked clearly with one of the following phrases: `` Waste cathode ray tube( s)— contains leaded glass, '' or `` Used cathode ray tube( s)— contains leaded glass. '' It must also be labeled: `` Do not mix with other glass materials. '' (3) Transportation. These CRTs must be transported in a container meeting the requirements of paragraphs( a)( 1)( ii) and (2) of this section. (4) Speculative accumulation. These CRTs are subject to the limitations on speculative accumulation as defined in § 261.1. (b) Requirements for used CRT processing: Used, broken CRTs undergoing CRT processing as defined in § 260.10 are not solid wastes if they meet the following requirements: (1) Storage. Broken CRTs undergoing processing are subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a)( 1), (2), and (4) of this section. (2) Processing. (i) All CRTs must be processedwithin a building with a roof, floor, and walls; and (ii) No activities may be performed that use temperatures high enough to volatilize lead from CRTs. (c) Processed CRT glass sent to CRT glass making or lead smelting: Glass removed from used CRTs that is destined for recycling at a CRT glass manufacturing facility or a lead smelter after processing is not a solid waste unless it is speculatively accumulated as defined in § 261.1. Imported, processed glass from used CRTs is subject to these requirements as soon as it enters the United States. (d) Processed CRT glass sent to other types of recycling, except for use constituting disposal: Glass removed from used CRTs that is destined for other types of recycling after processing (except use constituting disposal) is not a solid waste if it meets the requirements of paragraphs (a)( 1)–( 4) of this section. Imported, processed glass removed from used CRTs is subject to these requirements as soon as it enters the United States. (e) Use constituting disposal: Processed glass removed from CRT monitors that is used in a manner constituting disposal must comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a)( 1)– (4) of this section and the applicable VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40526 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules requirements of part 266, subpart C of this chapter. Imported, processed glass from used CRTs is subject to these requirements as soon as it enters the United States. PART 264— STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES 7. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6924, and 6925. Subpart A— General 8. Section 264.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (g)( 11)( v) to read as follows: § 264.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability. * * * * * (g) * * * (11) * * * (v) Mercury­ containing equipment as described in § 273.6 of this chapter. * * * * * PART 265— INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES 9. The authority citation for part 265 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6906, 6912, 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 6935, 6936, and 6937. Subpart A— General 10. Section 265.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c)( 14)( v) to read as follows: § 265.1 Purpose, scope and applicability. * * * * * (c) * * * (14) * * * (v) Mercury­ containing equipment as described in § 273.6 of this chapter. * * * * * PART 268— LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS 11. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6921, and 6924. Subpart A— General 12. Section 268.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f)( 5) to read as follows: * * * * * (5) Mercury­ containing equipment as described in § 273.6 of this chapter. * * * * * PART 270— EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM 13. The authority citation for part 270 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912, 6924, 6925, 6927, 6939, and 6974. Subpart A— General Information 14. Section 270.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c)( 2)( viii)( E) to read as follows: § 270.1 Purpose and scope of these regulations. * * * * * (c) * * * (2) * * * (viii) * * * (E) Mercury­ containing equipment as described in § 273.6 of this chapter. * * * * * PART 273— STANDARDS FOR UNIVERSAL WASTE MANAGEMENT 15. The authority citation for part 273 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 6930, and 6937. Subpart A— General * * * * * 16. Section 273.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)( 5) to read as follows: § 273.1 Scope. (a) * * * (5) Mercury­ containing equipment as described in § 273.6. * * * * * 17. A new § 273.6 is added to read as follows: § 273.6 Applicability— Mercury­ containing equipment. (a) Mercury­ containing equipment covered under this part 273. The requirements of this part apply to persons managing mercury­ containing equipment as described in § 273.9, except those listed in paragraph (b) of this section. (b) Mercury­ containing equipment not covered under this part 273. The requirements of this part do not apply to persons managing the following mercury­ containing equipment: (1) Mercury­ containing equipment that is not yet a waste under part 261 of this chapter. Paragraph (c) of this section describes when mercurycontaining equipment becomes a waste. (2) Mercury­ containing equipment that is not a hazardous waste. Mercurycontaining equipment is a hazardous waste if it exhibits one or more of the characteristics identified in part 261, subpart C of this chapter. (c) Generation of waste mercurycontaining equipment. (1) Used mercury­ containing equipment becomes a waste on the day it is discarded. (2) Unused mercury­ containing equipment becomes a waste on the day the handler decides to discard it. 18. Section 273.9 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the definition of `` Mercury­ containing equipment'' and revising the definitions of `` Large quantity handler of universal waste, '' `` Small quantity handler of universal waste, '' and republishing the introductory text of and adding paragraph (5) to the definition of `` Universal waste'' to read as follows: § 273.9 Definitions. * * * * * Large Quantity Handler of Universal Waste means a universal waste handler (as defined in this section) who accumulates 5,000 kilograms or more total of universal waste (batteries, pesticides, thermostats, lamps, or mercury­ containing equipment, calculated collectively) at any time. This designation as a large quantity handler of universal waste is retained through the end of the calendar year in which the 5,000 kilogram limit is met or exceeded. * * * * * Mercury­ containing equipment means a device or part of a device (excluding batteries, thermostats, and lamps) that contains elemental mercury necessary for its operation. * * * * * Small Quantity Handler of Universal Waste means a universal waste handler (as defined in this section) who does not accumulate 5,000 kilograms or more of universal waste (batteries, pesticides, thermostats, lamps, or mercurycontaining equipment, calculated collectively) at any time. * * * * * Universal Waste means any of the following hazardous wastes that are subject to the universal waste requirements of this part 273: * * * * * (e) Mercury­ containing equipment as described in § 273.6. * * * * * Subpart B— Standards for Small Quantity Handlers of Universal Waste 19. Section 273.13 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40527 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules § 273.13 Waste management. * * * * * (c) Universal waste thermostats and mercury­ containing equipment. A small quantity handler of universal waste must manage universal waste thermostats and mercury­ containing equipment in a way that prevents releases of any universal waste or component of a universal waste to the environment, as follows: (1) A small quantity handler of universal waste must place in a container any universal waste thermostat or mercury­ containing equipment that shows evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage that could cause leakage under reasonably foreseeable conditions. The container must be closed, structurally sound, compatible with the contents of the thermostat or device, and must lack evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage that could cause leakage under reasonably foreseeable conditions. (2) A small quantity handler of universal waste may remove mercurycontaining ampules from universal waste thermostats or mercurycontaining equipment provided the handler: (i) Removes the ampules in a manner designed to prevent breakage of the ampules; (ii) Removes ampules only over or in a containment device (tray or pan sufficient to collect and contain any mercury released from an ampule in case of breakage); (iii) Ensures that a mercury clean­ up system is readily available to immediately transfer any mercury resulting from spills or leaks from broken ampules, from that containment device to a container that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 262.34; (iv) Immediately transfers any mercury resulting from spills or leaks from broken ampules from the containment device to a container that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 262.34; (v) Ensures that the area in which ampules are removed is well ventilated and monitored to ensure compliance with applicable OSHA exposure levels for mercury; (vi) Ensures that employees removing ampules are thoroughly familiar with proper waste mercury handling and emergency procedures, including transfer of mercury from containment devices to appropriate containers; (vii) Stores removed ampules in closed, non­ leaking containers that are in good condition; (viii) Packs removed ampules in the container with packing materials adequate to prevent breakage during storage, handling, and transportation, and (3)( i) A small quantity handler of universal waste who removes mercurycontaining ampules from thermostats or mercury­ containing equipment must determine whether the following exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste identified in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C: (A) Mercury or clean­ up residues resulting from spills or leaks, and/ or (B) Other solid waste generated as a result of the removal of mercurycontaining ampules (e. g., remaining thermostat units or mercury­ containing equipment). (ii) If the mercury, residues, and/ or other solid waste exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste, it must be managed in compliance with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 260 through 272. The handler is considered the generator of the mercury, residues, and/ or other waste and must manage it in compliance with 40 CFR part 262. (iii) If the mercury, residues, and/ or other solid waste is not hazardous, the handler may manage the waste in any way that is in compliance with applicable federal, state, or local solid waste regulations. 20. Section 273.14 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows: § 273.14 Labeling/ marking. * * * * * (f) Mercury­ containing equipment, or a container in which the equipment is contained, must be labeled or marked clearly with any of the following phrases: `` Universal Waste— MercuryContaining Equipment, '' or `` Waste Mercury­ Containing Equipment, '' or `` Used Mercury­ Containing Equipment. '' Subpart C— Standards for Large Quantity Handlers of Universal Waste 21. Section 273.32 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)( 4) and (b)( 5) to read as follows: § 273.32 Notification. * * * * * (b) * * * (4) A list of all the types of universal waste managed by the handler (e. g., batteries, pesticides, thermostats, lamps, and mercury­ containing equipment); (5) A statement indicating that the handler is accumulating more than 5,000 kg of universal waste at one time and the types of universal waste (i. e., batteries, pesticides, thermostats, lamps, and mercury­ containing equipment) the handler is accumulating above this quantity. 22. Section 273.33 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 273.33 Waste management. * * * * * (c) Universal waste thermostats and mercury­ containing equipment. A large quantity handler of universal waste must manage universal waste thermostats and mercury­ containing equipment in a way that prevents releases of any universal waste or component of a universal waste to the environment, as follows: (1) A large quantity handler of universal waste must contain any universal waste thermostat or mercurycontaining equipment that shows evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage that could cause leakage under reasonably foreseeable conditions in a container. The container must be closed, structurally sound, compatible with the contents of the thermostat and/ or equipment, and must lack evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage that could cause leakage under reasonably foreseeable conditions. (2) A large quantity handler of universal waste may remove mercurycontaining ampules from universal waste thermostats or mercurycontaining equipment provided the handler: (i) Removes the ampules in a manner designed to prevent breakage of the ampules; (ii) Removes ampules only over or in a containment device (tray or pan sufficient to collect and contain any mercury released from an ampule in case of breakage); (iii) Ensures that a mercury clean­ up system is readily available to immediately transfer any mercury resulting from spills or leaks from broken ampules, from that containment device to a container that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 262.34; (iv) Immediately transfers any mercury resulting from spills or leaks from broken ampules from the containment device to a container that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 262.34; (v) Ensures that the area in which ampules are removed is well ventilated and monitored to ensure compliance with applicable OSHA exposure levels for mercury; (vi) Ensures that employees removing ampules are thoroughly familiar with proper waste mercury handling and emergency procedures, including transfer of mercury from containment devices to appropriate containers; (vii) Stores removed ampules in closed, non­ leaking containers that are in good condition; VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40528 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules (viii) Packs removed ampules in the container with packing materials adequate to prevent breakage during storage, handling, and transportation, and (3)( i) A large quantity handler of universal waste who removes mercurycontaining ampules from thermostats or mercury­ containing equipment must determine whether the following exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste identified in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C: (A) Mercury or clean­ up residues resulting from spills or leaks, and/ or (B) Other solid waste generated as a result of the removal of mercurycontaining ampules (e. g., remaining thermostat units or mercury­ containing equipment). (ii) If the mercury, residues, and/ or other solid waste exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste, it must be managed in compliance with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 260 through 272. The handler is considered the generator of the mercury, residues, and/ or other waste and must manage it in compliance with 40 CFR part 262. (iii) If the mercury, residues, and/ or other solid waste is not hazardous, the handler may manage the waste in any way that is in compliance with applicable federal, state, or local solid waste regulations. * * * * * 23. Section 273.34 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows: § 273.34 Labeling/ marking. * * * * * (f) Mercury­ containing equipment, or a container in which the equipment is contained, must be labeled or marked clearly with any of the following phrases: `` Universal Waste— MercuryContaining Equipment, '' or `` Waste Mercury­ Containing Equipment, '' or `` Used Mercury­ Containing Equipment. '' [FR Doc. 02– 13116 Filed 6– 11– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.756326

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0014-0001

Notice

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request, Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (Renewal), Notice

21668 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 1, 2002 / Notices Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company Wisconsin Electric Power Company and Wisconsin Gas Company Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and The Upper Peninsula Power Company [FR Doc. 02– 10746 Filed 4– 30– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6717– 01– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7204– 4] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request. Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (Renewal) AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit the following continuing Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, ICR #1745.03, OMB No. 2050– 0154, current expiration date is September 30, 1999. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 1, 2002. ADDRESSES: Commentors must send an original and two copies of their comments referencing docket number F– 2002– DF2P– FFFFF to: (1) If using regular US Postal Service mail: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460– 0002, or if using special delivery, such as overnight express service: RCRA Docket Information Center (RIC), Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA 22202. Commentors are encouraged to submit their comments electronically through the Internet to: rcradocket epa. gov. Comments in electronic format should also be identified by the docket number F– 2002– DF2P– FFFFF. All electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Commentors should not submit electronically any confidential business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U. S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460– 0002. Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public make an appointment by calling 703– 603– 9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15 per page. The index and the supporting material is available electronically. The ICR is available on the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ sqg/ index. htm. The official record for this action will be kept in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into paper form and place them in the official record, which will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. EPA responses to comments, whether the comments are written or electronic, will be in a notice in the Federal Register. EPA will not immediately reply to commentors electronically other than to seek clarification of electronic comments that may be garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form, as discussed above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the RCRA Hotline at 800 424– 9346 or TDD 800 553– 7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call 703 412– 9810 or TDD 703 412– 3323. For more detailed information on specific aspects of this rulemaking contact Paul Cassidy, EPA, Office of Solid Waste (5306W), Industrial & Extractive Waste Branch, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, phone 703 308– 7281, e­ mail address: cassidy. paul@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Affected entities: EPA assumes that industrial waste units that previously co­ disposed non­ hazardous wastes and conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) hazardous waste onsite have ceased that practice and that commercial off­ site industrial waste units are operating with stringent environmental controls in place. Therefore, entities that potentially will be affected by this action are limited to those that dispose of CESQG hazardous wastes in construction and demolition (C& D) waste landfills. Title: Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting requirements— 40 CFR Part 257 Subpart B. OMB No.: 2050– 0154. EPA ICR No.: 1745.03. Current expiration date: September 30, 1999. Abstract: In order to effectively implement and enforce final changes to 40 CFR Part 257— Subpart B on a State level, owners/ operators of construction and demolition waste landfills that receive CESQG hazardous wastes will have to comply with the final reporting and recordkeeping requirements. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. This continuing ICR documents the recordkeeping and reporting burdens associated with the location and ground­ water monitoring provisions contained in 40 CFR Part 257— Subpart B. The EPA would like to solicit comments to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and the clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques of other forms of information technology, e. g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Burden Statement: The current annual burden to respondents for complying with the information collection requirements of Part 257— VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 23: 17 Apr 30, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 01MYN1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 01MYN1 21669 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 1, 2002 / Notices Subpart B Criteria is approximately 11,000 hours per year, with a current annual cost of $393,000. The current estimated number of respondents is 164 with a current average annual burden of approximately 67 hours per respondent. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Dated: April 23, 2002. Matthew Hale, Acting Office Director, Office of Solid Waste. [FR Doc. 02– 10734 Filed 4– 30– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP– 2002– 0023; FRL– 6834– 4] Dimethoate Product Cancellation Order and Label Amendment; Technical Correction AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice; technical correction. SUMMARY: EPA issued a cancellation order in the Federal Register of March 13, 2002 eliminating the residential uses for Dimethoate. This document is being issued to correct the existing stocks provisions of this cancellation order. DATES: The cancellations became effective March 13, 2002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Patrick Dobak, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703– 308– 8180; email address: dobak. pat@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Does this Action Apply to Me? The Agency included in the cancellation order a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. II. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents? 1.Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// www. epa. gov. To access this document, go to the Federal Register listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr. 2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP– 2002– 0023. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305– 5805. III. What Does this Technical Correction Do? The cancellation order for uses of pesticide products containing Dimethoate on various commodities was published in the Federal Register on March 13, 2002 (67 FR 11330) (FRL– 6828– 1). The existing stocks language in Unit IV is not consistent with the proposed existing stocks provisions included in the January 10, 2002 proposed Cancellation Order. The following Unit IV replaces Unit IV of the Cancellation Order published on March 13, 2002. The replacement language is consistent with the language in the January 10, 2002 proposed cancellation order. No comments were received by the Agency. The revised existing stocks provisions are as follows: IV. Existing Stocks Provisions 1. Distribution or sale of products by the registrant bearing instructions for use on houseflies and non­ agricultural use sites. The distribution or sale of existing stocks by the registrant of any product listed in Table 1 or 2 that bears instructions for any use identified in List 1, will not be lawful under FIFRA 1 year after the effective date of the cancellation order, except for the purposes of shipping such stocks for export consistent with section 17 of FIFRA or for proper disposal. 2. Distribution, sale, or use of products by persons other than the registrant bearing instructions for use on houseflies and non­ agricultural use sites. Persons other than the registrant may continue to sell or distribute the existing stocks of any product listed in Table 1 or 2 that bears instructions for any of the uses identified in List 1 after the effective date of the cancellation order and may continue until such stocks are exhausted. The use of existing stocks by persons other than the registrant of any product listed in Table 1 or 2 that bears instructions for any uses identified in List 1 may continue until such stocks are exhausted. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides, Use cancellation order. Dated: April 23, 2002. Lois A. Rossi, Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division. [FR Doc. 02– 10735 Filed 4– 30– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP– 2002– 0020; FRL– 6834– 3] Pesticide Product; Registration Application; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces an extension of the comment period regarding receipt of an application to register a pesticide product containing a new active ingredient not included in any previously registered products pursuant to the provisions of section 3( c)( 4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. DATES: Written comments, identified by the docket control number OPP– VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 23: 17 Apr 30, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 01MYN1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 01MYN1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.780423

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0017-0001

Supporting & Related Material

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST NUMBER 262.10 "RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT APPLICATION AND MODIFICATION, PART A" April 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. IDENTIFICATIONOFTHE INFORMATIONCOLLECTION ................. 1 1( a) TITLE AND NUMBER OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION ........ 1 1( b) CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION ......... 1 2. NEEDFORANDUSE OFTHECOLLECTION ............................ 2 2( a) NEED AND AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION .................. 2 2( b) USE AND USERS OF THE DATA ................................. 2 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3 3( a) NONDUPLICATION ........................................... 3 3( b) PUBLIC NOTICE .............................................. 4 3( c) CONSULTATIONS ............................................. 4 3( d) EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION ..................... 4 3( e) GENERAL GUIDELINES ........................................ 4 3( f) CONFIDENTIALITY ........................................... 4 3( g) SENSITIVE QUESTIONS ....................................... 5 4. RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED .................. 5 4( a) RESPONDENTS AND NAICS CODES ............................. 5 4( b) INFORMATION REQUESTED ................................... 6 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED ­­ AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ................. 10 5( a) AGENCY ACTIVITIES ........................................ 10 5( b) COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT ............. 11 5( c) SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY ................................. 11 5( d) COLLECTION SCHEDULE ..................................... 11 6. ESTIMATINGTHE BURDENANDCOSTOFCOLLECTION ............... 12 6( a) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN .......................... 12 6( b) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS ............................. 13 6( c) ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST ..................... 13 6( d) ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSE AND TOTAL BURDEN AND COSTS................................................. 16 6( e) BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS .................... 18 6( f) REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN ........................... 18 6( g) BURDEN STATEMENT ........................................ 18 EXHIBITS ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST (EXHIBIT 1) ................. 14 ESTIMATEDAGENCYBURDENANDCOST (EXHIBIT 2) ...................... 15 TOTAL ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST SUMMARY (EXHIBIT 3) 17 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1 1( a) TITLE AND NUMBER OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION This ICR is entitled "RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification, Part A," ICR number 262.10. 1( b) SHORT CHARACTERIZATION The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, requires EPA to establish a national regulatory program to insure that hazardous wastes are managed in a manner protective of human health and the environment. Specifically, the statute requires EPA to promulgate regulations that establish performance standards and permitting requirements applicable to hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs). Section 3004 of Subtitle C establishes performance standards applicable to these facilities. Section 3005 requires EPA to promulgate regulations requiring these facilities to obtain a permit. In the event permit modifications are proposed by an applicant or EPA, modifications must conform to the requirements under Sections 3004 and 3005. The regulations implementing these requirements are codified at 40 CFR Part 270. This ICR provides a comprehensive discussion of the requirements for owner/ operators of TSDFs submitting Part A Permit Applications or Part A Permit Modifications. Four types of facilities are subject to the requirements covered in this ICR: new facilities not yet constructed; newly regulated existing facilities subject to RCRA permitting requirements for the first time; permitted facilities with newly regulated units; and interim status facilities. The information collections contained in this ICR are divided into two sections: Contents of the Part A Permit Application; and Revised Part A Permit Applications, Associated Justifications and Compliance Demonstrations. Part A Permit Application 40 CFR Part 270 contains requirements for submitting and modifying a Part A Permit Application. The Part A Permit Application contains the general information required in §270.13. That information includes names and addresses of the owner and operator of the facility and the activities conducted at the facility that requires a RCRA permit. The applicant must also provide information on the location of the facility, including a map, and what hazardous wastes are being managed and the processes involved in the waste management. Section 270.11 specifies the signature requirements for Part A Permit Applications and reports. Revised Part A Permit Applications and Associated Justifications and Subpart H Compliance Demonstrations Section 270.72 identifies the types of changes requiring interim status facilities or owners/ operators of permitted facilities with newly regulated units to submit a revised Part A Permit Application, associated justifications, and compliance demonstrations. The changes that require a revised Part A include managing wastes not listed on the original Part A, increasing the 2 design capacity of the facility, and changing the processes or adding new units for treating, storing, or disposing of the waste. In all cases, the owner must include justification for the change, and the Director must approve the changes. If the owner or operator changes, which also requires a revised Part A, both the old and new owner or operator must demonstrate that the financial responsibility requirements of 40 CFR part 265, subpart H will continue uninterrupted during the change. 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) NEED AND AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION This section describes the need and authority for each type of information collection analyzed in this ICR. Part A Permit Application EPA promulgated regulations in §270.1 requiring owners or operators of TSDFs to submit a Part A Permit Application. EPA needs information contained in the Part A Permit Application to identify the person( s) legally responsible for hazardous waste activity, to determine which facilities require permits under more than one program, to assess potential for the facility to pollute nearby ground and surface waters, to identify the time frame available for EPA to process permit applications, and to define the specific wastes a facility is legally allowed to handle for different purposes. Revised Part A Permit Applications and Associated Justifications and Subpart H Compliance Demonstrations EPA promulgated regulations in §270.72 outlining changes that require owners or operators to submit revised Part A Permit Applications. Section 270.72( a)( 1)­( 3) require owner/ operators to submit both a revised Part A Permit Application and a written justification for changes in the design capacity of processes used at the facility, and/ or changes or additions in a facility's hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal processes. Under §270.72( a)( 4), if an owner or operator changes ownership, or operational control of a facility, the new owner or operator is required to submit a revised Part A Permit Application, and a Subpart H compliance demonstration. EPA needs revised permit applications, justifications, and compliance demonstrations to determine whether desired changes are acceptable or should be more closely reviewed as part of a full permit issuance process. 2( b) PRACTICAL UTILITY AND USERS OF THE DATA Part A Permit Application EPA uses information in the Part A Permit Application to define which processes can be used and which wastes can be handled at newly regulated facilities subject to permitting requirements for the first time and permitted facilities with newly regulated units. This includes defining allowable changes in facility operations and applies to new facilities not yet constructed; 3 newly regulated facilities subject to RCRA permitting requirements for the first time; permitted facilities with newly regulated units; and interim status facilities. EPA uses information in the Part A Permit Application to:
Set priorities for processing permit applications;
Respond to requests from hazardous waste generators for the names and locations of facilities where they can send their waste for storage, treatment, or disposal;
Respond to public and Congressional inquiries regarding particular hazardous waste management facilities; and
Ensure that facilities are not operating in a manner unprotective of human health and the environment. Revised Part A Permit Applications and Associated Justifications and Subpart H Compliance Demonstrations EPA uses this information to determine whether desired changes are acceptable under interim status or whether the change should be more closely reviewed as part of a full permit issuance process. In addition, modifying the Part A Permit Application allows inspectors to have up­ to­ date information on major aspects of the facility, including the size of the operation, the hazardous wastes handled, and the types of processes used. Without this documentation, EPA would be unable to determine the owner or operator's compliance with the management standards of 40 CFR Parts 264 or 265 or the rules governing changes during interim status. This documentation is also useful for both EPA and the owner or operator in an enforcement action. 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) NONDUPLICATION There are no other Federal agencies with a hazardous waste permit program, and information collected from a RCRA Part A Permit Application is the minimum information necessary to fulfill the statutory requirements of RCRA Section 3005. Similarly, the information requested in §270.72 for interim status facility changes is not available from other data sources. Any duplication of information collection requirements between a Part A Permit Application and EPA Form 8700­ 12 (for RCRA Section 3010 notification) is necessary for proper identification of the facility and proper form management. The information collection requirements associated with EPA Form 8700­ 12 and RCRA Section 3010 notification are addressed in the "Notification of Regulated Waste Activity," ICR No. 261.13. Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA began in fiscal year 1982 to authorize States to carry out permitting activities in lieu of the Federal program. In order to obtain authorization, the 4 States must agree to collect the same information as EPA collects. Although the States are not required to use the same form that EPA uses, the Agency strongly encourages this for national consistency. Facilities applying for a permit or change in interim status in an authorized State are required to file only with the State. 3( b) PUBLIC NOTICE In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EPA has issued a public notice in the Federal Register [ADD FR NOTICE DATE AND CITATION]. The public comment period extends through [ENTER DATE]. At the end of the public comment period, EPA will review the comments received in response to the notice and will address them as appropriate. 3( c) CONSULTATIONS The burden hours and cost estimates for this ICR have been well established, and were verified through the development of the Information Collection Request 2005.01, the RCRA subtitle C Site Identification Form, January 5, 2001. No additional consultations were made for this ICR. 3( d) EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION A respondent's provision of information on a Part A Permit Application is essentially a one­ time exercise that must occur when a facility is new or if an existing facility becomes subject to new permitting requirements. Subsequent revisions to the Part A Permit Application are necessary only if an interim status facility changes its ownership and/ or process or management of wastes. EPA strongly believes that if the minimum requirements specified under the regulations are not met, neither the facilities nor EPA can ensure that hazardous wastes are being properly managed, and do not pose a serious threat to human health and the environment. 3( e) GENERAL GUIDELINES This ICR adheres to the guidelines stated in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, OMB's implementing regulations, EPA's Information Collection Review Handbook, and other applicable OMB guidance. 3( f) CONFIDENTIALITY All information submitted in a Part A Permit Application or revision will be subject to public disclosure, without notice to the facility, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U. S. C. section 552, and EPA Freedom of Information Regulations, 40 CFR Part 2. Because of the general nature of the information requested, only a few Part A Permit Applications to date have qualified for exemption to disclosure under the business confidentiality exception. Claims of confidentiality must be clearly indicated on the forms and attachments, and must be accompanied, at the time of filing, by a written substantiation of the claim in accordance with 40 5 CFR Part 2, Subpart B (particularly the information described at 40 CFR section 2. 204( e).) Information that is determined to be confidential is placed in a secured "confidential file" for future use. Only persons with special clearance for confidential information have access to these files. 3( g) SENSITIVE QUESTIONS No questions of a sensitive nature are included in these information collection requirements. 4. RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) RESPONDENTS AND NAICS CODES The following is a list of NAICS codes associated with the facilities most likely to be affected by the Part A Permit Application and permit modifications under this ICR: NAICS Code 221121 Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control 221122 Electric Power Distribution 22132 Sewage Treatment Facilities 311942 Spice and Extract Manufacturing 323114 Quick Printing 32411 Petroleum Refineries 325131 Inorganic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 32551 Paint and Coating Manufacturing 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product Manufacturing 331311 Alumina Refining 33271 Machine Shops 332813 Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring 332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 333319 Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing 333999 All Other General Purpose Machinery Manufacturing 33422 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing 334418 Printed Circuit/ Electronics Assembly Manufacturing 334419 Other Electronic Component Manufacturing 336211 Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing 336312 Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing 336322 Other Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment Manufacturing 33633 Motor Vehicle Steering and Suspension Components (except Spring) 6 Manufacturing 33634 Motor Vehicle Brake System Manufacturing 33635 Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Parts Manufacturing 336399 All Other Motor Vehicle Part Manufacturing 44111 New Car Dealers 44711 Gasoline Stations with Convenience Store 44719 Other Gasoline Stations 454312 Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Bottled Gas) Dealers 48411 General Freight Trucking, Local 48421 Used Household and Office Goods Moving 48422 Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Local 562112 Hazardous Waste Collection 562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 562219 Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 56292 Materials Recovery Facilities 811111 General Automotive Repair 4( b) INFORMATION REQUESTED Part A Permit Application Contents of the Part A Permit Application (i) Data Items 40 CFR 270.1 requires owners or operators of newly regulated facilities subject to permitting requirements for the first time and permitted facilities with newly regulated units to prepare and submit a Part A Permit Application. Data items required in EPA Form 8700­ 23 are outlined in §270.13 and include the following:
A list of the activities conducted by the applicant that require the owner or operator to obtain a RCRA permit;
Name, mailing address, and location, including latitude and longitude of the facility for which the application is submitted;
Up to four NAICS codes that best reflect the principal products or services provided by the facility;
Operator's name, address, telephone number, ownership status, and status as Federal, State, private, public or other entity;
Name, address, and phone number of the owner of the facility; 7
Whether the facility is located on Indian lands;
An indication of whether the facility is new or existing and whether it is a first or revised application;
For existing facilities, the following information: ­­ A scale drawing of the facility showing the location of all past, present, and future treatment, storage, and disposal areas and ­­ Photographs of the facility clearly delineating all existing structures; existing treatment, storage and disposal areas; and sites of future treatment, storage, and disposal areas;
A description of the processes to be used for treating, storing, and disposing of hazardous waste, and the design capacity of these items;
A specification of the hazardous wastes listed or designated under 40 CFR Part 261 to be treated, stored, or disposed of at the facility; an estimate of the quantity of such wastes to be treated, stored, or disposed annually; and a general description of the processes to be used for such wastes;
A listing of all permits or construction approvals received or applied for under any of the following programs: ­­ Hazardous Waste Management program under RCRA ­­ Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) ­­ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program under the Clean Water Act (CWA) ­­ Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program under the Clean Air Act (CAA) ­­ Nonattainment program under the CAA ­­ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) preconstruction approval under the CAA ­­ Ocean dumping permits under the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act ­­ Dredge or fill permits under section 404 of the CWA ­­ Other relevant environmental permits, including State permits.
A topographic map (or other map if a topographic map is unavailable) extending one mile beyond the property boundaries of the source, depicting the following aspects of the facility: 8 ­­ Each of its intake and discharge structures; ­­ Each of its hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities; ­­ Each well where fluids from the facility are injected underground; and ­­ Wells, springs, other surface water bodies, and drinking water wells listed in public records or otherwise known to the applicant within 1/ 4 mile of the facility property boundary.
A brief description of the nature of the business.
For hazardous debris, a description of the debris category( ies) and containment category( ies) to be treated, stored, or disposed of at the facility. (ii) Respondent Activities To comply with §270.1, owners or operators must perform the following activities:
Read the regulations and instructions; and
Prepare the Part A Permit Application and reports. Signatories to Permit Applications and Permit Application Reports (i) Data Items
§270.11( a) specifies signatures required on Part A Permit Applications. Data items required include: ­­ For a corporation, the signature of a responsible corporate officer as defined in §270.11( a)( 1); ­­ For a partnership or sole proprietorship, the signature of a general partner or proprietor as defined in §270.11( a)( 2); and ­­ For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency, the signature of either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official as defined in §270.11( a)( 3).
§270.11( b) requires signatures for reports required by permits and other information requested by the Director. Data items required for these reports include: ­­ For a corporation, the signature of a responsible corporate officer as defined in §270.11( a)( 1); ­­ For a partnership or sole proprietorship, the signature of a general partner or proprietor as defined in §270.11( a)( 2); 9 ­­ For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency, the signature of either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official as defined in §270.11( a)( 3); or ­­ Signature of a duly authorized representative of one of the persons listed above as defined in §270.11( b).
§270.11( c) requires an owner or operator to submit to the Director, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of §270.11( b) if an authorization under §270.11( b) is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility. Data items for this requirement are the same as those under §270.11( b).
§270.11( d) requires any person signing a document under §270.11( a) or (b) to make the following certification: I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is to be the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. (ii) Respondent Activities To comply with §270.11, owners or operators must perform the following activities:
Obtain signatures and certifications for the Part A Permit Application, reports, and other information requested by EPA; and
Obtain a new authorization for invalid authorizations. Submittal of Part A Permit Application (i) Data Items Section 270.70( b) requires owners and operators who submit a Part A Permit Application to EPA, to explain or cure an alleged deficiency in the Part A Permit Application, if EPA notifies the applicant that the application fails to meet the requirements of §270.13. (ii) Respondent Activities To comply with §§ 270.11 and 270.70, respondents must perform the following activities: 10
Submit the Part A Permit Application and reports; and
Explain or cure an alleged deficiency in the Part A Permit Application, if required. Revised Part A Permit Applications and Associated Justifications and Subpart H Compliance Demonstrations (i) Data Items Under §270.72, interim status facilities must prepare and submit a revised Part A Permit Application if the Agency promulgates a rulemaking that affects the facility, or if the owner/ operator otherwise modifies the facility. Interim status facilities who modify their Part A Permit Application are required to submit a revised Part A Permit Application containing the data items listed in the data item section for EPA Form 8700­ 23. (ii) Respondent Activities To comply with §270.72, owners or operators must perform the following activities:
Read the regulations and instructions in preparation for revising a Part A Permit Application in response to an Agency rulemaking or a facility modification;
Prepare and submit a revised Part A Permit Application in response to an Agency rulemaking or facility modification;
Prepare and submit justifications for changes, if needed; and
Submit Subpart H compliance demonstrations, if needed. 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED ­­ AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) AGENCY ACTIVITIES Part A Permit Application Agency activities associated with Part A Permit Applications include reviewing information contained in the application, ensuring that the Part A Permit Application and associated reports are signed by the appropriate person, reviewing newly authorized signatures when a different individual or position gains responsibility for the overall operation of a facility, reviewing signature certifications, and entering information into the RCRAInfo database. EPA may also identify deficiencies in the Part A Permit Application. 11 Revised Part A Permit Applications and Associated Justifications and Subpart H Compliance Demonstrations Agency activities associated with revised Part A Permit Applications, justifications, and compliance demonstrations include reviewing information contained in each of these items, and entering revised information into the RCRAInfo database. 5( b) COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT EPA keeps records of and reviews all of the information submitted. Authorized States and EPA Regions enter information on the Part A forms into electronic data base systems. States coordinate with the EPA Regions and OSW Headquarters to supply EPA with the data reported for inclusion in a the RCRAInfo national database. 5( c) SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY Interim status is statutorily conferred without regard to facility size. Therefore, EPA believes that requirements regarding Part A submissions and revisions must apply equally to large and small businesses. Although the legal requirements for Part A Permit Application information are the same for large and small businesses, the Agency believes that in practice the small entities will find it easier to provide the required information. In many instances, a small organization will be able to complete or revise the Part A Permit Application in less time than larger organizations because they use fewer processes for the management of hazardous wastes and they manage fewer types of wastes. As a rule of thumb, the complexity of preparing a Part A Permit Application depends upon the complexity of the processes of a hazardous waste facility and the wastes managed at the facility. Therefore, if a small organization operates a complex facility (e. g., a chemical landfill that manages a very large number of waste streams), then the time to complete the Part A Permit Application will necessarily be greater. Again, EPA has taken steps to minimize the burden on all respondents by providing detailed instructions for completion of the Part A Permit Application form and by requiring short answer responses to most of the items of the application. It also should be noted that the reporting requirements for changes are brief. Therefore, owners or operators can easily comply with these requirements. In addition, most of the revisions to Part A Permit Applications will entail merely checking boxes or filling in numbers to indicate the type of new activity or new waste to be handled at the facility. Any written justification entails a short letter from the owner or operator. EPA, therefore, estimates that the potential burden on small businesses caused by this information collection is minimal. 12 5( d) COLLECTION SCHEDULE Part A Permit Application Owners or operators of new hazardous waste management facilities that are not yet constructed are required to submit their Part A Permit Application, including signatures and certifications at least 180 days before physical construction is expected to commence. For existing facilities newly subject to RCRA permitting requirements due to promulgation of a new regulation or listing of hazardous waste, the new regulation typically specifies the date by which Part A Permit Applications, including signatures and certifications, must be submitted. Revised Part A Permit Applications and Associated Justifications and Subpart H Compliance Demonstrations The time frame in which owners or operators must submit a revised Part A Permit Application varies according to the nature of changes at the facility. For the following types of changes, the owner or operator must submit revised Part A Permit Applications and justifications prior to making the changes:
Treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous wastes not previously identified in the Part A Permit Application;
Increasing the design capacity of processes used at the facility; and
Changing or adding processes for treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous wastes. For changes in ownership or operational control of a facility, the new owner or operator must submit a revised Part A Permit Application no later than 90 days prior to the scheduled change. Subpart H compliance demonstrations must be submitted within six months of the date of the change in ownership or operational control of the facility. 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION 6( a) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN EPA's estimated respondent burden hours and costs associated with all of the requirements covered in this ICR are shown in Exhibit 1. The exhibit includes the number of hours required to conduct the information collection activity and the cost associated with each requirement. Some totals may not add up due to rounding errors. In developing burden estimates for each information collection requirement in the ICR, EPA relied on the results of consultations with members of the regulated community from previous ICRS for this activity, including consultations from the January 5, 2001 Supporting Statement for the RCRA Subtitle C Site Identification Form. 13 6( b) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS In Exhibit 1, EPA also estimates respondent costs associated with this ICR. In the following paragraphs, EPA describes the data and assumptions used in the exhibit. (i) Estimating Labor Costs EPA estimates an average hourly respondent labor cost (including overhead) of $108 for legal staff, $77.00 for managerial staff, $57.00 for technical staff, and $29.00 for clerical staff. To arrive at these estimates, EPA consulted the Handbook of Labor Statistics, Second Edition, updated to current levels. The handbook summarizes the base hourly rates for various labor categories in U. S. firms. EPA the applied an overhead factor of 2.3 for non­ legal staff and 3. 0 for legal staff to arrive at loaded hourly rates. Using the total burden hours discussed in Section 6( a) and the wage rates in this Section, the labor costs associated with the information collection activities covered in this ICR were calculated and are shown in Exhibit 1. (ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance (O& M) Costs EPA estimates that facilities may incur annual capital and operations and maintenance costs associated with specific activities. There are no capital costs associated with completing and submitting the Part A Permit Application. For submittal of information or notices, EPA estimates that facilities will incur $4. 20 in costs each year for the three­ year period of the ICR. This estimate is based on the mailing cost of $4. 20 for a two­ pound package. There are no costs associated with the purchase of a service included in the O& M costs. 6( c) ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COSTS EPA estimates annual Agency burden hours and costs associated with all of the requirements covered in this ICR in Exhibit 2. Based on a 2002 GS pay schedule, EPA estimates an average hourly Regional labor cost of $80.26 for legal staff, $70.75 for managerial staff, $50.95 for technical staff, and $21.73 for clerical staff. The labor costs were based on the following GS levels and steps: legal labor rates were based on GS Level 15, Step 5, managerial labor rates were based on GS Level 15, Step 1, technical labor rates were based on GS Level 13, Step 1, and clerical labor rates were based on GS Level 6, Step 1. To derive hourly estimates, EPA divided annual compensation estimates by 2, 080, which is the number of hours in the Federal work­ year. EPA then multiplied hourly rates by the standard government overhead factor of 1.6. As shown in Exhibit 2, EPA estimates the total annual Agency burden to be approximately 231 hours, at an annual cost of $10,960. Some totals may not add up due to rounding errors. 14 EXHIBIT 1 RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT APPLICATION AND MODIFICATION, PART A ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST Hours and Costs per Respondent Total Hours and Costs INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Legal $108.00/ hr. Manager $77.00/ hr. Technical $57.00/ hr. Clerical $29.00/ hr. Respon. Hours/ Year Labor Cost/ Year Capital/ Startup Cost O& M Cost Number of Respon. Total Hours/ Year Total Cost/ Year Part A Permit Application requirements Read the regulations and instructions 2. 00 1. 00 3. 00 0. 00 6. 00 $464.00 $0.00 $0.00 10 60.00 $4,640.00 Prepare the Part A Permit Application and reports 1. 33 2. 75 8. 00 1. 40 13.50 $851.99 $0.00 $4.20 10 135.00 $8,561.90 Signatories to Permit Applications and Permit Application Reports Obtain signatures and certif ications f or Part A permit applications, reports, and other inf ormation requested by EPA 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 2.50 $124.50 $0.00 $0.00 10 25.00 $1,245.00 Obtain a new authorization for invalid authorizations 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 2.00 $110.00 $0.00 $0.00 1 2. 00 $110.00 Submittal of Part A Permit Application Submit Part A Permit Application and reports 0. 00 0. 50 1. 00 1. 50 3. 00 $139.00 $0.00 $4.20 10 30.00 $1,432.00 Explainor cureanallegeddeficiencyinPart Aapplication, if required 0.00 0.50 2.00 1.00 3.50 $181.50 $0.00 $0.00 1 3. 50 $181.50 Subtotal* varies varies varies varies varies varies $0.00 varies varies 255.50 $16,170.40 Revised Part A Permit Application/ Justifications/ Subpart H Compliance Demonstrations Read the regulations and instructions (for Agency rulemaking) 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 3.00 $191.00 $0.00 $0.00 16 48.00 $3,056.00 Read the regulations and instructions (for facility modification) 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 3.00 $191.00 $0.00 $0.00 33 99.00 $6,303.00 Prepare and submit revised Part A (for rulemaking) 1.75 1.40 1.78 1.82 6.75 $424.04 $0.00 $4.20 16 108.00 $6,851.84 Prepare and submit revised Part A (for facility modification) 1.75 1.40 1.78 1.82 6.75 $424.04 $0.00 $4.20 33 222.75 $14,131.92 Prepare and submit justifications for changes, if needed 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 $328.00 $0.00 $4.20 16 80.00 $5,315.20 Submit Subpart H compliance demonstrations, if needed 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 $328.00 $0.00 $4.20 16 80.00 $5,315.20 Subtotal* varies varies varies varies varies varies $0.00 varies varies 637.75 $40,973.16 TOTAL* varies varies varies varies varies varies $0.00 varies varies 893.25 $57,143.56 * Some totals may not add up due to rounding errors. 15 EXHIBIT 2 RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT APPLICATION AND MODIFICATION, PART A ESTIMATED ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN AND COST Hours and Costs per Respondent Total Hours and Costs INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Legal $80.26/ hr. Manager $70.75/ hr. Technical $50.95/ hr. Clerical $21.73/ hr. Respon. Hours/ Year Labor Cost/ Year Capital/ Startup Cost O& M Cost Number of Respon. Total Hours/ Year Total Cost/ Year Part A Permit Application Review Part A Permit Applications 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.25 3.25 $158.28 $0.00 $0.00 10 32.50 $1,582.80 Enter Part A Application information into RCRAInfo Data Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 $21.73 $0.00 $0.00 10 10.00 $217.30 Notify applicant of deficiency in Part A Application 0. 00 0. 00 0. 50 0. 10 0. 60 $27.65 $0.00 $0.00 1 0. 60 $27.65 Signatories to Permit Applications and Permit Application Reports Ensure that Part A Permit Application and Reports have been signed by appropriate person 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $12.74 $0.00 $0.00 10 2.50 $127.40 Review newly authorized signatures 0. 00 0. 00 0. 25 0. 00 0. 25 $12.74 $0.00 $0.00 1 0. 25 $12.74 Review signature certifications 0. 00 0. 00 0. 25 0. 00 0. 25 $12.74 $0.00 $0.00 10 2.50 $127.40 Subtotal* varies varies varies varies varies varies $0.00 $0.00 varies 48.35 $2,094.89 Revised Part A Permit Application/ Justifications/ Subpart H Compliance Demonstrations Review revised Part A Permit Application 0. 00 0. 00 2. 00 0. 25 2. 25 $107.33 $0.00 $0.00 49 110.25 $5,259.17 Enter revised Part A Permi t Application inf ormation into RCRAInfo Data Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 $10.86 $0.00 $0.00 49 24.50 $532.14 Review justifications for changes 0.50 0.25 0.75 0.00 1.50 $96.03 $0.00 $0.00 16 24.00 $1,536.48 Review Subpart H compliance demonstrations 0. 50 0. 25 0. 75 0. 00 1. 50 $96.03 $0.00 $0.00 16 24.00 $1,536.48 Subtotal* varies varies varies varies varies varies $0.00 $0.00 varies 182.75 $8,864.27 TOTAL* varies varies varies varies varies varies $0.00 $0.00 varies 231.10 $10,959.16 * Some totals may not add up due to rounding errors. 16 6( d) ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSE AND TOTAL BURDEN AND COSTS Respondent Universe Part A Permit Application EPA estimates that approximately 10 facilities will be required to submit new Part A Permit Applications annually during the period covered by this ICR. This number is unchanged from the previous ICR for this activity because we do not at this time have the capability to access new information from RCRAInfo and because we do not anticipate that the number will change significantly once we are able to provide and update. All 10 facilities will be required to obtain signatures for the Part A Permit Application, Part A Permit Application reports, and other information requested by the Director. In addition, all 10 facilities will be required to obtain certifications from persons signing permit documentation. EPA estimates that 10 percent of the facilities submitting Part A Permit Applications will have authorizations that are no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility. Therefore, approximately 1 facility will be required to obtain a new authorization. Revised Part A Permit Applications and Associated Justifications and Subpart H Compliance Demonstrations Similarly, EPA also estimates that 49 facilities will need to revise their Part A Permit Application annually during the period covered in this ICR. This number is also unchanged from the previous ICR for this activity. Of these, EPA expects that approximately one­ third (16 facilities) will submit a revised Part A Permit Application in response to an EPA rulemaking, and two­ thirds (33 facilities) will submit a revised Part A Permit Application for a facility modification. EPA further estimates that one­ third of facilities submitting revised Part A Permit Applications (16 facilities) will be required to submit justifications due to either changes in the design capacity of processes used at the facility and/ or changes or additions in a facility's hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal processes. In addition, EPA estimates that onethird of facilities submitting revised Part A Permit Applications (16 facilities) will be required to submit a Subpart H compliance demonstration due to changes in ownership or operational control of a facility. Total Burden and Costs Using the total burden hours estimated in the above section, Exhibit 3 illustrates the respondent costs associated with all of the information collection activities covered in this ICR. As shown in Exhibit 3, EPA estimates that the total annual respondent burden for all activities covered in this ICR is approximately 893 hours at an annual cost of $57,144. 17 EXHIBIT 3 RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT APPLICATION AND MODIFICATION, PART A TOTAL ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST SUMMARY Total Hourly Burden Total Annual Capital Costs Total Annual O& M Costs Total Annual Labor Costs Tot al Annual Costs Part A Permit Application requirements Read the regulations and instructions 60 $0.00 $0.00 $4,640.00 $4,640.00 Prepare the Part A Permit Application and reports 135 $0.00 $42.00 $8,519.90 $8,561.90 Signatories to Permit Applications and Permit Application Reports Obtain signatures and certifications for Part A permit applications, reports, and other information requested by EPA 25 $0.00 $0.00 $1,245.00 $1,245.00 Obtain a new authorization for invalid authorizations 2 $0.00 $0.00 110.00 $110.00 Submittal of Part A Permit Application Submit Part A Permit Application and reports 30 $0.00 $42.00 $1,390.00 $1,432.00 Explain or cure an alleged deficiency in Part A application, if required 3. 5 $0.00 $0.00 $181.50 $181.50 Subtotal* 255.5 $0.00 $84.00 $16,086.40 $16,170.40 Revised Part A Permit Application/ Justifications/ Subpart H Compliance Demonstrations Read the regulations and instructions (for Agency rulemaking) 48 $0.00 $0.00 $3,056.00 $3,056.00 Read the regulations and instructions (for facility modification) 99 $0.00 $0.00 $6,303.00 $6,303.00 Prepare and submit revised Part A (for rulemaking) 108 $0.00 $67.20 $6,784.64 $6,851.84 Prepare and submit revised Part A (for facility modification) 222.75 $0.00 $138.60 $13,993.32 $14,131.92 Prepare and submit justifications for changes, if needed 80 $0.00 $67.20 $5,248.00 $5,315.20 Submit Subpart H compliance demonstrations, if needed 80 $0.00 $67.20 $5,248.00 $5,315.29 Subtotal* 637.75 $0.00 $340.20 $40,632.96 $40,973.16 TOTAL: ALL RESPONDENTS 893.25 $0.00 $424.20 $56,719.36 $57,143.56 * Some totals may not add up due to rounding errors. 18 6( e) BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS Exhibits 3 and 2 show the average annual burden and cost to respondents and the Agency, respectively. The bottom line burden to respondents over three years is 2, 680 hours, with a cost of approximately $171,430. The bottom line burden to the Agency over three years is 693 hours, at a cost of $32,877. 6( f) REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN This ICR describes the total respondent burden for all activities required for the Part Permit A Permit Application. In reviewing burden estimates for the submitting new and revising existing Part A Permit Applications, EPA relied on the estimates from the previous ICRs for this activity, and, in particular, estimates made for the RCRA Subtitle C Site Identification Form ICR (number 2005.1), January, 2001. The estimates for that ICR form the basis for the estimated burden reduction in this ICR. Based on these data, EPA has lowered its estimate of the overall burden associated with new and revised Part A Permit Applications. The estimated burden reduction shown in this ICR is the result of the projected use of the new Site ID Form, created by EPA to reduce duplication for the regulated community. The purpose of the Site ID Form is to standardize the RCRA site identification information that is currently collected on three forms: (1) Notification of Regulated Waste Activity (EPA Form 8700­ 12), (2) RCRA Part A Permit Application (EPA Form 8700­ 23), and (3) Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report; EPA Form 8700­ 13 A/ B). As a result of the Site ID Form, the burden and cost estimates for the ICRs for all three activities will be affected. In particular, the estimated time to prepare the Part A Permit Application will be reduced for both the initial and revised Part A applications. For new applications, we assume the applicant will have already completed a Site ID Form for the Notification of Regulated Waste Activity Form. For submission of revised Part A applications, we assume the applicant will have already completed a Site ID Form for the Biennial Report. As such, EPA estimates in this ICR that the overall annual respondent burden associated with both new and revised Part A Permit Applications will decrease from 945 hours in the previous ICR to 893 hours in this ICR. This is a decrease of approximately 48 hours or 5. 5 percent. 6( g) BURDEN STATEMENT The reporting burden for information collection requirements associated with the Part A permit application requirements is estimated to be approximately 25 hours. The burden estimate includes time for reading the regulations and preparing and submitting Part A Permit Applications. There are no recordkeeping requirements associated with new Part A Permit Applications, and as such, there is no recordkeeping burden. The reporting burden for information collection requirements associated with revising Part A Permit Applications is estimated to be approximately 15 hours. The burden estimate includes 19 time for reading the regulations, preparing and submitting revised Part A Permit Applications, preparing and submitting justifications for changes, and preparing and submitting Subpart H compliance demonstrations. There are no recordkeeping requirements associated with revising Part A Permit Applications, and as such, there is no recordkeeping burden. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. Send comments regarding this burden statement or any other aspect of this collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Director, Collection Strategies Division, (2822), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, D. C., 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D. C., 20503.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.792332

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0017-0002

Notice

Agency Information Collection Activities: Continuing Collection; Comment Request; RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification, Part A

<PRE> [Federal Register: May 9, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 90)] [< strong> Notices</ strong>] [Page 31300­ 31301] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais. access. gpo. gov] [DOCID: fr09my02­ 102] ===================================================================== == ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL­ 7209­ 4] Agency Information Collection Activities: Continuing Collection; Comment Request; RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification, Part A AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that EPA is planning to submit the following continuing Information Collection Requests (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification, Part A, EPA ICR #262.10, OMB No. 2050­ 0034, expires on October 31,2002. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 8, 2002. ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their comments referencing docket number F­ 2002­ RWPN­ FFFFF to: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ) Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the Arlington, VA address below. Comments may also be submitted electronically through the Internet to : <A HREF=" mailto: rcra­ docket@ epamail. epa. gov"> rcra­ docket@ epamail. epa. gov</ A>. Comments in electronic format should also be identified by the docket number F­ 2002­ RWPN­ FFFFF. All electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Commenters should not submit any confidential business information (CBI) electronically. An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U. S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public make an appointment by calling (703) 603­ 9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/ page. This document and the supporting documents that detail the RCRA Permit Application and Modification, Part A ICR are also electronically available. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on accessing them. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RCRA Hotline For general information, contact the RCRA Hotline at (800) 424­ 9346, or TDD (800) 553­ 7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC metropolitan area, call (703) 412­ 9810, or TDD (703) 412­ 3323. Part A ICR Details For more detailed information on specific aspects of the Part A information collection request, contact David <strong> Eberly</ strong> by mail at the Office of Solid Waste (5303W), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, by phone at (703) 308­ 8645, or by Internet e­ mail at: <A HREF=" mailto: eberly. david@ epamail. epa. gov">< strong> eberly</ strong>. david@ epamail. epa. go v</ A>. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Internet Availability Today's document and the supporting documents that detail the RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification, Part A ICR are available on the Internet at: http//< A HREF=" http:// frwebgate. access. gpo. gov/ cgi­ bin/ leaving. cgi? from= leavingFR. html& log= linklog& to= http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ notify/ index. htm"> www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ notify/ index. htm</ A>. Note: The official record for this action will be kept in paper form and maintained at the address in the ADDRESSES section above. Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are generators, transporters and owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities. Title: RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification, Part A, EPA ICR #262.10, OMB No. 2050­ 0034, expires on October 31, 2002. Abstract: Section 3010 of Subtitle C of RCRA, as amended, requires any person who generates or transports regulated waste or who owns or operates a facility for the treatment, storage, or disposal (TSDF) of regulated waste to notify EPA of their activities, including the location and general description of activities and the regulated wastes handled. Section 3005 of Subtitle C of RCRA requires TSDFs to obtain a permit. To obtain the permit, the TSDF must submit an application describing the facility's operation. There are two parts to the RCRA permit application­­ Part A and Part B. Part A defines the processes to be used for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes: the design capacity of such processes: and the specific hazardous wastes to be handled at the facility. Part B requires detailed site specific information such as geologic, hydrologic, and engineering data. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The Agency today begins an effort to examine the notification and Part A permit application forms and consider options for reducing their burden and increasing the usefulness of the information these forms collect. The Agency would appreciate any information on the users of this information, how they use this information, how the information could be improved, and how the burden for these forms can be reduced. Therefore, the EPA would like to solicit comments to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of [[ Page 31301]] information technology, e. g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Burden Statement: The estimated average burden for renewing the existing Part A ICR is approximately 25 hours per respondent for submitting a new Part A permit application and approximately 15 hours for submitting a revised Part A permit application. The burden estimates for the Part A ICR includes time for reading the regulations, preparing and submitting initial and revised Part A permit applications, preparing and submitting justifications for changes and preparing and submitting subpart H compliance demonstrations. For Part A permit applications, EPA estimates that the number of respondents per year is 10 for new Part A permit applications and 49 for Part A revisions. For these ICRs, collection occurs one­ time per respondent, unless regulations are revised and promulgated. Timing of the submission of the notification and the Part A permit application forms are variable depending on the status of the respondent and the timing of the promulgation of the regulations. The estimated total annual burden on respondents for new and revised Part A permit applications is 893 hours. These estimates of total annual burden reflect a decrease in burden of 5. 5% for Part A permit applications when compared with the previously approved ICR (1999). Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Dated: April 26, 2002. Matthew Hale, Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste. [FR Doc. 02­ 11654 Filed 5­ 8­ 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560­ 50­ P </ PRE>

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.805865

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0019-0001

Notice

NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Waste Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Final Replacement Standards and Phase II) -Notice of Data Availability

44452 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2002 / Notices Barry Dana, Chief, Penobscot Indian Nation, River Road; Indian Island, Old Town, Maine 04468. Franklin Keel, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Eastern Regional Office, 711 Stewarts Ferry Pike, Nashville, Tennessee 37214. Donald Soctomah, Passamaquoddy Tribe, P. O. Box 301, Princeton, Maine 04668. Kevin R. Mendik, National Park Service, Northeast Field Area, 15 State Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109. Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 02– 16614 Filed 7– 1– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6717– 01– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7240– 6] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval: Exclusion Determinations for New Non­ road Spark­ ignited Engines at and Below 19 Kilowatts, New Non­ road Compression­ ignited Engines, New Marine Engines, and New On­ road Heavy Duty Engines: OMB Control Number 2060– 0395, expiration date 6/ 30/ 2002. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden and cost; where appropriate, it includes the actual data collection instrument. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 1, 2002. ADDRESSES: Send comments, referencing EPA ICR No. 1852.02 and OMB Control No. 2060– 0395, to the following addresses: Susan Auby, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division (Mail Code 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460– 0001; and to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For a copy of the ICR contact Susan Auby at EPA by phone at (202) 566– 1672, by E­ Mail at auby. susan@ epa. gov or download off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr and refer to EPA ICR No. 1852.02. For technical questions about the ICR contact: Nydia Yanira Reyes­ Morales, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, by phone at (202) 564– 9264, or by E­ Mail at reyesmorales nydia@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Exclusion Determinations for New Non­ road Spark­ ignited Engines at and Below 19 Kilowatts, New Non­ road Compression­ ignited Engines, New Marine Engines, and New On­ road Heavy Duty Engines, OMB Control Number 2060– 0395, EPA ICR Number 1852.02, expiration date 6/ 30/ 2002. This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection. Abstract: Some types of engines are excluded from compliance with current regulations. A manufacturer may make an exclusion determination by itself; however, manufacturers and importers may routinely request EPA to make such determination to ensure that their determination does not differ from EPA's. Only needed information such as engine type, horsepower rating, intended usage, etc., is requested to make an exclusion determination. Responses to this collection are voluntary. The information is collected by the Engine Programs Group, Certification and Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation. Confidentiality to proprietary information is granted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 2, and class determinations issued by EPA's Office of General Counsel. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8( d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on 3/ 08/ 2002; no comments were received. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average seven hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Engine manufacturers, equipment manufacturers and importers. Estimated Number of Respondents: 12. Frequency of Response: On Occasion. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 69 hours. Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O& M Cost Burden: $116. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1852.02 and OMB Control No. 2060– 0395 in any correspondence. Dated: June 24, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. 02– 16645 Filed 7– 1– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– U ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7240– 3] NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Final Replacement Standards and Phase II)— Notice of Data Availability AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of data availability. SUMMARY: This notice of data availability (NODA) presents for public comment the data bases the Environmental Protection Agency plans to use to propose National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for hazardous waste burning combustors (incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, industrial and commercial/ institutional boilers, process heaters, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces). We are providing this opportunity for comment to ensure that the data bases used to establish the VerDate jun< 06> 2002 18: 10 Jul 01, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JYN1. SGM pfrm15 PsN: 02JYN1 44453 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2002 / Notices standards are as accurate and complete as possible. DATES: Comments must be submitted by August 16, 2002. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. If you wish to comment on this NODA, you must send an original and two copies of the comments referencing Docket Number RCRA– 2002– 0019 to: RCRA Information Center (RIC), Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460– 0002; or, (2) if using special delivery, such as overnight express service: RIC, Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA 22202. You may also submit comments electronically following the directions in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. You may view the data bases in the RIC. The RIC is open from 9 am to 4 pm Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review docket materials, we recommend that you make an appointment by calling 703– 603– 9230. You may copy up to 100 pages from any regulatory document at no charge. Additional copies cost $ 0.15 per page. For information on accessing an electronic copy of the data bases, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, call the RCRA Hotline at 1– 800– 424– 9346 or TDD 1– 800– 553– 7672 (hearing impaired). Callers within the Washington Metropolitan Area must dial 703– 412– 9810 or TDD 703– 412– 3323 (hearing impaired). The RCRA Hotline is open Monday– Friday, 9 am to 6 pm, Eastern Standard Time. For more information on specific aspects of this NODA, contact Frank Behan at 703– 308– 8476, or behan. frank@ epa. gov, or write him at the Office of Solid Waste, 5302W, U. S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acronyms Used in this Notice APCD— Air pollution control device BH— Baghouse BIF— Boiler and industrial furnaces CAA— Clean Air Act CFR— Code of Federal Regulations D/ F— dioxins and furans EPA— United States Environmental Protection Agency ESP— Electrostatic precipitator FR— Federal Register HAP— Hazardous air pollutant HCl— Hydrochloric acid HWC— Hazardous waste combustor LVM— Low Volatile Metals MACT— Maximum achievable control technology NESHAP— National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NODA— Notice of data availability PM— Particulate matter RCRA— Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SVM— Semivolatile Metals Table of Contents I. General Information A. How Can I Get Copies Of The Data Bases? B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? C. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency? D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? II. What Is the Purpose of this NODA? III. Are You Affected by this Notice? IV. What Led Up to this NODA? V. What Data Are Included in this Notice? VI. What Data Handling Decisions Did We Make and What Are the Data Gaps? A. Data from Sources No Longer Burning Hazardous Waste Are Excluded B. How Are Nondetect Data Handled? C. Missing Source Description Information D. Use of Metals Extrapolation, Interpolation and Surrogates VII. What Are the New Data Comment Fields? A. What Information Do We Need to Consider Subcategorization Options? B. How Will We Distinguish Between Worst­ Case and Normal Emissions? C. What Classifications Do We Use to Address Sootblowing by Boilers? I. General Information A. How Can I Get Copies Of The Data Bases? 1. The Docket EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID RCRA– 2002– 0019. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the address above. 2. Electronic Access You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search, '' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in section I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public VerDate jun< 06> 2002 18: 10 Jul 01, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JYN1. SGM pfrm15 PsN: 02JYN1 44454 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2002 / Notices docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002. 3. Obtaining the Data Bases Electronically from the HWC Web Site The data bases can be obtained either as described above, or by downloading from the EPA HWC site on the Internet. If you want to download the data bases over the Internet, you can do so from our `` HWC MACT'' Web site: http:// www. epa. gov/ hwcmact. Please consult the web page for specific instructions on how to download the data bases. Do not, however, submit comments to this web address. Instead, follow the instructions provided below. B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late. '' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e­ mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. 1. EPA Dockets Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select `` Information Sources, '' `` Dockets, '' and `` EPA Dockets. '' Once in the system, select `` search, '' and then key in Docket ID No. RCRA– 2002– 0019. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e­ mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 2. E­ mail Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e­ mail) to rcra­ docket@ epa. gov, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA– 2002– 0019. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e­ mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e­ mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e­ mail system automatically captures your email address. E­ mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e­ mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 3. Disk or CD ROM You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in the ADDRESSES section. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. C. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e­ mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U. S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA– 2002– 0019. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternatives. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments. II. What Is the Purpose of this NODA? This NODA affects owners and operators of hazardous waste burning incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, industrial and institutional/ commercial boilers, process heaters, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces. We are providing this NODA to request comment on data bases that we will use to develop proposed standards under Section 112( d) (i. e., MACT standards) for these source categories and subcategories. We view publication of this NODA as a critical component of our quality assurance program that we are using to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information that we plan to use in our future MACT rule making. Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for VerDate jun< 06> 2002 18: 10 Jul 01, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JYN1. SGM pfrm15 PsN: 02JYN1 44455 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2002 / Notices FY2001 (Pub. L. 106– 554) directed OMB to issue government­ wide information quality guidelines. The OMB guidelines were first issued on September 28, 2001. Pursuant to those guidelines EPA is developing its own guidelines. EPA's information quality guideline development program can be found on the World Wide Web at this URL: http:/ /www. epa. gov/ oei/ qualityguidelines. One of the important components of EPA's draft Information Quality Guidelines is to provide the public with an opportunity and vehicle for correcting any errors that might be present in data and information that the agency is using in its decision­ making. This NODA provides such an opportunity. III. Are You Affected by this Notice? We anticipate that we will develop revised MACT standards for hazardous waste burning incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns, as defined at 40 CFR 63.1201( a), and that are currently subject to MACT standards at 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE. We also plan to develop MACT standards for boilers, as defined at 40 CFR 260.10, that burn hazardous waste as defined at 40 CFR part 261. This definition of boiler includes devices used in industry as process heaters. These boilers are currently subject to regulation under 40 CFR part 266, subpart H, which is commonly referred to as the Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) rule. Please note that the MACT standards for hazardous waste burning boilers and process heaters would apply to boilers that are currently exempt from certain BIF emission standards under § 266.109 (Low Risk Waste Exemption) and § 266.110 (Waiver of DRE Trial Burn for Boilers). We anticipate, however, that we will propose that boilers currently exempt from part 266, Subpart H, because they qualify for the Small Quantity On­ Site Burner Exemption, would not be subject to the MACT standards that we are developing for boilers that burn hazardous waste. Instead, we anticipate proposing that those boilers would be subject to MACT standards the Agency is developing for industrial and institutional/ commercial boilers, and process heaters, that do not (otherwise) burn hazardous waste. Those boilers would be subject to MACT standards for boilers and process heaters that do not burn hazardous waste because their nonhazardous waste fuels will dictate the types and concentrations of HAP emissions rather than the de minimis quantities of hazardous waste fuel that they burn. The MACT standards for industrial and institutional/ commercial boilers and process heaters that do not burn hazardous waste are scheduled to be proposed in late 2002. Finally, we are also developing MACT standards for HCl production furnaces that burn hazardous waste. These furnaces are a type of halogen acid furnace included within the definition of `` industrial furnace'' defined at § 260.10 and are currently regulated under 40 CFR part 266, subpart H. We do not anticipate proposing MACT standards for hazardous waste burning sulfur recovery furnaces. These industrial furnaces are subject to the BIF rule if they burn hazardous waste other than spent sulfuric acid either for energy recovery or to recover sulfur values. We do not believe MACT standards are warranted for these sources because available emissions data indicate that emissions of hazardous air pollutants are very low. In addition, the Agency has not listed these furnaces as a category of major sources. See 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992. Sulfur recovery furnaces burning hazardous waste other than spent sulfuric acid would remain subject to the BIF rule. IV. What Led Up to This NODA? Congress amended the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1990 to require that hazardous air pollutants be controlled by technology­ based standards— standards based on the technical capabilities of control strategies for the emitting industry in question, with further controls required later if significant risk remains after imposition of the technology­ based standards. These standards would apply to the HWCs discussed in this notice. On September 30, 1999, we promulgated standards (referred to as the `` Phase I'' rule, 64 FR 52828) to control emissions of hazardous air pollutants from incinerators, cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns that burn hazardous wastes. These emission standards created a technology­ based national cap for hazardous air pollutant emissions, assuring that combustion of hazardous waste in these devices is properly controlled. Additionally, the rule satisfied our obligation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to ensure that hazardous waste combustion is conducted in a manner protective of human health and the environment. By using both CAA and RCRA authorities in a coordinated fashion, we consolidated regulatory control of hazardous waste combustion into a single set of regulations, thereby minimizing the potential for conflicting or duplicative federal requirements. A number of parties, representing interests of both industrial sources and of the environmental community, sought judicial review of the rule. On July 24, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) granted the Sierra Club's petition for review and vacated the challenged portions of the rule. However, the Court invited us (or any of the parties to the proceeding) to file a motion to delay issuance of its mandate to request either that the current Phase I standards remain in place or that we be allowed reasonable time to develop interim standards. On October 19, 2001, after several months of negotiation, we, together with all other petitioners that challenged the hazardous waste combustor emission standards, filed a joint motion asking the Court to stay the issuance of its mandate for four months to allow us time to develop interim standards, and the Court granted this request. In the joint motion, we agreed to take several actions. First, we agreed to issue a oneyear extension to the compliance date of September 30, 2002; on December 6, 2001 we published a final rule to extend for one year the compliance date for Phase I sources (66 FR 63313). Second, we committed to (1) publish an interim rule with revised emission standards; and, (2) finalize several compliance and implementation amendments to the rule. These interim standards and compliance and implementation amendments were promulgated on February 13 and 14, 2002 (67 FR 6792 and 67 FR 6968). The interim standards replace the vacated standards temporarily, until we finalize replacement standards that comply with the Court's mandate. Finally, we agreed to issue these final replacement standards that fully comply with the Court's opinion by June 14, 2005. Also, in this rulemaking, we are developing MACT standards for hazardous waste burning industrial and institutional/ commercial boilers, process heaters, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces producing acid from hazardous wastes. These sources are referred to as Phase II sources because the MACT standards for these sources were originally scheduled to be promulgated after the Phase I source MACT standards were finalized. V. What Data Are Included in This Notice? We are requesting comment on six separate data bases that compile information on the following source categories or subcategories: incinerators, VerDate jun< 06> 2002 18: 10 Jul 01, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JYN1. SGM pfrm15 PsN: 02JYN1 44456 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2002 / Notices 1 See `` Hazardous Waste Combustor Data Base Report for Phase I and II Sources, '' June, 2002, for our response to comments received on the June 27, 2002 NODA. 2 We are not aware of any commercial/ institutional boilers that burn hazardous waste. cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, coal­ fired boilers, liquid­ fuel boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces. Each data base summarizes emissions data and ancillary information on HWCs source category or subcategory that we extracted from available test reports. Many of the source test reports were prepared as part of the compliance process for the current RCRA standards. Ancillary information in the data bases includes general facility information, air pollution control device operating information, composition and feedrate data for the hazardous waste, fossil fuels, and raw materials, combustion gas condition, and stack­ related information. This NODA is an invitation to comment on the data bases that we will use to develop MACT standards for HWCs. As discussed below, some of the data bases have been noticed, in part, for comment previously, and some have been updated since they were last publicly available. We encourage owners and operators of HWCs to review our data bases to ensure that they are as accurate and complete as possible, and to provide corrections and additions in the form of comments to this notice. If you find errors, please submit the pages from the test report that document the missing or incorrect results and the cover page of the test report as reference. We encourage comment only on the accuracy and completeness of the data bases at this time. We do not seek nor will we use or respond to comments on how to use the data bases to identify MACT standards. Rather, we will publish and seek comment on a MACT standardsetting approach and all other aspects of the NESHAP rulemaking in a future notice of proposed rulemaking. We gathered the emissions data and ancillary information for the data bases from test reports submitted by these sources to EPA Regional Offices or State agencies. The test reports may include certifications of compliance reports, trial burn reports, annual performance test reports, mini­ burns, and risk burn reports. Below we summarize our efforts to collect the test results that comprise the data bases. We first compiled a data base for hazardous waste burning incinerators, cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns (i. e., the Phase I data base) to support the April 1996 proposed Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for those source categories (61 FR 17358, April 19, 1996). We received additional test reports and comments on errors in the data base during the public comment period of the proposed rule. The revised Phase I data base was subsequently published in the Federal Register for public comment (62 FR 960, January 7, 1997). The data base was again revised based on these comments. We used this data base to develop the Phase I MACT standards promulgated on September 30, 1999 (64 FR 52828). Following vacature of the challenged Phase I standards and promulgation of the interim MACT standards in February 2002, we initiated an effort with EPA Regional Offices and State agencies to update the data base. We focused on collecting compliance testing documents from Phase I sources for which we had no information, obtaining results from more recent testing conducted since 1997, and updating the universe of operating hazardous waste combustors. In total, we obtained an additional 110 test reports during our 2002 data collection effort. The current data bases for the Phase I source categories included in today's NODA contain test results for over 100 incinerators, 25 cement kilns, and 9 lightweight aggregate kilns. In many cases, especially for cement and lightweight aggregate kilns, the data bases contain test reports from multiple testing campaigns. For example, our data bases contain test results for a cement kiln source for the years 1992, 1995, and 1998. The data base for Phase II combustors— industrial boilers, commercial/ institutional boilers, process heaters, and HCl production furnaces— was compiled in 1999. In developing that data base, we collected the most recent test report available for each source that included test results under compliance test operating conditions. However, this most recent test report may have also included data used for other purposes (e. g., risk burn), which we also included in the data base. In nearly all instances, the dates of the test reports collected were either 1998 or 1999. In June 2000 we published in the Federal Register the Phase II data base for comment (65 FR 39581, June 27, 2000). We have not collected additional emissions data for Phase II sources. We have, however, updated the Phase II data base to address comments we received to the June 27, 2000 NODA. We also revised the universe of sources by removing those sources that are no longer burning hazardous waste. In addition, we updated some of the comment fields. Therefore, if your facility has a HWC originally included in the Phase II rulemaking, it is important that you review the current data for your facility, even if you reviewed the Phase II data base when it was originally noticed. 1 Section VII of today's notice describes the new data comment fields for the Phase II sources. The data bases for the Phase II sources comprise compliance test results for 114 industrial boilers, 11 process heaters, and 16 HC1 production furnaces. 2 VI. What Data Handling Decisions Did We Make and What Are the Data Gaps? In this section, we describe the data handling protocol used during development of the data bases. We also identify additional information that we would like to have and encourage owners and operators to submit such information as available. A. Data from Sources No Longer Burning Hazardous Waste Are Excluded The data bases do not include information from sources no longer burning hazardous waste. If we learned that a source had stopped burning hazardous waste and is undergoing, or has indicated to regulatory officials its plan to begin, RCRA closure procedures, then we did not obtain a copy of that source's test report. Although such data may or may not indicate the capabilities of control equipment in general, we conclude that the data from currently operating combustors are adequate to develop standards under Section 112( d). We identified several sources that are no longer burning hazardous waste and removed their emissions data and related information from the data bases. We encourage owners and operators of hazardous waste combustors to review our list of operating combustors to ensure it is accurate. B. How Are Nondetect Data Handled? We assume that analytes in feedstreams or emissions reported as not detected are present at one­ half the detection limit. This is consistent with how we handled nondetect measurements in the September 1999 MACT rule for Phase I sources (66 FR at 52844) and in the data base associated with the June 2000 NODA for Phase II sources. All measurements reported as not detected are identified as such in the data bases. C. Missing Source Description Information Some test reports omitted source description information. For example, VerDate jun< 06> 2002 18: 10 Jul 01, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JYN1. SGM pfrm15 PsN: 02JYN1 44457 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2002 / Notices 3 Unless specified otherwise, the term `` boiler'' means industrial and commercial/ institutional boilers, and process heaters. 4 See USEPA `` Final Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards, vol. III: Selection of MACT Standards and Technologies, '' July, 1999, p. 3– 3. 5 Please note that we did not conduct a worst­ case versus normal analysis for DRE or CO/ HC data. Under current RCRA regulations, all sources are required to operate under good combustion conditions by complying with emission limits on CO/ HC. All sources are also required to comply with operating limits that ensure compliance with a 99.99% DRE requirement. We do not believe that emissions of organic HAPs will be lowered Continued some of the boiler descriptions are incomplete. A report might simply say the source is a boiler, but not whether it is a watertube or firetube boiler. In other cases, we were unable to determine what emission control equipment, if any, is installed on the source. Because we may use these data to classify and group the data when identifying MACT standards, we encourage owners and operators to provide any such missing source description information as a comment to this notice. D. Use of Metals Extrapolation, Interpolation and Surrogates In some cases, extrapolation or interpolation of metals test data may have been used to develop operating limits (e. g., metals feed rate limits). Extrapolation means setting limits outside the bounds (above or below) of test results, and interpolation means setting operating limits between the bounds of the test results. As we discuss in Section VII below, we need to know whether the emissions data and feedrates represent a snapshot of normal emissions or whether they represent the highest emissions the source has determined it would emit under a mode of operation. Given that subsequent extrapolation and interpolation of the metals data in the test reports may change the classification of the metals data in the data bases, we encourage owners and operators to identify and provide information on test results in the data bases that have been extrapolated and interpolated. Another situation that may impact the classification of the metals data is the use of surrogates. For example, a source may have spiked lead, but not cadmium, during the test with the intent to use the system removal efficiency of lead to calculate a feedrate limit for cadmium. In this case, our data bases may not classify properly the feedrate of cadmium. We encourage owners and operators to identify and provide information on test results where metal surrogates were used. VII. What Are the New Data Comment Fields? We have added several data comment fields to the data bases since they were published for public comment. Because we may use these data comment fields to classify and group the data when establishing the MACT standards, we encourage owners or operators to review these data comment fields to determine if our designations are accurate. The new data comment fields that are particularly important pertain to: (1) Classification of the design or operation of the source to enable us to consider establishing MACT standards for subcategories of a source category; (2) classification of emissions data as to whether the data represent the highest emissions a source could be expected to achieve or normal emissions; and (3) characterization of sootblowing operations during emissions testing for boilers. 3 A. What Information Do We Need to Consider Subcategorization Options? It may be appropriate to establish different MACT standards for subcategories of a source category if the types or concentration of uncontrolled emissions of hazardous air pollutants are significantly different for a subset of that category because of the design or operation of the sources. An example is our determination that incinerators with wet emission control devices and equipped with waste heat recovery boilers can have much higher D/ F emissions than incinerators with wet emission control devices but without heat recovery boilers. 4 We have evaluated each of the source categories— hazardous waste burning incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, boilers, and HCl production furnaces— and identified information that we may need to classify each source to consider subcategorization. In the table below, we list the classifications and describe the terms for purposes of this rulemaking effort. We encourage owners and operators to review the classifications for their sources in the data bases to ensure they are accurate. TABLE 1.— CLASSIFICATION OF SOURCES TO CONSIDER SUBCATEGORIES Source category/ classification Description Incinerators: Waste heat boiler ........................................................ Equipped with a waste heat recovery boiler. Liquid injection incinerator .......................................... Feeds only pumpable feedstreams that are atomized into the combustion chamber through the burner nozzles. Mixed waste incinerator .............................................. Feeds low level radioactive waste. Dry APCD ................................................................... Equipped with a dry emissions control device (e. g., ESP or BH) as the initial control device. Cement kilns: Short kiln ..................................................................... Equipped with a precalciner, in­ line raw mill, and by­ pass duct. Boilers: Pulverized coal­ fired ................................................... Burns pulverized coal in suspension. Stoker coal­ fired .......................................................... Burns lump coal on a grate. Liquid fuel boiler .......................................................... Burns liquid (i. e., pumpable and atomized) or liquid and gaseous fuels only. HCl production furnaces: Waste heat boiler ........................................................ Equipped with a waste heat recovery boiler. B. How Will We Distinguish Between Worst­ Case and Normal Emissions? 5 The data bases comprise emissions data from tests conducted for various VerDate jun< 06> 2002 18: 10 Jul 01, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JYN1. SGM pfrm15 PsN: 02JYN1 44458 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2002 / Notices significantly by operating at lower CO/ HC levels or higher DRE levels. 6 The term `` floor'' refer to the minimum emission standard required pursuant to section 112 of the CAA. 7 The worst­ case (WC) classification is further qualified for some test conditions as `` worst­ case, highest emissions'' (WC HE), as discussed in the text. 8 NA means the Normal Vs Wors­ Case classification is not applicable. 9 Although we intended to collect test reports from the most recent compliance test campaign, we conclude that for some sources the most recent test reports are for other than compliance tests. For example, for some sources, we apparently have emissions data only for a risk burn representing normal emissions, rather than worst­ case emissions under a compliance test. 10 For PM, the definition of worst­ case is more inclusive. If the test report for one or more test conditions in a test campaign indicates that the test is a trial burn or certification of compliance test, we assume that one test condition represents worsecase PM emissions (unless the test report explicitly states otherwise) even if the test report( s) does not explicitly indicate that ask was spiked during the test. This interpretation is appropriate because a source must document compliance with the PM standard by emissions testing. Sources do not have the option of complying with an ash feedrate option (such as the Tier 1 feedrate limits for metals and chlorine) in lie of emissions testing. Consequently, we presume the PM emissions were maximized during one of the compliance tests (e. g., by detuning the APCD; feeding high ash content wastes) event though ask spiking may not be specified. purposes, including compliance testing (i. e., RCRA trial burns or Certification of Compliance tests), risk burns (i. e., emissions testing to generate emissions data to perform site­ specific risk assessments), annual performance testing, and research testing. Therefore, some emissions data represent the highest emissions the source is allowed to emit (i. e., worst­ case emissions), some data represent normal operating conditions and emissions, and some data represent operating conditions that are neither normal nor worst case, i. e., they represent operating conditions (and emissions) that are in between normal and worst case. We may choose to consider whether the emissions data are `` worst­ case'' or `` normal'' to consider emissions variability appropriately in establishing achievable MACT floor 6 emission levels. The methodology that we use to establish the MACT floor emission levels may well be influenced by the nature of the emissions data that are used. For example, we may choose to estimate or account for variability in different ways depending on whether the data set we use contains worst­ case emission data, data within the range of normal emissions, or a mix of normal and worst case emissions. Hazardous waste combustors generally emit worst­ case emissions during RCRA compliance testing while demonstrating compliance with emission standards. For real­ time compliance assurance, sources are required to establish limits on particular operating parameters where the limits are derived from operations during compliance testing. Thus, the emission levels achieved during these compliance tests are the highest emission levels a source is allowed to emit. To ensure that these operating limits do not impede normal operations, sources generally take measures to operate during compliance testing under conditions that are worse than the range of normal operations. For example, sources often feed ash, metals, and chlorine at higher than normal levels (e. g., by spiking the waste feed) to maximize the feedrate, and they often detune the APCDs to minimize collection efficiency. By designing the compliance test to generate emissions higher than the normal range of emissions, sources can establish operating limits that will not impede normal operations while accounting for emissions variability covered by variation in the feedrate of metals or chlorine, for example. The data bases also include normal emissions data. Sources will sometimes measure emissions of a pollutant during a compliance test even though the test is not designed to establish operating limits for that pollutant (i. e., it is not a compliance test for the pollutant). An example is a trial burn where a lightweight aggregate kiln measures emissions of all RCRA metals, but uses the Tier I metals feedrate limit (rather than the Tier III emissions limit) to comply with the Hg emission standard. Other examples of emissions data that are within the range of normal emissions are annual performance tests that some sources are required to conduct under State regulations, or risk burns. Both of these types of tests are generally performed under normal operating conditions. Other emissions tests may generate emissions in­ between normal and worstcase An example is a compliance test designed to demonstrate compliance with the particulate matter standard where: (1) The APCD is detuned to achieve worst­ case emissions; and (2) the source measures Pb and Cd emissions even though it elects to comply with feedrate limits for those metals and, thus, does not spike those metals. We would conclude that Pb and Cd emissions are in between normal and worst­ case emissions because, although emissions of the metals are likely to be higher than normal because the APCD is detuned, emissions are not likely to be worst­ case because the source did not use the test to demonstrate compliance with emission standards for the metals (and so did not spike the metals). To identify normal and worst­ case emissions data, we classify emissions data for each pollutant (i. e., D/ F, Hg, PM, SVM, LVM, and HCl/ Cl2) for each test condition as worst­ case (WC); 7 normal (N); in between (IB); unknown (U); or not applicable (NA). 8 We encourage owners and operators to review our classification of their data to ensure that we have applied the terms, as we define them, appropriately, to the information provided for each test condition in the various data fields (e. g., APCD; Spiking; Comments; Condition Description, BIF Tier). Please note that these classifications apply on a pollutant­ by­ pollutant basis. For example, some pollutants measured during a test condition may be classified as representing worst­ case emissions for those pollutants, while other pollutants measured during that test condition may be classified as representing normal emissions. 1. How Do We Define Worst­ Case Data? a. Boilers and HCl Production Furnaces. As discussed above, the data bases for boilers and HCl production furnaces are comprised of all test conditions run during the most recent compliance test campaign for which data are available. 9 For the metals, total chlorine, and particulate matter standards, we define the worst­ case test condition for a pollutant as the test condition with the highest emissions of that pollutant meeting any of these criteria: (1) A test condition where the feedrate of the pollutant (i. e., metal, chlorine, or ash) is maximized by spiking or other means (e. g., feeding waste with atypically high concentrations of the pollutant); or (2) a test condition that is used to demonstrate compliance under Tier III of the BIF rule for the pollutant; or (3) a test condition with higher emissions of the pollutant under operating conditions that would not have been classified as worst case as discussed above. 10 Test conditions meeting the third criterion are classified WC HE (i. e., worst­ case, highest emissions) to clarify that the test condition is worst­ case because it has the highest emissions for the test campaign even though its operating conditions would not have suggested that emissions would be worst­ case. It may be helpful to present some examples of how the worst­ case definition works. If a metal were spiked during a compliance test, but the source complied with the Tier I feedrate limits VerDate jun< 06> 2002 18: 10 Jul 01, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JYN1. SGM pfrm15 PsN: 02JYN1 44459 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2002 / Notices 11 That is, boilers that burn liquid or liquid and gaseous fuels only. 12 See USEPA. `` Final Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards and Technologies, '' July 1999, Chapter 3. 13 Coal­ fired boilers are boilers that burn hazardous waste as a supplemented fuel with coal. 14 An emission control system comprised of an initial wet control device followed by an ESP or BH would qualify as a wet system. The initial wet device would quench the gas temperature to minimize D/ F formation. Conversely, an emission control system comprised of an initial dry control device followed by a wet device (e. g., for HCI control) would not be classified as a wet APCD for purposes of this subcategorization. D/ F may be formed in the dry control device before the temperature of the gas is quenched in the wet device below the optimum range for D/ F formation. 15 If a test campaign were comprised of two risk burn test conditions, neither of the test conditions may meet the definition of worst­ case. 16 USEPA, `` Guidance on Metals and Hydrogen Chloride Controls for Hazardous Waste Incinerators, '' December 29, 1988 (Volume IV of the Hazardous Waste Incineration Guidance Series). 17 This proviso simply precludes classifying as worst­ case the highest normal test condition in a test campaign comprised of only ormal test conditions. under the BIF rule for that metal, we nonetheless classified the test condition as worst­ case for that metal (if there were no other test conditions with higher emissions). We reasoned that the source was operating under worst­ case conditions during the test, but elected to comply with the Tier I feedrate limits because they were less stringent (i. e., higher) than the feedrate levels during the compliance test. As another example, for a few boilers, emissions could be higher during a risk burn (conducted under conditions that appear to represent other than worst case conditions for that pollutant) than a compliance test. In these cases, we assumed the boiler was operating within its operating limits and classified the test condition as worst­ case, highest emissions (WC HE) for that pollutant. This approach ensures that we use available emissions data representing the range of performance of the source to identify the MACT floor. For dioxin/ furan emissions, the worstcase classification is related primarily to whether the source uses a wet or no APCD versus a dry APCD. For liquid fuel boilers 11 equipped with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or baghouse (BH), we define the worst­ case test condition as: (1) The test condition where the inlet temperature to the ESP or BH is maximized (e. g., during a worst­ case metals emissions test); or (2) a test condition with higher emissions of the pollutant under operating conditions that would not meet the criteria under (1) above. The test condition where gas temperatures are maximized at the inlet to the ESP or BH should represent worst­ case D/ F emissions because D/ F emissions for sources operated under good combustion conditions (e. g., the BIF requirement to operate at carbon monoxide levels below 100 ppmv) are primarily a function of the temperature of the dry particulate matter control device. D/ F formation increases exponentially as the gas inlet temperature increases. 12 We considered this approach for coalfired boilers, 13 but determined that factors other than gas temperature at the inlet to the ESP or BH appear to have the dominant effect on D/ F emissions. For example, we have D/ F emissions data for two coal­ fired boilers, both of which operated the ESP at approximately 500 F. At that temperature, D/ F emissions could be expected to be significant if surfacecatalyzed formation reactions are the dominant factor affecting emissions. But, D/ F emissions from those two boilers were essentially zero— 0.00 and 0.04 ng TEQ/ dscm. We conclude that there are other, unquantifiable factors that affect D/ F emissions from coal­ fired boilers. Sulfur is known to inhibit D/ F formation, and we suspect that the sulfur in the coal is a major factor affecting D/ F emissions. Given that we cannot objectively identify a worst­ case test condition for D/ F emissions from coal­ fired boilers, we conclude that the worst­ case vs normal classification is not applicable and classify the D/ F emissions data as NA. For purposes of assessing variability of emissions in identifying a MACT floor level, however, we would consider the data to be snapshots of normal emissions. We had similar issues when classifying D/ F emissions from liquid fuel boilers with wet or no APCDs, and HCl production furnaces, all of which have wet emission control systems. For sources with wet APCDs, 14 D/ F formation in the emission control device is inhibited because the gas is cooled and because particulate matter is continuously flushed from the control device rather than being held on a surface (e. g., of an ESP plate or BH bag) where particle surface reactions can form D/ F. Because we cannot objectively define worst­ case conditions for D/ F formation for liquid fuel boilers with wet or no APCDs, we conclude that the worst­ case vs normal classification is not applicable (as designated by NA). As with the coal­ fired boiler D/ F data, however, we would consider the data to be snapshots of normal emissions for purposes of assessing variability of emissions in identifying a MACT floor level. b. Incinerators, Cement Kilns, and Lightweight Aggregate Kilns. As discussed above, the data bases for incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns are comprised of all available test conditions. The data bases include test conditions from the most recent test campaign as well as older test campaigns. We use the same definition of worst­ case test condition as we use for boilers and HCl production furnaces, as we describe below, except that we apply the definition to the test conditions within each test campaign. For example, assume we have data for a source from three test campaigns run over a period of 10 years. We looked at each test campaign individually and identified the worst­ case test condition for each pollutant, if any, 15 for each test campaign. For the metals, total chlorine, and particulate matter standards, we define the worst­ case test condition for a pollutant as the test condition with the highest emissions of that pollutant meeting any of these criteria: (1) A test condition where the feedrate of the pollutant (i. e., metal, chlorine, or ash) is maximized by spiking or other means (e. g., feeding waste with atypically high concentrations of the pollutant) or where the emission control device is detuned; or (2) a test condition that a cement or lightweight aggregate kiln used to demonstrate compliance under Tier III of the BIF rule for the pollutant, or that an incinerator used to comply with Tier III of the risk assessment guidance; 16 or (3) a test condition with higher emissions of the pollutant under any operating conditions, provided that another test condition during the test campaign would have met the worstcase definition under (1) or (2) above. 17 As discussed for boilers and HCl production furnaces, test conditions meeting the third criterion are classified WC– HE (i. e., worst­ case, highest emissions) to clarify that the test condition is worst­ case because it has the highest emissions for the test campaign even though its operating conditions would not have suggested that emissions would be worst­ case. For the D/ F standards, we use the same classifications that we used for liquid fuel boilers. For incinerators with wet control systems, a worst­ case versus normal classification of D/ F emissions is not applicable. For incinerators and kilns equipped with an ESP or BH, we define the worst­ case test condition as: (1) The test condition where the inlet temperature to the ESP or BH is maximized (e. g., during a worst­ case VerDate jun< 06> 2002 18: 10 Jul 01, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JYN1. SGM pfrm15 PsN: 02JYN1 44460 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2002 / Notices 18 Please note, a s discussed above, the Normal and In Between classifications can be trumped by the `` worst­ case highest emissions: (WC HE) classification, if in fact, emissions during these test conditions are higher than emissions during a test condition that would otherwise be classified as worst­ case. 19 Plase note that, for some source categories where there are substantial emissions data for only lead or only chromium during a test condition, we classified the lead­ only or chromium­ only data by worse­ case vs normal. In addition, we did not apply the NA classification to LVM emissions data if only beryllium emissions data were missing. This is because beryllium emissions are virtually always substantially lower than either arsenic or chromium emissions, and thus, do not contribute substantially to LVM emissions. 20 See USEP, `` Technical Implementation Document for EPA's Boiler and Industrial Furnance Regulations, '' March 1992, p. 5– 14. metals emissions test); or (2) a test condition with higher emissions of the pollutant under operating conditions that would not meet the criteria under (1) above. 2. How Do We Define the Normal, In Between, Unknown, and Not Applicable Classifications? 18 We classify emissions data as normal for a pollutant if the available information indicates that the test was run under operating conditions that would reflect normal operations. For example, we classify risk burns (i. e., emissions testing to generate emissions data to perform site­ specific risk assessments) as normal for all pollutants when available information indicates the operating conditions were normal. We classified a test condition as `` in between'' (IB) for a pollutant if the test condition was a compliance test (i. e., trial burn or certification of compliance test) for the pollutant but there was another test condition (i. e., WC or WC HE) with higher emissions. We classified a test condition as `` unknown'' (U) if available information was incomplete to classify the test condition. For each `` unknown'' classification, we indicate the information we need to classify the test condition. We encourage owners and operators to provide the information and supporting documentation. We discuss above how we applied the `` not applicable'' (NA) classification to D/ F data for sources equipped with a wet or no APCD and D/ F data for coalfired boilers. We also applied the NA classification to the following situations: (1) Tests conducted prior to modifications to the APCD, because emissions data prior to an APCS retrofit may not be representative of current operations; (2) Miniburns, research tests, demonstration tests, because these types of tests are generally used to determine emissions under modes of operation that may not be representative of normal or worst­ case operations; (3) Baseline tests, because emissions when not burning hazardous waste are not relevant to establishing a MACT standard for hazardous waste combustors; (4) Tests where not all metals in the SVM or LVM group were measured, because SVM and LVM emissions cannot be classified as worst­ case or normal if emissions data are not available from the test for both lead and cadmium for SVM, and for arsenic, beryllium, and chromium for LVM; 19 and (5) Tests where a PM run exceeding the RCRA emission standard, because, if a PM run failed the 0.08 gr/ dscf RCRA standard, the test failed to demonstrate compliance with the RCRA standards and the test could not be used to establish operating limits. C. What Classifications Do We Use to Address Sootblowing by Boilers? Some boilers blow soot periodically to clean the steam tubes to improve the energy efficiency of the boiler. During sootblowing, emissions of PM and metals can increase substantially. To account for the impact of sootblowing on average emissions during RCRA compliance testing, we advised owners and operators to blow soot during one of the three test runs whereby the potential buildup of metals and PM would reflect the buildup over a normal operating cycle. 20 We also provided a formula for calculating average emissions accounting for the frequency and duration of sootblowing operations. Some boilers did not blow soot during testing, some were silent on whether they blew soot, some blew soot and used the averaging formula, and some blew soot and calculated average emissions as the arithmetic average of the three test runs. So that we can understand how each source handled sootblowing and determine how best to account for sootblowing in developing the MACT standards, we encourage owners and operators to review the sootblowing classification we assign to their source to determine if it is accurate. We have added a sootblowing status data field to the data base that indicates: (1) The sootblowing run (i. e., R1, R2, or R3); or (2) `` No'', indicating the boiler does not blow soot during normal operations; or (3) `` U'' (i. e., unknown), indicating that we do not know whether the boiler blows soot during normal operations or whether the boiler blew soot during testing, and, if so, during which run. For test conditions classified `` U'', we encourage owners and operators to clarify whether the boiler blows soot during normal operations, and whether the boiler blew soot during the test condition (and, if so, during which run). Dated: June 20, 2002. Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Director, Office of Solid Waste. [FR Doc. 02– 16643 Filed 7– 1– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7238– 7] Public Notice of Final NPDES General Permits for Facilities/ Operations That Generate, Treat, and/ or Use/ Dispose of Sewage Sludge by Means of Land Application, Landfill, and Surface Disposal in EPA Region VIII AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of issuance of NPDES general permits. SUMMARY: Region VIII of EPA is hereby giving notice of its issuance of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permits for facilities or operations that generate, treat, and/ or use/ dispose of sewage sludge by means of land application, landfill, and surface disposal in the States of CO, MT, ND, and WY and in Indian country, as defined at 18 U. S. C. 1151, in the States of CO, MT, ND, SD, WY and UT (except for the Goshute Indian Reservation and the Navajo Indian Reservation). The effective date of the general permits is August 16, 2002. The NPDES permit numbers and the areas covered by each general permit are listed below. State Permit No. Area covered by the general permit Colorado ......................... COG650000 State of Colorado except for Federal Facilities and Indian country COG651000 Indian country within the State of Colorado and the portions of the Ute Mountain Indian Reservation located within the States of New Mexico and Utah. VerDate jun< 06> 2002 18: 10 Jul 01, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JYN1. SGM pfrm15 PsN: 02JYN1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.811833

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0019-0003

Supporting & Related Material

HWC Data Base Report U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 July 2002 ii Acknowledgment This document was prepared by EPA's Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Minimization and Management Division. EERGC Corporation provided technical support under EPA Contract No. 68­ W­ 01­ 024. iii Contents Acknowledgment Acronyms Tables 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Data Format 3.0 Data Summary Sheets 4.0 Individual Source Data Sheets 4.1 Source Description Sheet 4.2 Condition Description Sheet 4.3 Emissions Data Sheet 4.4 Feedstream Data Sheet 4.5 Process Data Sheet 4.6 PCDD/ PCDF Sheet 4.7 Source Summary Sheets Appendices I Quality Assurance and Quality Control II Response to Comments on Phase II June 2000 NODA III Acronyms Used in Data Summary Sheets iv Acronyms APCD Air pollution control device APCS Air pollution control system BH Baghouse BIF Boiler and Industrial Furnace CAA Clean Air Act CO Carbon monoxide CoC Certification of Compliance D/ F Polychlorinated dioxins and furans DRE Destruction and removal efficiency ESP Electrostatic precipitator HAF Halogen Acid Furnace HAP Hazardous air pollutant HC Hydrocarbons HWC Hazardous waste combustor LVM Low volatile metals (As, Cd, Cr) MACT Maximum achievable control technology MHRA Maximum hourly rolling average MTEC Maximum theoretical emissions concentration PCDD/ PCDF Polychlorinated dioxin and furans PIC Products of incomplete combustion PM Particulate matter POHC Principal organic hazardous constituents RA Rolling average RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SVM Semivolatile metals (Pb, Cd) v Tables 1 Phase I hazardous waste combustor universe 2 Phase II hazardous waste combustor universe 3 Data Summary Sheet organization 1 1.0 Introduction This document describes the format and content of the data bases we are using to develop MACT standards for hazardous waste combustors: hazardous waste burning incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, industrial and commercial/ institutional boilers (including process heaters that meet the RCRA definition of boiler), and hydrochloric acid production furnaces. The MACT standards for hazardous waste burning incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns will replace the interim standards promulgated for these sources on February 13 and 14, 2002 (67 FR 6792 and 67 FR 6968). We refer to the standards for these sources as "Phase I" standards, and the standards we are now developing for these sources as "replacement" standards. We refer to the MACT standards we are developing for hazardous waste burning industrial and institutional/ commercial boilers and hydrochloric acid production furnaces as "Phase II" standards because the MACT standards for these sources were originally scheduled to be promulgated after the Phase I MACT standards were finalized. We now plan to promulgate these Phase II standards on the same schedule as the replacement Phase I standards. For this rulemaking, we have updated the data bases we have previously published for Phase I and Phase II sources. The Phase I data base is comprised of the data base used to support the current MACT standards plus additional data collected in early 2002 in an attempt to obtain from EPA Regional Offices and particular States any test reports (both new and old) not currently in the data base. The data base has also been screened to delete data from sources no longer burning hazardous waste. The Phase II data base is comprised of the data base noticed for public comment on June 27, 2000 (65 FR 39581). That data base has been revised to accommodate comments received on the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and to delete data from sources no longer burning hazardous waste. Our response to comments on that NODA are presented in Appendix II. Additionally, we have picked up a test report on one additional HCl Production Furnace during the Phase I data collection update, ID No. 2020, and have added this to the data set. 2 2.0 Data Format Each hazardous waste combustion unit (i. e., source) is assigned a 3 or 4 digit identification number (ID No.). Table 1 and Table 2 list the set of Phase I and Phase II hazardous waste combustors, including ID No., unit name, facility name, location, and comments regarding the operating status of the unit. The hazardous waste combustor performance data are presented in two forms: data summary sheets and individual source data sheets. The format and contents of each of these is described in detail in the following sections of this document. The "Data Summary Sheets" are a series of 36 Excel (and Lotus compatible) files, each containing data for a specific HAP (or HAP surrogate) and source category. See Table 3 for the content, organization, and titles of the data summary files. We recommend that owners and operators use the data summary sheets as a starting point for data review and comment, as they present a simple summary and characterization of all test conditions for each HAP (except for CO/ HC and DRE) and source category combination. The "Individual Source Data Sheets" provide detailed supporting data and calculations used to develop the data summary sheets. These data are contained in an Excel workbook for each source. The workbook is comprised of a number of worksheets as discussed below. 1 Although we intend to establish MACT standards for CO/ HC and DRE, we have not developed data summary sheets for those parameters. 2 Boilers are subdivided into Coal­ Fired Boilers and Liquid Fuel Boilers. 3 3.0 Data Summary Sheets The data summary sheets comprise a set of 36 Excel (and Lotus compatible) spreadsheets. Each spreadsheet contains a summary of data for each different HAP (or HAP surrogate) and source category. There are individual data sheets, grouped separately, for 6 HAPs (PM, PCDD/ PCDF, Hg, SVM, LVM, and HCl/ Cl2), 1 and for each of the 6 source categories (incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, coal­ fired boilers, liquid fuel boilers, and HCl production furnaces). 2 See Table 3 for a list of the file names and contents. For example, the summary data sheet named "inc_ svm. xls" contains all semi­ volatile metals data from incinerators; sheet "lwak_ hg. xls" contains all mercury data from lightweight aggregate kilns; etc. The spreadsheets all have the same general arrangement and format. Each row contains information related to a specific test condition. Test conditions are grouped together for each source, and within each source are ordered by date, starting at the top with the most recent. For each test condition, information includes, moving across columns from left to right:
Source ID and condition ID number ­­ First 3 or 4 numbers represent the HWC unit number, and the following identifies the test condition number (e. g., C1, C2).
Facility name
Facility location
Test condition date
APCS – Air pollution control system, acronyms defined in Appendix III.
Comment field ­­ Various notes and acronyms which refer to special considerations for the specific test condition.
Condition description ­­ Description of the purpose of the test condition.
Stack gas emissions data ­­ Individual run values, condition average, and non­ detect status. 3 All analytes in feedstreams or emissions reported as not detected are presented in the data summary sheets at ½ the reported detection limit. 4 A compliance test is either a Certification of Compliance (CoC) test or a Trial Burn (TB) test. 5 A risk burn is an emissions test used to conduct a site­ specific risk assessment. Risk burns are often conducted under normal operating conditions. 6 For example, munitions furnaces often conducted a series of trial burns over a period of years to identify operating conditions specific to the types of waste munitions that were generated and needed to be incinerated. We classified all of those trial burns under the same campaign, and identified the worst­ case emissions data for each pollutant from among all of those tests. This is appropriate because the waste munitions with the worst­ case emissions may require incineration in the future, and the emissions from those munitions are representative of emissions the source may emit. 4
Feed rate data ­­ Shown for ash (except for kilns), chlorine, and metals. Expressed as feedrate MTECs, as described in Section 4, showing condition averages for contributions from hazardous waste, spikes, and other feedrates. Total feedrates for individual runs are also provided as well as an indication of values reported as not detected (ND). 3
SRE ­­ System removal efficiency, calculated from the feedrate MTECs and stack gas emissions.
Test Type ­­ Various identifiers are used to identify the purpose of testing, including: compliance testing (CT) 4 , risk burn (RB) 5 , normal operating conditions (N), annual / biannual performance testing (ann PT, biann PT), baseline no waste testing (B), research testing (RT), evaluation testing (Eval), mini­ burn testing (MB).
Campaign ­­ The Phase I data base includes data from old and new emissions tests. Often, sources conducted a series of tests under the same testing "campaign". Such tests are numbered and grouped together for purposes of classifying each test as Worst­ Case Vs Normal, as discussed below. Where we determined, however, that a source conducted tests under different modes of operations but at different times 6 , we also classified those tests under the same campaign. This is appropriate because such tests do not supersede previous compliance test operating results, but rather provide additional operating flexibility by defining operating limits for specific, alternative operating modes (e. g., waste types). 7 That is, for Phase I sources where the data base is comprised of old and new data. The Phase II data base is comprised only of the most recent compliance test data. Because the Phase II data are all from the most recent campaign available to us, we have not classified the Phase II data by campaign. 8 For PM, the definition of worst­ case is more inclusive. If there is only one test condition in the test campaign that the test report refers to as a trial burn or certification of compliance test, we assume that test condition represents worst­ case PM emissions (unless the test report explicitly states otherwise) even if the test report does not explicitly indicate that ash was spiked or the APCS was detuned during the test. This interpretation is appropriate because a source must document compliance with the PM standard by emissions testing. Sources do not have the option of complying with an ash feedrate option (such as the Tier I feedrate limits for metals and chlorine) in lieu of emissions testing. If there is more than one test in the test campaign that the test report refers to as a trial burn or certification of compliance test, we assume that the test condition with the highest PM emissions represents worst­ case (unless the test report explicitly states otherwise), even if the test report does not explicitly indicate that ash was spiked during the test. 9 USEPA, "Guidance on Metals and Hydrogen Chloride Controls for Hazardous Waste Incinerators", December 29, 1988 (Volume IV of the Hazardous Waste Incineration Guidance Series). 5
Worst Case Vs Normal ­­ Various identifiers used to classify emissions for each test condition for each pollutant within a test campaign 7 for purposes of assessing emissions variability. These include: ­ N (normal) ­­ Test condition is run under conditions which are most representative of normal operations for the HAP in question. For example, the HAP is not intentionally spiked, operating limits are not being determined for the HAP during the test condition, the waste feed composition and other process operating conditions reflect normal operations. ­ WC (worst case) ­­ Test condition within each test campaign with the highest emissions of the pollutant and where the test condition meets any of these criteria: 8 (1) a test condition where the feedrate of the pollutant (i. e., metal, chlorine, or ash) is maximized by spiking or other means (e. g., feeding waste with atypically high concentrations of the pollutant) or where the emission control device is detuned; or (2) a test condition that a boiler or industrial furnace used to demonstrate compliance under Tier III of the BIF rule for the pollutant, or that an incinerator used to comply with Tier III of the risk assessment guidance 9 ; or (3) a normal or "in between" test condition with higher emissions than a test condition that otherwise would have been classified as worst case. Test conditions meeting 10 For example, in some cases lead emissions reflected non­ spiked normal conditions, and cadmium emissions reflected worst case spiked emissions. Note that we classified LVM data as worst case when beryllium was the only LVM metal that reflected normal emissions (and where arsenic and chromium reflected worst case). This is because beryllium emissions are virtually always substantially lower than either arsenic or chromium emissions, and thus, do not contribute substantially to LVM emissions. 11 An emission control system comprised of an initial wet control device followed by an ESP or BH would qualify as a wet system. The initial wet device would quench the gas temperature to minimize D/ F formation. Conversely, an emission control system comprised of an initial dry control device followed by a wet device (e. g., for HCl control) would not be classified as a wet APCS for purposes of this subcategorization. D/ F may be formed in the dry control device before the temperature of the gas is quenched in the wet device below the optimum range for D/ F formation. 6 the third criterion are classified WC HE (i. e., worst­ case, highest emissions) to clarify that the test condition is worst­ case because it has the highest emissions for the test campaign for the pollutant even though its operating conditions would not have suggested that emissions would be worst­ case. ­ IB (In­ between) ­­ The test condition would have met the definition of worst case except that there was another condition with higher emissions. Test conditions are also classified as IB if the SVM and LVM emissions represented a mixture of worst case and normal emissions. 10 ­ U (unknown) ­­ Available information is insufficient to determine if the test condition is normal, worst­ case, or in­ between. We provide a comment for each U classification under the Worst Case Vs Normal column indicating the information needed to classify the test condition. We encourage owners and operators to provide information and documentation so that the test condition can be properly classified. ­ NA (not applicable) ­­ It is not appropriate to classify the test condition for the pollutant as worst­ case vs normal. We provide a comment for each NA classification indicating the reason for the classification. Reasons include: ­­ D/ F for sources with wet or no APCS 11 : We cannot objectively define worst­ case operating conditions because all hazardous waste combustors are required to operate under good combustion conditions which will control combustion­ generated D/ F formation, and D/ F formation in the emission control device is precluded because: 1) APCS temperature is inherently controlled in wet systems; and 2) particulate matter is 7 continuously flushed from a wet control device rather than being held on a surface (e. g., of an ESP plate or BH bag) where particle surface reactions can form D/ F. ­­ D/ F for coal­ fired boilers: All hazardous waste coal­ fired boilers are equipped with an ESP or BH. We cannot objectively define worst­ case operating conditions because factors (e. g., sulfur in the coal) other than gas temperature at the inlet to the ESP or BH appear to have the dominant effect on D/ F emissions. ­­ Tests conducted prior to modifications of the combustion system and/ or APCS retrofits. Emissions data prior to these changes may not be representative of current operations. ­­ Miniburns, research tests, demonstration tests: These types of tests are generally used to determine emissions under modes of operation that are not representative of current operations. Thus, emissions during these tests are not likely to be worst­ case or normal. ­­ Baseline tests: Emissions when not burning hazardous waste are not relevant to establishing a MACT standard for hazardous waste combustors. ­­ Tests where not all metals in the SVM or LVM group were measured: SVM and LVM emissions cannot be classified as worst­ case or normal if emissions data are not available from the test for both lead and cadmium for SVM, and for arsenic, beryllium, and chromium for LVM. Note that, for some source categories where there are substantial emissions data for only lead or only chromium during a test condition, we classified the leadonly or chromium­ only data by worst­ case vs normal. Note that we did not apply the NA classification to LVM emissions data if only beryllium emissions data were missing. This is because beryllium emissions are virtually always substantially lower than either arsenic or chromium emissions, and thus, do not contribute substantially to LVM emissions. ­­ PM run exceeding the RCRA emission standard: If a PM run failed the 0.08 gr/ dscf RCRA standard, the test failed to demonstrate compliance with the RCRA standards. Thus, the test could not be used to establish operating limits, and the emissions are not representative of emissions when operating within allowable limits established under a successful compliance test. 12 See USEPA, "Technical Implementation Document for EPA's Boiler and Industrial Furnace Regulations", March 1992, p. 5­ 14. 8
Spiking ­­ Indicates whether spiking of ash, chlorine, or metal feedstreams was used. "N" indicates no, "Y" is yes, "U" is unknown, "UL" is unlikely, and "L" is likely.
Tier Status ­­ The Tier compliance status (Tier I vs Tier III) is identified for the individual metals and chlorine.
Others descriptors for cement kilns ­­ Kiln type Wet vs dry Long vs short Bypass In­ line raw mill
Others descriptors for boilers ­­ Commercial vs on­ site waste handling Mixed radioactive waste Sootblowing practices Description of practices: ­ RX: If the source blew soot during the test, the sootblowing run is identified (e. g., R3) ­ No: If the source does not blow soot during normal operations ­ U or Unk: If available data is insufficient to determine sootblowing operations Sootblow corrected average: Yes or No, indicating whether the source used the time­ weighted average provided by the BIF guidance document to calculate average emissions. 12 Coal type Identify the type of coal used (bituminous, lignite, sub­ bituminous, etc.)
Other descriptors for incinerators ­­ Incinerator type (rotary kiln, hearth, fluidized bed, liquid injection) Waste heat recovery boiler Commercial vs on­ site Waste type (solid, liquid, sludge), 9 Mixed radioactive waste DoD chem demil units DoD munitions popping furnaces, propellants furnaces ° Other descriptors for HCl production furnaces Waste heat recovery boiler (WHB included in APCS description) 10 4.0 Individual Source Data Sheets Detailed data on each source are compiled in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. The sheets are very similar in format to those used for the June 27, 2000 Phase II data base NODA (65 FR 39581). Each individual source has its own workbook file, and is assigned a unique ID number. The Excel files are named according to the source's ID number. Each file has a series of worksheets which contain a compilation of the data corresponding to each worksheet topic. These include: (1) source description (" source"); (2) condition description (" cond"); (3) stack gas emissions (" emiss"); (4) feedstreams (" feed"); (5) process data (" process"); (6) PCDD/ PCDF (" df"); (7) stack gas emission and feedrate summary (" summ 1"); and (8) source description summary (" summ 2"). Contents of the worksheets are described below. Multiple test conditions at the same source, either performed within the same campaign or during another test campaign, are incorporated into the same source file. When appropriate, cell information common to multiple worksheets is linked to improve data quality and facilitate revisions. The structure of these data sheets is tailored to facilitate review and enhance the accuracy of the data. The key measure of this review­ friendliness is the convention of designing the spreadsheets for data entry to be consistent with the data as found in the test report, thus allowing a direct comparison of the as­ reported data with the entered data. This involved dividing the emissions and feedstream sheets into two portions. In most cases, as­ reported data are entered "verbatim" in the first section. Next, calculations are made as appropriate to convert the asreported emissions data into common units (e. g., gas concentrations corrected to 7% O2 ), which are presented in the second section. Customized programming, apparent in the cell formulas, shows the calculations that are made to convert the data to common units. For many of the combustors, data on the emissions, feed, and process information, are divided between two sheets (e. g., "feed 1" and "feed 2"). Recently collected data are included in the first sheet, which includes a "1" in the sheet title. Sheets with a "2" in the title contain previously collected testing information that has been released and used by EPA in previous activities. Also, for much of the previously collected data in the "2" sheets it was not feasible to present the information in a "verbatim" form. Instead, data are provided directly in standardized units (e. g., ug/ dscm @ 7% oxygen). However, the stack gas sampling train flowrates and oxygen levels that were used for unit conversions are provided in the sheets in all cases, making it simple for the reviewer to re­ convert the data to any other desired units (e. g., lb/ hr, grams/ min, etc.) for comparison purposes. 11 4.1 Source Description Sheet The first sheet contains descriptive information on the source type, ID Nos., source design, fuel types, etc. It includes: ID No. ­­ Unique ID No. that identifies each different hazardous waste burning unit (i. e., source) which has been tested; identical or sister units which have not been tested are not assigned an ID No. EPA ID No. ­­ 9 digit code assigned to each facility site by EPA. Facility Name ­­ Name of the company which operates the source. Facility Location ­­ City and state of facility. Facility Name or ID No. ­­ Name of the source as identified internally by the facility. Sister Units ­­ Sources for which "data­ in­ lieu" of testing is used to document compliance. Sisters units have been determined by regulatory officials to be either identical or essentially similar in expected performance so that testing of both units is unnecessary. Combustor Class and Type ­­ Generic class and type of combustor, for example, incinerator, boiler, cement kiln, etc. Combustor Characteristics ­­ Distinguishing features of combustor and firing set­ up, including design, manufacturer, model, thermal ratings, etc. Soot Blowing ­­ Identifies whether soot blowing is used, as well as the duration and frequency. APCS – Generic type of air pollution control system; for example, ESP, FF, SDA (spray dryer absorber), WS (wet scrubber), VS (venturi scrubber). APCS Characteristics ­­ Distinguishing features of the APCS, including manufacturer, model, and design characteristics of performance indicators (such as pressure drop for VS, fabric type and air to cloth ratio for FF, number of fields for ESP, etc.). Hazardous Waste ­­ Generic form of hazardous waste that is burned as indicated in the test report – liquid, solid, sludge. 12 Hazardous Waste Characteristics ­­ Distinguishing features of waste, including waste constituents, waste codes, waste types, waste origin, etc. Supplemental Fuel ­­ Auxiliary fuel (including non­ hazardous waste) co­ fired with hazardous waste. Typically natural gas. May also include coal, fuel oil, process gas, or any other non­ hazardous waste fuels. Stack Characteristics ­­ Presented in terms of dispersion modeling at stack exit. Diameter ­­ Diameter, or equivalent diameter if non­ circular (ft). Height ­­ Elevation above grade level (ft). Gas Velocity ­­ Average gas velocity (ft/ sec). Gas Temperature ­­ Average gas temperature ( o F). Permitting Status ­­ Includes Tier I, II, or III permitting status, identification of low waste risk exemption units, etc. 4.2 Condition Description The condition description sheet serves as a bibliographic reference to all compliance test and/ or risk burn test reports from which the data are taken: Report Name/ Date ­­ Title and date of report. Report Preparer ­­ Company responsible for writing test report. Testing Firm ­­ Company responsible for performing sampling/ testing. This is followed by a description of each of the test conditions from the test reports. For each test condition, the following information is provided: Number ­­ Test condition number that is assigned. Testing Dates ­­ Date( s) of the test condition. Condition Description ­­ Description of why the test was performed (typically a CoC, trial burn, or risk burn), and under what test conditions (for example maximum feedrates, minimum combustion chamber temperature, etc.). 13 Content ­­ Summarizes the technical scope of the test, including what emissions measurements and feedstream analyses were conducted. 4.3 Emissions Data Sheet This sheet summarizes the stack gas emission results for the individual sources. Information for each test condition is presented in order of assigned condition number. For each test condition, data are entered on an individual run basis, typically three runs per test condition. Data are first entered with the same units of measure as presented in the test report. This can include various different stack gas concentration units (ppmv, mg/ dscm, sometimes corrected to 7% O2 ), as well as mass emissions rates (lb/ hr, g/ hr, g/ sec, etc.). The second column of the sheet shows the units of the data. The third column specifies whether the gas concentration data are corrected to 7% O2 (with either a "y" or "n"). The next columns show the data by run. Non­ detect measurements are indicated by an "nd" which is added to the column immediately to the left of each of the run data. When data are presented in non­ standard units (mass rates or non­ standard concentrations), conversion calculations are made as necessary to transform all emissions to common units of concentrations ­­ PM in gr/ dscf; HCl, Cl2 , and total chlorine in ppmv; CO and HC in ppmv; and metals in ug/ dscm ­­ all corrected to 7% O2 . Note the following issues for each of the pollutant types.
PM ­­ Usually reported and entered as front­ half capture data, as per EPA Method 5. Sometimes both front­ half and total capture are reported. This is noted and entered. Soot blowing corrected average is entered in the average column when soot blowing is used and the soot blowing correction procedure is used by the source to calculate a corrected daily emission average. Also soot blowing corrected averages are used for metals as appropriately reported.
HCl and Cl2 ­­ HCl and Cl2 gas concentration data are entered. Total chlorine is calculated as HCl + 2* Cl2 , where both are in ppmv.
CO, HC – Both test run averages (" RA") and maximum hourly rolling averages (" MHRA") are entered as available. HC is reported as propane. 14
Metals ­­ Data for CAA and BIF metals emission values are entered as available. The Cd and Pb concentrations are added together for calculating the SVM concentration and the As, Be, and Cr concentrations are summed for calculating the LVM concentration. For treatment of non­ detected values, the procedure is to: (1) use "nd" to identify the metal in question with a non­ detect in the column beside the data entry as discussed above, and (2) apply the full value of the detection limit up to the point of the SVM and LVM calculation. At this point, the non­ detect value( s) is divided by 2 (use of "one­ half" of the detection limit). This is in contrast to an alternate convention where the detection limit is assumed to be the full measured concentration for non­ detected results.
Principal Organic Hazardous Constituent (POHC) and DRE ­­ For each POHC type tested in trial burns, the DRE % is entered, and usually the POHC feedrate and/ or POHC emission rate are entered as well.
Sampling train information ­­ Stack gas flowrate (dscfm), oxygen (% dry volume), moisture (%), and gas temperature ( o F) are provided for each of the different manual isokinetic sampling methods. These are used for normalization of stack gas emissions and calculation of feedrate Maximum Theoretical Emission Concentrations (MTEC), as discussed in the next section below. 4.4 Feedstream Data Sheet This sheet summarizes the characteristics of all feedstreams to the system during each test condition. As available, contributions from all the different feedstreams are shown, including different hazardous waste streams, spiking streams, non­ hazardous waste streams, and any other auxiliary fuel or feedstreams such as process gases, natural gas, fuel oil, or coal. The characteristics of each different feedstream are shown in separate columns. Information for each test condition is presented in order of assigned condition number. Characteristics include total feedstream feedrate, as well as ash, chlorine, and metals content, and feedstream thermal and physical properties ­­ such as heating value, viscosity, and density ­­ as available. Firing rates (in million Btu/ hr) are calculated based on feedrates and heating value. Total firing rates are also estimated using a conventional "F­ factor" approach (as commonly done for conversation of stack gas concentration measurements to emissions factors for compliance purposes for fuel fired boilers). An F­ factor of 9,000 dscf (at 0% O2 ) / MMBtu heat input is used. Estimated firing rates are compared with firing rates based on reported feedstreams. Heat input from non­ waste feedstreams that are not accounted for in the test report are determined based on the difference between estimated and reported firing rate levels. 15 Maximum theoretical emissions concentrations (MTECs) are calculated for ash, chlorine, and metals for each different feedstream. As the name implies, MTECs represent emission levels on the assumption that feed constituents are completely discharged in the stack exhaust without any loss or partitioning within the combustor system. MTECs are calculated by dividing the constituent mass feed rate by the stack gas flowrate, as measured by a manual method sampling system, to produce normal units of concentration, corrected to 7% O2 . In cases where multiple stack gas flowrates are simultaneously measured during the same condition from more than one stack gas sampling train, the flow rate from the sampling train that is conducted during the longest time duration is used to calculate the MTECs. Note that this convention has little impact on the value of the MTECs because the stack gas flowrates from different trains over the same test condition are very similar. Consistent with the stack gas treatment, non­ detects are treated at half the detection limit. Tier I feedrates limits (for metals and chlorine as appropriate) are also tabulated at the bottom of the feedstream sheet where found in the test reports. 4.5 Process Data Sheet This sheet includes a listing of all the reported non­ feedrate related process operating data for each test condition. The process data normally include permit operating parameters, such as combustion temperature, steam production rates, production rates, and APCS operating data such as for baghouses: inlet temperature and pressure drop; for ESPs: inlet temperature and power input; and for scrubbers: pressure drop, pH, L/ G ratio, and some measure of blowdown. Individual run and/ or condition averages are presented, and sometimes maximum (or minimum) hourly rolling averages are shown. 4.6 PCDD/ PCDF Sheets A separate sheet is used to present the PCDD/ PCDF emission data due to the relative complexity involved in processing data on 25 individual congeners/ isomers and calculating the normal units in toxic equivalents (TEQs) and total PCDD/ PCDF. The TEQ and total PCDD/ PCDF values are calculated from raw test report data from the analytical and sampling results by individual run, as available. TEQ values are calculated by run using the International (I­ TEQ) risk­ weighting system for each congener and isomer. Total PCDD/ PCDF values are also determined without the TEQ risk­ weighting factors as available. Any individual congener/ isomer non­ detect values are treated at half of the detection limit. Separate sheets are used for each different test condition for which PCDD/ PCDF data are available. 4.7 Source Summary Sheets 16 For many of the files, two source summary worksheets are also included at the end: the emissions and feedrate data summary sheet, and the source description summary sheet. The emissions and feedrate data summary sheet provides a succinct rundown of the information contained in the source and emissions sheets. These sheets do not provide any additional, unique information not contained in the previous worksheets. Table 1. Phase I HWC Universe Data Base ID No. Comb Type EPA ID Company City State EPA Region Unit Name Comments A10 OINC NJD002373579 Air Products And Chemicals Inc Paulsboro NJ 2 Interim status 725 OINC NJD001707944 Asahi Glass (ZENECA, ICI) Bayonne NJ 2 LV­ 3 Inc 824 OINC NJD980753875 Ausimont (Pennwalt Corp) Thorofare NJ 2 Isotron 142 OINC NJ3210020704 US Army Armament R& D Command Picatinny NJ 2 New facility, permitted, soon to be online 915 OINC NYD980592497 Eastman Kodak Rochester NY 2 Building 218 CHI 3016 OINC NYD980592497 Eastman Kodak Rochester NY 2 B­ 95 Multiple Hearth 825 OINC NYD002080034 General Electric Co. Waterford NY 2 Rotary Kiln Inc 3020 OINC NYD002080034 General Electric Co. Waterford NY 2 Fixed Box No. 2 712 OINC NYD002014595 Nepera Harriman NY 2 A43 OINC NYD002103216 Occidental (Durez) Niagara Falls NY 2 3022 CINC NYD000632372 Safety Kleen (BDT Inc, Laidlaw) Clarence NY 2 307 LWAK NYD080469935 Thermalkem (Norlite) Cohoes NY 2 Kiln No. 1 479 LWAK NYD080469935 Thermalkem (Norlite) Cohoes NY 2 Kiln No. 2 Data in­ lieu (# 307) 728 OINC PRD091024786 Eli Lilly And Company Mayaquez PR 2 Brule Multiple units at this site? 3021 OINC PRD090028101 Merck Sharp & Dohme Quimica Barceloneta PR 2 rotary kiln OINC PRD090028101 Merck Sharp & Dohme Quimica Barceloneta PR 2 t­ thermal liquid inj 3018 OINC PRD090021056 Squibb Manufacturing, Inc. Humacao PR 2 caloric #1 3019 OINC PRD090021056 Squibb Manufacturing, Inc. Humacao PR 2 caloric #2 OINC PRD090613357 Chemsource (SK& F) Guayama PR 2 Shutdown, but planning to restart in FY 2003 700 OINC DED003930807 Dupont Wilmington DE 3 454 OINC MDD003071875 FMC Agricultural Chemical Group Baltimore MD 3 207 CK PAD002389559 Keystone Cement Company Bath PA 3 Kiln No. 1 208 CK PAD002389559 Keystone Cement Company Bath PA 3 Kiln No. 2 468 OINC PAD980550412 Lonza (Smithkline) Conshohocken PA 3 Liquid Incinerator OINC PAD003043353 Merck & Co Inc ­ Cherokee Plant Riverside PA 3 Old unit closing; new unit under construction 465 OINC VAD065385296 Honeywell (Allied Fibers) Hopewell VA 3 Liq Waste Incinerator 349 OINC VA1210020730 Radford Army Ammunition Plant Radford VA 3 Unit 6A 349a OINC VA1210020730 Radford Army Ammunition Plant Radford VA 3 Data in­ lieu (# 349) 476 LWAK VAD042755082 Solite Arvonia VA 3 Kiln No. 6 313 LWAK VAD042755082 Solite Arvonia VA 3 Kiln No. 7 314 LWAK VAD042755082 Solite Arvonia VA 3 Kiln No. 8 474 LWAK VAD046970521 Solite Cascade VA 3 Kiln No. 3 311 LWAK VAD046970521 Solite Cascade VA 3 Kiln No. 2 312 LWAK VAD046970521 Solite Cascade VA 3 Kiln No. 4 336 LWAK VAD046970521 Solite Cascade VA 3 Kiln No. 1 340 OINC WVD056866312 Bayer (Miles, Inc.) New Martinsville WV 3 Fluidized Bed 3007 OINC WVD004341491 Cytec Industries Willow Island WV 3 Page 1 of 5 Table 1. Phase I HWC Universe Data Base ID No. Comb Type EPA ID Company City State EPA Region Unit Name Comments 3006 OINC WVD004325353 Crompton Corp (OSI Specialties, Inc.) Sisterville WV 3 B12 OINC AL3210020027 Anniston Army Depot Anniston AL 4 construction certification, first test planned 1/ 02 490 OINC ALD001221902 CIBA­ Geigy Corporation McIntosh AL 4 HW Inc No. 2 705 OINC ALD001221902 CIBA­ Geigy Corporation McIntosh AL 4 Muli­ purpose Inc A56 OINC GAD039046800 Monsanto (Searle) Augusta GA 4 A27 OINC KYD006370159 Elf Atochem North America, Inc. Calvert City KY 4 359 CINC KYD006373922 Elf Atochem Carrollton KY 4 210 CINC KYD088438817 LWD, Inc. Calvert City KY 4 Unit No. 3 211 CINC KYD088438817 LWD, Inc. Calvert City KY 4 Unit No. 1 212 CINC KYD088438817 LWD, Inc. Calvert City KY 4 Unit No. 2 904 OINC MSD033417031 First Chemical Corporation Pascagoula MS 4 203 CK MSD077655876 Holnam Inc. Artesia MS 4 Kiln No. 1 708 OINC NCD047373766 Catalytica Phar (Burroughs Wellcome) Greenville NC 4 McGill No. 2 Inc 4 units McGill 1, McGill 2, Prenco, NAO 341 OINC NCD065655599 Glaxo Welcome R. T. P. NC 4 200 CK SCD003351699 Giant Cement Company Harleyville SC 4 Kiln No. 4 201 CK SCD003351699 Giant Cement Company Harleyville SC 4 Kiln No. 5 680 CK SCD003351699 Giant Cement Company Harleyville SC 4 Kiln No. 3 data in­ lieu (# 200) 681 CK SCD003351699 Giant Cement Company Harleyville SC 4 Kiln No. 2 data in­ lieu (# 200) 205 CK SCD003368891 Holnam Inc. Holly Hill SC 4 Kiln No. 1 206 CK SCD003368891 Holnam Inc. Holly Hill SC 4 Kiln No. 2 809 OINC TND003376928 Tennessee Eastman Co. Kingsport TN 4 No. 1 Rotary Kiln Major recent system upgrades 810 OINC TND003376928 Tennessee Eastman Co. Kingsport TN 4 Liquid Chem Destructor Major recent system upgrades 357 OINC TN0890090004 US Department Of Energy Oak Ridge TN 4 K­ 25 TSCA 905 OINC TND007024664 Velsicol Chemical Corporation Memphis TN 4 May close to meet MACT 460 OINC ILD065237851 Akzo Chemie America Morris IL 5 3017 OINC ILD005083316 Mcwhorter Inc (Cargill) Carpentersville IL 5 333 CINC ILD098642424 ONYX Trade Waste Incineration Sauget IL 5 Unit No. 4 612 CINC ILD098642424 ONYX Trade Waste Incineration Sauget IL 5 Unit No. 3 806 OINC IND000810861 Amoco Oil Co. Whiting IN 5 Fluidized Bed OINC IND006050967 Eli Lilly And Company Lafayette IN 5 Trane T49 Might close to meet MACT OINC IND006050967 Eli Lilly And Company Lafayette IN 5 New unit planned OINC IND072040348 Eli Lilly And Company Clinton IN 5 Trane TO3/ TO4 300 CK IND005081542 ESSROC Corporation Logansport IN 5 Kiln No. 1 491 CK IND005081542 ESSROC Corporation Logansport IN 5 Kiln No. 2 Data in­ lieu ( # 300) 3030 CK IND006419212 Lone Star Industries, Inc. Greencastle IN 5 Kiln No. 1 354 OINC MID000724724 Dow Chemical Co. Midland MI 5 Unit 830 Consolidating with 353; retrofit APCS to meet MA 342 OINC MID000820381 Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Kalamazoo MI 5 Interim status Page 2 of 5 Table 1. Phase I HWC Universe Data Base ID No. Comb Type EPA ID Company City State EPA Region Unit Name Comments 3014 OINC MND006172969 3M Cottage Grove MN 5 3013 OINC OHD046202602 Aztec Peroxides Inc Elyria OH 5 302 CK OHD987048733 Lafarge Paulding OH 5 Kiln No. 1 302a CK OHD987048733 Lafarge Paulding OH 5 Kiln No. 2 Data in­ lieu (# 302) A36 OINC OHD004172623 Lubrizol Corporation Painesville OH 5 Interim status; no test; maybe in 2002 495 OINC OHD004304689 PPG Industries, Inc. Circleville OH 5 Energy Recovery Unit 331 CINC OHD048415665 Ross Incineration Services Grafton OH 5 APCD upgrade being done 222 CINC OHD980613541 Waste Technologies Industries East Liverpool OH 5 3009 CINC WID990829475 Waste Research And Reclamation Eau Claire WI 5 484 OINC ARD089234884 Arkansas Eastman Batesville AR 6 No. 2 Incinerator APCD upgrades will be done to meet MACT 228 CK ARD981512270 Ash Grove Cement Company Foreman AR 6 Kiln No. 2 403 CK ARD981512270 Ash Grove Cement Company Foreman AR 6 Kiln No. 1 404 CK ARD981512270 Ash Grove Cement Company Foreman AR 6 Kiln No. 3 486 CINC ARD069748192 ENSCO El Dorado AR 6 MWP­ 2000 Kiln No. 3 APCD upgrades will be done to meet MACT 487 CINC ARD069748192 ENSCO El Dorado AR 6 Fixed Base Inc Kiln No. 1 anAPCD upgrades will be done to meet MACT 3000 CINC ARD006354161 Reynolds Aluminum Gum Springs AR 6 C10 CINC TXD982562787 American Envirotech Channelview TX 6 Permitted, not yet constructed, no data 506 OINC TXD008081697 BASF Corporation Freeport TX 6 Incinerator No. IN­ 701 TXD008081697 BASF Corporation Freeport TX 6 IN­ 4701 New unit, data soon B32 OINC TXD058260977 Bayer (Miles Corp.) Baytown TX 6 Permitted, not yet constructed, no data 603 CINC TXD000838896 Chemical Waste Management Port Arthur TX 6 600 OINC TXD008092793 Dow Chemical Co. Freeport TX 6 B­ 33 rotary kiln 3024 OINC TXD000017756 Dow Chemical Co. La Porte TX 6 H­ 2000 TTU 707 OINC TXD008079212 Dupont La Porte TX 6 Central Scrubbed Inc 338 OINC TXD008079642 Dupont Sabrine River Orange TX 6 rotary kiln OINC TXD086981172 Fina Oil and Chem Deer Park TX 6 3026 OINC TXD078432457 Hoechst Celanese Corp. Pasadena TX 6 MN­ 108 3027 OINC TXD078432457 Hoechst Celanese Corp. Pasadena TX 6 MN­ 460 A62 OINC TXD008076853 Hunstman (Texaco Chemical Co) Conroe TX 6 Old unit no longer oper; new unit being construct 614 OINC TXD982286932 Occidental Chemical Corp. Gregory TX 6 VCM Inc CC­ IN­ 1 2 units 3028 OINC TXD981911209 Occidental Chemical VCM Deer Park TX 6 NCIN3 OINC TXD981911209 Occidental Chemical VCM Deer Park TX 6 NCIN2 Data in­ lieu (# 3028) 221 CINC TXD055141378 Safety Kleen (Rollins) Deer Park TX 6 Res (TX) Incinerator Train II not most representative configuration 488 CINC TXD055141378 Safety Kleen (Rollins) Deer Park TX 6 Res (TX) Incinerator Train I not most representative configuration 489 CINC TXD055141378 Safety Kleen (Rollins) Deer Park TX 6 Incinerator Train II / RRR not most representative configuration 609 CINC TXD055141378 Safety Kleen (Rollins) Deer Park TX 6 Incinerator I/ II/ RRR 492 OINC TXD007330202 Texas Eastman Longview TX 6 FBC Inc Page 3 of 5 Table 1. Phase I HWC Universe Data Base ID No. Comb Type EPA ID Company City State EPA Region Unit Name Comments 613 OINC TXD007330202 Texas Eastman Longview TX 6 rotary kiln 318 CK TXD0007349327 Texas Industries, Inc. Midlothian TX 6 Kiln No. 1 4 kilns at TXI; only 2 can burn at a time 473 CK TXD0007349327 Texas Industries, Inc. Midlothian TX 6 Kiln No. 2 3025 OINC TXD000461533 Union Carbide Corporation Texas City TX 6 VA­ 5 604 OINC LAD040776809 BASF Corporation Geismer LA 6 Aniline Plant 808 OINC LAD008187080 Dow Chemical Co. Plaquemine LA 6 I­ 200 (not I­ 300) 3002 OINC LAD008187080 Dow Chemical Co. Plaquemine LA 6 R­ 70 solvents/ methane 714 OINC LAR00001833 Lyondell Westlake LA 6 480 OINC LAD053783445 Novartis (CIBA­ Geigy Corporation) St. Gabriel LA 6 Multi­ purpose Inc 706 OINC LAD053783445 Novartis (CIBA­ Geigy Corporation) St. Gabriel LA 6 Liq inj inc Not operating since 1996, but not closed 467 OINC LAD008086506 PPG Inc Westlake (Lake LA 6 Unit 1 3001 OINC LAD008086506 PPG Inc Westlake (Lake LA 6 Unit 2 610 OINC LAD980622104 Shell Oil Co Norco LA 6 NCIN­ 1 611 OINC LAD980622104 Shell Oil Co Norco LA 6 NCIN­ 2 CK KSD031203318 Ash Grove Cement Company Chanute KS 7 New replacement kiln, testing in 12/ 01 322 CK KSD007148034 Lafarge Fredonia KS 7 Kiln No. 1 Full RCRA Part B permit 323 CK KSD007148034 Lafarge Fredonia KS 7 Kiln No. 2 Full RCRA Part B permit 319 CK MOD054018288 Continental Cement Company Hannibal MO 7 Kiln No. 1 Full RCRA Part B permit 204 CK MOD029729688 Holnam Inc. Clarksville MO 7 Kiln No. 1 Full RCRA Part B permit 303 CK MO981127319 Lone Star Industries, Inc. Cape Girardeau MO 7 Kiln No. 1 Full RCRA Part B permit 3012 OINC KS0213820467 Kansas Army Ammunition Plant Parsons KS 7 477 OINC MOD050226075 American Cyanamid Hannibal MO 7 Prowl Unit B John Zink 478 OINC MOD050226075 American Cyanamid Hannibal MO 7 Prowl Unit C T­ Thermal 805 OINC MOD050226075 American Cyanamid Hannibal MO 7 Unit D Trane/ Brule 463 OINC MOD056389828 Bayer (Miles, Mobay) Kansas City MO 7 Thermal Oxidizer 3011 CINC MOD9857988164I C I Explosives USA Incorporated Joplin MO 7 rotary kiln 3015 CINC MOD9857988164I C I Explosives USA Incorporated Joplin MO 7 car bottom furnace 503 OINC MO4213820489 Lake City Army Ammunition Plant Independence MO 7 Building 97 3010 OINC NED981723513 Clean Harbors (Ecova Corp.) Kimball NE 7 3008 OINC UT3213820894 Tooele Army Depot North Tooele UT 8 popping furnace OINC UT5210090002 Deseret Army Depot CAMDS Tooele UT 8 CAMDS Liq Inj 3004 OINC UT5210090002 Deseret Army Depot CAMDS Tooele UT 8 CAMDS MPF 3003 OINC UT5210090002 Deseret Army Depot CAMDS Tooele UT 8 CAMDS DFS 3005 OINC UT5210090002 Deseret Army Depot TOCDF Tooele UT 8 TOCDF Liq Inc No. 2 493 OINC UT5210090002 Deseret Army Depot TOCDF Tooele UT 8 TOCDF Liq Inc No. 1 494 OINC UT5210090002 Deseret Army Depot TOCDF Tooele UT 8 TOCDF Metal Parts Furnace Page 4 of 5 Table 1. Phase I HWC Universe Data Base ID No. Comb Type EPA ID Company City State EPA Region Unit Name Comments 347 OINC UT5210090002 Deseret Army Depot TOCDF Tooele UT 8 TOCDF Deactivation Furnace System 327 CINC UTD981552177 Safety Kleen (Aptus) Aragonite UT 8 344 OINC TT0570090011 Department Of The Army Johnston Atoll TT 9 LIC 346 OINC TT0570090011 Department Of The Army Johnston Atoll TT 9 DFS 470 OINC TT0570090011 Department Of The Army Johnston Atoll TT 9 Metal Parts Furnace OINC OR6213820917 USA Umatilla Chemical Depot Hermiston OR 10 Chem demil inc. Being built Page 5 of 5 Table 2. Phase II HWC Universe Data Base ID No. Comb Type EPA ID No. Facility Name City State Region Unit ID Name/ No. 729 Process Heater CTD001159730 Dow Chemical U. S. A. Allyn's Point FGales Ferry CT 1 Boiler Unit A Boiler MAD001039767 Bostik Findley Middleton MA 1 SW Boiler 766 Process Heater NYD066832023 General Electric Plastics Selkirk NY 2 A/ P Hot Oil Heater Boiler NJD001317064 Merck & Co., Inc Rahway NJ 2 Boiler 3 Boiler NJD001317064 Merck & Co., Inc Rahway NJ 2 Boiler 9 2008 Boiler PAD002312791 Sun Company, Inc. (R & M) FrankforPhiladelphia PA 3 Boiler No. 2 2008a Boiler PAD002312791 Sun Company, Inc. (R & M) FrankforPhiladelphia PA 3 Boiler No. 1 739 Boiler PAD002292068 Rohm and Haas Company Bristol PA 3 Boiler No. 7 739a Boiler PAD002292068 Rohm and Haas Company Bristol PA 3 Boiler No. 6 739b Boiler PAD002292068 Rohm and Haas Company Bristol PA 3 Boiler No. 8 819 Boiler WVD005005509 Rhone­ Poulenc AG Company Charleston WV 3 Boiler No. 3 819a Boiler WVD005005509 Rhone­ Poulenc AG Company Charleston WV 3 Boiler No. 4 908 Boiler WVD005005483 Union Carbide Corporation South Charleston WV 3 Boiler 25 754 Boiler GAD051011609 DSM Chemicals North America, Inc. Augusta GA 4 H­ 002 Boiler 776 Boiler GAD981237118 Monsanto (Nutrasweet Kelco Co.) Augusta GA 4 Boiler 1 ­ WHRU 1 777 Boiler GAD981237118 Monsanto (Nutrasweet Kelco Co.) Augusta GA 4 Boiler 2 ­ WHRU 2 741 Boiler KYD006390017 Rohm and Haas Company Louisville KY 4 Unit No. 100 1000 Boiler NCD042091975 Mallinckrodt Inc. Raleigh NC 4 Boiler No. 2 778 Boiler NCD042091975 Mallinckrodt Inc. Raleigh NC 4 Boiler No. 1 2006 Boiler SCD980500052 3V Inc. Georgetown SC 4 Unit No. 1 (or No. 2?) 763 Boiler SCD043384072 Albermarle Corp. Orangeburg SC 4 Unit No. 4 1011 Boiler TND003376928 Eastman Chemicals Co. ­ Tennesse Kingsport TN 4 Boiler No. 20 1011a Boiler TND003376928 Eastman Chemicals Co. ­ Tennesse Kingsport TN 4 Boiler No. 18 1011b Boiler TND003376928 Eastman Chemicals Co. ­ Tennesse Kingsport TN 4 Boiler No. 19 1012 Boiler TND003376928 Eastman Chemicals Co. ­ Tennesse Kingsport TN 4 Boiler No. 22 1012a Boiler TND003376928 Eastman Chemicals Co. ­ Tennesse Kingsport TN 4 Boiler No. 21 719 Boiler TND003376928 Eastman Chemicals Co. ­ Tennesse Kingsport TN 4 Boiler No. 24 719a Boiler TND003376928 Eastman Chemicals Co. ­ Tennesse Kingsport TN 4 Boiler No. 23 901 Boiler TND982109142 Diversified Scientific Services, Inc. Kingston TN 4 DSSI Mixed Waste Industrial Boiler System 730 Process Heater OHD039128913 Dow Chemical Co. Hanging Rock Pl Ironton OH 5 Unit R­ 1 730a Process Heater OHD039128913 Dow Chemical Co. Hanging Rock Pl Ironton OH 5 Unit R­ 3 735 Boiler IND000807107 Reilly Industries, Inc. Indianapolis IN 5 Boiler 70K 737 Boiler IND000807107 Reilly Industries, Inc. Indianapolis IN 5 Boiler 30K 738 Boiler IND000807107 Reilly Industries, Inc. Indianapolis IN 5 Boiler 28K (sister unit to 737 (30K)) 764 Boiler IND006376362 GE Plastics, Mt. Vernon IN Facility Mount Vernon IN 5 Boiler H530A (Unit 1) Page 1 of 5 Table 2. Phase II HWC Universe Data Base ID No. Comb Type EPA ID No. Facility Name City State Region Unit ID Name/ No. 765 Boiler IND006376362 GE Plastics, Mt. Vernon IN Facility Mount Vernon IN 5 Boiler H530B (Unit 2) 840 Boiler OHD004233003 Bayer (Monsanto Co. Port Plastic PlaAddyston OH 5 Boiler No. 4 911 Boiler OHD005108477 Aristech Chemical Corporation Haverhill OH 5 Unit 2001­ UA 911a Boiler OHD005108477 Aristech Chemical Corporation Haverhill OH 5 Unit UB 911b Boiler OHD005108477 Aristech Chemical Corporation Haverhill OH 5 Unit UC 912 Boiler OHD005108477 Aristech Chemical Corporation Haverhill OH 5 Unit 2001­ UE 814 Process Heater LAD008213191 Rubicon, Inc Geismar LA 6 DPA I Superheater 815 Process Heater LAD008213191 Rubicon, Inc Geismar LA 6 DPA II superheater 1003 Process Heater TXD083472266 Lyondell Chemical Co. Channelview TX 6 F­ 57180 Hot Oil Heater 1004 Process Heater TXD083472266 Lyondell Chemical Co. Channelview TX 6 F­ 65630 Hot Oil Heater 1015 Process Heater TXD093565653 Georgia Gulf Corporation Pasadena TX 6 Hot Oil Heater No. 1 1009 Boiler ARD089234884 Eastman Chemicals Co. ­ Arkansas Batesville AR 6 Boiler No. 3 1009a Boiler ARD089234884 Eastman Chemicals Co. ­ Arkansas Batesville AR 6 Boiler No. 2 2000 Boiler LAD057117434 Georgia Gulf Chemicals and Vinyls, Plaquemine LA 6 Nebraska Boiler 2001 Boiler LAD008187080 Dow Chemical Co. Plaquemine LA 6 F­ 410 2001a Boiler LAD008187080 Dow Chemical Co. Plaquemine LA 6 F­ 420 2002 Boiler LAD008187080 Dow Chemical Co. Plaquemine LA 6 R­ 4 2003 Boiler LAD008187080 Dow Chemical Co. Plaquemine LA 6 R­ 750 753 Boiler LAD041581422 Union Carbide Corp. Hahnville LA 6 Boiler 31 756 Boiler LAD059130831 DSM Copolymer Inc. Addis LA 6 No. 3 boiler 812 Boiler LAD008213191 Rubicon, Inc Geismar LA 6 TDI boiler 813 Boiler LAD008213191 Rubicon, Inc. Geismar LA 6 Aniline II boiler 818 Boiler LAD010390599 Westvaco DeRidder LA 6 Boilers No. 2 and 3 (common ESP and stack) 822 Boiler LAD000778381 Exxon Chemical Co. Baton Rouge LA 6 C­ Boiler 822a Boiler LAD000778381 Exxon Chemical Co. Baton Rouge LA 6 D­ Boiler 828 Boiler LAD020597597 Angus Chemical Company Sterlington LA 6 No. 7 Boiler 834 Boiler LAD040776809 BASF Geismar LA 6 Amines 835 Boiler LAD040776809 BASF Geismar LA 6 No. 3 Boiler 836 Boiler LAD040776809 BASF Geismar LA 6 No. 6 Boiler 1017 Boiler TXD980808778 Aristech Chemical Corp. Pasadena TX 6 Boiler F­ 8 1016 Boiler TXD067261412 BASF Corporation Beaumont TX 6 WOD K541 833 Boiler TXD008081697 BASF Corporation Freeport TX 6 Neol Boiler 1013 Boiler TXD007376700 Celanese Pampa TX 6 Boiler No. 9 1014 Boiler TXD007376700 Celanese Pampa TX 6 Boiler No. 10 1018 Boiler TXD008113441 Celanese Ltd Bishop TX 6 Boiler No. 16 Page 2 of 5 Table 2. Phase II HWC Universe Data Base ID No. Comb Type EPA ID No. Facility Name City State Region Unit ID Name/ No. 721 Boiler TXD026040709 Celanese Ltd Bay City TX 6 Boiler No. 4 721a Boiler TXD026040709 Celanese Ltd Bay City TX 6 Boiler No. 5 720 Boiler TXD078432457 Celanese Ltd., Chemical Group CleaPasadena TX 6 MH5A 843 Boiler TXD008092793 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX 6 B­ 902 843a Boiler TXD008092793 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX 6 B­ 901 843b Boiler TXD008092793 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX 6 B­ 903 849 Boiler TXD008092793 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX 6 F­ 820AB 2013 Boiler TXD008123317 E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & CompanVictoria TX 6 Boiler Nos. 3 & 4 2016 Boiler TXD008123317 E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & CompanVictoria TX 6 Boiler No. 1 2012 Boiler TXD008123317 E. I. Du Pont Nemours & Company, I Victoria TX 6 Boiler No. 7 2012a Boiler TXD008123317 E. I. Du Pont Nemours & Company, I Victoria TX 6 Boiler No. 8 759 Boiler TXD008123317 E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. Orange TX 6 Boiler No. 7 759a Boiler TXD008123317 E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. Orange TX 6 Boiler No. 5 760 Boiler TXD008123317 E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. Orange TX 6 Boiler No. 8 761 Boiler TXD008123317 E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. Orange TX 6 ADN North 761a Boiler TXD008123317 E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. Orange TX 6 ADN South 774 Boiler TXD058275769 Equistar Chemicals, LP ­ ChannelvieChannelview TX 6 Boiler No. 3 774a Boiler TXD058275769 Equistar Chemicals, LP ­ ChannelvieChannelview TX 6 Boiler No. 1 774b Boiler TXD058275769 Equistar Chemicals, LP ­ ChannelvieChannelview TX 6 Boiler No. 2 774c Boiler TXD058275769 Equistar Chemicals, LP ­ ChannelvieChannelview TX 6 Boiler No. 4 811 Boiler TXD086981172 Fina Oil & Chemical Co. La Porte TX 6 Train A Waste Heat Boiler 811a Boiler TXD086981172 Fina Oil & Chemical Co. La Porte TX 6 Train B Waste Heat Boiler 767 Boiler TXD008077190 Goodyear Tire and Rubber CompanyBeaumont TX 6 Boiler B­ 103 767a Boiler TXD008077190 Goodyear Tire and Rubber CompanyBeaumont TX 6 B­ 101 767b Boiler TXD008077190 Goodyear Tire and Rubber CompanyBeaumont TX 6 B­ 102 767c Boiler TXD008077190 Goodyear Tire and Rubber CompanyBeaumont TX 6 B­ 104 767d Boiler TXD008077190 Goodyear Tire and Rubber CompanyBeaumont TX 6 B­ 105 1005 Boiler TXD008076846 Huntsman Corp. (formerly Texaco) Port Neches TX 6 Boiler # 1 (6­ BB­ 1) At C4 Facility 1005a Boiler TXD008076846 Huntsman Corp. (formerly Texaco) Port Neches TX 6 Boiler # 2 1006 Boiler TXD000201202 Huntsman Corp. (formerly Texaco) Port Neches TX 6 PO/ MTBE steam generator # 1 (H­ K2­ 001) 1006a Boiler TXD000201202 Huntsman Corp. (formerly Texaco) Port Neches TX 6 Unit # 2 1007 Boiler TXD980626014 Huntsman Polymers Odessa TX 6 C­ Boiler 1001 Boiler TXD084970169 Lonza, Inc. Pasadena TX 6 Boiler B­ 4001C 772 Boiler TXD084970169 Lonza, Inc. Pasadena TX 6 Boiler B­ 4001B 772a Boiler TXD084970169 Lonza, Inc. Pasadena TX 6 Boiler B­ 4001A Page 3 of 5 Table 2. Phase II HWC Universe Data Base ID No. Comb Type EPA ID No. Facility Name City State Region Unit ID Name/ No. 1002 Boiler TXD083472266 Lyondell Chemical Co. Channelview TX 6 Utility Boiler 3 1002a Boiler TXD083472266 Lyondell Chemical Co. Channelview TX 6 Utility Boiler 1 1002b Boiler TXD083472266 Lyondell Chemical Co. Channelview TX 6 Utility Boiler 2 724 Boiler TXD008106999 Merichem Company Houston TX 6 Boiler No. 4 740 Boiler TXD065096273 Rohm and Haas Texas, IncorporatedDeer Park TX 6 HT­ 1 Thermal Oxidizer 743 Boiler TXD010797389 Schenectady International Freeport TX 6 B­ 503 744 Boiler TXD067285793 Shell Deer Park Refining Company Deer Park TX 6 F­ UT­ 100 744a Boiler TXD067285793 Shell Deer Park Refining Company Deer Park TX 6 F­ UT­ 110 745 Boiler TXD067285793 Shell Deer Park Refining Company Deer Park TX 6 F­ UT­ 130 232 Boiler TXD001700806 Solutia (Chocolate Bayou Plant) Alvin TX 6 Boiler 30H5 232a Boiler TXD001700806 Solutia (Chocolate Bayou Plant) Alvin TX 6 Boiler 31H4 746 Boiler TXD008079527 Sterling Chemicals, Inc. Texas City TX 6 Waste Oxidation Boiler A 2021 Boiler TXD000461533 Union Carbide Coporation Texas City TX 6 Boiler 53 910 Boiler TXD000461533 Union Carbide Corporation Texas City TX 6 Boiler 5 2005 HAF LAD092681824 Vulcan Materials Co. Geismar LA 6 F­ 1 Unit 785 HAF LAD003913449 Borden Chemicals and Plastics (BCPGeismar LA 6 VCR Process Unit 853 HAF LAD001890367 Dupont Dow Elastomers LaPlace LA 6 HCl Recovery Unit 2022 HAF LAD008086506 PPG Lake Charles LA 6 Unit 3 855 HAF LAD057117434 Georgia Gulf Chemicals and Vinyls, Plaquemine LA 6 IN­ 662 2017 HAF TXD008092793 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX 6 Unit FTB­ 401 2017a HAF TXD008092793 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX 6 Unit FTB­ 402 2018 HAF TXD008092793 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX 6 Unit FTB­ 603 2020 HAF TXD008092793 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX 6 F­ 2820 786 HAF TXD008092793 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX 6 Unit R­ 30 788 HAF TXD008092793 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX 6 B­ 824 842 HAF TXD008092793 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX 6 Unit FTB­ 400 844 HAF TXD008092793 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX 6 F­ 2AB 845 HAF TXD008092793 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX 6 F­ 210 848 HAF TXD008092793 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX 6 F­ 11 854 HAF TXD007330202 Eastman Chemical Company, TexasLongview TX 6 RCRA BIF Unit (Halogen Acid Furnace) 2007 Boiler KSD007237746 Air Products Manufacturing Corp. Wichita KS 7 COEN boiler 733 Process Heater CAD009547050 Dow Chemical Co. Torrance CA 9 U­ 305 733a Process Heater CAD009547050 Dow Chemical Co. Torrance CA 9 U­ 304 851 HAF CAD076528678 The Dow Chemical Company Pittsburg CA 9 MS HAF Boiler Shell Martinez CA 9 CO Boiler Page 4 of 5 Table 2. Phase II HWC Universe Data Base ID No. Comb Type EPA ID No. Facility Name City State Region Unit ID Name/ No. 771 Boiler WAD092899574 Kalama Chemical (BF Goodrich) Kalama WA 10 U­ 3 Boiler Page 5 of 5 20 Table 3. Data Summary Sheet File Name Listing HWC Category D/ F PM Hg SVM LVM Chlorine Incinerator inc_ df. xls inc_ pm. xls inc_ hg. xls inc_ svm. xls inc_ lvm. xls inc_ cl. xls Cement Kiln ck_ df. xls ck_ pm. xls ck_ hg. xls ck_ svm. xls ck_ lvm. xls ck_ cl. xls Lightweight Aggregate Kiln lwak_ df. xls lwak_ pm. xls lwak. hg. xls lwak_ svm. xls lwak_ lvm. xls lwak_ cl. xls Liquid Fuel Boiler l_ blr_ df. xls l_ blr_ pm. xls l_ blr_ hg. xls l_ blr_ svm. xls l_ blr_ lvm. xls l_ blr_ cl. xls Coal­ Fired Boiler coal_ df. xls coal_ pm. xls coal_ hg. xls coal_ svm. xls coal_ lvm. xls coal_ cl. xls HCl Production Furnace hcl_ df. xls hcl_ pm. xls hcl_ hg. xls hcl_ svm. xls hcl_ lvm. xls hcl_ cl. xls 17 Appendix I. Data Base Quality Assurance and Quality Control Plan Quality assurance is an integrated system of management activities which involves planning, standard operating procedures, training, work performance, quality assessment, and quality improvement to ensure that the end product meets all stated levels of confidence. Quality assurance encompasses the organization within which quality control activities are performed. Such is the philosophy and practice involved in developing the Phase I and Phase II data bases. From experience in developing the previous Phase I and Phase II data bases, we recognize that processing mistakes and inaccuracies can and do occur. To create safeguards against missed data, incorrect data interpretation, and data entry errors, we recognize the need to be proactive and reactive in building collective, comprehensive QA measures: proactive in the sense of establishing concrete planning procedures and performance guidelines prior to work initiation; reactive in the sense of being sensitive and responsive to inadvertent and systematic shortcomings. An important key step is to build in quality review measures and to identify and implement improvements to the systematic processing of the reported data. To enhance quality assurance in developing the data bases, we followed the following philosophy and procedures: Quality Assurance Philosophy Quality work is produced from personnel with: ° Clear understanding of the purpose of the work and overall project objectives. ° Clear understanding of the data base contents and requirements. ° Background in HWC design and operation, APCS operations, environmental testing programs, measurement methods, and MACT rulemaking. ° Sense of pride/ purpose in work. ° Organization and attention to detail. Data Base Design ° Simplify data base design to the degree possible. ° Make data base fields and structure self­ explanatory to the degree possible. 18 ° Minimize/ eliminate redundant data entry requirements. ° Capitalize on opportunity for data base design evolution; after initial utilization, perform critical review and evaluation of the design limitations, then identify and implement improvements. Data Entry Personnel Training ° Understand purpose of the data base. ° Review results of previously processed test reports. ° Review contents and fields of the data base. ° Process a report. Have work reviewed by experienced personnel to provide feedback on quality. Continue this feedback process sequence until report processing is of highest quality. Test Report Review Procedures ° Before data entry, review report to identify: ­­ Number of different sources for which stack gas testing is performed. ­­ Unit design and operation, including combustor type, APCS, waste types, and operating characteristics. ­­ Number of different test conditions tested, and purposes of each test condition. ­­ Measurements taken ­­ stack gas measurements, feedstream and other process operating measurements. ­­ Report organization ­­ extent and location of key data tables and corresponding descriptions of test conduct and any technical problems with process operations, sampling, or sample analysis. ° Assign unit ID No. to each different combustor. Data Entry Procedures / Guideline ° Philosophy 19 ­­ Emphasize prevention of data errors by entering correctly the first time. ­­ Minimize/ eliminate redundant data entry requirements by maximizing cell linkages ° Enter all pertinent data regardless if incomplete at the time to avoid possible data bias. Make a note of incomplete data, and attempt to request what is missing. Fill in later as additional data is received. Omit incomplete data in analysis as necessary. ° Enter data exactly as reported in test report to ensure data traceability / data origin and to facilitate review. ° Enter data in preferred final units ­­ stack gas concentrations corrected to 7% O2 ­­ when available in the test report as a first choice. Enter data in other units (e. g., mass emissions rates (lb/ hr)) when it is only available in these units. ° Enter data on a run­ by­ run basis for each test condition. ° Enter all available non­ feedrate related process information that can be used to characterize the tested operating conditions. Data Evaluation ° Identify and double check apparent outliers through evaluation of data: ­­ Compare three runs at the same test condition. ­­ Compare data within similar type of units. ­­ Compare data with that expected from engineering judgement. ° Second party review of selected test report and data base entries to identify missed data, incorrect data interpretation, and data entry errors. ° Random or systematic spot checks. Data Changes ° Document all changes (dates and person making change) to data base. Appendix II. Response to Comments on Phase II June 2000 NODA Response to Comments on the June 2000 Phase II Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT Data Base Notice of Data Availability U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 October 2000 Acknowledgment This document was prepared by EPA's Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Minimization and Management Division. EERGC Corporation provided technical support under EPA Contract No. 68­ W7­ 0029. Contents 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Comment Period Extension 3.0 Data Gaps 3.1 New test reports 3.2 Permit limits and risk modeling parameters insufficiently described 3.3 Insufficient condition descriptions 3.4 Earlier test data should be considered 3.5 Sister unit data may be incomplete 4.0 Data Handling, Calculations, and Presentation 4.1 Documentation of conversions and calculations 4.2 Inconsistent level of detail for test conditions 4.3 Stack gas flowrates should not be estimated 4.4 Supplemental fuel nomenclature unclear 4.5 Significant figures and rounding conventions 4.6 Averaging feedrate data is inappropriate 4.7 SVM/ LVM emissions should evaluate both front­ half and back­ half for nondetects 4.8 Feedrate non­ detect calculation unclear 4.9 Handling and reporting non­ detects for group calculations of SVM/ LVM or PCDD/ PCDF 4.10 Should use reliable detection limit for non­ detect measurements 5.0 Specific Database Edits 5.1 Arch Chemicals, Inc. (Phase II ID # 1008) 5.2 Merck & Co. Inc. (Phase II ID # 780, 781) 5.3 ExxonMobil Chemical Co. (Phase II ID # 822) 5.4 Westvaco Corp. (Phase II ID # 818) 5.5 General Electric Plastics Co. (Phase II ID # 764, 765, 766) 5.6 Eastman Chemical Company, Texas Operations (Phase II ID # 854) 5.7 Mallinckrodt Inc. (Phase II ID # 778, 1000) 5.8 DuPont Dow Elastomers (Phase II ID # 853) 5.9 Celanese Ltd, Bay City (Phase II ID # 721) 5.10 Eastman Chemical Company, Kingsport, Tennessee (Phase II ID # 717, 719, 1011, 1012) 5.11 Celanese Ltd. Clear Lake Plant (Phase II ID # 720) 5.12 Georgia Gulf (Phase II ID # 855, 2000) 5.13 Lyondell (Phase II ID # 1002, 1003, 1004) 5.14 Reilly Industries (Phase II ID # 735, 737, 738) 5.15 Ticona Polymers, Inc. (Phase II ID # 1018) 5.16 Rubicon Inc. (Phase II ID # 812, 813, 814, 815) 5.17 Equistar Chemicals, LP. (Phase II ID # 774) 5.18 Dow (Phase II ID # 729, 730, 733, 786, 788, 842­ 845, 848, 849, 2017, 2018, 2020) 5.19 General Electric (Phase II ID # 766) 5.20 DSM (Phase II ID # 754, 756) 5.21 Union Carbide (Phase II # 753, 907, 908, 910) 5.22 Rohm and Haas (Phase II # 740, 741) 5.23 Solutia (Phase II # 232) 5.24 Eastman (Phase II # 717) Tables 1 List of Commenters 2 Complete List of Phase II Units and Commenters 3 Data Base Revisions 1.0 Introduction The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the burning of hazardous wastes in incinerators, boilers and industrial furnaces under 40 CFR Parts 264, 265, and 266 using the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In addition, the Agency recently promulgated maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for hazardous waste burning incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns under Subpart EEE, Part 63, using the joint authority of the Clean Air Act and RCRA. See 64 FR 52828 (September 30, 1999). Those MACT standards are referred to as "Phase I" of the Agency's program to strengthen its regulation of hazardous waste combustors (HWCs). As Phase II of that effort, the Agency plans to establish MACT standards for hazardous waste burning boilers and may also establish MACT standards for two additional categories of industrial furnaces that burn hazardous wastes: halogen acid furnaces (HAFs) and sulfuric acid recovery furnaces (SARFs). These devices are defined at 40 CFR 260.10. As the initial step in the rulemaking process, EPA has collected process and emissions data on Phase II sources nationwide. This information has been put into a data base. The data base will serve as the primary technical basis to evaluate and ultimately establish the MACT standards for hazardous waste burning boilers, HAFs, and SARFs. The draft Phase II HWC MACT database was completed and released for public comment in a June 27, 2000 Notice of Data Availability (65 FR 39581). Responses from 24 different commenters were received within the 60 day comment period. These are listed in Table 1. Additionally, comments have been received from 2 parties after the close of the comment period. Table 2 shows the complete list of Phase II units and identifies which for which particular units comments were not received on (as well as all of those for which comments were received on). This document contains the comments to the draft database and responses to these comments. Comments and responses have been divided up into four sections. The first three sections contain general comments concerning: Section 2 ­­ Request for comment period due date extension. Section 3 ­­ Data base gaps. Identification of potential data gaps, including: new test reports supplied; permit limits and risk modeling parameters; insufficient condition descriptions; earlier test data; and sister unit data may be incomplete. Section 4 ­­ Data handling, calculations, and presentation. Issues include: documentation of conversions and calculations; estimating procedures; nomenclature; significant figures and rounding conventions; feedrate data averaging; SVM/ LVM emissions; and handling of non­ detect measurements. In these sections, the actual comments are presented first, followed by a response. The last Section 5 contains all specific comments and responses to the data base contents. It is organized by commenter. Responses to most of these specific requested changes are contained in Table 2. General responses are also contained at the end of each of these of the comments. Some responses are also included as necessary immediately after the comment; these responses are highlighted in blue underlined text. 2.0 Comment Period Due Date Extension American Chemistry Council (24) We understand that some of our members are submitting extensive comments on this NODA, addressing gaps as significant as tests that were omitted in their entirety and errors in how data were input and/ or used in resulting calculations. As discussed below, we are requesting that potentially large amount of additional data be included (e. g., permit limits). The extent of such comments, the amount of detailed review required to confirm that they have been adequately addressed, and the importance of the data when developing the emission standards all lead us to the conclusion that the revised database be made available in another NODA. Simply put, the database will be the foundation for the MACT standard and a single 60­ day review period will not provide an adequate opportunity to ensure it is accurate and complete. Similarly, we note that some stakeholders experienced difficulty in accessing and interpreting their data from the website used for the NODA. While we worked to assist our members access and review of the data, as did the Agency, we understand that some stakeholders may not be able to provide their data within the 60­ day review period provided. The database represents a complicated effort to compile myriad test reports into a single standard format. The methodology used to translate individual test report format into the database format was not always apparent, and some stakeholders spent considerable amounts of time working to identify how this translation was done. The time period for the review encompassed the vacation season for many people, and review time was in effect further limited. As such, we respectfully request that comments that are received after the August 28 th date be considered. Response The Phase II data base design and setup was as simple as conceivably possible to evaluate and review. The very contents of the data base directly and precisely document all data entry, the source of the data entry, data manipulations, and data calculations. Specifically, each individual Excel spreadsheet cell contains (and documents) the exact calculation that was used. The methodology in handling and manipulating the data is extremely straightforward, clear, and elementary. Calculations were limited to: unit conversions, calculations of stack gas concentrations from stack gas mass emissions rates, feedrate "MTECs", and in a few places, estimates of stack gas flowrates from firing rates. Procedures to do these calculations were described in the data base report accompanying the NODA and Excel data sheets. Each of the reviewers had a limited number of very simple and basic spreadsheets to evaluate from in most cases, one most recent CoC test report (which could contain multiple test conditions) for each unique unit. Comments received on the NODA data base are fairly small in number, consisting of mostly minor revisions and additions. The vast majority of the data base remains unchanged. Additionally, only a handfull of new test reports were submitted; and not one facility in the entire universe of units was identified as missing from the NODA data base (at the time it was created). Thus, we object strongly to the suggestion that the NODA data base had a significant number of major errors or major omissions. Additionally, the revised data base will be used as the basis for the future proposed Phase II MACT rule. Any further data errors can be included as part of response by concerned stakeholders to the proposed rule (i. e., this is not the last chance to comment on the data base). Finally, changes to the Phase II data base will be made over the first couple of weeks following the NODA comment period closure date. Further late information that is received during this time (first couple weeks) will most likely be included. To the highest degree possible, the data base will be kept a "living" being, and will continue be updated as best as reasonably possible. Of course, though, eventually the revised database will at some time be considered final (likely a 1­ 2 months after the comment period close). Comments received beyond this time will be considered depending on their anticipated significance and ability to be incorporated without adversely impacting (impeding) work progress. 3.0 Data Gaps 3.1 New test reports A few new test reports were included in the comment submissions, including:
Westvaco ­­ Complete copy of 1998 emissions testing
DuPont Dow Elastomers ­­ Recent trial burn and supplemental trial burn from HAF ID No. 853
Reilly ­­ Recent mini­ burn and trial burn retesting from Units No. 735 and 737
Dow Freeport ­­ Recent risk burn testing from HAF ID No. 2020
Union Carbide ­­ Trial burn from new boilers just recently starting to burn hazardous waste in Texas City, TX. These reports have been added to the data base as new test conditions. 3.2 Permit limits and risk modeling parameters insufficiently described American Chemistry Council (24) Permit limits applicable to sources are often lacking from the database. The "Permitting Status" field in the "source" worksheet generally reflected if a source had feedrate limits (i. e., Tier I, Adjusted Tier I, Tier II, Tier III, or site­ specific), yet these permit limits were not cited in the "feed" worksheet for many cases. We believe that consideration of such permit limits is necessary to fully assess the levels of constituents that sources may be feeding, and request that the database more fully detail permit limits. Specifically, we request that the database be expanded/ clarified to address the following: ° Permitting Status – The database does not clearly indicate if a source is permitted or operating under interim status. We suggest that, in addition to the types of BIF Tier levels used, that the current permitting status be clearly noted. We also request that the general permitting status be a field added to spreadsheets that summarize emissions and feedrate data (e. g., "emissfeed_ sum" spreadsheet). ° Permit Limits and Relevant Basis – With the exception of feedrate limits for some sources, the database does not include all of the permit limits that should be considered when developing the MACT standards. Specifically, the database should be expanded to include permit limits associated with standards for DRE (40 CFR 266.104), particulate matter (40 CFR 266.105), the 10 BIF metals (40 CFR 266.107), and HCl/ Cl2 (40 CFR 266.107), and other types of permit limits that may apply. Options for the DRE standard entry should be limited to the following choices: DRE standard, DRE waiver, low risk waiver, CO Standard, alternative CO standard, and other. For metals, the following categories should be established: Tier I, Tier II, Tier III, Adjusted Tier I, and Adjusted Tier I with testing. The HCl/ Cl2 standard would have these categories: Tier I, Tier II, Tier III, and Adjusted Tier I. ° BIF Tier Modeling Parameters – The BIF Tier permit limits noted above are based on parameters that are generally not reflected in the current database. As these parameters are critical to understand the basis for the associated permit limits as they were developed for individual facilities, we request that the database be expanded to include them. Specifically, we request that the database include the shortest distance of the stack to the property line, the distance of the stack to their maximum exposed individual (MEI) or the nearest maximum exposed receptor, the terrain type for the facility (simple or complex), the siting of the facility (rural or urban), type of model used (i. e. ISCST3 or ISCLT3, etc.), and the dilution factor determined for the stack. Response Permit status ­­ Permitting status (interim status vs fully permitted) is identified where available in the data base in the source description sheet in the "permitting status" row. Note that very little additional clarifying information was provided by NODA commenters. It is not at this time considered necessary to add this information to the sheet that summarizes the emissions and feeds. Permit limits ­­ All metals and chlorine feedrate limits (as well as the status of Tier I vs Tier II, etc.) will be added to the data base as provided. All available feedrate limits and Tier status were included in the data base as released through the NODA at the end of the feedrate sheet. Permitting status related to DRE, PM, and CO was also included as available in the source description sheet. These will be updated as requested by the commenters (although, again, very little new information was supplied). It is not necessary to obtain further data of this type. Risk modeling parameters ­­ Information on risk­ based factors such as stack distances to property lines and maximum exposed individuals, terrain types, and dispersion modeling and dilution factors, will be held on to as supplied, but will not be added to the data base at this time. For the near term work, this type of information is not expected to be needed. Additionally, it will not be added because very little new information of this type was provided by commenters. At a later date, the information will be appropriately considered in the use of any risk assessments performed as part of the Phase II rulemaking. Chance to comment further on future risk assessment procedures and inputs will be likely provided during the Phase II rulemaking. 3.3 Insufficient condition descriptions and spike detail American Chemistry Council (24) In some cases, the data base does not clearly indicate the purpose for the test as reported in the "Condition Descr" field. For example, it is not readily apparent if a given test was performed for carbon monoxide testing or metals removal testing. When establishing a standard for metals, for example, it would not be appropriate to consider low levels of metals in a test that was not intended to reflect the full range of metal concentrations that could be burned. Similarly, it is not apparent which source tests "spiked" constituents levels to capture the high end of feedrates expected and which did not do so. We request that the descriptions of the test conditions be more detailed, and that it be noted if a given constituent was "spiked" during testing. Omission of such parameters may result in an emission standard developed off of low­ end values that are not representative of higher levels at which the source will actually operate. Merck (9) Testing Conditions Description EPA has collected data in order to develop Phase II Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for hazardous waste combustors (HWCs). This data was obtained from information already submitted to EPA regional offices or State agencies and originated from many different sources, including certifications of compliance (CoC), trial burns, and risk burn testing. Each of these tests may have required different testing conditions and therefore may have different feed rates or emissions. Although the EPA database provides a field for condition descriptions, Merck feels that additional detail may be needed to highlight unique testing descriptions. For example, some tests may not have been performed to measure system removal efficiency (SRE) and, in these cases, constituents may not have been spiked in the feedstreams and therefore may not be representative of the full range of waste feed concentrations during typical operations. Because in other rules EPA has used feedrate data to calculate maximum theoretical emissions concentration (MTEC), we are concerned that using a feed concentration that has not been spiked may result in an unusually low MTEC that is not achievable by other sources. Comparing an MTEC derived from spiked waste and an MTEC derived from waste that has not been spiked, will result in inconsistencies. For this reason, Merck feels the database should clearly indicate whether or not the feed waste has been spiked. Response The NODA data base information was extracted from the compliance test reports that were obtained from the various state and EPA agencies. Many times these test reports were incomplete, vague, or did not contain the required information to fully described the test condition. The purpose of releasing the data base for public comment was to encourage owners and operators to review the information in the data base to ensure that it is complete and accurate, and to provide additional information as appropriate. All of the clarifications and additional information received from commenters will be reviewed and included as appropriate in the revised data base. Additionally, note that EPA suggests, in direct opposition to the commenters, that the testing intentions of the vast majority of each of the test conditions in the NODA data base were in fact very well and clearly detailed. Almost all test conditions are identified as from CoC permit limit setting conditions, or risk burn conditions. Further description of each test condition details the testing purpose, for example setting minimum temperature limit, maximum waste feedrate, etc. There is a specific row in the data base devoted to each test condition which is intended to allow and provide for a detailed description of the purpose of the testing condition. As an indicator of the completeness of the NODA data base, very few comments very provided in objection to the NODA data base description of the test condition. In regards to "spiking", each different feedstream is clearly differentiated, including whether it is an actual waste, surrogate waste, spiked stream, fossil fuel, etc. Additionally, the proportion of total feed due to spiking streams is included in the summary sheet, indicating how much spiking took place. 3.4 Earlier test data should be considered American Chemistry Council (24) The Agency notes that it intends to base the standards off of the most recent certification of compliance (CoC) for each facility. However, we note that there may be instances where it is appropriate to consider earlier tests if the most recent test is not reflective of upper bounds of operation, and/ or if there are data gaps in the most recent test. We understand that some operators will be submitting such previous tests for use when setting the standards, and we request that the Agency incorporate such test data into the database. Response Emissions data from the most recent compliance test best represent the current emissions performance of a source because current operating limits are based on the most recent compliance test. Also, the most recent compliance test information best represents (the upper limits on) current operating practices. This is consistent and supported by stakeholder comments to the HWC MACT Phase I rulemaking. Thus, additional testing data provided in response to the NODA will be included in the data base only when the data address data gaps (for example, where PCDD/ PCDF measurements were taken in earlier testing, but not in most recent compliance testing) or when it is clearly being used for setting operational limits apart from, or in addition to, the most recent compliance testing program. As a practical matter, this is actually a moot point, and has no relevance to the data base revisions. This is because there were no "older" test reports that were actually submitted and requested to be entered to supersede or replace newer or other data in the NODA data base. Additionally, commenters did not identify any older testing conditions in the data base that should be used to replace newer data. In fact, the very opposite occurred; one or two commenters suggested that older data contained in the NODA data base be removed and not considered. As discussed above, the few new test reports that were supplied by commenters have been added to the data base. 3.5 Sister unit data may be incomplete American Chemistry Council (24) As noted in the Federal Register notice, the database relies on "data in lieu of" testing for 38 of the 153 sources represented in the database. Some of our members with multiple units have employed data in lieu of to reduce testing burden and associated emissions from testing. Some members have alternated testing between "sister" units. For example, one boiler would have been tested initially, and the second (previously untested) boiler would have been tested in the next round of testing. We understand that the most recent test may not have tested for certain parameters, instead relying on the data from the earlier test( s). It may therefore be necessary, in some cases, to consider earlier tests to ensure that a full set of data for the sister units is available. We request that the Agency incorporate such test data into the database. Response As indicated by commenters, any additional "sister" unit data which may provide additional information on unit performance will be added to the data base under the current ID No. which represents the sister unit. Older data from earlier testing periods that is representative of any of the Phase II units (sister or non­ sister units) will be included in the data base as supplied and requested by Phase II unit commenters, as mentioned in the previous comment. 4.0 Data Handling, Calculations, and Presentation 4.1 Documentation of conversions and calculations American Chemistry Council (24) The spreadsheets used to compile the data and convert them to consistent units and format employ a range of calculations. While the basis for the underlying calculations are surely clear to the persons who developed the spreadsheets, it is not obvious to persons reviewing the database. Particularly when original source test data have been converted to a different basis, it may not be clear to the reviewer how the conversion was done, or what the units are for the conversion factors cited. The conversion from waste feedrates to MTEC can be particularly confusing. In order to maximize clarity and minimize the extent to which the Agency needs to spend educating reviewers as to how calculations were performed, we recommend that sample calculations and notes be included within the spreadsheet describing the basis fro the calculations and conversions to consistent units. The lack of such documentation contributed to confusion during review of this NODA, and would hinder review of the subsequent NODA that we are recommending. Response As mentioned above in Section 2, calculations that are made in the data base are used for unit conversions, determination of feedrate MTECs, and estimations of flowrates and firing rates. The specific numbers, formulas, and cells that are used in the calculations are clearly contained and documented in the Excel spreadsheets. The majority of calculations are very simple in nature, again involving simple unit conversations and determination of concentrations rates from mass feedrates. These are all documented by the very contents of each individual Excel cell (i. e., formulas and calculations used are shown clearly in the Excel data cells). The calculation of feedrate MTECs through the normalization of mass feedrates by stack gas flowrates and oxygen conversions is described in detail in the data base report and is the exact same procedure used in the Phase I HWC MACT rule (which is very familiar to most all of the Phase II companies, and certainly to the ACC). 4.2 Inconsistent level of detail for test conditions American Chemistry Council (24) Even within the same test, the level of detail between specific test conditions varied. For example, one test condition only noted general information such as liquid feed rate and ash content. Another test condition for the same source provided very detailed descriptions. The detailed level of information should have been used for all cases, as it may be important in discerning how to consider particular data when establishing the MACT standards. Response All data that were contained in the test report, and considered relevant, were included in the data base. The intent of the NODA is to ensure that the data base is complete and accurate, and to encourage owners and operators to provide additional data and documentation as necessary to fully clarify the purposes of the testing and all associated data and measurements taken. 4.3 Stack gas flowrates should not be estimated American Chemistry Council (24) Stack gas flowrates in some cases used the actual values from the test, yet others calculated a stack gas flowrate (based on heat input), rather than using the value from the test report. We believe that the flowrate should always be based on the actual stack test values, rather than estimates such as heat input. Response We strongly agree with the commenter that the preference is to use stack gas flowrates from actual measurements. Only as a last resort in a few cases, where stack gas flowrates were either not taken or not available in the Agency's copy of the test report, were flowrates estimated from heat input firing rates. Any actual flowrates that can be provided will be used in place of estimated values. However, estimating stack gas flowrates based on firing rates and an "F­ factor" approach as done in the NODA is a fully accepted and conventional approach, and is, in fact, used and allowable under current EPA rules for various types of fuel combustion systems. Thus, in the very few remaining places where we continue to not have stack gas flowrate data, F­ factor type estimates are appropriate and will continue to be used to provide stack gas flowrates. 4.4 Supplemental fuel nomenclature unclear American Chemistry Council (24) Fuels used along with hazardous waste (e. g., natural gas) are variously reported as "auxiliary" and "supplementary" fuels. Members have raised questions as to the nomenclature; some operators generally refer to their non­ hazardous fuel source as a "primary" fuel. In such cases, an "auxiliary" or "supplemental" fuel would refer to a back­ up fuel source such as No. 2 fuel oil, to be used in the event that the "primary" fuel of natural gas is not available. The different nomenclatures used for fuel types may have resulted in inaccuracies in the database. This possibility should be considered when developing standards that differ based on fuel type. Response The data base report clearly identifies the "supplemental fuels" field in the data base as any .... "auxiliary fuel (including non­ hazardous waste) co­ fired with hazardous waste. This is typically natural gas. May also include coal, fuel oil, process gas, or any other non­ hazardous waste fuels.... " We apologize for the confusion. Please consider this data base field name to refer to any non­ hazardous waste fuels as "Other (non HW) Fuels" instead of as "auxiliary" or "supplementary" fuels. We do not believe there was any confusion in the commenters' comments to the data base. In fact, a couple of revisions/ additions to this field were pointed out. We believe the data base is highly accurate at identifying the type of all feeds and fuels to the Phase II units. 4.5 Significant figures and rounding conventions American Chemistry Council (24) The spreadsheets provided in the database employ varying numbers of significant figures, even for the same parameter. For example, the conversion from grams to pounds is presented as 454 and 453.6. Similarly, calculations employing percent oxygen in ambient air alternatively use 20.9 and 21. In other cases, test data for some parameters are reported with no decimal points, yet the average value calculated is reported to one decimal point rather than rounding. We suggest that significant figures and rounding be used consistently, as appropriate to the data. General Electric (5) While reviewing the three GE boilers, we noted that the use of significant figures is inconsistent. One example is using "21" for the concentration (in %) of atmospheric oxygen instead of "20.9". Another is the use, in different places, of "454 grams/ pound" and "453.6 grams/ pound" as a conversion factor. GE urges EPA to confirm that the significant figures used are appropriate to the data. Response The level of significant figures used in the data base manipulations is considered appropriate. For the commenters' example, the use of the slightly less accurate values for unit conversions (454 g/ hr vs 453.6) is more than sufficient, in particular considering the accuracy of the stack gas measurements themselves. That is to say, the difference (and impact) between the use of 454 and 453.6 or is not significant, again especially within the accuracy of the stack gas measurements. In fact, numbers with these types and ranges of significant figures are typically and conventionally used in the raw data calculations throughout the test reports for which the data has been pulled. Generally, numbers with at least 3 significant figures are used. For oxygen conversions, the use of 21% is standard conventional practice that is used in the vast majority of calculations in the data base. EPA will make an attempt to ensure that calculations are made using the 21% level instead of 20.9%. Although, note for the majority of cases where the oxygen level in the stack gas ranges from 2­ 8%, the use of 21% vs 20.9% produces no significant difference. Any appearance of "rounding" is only as a function of the choice of significant figures for which the numbers are displayed. That is to say, when storing and transferring the data, and making all intermediate and final calculations, rounding is not used. Rounding only occurs when the final answer is displayed. Depending on the magnitude of the number, 2 or 3 significant figures are shown, and is considered adequate and appropriate (and again has no bearing, since the value in the data base is being stored to many more significant figures than that being shown). 4.6 Averaging feedrate data is inappropriate American Chemistry Council (24) Waste feedrate data for each of the three runs are typically shown in detail for each test run. However, when these data are later used to calculate the amount of a given constituent fed during the test, the calculations for each run are based on the average of the waste feedrates – not the waste feedrate for that particular run. We recommend that these values not be averaged, as it is further diminishes the ability to discern the variability between runs. Merck (9) II. Number of Data Points Used The emissions data included in EPA's database is presented with a data point for each run. Presenting data for each run is a good method to determine if there are any anomalies in the data. It is assumed that this is the reason that emissions data for all of the runs has been presented. In contrast, the feedrate data has been averaged and consequently gives only one data point encompassing all runs. Averaging the data for the feedstreams could mask feed differences between runs and/ or data quality issues. This particularly presents a problem because MTECs are being derived from feedrate values. In addition, it is inconsistent with the way the emissions data is presented. Merck feels that feedstream and the emissions data should be presented for each run included in the database. Response Although feedrate levels during different test runs within the same test condition typically exhibit little variability (e. g., because the same batch of waste or feed is being used, and/ or a single analysis of the waste is used to represent each of the different test conditions and, thus, the feedrate of the waste is the only variable effecting the feedrate of waste constituents) we agree that, if constituent feedrate is an integral consideration in developing the MACT standards, evaluating run feedrate variance may be appropriate. Consequently, we have re­ reviewed the test reports to extract constituent (i. e., metals, chlorine, ash) feedrate data by run and included these data in the data base. We don't understand the intent of the first commenters first two sentences (if they are referring to the NODA data base, or the reporting practices in the actual test reports). However, in an attempt to clarify, in the NODA data base, the reported test condition feedrate averages are not intended to represent the results of individual measurements for each run. 4.7 SVM/ LVM emissions must consider sampling train front­ half and back­ half nondetect status American Chemistry Council (24) Our members' review of the test data indicates that the methodology employed to estimate the concentration of constituents in emitted stack gas underestimates the true levels. Metals stack sampling methods employ two sample collection areas, a "front­ half" and backhalf of the multi­ metals sampling train. The gas sampled is pulled through both collection areas, generating two sample fractions that are analyzed separately. In the NODA, SVM emissions were calculated by summing the emissions of cadmium and lead. LVM emissions were calculated by summing the emissions of arsenic, beryllium and chromium. In both cases, if the emission level of a specific metal was reported as not detected (ND), the Agency used one­ half the detection limit for that metal when calculating the emissions for the SVM or LVM category. In the NODA, the total emission rate for a metal was reported as ND if either the front or back half results were ND. While this convention may have been used in originally reporting the source test data, we believe that it is inappropriate for the purposes of calculating SVM and LVM emissions rates that may be used when setting the MACT standards, because it understates the actual SVM and LVM emission rates. In such cases, the actual detected value in sample fraction is inappropriately discounted solely because the other fraction was ND. Our members' analyses indicate that this impact may be considerable in some cases, reducing the total level of emissions reported by nearly 50 percent. We understand that American Chemistry Council member Eastman Chemical is submitting a detailed example of this impact in response to the NODA. We recommend that, when there is a non­ detect value in one of the two sample collection fractions, that the convention of treating NDs as present at one­ half the detection level be applied to each half of the sampling train individually, rather than to the summed front and back half results. The resulting value is clearly a more accurate representation of emissions from a given source, and is important in ensuring that the MACT standards to be developed are achievable. We also suggest that this change be clearly reported as part of the second NODA we are recommending, as the impact of this methodology may not have been recognized during review of the NODA if reviewers did not have a thorough understanding of how these values might be used when developing the MACT standards. Eastman (11) As a general comment, Eastman suggests that EPA examine the way that it calculates the semivolatile metal (SVM) and low­ volatile metal (LVM) emissions. Eastman believes that the calculation method used in the NODA understates actual SVM and LVM emissions. In the NODA, SVM emissions were calculated by summing the emissions of cadmium and lead. LVM emissions were calculated by summing the emissions of arsenic, beryllium and chromium. In both cases, if the emission level of a specific metal was reported as not detected (ND), the agency used one­ half the detection limit for that metal. The emission rate of each specific metal is determined by analyzing samples collected in the front half and back half of the multi­ metals sampling tram. In the NODA, the total emission rate was reported as ND if either the front or back half results were ND. While this convention is not uncommon, Eastman believes that it is inappropriate for the purposes of calculating SVM and LVM emissions in that it understates the actual SVM and LVM emission rates. For example, consider the following example based on actual reported SVM results for Eastman's Boiler No. 20 (1011C1) Run 1. Analytical Results Metal Front Half Fraction µg Back Half Fraction µg Total Fraction µg Sample Volume (dscf) % O2 Emission Rate* (µg/ dscm) Pb 99.98 <5.23 <105.2 39.76 12.1 <146.9 Cd 3.90 1.85 5.75 39.76 12.1 8.0 *Corrected to 7% O2 SVM Calculation Per the NODA: SVM = (146.9 ÷ 2) + 8.0 = 81.5 µg/ dscm In this example, the total emissions of Pb were reported as ND because the level of Pb in the backhalf sample was less than the detection level. Thus, following EPA's convention of counting NDs as one­ half the detection level, only one­ half of the total Pb emission rate was used to calculate SVM emissions, yielding a SVM emission rate for this run of 81.5 µg/ dscm. It seems illogical to report the total SVM emission rate for Run 1 as 81.5 µg/ dscm when 99.98 µg of lead and 8.0 µg of CD were actually measured as being present in the stack sampling train. These two measured quantities, added together, equate to a stack concentration of 148.3 µg/ dscm. It is apparent that EPA's application of its 1/ 2 ND convention to the total reported sample train fractions understates the actual quantity of SVM metals emitted from the stack. Eastman suggests that EPA modify its method of treating NDs, for purposes of calculating SVM and LVM emission rates, to more accurately reflect the actual emission rates experienced during the test runs. Eastman believes that this can be accomplished by applying the 1/ 2 ND rule to each half of the sampling train individually, rather than to the summed front and back half results. For Eastman's Boiler No. 20 (1011C1) Run 1, SVM emissions would be calculated as follows: Analytical Results Metal Front Half Fraction µg Back Half Fraction µg Total Fraction µg Sample Volume (dscf) % O2 Emission Rate* (µg/ dscm) Pb 99.98 2.62** 102.6 39.76 12.1 143.9 Cd 3.90 1.85 5.75 39.76 12.1 8.0 *Corrected to 7% O2 ** Measured value was below detection limit. Reported value equals 1/ 2 detection limit. SVM Calculation: SVM = 143.9 + 8.0 = 151.9 µg/ dscm Presented in Table 1 is a comparison of SVM and LVM emission rates for Eastman's four boilers using the two calculation methods discussed above. Supporting data and calculations, using Eastman's proposed method, are presented in Attachment 2. TABLE 1 Comparison of EPA and Eastman Results for Calculating SVM and LVM Emission Rates Boiler ID Run No. SVM Emission Rate (µg/ dscm @ 7% O2) LVM Emission Rate (µg/ dscm @ 7% O2) EPA Result Eastman Result EPA Result Eastman Result Phase II No. 1011 1 2 3 81.5 83.8 89.2 152.0 164.4 174.7 90.2 112.9 153.7 92.6 129.6 174.2 Phase II No. 1012 2 3 4 34.2 31.0 43.4 64.3 59.0 83.7 26.9 38.6 31.2 37.7 63.6 53.9 Phase II No. 719 2 3 156.2 47.8 156.0 92.6 254.3 115.6 257.9 170.3 Phase II No. 717 1 2 3 18.0 40.6 14.9 28.4 42.2 23.2 14.9 14.6 11.6 21.1 15.8 12.0 Response The NODA, as done in all of the HWC MACT Phase I work, assumes that the standard convention for handling and reporting metals sampling train back and front half measurements was being used in the CoC and trial burn emissions test reports. For the standard convention, as the commenter and EPA supports, when either the front half or back half is detected, the total value is reported as fully detected, and as the sum of the detected and non­ detected front half and back half values. Only in cases where both the front and back half were non­ detect would the total value be reported as non­ detect. Again, it was assumed that this standard data handling and reporting convention for metals sampling trains results was used when metals emissions levels were reported in the CoCs. EPA continues to believe that this convention was used for the vast majority of the reported metals stack gas emissions data. We did not (and will not) go back to the raw data to determine the detection status of the front and back parts of the metals sampling train, in particular since in many cases this type of data is not contained in the testing report copy. Where it is documented by commenters or suspected that this standard convention was not used (in particular where a suspiciously high non­ detect level is reported), the data will be changed to conform with the standard convention (e. g., the non­ detects in the NODA data base will be changed to detects where pointed out by the Eastman facility). Note that the Eastman facility was the only commenter that pointed this problem out with the metals emissions data. Again, for this facility, we will report the metals data as Eastman suggests based on standard conventions on handling and reported back half and front half nondetects Again, however, because this type of comment was received from only one source, it would strongly appear this problem is not wide spread or common throughout the data base, and instead confined to only this single source. This further supports the decision to not make the difficult and likely unsuccessful attempt of going back through all data reports and locating back half and front half detection status for metals. 4.8 Feedrate non­ detect calculation unclear American Chemistry Council (24) The database includes calculations of maximum theoretical emissions concentration (MTEC) for metals, chlorine, and ash. We understand that the methodology for considering constituents that were not detected (ND) when calculating the MTEC is to assume that the constituent is present at one­ half the detection level. This methodology appears to have been used in the "feed" worksheets when calculating the semivolatile metals (SVM) (combined lead and cadmium) and low volatility metals (LVM) (combined arsenic, beryllium, and chrome). It is unclear, however, what the approach was for calculating the average feedrate for a test condition when the concentrations of a constituent varied from ND to detectable levels over the three test runs. If all three were ND, those samples would be reported as "ND" at the average of the three feedrate levels. If the constituent were detected in all three runs, they would be reported as detected at the average of the three levels reported. If, however, a constituent was only detected during two of the three runs, however, the methodology used by the Agency is unclear. Source # 1018, condition 12 (1018C12), for example, detected barium in the feed in only one of the three runs (at 18 g/ hr), while the two other runs had a barium feedrate of less than 5.9 g/ hr. The feedrate is calculated in the spreadsheet as non­ detect, with the average feedrate of 15.9 g/ hr, as calculated by the average of 5.9, 5.9, and 18 X 2. It is unclear why the one detected level (18 g/ hr) was multiplied by 2 in the calculation, and why the average level is reported as "non­ detect" when one of the runs clearly had detectable levels. The same approach of doubling one of the feedrate levels prior to averaging was apparently also used for mercury for this source, yet we understand that mercury was ND in all 3 runs; the proper average would be ND at the ND feedrate. In this case, there appears to be a basic error in the calculations. We do not understand the basis for this method of calculating average feedrates when levels constituents were not detected, and request that the Agency explain the basis for it within the database. Ticona (16) Condition 1018C12 In regards to the liquid waste stream metals' feedrates during Condition 1018C12, the feed rate for barium, mercury, and thallium are incorrect as reported in the NODA database. The barium feedrate should be 10 grams per hour instead of the reported 15.933 grams per hour. The mercury feedrate should be 0.2 grams per hour instead of the reported 0.267 grams per hour. Finally, for thallium, the, feedrate reported in the NODA database is based on a non­ detect concentration and hence a "nd" should be added prior to the reported concentration of 24 grams per hour. These feedrates may be found in the 1998 Trial Burn/ Risk Burn Plan. As a convenience, please reference: Table 5­ 2 Metals, Total Chloride, and Ash Content in Liquid Waste Fuel in the Appendix entitled Condition 1018C12. In regards to the ash modifier metals' feedrates during Condition 1018C12, the feed rate for antimony is incorrect as reported in the NODA database. The antimony feedrate should be 0.004 grams per hour instead of the blank space reported in the NODA database. This feedrate is based on a non­ detect concentration and hence a "nd" should be added prior to the 0.004 grams per hour. This feedrate may be found in the 1998 Trial Burn/ Risk Burn Plan. As a convenience, please reference: Table 5­ 10 Ash, Metal, and Total Chloride Analysis of the Ash Modifier in the Appendix entitled Condition 1018C12. In addition, the NODA database is inconsistent in the manner that the constituent feed rates are averaged and/ or recorded in the Feedstreams worksheet. For example, in the case of barium in the liquid waste stream for Condition 1018C12, its average was computed by placing the spreadsheet average formula in the corresponding cell and averaging the following values, 5.9 g/ hr, 18 X 2 g/ hr, and 5.9 g/ hr. This condition consisted of three runs with the first run resulting in a barium feedrate of less than 5.9 g/ hr, the second run resulting in a barium feedrate of 18 g/ hr, and the third run resulting in a barium feedrate of less than 5.9 g/ hr. It is unclear to Ticona why the feedrate for the second run is multiplied by a factor of 2. As discussed above, the barium feedrate should be 10 grams per hour for Condition 1018C12 instead of the 15.933 grams per hour that is reported in the NODA database resulting from adjusting the feedrate of the second run by a factor of 2. Similarly, this same approach (multiplying by a factor of 2) is used to compute the mercury feedrate. As discussed above, the mercury feedrate should be 0.2 grams per hour for Condition 1018C12 instead of the 0.267 grams per hour reported in the NODA database resulting from adjusting the feedrate of one of the runs by a factor of 2. Furthermore, the method by which the average is computed for the constituent feedrates in Condition 1018C12, in particular, is not consistent from constituent to constituent. In the case of barium and mercury as discussed above, the average feedrate for the condition is computed by placing the spreadsheet average formula and multiplying the feedrate for one of the runs by two (2). In other cases, such as the feedrate of arsenic and barium in the ash modifier, feed stream averages are computed by placing the spreadsheet average formula and computing the arithmetic average of the three individual run feedrates which compose Condition 1018C12. Still in other cases, such as with the liquid waste feedrates for chromium and lead, the average calculated across the three runs composing Condition 1018C12 and reported in the 1998 Trial Burn/ Risk Burn Report is simply inputted into the spreadsheet cell representing the specific constituent feedrate. Ticona respectfully recommends that the agency adopt a consistent format for computing the arithmetic average and strongly supports the use of the averages computed via the preparation of the 1998 Trial Burn/ Risk Burn Report. Response As clearly detailed in the NODA data base report, the intent of the data base was when determining condition averages, to use the standard convention of handling individual run nondetect measurements as present at one­ half of the detection limit. The calculation of the condition average is straightforward, being simply the arithmetic average of the three runs, again where fully detected runs are directly used, and runs at the detection limit (non­ detects) are assumed to be present at one half of the detection limit. The intended convention was that when at least one of the runs is fully detected, the condition average is also considered and reported as detected. Alternatively, when all three are non­ detect, the condition average is identified as nondetect This convention was clearly used and followed in the vast majority of the data base. Unfortunately, however, there were a few inconsistencies to this practice ­­ where when two of the runs were identified as non­ detect, the overall condition average was also reported as nondetect This quite understandably led to the confusion of the commenters. Specifically, the commenters identified this inconsistency (and resulting apparent calculation mistake) in the single example of the calculation of the Ba and Hg feedrates for ID No. 1018C12. In this only noted example, two of the three Ba feedrate data were non­ detects and the third was fully detected. The Ba feedrate condition average was inconsistently (and improperly) labeled as "nd"; however the calculation was performed correctly. The single fully detected feedrate measurement was intentionally (and confusingly) multiplied by two. This was to account for future adjustment of the condition average value by ½ due to the condition average non­ detect identification (" nd" label). Although highly confusing, the final MTEC concentration value would be correct. This example was modified to be consistent with the convention used throughout the data base as described above (where non­ detect runs are treated at ½ nd, and condition averages are reported as fully detected as long as one or more of the runs were detected). We have attempted to correct this problem by going back through the data base and other places where this inconsistency might have occurred. 4.9 Reporting of non­ detects from "added groups" (such as LVM, SVM, or PCDD/ PCDF) or condition averages Celanese (10) Feedstreams 721C10 Feedrate MTEC Calculations: Should not the Mercury (Hg) Total reflect the fact that BOTH feeds had "nd" and mark "nd" as well? Rubicon (17) Database The EMTEC Semi Volatile Metals and Low Volatile Metals calculations for 812C2 do not have non­ detect notations in front of their sums. Comment 7 Both of the Semi Volatile Metals and Low Volatile Metals calculations for 812C2 are the sums of non­ detect metals, it is common practice to place a non­ detect notation in front of a sum that is made up of one or more non­ detects. Requested Action: Place a non­ detect notation in front of the Semi Volatile Metals and Low Volatile Metals calculations for 812C2. ...( section removed and addressed in 5.16 Edits to Rubicon Inc., Phase II ID # 812, 813, 814, and 815) PCDDF Spreadsheet ­ 812 Database The PCDD/ PCDF (ng in sample), and PCDD/ PCDF (ng/ dscm @ 7% O2) for Run 1 and Run 3 of 812C3 do not have non­ detect notations in front of their sums. Comment 11 Both of the PCDD/ PCDF (ng in sample), and PCDD/ PCDF (ng/ dscm @ 7% O2) for Run 1 and Run 3 of 812C3 have non­ detect PCDD/ PCDF's in their respective sums. It is common practice to place a non­ detect notation in front of a sum that is made up of one or more non­ detects. Requested Action: Place a non­ detect notation in front of the PCDD/ PCDF (ng in sample), and PCDD/ PCDF (ng/ dscm @ 7% O2) for Run I and Run 3 of 812C3. ...( section removed and addressed in 5.16 Edits to Rubicon Inc., Phase II ID # 812, 813, 814, and 815) Database The EMTEC Semi Volatile Metals and Low Volatile Metals calculations for 813C2 do not have non­ detect notations in front of their sums. Comment 17 Both of the Semi Volatile Metals and Low Volatile Metals calculations for 813C2 are the sums of non­ detect metals. It is common practice to place a non­ detect notation in front of a sum that is made up of one or more non­ detects. Requested Action; Place a non­ detect notation in front of the Semi Volatile Metals and Low Volatile Metals calculations for 813C2. PCDDF Spreadsheet ­ 813 Database The PCDD/ PCDF (ng in sample), and PCDD/ PCDF (ng/ dscm @ 7% O2) for all three runs of 813C3 (B Runs) do not have non­ detect notations in front of their sums. Comment 18 Both of the PCDD/ PCDF (ng in sample), and PCDD/ PCDF (ng/ dscm @ 7% O2) for all three runs of 813C3 (B Runs) have non­ detect PCDD/ PCDF's in their respective sums. It is common practice to place a non­ detect notation in front of a sum that is made up of one or more non­ detects. Requested Action: Place a non­ detect notation in front of the the PCDD/ PCDF (ng in sample), and PCDD/ PCDF (ng/ dscm @ 7% O2) for all three runs of 813C3 (B Runs). ...( section removed and addressed in 5.16 Edits to Rubicon Inc., Phase II ID # 812, 813, 814, and 815) Database The EMTEC Semi Volatile Metals and Low Volatile Metals calculations for 814C2 (A Runs) do not have non­ detect notations in front of their sums. Comment24 Both of the Semi Volatile Metals and Low Volatile Metals calculations for 814C2 (A runs) are the sums of non­ detect metals. It is common practice to place a non­ detect notation in front of a sum that is made up of one or more non­ detects. Requested Action: Place a non­ detect notation in front of the Semi Volatile Metals and Low Volatile Metals calculations for 814C2 (A Runs). PCDDF Spreadsheet ­ 814 Database The PCDD/ PCDF (ng in sample), and PCDD/ PCDF (ng/ dscm @ 7% O2) for all three runs of 814C2 (B Runs) do not have non­ detect notations in front of their sums. Comment 25 Both of the PCDD/ PCDF (ng in sample), and PCDD/ PCDF (ng/ dscm @ 7% O2) for all three runs of 814C2 (B Runs) have non­ detect PCDD/ PCDF's in their respective sums. It is common practice to place a non­ detect notation in front of a sum that is made up of one or more non­ detects. Requested Action: Place a non­ detect notation in front of the the PCDD/ PCDF (ng in sample), and PCDD/ PCDF (ng/ dscm @ 7% O2) for all three runs of 814C2 (B Runs). ...( section removed and addressed in 5.16 Edits to Rubicon Inc., Phase II ID # 812, 813, 814, and 815) Database The EMTEC Semi Volatile Metals and Low Volatile Metals calculations for 815C2 (A Runs) do not have non­ detect notations in front of their sums. Comment 31 Both of the Semi Volatile Metals and Low Volatile Metals calculations for 815C2 (A runs) are the sums of non­ detect metals. It is common practice to place a non­ detect notation in front of a sum that is made up of one or more non­ detects. Requested Action: Place a non­ detect notation in front of the Semi Volatile Metals and Low Volatile Metals calculations for 815C2 (A Runs). PCDDF Spreadsheet ­ 815 Database The PCDD/ PCDF (ng in sample), and PCDD/ PCDF (ng/ dscm @ 7% O2) for all three runs of 815C2 (C Runs) do not have non­ detect notations in front of their sums. Comment 32 Both of the PCDD/ PCDF (ng In sample), and PCDO/ PCDF (ng/ dscm @ 7% O2) for all three runs of 815C2 (C Runs) have non­ detect PCDD/ PCDF's in their respective sums. It is common practice to place a non­ detect notation in front of a sum that is made up of one or more nondetects Requested Action: place a non­ detect notation in front of the PCDD/ PCDF (ng in sample), and PCDD/ PCDF (ng/ dscm @ 7% O2) for all three runs of 815C2 (C Runs). Response Commenters failed to realize that this information on the contribution of non­ detects to "added" groups was presented in the existing NODA data base files (and described in the accompanying data base report). The "emissions and feedrate data summary sheet" provides a succinct rundown of this type of information, specifically including the relative amount of the stack gas emissions and feedrate derived from non­ detects, in terms of percent. Note that for "single pollutants" such as Hg or PM, the % ND will be either 0 or 100%. However, for the "added" groups where a number of different individual measurements are added together (such as PCDD/ PCDF, SVM, LVM, or total chlorine), the % ND may range anywhere between 0 and 100%. This column is labeled "ND %" in the feedrate columns. In the stack gas columns, the "ND%" is presented in the column immediately to the right of each of the HAP or HAP surrogate emissions concentrations. 4.10 Should use reliable detection limit for non­ detect measurements Dow Dupont Elastomers (8) EPA Should Use the Reliahle Detection Limit Rather Than One­ Half the Detection Limit for Non­ Detect Emissions Data In the Phase 11 HWC MACT Data Base Report (June, 2000) the USEPA consistently replaces non­ detect emissions data with 'place­ holder' values that are one­ half the detection limit for the non­ detected constituents. For example, see the calculated values for dioxins and furans and the LVM and SVM metals in the "Data and Information File for Individual Sources" spreadsheets. Also see the paragraph entitled 'Metals' on page 7 of the Phase II HWC MACT Data Base Report. Using one­ half the detection limit as 'place­ holder' values for non­ detect emissions data is inconsistent with the protocol established by the USEPA for managing combustion emissions data. Recently the USEPA used the same Pontchartrain Site halogen acid furnace Risk Assessment Trial Bum data as in the Phase 11 HWC MACT Data Base Report to conduct a unit specific risk assessment. In establishing 'place­ holder' values for non­ detect emissions data, the USEPA determined the Reliable Detection Limits (RDL's) for the non­ detect emissions data. The RDL's are defined by the USEPA as 2.623 times the Method Detection Limits (MDL's). For example, see pages 2­ 79 through 2­ 82 in "Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities" (USEPA, EPA530­ D­ 98­ OOOIA, July 1998). During numerous meetings and symposia over the last two years the USEPA has consistently confirmed that for non­ detect emissions data the RDL's must be used as 'place­ holder' values in risk assessment calculations. As an example, during the recent May 8­ 12, 2000 International Conference on Incineration and Thermal Treatment Technologies in Portland, OR, Ms. Cynthia Kaleri (US EPA Region 6) stated several times during formal presentations that non­ detect emissions data must be replaced by RDL 'place­ holder' values prior to conducting the risk assessment. The reasons given by the US EPA for using the RDL's as 'place­ holder' values for non­ detect emission data is t environmental protection and to aid in developing required permitting limits. Since the Phase 11 HWC NMCT has the same goals as the risk assessment process ­ that is, environmental protection and permit limit development the USEPA should be consistent in selection of 'place­ holder' values across these two regulatory processes. If it is necessary to use the RDL for the risk assessment process, then the RDL should be used also in the data package for developing the Phase 11 HWC NMCT. DuPont Dow Elastomers requests that the USEPA revise all affected calculated values in the "Phase II HWC MACT Data Base Report" by using the reliable detection limits, rather than onehalf the detection limits, as 'place­ holder' values for non­ detect emissions data. Response For the MACT setting process, as done for the Phase I HWC MACT rule, we currently plan to continue to consider measurements at the detection limit to be present at one­ half of the detection limit. It is not anticipated that the procedure for handling non­ detect measurements (for example, either at full, half, or as suggested at the reliable detection limit of 2.6 x's full) will have an influence on the MACT process. Nonetheless, the impact will be evaluated. If the process to handle non­ detects does have an impact, further consideration into how to handle non­ detect measurements will be taken. Also, there will be opportunity for further comment on this issue during rule proposal. 5.0 Specific Data Base Edits 5.1 Arch Chemicals (Phase II ID # 1008) Arch (1) Arch Comment On page 1, the database lists supplemental fuel as natural gas and process gas. EPA should strike out process gas. The only supplemental fuel is natural gas. Arch Comment On page 3, Section 1008C1 (max. feeds) ­ the total feed rate in lbs/ hour of spiking solution is shown as 226.4 lbs/ hour. This number should be 305 lbs/ hour (combination of metals/ ash spiking solution and POHC spiking solution). Arch Comment On page 3, Section 1008C1 (max. feeds) ­ no firing rate is given for sulfur. The number should be 45.7 M2 BTU/ hour which would make a total firing rate of 133.9 M2 BTU/ hour. The estimated firing rate is listed as 187.1 M2 BTU/ hour. Arch believes this number should be 145 M2 BTU/ hour. Arch Comment On page 3 and 4, BIF Feed Rate Limits ­ EPA lists the barium limit as 284,407 g/ hour and silver limit as 17,055 g/ hour. These numbers should be 129,844 and 7,809 g/ hour respectively per the Arch Certification of Compliance Report. Arch Comment On pages 3 and 4, BIF Feed Rate Limits ­ EPA lists the limits for arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, and total chlorine as Tier III. Arch has provided the limits established with the 1998 Certification of Compliance Test: Arsenic 2116 g/ hour Beryllium 390 g/ hour Cadmium 2116 g/ hour Chromium 2116 g/ hour Total chlorine 40,406 g/ hour Response EPA has reviewed the requested data base edits. The commenter also submitted data base Excel spreadsheets containing written and highlighted comments. Responses to these requested changes or additions are documented in Table 3. 5.2 Merck & Co., Inc. (Phase II ID # 780, 781) Merck (2) For the unit with Phase II ID No. 780 (Boiler No. 7): Stack Characteristics ­ Diameter (ft) 10 Height (ft) 235 Gas Velocity (f/ sec) 5.8 For the unit with Phase II ID No 781 (Boiler No. 8): Stack Characteristics ­ Diameter (ft) l0 Height (ft) 235 Gas Velocity (ft/ sec) 5.8 Condition 2 ­ Testing Dates October 18­ 19, 1999 The gas velocity was calculated from the flow rate (in DSCFM) measured during the 1999 Recertification of Compliance Test and the stack diameter. Merck (9) III. Site Specific Comments In addition to the general comments presented above, Merck has the following specific comments related to the collected data for the Merck owned and operated sources. For clarification purposes, revised data has also been attached. ID No. 780
Under Source Description, Permitting Status, please note that this unit is operating under interim status.
Under Source Description, the information about the soot blowing cycle and when it occurred is incorrect. There is one 10 min. soot blowing cycle (Condition 1 run 3) not (Condition 2 run 3).
Under Stack Gas Emissions, the gas flowrate for condition 1 (780C1), run 3, should be 27555 dscfm not 27550 dscfm.
Under Feedstreams, the feedrate for liquid solvent, condition 1 (780C1), should be 1191.9 kg/ hr not 1195.5 kg/ hr.
Under Feedstreams, the feedrate for ash in the liquid solvent, condition 1 (780C1), should be 1236 g/ hr not 1300 g/ hr. This will change the corresponding MTEC calculation.
Under Feedstreams, the feedrate for chlorine in the liquid solvent, condition 1 (780C1), should be 596 g/ hr not 595 g/ hr. This will change the corresponding MTEC calculation.
Under Feedstreams, the feedrate for liquid solvent, condition 2 (780C2), should be 231.6 kg/ hr not 234 kg/ hr.
Under Feedstreams, the thermal feedrate for the liquid solvent, condition 2 (780C2), should be 4.3 MMBtu/ hr not 4.5 MMBtu/ hr and the total thermal feedrate should be 40.3 MMBtu/ hr not 40.5 MMBtu/ hr. ID No. 781
Under Source Description, Permitting Status, please note that this unit is operating under interim status.
Under Stack Gas Emissions, the gas flowrate for condition 1 (781C1), run 1, should be 27383 dscfm not 273383 dscfm.
Under Feedstreams, the feedrate for liquid solvent, condition 1 (781C l), should be 1181.3 kg/ hr not 1185.5 kg/ hr.
Under Feedstreams, the thermal feedrate for the liquid solvent, condition 1 (781C1), should be 21.7 MMBtu/ hr not 21 MMBtu/ hr.
Under Feedstreams, the feedrate for ash in the liquid solvent, condition 1 (781C1), should be 1732 g/ hr not 1790 g/ hr. This will change the corresponding MTEC calculation.
Under Feedstreams, the feedrate for chlorine in the liquid solvent, condition 1 (781C1), should be 591 g/ hr not 586 g/ hr. This will change the corresponding MTEC calculation.
Under Feedstreams, the feedrate for lead in the liquid solvent, condition 1 (781C 1), should be 0.118 g/ hr not 0.13 g/ hr. This will change the corresponding MTEC calculation. Response EPA has reviewed the requested data base edits. Responses to these requested changes or additions are documented in Table 3. 5.3 ExxonMobil Chemical Co. (Phase II ID # 822) Exxon/ Mobil (3) ExxonMobil Chemical Company has a direct interest in this NODA because an Exxon Chemical Company (now ExxonMobil Chemical Company) facility in Baton Rouge is inappropriately identified in the database. Two boilers at the ExxonMobil Chemical Company Baton Rouge Plastics Plant (EPA ID No. LAD000778381) appear in the database as Phase II ID No. 822. These boilers should not be included In the database because they no longer burn hazardous waste. As indicated in the attached May 17, 1999 letter to the Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality, this facility is operating in compliance with the Comparable Fuels Exclusion at 40 CFR 261.38, and as such, any new NESHAPs for hazardous waste bumlng boilers would not be applicable to these units. To ensure that the data on which the new standards will be based properly represents the intended universe of regulated facilities, please remove these boilers from the database. Response EPA has identified the boilers at the Exxon Mobil Chemical Company Baton Rouge Plastics Plant, Phase II ID No. 822 as no longer burning hazardous waste. At this point, they have not been removed from the data base, but in the future will be considered as units which are no longer burning hazardous waste. 5.4 Westvaco Corp (Phase II ID # 818) Westvaco (4) Westvaco hereby submits the following comments: 2. Stack testing data from the BIF's 1998 re­ certification of compliance testing was not included in the USEPA's data package. This testing event included polychlorinated dibenzo­ p­ dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and carbon monoxide. The data are attached as Exhibit I. 3. Minor clarifications and additions were performed throughout the Westvaco DeRidder data (ID No. 818). Refer to Exhibit II for the revised data. The Westvaco clarifications and additions are highlighted. Response The new data from the supplied testing has been added to the data base. Also, the commenter submitted electronic copies of data base Excel spreadsheets with comments highlighted and corrected. EPA has reviewed all comments, and made changes or additions as documented in Table 3. 5.5 General Electric Plastics Co. (Phase II ID # 764, 765, 766) General Electric (5) Information about Test Conditions and Results GE provided EPA with information about our three boilers that was developed during emissions testing of those boilers. The testing was conducted when the boilers were operating under "normal" conditions. Further, the results that we reported for Chrome are data for "total Cr". GE Plastics Facility in Mt. Vernon, Indiana GE operates two hazardous waste burning boilers at this facility. They are designated #764 and #765 in the EPA database. We offer the following comments on the data for these two boilers. Both boilers 1.01 It is unclear from the EPA database whether EPA is aware that these two boilers have a common stack. The purpose of this comment is to explicitly bring this fact to your attention. 1.02 In both of the "feed" worksheets, there is a designation of "nd" in an untitled column. We assume that "nd" stands for "non­ detectable" or "not detected". In the data we provided to the agency, we reported the values as less than detection limits and provided the detection limits. This comment is simply intended to confirm with the agency that "nd" does correctly indicate that the subject compounds are below detection limits. 1.03 In the 764. xls workbook, in the "feed" worksheet, under the heading "BIF Feedrate Limits for ID Nos. 764 and 765", GE revised the limits for each of these elements in an August 3, 2000 letter to USEPA, Region V, as shown in the table below. EPA should use the revised limits to replace the values currently in the database. Element Feedrate in database (g/ hr) New feedrate (g/ hr) Sb 6532 6246 As 1.8 2.9 Ba 1426264 1041064 Be 7.8 1.7 Cd 9.5 2.3 Cr 19.7 15.8 Pb 2556 1874 Hg 8532 6246 Ag 85572 62464 Tl 14256 10411 Cl 11376 8329 #764 (all worksheets in this section of the comments are in workbook 764. xls) 1.04 In the "source" worksheet, under the heading "Stack Characteristics", the gas velocity is blank. The gas velocity is 63.7 ft/ sec (when both boilers are operating ­ as noted above, the two boilers vent to a common stack). Footnote­ 1 [Gas velocity = (( 37,887 scfm + 37,191 scfm)/( 60 sec/ min))/( 2.5 ft) 2 x 3.1416) = 63.7 ft/ sec. The gas flows in the equation are the averages of the gas flows measured during the 3 test runs on each boiler, which can be found in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, or Appendix B of the Final Report entitled "Revised Recertification of Compliance of BIF Boilers H530A and H530B at GE Plastics, Mt. Vernon, Indiana Facility" (March 12, 1998), the same report identified in the "source" worksheet under "Report Name/ Data" (" GE Test Report").] 1.05 In the "source" worksheet, under the heading "Stack Characteristics", the gas temperature is blank. The gas temperature is 529
F. Footnote­ 2 [This temperature is the average of the temperatures measured during the 3 test runs on each boiler. The temperature data can be found in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, of Appendix B in the GE Test Report.] 1.06 In the "source" worksheet, under the heading "Permitting Status", the word "Adjusted" should be inserted at the beginning so that the entry reads "Adjusted Tier I for all metals, chlorine". 1.07 In the "emiss" worksheet, under the column headed "3 sootblowing", the PM emissions should be 0.398 gr/ dscf, not 0.0662 gr/ dscf. Footnote­ 3 [The value of 0.0652 gr/ dscf is the uncorrected value. According to the Phase II HWC MACT Data Base Report prepared by USEPA (June 2000), the soot blowing corrected average should be entered here. Id. at 6. The value of 0.0398 gr/ dscf is the corrected value. Both the uncorrected and corrected values can be found in Table 4­ 4 of the GE Test Report.] 1.08 In the "feed" worksheet, the "Thermal Feedrate" should be 70.7 MMBtu/ hr, not 74.0 MMBtu/ hr. Footnote­ 4 [Thermal feedrate = (4.679.37 lbs/ hr x 15,106 Btu/ lb)/( 1,000,000 Btu/ MMBtu) = 70.7 MMBtu/ hr. The waste feed rate of 4,679.37 lbs/ hr and higher heating value of 15,106 Btu/ lb can be found in Tables 4­ 1 and 4­ 2, respectively, of the GE Test Report.] 1.09 In the "feed" worksheet, the "( Ash)" feedrate should be 6.125 lb/ hr, not 5.99 lb/ hr. Footnote­ 5 [The value of 6.125 lb/ hr was reported in Table 4­ 1 of the GE Test Report as the average over the 3 test runs. The value of 5.99 lb/ hr is the maximum ash feed rate for the first test run only.] 1.10 In the "feed" worksheet, the "Stack Gas Flowrate" should be 18,657.0 dscfm, not 17,037.2 dscfm. Important note: GE believes that EPA's calculation of 17,037.2 dscfm is fundamentally in error. First, GE does not understand why EPA is performing a calculation to determine stack gas flowrate when GE measured stack gas flowrate during testing. GE believes that EPA should use the value actually measured, not a calculated surrogate (assuming that is what the equation represents). In addition, EPA's calculation in the subject cell of the worksheet appears to attempt to correct for oxygen concentration, but is in error in two ways. First, it appears to use 7% as the oxygen concentration to correct from. As indicated in Comment #11 below, the oxygen concentration measured during tests was 8.1%, not 7%. Second, the formula in the cell contains the term "21( 21­ D25)". The correct formula to correct the oxygen from test conditions to 7% is "( 21­ 7)/( 21­ D25)", where the cell D25 should contain the number 8.1 as noted in comment #11 below. These same errors appear in the same worksheet for our other Mt. Vernon boiler, 765. xls. However, in 766. xls, the file for our Selkirk boiler, it appears that EPA used the average of the flowrate values we reported, without calculation from heat input rates and without oxygen correction. Footnote­ 6 [The value of 18,657.0 dscfm is the average of the volumetric flowrates (in dscfm) reported for the 3 test runs. The test run data can be found in Table 1 of Appendix B in the GE Test Report.] 1.11 In the "feed" worksheet, the "Oxygen" concentration should be 8.1%, not 7%. Footnote­ 7 [The value of 8.1% is the average oxygen concentration measured during each of the 3 test runs. The test run data can be found in Table 1 of Appendix B in the GE Test Report. It appears EPA has used the value to which the measured oxygen concentration is to be corrected, not the measured concentration itself.] 1.12 In the "feed" worksheet, the "Firing Rate" of the liquid waste should be 70.7 MMBtu/ hr, not 74.0 MMBtu/ hr. Accordingly, the total firing rate (liquid waste ÷ auxiliary fuel) should be 72.4 MMBtu/ hr, not 75.7 MMBtu/ hr. Footnote­ 8[ See footnote 4 above.] 1.13 In the "feed" worksheet, under the heading "Feedrate MTEC Calculations", the calculation of "Ash" feedrate (in mg/ dscm) uses the correct term to correct the oxygen concentration from test conditions to 7%. However, the ash feedrate shown was incorrectly calculated because the calculation uses 7% as the measured oxygen concentration when, as noted in comment number 11 above, the actual value measured in the testing was 8.1% (average of the 3 runs). Thus, the calculated Ash feedrate is not correct. #765 (all worksheets in this section of the comments are in workbook 765. xls) 1.14 In the "source" worksheet, under the heading "Stack Characteristics", the diameter should be 5 ft., not 8 ft. As noted above, both boilers vent to a common stack. The diameter shown in workbook 764. xls is correctly shown as 5 ft. 1.15 In the "source" worksheet, under the heading "Stack Characteristics", the gas velocity is blank. The gas velocity is 63.7 ft/ sec (when both boilers are operating ­ as noted above, the two boilers vent a common stack). Footnote­ 9[ See footnote 1 above.] 1.16 In the "source" worksheet, under the heading "Stack Characteristics", the temperature is blank. The gas temperature is 529
F. Footnote­ 10[ See footnote 2 above.] 1.17 In the "source" worksheet, under the heading "Permitting Status", the word "Adjusted" should be inserted at the beginning so that the entry reads "Adjusted Tier I for all metals, chlorine". 1.18 In the "emiss" worksheet, under column "3 sootblowing", the PM emissions should be 0.0411 gr/ dscf, not 0.0808 gr/ dscf. Footnote­ 11[ The value of 0.0808 gr/ dscf is the uncorrected value. According to the Phase II HWC MACT Data Base Report prepared by USEPA (June 2000), the soot blowing corrected average should be entered here. Id. at 6. The value of 0.0411 gr/ dscf is the corrected value. Both the uncorrected and corrected value can be found in Table 4­ 4 of the GE Test Report.] 1.19 In the "feed" worksheet, the "Thermal Feedrate" should be 72.0 MMBtu/ hr, not 72.8 MMBtu/ hr. Footnote­ 12[ Thermal feedrate = (4,763.5 lbs/ hr x 15,107 Btu/ lb)/( 1,000,000 Btu/ 1 MMBtu) = 72.0 MMBtu/ hr. The waste feed rate of 4,763.5 lbs/ hr and higher heating value of 15,107 Btu/ lb can be found in Tables 4­ 1 and 4­ 2, respectively, of the GE Test Report.] 1.20 In the "feed" worksheet, the "( Ash)" feedrate should be 5.626 lb/ hr, not 5.6 lb/ hr. Footnote­ 13[ The value of 5.626 lb/ hr was reported in Table 4­ 1 of the GE Test Report as the average over the 3 test runs. The incorrect value of 5.6 lb/ hr appears to be a typographical error. 1.21 In the "feed" worksheet, the "Stack Gas Flowrate" should be 17,518.7 dscfm, not 16,475.3 dscfm. In addition, the same "Important Note" at Comment 10 above regarding 764. xls applies here. Footnote­ 14[ The value of 17,518.7 dscfm is the average volumetric flow rate measured during each of 3 test runs. The test run data can be found in Table 2 of Appendix B in the GE Test Report.] 1.22 In the "feed" worksheet, the "Oxygen" concentration should be 5.5%, not 7%. Footnote­ 15[ The value of 5.5% is the average oxygen concentration measured during each of the 3 test runs. The test run data can be found in Table 2 of Appendix B in the GE Test Report.] 1.23 In the "feed" worksheet, the "Firing Rate" of the liquid waste should be 72.0 MMBtu/ hr, not 72.8 MMBtu/ hr. Accordingly, the total firing rate should be 72.4 MMBtu/ hr, not 73.2 MMBtu/ hr. Footnote­ 16[ See footnote 12 above.] 1.24 In the "feed" worksheet, under the heading "Feedrate MTEC Calculations", the calculation of "Ash" feedrate (in mg/ dscm) uses the correct term to correct the oxygen concentration from test conditions to 7%. However, the ash feedrate shown was incorrectly calculated because the calculation uses 7% as the measured oxygen concentration when, as noted in comment number 22 above, the actual value measured in the testing was 5.5% (average of the 3 runs). Thus, the calculated Ash feedrate value is not correct. GE Plastics Facility in Selkirk, New York GE operates one hazardous waste burning boiler at this facility. It is designated #766 in the EPA database. We offer the following comments on the data for this boiler. All worksheets in this section of the comments pertain to workbook 766. xls. 1.25 In the worksheets titled "source" and "summ 1", the EPA ID No. is incorrect. In both worksheets, the EPA ID No. is presented as NYD06683023. The correct EPA ID No. for this boiler is "NYD066832023". 1.26 In the "source" worksheet, the word "None" appears next to the row designated as "Soot Blowing". It is correct that soot blowing was not conducted during the emissions testing for which we have provided data. However, we do conduct soot blowing on this boiler. 1.27 In the "source" worksheet, natural gas is identified as the "supplemental fuel". Similarly, in the worksheet "summ 1", natural gas is identified as the "Aux Fuel" and in the worksheet "summ 2" natural gas is identified as the "Aux Fuel Type". We consider natural gas to be the primary fuel for this boiler and we are permitted to burn either #2 or #6 oils as auxiliary fuel. 1.28 In the "feed" worksheet, there is a designation of "nd" in an untitled column. We assume that "nd" stands for "non­ detectable" or "not detected". In the data we provided to the agency, we reported the values as less than detection limits and provided the detection limits. This comment is simply intended to confirm with the agency that "nd" does correctly indicate that the subject compounds are below detection limits. In both of the "feed" worksheets, there is a designation of "nd" in an untitled column. We assume that "nd" stands for "non­ detectable" or "not detected". In the data we provided to the agency, we reported the values as less than detection limits and provided the detection limits. This comment is simply intended to confirm with the agency that "nd" does correctly indicate that the subject compounds are below detection limits. Response EPA has reviewed the requested data base edits. Responses to these requested changes or additions are documented in Table 3. Note that in response to the very last comment, as indicated in the Phase II HWC MACT Data Base Report, non­ detect measurements are designated by a "nd". 5.6 Eastman Chemical Company, Texas Operations (Phase II ID # 854) Eastman Texas (6) The following changes and corrections are needed for Source Description, Phase II ID No. 854. EPA ID NO. TXD007330202 Eastman Chemical Company, Texas Operations, Longview, Texas Spreadsheet, Source Description: Facility Name: From Texas Eastman Division, Eastman Chemical Company to Eastman Chemical Company, Texas Operations. Haz Waste Descr: From By­ product liquid feed to Liquid hazardous waste Stack Height: Not previously in spreadsheet, insert 63 ft. See Appendix 7­ 1, page 7. Gas Temperature (F): From 190 to 187F. During 1998 testing, the average stack temperature average was 187 F. See Table 3­ 5, page 3­ 7. Velocity (ft/ s): From 45.0 to 44.1. Test velocity average during 1998 testing was 44.1 ft/ s. See Table 3­ 5, page 3­ 7. Permitting Status: From BIF Tier I for all metals to Adjusted BIF Tier I. Spreadsheet, Emiss: Run 2, POHC DRE ­ Chlorobenzene, DRE, should be 99.99988, instead of 99.9999. If the column width is widened the number to 5 significant digits will show up as 99.99988, instead of 99.9999. 854C2, Sampling Train 1­­ HCl/ Cl2, Run 1 and Run 2. The information in Run 2 column for Stack gas flowrate, O2, Moisture and temperature should be switched with the numbers under Run 1. See the attached 1996 sheet with supporting data. Correct values for Run 1: Stack Gas flowrate (dscfm) = 2901 incorrect value 3174 02 (%) = 5.2 incorrect value 8.3 Moisture (%) = 62.5 incorrect value 60.6 Temperature (F) = 191 incorrect value 190 Correct values for Run 2: Stack Gas flowrate (dscfm) = 3174 incorrect value 2901 02 (%) = 8.3 incorrect value 5.2 Moisture (%) = 60.6 incorrect value 62.5 Temperature (F) = 190 incorrect value 191 Spreadsheet, Emiss: (continued) 854C2, Sampling Train 1­­ HCl/ Cl2, Run 1 and Run 2. The HCl, Cl2 and Total chlorine data in columns for Runs 1 and 2 change, by EPA calculation method, when the data for 854C2, Sampling Train 1­­ HCl/ Cl2 runs 1 and 2, stack gas flowrate and O2 were corrected for the respective runs. See the correct HCl, Cl2 and Total chlorine values for Run 1 and Run 2. Correct values for Run 1: HCl (ppmv) = 20.4 incorrect value 23.2 Cl2 (ppmv) = 66.9 incorrect value 76.1 Total chlorine (ppmv) = 154.2 incorrect value 175.4 Correct values for Run 2: HCl (ppmv) = 23.1 incorrect value 20.3 Cl2 (ppmv) = 74.2 incorrect value 65.3 Total chlorine (ppmv) = 171.6 incorrect value 150.9 Spreadsheet, Feedstreams: 854C1: Heat content, Btu/ lb, Liq waste: From 1200 Btu/ lb to 1150 Btu/ lb. See Table 4­ 3, page 4­ 2. EPA's input did not include the Run 2­ dup which when added into the other Btu/ lb values averages to be 1150 Btu/ lb. Heat content, Btu/ dscf, vent gas: From 100 Btu/ dscf to 92.3 Btu/ dscf. See Table 4­ 31, page 4­ 56. All three runs Btu/ dscf averaged equals 92.3 Btu/ dscf, not 100 Btu/ dscf. Chlorine, lb/ hr, Liq waste: From 815 lb/ hr to 813 lb/ hr. See Table 5­ 19, page 5­ 35. The average of 363000 + 371,000 ÷ 372000 = 368,666/ 3/ 453.6 = 812.75 lb/ hr. Chlorine, lb/ hr, Vent gas: From 28 lb/ hr to 29.3 lb/ hr. See Table 5­ 19, page 5­ 35. The average of 13,000 + 14,700 ÷ 12,100 = 39,800/ 3/ 453.6 = 29.24 lb/ hr. Chlorine, lb/ hr, POHC spike: From 4.6 lb/ hr to 4.7 lb/ hr. See Table 5­ 17, page 5­ 34. The average of 2,130 + 2,150 ÷ 2,160 = 6,440/ 3/ 453.6 = 4.73 lb/ hr. Firing Rate, MMBtu/ hr, Liq waste: The number will change, by spreadsheet calculation, from 4.9 to 4.7, when the Heat content, Btu/ lb, Liq waste is changed from 1200 to 1150. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. Firing Rate, MMBtu/ hr, Vent gas: The number will change, by spreadsheet calculations, from 1.4 to 1.3, when the Heat content, Btu/ lb, Vent gas is changed from 100 to 92.3. See Table 4­ 31, page 4­ 56. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. Feedrate MTEC Calculations, Chlorine, µg/ dscm, Liq waste: The number will change, by spreadsheet calculation, from 71983154 to 71806508, when the Chlorine, lb/ hr, Liq waste is changed from 815 to 813. See Table 5­ 19, page 5­ 35. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. Feedrate MTEC Calculations, Chlorine, µg/ dscm, Vent gas: The number will change, by spreadsheet calculation, from 2473041 to 2579028, when the Chlorine, lb/ hr, Vent gas is changed from 28 to 29.2. See Table 5­ 19, page 5­ 35. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. Feedrate MTEC Calculations, Chlorine, µg/ dscm, POHC Spike: The number will change, by spreadsheet calculation, from 406285 to 415118, when the Chlorine, lb/ hr, Vent gas is changed from 4.6 to 4.7. See Table 5­ 17, page 5­ 34. Feedrate MTEC Calculations, Chlorine, µg/ dscm, Total: The number will change by spreadsheet calculation from 74862480 to 74800654 when the liquid and vent gas and POHC spike chlorine levels were corrected. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. 854C2: Firing Rate, MMBtu/ hr, Liq waste: From 9.4 to 9.3. See CC­ 4 fore, runs 1, 2 & 3. Heating Value, Btu/ lb, Liq waste: From 2167 to 2144, when the Firing Rate, MMBtu/ hr is changed from 9.4 to 9.3. The change to 2144 is automatically calculated by the spreadsheet when 9.3 is entered. See CC­ 4 forms, runs l, 2 & 3. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. Firing Rate, M2Btu/ hr, Liq waste: From 9.4 to 9.3. This cell automatically changes when 9.3 is entered in cell C31. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. Spreadsheet, Process Information: 854C1 & 854C2: Wet Scrubber Operation, L/ G Ratio, Units: Delete gal/ Macf7. The units are simply a ratio of a liquid to gas flow. Spreadsheet, PCDDF: 824C1: All the numbers changed below can be seen in Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8­ HpCDD, Run 1, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 840 to 830. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TEQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 830 value ia inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8­ HpCDD, Run 2, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 660 to 650. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TRQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 650 value is inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8­ HpCDD, Run 3, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 650 to 640. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TEQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 640 value is inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. HpCDD Other, Run 1, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 560 to 570. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TEQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 670 value is inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. HpCDD Other, Run 2, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 440 to 450. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TEQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 450 value is inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. HpCDD Other, Run 3, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 450 to 460. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TEQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 460 value is inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. OCDD, Run 1, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 1200 to 1100. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TEQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 1100 value is inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. OCDD, Run 2, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 970 to 920. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TEQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 920 value is inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. OCDD, Run 3, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 920 to 870. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TEQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 870 value is inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. 1,2,3,4,7,8­ HxCDF, Run 2, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 790 to 780. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TEQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 780 value is inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. 1,2,3,4,7,8­ HxCDF, Run 3, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 660 to 650. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TEQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 650 value is inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. HxCDF Other, Run 2, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 1880 to 1890. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TEQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 1890 value is inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. HxCDF Other, Run 3, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 1570 to 1580. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TEQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 1580 value is inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. 1,2,3,4,7,8,9­ HpCDF, Run 1, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 1000 to 990. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TEQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 990 value is inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. 1,2,3,4,7,8,9­ HpCDF, Run 2, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 830 to 820. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TEQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 820 value is inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. 1,2,3,4,7,8,9­ HpCDF, Run 3, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 780 to 770. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TEQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 770 value is inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. HpCDF Other, Run 1, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 1700 to 1610. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TEQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 1610 value is inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. HpCDF Other, Run 2, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 1370 to 1280. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TEQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 1280 value is inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. HpCDF Other, Run 3, Total & Total 1/ 2 ND, pg: Change from 1120 to 1030. See Table 4­ 12, page 4­ 24. The TEQ 1/ 2 ND value is automatically re­ calculated/ changed by the spreadsheet when the 1030 value is inserted. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. PCDD/ PCDF (ng in sample): All these numbers, for all three runs, in this row are automatically re­ calculated/ changed when the above number entries are changed. No calculation formula changes were made. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. PCDD/ PCDf (ng/ dscm @7% O2), Run 1, 2 & 3, Total 1/ 2 ND: These numbers are re­ calculated/ changed when the numbers in row 40, PCDD/ PCDF (ng in sample) are changed. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. Total Cond Avg: This number changes from 6.97 to 6.92 when the average of the Row 41, Run's 1, 2 & 3, Total 1/ 2 ND's is re­ calculated/ changed. No change was made to EPA's formula of calculation. Spreadsheet, Summ2, summary ­ condition averages @7% O2: Changes made to Summ2, Summary ­ condition averages @7% O2, for Heat input rate, D/ F Total ng/ dscm, TC1 HW µg/ dscm are changed based on different values in the feed and emission spreadsheets. No change to EPA's formula of calculation. Feedrate Characteristics, Spike %: The number changes from 82 to 83 percent. The change is made since Cell F22 in the Feed spreadsheet is 174, see cell F22. Feedrate, MTEC, Ash Spike, Ash is 174 instead of 171 which is currently used in the spreadsheet calculation. The previous formula was 171/ AQS* 100. The formula has been changed to =feed! F22/ AQ8* l00, which equals 83%. Other Information Requested: Answer to Federal Register: June 27, 2000, Section VI, No. 4, paragraph 2. Does the Halogen Acid Furnace (HAF) we operate have any energy recovery features? No. Answer to Federal Register: June 27, 2000, Section VI, No. 4, paragraph 3. Does the HAF have a waste heat boiler? No. Response EPA has reviewed the requested data base edits. Responses to these requested changes or additions are documented in Table 3. Note that many of the above comments reference PCDD/ PCDF catches. The commenter suggests that these values should be corrected for levels found in the field blanks. The current data base convention is to use uncorrected catches and concentrations (actual levels found in the testing, not adjusted for field blank levels). Typically, field blanks (and other types of "blanks") are used for quality assurance and quality control purposes to indicate testing problems, not to actually alter measured values. Note additionally, that either way, the field blank levels are very small, and the difference between field blank corrected and un­ corrected levels are insignificant. Thus, this is really a moot issue. 5.7 Mallinckrodt Inc. (Phase II ID # 778, 1000) Mallinckrodt (7) Mallinckrodt Inc. Boiler MACT NODA Review Boiler No. 1 Phase II ID Number 778 Comment 1 Source Description, Combustor Characteristics ­ Zinc should read Zink. Comment 2 Source Description, Capacity ­ 19 should read 18.6 (from Combustor Characteristics). Please adjust on Source Description Summary Sheet as well. Comment 3 Source Description, Supplement Fuel ­ Natural gas is fed to Boiler No. 1 during start­ up and shutdown (Section 2.3 of Recertification of Compliance Notification and Test Plan for Boiler No. 1, June 5, 1998). Comment 4 Source Description, Permitting Status ­ Adjusted Tier 1 for all BIF metals and chlorine/ chlorides (Section 2.3 of Recertification of Compliance Test Report for Boiler No. 1, August 27, 1998). Comment 5 Source Description, Report Name/ Date ­ The date for the Recertification of Compliance Test Report for Boiler No. 1 should be changed to read 8/ 27/ 98. Comment 6 Stack Gas Emissions, 778C10 ­ Sampling Train 1 consisted of particulate matter and metals and Sampling Train 2 consisted of hexavalent chromium (Cr +6 ). Comment 7 Stack Gas Emissions, 778C10 ­ Our calculations of the Cr +6 values from g/ hr to
g/ dscm @ 7% O2 indicate that for Runs 2 and 3 the numbers should be 7.81
g/ dscm @ 7% O2 and 7.12
g/ dscm @ 7% O2 , respectively. Our calculations of the soot blow corrected value indicate that the value should be 5.02
g/ dscm @ 7% O2 . Comments 8 Feedstreams, 778C10 ­ Our records indicate that the Condition Averages of the K083 liquid waste are as follows (Table 8­ 1 of Recertification of Compliance Test Report for Boiler No. 1, August 27, 1998): Parameter Condition Average Ash (lb/ hr) 0.17 Chlorine (g/ hr) 50.7 Mercury (g/ hr) < 0.03 Lead (g/ hr) < 0.2 Cadmium (g/ hr) < 0.2 Arsenic (g/ hr) < 0.2 Beryllium (g/ hr) < 0.2 Chromium (g/ hr) 1.3 Antimony (g/ hr) < 0.2 Please adjust the Feedrate MTEC Calculations to reflect these changes. Comment 9 Please adjust the Emissions and Feedrate Data Summary Sheets to include all of the above comments. Mallinckrodt (7) Mallinckrodt, Inc. Boiler MACT NODA Review Boiler No. 2 Phase II ID Number 1000 Comment 1 Source Description, Combustor Characteristics ­ Zinc should read Zink. Comment 2 Source Description, Capacity ­ 30 should read 30.3 (from Combustor Characteristics). Please adjust on Source Description Summary Sheet as well. Comment 3 Source Description, Permitting Status ­ Adjusted Tier I for all BIF metals and chlorine/ chlorides (Section 2.3 of Recertification of Compliance Test Report for Boiler No. 2, December 4, 1997). Comment 4 Source Description, Number 1, Content ­ Cr +6 emissions were measured as well. Comment 5 Our records indicate that the MHRA CO values for Runs 3, 5, and 6 are 3.8 ppmv, 9.9 ppmv, and 9.8 ppmv, respectively (Table 7.3­ 1 of Recertification of Compliance Test Report for Boiler No. 2, December 4, 1997). Comment 6 Stack Gas Emissions, 1000C1 ­ Our records indicate that the stack gas flow rates for Runs 3, 5, and 6 of Sampling Train 1 (PM/ Metals) were 4100 dscfm, 4200 dscfm, and 4400 dscfm, respectively (Table 2­ 2, Emission Test Results for Particulate, Total Chromium, and Cr+ 6 from Boiler No. 2, November 5, 1997). Please adjust the chromium calculations in µg/ dscm to reflect these changes. Comment 7 Feedstreams, 1000C1 ­ Our records indicate that the results for the ash and chlorine in the K083 feed stream are as follows (Table 8­ 1 of Recertification of Compliance Test Report for Boiler No. 2, December 4, 1997): Parameter Run 3 Run 5 Run 6 Average Ash 150.53 47.08 89.26 95.62 Chlorine 11.76 9.42 10.34 10.50 Comment 8 Please adjust the Feedrate MTEC Calculations to account for the correct stack gas flow rates of 4100 dscfm, 4200 dscfm, and 4400 dscfm for Runs 3, 5, and 6, respectively. Comment 9 A second sampling train (Cr +6 ) was run during the Recertification of Compliance test for Boiler No. 2. Calculations were run for this train for Boiler No. 1, but omitted for Boiler No. 2. The stack gas flow rates, O2 contents, moisture contents, and temperatures for each run are presented below to aid in these calculations for Boiler No. 2 (Table 2­ 2, Emission Test Results for Particulate, Total Chromium, and Cr+ 6 from Boiler No. 2, November 5, 1997). Parameter Run 3 Run 5 Run 6 Average Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscfm) 4400 4600 4700 4566.67 O2 Content (%) 8.8 8.2 8.2 8.4 Moisture Content (%) 11.1 10.5 10.8 10.8 Temperature (° F) 674.8 665.0 670.8 670.2 Comment 10 Please adjust the Emissions and Feedrate Data Summary Sheets to include all of the above comments. Response EPA has reviewed the requested data base edits. Responses to these requested changes or additions are documented in Table 3. 5.8 DuPont Dow Elastomers (Phase II ID No. 854) Dupont Dow Elastomers (8) DuPont Dow Elastomers L. L. C. (DuPont Dow) has a significant interest in the projected standards for hazardous air pollutants for hazardous waste boilers and industrial bumers under NESHAPS [i. e., the Phase II Hazardous Waste Combustor (HWC) Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)]. DuPont Dow Elastomers owns and operates at its Pontchartrain Site in LaPlace, LA an halogen acid furnace combusting hazardous wastes. Specific comments on and additional information not included in the Phase II HWC MACT rulemaking database are delineated and provided in the Enclosure. DuPont Dow Elastomers also participated with DuPont, the American Chemistry Council and the Louisiana Chemical Association (LCA) in developing comments on information contained with the Phase 11 HWC MACT rulemaking database and incorporates by reference the DuPont, American Chemistry Council and LCA comments within this submittal. Attached to this original are two copies of the comments from DuPont Dow Elastomers. No Confidential Business Information is included with this submittal. Sincerelv. R. Martin Guidry Technology Associate ­ Environmental ENCLOSURE DUPONT DOW ELASTOMERS L. L. C. WILMINGTON, DE COMMENTS REQUESTED BY THE "NOTICE OF DATA AVAILABILITY'9 FORTHE "NESHAPS: STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE BOILERS AND INDUSTRIAL FURNACES 99 AUGUST 22, 2000 DuPont Dow's Stake in the Issue DuPont Dow Elastomers L. L. C. (DuPont Dow) is a 5 015 0 j oint venture company formed April 1, 1996 from the elastomer businesses and technologies of E. 1. dupont de Nemours and Company and Dow Chemical Company ­ ­With headquarters in Wilmington, DE, DuPont Dow had revenues of approximately $1.3 billion in 1999 and has approximately 1400 employees worldwide ­ of which about 1200 work in the United States. DuPont Dow manufactures a suite of elastomeric products including Neoprene, Kalrezm, Viton , Hypalon TM , Tyrin TM , NordelTM IP and Engage TM that are used in the automotive, wire and cable, adhesives, semiconductor,, aerospace, chemical processing, construction and rubber industries. Its U. S. manufacturing facilities are located in Louisiana, Kentucky, Texas, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. DuPont Dow Neoprene operations may be impacted significantly by the Phase II HWC MACT rulemaking since DuPont Dow owns and operates at its LaPlace, LA Pontchartrain Site an halogen acid furnace combusting hazardous wastes from the Pontchartrain Site and from the DuPont Dow Louisville, KY Neoprene manufacturing facility. DuPont Dow, therefore, has a vital interest in ensuring that the "NESHAPS: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Boilers and Industrial Furnaces" [i. e., the Phase II Hazardous Waste Combustor (HWC) Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)] rulemaking database is correct and contains the most recent test results. Furthermore, it is imperative that the assumptions and guidelines used in developing the database are correct and consistent with other USEPA programs. Corrections to Testing Data Contained in the "Phase II HWC MACT Data Base Report" Sections VI. 4 and VI. 5 of the "NESHAPS: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Boilers and Industrial Furnaces: Notice of Data Availability" (i. e., Phase II HWC @CT NODA) [65 FR39583] request corrections to data in the Phase 11 HWC MACT Data Base Report and missing information in this report. Specific corrections and missing information for the DuPont Dow Elastomers Pontchartrain Site halogen acid furnace are detailed below. Attachment I provides documentation for these corrections. Attachment II contains documentation of missing information. Specific corrections to the "Data and Information File for Individual Sources" include: In the "Source Description" table under 'APCS Characteristics' the information should state that water is used in the primary, secon@ l­ tertiary and vent scrubbers and that caustic is used in the Dynawave scrubber. [See page A­ I of Attachment 1.] In the "Source Description" table under 'Supplemental Fuel' the information should state that natural gas is used during startup and shutdown (including automatic waste feed cutoff conditions), but is not used during normal operations when hazardous waste is fed to the halogen acid furnace. [See page A­ 2 of Attachment 1.] In the "Source Description" table under 'Stack Characteristics' the diameter of the halogen acid furnace stack at the tip is 1.5 feet. [See Precompliance Certification Fon­ n 4 (PC­ 4C) in the Revised BIF Certification of Precompliance (1 1/ 9/ 92) within Attachment 11.] In the "Source Description" table under 'Permitting Status' DuPont Dow Elastomers L. L. C. submitted a RCRA Class 3 Permit Modification Request to the USEPA and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) on February 17, 1992 to permit the Pontchartrain Site halogen acid furnace within the Pontchartrain Site RCRA hazardous waste permit (LADOO 1 8903 67). The USEPA and the LDEQ are still reviewing this Class 3 Permit Modification Request. Currently the halogen acid furnace operates under Tier I for carbon monoxide, Adjusted Tier I for all BIF metals except chromium and Tier III for chromium, chlorine and hydrogen chloride. [See Submittal Letter of RCRA Class 3 Permit Modification and Certification of Compliance Test Forms 3 (CC­ 3) and 5 (CC­ 5) in Attachment 11.] In the "Feedstreams" table the 'Total Feedrate' during the halogen acid furnace Risk Assessment Trial Bum averaged 4331 lbs/ hour. This value should replace the estimated value in the table of 3 885.9 lbs/ hour. [See the Plant Operational Data at the end of Attachment I.] In the "Feedstreams" table the "Estimated Firing Rate" should be 48.2 Btu/ hr. This is calculated by multiplying the "Total Feedrate" of 4331 lbs/ hr by the "Heat Content" of 0.01 1 140 Btu/ lb. This value should replace the 43.3 tu/ hr in the table. This change should be made also on the "Emissions and Feedrate Summary Sheet" tab e@­[ See the Plant Operational Data at the end of Attachment I for the "Total Feedrate" and page 21 of Attachment I for the "Heat Content".] In the "Feedstreams" table the 'Viscosity' of the feed stream during the halogen acid furnace Risk Assessment Trial Bum was <6.0 cps. This value should replace the incorrect value of 6 cps in the table. [See page 21 of Attachment 1.] Currently the "Process Information" table has no information for the Pontchartrain Site halogen acid furnace. Pages A­ 1 through A­ 1 1, B­ 1, C­ 1 through C­ 2 and the extensive data in the Plant Operational Data section of Attachment I provides substantial information on non­ feed rate related process operating data that could be included in this table. Response: None of the information found in the attachments was determined appropriate for including in the process information sheet. In the "Stack Gas Emissions & Feedrate Characteristics" table the 'Hg Other' column should contain zero, the 'Hg Spike' column should contain zero, the 'SVM Other' column should contain zero, the 'SVM Spike' column should contain zero, the 'LVM Other' colum­ n should contain zero, the 'LVM Spike' column should contain zero, the 'LVM ND' column should contain 5.6, the 'TCI Other' column should contain zero, the 'TCI Spike' column should contain zero, the 'Ash Other' column should contain zero and the 'Ash Spike' column should contain zero. The Risk Assessment Trial Burn involved no spiking of feed materials and had a single, composite feed stream which was liquid chlorinated hazardous waste. These same corrections should also be made to the "Emissions and Feedstream Summary Sheet­ Condition Averages". [See page 21 of Attachment I.] Response: Where the "ND %" and "spike %" cells have been left blank, this implies that the value is either zero, or insufficient information is available to determine the nd of spike %. Thus, no changes are made. Most Recent Test Data for the DuPont Dow Elastomers Pontchartrain Site Halogen Acid Furnace As requested in Section VI. 5 of the "NESHAPS: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Boilers and Industrial Furnaces: Notice of Data Availability" (i. e., BIF NODA) [65 FR39583], Attachment 11 contains more recent test data for the DuPont Dow Elastomers Pontchartrain Site halogen acid furnace than that contained in the Phase II HWC MACT Data Base Report. The Pontchartrain Site halogen acid furnace test data currently in the Phase 11 HWC MACT Data Base Report is from the Risk Assessment Trial Bum conducted on April 23­ 24, 1997. Attachment II contains the Permit Trial Bum test data for the Pontchartrain Site halogen acid furnace that was conducted on April 25­ 26, 1997 and the Supplemental Trial Bum test data for this unit conducted on September 2­ 3, 1997. The Permit Trial Bum and Supplemental Trial Bum also constitute the most recent Certification of Compliance Test for the Pontchartrain Site halogen acid furnace; therefore, Attachment 11 also contains the most recent Certification of Compliance Test forms for the Pontchartrain Site halogen acid furnace . The information being submitted in Attachment 11 includes the submittal letters to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the cover pages of the test reports, the summary pages containing the test results and the detailed operating conditions of the halogen acid furnace during the Permit Trial Bum and the Supplemental Trial Bum including the hazardous waste feed rates during these test bums. Also included are the Certification of Compliance Test forms for the halogen acid furnace. Although the Permit Trial Bum and Supplemental Trial Bum test data do not contain dioxin/ furan emissions data, they do contain hydrogen chloride, chlorine, carbon monoxide, oxygen, particulates and metals emissions data. Since the Permit Trial Bum and Supplemental Trial Bum were conducted at conditions that stressed the halogen acid furnace operating range, data from these test conditions are more representative for the Phase 11 HWC MACT selection process than data from the Risk Assessment Trial Bum where the halogen acid furnace operated in a'minimal stress condition. DuPont Dow Elastomers requests that the USEPA include the April 25­ 26, 1997 Permit Trial Bum test data and the September 2­ 3, 1997 Supplemental Trial Bum test data in the Phase II HWC MACT Data Base Report. Furthermore, where these test data contain feed and emissions data being determined by the Phase 11 HWC MACT selection process, DuPont Elastomers requests that the Permit Trial Bum and the Supplemental Trial Bum test data be used rather than test data from the Risk Assessment Trial Bum. The Permit Trial Bum and the Supplement Trial Bum test data are more recent and are more representative of the data required for the Phase II HWC MACT selection process. Response: The newly supplied permit trial burn and supplemental trial burn data have been added to the data base. As the most recent compliance test, it will be used to represent the unit performance. Attachments: New trial burn and supplemental trial burn for unit ID No. 853. Response: As mentioned above in Section 3.1, these new test condition data have been added to the data base. 5.9 Celanese Ltd, Bay City (Phase II ID # 721) Celanese (10) Source Description Boiler No. 4, and its sister facility Boiler No. 5, is a C­ E Type VU­ 60 boiler each rated at 350,000­ pounds/ hour­ steam generation. For clarification only one boiler performs as a BIF at any time; the other will either be idled or burning natural gas and process vent gases for steam production as a regular boiler. Soot Blowing of the air preheater has since been discontinued. None in the combustion zone. Haz Waste Description should read: "V­ 1041 (Vinyl Acetate Unit's waste organics) and V­ 683 (combined OXO Units' liquid waste)"... Stack Characteristics Height (ft): Top of stack is 50.5 ft above grade. Gas inlet centerline is ~16 1 1/ 2" above grade. Gas Velocity: The average for the PM testing in runs 7, 8, and 9 was 2,997 arpm and 83,806 dry scrim. Permitting Status Should be adjusted Tier l... Report Name/ Date "Trial Burn/ Risk Bum Report, Boiler 4, Celanese Ltd"/ November 1998 Report Preparer: TRC Environmental Corporation, Houston, TX (section removed and addressed in a previous section) Emissions & Feedrate Data Summary Sheet Condition ID 721C12 ­­ Condition should read "Risk burn; typical feedrate." Observation The PDF files have errors. The EXCEL spreadsheet seems to be correct. Conclusion: If the revisions noted arc made the spreadsheet version for Phase II ID No. 721 will be correct. Response EPA has reviewed the requested data base edits. Responses to these requested changes or additions are documented in Table 3. Also, regarding the very last comment, the Excel files and corresponding PDF files were investigated for accuracy and found to be the same. Because no specific examples were provided by the commenter, EPA can not make any further assessment, response, or actions. 5.10 Eastman Chemical Company, Kingsport, Tennessee (Phase II ID # 717, 719, 1011, and 1012) Comment and Response Eastman Chemicals Tennessee (11) First, commenter requested through handwritten notes on copy of Excel spreadsheets, some very minor changes to data base. Changes have been made as requested. Changes included: for unit No. 719, identification of Cl2 runs at non­ detect and full detection limit instead of reporting at one­ half of the detection limit and not identifying runs as non­ detect (although these does not result in any change in the actual levels that are used), and correction to Be stack gas emissions rate (cut in half inadvertantly). For unit ID No. 717, changes included: steam pressure at 1500 psi not 150 psi, and Hg in coal feed is non­ detect (in database shown as detected), although no impact on the calculated value (shown correctly at one­ half of detection limit). These minor changes have not documented in Table 3. Next, commenter enclosed detailed recalculation of SVM and LVM emissions for units 717, 719, 1011, and 1012. In particular, for proper consideration and reporting of non­ detect measurements in the front half and back half of the multi­ metals sampling trains. These are addressed in detail in the above Section 4. Specifically, changes are made as requested to conform with the standard convention as documented by commentor (i. e., considering measurements as fully detected when atleast the front half or back half measurement is detected). 5.11 Celanese Ltd. Clear Lake Plant (Phase II ID # 720) Celanese (12) Stack Characteristics Height (ft) 133 Firing rate for the condition listed in the database: 5.1 MMBtu/ hr liquid waste methanol 3.3 MMBtu/ hr vent gas 27.0 MMBtu/ hr natural gas Total firing rate of 35.4 MMBtu/ hour Design firing rate of MH5A is ~68 MMBtu/ hr. Response EPA has reviewed the requested data base edits. Responses to these requested changes or additions are documented in Table 3. 5.12 Georgia Gulf (Phase II ID No. 855, 2000) Georgia Gulf Corporation (13) Georgia Gulf Chemicals and Vinyls, LLC (GGCV) submits comments on docket number F2000­ RC2A­ FFFFF, as requested by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) in the Federal Register dated June 27, 2000. These comments are being submitted to correct and/ or append the US EPA's database that will be used to propose the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) for hazardous waste burning boilers, halogen acid furnaces, and sulfuric acid recovery furnaces. In this correspondence, GGCV is submitting comments on the hazardous waste combustion units assigned Phase II ID No. 's 855 and 2000. Unit no. 855 refers to GGCV's IN­ 662 or Industrial Furnace for VCM and EDC production units. Unit no. 2000 refers to GGCV's Nebraska Boiler. All supporting documentation for these comments will be numbered to reference the specific comment and will appear in the appendix. GGCV assumes that the US EPA will correct all Feedrate MTEC Calculations using the corrected data submitted in these comments. Comments for Phase 11 ID No. 855 1. Under the section for Source Description, Facility Name should be changed to Georgia Gulf Chemicals and Vinyls, LLC. 2. Under the section for Source Description, Haz Waste Description should read Liquid wastes ­­ Heavy ends from the distillation of ethylene dichloride in ethylene dichloride production (KO 1 9). This is the waste description as it appears in the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality's Environmental Regulations, LAC 33: V. Chapter 22, Table 2. 3. Under the section for Source Description, Stack Characteristics, the Gas Temperature (F) should read 104.39 F. 4. Under the section for Source Description, Stack Characteristics, the Velocity (ft/ s) should read 59 ft/ s. 5. Under the section for Source Description, Permitting Status should read "Permitted as an incinerator; will be repennitted as a HAF." The unit's classification has been changed from that of "Incinerator" to "BIF Halogen Acid Furnace" via a Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality initiated Class I permit modification. 6. Under the section for Source Description, Number 11, the Report Preparer should read Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc. 7. Under the section for Source Description, Number 12, the Cond Description should read Trial bum ­­ heavy liquid waste feed and wet/ dry vent streams. The waste stream descriptions for Numbers 12 and 13 should be identical, since the wastes are the same. 8. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 855CIO, POHC DRE, the Cond Avg for DRE should read 99.999984. 9. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 855CIO, POHC DRE, the Cond Avg for Feedrate should read 105.89. 10. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 855CI 1, CO (RA) (not adjusted), the Cond Avg should read 0.39. 11. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 855CI 1, HCI (lb/ hr), the Cond Avg should read 0.069. 12. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 855Cl 1, C12 (lb/ hr), the Cond Avg should read 0.789. 13. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 855Cl2, HCI (lb/ hr), the Cond Avg should read 2.197. 14. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 855C12, C12 (lb/ hr), the Cond Avg should read 1.39. 15. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 855C13, POHC DRE, 1,1,2­ trichloroethane DRE, the Cond Avg should read > 99.9999. Response: Condition averages are not calculated and not shown in the data base for "intermediate" calculations and in cases where further units conversions are to be made (e. g., when the value is in a mass emissions rate as opposed to the final desired gas concentration). Also, condition averages for DRE are not appropriate and not calculated or reported. Note that the condition average for DRE is not strictly the arithmatic average on the individual run condition averages. Instead, a true and correct DRE condition average would be determined as the ratio of total POHC emissions over all three runs to the total POHC feed rate over all three runs. This is not the same as the condition average of each individual run DRE. 16. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions: 855C 12, POHC DRE, 1, 1,2­ trichloroethane, Feedrate, the Feedrates (g/ min) for Runs 1, 2, and 3, should read 22057, 22045, and 23345, respectively. The Cond Avg should read 22482. 855CI3, POHC DRE, 1,1,2­ trichloroethane, Feedrate, the Feedrates (g/ min) for Runs 1, 2, and 3, should read 21132, 21213, and 21276, respectively. The Cond Avg should read 21207. 17. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions: 855CI2, POHC DRE, Tetrachloroethylene, DRE, the Cond Avg should read 99.9990. 855Cl3, POHC DRE, Tetrachloroethylene, DRE, the Cond Avg should read 99.9974. 18. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions: 855CI2, POHC DRE, Tetrachloroethylene, Feedrate, the Feedrates (g/ min) for Runs 1, 2, and 3, should read 877, 1 1 00, and 1077, respectively. The Cond Avg should read 101 8. 855Cl3, POHC DRE, Tetrachloroethylene, Feedrate, the Feedrates (g/ min) for Runs 1, 2, and 3, should read 717, 1059, and 1149, respectively. The Cond Avg should read 975. 19. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions: 855CI2, POHC DRE, Hexachloroethane, DRE, the Cond Avg should read 99.9917. 855Cl3, POHC DRE, Hexachloroethane, DRE, the Cond Avg should read 99.9923. 20. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions: 855C 1 2, POHC DRE, Hexachloroethane, Feedrate, the Feedrates (g/ min) for Runs 1, 2, and 3, should read 17, 21, and 22, respectively. The Cond Avg should read 20. 8 5 5 C 13, POHC DRE, Hexachloroethane, Feedrate, the Feedrates (g/ min) for Runs 1, 2, and 3, should read 24, 18, and 17, respectively. The Cond Avg should read 20. Response: These above requested changes to POHC feedrates are not significant. We have not made these changes because the differences between the NODA data base and suggested changes are very small. Note also that the POHC DREs that are in the data base are correct based on the precise feedrates and those reported in the test report. 21. Under the section for Feedstreams, 855 C12 and C13, the Cond Avg for (Total Feedrate) in g/ min and L/ min should read 49583.5 and 37.85, respectively. This data was miscalculated and should be the average of Runs 1 through 6. 22. Under the section for Feedstreams, 855CI2 and C13, the Cond Avg for Cr (mg/ L) should read 0.9. This data was incorrectly rounded­ off to a whole number. 23. Under the section for Feedstreams, 855CI2 and C13, the Cond Avg for Gas Flowrate (dscfin) should read 10635. The value that currently appears is the average for Runs 4, 5, and 6. The value in this comment is the average for Runs I through 6. 24. Under the section for Fecdstreams, 855 C12 and C13, the Cond Avg for Oxygen should read 8.66. The value that currently appears is the average for Runs 4, 5, and 6. The corrected value in this comment is the average for Runs I through 6. 25. Under the section for Process Information, 855Cl2 and C13, the Cond Avg for Steam Production (lb/ hr) should read 36823. This is the average of Runs I through 6. 26. Under the section for Process Information, 855C12 and C13, the Cond Avg for Natural Gas Feed (scfh) should read 2812. This is the average of Runs I through 6. 27. Under the section for Process Information, 855C12 and C13, the Cond Avg for Boiler exit temperature (F) should read 592. This is the average of Runs I through 6. 28. Under the section for Process Information, 855C12 and C13, Fume Scrubber, the Cond Avg for Liquor pH should read 8.6. This is the average of Runs 1 through 6. 29. Under the section for Process Information, 855C12 and C13, Fume Scrubber, the Cond Avg for Water feed (gal/ min) should read 11.5. This is the average of Runs 1 through 6. 30. Under the section for Process Information, 855CI2 and C13, Fume Scrubber, the Cond Avg for Liquor feed (gal/ min) should read 342. This is the average of Runs I through 6. Response: The commenter has correctly noted that the feedrate results of C12 and C13 were incorrectly presented and combined as a single test condition (we incorrectly assumed they were the same test condition because the feedrates were identical). However, as the commenter notes, the stack gas conditions are not identical. Thus, the revised data base has properly separated C12 from C13 as two distinct test conditions, with C12 comprising runs 1­ 3, and C13 comprising runs 4­ 6. Comments for Phase II ID No. 2000 31. Under the section for Source Description, Facility Name has been changed to Georgia' Gulf Chemicals and Vinyls, LLC. 32. Under the section for Source Description, Haz Waste Description should read Liquid wastes ­­ Distillation bottom tars from the production of phenol/ acetone from cumene (KO22). This is the waste description as it appears in the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality's Environmental Regulations, LAC 33: V. Chapter 22, Table 2. 33. Under the section for Source Description, Stack Characteristics, Diameter (ft), Height (ft), Gas Velocity (ft/ sec) and Gas Temperature (F) should read 6.7, 100, 50 and 460, respectively. 34. Under the section for Source Description, Condition 1 and Condition 3, Content, the word acetephenone is misspelled and should read acetophenone. 35. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 2000C I Trial Bum, HCI (g/ s), the Cond Avg should read 0.000192. 36. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 2000C I Trial Bum, C12 (g/ s), the Cond Avg should read 0.00045. 37. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 2000C I Trial Bum, Benzene (g/ s), the Cond Avg should read 0.0072. 38. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 2000C I Trial Bum, POHC DRE, Cumene the Cond Avg should read 99.99501 . 39. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 2000C I Trial Bum, POHC DRE, Phenol the Cond Avg should read 99.999913. 40. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 2000C 1 Trial Bum, POHC DRE, the word Acetephenone is misspelled and should read Acetophenone. 41. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 2000C I Trial Bum, POHC DRE, Acetophenone (%), the Cond Avg should read 99.999823. 42. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 200OC1 Trial Bum, Sampling Train 2 DRE, Gas Flowrate (dscfrn), the Cond Avg should read 41119.8. 43. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 2000C I Trial Bum, Sampling Train 2 DRE, Oxygen (%), the Cond Avg should read 13.025. 44. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 2000C 1 Trial Bum, Sampling Train 2 DRE, Moisture (%), the Cond Avg should read 14.56. 45. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 20OOCl Trial Bum, SamplingTrain 2­ DRE, Gas Temperature (F), the Cond Avg should read 477.76. 46. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 200OC2 Risk Bum, POHC DRE, Cumene (%), the Cond Avg should read 99.99944. 47. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 200OC2 Risk Bum, POHC DRE, Phenol (%), the Cond Avg should read 99.99994. 48. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 200OC2 Risk Bum, POHC DRE, the word Acetephenone is misspelled and should read Acetophenone. 49. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 200OC2 Risk Bum, POHC DRE, Acetophenone (%), the Cond., kvg should read 99.99986. 50. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 200OC2 Risk Bum, Sampling Train 1 ­ PM, the Gas Flowrate (avg) (dscfrn) for Runs 1, 2, and 3 should read 26895.1, 29069.7, and 26223. 1, respectively. The Cond Avg should read 27,396. This data was not calculated in the Trial Bum Report. The supporting data in the appendix uses data from Table 3.2.2 from the Trial Bum Report to calculate the Gas Flowrate. Table 3.2.2 from the Trial Bum Report, along with the calculations, are attached in the appendix for reference. 51. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 200OC3 DRE Bum, POHC DRE, Cumene (%), the Cond Avg should read 99.9815. 52. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 200OC3 DRE Bum, POHC DRE, Phenol the Cond Avg should read 99.99976. 53. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 200OC3 DRE Bum, POHC DRE, the word Acetephenone is misspelled and should read Acetophenone. 54. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 200OC3 DRE Bum, POHC DRE, Acetophenone (%), the Cond Avg should read 99.99952. 55. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 200OC4 Cr+ 6 Bum, HCI (g/ s), the Cond Avg should read 0.000192. 56. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 200OC4 Cr+ 6 Bum, C12 (g/ s), the Cond Avg should read 0.000192. 57. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 200OC4 Cr+ 6 Bum, Cr+ 6 (g/ hr), the Cond Avg should read 14.72. 58. Under the section for Stack Gas Emissions, 200OC4 Cr+ 6 Bum, an MTEC Calculation is performed for Cr+ 6. It is inappropriate to report this calculation in this section and it should be removed, as it is properly reported in the Feedrates section. Response: This is not an MTEC calculation. It is a direct conversion of a stack gas emissions rate from a mass emissions rate to a stack gas emissions concentration. It is, of course, similar in nature to an MTEC calculation. 59. Under the section for Feedrates, 2000C I Trial Bum, Feedrate (gpm) for Mixed Oil should read 12.983. 60. Under the section for Feedrates, 200OC1 Trial Bum, Viscosity (cSt) for Mixed Oil should read 1073. 61. Under the section for Feedrates, 200OC1 Trial Bum, Specific Gravity for Mixed Oil and Quench Water should read 1.09 and 1.006, respectively. 62. Under the section for Feedrates, 2000C I Trial Bum, Ash (wt %) for Mixed Oil should read 0.062. 63. Under the section for Feedrates, 200OC1 Trial Bum, Acetophenone (ppmw) for Mixed Oil should read 28200. 64. Under the section for Feedrates, 2000CI Trial Bum, Ethyl Benzene (ppmw) for Mixed Oil should read 370. 65. Under the section for Feedrates, 2000C I Trial Bum, 1 ­Methyl Propyl Benzene (ppmw) for Mixed Oil should read 1820. 66. Under the section for Feedrates, 200OC1 Trial Bum, Phenol (ppmw) for Mixed Oil should read 54000. 67. Under the section for Feedrates, 2000C I Trial Bum, Estimated Firing Rate (MMBTU/ hr) for Mixed Oil should read 93.3. 68. Under the section for Feedrates, 2000CI Trial Burn, Feedrate MTEC Calculations, the EPA spreadsheet equation for Chlorine contains an error and references the wrong cell in the spreadsheet. Once the cell reference is corrected, the resulting calculation will be correct. 69. Under the section for Feedrates, 200OC2 Risk Bum, Be (ppmw) for Quench Water should read 0.01. 70. Under the section for Feedrates, 200OC2 Risk Bum, Estimated Firing Rate (MMBTU/ hr) for Mixed Oil should read 83.9. 71. Under the section for Feedrates, 200OC3 DRE Bum, the units for Viscosity should read cSt (for centistokes). 72. Under the section for Feedrates, 200OC3 DRE Bum, Acetophenone (ppmw) for Mixed Oils should read 20333. 73. Under the section for Feedrates, 200OC3 DRE Bum, Estimated Firing Rate (MMBTU/ hr) for Mixed Oil should read 70. 1. 74. Under the section for Feedrates, 200OC4 Cr+ 6 Bum, Firing Rate (MMBTU/ hr) was not calculated. The value should read 85.6 MMBTU/ hr. The Heating Value was not one of the parameters for which the feedstream was analyzed during 200OC4. The 85.6 MMBTU/ hr value was calculated using the feedrate from 200OC4 and the average heating value (1 6,000 BTU/ lb) from the other runs in the Trial Bum Report. Response: As a reasonable estimate, the data base will continue to use an estimate of the heating value from other runs to represent that of C4. 75. Under the section for PCDD/ PCDF, the Total for OCDF under Run 2 should read 0.29. 76. Under the section Emissions and Feedrate Data Summary Sheet ­­ condition averages, @ 7% 02, the Estimated Firing Rate was used for the Heat Input Rate (MM Btu/ hr) for 200OC3 and 200OC4. This is inconsistent with the data for 2000C 1 and 200OC2, as well as for Unit ID No. 855. The Heat Input Rate for 200OC3 and 200OC4 should read 29.9 and 68.5, respectively. 77. Under the Feedrate Characteristics Summary Sheet, the data presented in this table is inconsistent. Some of these values are at 1/ 2the detection limit, while others are reported at the detection limit. Georgia Gulf Chemicals & Vinyls, LLC (GGCV) is providing the data both at the detection limit and at 1/ 2the detection limit. GGCV recommends that EPA select the data that is most appropriate to use in this summary sheet. The data for Hg (mercury) for 200OC2 should read 10.9 ug/ dscm at the detection limit and 5.4 ug/ dscm at 1/ 2 the detection limit. The data for TCI (Total chlorides) for 200OC1 should read 1807 ug/ dscm at the detection limit and 904 ug/ dscm at 1/ 2 the detection limit. The data for TCI (Total chlorides) for 200OC2 should read 1088 ug/ dscm at the detection limit and 544 ug/ dscm at V2 the detection limit. The data for TCI (Total chlorides) for 200OC3 should read 650 ug/ dscm at the detection limit and 325 ug/ dscm at 1/ 2the detection limit. The data for TCI (Total chlorides) for 200OC4 should read 1 1 7243 ug/ dscm at the detection limit and 58622 ug/ dscm at V2 the detection limit. Response: All values reported in the summary sheets are intended to be reported at ½ the detection limit as appropriate for measurements at the detection limit. Values in the feedrate sheet are reported at full detection limit when initially entered. Subsequent calculations will consider at ½ detection limits, as clearly discussed in the data base report. 78. Under the Stack Gas Conditions Summary Sheet, the data presented in this table is inconsistent. The flowrates are not properly represented, because the flowrates were different for the different sampling trains that were run during the trial bum. Also, for 200OC2, the data that is reported is all from Train 2. GGCV is providing all of the data for the Stack Gas Conditions for the various trains that were run during the trial bum. Not all of the trains were run concurrently. Some trains were run in series during the test conditions. For 2000C I, Train 1 (PM, HCI/ CI2), the Flowrate (dscfin), 02 (%), Moisture (%), and Temp (F) should read 39186.3, 13.5, 16. 1, and 479.4 respectively. For 2000C I, Train 2 (DRE), the Flowrate (dscfm) ' 02 (%), Moisture (%), and Temp (F) should read 41119.8, 13.025, 14.56, and 477.79, respectively. For 200OC2, Train 1 (PM), the Flowrate (dscfin), 02 (%), Moisture (%), and Temp should read 27,396 (See Comment 50), 12.13, 18.3, and 440.73, respectively. For 200OC2, Train 2 (DRE) and Train 3 (PCDD/ PCDF), the Flowrate (dscfm), 02 Moisture (%), and Temp W) should read 26523.9, 11.0, 19.3, and 436.13, respectively. For 200OC3, Train 1 (DRE), the Flowrate (dscfm), 02 (%), Moisture (%), and Temp (F) should read 21876.2, 10.9, 21.3, and 420.03, respectively. For 200OC4, Train 1 (PM, HCI/ CI2), the Flowrate (dscfrn), 02 (%), Moisture (%), and Temp (F) should read 3 415 3.7, 10.3 3, 16. 1, and 491.43, respectively. For 200OC4, Train 2 (Cr+ 6), the Flowrate (dscftn), 02 (%), Moisture (%), and Temp (F) should read 33134.3, 10.33, 11.8, and 512.63, respectively. Response: Stack gas condition values in the summary sheet are only presented and intended as a general representation of the general stack gas parameters during a given test condition. They are not used to calculate MACT emission levels. Potentially they could be determined a variety of different ways, for example as the average of simultaneous runs, that of the longest duration run, that from the highest flowrate condition, etc. Note, in general, the determination procedure is of little significance because the values from the simultaneous and back to back trains is for all purposes the same. Georgia Gulf Chemicals and Vinyls, LLC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the data that is being used to propose the NESHAP standards for hazardous waste burning boilers, halogen acid furnaces, and sulfuric acid recovery furnaces. If you have any questions concerning the comments that are being submitted to correct data and/ or fill in data gaps, please contact Chad Scott at 225­ 685­ 2632. Sincerely, Patricia A. Haynes Manager of Environmental Services Attachment ­ Appendix Enclosure ­ Floppy Disk PAH/ CVS/ tam File 601.3 cc: Dr. James Brent, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Response EPA has reviewed the requested data base edits. Responses to these requested changes or additions are documented in Table 3. Other EPA responses are provided above within the comments shown in underlined and blue type. 5.13 Lyondell (Phase II ID # 1002, 1003, 1004) Lyondell (14) Lyondell Chemical Company, Channelview, Texas (formerly ARCO Chemical Company) Phase 11 ID No. 1002,1003 and 1004 EPA I. D. No. TXDO83472266 Lyondell Chemical Company, Channelview Texas is submitting the following comments and corrections to the database information to be used to establish standards in the Phase 11 combustion rulemaking of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) for hazardous waste burning boilers and furnaces. The units at the Channelview site that are applicable are Boilers 1,2,3 (Phase 11 number 1002), F­ 57180 Hot Oil Heater (phase 11 number 1003) and F­ 65630 @Hot Oil heater (phase 11 number 1004). Information from the 1998 and 1999 BIF recertification reports were used to revise the proposed NESHAP database. Please note of the following changes: The name of the company is changed from ARCO Chemical Company to Lyondell Chemical Company. All information in the database was revised with the latest information from the most up to date Certification of Compliance Reports that were performed in 1998 (for phase 11 number 1002, 1004) and in 1999 (for phase 11 number 1003). The values from the "Feedrate MTEC Calculations" contained in the database for each of the ten BIF metals, ash, chlorine, SVM and LVM have not been corrected for the revised information and will need to be recalculated. Enclosed are an original and two copies of the comment response which include a copy of the Certificate of Compliance forms and pages containing the additional information from the 1998 and 1999 BIF recertification reports. Also, a diskette containing the revised NODA electronic file using Microsoft Excel 97@ has been enclosed. If you have any questions pertaining to these units or the revised data you may contact Paul T. Dang at (281) 860­ 1289. Response Information from the newly supplied CoCs has been added as additional test conditions for each of the units (ID No. s 1002, 1003, and 1004). The old CoC test conditions are kept and will be considered as such (i. e., old, not most recent, test data). 5.14 Reilly Industries (Phase II # 735, 737, 738) Reilly Industries (15) On June 27, 2000 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) published in the Federal Register a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for Future Phase 11 Combustion Rulemaking. This NODA presented for public comment the data base that the US EPA plans to utilize during the Phase 11 combustion rulemaking process. Reilly Industries, Inc. (Reilly) [EPA ID Number IND 000 807 107] has completed a review of the data base compiled by the US EPA for Boiler 70K (source 735), Boiler 30K (source 737), and Boiler 28K (source 738) located at its Indianapolis, Indiana facility and is providing comments related to such. Compliance Strategies & Solutions, Inc. (CS2 Inc.) is hereby submitting the original plus two copies of these comments along with supporting documentation for each comment on behalf of Reilly. The time and effort undertaken by the EPA to build and populate the data base has been a significant task. As discussed in the June 2000 Phase 11 HWC MACT Data Base Report (The Report), "The resulting data base will serve as the primary technical basis to evaluate and ultimately establish the MACT standards for hazardous waste burning boilers, HAFs, and SARFS." For this reason, and coupled with Reilly's waste burning operations for energy recovery, Reilly is thankful to have the opportunity to comment on the accuracy and completeness of the data base. As expressly stated by the EPA in their Federal Register notice, "We request comment only on the accuracy and completeness of the data base at this time. We do not seek nor will we use or respond to comments on how to use the data base to establish MACT standards." Therefore, Reilly is providing three suggestions for improving upon the completeness and utility of the data base. Also included are specific comments and additional infomation regarding Reilly's sources to improve the accuracy of the data base. And at closing, Reilly presents three objections to the EPA's inclusion of data which the EPA has calculated for purposes of developing a MACT standard. These objections result from the EPA's statement that they are not taking or responding to comments on how to use (or manipulate) the data to develop a MACT standard. As such, the EPA should not present their assessment of data at this time, such data manipulation is not appropriate considering the EPA's reluctance to address comments on "how to use the data base". Of the 115 sources included in the data base, The Report notes that 20 are HAFs and SARFS, each with specialized process equipment for recovering acid. It also notes that 9 boilers are coal fired, all of which are equipped with APCSs (presumably to control emissions associated with burning coal). Of the remaining 86 sources, only 14 employ an APCS. The report indicates that those with controls are special cases, stating that the APCSs are "due to the burning of high chlorine containing waste" and "is known to bum 'off­ site' waste". These distinctions are of a significance that must not be overlooked. Noting the type of boiler is important, but even more so, the EPA should expand the data base to characterize the waste being burned in the unit. Specifically, Reilly's first suggestion is that the EPA include the following information to more fully characterize the BIFs that are being assessed: Average ash content for the waste feed (liquid, sludge, etc.) and the primary fuel source (natural gas, coal, etc.); The average concentration for each of the 10 BIF metals in the waste feed and the primary fuel source; The average chlorine content in the waste feed and the primary fuel source; and, The average sulfur content in the waste feed and the primary fuel source. It appears that some of this information may already be imbedded in the data base (perhaps based on feedrate 'information from the test reports), however, Reilly could not extract any of this data in a useful manner. This information is required to completely understand the nature of the controls currently in place and being assessed in this MACT standard. Failure to include and consider this information in the MACT standard evaluation will compromise the integrity of the EPA's efforts. Response: All of these suggested data are clearly included in the data base in the feedrate description sheet. Reilly also suggests that the EPA expand the Source Description (Stack Characteristics) portion of the data base to be inclusive of the modeling information that was utilized by the facility. Failing to include this information, which is readily available from the reports used thus far in assembling the data base, will not allow a complete, thorough, and consistent review between the facilities. Specifically, Reilly requests that the EPA expand this section to include the shortest distance from the stack to the property line, the distance of the stack to their MEI (maximum exposed individual or the nearest maximum exposed receptor), the terrain type for the facility (simple, inten­ nediate, or complex), the land use of the facility (rural or urban), type of model used (i. e. ISCST3 or ISCLT3, etc.), and the dilution factor determined for the stack. This information will be vital in the comparison of limits established for short stacks positioned near property lines (actually their MEI) versus the limits established for taller stacks that are quite some distance from an MEI. Failing to consider this infon­ nation will also significantly compromise the integrity of any effort used to establish a MACT standard. Response: As discussed elsewhere (Section 3.2), these data may be compiled and included in the data base at a later date when risk assessment is performed. As a final suggestion for improvement and completeness, Reilly asks that the EPA modify the Source Description (Permitting Status) section of the data base to be more precise and thorough in its inclusion of data. Specifically, Reilly recommends that the data base be expanded to include the specific status and limits under which each BIF is operating. This information is significant, and should not be overlooked when evaluating MACT standards. In so making these changes, the utility of the data base will be greatly enhanced. Therefore, the data base should be expanded to include (at a minimum) the DRE standard (40 CFR 266.104), particulate matter (§ 266.105), the 10 BIF metals (§ 266.107), and HCI/ CI2 (§ 266.107). These changes can be readily implemented since it is appears that the EPA already made a simple attempt to provide limited amounts of this information. In an effort to facilitate matters, Reilly suggests the following categories: The DRE standard may be limited to the following categories: (a) DRE standard, (a4) DRE waiver, (a5) low risk waiver, (b) CO Standard, (c) Alt CO Standard, and (d) other; For metals, the following categories should be established: Tier 1, Tier 11, Tier 111, Adjusted Tier 1, and Adjusted Tier I with testing as allowed by §266.106( g); and, The HCI/ CI2 standard would have these categories: Tier 1, Tier 11, Tier III, and Adjusted Tier 1. This information is readily available in full detail in RCOC reports and draft/ final permits that may exist for the BIFS. Response: This is discussed in some detail in Section 3.2. Note that, in fact, the BIF allowable Tier I feedrate limits for metals and chlorine are clearly included in the data base in the feedrate sheet. There is no reason to compile PM, CO, or DRE limits, as these are all generally the same, federal, standard under the current RCRA BIF rule. Reilly encourages the EPA to expand the data base as presented above in Reilly's three suggestions. This expansion will consist of information on the waste and fuel being fed to the boilers, the dispersion and risk characteristics associated with each source, and the performance standards, feed rates, and the basis for establishing limits upon them. Assembling the data in this fashion will facilitate a much more efficient and thorough assessment and development of a viable MACT standard. Reilly has also reviewed the data and information specific to its three sources (735, 737, and 738) and a few specific concerns have arisen. First, there are extensive and excessive amounts of errors for the data input for these three sources. Attached are comments specifically addressing each error that has been identified. A second error noted in our review is that test condition averages were used instead of the data from each of the three individual runs. The EPA should not average information at this point in the data base preparation. Instead, the raw data should be published in place of averages of data that may actually already be based on averages. In similar regard, the EPA used data from one test condition to fill in gaps from another test condition that may not have included testing for that parameter. This too appears premature and it does not present an accurate depiction of the data. As stated in the opening, Reilly is submitting the original plus two copies of these comments along with supporting documentation for each comment. Response: All of these issues are discussed and responded to in detail in the above Sections 3 and 4. We do not agree with any of these comments, as discussed above. Recognizing the significance of the effort that the EPA has undertaken, Reilly realizes that errors may be widespread throughout all of the sources and not simply limited just to Reilly's three boilers. Considering the nature of these errors and the omissions identified in Reilly's three suggestions for improvement, Reilly hereby requests that a second NODA be published for comment prior to finalizing the data base. A second review of the revised data is imperative considering the magnitude and pervasiveness of the needed revisions. Reilly has two objections to the presentation of the MTEC Feedrate Calculations and a third objection to the presentation of estimated firing rates. The first objection is for basing MTEC calculations on feed rate data obtained during testing. The purpose behind most all of the testing was not to demonstrate feedrates at the allowable risk based levels (Tier 1, Adjusted Tier 1, etc.). Instead, the feedrate data presented was used to show that the operations were taking place at levels well enough below the allowable risk based limits. Reilly requests that if the MTEC Feedrate Calculations are to be presented as part of the data base, then they should be based on the operating limits discussed as Reilly's third suggestion for improvement. Reilly's second objection is based on the fundamental intent of the data base to present the data. Reilly understands that the data base is not intended to manipulate or analyze data, and that in fact, the EPA is not accepting any comments towards such an exercise. Therefore, Reilly concludes that the EPA's decision to choose feedrate data for MTEC calculations and to present said information is unfair and unjustified. MTEC calculations should be dropped from the data base at this time in their entirety and a separate NODA comment period should be established to allow comment on data manipulation and interpretation. If the EPA disagrees with this second objection, then at a minimum, the MTEC should be expanded to include calculations based on the allowable feed rates discussed in our first objection. Lastly, Reilly objects to the use of an Ffactor determined estimated firing rate. Reilly believes that the firing rates should be based only on data generated during actual testing or as established in permit or RCOC limits, since this data is readily available. As already expressed, Reilly objects to any manipulation of data at this point in the NODA process. Since the EPA has specifically declined to consider comment on data assessment, it is unfair for the EPA to present such a manipulation of the data at this time. Again, Reilly appreciates the opportunity to comment on the infon­ nation included in the data base. Reilly is also anticipating the opportunity to review the data a second time after the EPA implements these suggestions, comments, and objections. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact John Jones of Reilly Industries, Inc. at (317) 248­ 6427 or email jjones@ reillyind. com. Respectfully Submitted, CS2 Inc. Enclosures Boiler 70K Comments Support pages from Trial Bum Report for Boiler 70K (multiple pages from report) Page 14 of Source Emissions Survey of Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler 70K Stack Condition I Page 6 of Source Emissions Survey of Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler 70K Stack Condition 2 Page 4 of Source Emissions Survey of Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler 70K Stack Condition 3 Table 4.2­ 1 from Trial Bum Plan for Boiler 70K Mini­ Bum Test Report for Boiler 70K (in its entirety) Page 4 of Source Emissions Survey of Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler 70K Stack Minibum Test Report Quality Assurance Oversight Reports for Mini­ Bum Test ­ Independent and Stack Sampling (in their entirety) Trial Bum Retest Report for Boiler 70K (in its entirety) Page 4 of Source Emissions Survey of Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler 70K Stack Trial Bum Retest Report Quality Assurance Oversight Reports for Trial Bum Retest ­ Independent and Stack Sampling (in their entirety) Boiler 30K Comments Support pages from Trial Bum Report for Boiler 3 OK (multiple pages from report) Page 14 of Source Emissions Survey of Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler 30K Stack Condition I Page 6 of Source Emissions Survey of Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler 30K Stack Condition 2 Table 4.2­ 1 from Trial Bum Plan for Boiler 30K Trial Bum Retest Report for Boiler 30K (in its entirety) Page 4 of Source Emissions Survey of Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler 30K Stack Trial Bum Retest Report Quality Assurance Oversight Reports for Trial Bum Retest ­ Independent and Stack Sampling (in their entirety) Boiler 28K Comments Demonstration of Similarity Report for Boiler 28K (in its entirety) Additional Support Documentation Revised Certification of Compliance Test Report for Boilers 70K, 30K, and 28K (in its entirety) Temperature and velocity summary for Boilers 70K and 30K Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler MACT NODA Review Boiler 28K Phase 11 ID No. 738 Comment 1 Source Description, Other Sister Facilities ­ Please replace 'None' with Boiler 30K. Comment 2 Source Description, Sootblowing ­ As discussed on page 4 of the Phase 11 HWC MACT Data Base Report dated June 2000, the description of soot blowing as provided by the EPA is to "identify whether soot blowing is used, as well as the duration and frequency". Therefore, Reilly suggests that the EPA modify the Source Description section of the database to include the following fields and that the information so provided be incorporated for #738: Soot Blowing Yes Frequency Four times/ day Duration Five­ minutes/ soot blow event Comment 3 Source Description, Stack Characteristics ­ Reilly suggests that the EPA expand this portion of the database to be inclusive of the modeling information that was utilized by the facility. Failing to include this information, which is readily available from the reports used thus far in assembling the database, will not allow a complete, thorough, and consistent review between the facilities. Specifically, Reilly requests that the EPA expand this section to include the shortest distance from the stack to the property line, the distance of the stack to their MEI (maximum exposed individual or the nearest maximum exposed receptor), the terrain type for the facility (simple, intermediate, or complex), the land use of the facility (rural or urban), type of model used (i. e. ISCST3 or ISCLT3, etc.), and the dilution factor determined for the stack. This information will be vital in the comparison of limits established for short stacks positioned near property lines (actually their MEI) versus the limits established for taller stacks that are quite some distance from an MEI. Failing to consider this information will significantly compromise the integrity of any effort used to establish a MACT standard. Testing of Boiler 28K was not conducted pursuant to the Demonstration of Similarity Report dated February 3, 2000 (a copy of this report is included for Agency review). The results below for Boiler 28K were obtained in part by reducing the results from the testing of Boiler 3OK: Shortest distance from the stack to the property line 64 m Distance of the stack to the MEI N/ A Terrain type for the facility (simple, intermediate, or complex) N/ A Land use of the facility (rural or urban) N/ A Type of model used (i. e. ISCST3 or ISCLT3, etc.) N/ A llg/ M3/ g/ S Dilution factor determined for the stack 3.050073 N/ A ­ Similarity was demonstrated. Therefore, modeling was not conducted for Boiler 28K. Comment 4 Source Description, Permitting Status ­ As discussed on pages 2 and 5 of the Phase 11 HWC MACT Data Base Report dated June 2000, the permitting status of the BIFs is comprised of a number of items. Reilly suggests that the EPA modify this section of the database to be more precise and complete in its inclusion of data. Specifically, Reilly recommends that the database be expanded under the section permitting status to include the specific status and limits under which each BIF is operating. This information is significant, and should not be overlooked when evaluating MACT standards. In so making these changes, the utility of the database will be greatly enhanced. Therefore, the database at a minimum should be expanded to include the DRE standard (40 CFR 266.104), particulate matter (§ 266@ 105), the 10 BIF metals (§ 266.107), and HCI/ CI2 (§ 266.107). These changes can be readily implemented as it appears that the EPA already made a simple attempt at such. The DRE standard may be limited to the following choices: (a) DRE standard, (a4) DRE waiver, (a5) low risk waiver, (b) CO Standard, (c) Alt CO Standard, and (d) other. For metals, the following categories should be established: Tier 1, Tier II, Tier III, Adjusted Tier 1, and Adjusted Tier I with testing as allowed by §266.106( g). The HCI/ CI2 standard would have these categories: Tier 1, Tier 11, Tier 111, and Adjusted Tier 1. Pursuant to the Demonstration of Similarity Report dated February 3, 2000, the results below for Boiler 28K were obtained by reducing the results from the testing of Boiler 30K by three percent: Section Parameter Standard Limit 266. x102/ 103 Max. Waste Feed Rate 2204 lb/ hr 104 Organic emissions Carbon monoxide 100 ppmv 105 Particulate matter Ash Feed Rate 2954 g/ hr 106 Antimony Adjusted Tier 1 334 g/ hr 106 Arsenic Adjusted Tier 1 2.56 g/ hr 106 Barium Adjusted Tier 1 55,577 g/ hr 106 Beryllium Adiusted Tier 1 4.67 g/ hr 106 Cadmium A Tier I 6.23 g/ hr 106 Chromium Adjusted Tier I w/ testing 3.76 g/ hr 106 Lead A Tier I 100 g/ hr 106 Mercury A Tier 1 334 g/ hr 106 Silver Adjusted Tier I 3335 g/ hr 106 Thallium Adiusted Tier 1 556 g/ hr 107 Chlorine/ Chlorides Adjusted Tier I 4850 g/ hr Reilly encourages the EPA to expand the database as presented above to include the performance standards, their feed rates, and the basis for establishing them. Assembling the data in this fashion will facilitate a much more efficient and thorough assessment and development of a viable MACT standard. Comment 5 Please remove all references to the 1996 Revised Certification of Compliance from the database based on EPAs request to use the data from the most recent compliance tests. A Demonstration of Similarity between Boiler 30K and Boiler 28K was approved by EPA Region 5 before the performance of the Trial Bum. Testing of Boiler 28K was not conducted during the Trial Bum. It was decided that the limits for Boiler 28K would be 3% lower that those for Boiler 30K. Therefore, Reilly is currently operating under the limits established pursuant to the Demonstration of Similarity. A copy of this report is provided for Agency review. Comment 6 Please adjust the Summary at the end of the database to include all of the above comments. Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler MACT NODA Review Boiler 70K Phase 11 ID No. 735 Comment I Source Description, Capacity ­ 92 should read 91.8 (from Combustor Characteristics). Please adjust on Source Description Summary Sheet as well. Comment 2 Source Description, Sootblowing ­ As discussed on page 4 of the Phase 11 HWC MACT Data Base Report dated June 2000, the description of soot blowing as provided by the EPA is to "identify whether soot blowing is used, as well as the duration and frequency". Therefore, Reilly suggests that the EPA modify the Source Description section of the database to include the following fields and that the information so provided be incorporated for #735: Soot Blowing Yes Frequency Four times/ day Duration five­ minutes/ soot blow event Comment 3 Source Description, Stack Characteristics ­ The most recent gas temperature and velocity from the combined 1999 Trial Bum/ RCOC is 615'F and 44.65 ft/ sec, respectively. A copy of this information has been included for Agency review. Reilly also suggests that the EPA expand this portion of the database to be inclusive of the modeling information that was utilized by the facility. Failing to include this information, which is readily available from the reports used thus far in assembling the database, will not allow a complete, thorough, and consistent review between the facilities. Specifically, Reilly requests that the EPA expand this section to include the shortest distance from the stack to the property line, the distance of the stack to their MEI (maximum exposed individual or the nearest maximum exposed receptor), the terrain type for the facility (simple, intermediate, or complex), the land use of the facility (rural or urban), type of model used (i. e. ISCST3 or ISCLT3, etc.), and the dilution factor determined for the stack. This infon­ nation will be vital in the comparison of limits established for short stacks positioned near property lines (actually their MEI) versus the limits established for taller stacks that are quite some distance from an MEI. Failing to consider this information will significantly compromise the integrity of any effort used to establish a MACT standard. This additional information is prove 'ded below as taken from our January 24, 2000 RCOC Report: Shortest distance from the stack to the property line 82 meters Distance of the stack to the MEI 350 meters Terrain type for the facility (simple, intermediate, or complex) intermediate Land use of the facility (rural or urban) urban Type of model used (i. e. ISCST3 or ISCLT3, etc.) ISCLT3 Dilution factor determined for the stack 0.666575 jig/ ml/ g/ s Reilly also feels that the average stack gas flow rate from each sample train should be included here. This value is 13,520 dscfm and was averaged from each sample train run during Test Condition I of the 1999 Trial Bum. Reilly will further discuss the stack gas flow rate relative to the MTEC feedrate calculations in comment 26. Comment 4 Source Description, Permitting Status ­ As discussed on pages 2 and 5 of the Phase 11 HWC MACT Data Base Report dated June 2000, the pennitting status of the BIFs is comprised of a number of items. Reilly suggests that the EPA modify this section of the database to be more precise and complete in its inclusion of data. Specifically, Reilly recommends that the database be expanded under the section pennitting status to include the specific status and limits under which each BIF is operating. This information is significant, and should not be overlooked when evaluating NMCT standards. In so making these changes, the utility of the database will be greatly enhanced. Therefore, the database at a minimum should be expanded to include the DRE standard (40 CFR 266.104), particulate matter (§ 266.105), the 10 BIF metals (§ 266.107), and HCI/ CI2 (§ 266.107). These changes can be readily implemented as it is appears that the EPA already made a simple attempt at such (see comment 30). The DRE standard may be limited to the following choices: (a) DRE standard, (a4) DRE waiver, (a5) low risk waiver, (b) CO Standard, (c) Alt CO Standard, and (d) other. For metals, the following categories should be established: Tier 1, Tier II, Tier 111, Adjusted Tier 1, and Adjusted Tier I with testing as allowed by §266.106( g). The HCI/ CI2 standard would have these categories: Tier 1, Tier 11, Tier III, and Adjusted Tier 1. Reilly is providing the following table of this information as it pertains to #735, as taken from our January 24, 2000 RCOC Report: Section Parameter Standard Limit Units 266. x 102/ 103 Max. Waste Feed Rate Operating condition 3719 lb/ hr 104 Organic emissions Carbon monoxide 100 ppmv 105 Particulate matter Ash Feed Rate 5001 g/ hr 106 Antimony Adjusted Tier 1 1620 g/ hr 106 Arsenic Adjusted Tier 1 12.42 g/ hr 106 Barium Adjusted Tier 1 270,037 g/ hr 106 Beryllium Adjusted Tier I 22.68 g/ hr 106 Cadmium Adjusted Tier I 30.24 g/ hr 106 Chromium Adjusted Tier I w/ testing 18.29* g/ hr 106 Lead Adjusted Tier 1 486 g/ hr 106 Mercury Adjusted Tier I 1620 g/ hr 106 Silver Adjusted Tier 1 16,202 g/ hr 106 Thallium Adjusted Tier 1 2700 g/ hr 107 Chlorine/ Chlorides Adjusted Tier I 40,000** g/ hr *A Mini­ Bum Test was performed on Boiler 70K to identify the hexavalent chromium conversion ratio. This demonstrated conversion ratio of 24.5% is currently being used by Reilly to set the chromium feed rate limits for each of the boilers. Dividing the original Adjusted Tier I feed rate screening limit of 4.48 g/ hr by the conversion ratio of 24.5% gives a speciated chromium feed rate of 18.29 g/ hr. ** Using emissions testing data, Reilly demonstrated that the emissions of chlorine were less than one percent of that which is fed. This resulted in an Adjusted Tier I feed rate screening limit of 216,000 g/ hr (Section 15.11 of Trial Bum Report for Boiler 70K). Reilly and the Agency agreed upon a total chlorine/ chloride feed rate limit of 40,000 gihr rather than 216,600 g/ hr since this amount of feed rate was not needed. Please ad ust Total Cl to reflect this change. Reilly encourages the EPA to expand the database as presented above to include the performance standards, their feed rates, and the basis for establishing them. Assembling the data in this fashion will facilitate a much more efficient and thorough assessment and development of a viable MACT standard. Comment 5 Please remove all references to the 1996 Revised Certification of Compliance from the database based on EPAs request to use the data from the most recent compliance tests. The most recent compliance test report is dated January 24, 2000 and is entitled Revised Certification of Compliance Test Report for Boilers 70K, 30K, and 28K. A copy of this report has been included for Agency review. Comment 6 Source Description, Report Name/ Date, Numbers I and 2 ­ Please replace the Revised Certification of Compliance information from 1996 with the following, more current, Revised Certification of Compliance information. Reilly suggests adding 'Cond' in front of Number to read 'Cond Number' in order to avoid confusion and keep the labeling consistent throughout the database. Report Name/ Date Revised Certification of Compliance Test Report for Boilers 70K, 30K, and 28K January 24, 2000 Report Prepare Compliance Strategies & Solutions, Inc. Testing Firm Compliance Strategies & Solutions, Inc., METCO Environmental, Inc., and B3 Systems, Inc. Cond Number I Testing Dates October 21 ­ 23, 1999 Cond. Description CoC, high feed rate Content PM, CO, HCI/ CI2 Cond Number 2 Testing Dates October 19 ­ 20, 1999 Cond. Description CoC, low comb temp A copy of this report is included for Agency review. Comment 7 Report Name/ Date ­ Please remove the 's' from Boilers to read 'Trial Bum Report for Boiler 70K, February 3, 2000'. Comment 8 Test Condition I of the combined Trial Bum/ RCOC was performed October 21 ­ 23, 1999. Testing was not performed on November 2, 1999 (Section 6.3.4 Trial Bum Report for Boiler 70K). Please update on the PCDD/ PCDF page for Condition ID 735C3 as well. Comment 9 A hexavatent chromium (Cr+ 6 ) sampling train was not run during the Trial Bum. This sampling train was run during the Mini­ Bum Test of Boiler 70K performed May 23, 2000. Please delete the reference to Cr+ 6 testing during the Trial Bum (see comment 10). Comment 10 Please include the following information under Source Description, Report Name/ Date and Number: Cond Number 6 ­ Mini­ Bum Test Testing Dates May 23, 2000 Cond Description High Waste Feed Rate Content Cr +6, Co A copy of this report along with stack gas conditions is included for Agency review. Comment 11 Please include the following information under Source Description, Report Name/ Date and Number: Cond Number 7 ­ Trial Bum Retest Testing Dates May 22, 2000 Cond Description Min Comb Chamb Temp, Min Steam Prod Rate Content DRE A copy of this report along with stack gas conditions is included for Agency review. Comment 12 Stack Gas Emissions, 735C3 ­ An 'nd' should be added to the C12 emission rate for Run 3 (Table 14.3­ 2 of Trial Bum Report for Boiler 70K). Comment 13 Stack Gas Emissions, 735C3 ­ Our records indicate that the stack gas flow rates for the PM and HCI/ CI2 train are 13,834 dscfm, 14,036 dscfm, and 14,035 dscfm for Runs 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Source Emissions Survey of Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler 70K Stack Condition 1, Volume 1, pg. 14). Please adjust any necessary calculations to account for these changes. Comment 14 Stack Gas Emissions, 735C3 ­ Our records indicate that the Orsat oxygen contents observed during the PM and HCI/ CI2 sampling train are 3.6%, 3.0%, and 3.0% for Runs 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Source Emissions Survey of Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler 70K Stack Condition 1, Volume 1, pg. 14). The numbers input into the database are the values recorded by the CEMS installed in the stack of Boiler 70K. Please adjust any necessary calculations to account for these changes. Comment 15 Stack Gas Emissions, 735C3 ­ Our records indicate that the stack gas temperatures observed during the PM and HCI/ CI2 sampling train are 622'F, 634'F, and 632'F for Runs 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Source Emissions Survey of Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler 70K Stack Condition 1, Volume 1, pg. 14). Comment 16 Please add the most recent DRE data for 1,2­ Dichlorobenzene gathered during the Trial Bum Retest conducted May 22, 2000. A copy of the Trial Bum Retest Report is included for reference. Comment 17 Stack Gas Emissions, 735C4 ­ Our records indicate that the Orsat oxygen contents observed during the DRE test condition were 8.4%, 7.3%, and 7.2% for Runs 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Source Emissions Survey of Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler 70K Stack Condition 2, Volume 1, pg. 6). The numbers input into the database are the values recorded by the CEMS installed in the stack of Boiler 70K. Please adjust any necessary calculations to account for these changes. Comment 18 Stack Gas Emissions, 735C5 ­ Our records indicate that the stack gas flow rates for Test Condition 3 are 6166 dscfm, 6321 dscfm, and 6304 dscfm for Runs 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Source Emissions Survey of Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler 70K Stack Condition 3, Volume 1, pg. 4). Comment 19 Our records indicate that the Orsat oxygen contents observed during Test Condition 3 are 5.7%, 8.2%, and 6.0%, respectively (Source Emissions Survey of Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler 70K Stack Condition 3, Volume 1, pg. 4). The numbers input into the database are the values recorded by the CEMS installed in the stack of Boiler 70K. Comment 20 The maximum hourly rolling average values for each run were used in calculating the maximum feed rates for metals, ash, and chlorine for both the Revised Certification of Compliance and the Trial Bum. The minimum hourly rolling average values for each run were used in establishing the minimum limits for the minimum combustion chamber temperature and the minimum steam production rate. The average of these maximum and minimum values was used to establish the operating limits for each of the parameters. The numbers input into the database seem to be the average of the average instead of the average of the maximum or minimum values. Please adjust these values to reflect the average of the maximum and minimum values as appropriate. Comment 21 Feedstreams, 735C3 ­ The maximum waste fuel feed rate should be used to calculate the firing rate of the waste fuel. This number is 3719 lb/ hr (Table 9. 1 ­1 of Trial Bum Report for Boiler 70K). Using this number in the calculation provides a firing rate of 57.2 MMBtu/ hr. The maximum city gas feed rate should be used to calculate the firing rate of the city gas. This number is 1055 lb/ hr (Table 9.2­ 1 of Trial Bum Report for Boiler 70K). Our records also indicate that the correct heat content for the city gas is 21,214 Btu/ lb (Table 4.2­ 1 Trial Bum Plan for Boiler 70K). Using these numbers in the calculation provides a firing rate of 22.4 MMBtu/ hr. Adding the firing rates of the waste fuel and the city gas provides a total firing rate of 79.6 MMBtu/ hr. Comment 22 Feedrates, 735C3 ­ Our records indicate that the maximum ash feed rate for the waste fuel is nd 1687.01 g/ hr (Table 11.2­ 1 of Trial Bum Report for Boiler 70K). Comment 23 Feedrates, 735C3 ­ Our records indicate that the feedrate for mercury under the waste fuel column should be nd 0.07 g/ hr (Table 11.4­ 1 of Trial Bum Report for Boiler 70K). Comment 24 Feedrates, 735C3 ­ Our records indicate that the ash spike feedrate is 3238.58 g/ hr (Table 12.1­ 1 of Trial Bum Report for Boiler 70K). Comment 25 Feedrates, 735C3 ­ Our records indicate that the ash spike feed rates for antimony, barium, ando, amercury are nd 0.002 g/ hr, 0.007 g/ hr, and nd 0.0003 g/ hr, respectively (Table 12.3­ 1 of TrialBum Report for Boiler 70K). 0. 00 Comment 26 Reilly is noting two (2) objections to the presentation of the MTEC Feedrate Calculations. The first is for basing MTEC calculations on feed rate data obtained during testing. The purpose behind most all of the testing was not to demonstrate feed rates at the allowable risk based levels (Tier 1, Adjusted Tier 1, etc.). Instead, the feed rate data presented was used to show that the operations were taking place at levels well enough below the allowable risk based limits. Reilly suggests that if the MTEC Feedrate Calculations are to be presented as part of the database, then they should be based on the operating limits discussed in Comment 4. Reilly's second objection is based on the fundamental intent of the database to present the data. Reilly understands that the database is not intended to manipulate or analyze data, and that in fact, the EPA is not accepting any comments towards such an exercise. Therefore, Reilly concludes that the EPA's decision to choose feed rate data for MTEC calculations is unfair and unjustified, and MTEC calculations should be dropped from the database at this time in their entirety. If the EPA disagrees with this second objection, then at a minimum, the MTEC should be expanded to include calculations based on the allowable feed rates presented in Comment 4 (our first objection). Feedrates, 735C3 ­ If the Agency insists on calculating the MTEC, please use the correct average stack gas flow rate (13,968 dscfm) and the correct feedrates. Comment 27 Feedrates, 735C4 ­ The minimum waste fuel feed rate should be used to calculate the firing rate of the waste fuel. This number is 584.7 lb/ hr (Table 9.1­ 2 of Trial Bum Report for Boiler 70K). Using this number in the calculation provides a firing rate of 8.9 MMBtu/ hr. The minimum city gas feed rate should be used to calculate the firing rate of the city gas. This number is 670.9 lb/ hr (Table 9.2­ 2 of Trial Bum Report for Boiler 70K). Our records also indicate that the correct heat content for the city gas is 21,214 Btu/ lb (Table 4.2­ 1 of Trial Bum Plan for Boiler 70K). Using these numbers in the calculation provides a firing rate of 14.2 MMBtu/ hr. Adding the firing rates of the waste fuel and the city gas provides a total firing rate of 23.1 MMBtuihr. Comment 28 Feedrates, 735C5 ­ Please replace the average waste fuel and natural gas feed rates with the average of the minimum values. Comment 29 Feedrates, 735C5 ­ Density and heat content were not measured during Test Condition 3. The numbers input into the database are for Test Condition 1. Therefore, an accurate firing rate for the waste fuel cannot be calculated for Test Condition 3. Please delete. The minimum city gas feed rate should be used to calculate the firing rate of the city gas. This number is 878.6 lb/ hr (Table 9.2­ 3 of Tnal Bum Report for Boiler 70K). Our records also indicate that the correct heat content of the city gas is 21,214 Btu/ lb (Table 4.2­ 1 of Trial Bum Plan for Boiler 70K). Using these numbers in the calculation provides a firing rate of 18.6 MMBtu/ hr. Reilly objects to the use of an F­ factor determined estimated firing rate. Reilly believes that the firing rates should be based only on data generated during actual testing or as established in permits or RCOC limits, since this data is readily available. As also expressed in Comment 26, Reilly objects to any manipulation of data at this point in the NODA process. Since the EPA has specifically declined to consider comment on data assessment, it is unfair for the EPA to present such a manipulation of the data at this time. Comment 30 Reilly objects to the current location of the Adjusted Tier I limits presented in the database. Reilly believes that these limits should be presented in their entirety under Source Description, Permitting Status as so provided in Comment 4. Comment 31 Please adjust the Emissions and Feedrate Data Summary Sheet to include all of the above comments. Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler MACT NODA Review Boiler 30K Phase 11 ID No. 737 Comment 1 Source Description, Unit ID Name/ No. ­ Please insert 'Boiler' in front of 30K to read 'Boiler 3OK'. Comment 2 Source Description, Other Sister Facilities ­ Please replace 'None' with 'Boiler 70K for Cr +6, Comment 3 Source Description, Sootblowing ­ As discussed on page 4 of the Phase 11 HWC MACT Data Base Report dated June 2000, the description of soot blowing as provided by the EPA is to "identify whether soot blowing is used, as well as the duration and frequency". Therefore, Reilly suggests that the EPA modify the Source Description section of the database to include the following fields and that the information so provided be incorporated for #737: Soot Blowing Yes Frequency Four times/ day Duration Five­ minutes/ soot blow event Comment 4 Source Description, Stack Characteristics ­ The most recent gas temperature and velocity from the combined Trial Bum/ RCOC is 664'F and 24.28 ft/ sec, respectively. A copy of this information has been included for Agency review. Reilly also suggests that the EPA expand this portion of the database to be inclusive of the modeling information that was utilized by the facility. Failing to include this information, which is readily available from the reports used thus far in assembling the database, will not allow a complete, thorough, and consistent review between the facilities. Specifically, Reilly requests that the EPA expand this section to include the shortest distance from the stack to the property line, the distance of the stack to their MEI (maximum exposed individual or the nearest maximum exposed receptor), the terrain type for the facility (simple, intermediate, or complex), the land use of the facility (rural or urban), type of model used (i. e. ISCST3 or ISCLT3, etc.), and the dilution factor determined for the stack. This information will be vital in the comparison of limits established for short stacks positioned near property lines (actually their MEI) versus the limits established for taller stacks that are quite some distance from an MEI. Failing to consider this infon­ nation will significantly compromise the integrity of any effort used to establish a MACT standard. This additional information is provided as taken from our January 24, 2000 RCOC Report: Shortest distance from the stack to the property line 67 m Distance of the stack to the MEI 95.2 m Terrain type for the facility (simple, intermediate, or complex) inten­ nediate Land use of the facility (rural or urban) urban Type of model used (i. e. ISCST3 or ISCLT3, etc.) ISCLT3 Dilution factor determined for the stack 3 .1 4 4 4 0 5 llg/ M3/ g/ S Reilly also feels that the average stack gas flow rate from each sample train should be included here. This value is 7484 dscftn and was averaged from each sample train run during Test Condition I of the 1999 Trial Bum. Reilly will further discuss the stack gas flow rate relative to the MTEC feedrate calculations in comment 19. Comment 5 Source Description, Permitting Status ­ As discussed on pages 2 and 5 of the Phase 11 HWC MACT Data Base ­Report dated June 2000, the permitting status of the BIFs is comprised of a number of items. Reilly suggests that the EPA modify this section of the database to be more precise and complete in its inclusion of data. Specifically, Reilly recommends that the database be expanded under the section permitting status to include the specific status and limits under which each BIF is operating. This information is significant, and should not be overlooked when evaluating MACT standards. In so making these changes, the utility of the database will be greatly enhanced. Therefore, the database at a minimum should be expanded to include the DRE standard (40 CFR 266.104), particulate matter (§ 266.105), the 10 BIF metals (§ 266.107), and HCI/ CI2 (§ 266.107). These changes can be readily implemented as it appears that the EPA already made a simple attempt at such (see comment 2 1). The DRE standard may be limited to the following choices: (a) DRE standard, (a4) DRE waiver, (a5) low risk waiver, (b) CO Standard, (c) Alt CO Standard, and (d) other. For metals, the following categories should be established: Tier 1, Tier II, Tier III, Adjusted Tier 1, and Adjusted Tier I with testing as allowed by §266.106( g). The HCI/ CI2 standard would have these categories: Tier I, Tier 11, Tier III, and Adjusted Tier I. Reilly is providing the following table of this information as it pertains to #737, as taken from our January 24, 2000 RCOC Report: Section Parameter Standard Limit Units 266. x 102/ 103 Max. Waste Feed Rate Operating condition 2272 lb/ hr 104 Organic emissions Carbon monoxide 100 PPMV 105 Particulate matter Ash Feed Rate 4039 g/ hr 106 Antimony Adjusted Tier I 344 g/ hr 106 Arsenic Adjusted Tier 1 2.63 g/ hr 106 Barium Adjusted Tier 1 57,245 g/ hr 106 Beryllium Adjusted Tier 1 4.81 g/ hr 106 Cadmium Adjusted Tier 1 6.41 g/ hr 106 Chromium Adjusted Tier I w/ testing 3.88* g/ hr 106 Lead Adjusted Tier I 103 g/ hr 106 Mercury Adjusted Tier 1 344 g/ hr 106 Silver Adjusted Tier 1 3435 g/ hr 106 Thallium Adjusted Tier I 572 g/ hr 107 Chlorine/ Chlorides Adjusted Tier 1 5000** g/ hr *A Mini­ Bum Test was performed on Boiler 70K to identify the hexavalent chromium conversion ratio. This demonstrated conversion ratio of 24.5% is currently being used by Reilly to set the chromium feed rate limits for each of the boilers. Dividing the original Adjusted Tier I feed rate screening limit of 0.95 g/ hr by the conversion ratio of 24.5% gives a speciated chromium feed rate of 3.88 g/ hr. ** Using emissions testing data, Reilly demonstrated that the emissions of chlorine were less than one percent of that which is fed. This resulted in an Adjusted Tier I feed rate screening limit of 45,800 g/ hr (Section 15.11 of Trial Bum Report for Boiler 30K). Reilly and the Agency agreed upon a total chlorine/ chloride feed rate limit of 5,000 g/ hr rather than 45,800 g/ hr since this amount of feed rate was not needed. Please adjust Total Cl to reflect this change. Reilly encourages the EPA to expand the database as presented above to include the performance standards, their feed rates, and the basis for establishing them. Assembling the data in this fashion will facilitate a much more efficient and thorough assessment and development of a viable MACT standard. Comment 6 Please remove all references to the 1996 Revised Certification of Compliance from the database based on EPAs request to use the data from the most recent compliance tests. The most recent compliance test report is dated January 24, 2000 and is entitled Revised Certification of Compliance Test Report for Boilers 70K, 30K, and 28K. A copy of this report has been included for Agency review. Comment 7 Source Description, Report Name/ Date, Cond Numbers I and 2 ­ Please replace the Revised Certification of Compliance information from 1996 with the following, more current, Revised Certification of Compliance information: Report Name/ Date Revised Certification of Compliance Test Report for Boilers 70K, 30K, and 28K January 24, 2000 Report Prepare Compliance Strategies & Solutions, Inc. Testing Firm Compliance Strategies & Solutions, Inc., METCO Environmental, Inc., and B3 Systems, Inc. Cond Number I Testing Dates October 26 ­ 28, 1999 Cond. Desc ription CoC, high feed rate Content PM, CO, HCI/ CI2 Cond Number 2 Testing Dates November 2 ­ 3 and November 5, 1999 Cond. Description CoC, low comb temp Content co A copy of this report is included for Agency review. Comment 8 The combined Trial Bum/ RCOC test dates of Boiler 30K were November 2 ­ 3 and November 5, 1999 (Section 6.3 of Trial Bum Report for Boiler 30K). Please update on the PCDD/ PCDF page for Condition ID 737C4 as well. Comment 9 Please include the following information under Source Description, Report Name/ Date and Condition Number: Cond Number 5 ­ Trial Bum Retest Testing Dates May 24 ­ 25, 2000 Cond Description Min Comb Chamb Temp, Min Steam Prod Rate Content DRE A copy of this report along with the stack gas conditions is included for Agency review. Comment 10 73 7C3 Trial Bum ­ Run 3 for HC should 'be < 0. I (nd) (Section 14. 1 0 of Trial Bum Report for Boiler 30K). Comment 11 Our records indicate that the stack gas flow rates for the PM and HCI/ CI2 sampling train run during the combined 1999 Trial Bum/ RCOC are 7509 dscftn, 7711 dscfm, and 7578 dscfm for Runs 1, 2, and 3, respectively. (Source Emissions Survey of Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler 30KV/ Stack Condition 1, Volume 1, October 1999, pg. 14.) Please adjust any necessary calculations to account for these changes. Comment 12 The PM and HCI/ CI2 sampling train run during the combined 1999 Trial Bum/ RCOC oxygen contents are 4.2%, 4.8%, and 4.8% for Runs 1, 2, and 3, respectively. (Source Emissions SurveyVI'of Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler 30K Stack Condition 1, Volume 1, October 1999, pg. 14.) The numbers input into the database under 737C3 Trial Bum Sampling Train I are the readings from the CEMS installed in the stack of Boiler 30K. Please adjust any necessary calculations toaccount for these changes. Comment 13 Our records indicate that the stack temperatures measured during the PM and HCI/ CI2 samplingV, train run during the combined 1999 Trial Bum/ RCOC are 649'F, 666'F, and 676F for Runs 1, 2, and 3, respectively. (Source Emissions Survey of Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler 30K Stack Condition 1, Volume 1, October 1999, pg. 14.) Comment 14 Our records indicate that the sampling train oxygen contents during Test Condition 2 of the combined 1999 Trial Bum/ RCOC are 7.8%, 6.6%, and 6.2% for Runs 1, 2, and 3, respectively. V/ (Source Emissions Survey of Reilly Industries, Inc. Boiler 30K Stack Condition 2, Volume 1, October 1999, pg. 6.) The numbers input into the database under 737C4 Trial Bum Sampling Train I are the readings from the CEMS installed in the stack of Boiler 30K. Please adjust any necessary calculations to account for these changes. Comment 15 Please add the most recent DRE data for 1,2­ Dichlorobenzene gathered during the Trial Bum Retest conducted May 24 ­ 25, 2000. A copy of the Trial Bum Retest Report is included for reference. Comment 16 737C3 Trial Bum ­ The data for heat content and density were switched and input under the inappropriate Test Conditions. The numbers should be input as follows: Test Condition 1 ­ 737C3 Heat Content and Density Parameter Average Heat Content (Btu/ lb) 15,281 Density (g/ mL) 0.9880 Test Condition 2 ­ 737C4 Heat Content and Density Parameter Average Heat Content (Btu/ lb) 15,270 Density (g/ mL) 0.9893 Comment 17 Feedstreams, 737C3 ­ The maximum waste fuel feed rate should be used to calculate the firing rate of the waste fuel. This number is 2272 lb/ hr (Table 9.1­ 1 of Trial Bum Report for Boiler 30K). The correct heat content is 15,281 Btu/ lb (see comment 16 above). Using these numbers in the calculation provides a firing rate of 34.7 MMBtu/ hr. The maximum city gas feed rate should be used to calculate the firing rate of the city gas. This number is 225.6 lb/ hr (Table 9.2­ 1 of Trial Bum Report for Boiler 30K). Our records also indicate that the correct heat content for the city gas is 21,214 Btu/ lb (Table 4.2­ 1 Trial Bum Plan for Boiler 30K). Using these numbers in the calculation provides a firing rate of 4.8 MMBtu/ hr. Adding the firing rates of the waste fuel and the city gas provides a total firing rate of 39.5 MMBtu/ hr. Reilly objects to the use of an F­ factor determined estimated firing rate. Reilly believes that the firing rates should be based only on data generated during actual testing or as established in permits or RCOC limits, since this data is readily available. As also expressed in Comment 19, Reilly objects to any manipulation of data at this point in the NODA process. Since the EPA has specifically declined to consider comment on data assessment, it is unfair for the EPA to present such a manipulation of the data at this time. Comment 18 Feedrates, 737C4 ­ The minimum waste fuel feed rate should be used to calculate the firing rate of the waste fuel. This number is 335.6 lb/ hr (Table 9.1­ 2 of Trial Bum Report for Boiler 30K). The correct heat content is 15,270 Btu/ lb (see comment 16 above). Using these numbers in the calculation provides a firing rate of 5.1 MMBtu/ hr. The minimum city gas feed rate should be used to calculate the firing rate of the city gas. This number is 304.6 lb/ hr (Table 9.2­ 2 of Trial Bum Report for Boiler 30K). Our records also indicate that the correct heat content for the city gas is 21,214 Btu/ lb (Table 4.2­ 1 of Trial Bum Plan for Boiler 30K). Using these numbers in the calculation provides a firing rate of 6.5 MMBtu/ hr. Adding the firing rates of the waste fuel and the city gas provides a total firing rate of 11.6 MMBtu/ hr. Reilly objects to the use of an F­ factor determined estimated firing rate. Reilly believes that the firing rates should be based only on data generated during actual testing or as established in permits or RCOC limits, since this data is readily available. As also expressed in Conunent 19, Reilly objects to any manipulation of data at this point in the NODA process. Since the EPA has specifically declined to consider comment on data assessment, it is unfair for the EPA to present such a manipulation of the data at this time. Comment 19 Reilly is noting two (2) objections to the presentation of the MTEC Feedrate Calculations. The first is for basing MTEC calculations on feed rate data obtained during testing. The purpose behind most all of the testing was not to demonstrate feed rates at the allowable risk based levels (Tier 1, Adjusted Tier 1, etc.). Instead, the feed rate data presented was used to show that the operations were taking place at levels well enough below the allowable risk based limits. Reilly suggests that if the MTEC Feedrate Calculations are to be presented as part of the database, then they should be based on the operating limits discussed in Comment 5. Reilly's second objection is based on the fundamental intent of the database, to present the data. Reilly understands that the database is not intended to manipulate or analyze data, and that in fact, the EPA is not accepting any comments towards such an exercise. Therefore, Reilly concludes that the EPA's decision to choose feed rate data for MTEC calculations is unfair and unjustified, and MTEC calculations should be dropped from the database at this time in their entirety. If the EPA disagrees with this second objection, then at a minimum, the MTEC should be expanded to include calculations based on the allowable feed rates presented in Comment 5 (our first objection). Trial Bum ­ If the Agency insists on calculating the MTEC, The correct stack gas flow rate is 7599 dscfm. Comment 20 The maximum hourly rolling average values for each run were used in calculating the feed rates for metals, ash, and chlorine for both the Revised Certification of Compliance and the Trial Bum. The minimum hourly rolling average values for each run were used in establishing the limits for the minimum combustion chamber temperature and the minimum steam production rate. The average of these maximum and minimum values was used to establish the operating limits for each of the parameters. The numbers input into the database seem to be the average of the average instead of the average of the maximum or minimum values. Please adjust these values to reflect the average of the maximum and minimum values as appropriate. Comment 21 Reilly objects to the current location of the Adjusted Tier I limits presented in the database. Reilly believes that these limits should be presented in their entirety under Source Description, Permitting Status as so provided in Comment 5. Comment 22 PCDD/ PCDF 737C4 ­ Run 3 OCDD should read 8.61E­ 06 and 2,3,7,8­ TCDF should read nd 8.89E05 (Table 14.6­ 6 of Trial Bum Report for Boiler 30K). Comment 23 Please adjust the Emissions and Feedrate Data Summary Sheets to include all of the above comments. Response EPA has reviewed the requested data base edits. Responses to these requested changes or additions are documented in Table 3. Also, responses are provided as appropriate through some of the above comments. Note that most of these issues are also addressed in the above Sections 3 and 4. 5.15 Ticona Polymers, Inc. (Phase II ID # 1018) Ticona (16) SOURCE DESCRIPTION Soot Blowing In regards to soot blowing, Boiler 16 has the capability of soot blowing. Soot blowing typically occurs six (6) times per day and has a duration of 0.0486 hours per soot blow event. Stack Characteristics In regards to stack characteristics during dispersion modeling, Ticona obtained the worse case results from the minimum combustion temperature condition of the Trial Bum/ Risk Burn performed in June, 1998. Hence, the data for the stack characteristics should be: Diameter (ft): 2.1 Height (ft): 45 Gas Velocity (ft/ sec): 25.8 Gas Temperature (F): 576 Response: The intent was to represent the gas velocity and temperature as some generally representative value. The temperature will be changed as requested. Permitting Status In regards to permitting status, Ticona manages all metals (with the exception of chromium) and chlorine under Adjusted Tier I. Chromium is managed under Tier III. In regards to the Report Name/ Date under Permitting Status, the report is entitled: Trial Bum/ Risk Burn Report Boiler 16 Celanese Engineering Resins, Inc. September 1998 The report was prepared by TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC). TRC was also responsible for performing the testing on June 23­ 25, 1998. Condition 10 (1018C10) In regards to Condition Description and Condition Content under Condition 10 of the Permitting Status, Condition 10 is better described as the maximum combustion temperature condition during the 1996 Certification of Compliance (CoC) performed on Boiler 16. The 1996 CoC maximum combustion temperature condition data was submitted with the 1998 Trial Burn/ Risk Burn Report as "data in lieu of trial burn". The 1996 CoC was submitted in its entirety as an appendix in the 1998 Trial Burn/ Risk Burn Report. In addition, the content of Condition 10 is better described by saying that the feed analysis included all10 BIF metals (not chromium only), chlorides, and ash. Particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and hexavalent and total chromium were measured in the stack exhaust. Condition 12 (1018C12) In regards to Condition Description under Condition 12 of the Permitting Status, Condition 12 is better described as the risk burn condition at maximum liquid waste feedrates and minimum natural gas flowrate. STACK GAS EMISSIONS Condition 1018C10 The maximum hourly rolling average carbon monoxide (CO) concentration for Run 1 of Condition 1018C10 is 0.6 ppmv corrected to 7% oxygen and not 0.06 ppmv as reported in the NODA database. Consequently. the Condition Average for CO (MHRA) under Condition 1018C10 is 10.9 ppmv instead of 10.7 ppmv as reported in the NODA database. Please reference: Table 2.3 Boiler 16 Process Operating Conditions During BIF Test ­ Condition No. 3 in the Appendix entitled Condition 1018C10. The Sampling Train 1 for PM was reported as not being available for Condition 1018C10. This information can be found in the 1996 CoC which was submitted as an appendix in the 1998 Trial Burn/ Risk Burn Report. As a convenience, please reference: Table 2.19 PM Sampling Train Parameters and Stack Conditions ­ Test Condition 3 in the Appendix entitled Condition 1018C10. The Sampling Train for hexavalent chromium was reported as not being available for Condition 1018C10. This information can be found in the 1996 CoC which was submitted as an appendix in the 1998 Trial Burn/ Risk Burn Report. As a convenience, please reference: Table 2.22 Hexavalent and Total Chromium Sampling Train Parameters and Stack Conditions ­ Test Condition 3 in the Appendix entitled Condition 1018C10. Condition 1018C11 Condition 1018C11 is the minimum temperature condition of the 1998 Trial Bum/ Risk Burn Report. One of the primary purposes of this condition is to demonstrate the necessary Destruction Removal Efficiency (DRE). Ticona selected toluene and chlorobenzene as the two principal organic hazardous constituents (POHCs) to measure in the feed and in the spike material fed to Boiler 16. In addition, the stack exhaust was tested to determine the concentrations of the two POHCs so that the DRE could then be determined. The NODA did not report the total amount of the two POHCs that was fed to Boiler 16 instead it only presented the contribution attributable to the waste feed burned in Boiler 16. The total feedrates (feed + spike) and the emission rates of the POHCs can be found in the 1998 Trial Burn/ Risk Burn Report. As a convenience, please reference: Table 4­ 7 Destruction Removal Efficiency Results in the Appendix entitled Condition 1018C11. FEEDSTREAMS Condition 1018C10 The only feed stream that was described for Condition 1018C10 was the liquid waste stream fed to Boiler 16. In addition to the liquid waste stream, Ticona fed natural gas, an ash modifier; and particulate matter and hexavalent chromium spike feeds to Boiler 16. Ticona adds Fuelsolv FS850 (ash modifier) along with the liquid waste stream to enhance the particulate matter characteristics in the case where particulate is generated as a solid in the firebox chamber. The ash modifier is ratioed to the liquid waste feedrate and the liquid waste ash content. On average, 0.13 gallons per hour of the ash modifier is added continuously to the liquid waste stream. The stream feedrates and their respective ash, chlorine and metals feed rates may be found in the 1996 CoC which was submitted as an appendix in the 1998 Trial Burn/ Risk Bum Report. As a convenience, please reference: Table 2.7 Liquid Waste Feed Stream Characterization and Constituent Feed Rates Test Condition No. 3: Table 2.10 Ash Modifier Feed Stream Characterization and Constituent Feed Rates Test Condition No. 3; and Table 2.13 Total Feed Rates of Ash, Chlorine, and Metals to Boiler 16 ­ Condition No. 3 in the Appendix entitled Condition 1018C10. The Stack Gas Flowrate and Oxygen Content for Condition 1018C10 was reported as not being available. In feet, the stack gas flowrate and the oxygen content were actually collected in both the particulate matter; and the hexavalent and total chromium sampling trains during the 1996 CoC. As a convenience, please reference: Table 2.19 PM Sampling Train Parameters and Stack Conditions ­ Test Condition 3 and Table 2.22 Hexavalent and Total Chromium Sampling Train Parameters and Stack Conditions ­ Test Condition 3 in the Appendix entitled Condition 1018C10. Condition 1018C11 The only feed stream that was described for condition 1018C11 was the liquid waste stream fed to Boiler 16. In addition to this stream, Ticona fed natural gas, and an ash modifier at a feedrate of ~499 grams per hour to Boiler 16. The ash modifier is described above in Condition 1018C10. ...( section removed and addressed in Section 4.8 (feedrate non­ detect calculation unclear) Firing Rate In regards to the firing rate calculation for Condition 1018C12, the natural gas firing rate contribution was not included. During this condition, 12.05 thousand standard cubic feet per hour (mscfh) of natural gas was fed to Boiler 16. This feed rate accounts for ~12.5 million BTU per hour (MMBTU/ hr) of additional firing rate capacity based on an estimated heating value of 1040 BTU/ scf for natural gas. The total firing rate for Boiler 16 during Condition 1018C12 is approximately 67.5 MMBTU/ hr when considering the liquid waste and natural gas feedrates. In addition, Boiler 16 is always operated with a minimum of at least 12­ 15 mscfh of natural gas. The natural gas feedrates during Conditions 1018C10 and 1018C11 is available in the 1998 Trial Burn/ Risk Burn Report. Feedrate MTEC Calculations Once the discrepancies recommended above in the FEEDSTREAMS section for Condition 1018C12 are implemented regarding the corrections to the barium and mercury feedrates in the liquid waste stream and the antimony feedrate in the ash modifier as well as the addition of "nd" (non­ detect) to the thallium feedrate in the liquid waste stream and the antimony feedrate in the ash modifier, the Feedrate MTEC calculations should then be mathematically correct. BIF Tier I Feedrates The BIF Tier I feedrate limits were initially submitted in Volume 8 of the 1998 Trial Burn/ Risk Burn Report. Since then, the BIF Tier I feedrate limits were subsequently revised and resubmitted to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission in August 1999. For convenience, the BIF Tier I feedrate limits are documented below in grams per hour and in micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (ug/ dscm) using the same basis as used for the Feedrate MTEC Calculations. Constituent BIF Tier I Feedrate (grams/ hour) BIF Tier I Feedrate (ug/ dscm) Chlorine 531.37 22099.5 Antimony 398.52 16574.3 Barium 66420.66 2762406.9 Lead 119.56 4972.4 Mercury 106.27 4419.7 Silver 3985.24 165744.4 Thallium 398.52 16574.3 Arsenic 0.45 18.7 Beryllium 0.47 19.5 Cadmium 0.47 19.5 Hexavalent chromium is managed under Tier III. During Condition 1018C10, Ticona demonstrated that at a spiked chromium feedrate of 13.66 g/ hr that it could meet its emission rate limit of 0.77 g/ hr. Similarly, Ticona demonstrated during Condition 1018C10 that at a spiked ash feedrate of 3844 g/ hr that it could meet the BIF PM limit of 0.08 grains/ dscf. The 1996 CoC maximum combustion temperature condition data (Condition 1018C10) was submitted with the 1998 Trial Burn/ Risk Burn Report as "data in lieu of trial burn". The 1996 CoC was submitted in its entirety as an appendix in the 1998 Trial Burn/ Risk Burn Report. Response EPA has reviewed the requested data base edits. Responses to these requested changes or additions are documented in Table 3. 5.16 Rubicon Inc. (Phase II ID # 812, 813, 814, and 815) Rubicon (17) Comments on NODA Phase II Database Rubicon Inc. These comments will be for the following sources, 812, 813, 814, and 815 as identified in the NODA Phase II Database. Comments will be organized for each source by each spreadsheet for that source. General Comment Overall the accuracy of the database is good with respect to Rubicon's sources, 812, 813, 814, and 815. The only discrepancies noted were incorrect entries of data or missing information. Source 812 ­ TDI Boiler, Rubicon Inc. Source Spreadsheet ­ 812 Database Combustor Characteristics: Waste heat boiler, 30 MMBtu/ hr, installed 1985, 25,000 lb/ hr steam @ 215 psig Comment 1 A more accurate description for Combustor Characteristics is: Turbulent burner chamber, closed coupled to a watertube waste heat boiler, 30 MMBtu/ hr, installed 1985, 25,000 lb/ hr steam @ 215 psig. Requested Action: Update the Combustor Characteristics with this description. Database Stack Height: (blank) Comment 2 The stack height for this source is 100 ft. Requested Action: Update the stack height to read 100 ft. Database Permit Status: Tier I adjusted except Cr+ 6 Comment 3 The permit status should be the following: Permit Status; Tier I adjusted except Cr+ 6 and HCl/ Cl2. Requested Action: Update the permit status to reflect this change. Feed Spreadsheet ­ 812 Database 812C2, Run 5, LUWA Bottoms Total Chorine feed rate: 265 lbs/ hr. Comment 4 The reported number for 812C2, Run 5, LUWA Bottoms Total Chorine feed rate is 267 lbs/ hr. This is found in Table 2­ 12 of the TDI Boiler Compliance Trial Burn Report submitted on December 29, 1997. Requested Action; Update 812C2, Run 5, LUWA Bottoms Total Chorine feed rate to the reported number of 267 lbs/ hr. Database 812C2, Average LUWA Bottoms Measured Chorine feed rate: 95 lbs/ hr. Comment 5 The reported number for 812C2, Average LUWA Bottoms Measured Chorine feed rate is 96.8 lbs/ hr. This is found in Table 2­ 12 of the TDI Boiler Compliance Trial Burn Report submitted on December 29, 1997. Requested Action: Update 812C2, Average LUWA Bottoms Measured Chorine feed rate to the reported number of 96.8 lbs/ hr. Database The 812C2 LUWA Bottoms Chromium feed rate for all three runs are listed below: 812C2 Run 2 Run 4 Run 5 Avg Stream Description LUWA bottoms LUWA bottoms LUWA bottoms LUWA bottoms Chromium lb/ hr 5.00E­ 03 5.00E­ 03 5.00E­ 03 5.00E­ 03 Comment 6 The reported 812C2 LUWA Bottoms Chromium feed rate for all three runs are: 812C2 Run 2 Run 4 Run 5 Avg Stream Description LUWA bottoms LUWA bottoms LUWA bottoms LUWA bottoms Chromium lb/ hr 5.36E­ 03 5.48E­ 03 5.15E­ 03 5.33E­ 03 This is found in Table 2­ 12 of the TDI Boiler Compliance Trial Burn Report submitted on December 29, 1997. Requested Action: Update 812C2 LUWA Bottoms Chromium feed rate to the reported numbers for this condition. ...( section removed and addressed in Section 4.9) Process Spreadsheet ­ 812 Database 812C1 Scrubber L/ G Ratio gal/ kcaf? Comment 8 The units for Scrubber L/ G Ratio are lb/ lb. Requested Action: Update the unit for Scrubber L/ G to lb/ lb. Database 812C2 Scrubber L/ G Ratio gal/ kcaf? Comment 9 See Comment 8 Database 813C3 Scrubber L/ G Ratio gal/ kcaf? Comment 10 See Comment 8 ...( section removed and addressed in Section 4.9) Source 813 ­Aniline II Boiler, Rubicon Inc. Source Spreadsheet 813 Database Combustor Characteristics: Steam of 25,000 lb/ hr @ 350 psig Comment 12 A more accurate description for Combustor Characteristics is: Turbulent burner chamber closed coupled to a water tube waste heat boiler and economizer, Steam of 25,000 lb/ hr @ 350 psig. Requested Action: Update the Combustor Characteristics with this description. Database Stack Velocity ft/ min Comment 13 The units for stack velocity should be ft/ sec. Requested Action: Update the units for stack velocity to ft/ sec. Database Permitting Status: (blank) Comment 14 The permitting status for this unit is Adjusted Tier I. Requested Action: Update the permit status to reflect this change. Emission Spreadsheet ­ 813 Database 813C1 Run 4 there is no indication of Soot Blowing Comment 15 During Run 4 of 813C1 there were 6 minutes of Soot Blowing as reported in Section 3.2 of the Aniline II Compliance Trial Burn Report Submitted on December 29, 1997. Requested Action: Update the database to reflect this information. Feed Spreadsheet ­ 813 Database 813C1 Average Condition Hydrogen feed rate: 105 lbs/ hr Comment 16 The reported value for the Average Condition Hydrogen feed rate is 106 lbs/ hr. This is found in Tables 2­ 1 through 2­ 3 of the Aniline II Boiler Compliance Trial Burn Report submitted on December 29, 1997. Requested Action: Update the Average Condition Hydrogen feed rate to the reported value. ...( section removed and addressed in Section 4.9) Source 814­ DPA I Superheater, Rubicon Inc. Source Spreadsheet ­ 814 Database Combuster: Boiler Comment 19 A better description for this unit is Process Heater/ Boiler. The primary function of the DPA I Superheater is to superheat a raw material used in the production of Diphenylamine. This unit does produce steam but only a small portion of the total heat input is utilized for steam production. Requested Action: Update the Combustor section to reflect this description. Database Stack Height: (blank) Comment 20 The Stack Height for this source is 75 ft. Requested Action: Update the stack height to read 75 ft. Database Velocity ft/ min Comment 21 See Comment 13. Emissions Spreadsheet ­ 814 Database The values for stack gas flow rate, moisture and temperature from the814C2 (B run ) are listed below. 814C2 (B Runs) 1B 2B 3B Cond Avg Sampling Train 1 PCDD PCDF Stack Gas Flowrate dscfm 5254 5561 5518 5444 Moisture % 60.9 57.1 59.7 59.2 Temperature °F 697 678 685 687 Comment 22 The reported values for stack gas flow rate, moisture and temperature from the 814C2 (B runs) are listed below: 814C2 (B Runs) 1B 2B 3B Cond Avg Sampling Train 1 PCDD PCDF Stack Gas Flowrate dscfm 5207 5273 5416 5299 Moisture % 60.41 60.07 59.38 59.95 Temperature °F 682 678 685 681.7 These Values are found in Table 3­ 35 of the Risk Assessment Trial Burn Report Submitted on December 29, 1997. Requested Action: Update the stack gas flow rate, moisture and temperature from the 814C2 (B runs) to the reported values. Feed Spreadsheet­ 814 Database The values for the ash feed rate from the 814C2 ( A runs) are listed below: Comment 23 The reported values for the ash feed rate from the 814C2 (A runs) are listed below: 814C2 (A runs) Run 3A Run 4A Run 5A Cond. Avg. Ash lb/ hr 1.09 1.17 1.14 1.13 These values are found in Tables 2­ 1 through 2­ 3 of the Risk Assessment Trial Burn Report Submitted on December 29, 1997. Requested Action: Update the ash feed rate from the 814C2 (A runs) to the reported values. ...( section removed and addressed in Section 4.9) Source 815 ­ DPA II Superheater, Rubicon Inc. Source Spreadsheet­ 815 Database Combuster: Boiler Comment 26 A better description for this unit is Process Heater/ Boiler. The primary function of the DPA I Superheater is to superheat a raw material used in the production of Diphenylamine. This unit does produce steam but only a small portion of the total heat input is utilized for steam production. Requested Action: Update the Combustor section to reflect this description. Database Combustor Characteristics: Turbulent burner chamber Comment 27 A more accurate description for this unit is Turbulent burner chamber, separate tube banks. Requested Action: Update the Combustor Characteristics with this description. Database Stack velocity ft/ min Comment 28 See Comment 13 Database Stack Height: (blank) Comment 29 The stack height for this unit is 80.5 ft. Requested Action: Update the stack height to read 80.5 ft. Feed Spreadsheet ­ 815 Database The firing rate for 815C1 is stated as 17.0 MMBTU/ hr Comment 30 The reported firing rate for 815C1 is 15.7 MMBTU/ hr as shown in Tables 2­ 1 through 2­ 3 of the DPA II Compliance Trial Burn Report submitted on December 29, 1997. Requested Action: Update the firing rate for 815C1 to the reported value. ...( section removed and addressed in Section 4.9) Response EPA has reviewed the requested data base edits. Responses to these requested changes or additions are documented in Table 3. 5.17 Equistar Chemicals, LP. (Phase II ID # 774) Equistar (18) Information from the 1998 BIF recertification report was used to develop the proposed NESHAP database; however, some information is missing or has not been accurately entered into the database and has been revised. These changes include: Inclusion of Boiler Nos. 1,2 and 4 as sister facilities
Addition of exhaust stack characteristics
Correction of gas flowrate and addition of percent moisture and gas
temperature of sampling train 1 and stack gas flowrate.
Correction of mass feedrate of liquid hazardous waste and metal feedrates and addition of heating value for the natural gas stream for both operating conditions 774C1 and 774C2. The values from the "Feedrate MTEC Calculations" contained in the 774C1 section for each of the ten BIF metals, ash, chlorine, SVM and LVM have not been corrected for the revised information and will need to be recalculated. As instructed in the Federal Register, enclosed are an original and two copies of the comment response which include a copy of the Certificate of Compliance forms and pages containing the additional information from the 1998 BIF recertification report. Also, a diskette containing the revised NODA electronic file using Microsoft Excel 97® has also been enclosed with each comment package. Response EPA has reviewed the requested data base edits. Responses to these requested changes or additions are documented in Table 3. 5.18 Dow Chemical (Phase II ID # 729, 851, 730, 733, 786, 788, 842, 843, 844, 845, 848, 849, 2017, 2018, 2020) The Dow Chemical Company (19) The Dow Chemical Company appreciates this opportunity to provide comments on the database the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) presented in the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for Future Phase 11 Combustion Rulemaking found at 65FR 39581 dated June 27, 2000. It is Dow's understanding that this is the database the Agency will use to propose the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) for hazardous waste burning boilers, halogen acid furnaces, and sulfuric acid recovery furnaces. We appreciate the EPA efforts to develop reasonable regulations and are pleased to be able to contribute our thoughts and concerns. Dow has reviewed the information for its Facilities included in the database and offer comments on the accuracy and completeness of the database. Enclosed are an original and two copies of Dow's comments. We appreciate EPA consideration of Dow comments. In reviewing the database presented in the NODA, Dow has identified a number of inaccuracies and suggested corrections to eliminate those inaccuracies. To facilitate the Agency's review we have provided general comments followed by detail findings that are sorted by the facility EPA phase 11 identification number and specific spreadsheets. In general our comments are: 1) Dow agrees with EPA concept of a complete and accurate database, however reviewing of a database of this size is a large undertaking and 60 days was not enough time to provide the level of review necessary to assure completeness and accuracy. Therefore, Dow suggests that the agency informally continue to accept comments, with full EPA review, from industry on the existing database thirty (30) additional days after the end of the comment period (until September 28, 2000). During this additional 30 days, Dow submit the missing data for one of its facilities impacted by the phase II rulemaking that is not included in the database and pages of reports supporting our findings that are inconsistent with what is currently in the database. Due to the shortness of the comment period, we could not provide all this data with these comments, but the data will be sent so it can be include the database. Response: As discussed above in response to commenter No. 24 (the American Chemistry Council) in Section 2, the comment period will not be extended. This is primarily due to the extremely simple data base setup and structure to allow for easy review. However, EPA will do its best to fully consider all comments received after the comment period close date. Note that stakeholders will be able to review and comment on the data base again when the rule is proposed. Dow I. D. Name: Symtet RAF EPA I. D. Number: CAD076528678 Facility Location: Pittsburg CA Data Submittal Date( s): July 5, 2000 (trial bum) 2) Dow is concerned that the database may be difficult to use for the purpose of setting standards if the data is not collected in a consistent manner. Due to the diversity of the units impacted by the potential rulemaking, there are different goals for the various performance tests. Therefore, the performance tests are performed in significantly different ways. We found several inconsistencies in how information was collected and inputted into the database. For example, the use of significant figures and exclusion of pemitted feedrate limits are two of these inconsistencies. It is important that well­ defined ground rules are established for the consistent collection and imputing of information into the database. Response: Although we intended to collect on compliance test (i. e., trial burn or CoC testing) data for the Phase II data base, we acknowledge that some test conditions are actually risk burns where emissions may be representative of normal emissions rather than the worst­ case emissions of a compliance test. Further, data in a compliance test for one pollutant may represent worst­ case emissions (i. e, the emissions and other data were used to demonstrate compliance with an emission standard and establish operating limits) while data in that same test may represent normal emissions for another pollutant (e. g., emissions of the the pollutant may been measured even thought the source complied with Tier I feedrate limits for the pollutant and did not operating under worst­ case conditions for that pollutant). Accordingly, we have now classified the emissions data for each test condition as worst­ case versus normal. We disagree with the commenter, however, that there are inconsistencies in how information was collected and incorporated in the data base. Procedures for collecting the data and incorporating the data into the data base are fully consistent and well defined in the report accompanying the release of the data base. Also, as discussed in response to commenter No. 24, permitted feedrate limits were, in fact, included in the data base; and the use of significant figures is consistent and sufficient within the accuracy of the overall data. Dow looks forward to working with EPA on the development of this Phase II Hazardous Waste Combustion rule and welcomes the opportunity to share it's knowledge and experience to help develop a workable and meaningful program. Please give us a call if you have any questions on these comments or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Nathaniel R. Butler Paul Bork Environmental Associate Legal Department Environmental Services 517/ 636­ 4399 (517) 636­ 3711 517/ 638­ 9636 fax Comments of The Dow Chemical Company on F ­ 2000 ­ RC2A ­ FFFFF Corrections for Dow Allyns Point Facility (Phase II ID Number 729) Source Description Spreadsheet: Row 4 ­ Tbe EPA ID Number is incorrect it should be CTDO01159730 not CTDO01159731 Corrections for Dow Pittsburgh Facility (Phase 11 ID Number 851) Source Description Spreadsheet: Row 22 ­ The stack is listed as being 12 inches in diameter, however it is reduced to 8 inches two feet from the top. Row 23 ­ The stack height is listed incorrectly as 25.58 feet. The actual height is 74.5 feet above grade. Stack Gas Emission Spreadsheet:  Cell G8 ­ This value was recorded incorrectly, 0.6 should be changed to 0.5.  Cell I8 ­ This value was recorded incorrectly, 0.6 should be changed to 0.5. Cell GI 8 ­ The wrong data cell was used in the formula to calculate this value. Cell G 1 4 the value for hexavalent chromium should have been used instead of cell G 1 2, the value of arsenic.  Cell II 8 ­ The wrong data cell was used in the formula to calculate this value. Cell 114 the value for hexavalent chromium should have been used instead of cell II 2, the value of arsenic. Cell E27 ­ The wrong data cell was used in the formula to calculate this value. Cell E I I the value for chlorine should have been used instead of cell E20, the value of arsenic. Cell G27 ­ The wrong data cell was used in the formula to calculate this value. Cell GI I the value for chlorine should have been used instead of cell G20, the value of arsenic. Cell 127 ­ The wrong data cell was used in the formula to calculate this value. Cell I the value for chlorine should have been used instead of cell I20, the value of arsenic. The values in cells E32, G32 and I32 are incorrect and should be changed to 5.56E06, 5.78E­ 06 and 5.47E­ 06, respectively. The values in cells E37, G37 and 137 are incorrect and should be changed to 1.33E05, 1.63E ­05 and 1.91E­ 05, respectively. The values in cells E7 1, G71 and 171 are incorrect and should be changed to 3.9 1 E06, 4.14E­ 06 and 3.96E­ 06, respectively. The values in cells E76, G76 and 176 are incorrect and should be changed to 1. 19E05 1.36E­ 05 and 1. I 6E­ 05, respectively. Cell B80 ­ The units should be "dscftm" rather than "scftm" The values in cells E93, G93 and 193 are incorrect and should be changed to 0.000014, 0.0000014, 0.000015, respectively. Row 96 is a duplicate of row 93, values for chromium; row 96 needs to be deleted. Row 103 ­ The values for nickel are incorrect because of the extra row for chromium. After the deletion of the current row 96 the nickel values will move from row 97 to become the new row 96 which will correct the values in row 103. The values in cells E130, G130, I130 and K130 are incorrect and should be changed to 1097, 1098, 1051 and 1082, respectively. The values in cells E132, G132, I132 and K132 are incorrect and should be changed to 4.1, 3.9, 3.6 and 3.9, respectively. The values in cells E133, G133, I133 and K133 are incorrect and should be changed to 157, 152, 145 and 151, respectively. Feedstream Spreadsheet: The barium emission value used in the formula to calculate the value in ce1 ID14 of 0.148 is incorrect and should be changed to 0.184. The tier I and III constituents permitted feedrate limits should be added to this spreadsheet. PCDD/ PCDF Spreadsheet: The value listed in cell J32 is incorrect and should be changed to 61.6. Corrections for Dow Hanging Rock Facilitv (Phase II ID Number 730) Feedstream Spreadsheet: The tier I constituents permitted feedrate limits should be added to this spreadsheet. Corrections for Torrance Facility (Phase II ID Number 733) Source Description Spreadsheet: The date of the certification of compliance test, August 1992, should be added to cell 29B. Corrections for Freeport Facility (Phase 11 ID Number 786) Feedstream Spreadsheet: The values in cells D7, D78 and D99 are incorrect and should be changed to 5381.3, 4135.7 and 4918, respectively. The tier I and III constituents permitted feedrate limits should be added to this spreadsheet. Corrections for Freeport Facility (Phase 11 ID Number 788) Feedstream Spreadsheet: The units for density were incorrectly recorded in cell B I I 1 as lb./ gal and should be changed to g/ ml. The values in cells D119, D123, D124, F116, F120 and F126 are incorrect and should be changed to 0.07, 0.2, 1.3, 0.8, 0.8 and 0.8, respectively The tier I and III constituents permitted feedrate limits should be added to this spreadsheet. Corrections for Freeport Facility (Phase 11 ID Number 842) Feedstream Spreadsheet: The tier I and III constituents permitted feedrate limits should be added to this spreadsheet. Corrections for Freeport Facilit­ y (Phase 11 ID Number 843) Feedstream Spreadsheet: The value recorded in cell D77 for the feedrate of Heavy Oil is incorrect and should be changed to 3086.7. The tier I constituents permitted feedrate limits should be added to this spreadsheet. Corrections for Freeport Facility (Phase II ID Number 844) Feedstream Spreadsheet: The tier I constituents permitted feedrate limits should be added to this spreadsheet. Corrections for Freeport Facility (Phase II ID Number 845) Feedstream Spreadsheet: The values recorded in cells D72 and F72 are incorrect and should be changed to 2476 and 2805, respectively. The tier III constituents permitted feedrate limits should be added to this spreadsheet. Corrections for Freeport Facility (Phase 11 ED Number 848) Feedstream Spreadsheet: The value recorded in cells D78 is in correct and should be changed to l541. The tier III constituent permitted feedrate limit should be added to this spreadsheet. Corrections for Freeport Facility (Phase 11 E[) Number 849) Feedstream Spreadsheet: The tier I and III constituents permitted feedrate limits should be added to this spreadsheet. Corrections for Freeport Facility (Phase 11 IID Number 2017) Stack Gas Emission Spreadsheet: The value recorded in cell E7 is incorrect and should be 0.0062. Feedstream Spreadsheet: The values recorded in cells D8, DI3, D94 and E94 are in correct and should be changed to 27, 2840, 2015 and 1524, respectively. The tier I and III constituents permitted feedrate limits should be added to this spreadsheet. Corrections for Freeport Facility (Phase 11 ID Number 2018) Feedstream Spreadsheet: The values recorded in cells D29 and D43 are incorrect and should be changed to 34.9 and 0.22, respectively. The tier I and III constituents permitted feedrate limits should be added to this spreadsheet. Corrections for Freeport Facility (Phase 11 ID Number 2020) Feedstream Spreadsheet: The tier III constituent permitted feedrate limits should be added to this spreadsheet. Response Responses to these specific data base issues are contained in the attached data base correction summary Table 3. We agree with most of the suggested changes. Note that Tier I and III feedrate limits have been added where available. 5.19 General Electric (Phase II ID # 766) GE (20) This e­ mail contains a comment from General Electric Company (" GE") on EPA's June 27, 2000 "Notice of data availability for future Phase 11 combustion rulemaking" published at 65 Federal Register 39,581. This e­ mail supplements the written comments dated August 21, 2000 that GE has already filed. In the "source" worksheet of workbook 766. xls (for the GE Plastics facility in Selkirk, NY), the "Permifting Status" is shown as "Tier I A for metals and chlorine". This is incorrect. The limits for metals and chlorine are adjusted Tier I feed rate screening limits established pursuant to 40 CFR 266.106( e). Thus, this entry should be changed to read "Adjusted Tier I for all metals and chlorine". Please contact either Stephen Capone (Manager, Air Regulatory Programs for GE Plastics, 413­ 448­ 7609) or me (812­ 831­ 4688) if you have any questions. Thank you. Regards, Alphonse McMahon Counsel­ EHS Programs, GE Plastics al. mcmahon@ gep. ge. com Response No change is made. We do not understand what is wrong with the NODA data base entry. Tier IA implies that adjusted Tier I feedrate limits are used to set metals and chlorine limits. This is what is suggested as the change. 5.20 DSM (Phase II # 754, 756) DSM Elastomers Americas, DSM Copolymer, Inc (21) DSM Elastomers Americas is pleased to provide the following comments on this NODA for Phase 11 MACT combustion rulemaking for hazardous waste boilers and industrial furnaces: The database containing our 1997 risk bum results does not illustrate natural gas data that we submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region VI, AR/ LA RCRA Permits Section (6PD­ A). We conducted a second test on our hazardous waste boiler using just natural gas tested under USEPA risk bum protocol but without supplemental hazardous waste fuel. This test showed no appreciable difference in results between the two bums and shows an excellent baseline for comparison between firing media. We feel that the Agency should include this data because it has been considered in determination of permitted conditions for our Louisiana facility and it shows expected results in the stack effluent in both tests by Compounds of Potential Concern (COPCs). In our hazardous waste boiler operations, we utilize a 90/ 10 ratio of natural gas to hazardous waste fuel rate. We feel that scaling emissions detected in the 1997 risk bum according to the natural gas to hazardous waste ratio should be strongly considered by the Agency. The attached document is Section 3.10 of our Risk Bum Final Report submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region VI, AR/ LA RCRA Permits Section (6PD­ A). This section demonstrates a comparison between results from burning hazardous waste versus buming just natural gas. The natural gas data is contained under the Baseline Data columns. This comparison plus the feed ratios should be considered strongly by the Agency during permit determinations. Response: Test data from burning natural gas only is not of direct interest in this rulemaking, which concerns the performance of systems burning hazardous wastes. We are not sure how it could be used or is appropriate for determining the performance of boilers burning hazardous wastes. Also, we are not sure how scaling emissions from natural gas and hazardous waste is appropriate, particularly given that emissions from hazardous waste is directly available. The BIF facilities in Louisiana are currently being evaluated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency­ Region VI for unacceptable risk associated with exposure to emissions from hazardous waste boilers and industrial furnaces. Those facilities who chose to assume Tier I emission limits for BIF metals where detection limits have not be low enough (either by testing or by the Tier I emission limit) to meet the risk assessment protocol values. For those non­ detect metals in the waste stream the reported method detection limit from the laboratory is being calculated into a reliable detection limit by USEPA Region VI and used in the analysis. For certain non­ detect metals this practice is causing unacceptable risk in the final analysis. Since, the Phase I HWCMACT standards were based upon a risk assessment analysis DSM Elastomers Americas feels that the Agency needs to adequately address the detection limit problem found with non­ detect metals in the waste feed analysis before developing emission standards for boilers and industrial furnaces that balance science with safety of the neighbors surrounding our plants. Response: Procedures for handling non­ detect feedrate measurements in assessing the protectiveness of the MACT standards will be given consideration at a later date. We currently plan to consider stack gas emissions measurements assuming that non­ detects are present at one­ half of the reported detection limit. If feedrate measurements are used to assess the protectiveness of the MACT standards, procedures used for handling non­ detects will be presented for review and comment in the proposed rule.. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to provide comments on the data that will be used for developing MACT emissions standards for hazardous waste boilers and industrial furnaces. If you have any questions please give me a call at (225) 267­ 3466. 5.21 Union Carbide (Phase II # 753, 907, 908, 910) Union Carbide Corporation (22) Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) is pleased to submit comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) June 27, 2000 notice of data availability for future Phase 11 combustion rulemaking. UCC is a global chemical manufacturer and has a number of facilities in the United States that will be impacted by this future combustion rule. As such, we are very interested in seeing the Agency produce a sound facility database to be used for rulemaking. We have attached a series of comments on data tables presented in the NODA, and are also submitting corrected copies of spreadsheets containing data on UCC's four boilers subject to these rules. One boiler, No. 53 at our Texas City, TX plant, is new and presently undergoing trial burn tests. We will be submitting a copy of the draft trial burn report in a separate mailing. If there are any questions on these comments, please contact me at 504­ 783­ 4568 or Mr. W. Y. Wang at 304­ 747­ 5279. Attachments (6) Very truly yours, P. F. Normand, P. E. Waste Issue Manager Union Carbide Corporation ATTACHMENT I RESPONSE TO EPA REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE DATABASE UCC's comment is mainly for deletion of two old boilers and for inclusion of one new boiler: 1. Phase 11 Database Table 1. Universe of Phase 11 HWC Sources (Listed by Phase 11 ID No.): UCC requests deletion of Phase 11 ID No. 907 boiler. This Boiler 15 is no Ionger in service and has been closed. See others below. UCC requests inclusion in database and a Phase II ID No. for a new watertube boiler (Unit ID Boiler 53) at the Union Carbide Corporation Texas City site (EPA ID No. TXDOOO461533). 2. Phase 11 Database Table 2. Universe of Phase 11 HWC Sources (Listed by Facility Name): UCC requests deletion of Phase 11 ID No. 907 boiler. This Boiler 15 is no longer in service and has been closed. UCC requests inclusion in database and a Phase 11 ID No. for a new watertube boiler (Unit ID Boiler 53) at the Union Carbide Corporation Texas City site (EPA ID No. TXDOOO461533). 3. Phase 11 Database Table 3. Universe of Phase 11 HWC Sources (Listed by General Source Type): UCC requests deletion of Phase 11 ID No. 907 boiler under "steam boilers". This Boiler 15 is no longer in service and has been closed. UCC requests inclusion in database and a Phase 11 ID No. for a new watertube boiler (Unit ID Boiler 53) at the Union Carbide Corporation Texas City site (EPA ID No. TXDOOO461533). 4. Phase li Database Table 4. "SisteC '( Data­ in­ Lieu) Units (Listed by Phase ll ID No.): UCC requests deletion of Phase 11 ID No. 907 boiler. This Boiler 15 is no longer is no longer in service and has been closed. UCC requests inclusion in database and a Phase 11 ID No. for a new watertube boiler (Unit ID Boiler 53) at the Union Carbide Corporation Texas City site (EPA ID No. TXDOOO461533). There is no sister unit for Boiler 53. UCC requests deletion of Boiler 4 under Phase l[ ID No. 910 boiler. Boiler 4 is no longer for hazardous waste service. 5. Phase 11 Database Table 5. Phase 11 BIF Population Characterization: UCC requests revision of Table 5 to reflect changes of UCC and/ or non­ UCC boiler data. 6. Phase 11 Database Table 6. Boilers: UCC requests deletion of Phase 11 ID No. 907 boiler. This Boiler 15 is no longer in service and has been closed. UCC requests inclusion in database and a Phase 11 ID No. for a new watertube boiler (Unit ID Boiler 53) at the Union Carbide Corporation Texas City site (EPA ID No. TXDOOO461533). This new boiler uses fuel gas as auxiliary fuel. Under the Phase 11 ID 908 boiler, UCC requests the change of auxiliary fuel from "Coal (pulverized)" to 'Coal (pulverized)/ Natural gas". 7. Phase 11 Database Data and Information File for Individual Sources on Source Description Sheet, Emission Data Sheet, Feed Stream Data Sheet, Process Data Sheet, PCDD/ PCDF Sheet, Emissions and Feedrate Data Summary Sheet, and Source Description Summary Sheet: UCC requests deletion of Phase 11 ID No. 907 boiler. This Boiler 15 is no longer for hazardous waste service. UCC requests deletion of Boiler 4 under Phase ll iD No. 910 boiler. Boiler 4 was listed as a sister unit for Boiler 5. Boiler 4 is no longer for hazardous waste service. UCC requests inclusion in database and a Phase II ID No. for a new watertube boiler (Unit ID Boiler 53) at the Union Carbide Corporation Texas City site (EPA ID No. TXDOOO461533). The complete COC and trial burn data has just become available in August 2000. Data and information file for this new boiler is shown in the attachment in the similar format as those for the other UCC boilers. UCC requests minor revisions on the Phase II ID No. 753, 908, and 910 boilers, as shown in the attached files. ** Remaining attachments are copies of excel file spreadsheets and new trial burn emissions test report from a new hazardous waste burning boiler at the Union Carbide Texas City TX plant.** Response The new facility test report for the new facility just starting to burn hazardous waste has been entered under a new facility ID No. 2021. Unit ID No. 907 has been reclassified as no longer burning waste. The sister unit Boiler No. 4 under ID No. 920 has been removed (Boiler No. 4 is no longer burning hazardous wastes). Other minor changes were made as noted or discovered in the supplied revised attached files. 5.22 Rohm and Haas (Phase II Unit ID Nos. 740, 741) Rohm and Haas (23) Provided comments to unit ID Nos. 740 and 741 on modified Excel spreadsheets Response EPA has reviewed the requested data base edits. Responses to these requested changes or additions are documented in Table 3. 5.23 Solutia (Phase II ID No. 232) Solutia Inc. (L1) Enclosed please find an original plus two copies of our comments on the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) published by EPA on 6­ 27­ 2000 in the Federal Register. Our principal comment is that a portion of the reported Dioxin/ Furan stack emissions from our 1997 BIF Trial Bum appear to be incorrectly reported in the EPA data base and we respectfully request that the EPA data base be corrected. The total PCDD/ PCDF Toxic Equivalent (TEQ) values appear to be correctly reported, while the total PCDD/ PCDF values appear to be in error as follows: PCDD/ PCDF Trial Bum PCDD/ PCDF EPA BIF NESHAP Solutia 1997 Trial Bum Test Condition Reporting Basis Average Condition Data Average Condition Data 1 Total TEQ ng/ dscm 0.0092 0.0092 @7% 02 1 Total ng/ dscm @7% 02 0.0846 0.136 2 Total TEQ ng/ dscm 0.0016 0.0016 @7% 02 2 Total ng/ dscm @7% 02 1 0.0294 1 0.0350 9­ 6­ 2000 The attached Tables 4­ 36, 4­ 38, 4­ 39, & 4­ 40 are copies of the Solutia reported PCDDIPCDF Trial Bum Results for Test Condition 1. The attached Tables 4­ 37, 4­ 41, 4­ 42, & 4­ 43 are copies of the Solutia reported PCDD/ PCDF Trial Bum Results for Test Condition 2. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at 281­ 228­ 4762. Sincerely, Thomas M. Moran, P. E. Senior Environmental Specialist Enclosures: Solutia Trial Bum Report Tables: 4­ 36, 4­ 38, 4­ 39, 4­ 40, 4­ 37, 4­ 41, 4­ 42, & 4­ 43. Response No changes are made. The total PCDD/ PCDF values as reported and calculated by EPA in the NODA are correct and based on handling non­ detect measurements (those at the detection limit) at one­ half of the detection limit. The total PCDD/ PCDF levels shown by Solutia in the comment above are based on the use of the full detection limit (as opposed to the TEQ values, which are based on use of one­ half of the detection limit ­­ this is why the commenters TEQ values are identical to the NODA values ­­ i. e., both were based on the use of one­ half of the detection limit). 5.23 Eastman L2 (Eastman) Unit 717 is no longer burning hazardous waste. Response This information has been added to the data base. Table 1. List of NODA Data Base Commenters and Identification Numbers Comment Submittal Docket ID No. Commenter Name Phase II ID No. Impacted 1 Arch Chemicals, Inc. 1008 2 Merck & Co., Inc. 780, 781 3 Exxon Chemical Co. 822 4 Westvaco 818 5 General Electric Plastics Co. 764, 765, 766 6 Eastman Chemical Company, Texas Operations 854 7 Mallinckrodt, Inc. 778, 1000 8 DuPont/ Dow Elastomers 853 9 Merck & Co., Inc. 780, 781 10 Celanese Ltd., Bay City 721 (1013, 1014, 1018­ no comments received) 11 Eastman Chemical Company (Kingsport, Tennessee) 717, 719, 1011, 1012 12 Celenese Ltd., Clear Lake Plant 720 13 Georgia Gulf 855, 2000 14 Lyondell Chemical 1002, 1003, 1004 15 Reilly Industries 735, 737, 738 16 Ticona Polymers, Inc. 1018 17 Rubicon Inc. 812, 813, 814, 815 18 Equistar Chemicals, LP 774 19 Dow 729, 851, 730, 733, 786, 788, 842, 843, 844, 845, 848, 849, 2017, 2018, 2020 20 General Electric 764, 765, 766 21 DSM 754, 756 22 Union Carbide 753, 907, 908, 910, 2021 23 Rohm and Haas Company 740, 741 24 American Chemistry Council No specific ones L1 Solutia 232 L2 Eastman 717 O1 Sun O2 Rhodia Table 2. Universe of Phase II Sources and Status of Comments Received Nothing Comments from company only Received specific comments on unit Phase II ID No. Facility Name City State EPA ID No. Comb Type APCS y 2006 3V Inc. Georgetown SC SCD980500052 Firetube boiler None y 2007 Air Products Manufacturing Corp. Wichita KS KSD007237746 Boiler None y 763 Albermarle Corp. Orangeburg SC SCD043384072 Boiler FF y 828 Angus Chemical Company Sterlington LA LAD020597597 Watertube boiler None y 1008 Arch Chemicals, Inc. (Olin) Beaumont TX TXD008097487 Sulfuric Acid Recovery Furnace WHB/ QT/ DT/ SO3CON y 1002 ARCO Chemical Co. (Lyondell) Channelview TX TXD083472266 Boiler None y 1003 ARCO Chemical Co. (Lyondell) Channelview TX TXD083472266 Hot oil heater None y 1004 ARCO Chemical Co. (Lyondell) Channelview TX TXD083472266 Hot oil heater None y 1017 Aristech Chemical Corp. Pasadena TX TXD980808778 Boiler None y 911 Aristech Chemical Corporation Haverhill OH OHD005108477 Watertube boiler None y 912 Aristech Chemical Corporation Haverhill OH OHD005108477 Watertube boiler None y 834 BASF Geismar LA LAD040776809 Combustor/ waste heat boiler None y 835 BASF Geismar LA LAD040776809 Watertube boiler None y 836 BASF Geismar LA LAD040776809 Watertube boiler None y 833 BASF Corporation Freeport TX TXD008081697 Boiler None y 1016 BASF Corporation Beaumont TX TXD067261412 ? None y 840 Bayer (Monsanto Co. Port Plastic Plant) Addyston OH OHD004233003 Watertube boiler None y 785 Borden Chemicals and Plastics (BCP) Geismar LA LAD003913449 Halogen Acid Furnace GC/ HE/ QC/ AT/ WS y 1013 Celanese Pampa TX TXD007376700 Watertube boiler FF y 1014 Celanese Pampa TX TXD007376700 Watertube boiler FF y 721 Celanese Ltd Bay City TX TXD026040709 Watertube boiler None y 1018 Celanese Ltd Bishop TX TXD008113441 Watertube boiler None y 720 Celanese Ltd., Chemical Group Clear Lake Plant Pasadena TX TXD078432457 Boiler None y 901 Diversified Scientific Services, Inc. Kingston TN TND982109142 Firetube boiler SD/ FF/ PBS/ RH/ HEPA y 733 Dow Chemical Co. Torrance CA CAD009547050 Process heater None y 2001 Dow Chemical Co. Plaquemine LA LAD008187080 Firetube boiler HClABS/ CWS y 2002 Dow Chemical Co. Plaquemine LA LAD008187080 Firetube boiler Q/ HClABS/ CWS y 2003 Dow Chemical Co. Plaquemine LA LAD008187080 Firetube boiler Q/ HClABS/ CWS y 730 Dow Chemical Co. Hanging Rock Plant Ironton OH OHD039128913 Process heater None y 786 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX TXD008092793 Halogen Acid Furnace DQ/ HCLABS/ VS/ CLW y 788 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX TXD008092793 Halogen Acid Furnace MGCLREC/ VS/ SEP/ D y 842 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX TXD008092793 Halogen Acid Furnace WHB/ HCLABS/ WS y 843 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX TXD008092793 Watertube boiler None y 844 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX TXD008092793 Halogen Acid Furnace WHB/ HCLABS/ WS y 845 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX TXD008092793 Halogen Acid Furnace WHB/ Q/ HCLABS/ VS/ y 848 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX TXD008092793 Halogen Acid Furnace WHB/ HClABS/ CWS y 849 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX TXD008092793 Firetube boiler VS/ WS y 2017 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX TXD008092793 Halogen Acid Furnace WHB/ Q/ HClABS/ VE/ C y 2018 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX TXD008092793 Halogen Acid Furnace WHB/ VS/ Q/ HCLABS/ V y 2020 Dow Chemical Company Freeport TX TXD008092793 Halogen Acid Furnace WHB/ VS/ WS y 851 The Dow Chemical Company Pittsburg CA CAD076528678 Halogen Acid Furnace Q/ HClABS/ WS Page 1 of 6 Table 2. Universe of Phase II Sources and Status of Comments Received Nothing Comments from company only Received specific comments on unit Phase II ID No. Facility Name City State EPA ID No. Comb Type APCS y 729 Dow Chemical U. S. A. Allyn's Point Facility Gales Ferry CT CTD001159731 Process heater None y 754 DSM Chemicals North America, Inc.. Augusta GA GAD051011609 Boiler None y 756 DSM Copolymer Inc. Addis LA LAD059130831 Watertube boiler None y 853 Dupont Dow Elastomers LaPlace LA LAD001890367 Halogen Acid Furnace WQ/ 3STGHClABS/ S/ C y 2013 E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company, Inc. Victoria TX TXD008123317 Boiler ? y 2016 E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company, Inc. Victoria TX TXD008123317 Boiler ? y 2012 E. I. Du Pont Nemours & Company, Inc. Victoria TX TXD008123317 Boiler ? y 759 E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. Orange TX TXD008123317 Boiler ? y 760 E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. Orange TX TXD008123317 Boiler None y 761 E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. Orange TX TXD008123317 Boiler None y 717 Eastman Chemical Company Kingsport TN TND003376928 Watertube boiler (suspension fired) SDA/ ESP y 1009 Eastman Chemicals Co. ­ Arkansas Eastman Div Batesville AR ARD089234884 Watertube boiler (stoker) ESP y 719 Eastman Chemicals Co. ­ Tennessee Eastman Div Kingsport TN TND003376928 Watertube boiler (spreader stoker) ESP y 1011 Eastman Chemicals Co. ­ Tennessee Eastman Div Kingsport TN TND003376928 Watertube boiler (spreader stoker) ESP y 1012 Eastman Chemicals Co. ­ Tennessee Eastman Div Kingsport TN TND003376928 Watertube boiler (spreader­ stoker) ESP y 854 Texas Eastman Division Eastman Chemical CompanLongview TX TXD007330202 Halogen Acid Furnace QT/ ABS/ WS y 2014 Environmental Purification Industries Toledo OH OHD986983237 Boiler None y 2015 Environmental Purification Industries Toledo OH OHD986983237 Hot oil heater None y 774 Equistar Chemicals, LP ­ Channelview Complex Channelview TX TXD058275769 Watertube boiler None y 822 Exxon Chemical Co. (no longer burns haz waste) Baton Rouge LA LAD000778381 Boiler None y 811 Fina Oil & Chemical Co. La Porte TX TXD086981172 Watertube boiler VS y 764 GE Plastics, Mt. Vernon IN Facility Mount Vernon IN IND006376362 Watertube boiler None y 765 GE Plastics, Mt. Vernon IN Facility Mount Vernon IN IND006376362 Watertube boiler None y 766 General Electric Plastics Selkirk NY NYD06683023 Hot oil heater None y 855 Georgia Gulf Plaquemine LA LAD057117434 Halogen Acid Furnace WHB/ 4STGHClABS/ C y 2000 Georgia Gulf Corp. Plaquemine LA LAD057117434 Watertube boiler None y 1015 Georgia Gulf Corporation Pasadena TX TXD093565653 Hot oil heater None y 767 Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Beaumont TX TXD008077190 Watertube boiler None y 820 Hercules Inc. ­ Jefferson Plant West Elizabeth PA PAD000606285 Watertube boiler None y 821 Hercules Inc. ­ Jefferson Plant West Elizabeth PA PAD000606285 Watertube boiler None y 1005 Huntsman Corp. (formerly Texaco) Port Neches TX TXD008076846 Boiler None y 1006 Huntsman Corp. (formerly Texaco) Port Neches TX TXD000201202 Watertube package boiler None y 1007 Huntsman Polymers Odessa TX TXD980626014 Boiler None y 771 Kalama Chemical (BF Goodrich) Kalama WA WAD092899574 Watertube boiler FF y 772 Lonza, Inc. Pasadena TX TXD084970169 Boiler None y 1001 Lonza, Inc. Pasadena TX TXD084970169 Boiler None y 778 Mallinckrodt Inc. Raleigh NC NCD042091975 Watertube boiler None y 1000 Mallinckrodt Inc. Raleigh NC NCD042091975 Watertube boiler None y 780 Merck & Co., Inc Rahway NJ NJD001317064 Watertube boiler None y 781 Merck & Co., Inc Rahway NJ NJD001317064 Watertube boiler None y 724 Merichem Company Houston TX TXD008106999 Boiler Q/ ME Page 2 of 6 Table 2. Universe of Phase II Sources and Status of Comments Received Nothing Comments from company only Received specific comments on unit Phase II ID No. Facility Name City State EPA ID No. Comb Type APCS y 776 Monsanto (Nutrasweet Kelco Co.) Augusta GA GAD981237118 Firetube boiler QC/ WS y 777 Monsanto (Nutrasweet Kelco Co.) Augusta GA GAD981237118 Firetube boiler QC/ WS y 735 Reilly Industries, Inc. Indianapolis IN IND000807107 Watertube boiler None y 737 Reilly Industries, Inc. Indianapolis IN IND000807107 Watertube boiler None y 738 Reilly Industries, Inc. Indianapolis IN IND000807107 Watertube boiler None y* 2004 Rhodia (formerly Rhone­ Poulenc Basic Chemical CoBaton Rouge LA LAD008161234 Sulfur Acid Recovery Unit Wet ESP y* 2019 Rhodia (formerly Rhone­ Poulenc Basic Chemical CoBaton Rouge LA LAD008161234 Sulfur Acid Recovery Unit WESP y* 1010 Rhodia (Rhone­ Poulenc) Houston TX TXD008099079 Sulfuric Acid Regeneration Furnace WHB/ QT/ CC/ WESP/ D y* 856 Rhodia Inc. Hammond IN IND001859032 Sulfuric Acid Recovery Furnace WHB/ QT/ GC/ WESP/ S y 819 Rhone­ Poulenc AG Company Charleston WV WVD005005509 Watertube boiler ESP y 740 Rohm and Haas Deer Park TX TXD065096273 Watertube boiler None y 739 Rohm and Haas Company Bristol PA PAD002292068 Watertube boiler None y 741 Rohm and Haas Company Knoxville TN KYD006390017 Watertube boiler None y 812 Rubicon, Inc Geismar LA LAD008213191 Boiler Q/ WS y 814 Rubicon, Inc Geismar LA LAD008213191 Boiler None y 815 Rubicon, Inc Geismar LA LAD008213191 Boiler None y 813 Rubicon, Inc. Geismar LA LAD008213191 Boiler FF y 743 Schenectady International Freeport TX TXD010797389 Boiler None y 744 Shell Deer Park Refining Company Deer Park TX TXD067285793 Watertube boiler None y 745 Shell Deer Park Refining Company Deer Park TX TXD067285793 Watertube boiler None y 232 Solutia (Chocolate Bayou Plant) Alvin TX TXD001700806 Boiler None y 746 Sterling Chemicals, Inc. Texas City TX TXD008079527 Firetube boiler None y* 2008 Sun Company, Inc. (R & M) Frankford Plant Philadelphia PA PAD002312791 Watertube boiler None y 753 Union Carbide Corp. Hahnville LA LAD041581422 Watertube boiler None y 907 Union Carbide Corporation South Charleston WV WVD005005483 Watertube boiler ESP y 908 Union Carbide Corporation South Charleston WV WVD005005483 Watertube boiler ESP y 910 Union Carbide Corporation Texas City TX TXD000461533 Watertube boiler None y 769 Velsicol Chemical Corp. Chestertown MD MDD001890060 Firetube boiler None y 2009 Velsicol Chemical Corp. Chestertown MD MDD001890060 Hot oil system process heater None y 2010 Velsicol Chemical Corp. Chestertown MD MDD001890060 Hot Oil System Process Heater None y 2011 Velsicol Chemical Corp. Chestertown MD MDD001890060 Hot Oil System Process Heater None y 2005 Vulcan Materials Co. Geismar LA LAD092681824 Halogen Acid Furnace WHB/ QT/ WS y 818 Westvaco DeRidder LA LAD010390599 Watertube boilers ESP Page 3 of 6 Table 2. Universe of Phase II Sources and Status of Comments Received Phase II ID No. 2006 2007 763 828 1008 1002 1003 1004 1017 911 912 834 835 836 833 1016 840 785 1013 1014 721 1018 720 901 733 2001 2002 2003 730 786 788 842 843 844 845 848 849 2017 2018 2020 851 Waste Type Aux Fuel Unit ID Name/ No. Sister Units Capacity (MMBtu/ hr) Liq Natural gas, No. 2 fuel oil Unit No. 1 (or No. 2?) None 34.0 Liq Natural gas COEN boiler None 12.4 Liq ? Unit No. 4 None 25.0 Liq Natural gas, hydrogen No. 7 Boiler No. 4 Boiler 150.0 Liq Natural gas and process gas Sulfuric acid regeneration furnace None 200.0 Liq Natural gas, propane purge Utility Boiler 3 Utility Boilers 1 and 2 ? Liq Natural gas F­ 57180 Hot Oil Heater None 138.0 Liq Natural gas, process vapors F­ 65630 Hot Oil Heater None 138.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler F­ 8 None 100.0 Liq Natural gas or fuel oil Unit 2001­ UA Units UB, UC (2 other identical units) 190.0 Liq Natural gas or No. 6 fuel oil Unit 2001­ UE None 182.0 Liq Natural gas Amines None 15.0 Liq Natural gas No. 3 Boiler None 285.0 Liq Natural gas No. 6 Boiler None 300.0 Liq ? Neol Boiler None 48.9 Liq ? WOD K541 None 12.8 Liq Natural gas Boiler No. 4 None 48.0 Liq ? VCR Process Unit None 30.0 Liq Coal (pulverized), still solids Boiler No. 9 None 740.0 Liq Coal (pulverized), still solids Boiler No. 10 None 1000.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler No. 4 Boiler No. 5 408.8 Liq Natural gas Boiler No. 16 None 63.1 Liq Natural gas MH5A None 50.0 Liq Propane DSSI Mixed Waste Industrial Boiler System None 15.0 Liq Natural gas U­ 305 U­ 304 (identical) 9.8 Liq Natural gas F­ 410 F­ 420 identical unit 40.0 Liq Natural gas R­ 4 None 45.0 Liq Natural gas R­ 750 None 15.0 Liq Natural gas Unit R­ 1 Unit R­ 3 identical unit 9.0 Liq Natural gas Unit R­ 30 None 31.0 Liq Natural gas B­ 824 None 88.0 Liq Natural gas Unit FTB­ 400 None 28.0 Liq Natural gas B­ 902 B­ 901, B­ 903 229.0 Liq Natural gas F­ 2AB None 35.0 Liq Natural gas F­ 210 None 50.2 Liq Natural gas F­ 11 None 24.0 Liq Natural gas F­ 820AB None 32.0 Liq Natural gas Unit FTB­ 401 Unit FTB­ 402 42.0 Liq Natural gas Unit FTB­ 603 None 50.2 Liq Natural gas F­ 2820 None 40.0 Liq Natural gas MS HAF None 5. 2 Page 4 of 6 Table 2. Universe of Phase II Sources and Status of Comments Received Phase II ID No. 729 754 756 853 2013 2016 2012 759 760 761 717 1009 719 1011 1012 854 2014 2015 774 822 811 764 765 766 855 2000 1015 767 820 821 1005 1006 1007 771 772 1001 778 1000 780 781 724 Waste Type Aux Fuel Unit ID Name/ No. Sister Units Capacity (MMBtu/ hr) Liq and solid No. 2 fuel oil Boiler Unit A None 9. 0 Liq Natural gas H­ 002 Boiler H­ 2002 Boiler 162.0 Liq Natural gas No. 3 boiler None 268.0 Liq Natural gas HCl Recovery Unit None 48.0 Liq ? Boiler Nos. 3 & 4 None 1000.0 Liq ? Boiler No. 1 None 400.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler No. 7 Boiler No. 8 250.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler No. 7 Boiler No. 5 300.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler No. 8 None 350.0 Liq Natural gas ADN North ADN South 600.0 Liq Coal (pulverized) Unit No. 30 (HWTU­ 5, at Site B­ 325) None 780.0 Liq Coal Boiler No. 3 Boiler No. 2 100.0 Liq, sludge Coal Boiler No. 24 Boiler No. 23 501.0 Liq, sludge Coal Boiler No. 20 Boiler Nos. 18 and 19 196.0 Liq Coal, biosludge Boiler No. 22 Boiler No. 21 216.0 Liq Natural gas RCRA BIF Unit (Halogen Acid Furnace) None 30.0 Vapors Natural gas WHB Unit No. 1 None 8. 0 Vapor Natural gas WHB Unit No. 2 None 8. 0 Liq Natural gas Boiler No. 3 None 83.6 Liq Natural gas C­ Boiler D­ Boiler identical 50.0 Liq Natural gas Train A Waste Heat Boiler Train B Waste Heat Boiler 70.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler H530A (Unit 1) None 75.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler H530B (Unit 2) None 75.0 Liq Natural gas A/ P Hot Oil Heater None 180.0 Liq Natural gas IN­ 662 None 70.0 Liq, tar Natural gas, fuel oil Nebraska Boiler None 190.0 ? Natural gas Hot Oil Heater No. 1 None 250.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler B­ 103 Boilers B­ 101, B­ 102, B­ 104, B­ 105 (a 100.0 Liq Fuel oil Boiler No. 3 Boiler No. 4 30.0 Liq Fuel oil Boiler No. 5 None 40.0 Liq Fuel gas, sponge oil Boiler # 1 (6­ BB­ 1) Boiler # 2 (6­ BB­ 2) 549.0 Liq Natural gas and process vapors PO/ MTBE steam generator # 1 (H­ K2­ 001) Unit # 2 (H­ K2­ 002) ­ identical 225.0 Liq Natural gas C­ Boiler None 300.0 Liq Natural gas U­ 3 Boiler None 50.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler B­ 4001B B­ 4001A ­­ identical unit 39.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler B­ 4001C None 39.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler No. 1 None 19.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler No. 2 None 30.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler No. 7 None 134.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler No. 8 None 156.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler No. 4 None 68.0 Page 5 of 6 Table 2. Universe of Phase II Sources and Status of Comments Received Phase II ID No. 776 777 735 737 738 2004 2019 1010 856 819 740 739 741 812 814 815 813 743 744 745 232 746 2008 753 907 908 910 769 2009 2010 2011 2005 818 Waste Type Aux Fuel Unit ID Name/ No. Sister Units Capacity (MMBtu/ hr) Liq Natural gas Boiler 1 ­ WHRU 1 None 66.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler 2 ­ WHRU 2 None 26.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler 70K None 92.0 Liq Natural gas 30K None 39.3 Liq Natural gas Boiler 28K None 36.8 Liq Natural gas Unit 1 None 140.0 Liq Natural gas Unit 2 ? 250.0 Liq, sludge Natural gas Regeneration Unit No. 2 None 200.0 Liq Natural gas Sulfuric Acid Recovery Unit No. 4 None 250.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler No. 3 Boiler No. 4 1131.2 Liq Natural and process gas HT­ 1 Thermal Oxidizer None 335.0 Liq No. 6 fuel oil, natural gas Boiler No. 7 Boiler Nos. 6 and 8 120.0 Liq Natural gas, No. 2 fuel oil Unit No. 100 None 248.0 Liq Natural gas TDI boiler None 30.0 Liq Natural gas DPA I Superheater None 20.0 Liq Natural gas DPA II superheater None 20.0 Liq None Aniline II boiler None 40.0 ? Natural Gas B­ 503 None 30.0 Liq Natural gas F­ UT­ 100 F­ UT­ 110 600.0 Liq Natural gas F­ UT­ 130 None 600.0 Liq Natural gas; vent gas (propane) Boiler 30H5 Boiler 31H4 (identical) 600.0 Liq Natural gas and process gas Waste Oxidation Boiler A None 180.0 Liq Natural gas Boiler No. 2 Boiler No. 1 (Phase II ID No. 900) 200.0 Liq Gas/ oil Boiler 31 None 241.0 Liq Coal (pulverized) Boiler 15 None 204.0 Liq Coal (pulverized) Boiler 25 None 323.0 Liq Fuel gas Boiler 5 Boiler 4 (identical) 200.0 Liq No. 6 fuel oil Unit No. 4 (Cleaver Brooks Boiler) None Liq No. 6 fuel oil Hot Oil System Unit No. 1 None 10.0 Liq No. 6 fuel oil Hot Oil System Unit No. 2 None 14.0 Liq No. 6 fuel oil Hot Oil System Unit No. 3 None 14.0 Liq ? F­ 1 Unit None 20.0 Liq, residues Tall oil pitch and heads fuel, fuel Boilers No. 2 and 3 (common ESP and stack) None 86.0 Page 6 of 6 Table 3. Responses to Requests for Data Base Changes Comment ID No. Phase II ID No. Commentators Requested Action NODA Data Base Value Action Taken 1 1008 Supplemental fuel = natural gas. No process gas fired. Supplemental fuel = natural gas and process gas Modified as requested 1 1008C1 Total spike feed rate = 305 lb/ hr 226.4 lb/ hr Verified that data base value was incorrect; recalculated at 298.9 lb/ hr; used commenters value. 1 1008C1 Additional feed stream data provided: Sulfur firing rate = 45. 7 MMBtu/ hr. Estimated firing rate = 145 MMBtu/ hr No data for sulfur firing rate. Estimated total firing rate = 187.1 MM Btu/ hour Added as requested 1 1008 New and more BIF Tier I and Tier III feedrate limits BIF feed rate limits: Tier I: Ba = 284,407 g/ hr, Ag = 17,055 g/ hr; No feed limits available for the Tier III metals Added and modified as requested 2 780 Additional Stack Characteristics provided: Diameter = 10 ft, Height = 235 ft , Gas Velocity = 5. 8 ft/ sec. Added data 2 781 Additional Stack Characteristics provided: Diameter = 10 ft, Height = 235 ft, Gas Velocity = 5.8 ft/ sec. Added data 2 781C2 Testing Dates = October 18­ 19, 1999 October 19­ 20, 1999 Modified as requested 3 822 No longer burning hazardous waste as of May 17, 1999 Currently burning hazardous waste Marked as no longer burning hazardous waste 4 818 Capacity = 65 MMBtu/ hr is the boiler design rating. Capacity = 86 MM Btu/ hr Heat input from test data Capacity defined as max heat input; no change. 4 818 Soot blowing is used. Modified as requested 4 818 Stack Characteristics: Stack diameter = 8 ft, Stack height = 250 ft. Data added 4 818 Haz. waste description = Flammable liquid (waste code D001) Haz. waste description = Resinate filer cake, HC920/ spage oil, acrylic process spent organics and overheads Modified as requested 4 818C10 Report Content = volatiles, semi­ vol, TOC. Report Content = Non D/ F organics (no PM, chlorine, metals, etc.) Modified as requested 4 818C10 BIF feed rate limit for Cl = 21,000 BIF feed rate limit for Cl = 29,000 Modified as requested 4 818C11 Report Details: Report name = Recertification Test Report, Testing Dates= June 29­ 30,1995, Technical scope and measurements = D/ F, Report preparer = Westvaco, Testing firm = Emission Testing Services, Inc Report Details: Report name = 1998 Risk Burn Report, Testing Dates = June/ July 1995, Technical scope and measurements = D/ F, PM, Report preparer = ?, Testing firm = ? Modified as requested 4 818C11 COC stack test conditions: Gas flowrate =74,852 dscfm, CO = 1.5 ppmv O2 = 13.1 % , Moisture = 5.24 % , Temperature = 357 o F Not available Data added 4 818C11 Provided actual gas sample volumes and oxygen levels for PCDD/ PCDF sampling train Estimated values based on best available information Updated using correct info as provided by commenter 4 818C12 Report Details: Technical scope and measurements = D/ F, PM ; Report preparer = Walk, Haydel & Associates, Testing firm = TRC Environmental Corp. Not available Data added 4 818C13 New Condition; Recertification of Compliance Test Report; Testing Dates = June 24­ 26, 1998; Contents = Feed, Stack gas parameters, and D/ F data Report submitted with comment, contained new condition, added new data 4 818C14 New Condition; Air Quality Compliance Test; Testing Date = July 5, 1995; Contents = PM, CO, THC, and Stack gas parameters. New Condition, added new data 5 764C1 765C1 766C1 Test conditions are under "normal" conditions Conditions identified as being conducted under maximum waste and ash feed levels No change made. CoC testing not done under "normal" conditions. 5 764C1 765C1 More recent updated BIF feed rate limits provided Old feedrate limits shown. Modified as requested 5 764 765 Stack Characteristics: Temperature = 529 o F, Diameter = 5 ft, Velocity = 63. 7 ft/ s. Also note, boilers have a common stack Data added 5 764 765 Should add "Adjusted" Tier I for all metals, chlorine Tier I for all metals, chlorine Modified as requested 5 764C1R3 Sootblowing corrected PM emissions = 0.0398 gr/ dscf Uncorrected PM emissions level shown = 0.0662 gr/ dscf No change. Sootblowing corrected test condition average shown correctly. 5 764C1 Liquid waste thermal feedrate = 70.7 MM Btu/ hr Feedrate = 74 MM Btu/ hr Modified as requested 5 764C1 Ash feedrate = 6.126 lb/ hr Feedrate = 5.99 lb/ hr Modified as requested, although insignificant difference 5 764C1 Stack gas conditions should be: Gas flowrate= 18,657 dscfm; O2 = 8.1% Stack gas conditions estimated based on total thermal feedrate using standard F­ factor approach and typical estimated oxygen level. Gas flowrate = 17,037.2 dscfm; O2 = 7% Modified as requested 5 765C1R3 Sootblowing corrected PM emissions = 0.0411 gr/ dscf Uncorrected PM emissions shown = 0.0808 gr/ dscf No change. Sootblowing corrected test condition average shown correctly. 5 765C1 Liquid waste thermal feedrate = 72 MM Btu/ hr, Ash feedrate = 5.626 lb/ hr Liquid waste thermal feedrate = 72. 8 MM Btu/ hr, Ash Feedrate = 5. 6 lb/ hr Modified as requested, although insignificant differences 5 765C1 Stack gas conditions should be: gas flowrate= 17,518.7 dscfm; O2 = 5.5 % Stack gas conditions estimated based on total thermal feedrate and typical estimated oxygen level using standard F­ factor approach; Gas flowrate = 16,475.3 dscfm; O2 = 7% Modified as requested 5 766 EPA ID # NYD066832023 EPA ID # NYD06683023 Modified as requested 5 766 Soot blowing is used. Wasn't used during compliance testing, but is used under normal operations. Sootblowing status identified as "None" based on that used in compliance testing. Modified as requested. Note that sootblowing must be used during compliance testing if used during normal operations. 5 766 Natural gas is primary boiler fuel. Permitted to burn either #2 or 6 as auxiliary Natural gas identified as supplemental/ auxiliary fuel Added that fuel oil No. 2 and No. 6 may also be used as non­ waste fuels. 6 854 Source Descriptions should be modified: Facility name = Eastman Chemical Company, Texas Operations; Haz. waste description = Liquid hazardous waste; Additional stack parameters provided: Stack height = 63 ft, Gas temp = 187F, Velocity = 44.1 ft/ s; Permitting Status = Adjusted BIF Tier I. Facility name = Texas Eastman Division; Haz. waste description = By­ product liquid feed; Gas temp = 190F, Velocity = 45 ft/ s; Permitting Status = BIF Tier I for all metals Information added or modified as requested 6 854C1 Several Feedstream inputs should be modified slightly: Liq waste heat content = 1150 Btu/ lb; vent gas heat content = 92. 3 Btu/ dscf; Chlorine in Liq waste = 813 lb/ hr; Chlorine in Vent gas = 29. 2 lb/ hr; POHC Chlorine spike = 4. 7 lb/ hr Liq waste heat content = 1200 Btu/ lb; vent gas heat content = 100 Btu/ dscf; Chlorine in Liq waste = 815 lb/ hr; Chlorine in Vent gas = 28 lb/ hr; POHC Chlorine spike = 4. 6 lb/ hr Modified as requested, although insignificant differences 6 854C1 Dioxins and furan catches should correct for field blanks. Data base included uncorrected dioxins and furan catches. Convention is to report uncorrected dioxins and furan catches (not corrected for field blank). 6 854C2 Sampling Train 1 ­ HCl/ Cl2, Run 1 and Run 2. Switch stack gas flowrate, O2, moisture and temperature. Switched as requested 6 854C2 Several Feedstream inputs should be modified slightly: Liq waste Firing Rate = 9. 3 MMBtu/ hr; Liq waste Heating Value = 2144 Btu/ lb. Liq waste Firing Rate = 9.4 MMBtu/ hr ; Liq waste Heating Value = 2167 Btu/ lb. Modified as requested 7 778 Source Descriptions should be: Combustor Characteristics = John Zink LoNOx burner ; Supplemental Fuel add, during start­ up and shutdown; Capacity (MMBtu/ hr) = 18.6; Permitting Status = Adjusted Tier 1 for all BIF metals and chlorine/ chlorides; Recertification of Compliance Test = 8/ 27/ 98. Source Descriptions read: Combustor Characteristics = John Zinc LoNOx burner; Supplemental Fuel = Natural gas (start up only); Capacity (MMBtu/ hr) = 19 ; Permitting Status = Tier I metals, chlorine (IA for Cr); Recertification of Compliance Test Report = 9/ 27/ 98 Modified as requested 7 778C10 Calculations of the Cr +6 should equal: 7.81, 7.12, and 5.02 ug/ dscm @ 7% O2 for runs 2, 3, and 3( soot correction) respectfully. Cr +6 values: 7.4, 6.8 ug/ dscm @ 7% O2 for runs 2, and 3 (soot correction). Cr +6 recalculated: 7.82, 7.12, and 5.08 ug/ dscm @ 7% O2 for runs 2, 3, and 3( soot correction). 7 778C10 K083 liquid waste feed rates should be modified: Chlorine 50.7 (g/ hr) Mercury < 0.03 (g/ hr) Lead < 0.2 (g/ hr) Cadmium < 0.2 (g/ hr) Arsenic < 0. 2 (g/ hr) Beryllium < 0. 2 (g/ hr). K083 liquid waste feed rates reported as: Chlorine 50. 9 (g/ hr) Mercury < 0.02 (g/ hr) Lead < 0.1 (g/ hr) Cadmium < 0.1 (g/ hr) Arsenic < 0.1 (g/ hr) Beryllium < 0. 1 (g/ hr). Modified as requested, although insignificant differences 7 1000 Source Descriptions should be: Combustor Characteristics = John Zink LoNOx burner ; Capacity (MMBtu/ hr) = 30. 3; Permitting Status = Adjusted Tier 1 for all BIF metals and chlorine/ chlorides; Content of Condition 1 included Cr+ 6 emissions tests. Source Descriptions read: Combustor Characteristics = John Zinc LoNOx burner; Capacity (MMBtu/ hr) = 30 ; Permitting Status = Tier I metals, chlorine (IA for Cr). Modified as requested 7 1000C1 CO MHRA should be modified to: Runs 3, 5, and 6 are 3.8 ppmv, 9.9 ppmv, and 9.8 ppmv, respectively CO MHRA reported as: 7.1, 3.9, 3.8 ppmv Modified as requested 7 1000C1 Stack gas flow rates should be modified to: 4100 dscfm, 4200 dscfm, and 4400 dscfm Stack gas flow rates reported as: 4000, 4300, 4100 dscfm Modified as requested, although differences are insignificant 7 1000C1 Ash and Chlorine liquid waste feed rates should be modified: 95.62 and 10.5 g/ hr Ash and Chlorine feed rates reported as: 95.7 g/ hr, 10.6 g/ hr Modified as requested, although differences are insignificant 7 1000C1 Stack gas conditions from Cr+ 6 sampling train omitted. Data added 8 853 New trial burn and supplemental trial burn Added new data (2 new test conditions, 853C11, 853C12) 8 853 APCS characteristics ­­ 3 stage HCl and vent scrubbers use water, Dynawave scrubber uses caustic Added as requested 8 853 Supplemental fuel ­­ natural gas used only during startup, shutdown; not during normal operations Added as requested 8 853 Stack diameter at top is 1.5 ft 3 ft stack diameter Changed as requested 8 853 Permitting status ­­ Tier I adjusted for all metals except Cr, Tier III for Cr and Cl Added as requested 8 853C10 Total waste feedrate = 4331 lb/ hr Feedrate estimated at 3886 lb/ hr based on measured stack gas flowrate. Not available in test report. Changed as requested 8 853C10 Firing rate = 48.2 MMBtu/ hr Estimated firing rate at 43.3 MMBtu/ hr based on measured stack gas flowrate. Changed as requested 8 853C10 Viscosity = < 6 cps Viscosity = 6 cps Added as requested 8 853C10 Process information included in attachments Information provided was not relevant for database 8 853C10 No spiking; all "other" and "spike" %'s should be zero Values left blank No change. A blank value indicates that no spiking took place. Also, a blank value in the "other" column indicates no contribution from the "other" streams. 9 780 Source Descriptions should be modified: Permitting Status = under interim status; Soot blowing = one 10 min. soot blowing cycle (Condition 1 run 3). Permitting Status = Tier I metals and chlorine; Soot blowing = one soot blowing cycle (10 min.) (Cond 2 run 3). Modified as requested 9 780C1 Several flowrates/ feed rates should be modified: gas flowrate run 3, 27555 dscfm, liquid solvent feedrate 1191.9 kg/ hr, ash feedrate 1236 g/ hr, chlorine feedrate 596 g/ hr. Flowrates/ feed rates read: gas flowrate 27550 dscfm, liquid solvent feedrate 1195.5 kg/ hr, ash feedrate 1300 g/ hr, chlorine feedrate 595 g/ hr. Modified as requested, although differences are insignificant 9 780C2 Several feed rates should be modified: liquid solvent feedrate 231.6 kg/ hr, thermal feedrate 4.3 MMBtu/ hr. Feed rates read: Liquid solvent feedrate 234 kg/ hr, thermal feedrate 4.5 MMBtu/ hr. Modified as requested. Dependant cell, total thermal feedrate, also commented on. 9 781 Source Description should be modified: Permitting Status = under interim status. Permitting Status = Tier I metals and chlorine. Modified as requested. 9 781C1 Several flowrates/ feed rates should be modified: run 1, gas flowrate 27383 dscfm, liquid solvent feedrate 1181.3 kg/ hr, thermal feedrate 21.7 MMBtu/ hr, ash feedrate 1732 g/ hr, chlorine feedrate 591 g/ hr, lead feedrate 0.118 g/ hr. Flowrates/ feed rates read: Gas flowrate 273383 dscfm, liquid solvent feedrate 1185.5 kg/ hr, thermal feedrate 21 MMBtu/ hr, ash feedrate 1790 g/ hr, chlorine feedrate 586 g/ hr, lead feedrate 0.13 g/ hr. Modified as requested, although differences are insignificant 10 721 Source Description should be modified: combustor rating = 350,000 lb/ hr­ steam, additional combustor characteristics provided; Soot blowing discontinued; Additional haz. waste description info; Stack characteristics: height 50. 5 ft, velocity 28 ft/ sec; Permitting status adjusted Combustor rating = 35,000 lb/ hr­ steam; Permitting status = Tier I for metals and chlorine. Information added or modified as requested 10 721C10 Should not the Mercury (Hg) Total reflect the fact that BOTH feeds had "nd" and mark "nd" as well? Emissions and feedrate data summary sheet provides relative amount of the feedrate derived from non­ detects 10 721C10 Condition description should read "Risk burn; typical feedrate." Risk burn; max feed rate Modified as requested 10 720 Stack Characteristics and several firing rates provided: Height = 133 ft; 5.1 MMBtu/ hr liquid waste methanol, 3. 3 MMBtu/ hr vent gas, 27. 0 MMBtu/ hr natural gas, Total firing rate of 35.4 MMBtu/ hour, Design firing rate of MH5A is ~68 MMBtu/ hr. Information added or modified as requested 13 855 Change facility name to Georgia Gulf Chemicals and Vinyls, LLC Georgia Gulf Changed as requested 13 855 Change Haz Waste Description to Liquid wastes ­ Heavy ends from the distillation of ethylene dichloride in ethylene dichloride production (K019) Liquid wastes ­ vinyl chloride monomer light ends (K022, K019) Changed as requested 13 855 The stack gas temperature is 104.39F Added 13 855 The stack gas velocity is 59 ft/ s Added 13 855 The unit's classification has been changed from incinerator to HAF Classified as a HAF, although noted that permitted as an incinerator; expected to be renewed as a HAF Updated 13 855 Report preparer is Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc. Added 13 855 Change the condition description number 12 to be the same as number 13 Trial burn ­ Heavy liquid waste feed Changed as requested 13 855 Request to calculate various condition averages Do not calculate condition averages here No change 13 855 Changes to POHC feedrate and DREs No changes. No signficant differences. 13 855 Change the feedrate for Cr (mg/ L) is 0. 9 The feedrate for Cr is 1 mg/ L No significant difference, although changed as requested 13 855C12, C13 Change the gas flowrate of C12 and C13 to the average of runs 1­ 6 Gas flowrate is average of runs 4­ 6 Separate the avg gas flow rate of C12 and C13 into two cond. The gas flowrate of C12 (run 1­ 3) is 11316.9 dscfm. The gas flowrate of cond. 13 (run 4­ 6) is 9951 dscfm 13 855C12, C13 Also change waste feedrate, O2, steam production, natural gas feed, boiler exit temp., liquor pH, water feed, liquor feed of C12 and C13 to average of runs 1­ 6 Levels shown as average of runs 4­ 6 Separate into two individual conditions as noted above. 13 2000 Change facility name to Georgia Gulf Chemicals and Vinyls, LLC Georgia Gulf Changed as requested 13 2000 Change the waste description to Liquid wastes ­ Distillation bottom tars from the production of phenol/ acetone from cumene (K022) Liquid wastes ­ Methanol and acetone/ phenols production byproducts (K022), distillation tars/ oil VCM. Changed as requested 13 2000 Change the stack characteristics: Diameter (6.7 ft), Height (100 ft), Gas velocity (50 ft/ sec), and Gas temperature (460F) Diameter (4.75 ft), Height (42 ft), Gas Velocity (35. 6 ft/ sec) and Gas temperature (475.7 oF) Changed as requested 13 2000 Misspelled acetophenone acetephenone Changed as requested 13 2000 Request calculation of condition. averages No change. Unnecessary to calculate 13 2000C2 Change the gas flowrate of C2, sampling train 1 (PM). Run 1 is 26895.1 dscfm, run 2 is 29069.7 dscfm, run 3 is 26223.1 dscfm Flowrate of 26524 dscfm was estimated Changed as requested 13 2000 Remove the MTEC calculation for Cr+ 6 stack gas emissions. Move to feedrate section. Converted a mass emissions rate to a stack gas concentration. No change. A conversion from a mass rate (g/ hr) to a stack gas concentration is standard procedure. 13 2000C1 Change viscosity to 1073 cSt Viscosity is 1787.7 cSt Changed as requested 13 2000C1 Request various changes to feedrates No changes made. They do not make a significant difference. 13 2000 Request adding the estimated firing rate for Mixed Oil Not calculated No change. Only calculate the Estimated Firing Feedrate for total feedrates based on stack gas flowrate and O2, not per individual feedstream. 13 2000 Chlorine MTEC calculation references the wrong cell Changed as requested 13 2000 Requests minor changes for the values and units of Be, acetophenone and Viscosity Changed as requested 13 2000 Change OCDF in run 2 to 0.29 OCDF = 0.00029 Changed as requested 13 2000 Inconsistent procedure for reporting the Heat Input Rate (MM Btu/ hr) in summary sheet. For 2000C1 and 2000C2, based on waste feedrate and heating value. For 2000C3, 2000C4, based on F factor estimation. As clearly discussed in the database report, we use the one that is considered as most representative after calculation both on an estimated basis using an F­ factor approach for the total heat input, and based on reported feedrate input rates and heating values. 13 2000 Inconsistent procedure for handling data at the detection limit. Using half detection limit values for SVM, LVM calculations and in summary sheet. Everywhere else report full detection limits. See the database report for procedures for handling the non detects. 13 2000 Should use the average of multiple simultaneous sampling trains in summary sheet. Using values from only one sampling train. No change. Have chosen to represent the test condition by the sampling train that was run over the longest time duration, as discussed in the database report. 14 1002, 1003, 1004 Add new, more recent, CoC test conditions which were provided Added 2 new CoC test conditions for each facility 14 1002, 1003, 1004 Facility operator name has changed from Arco Chem to Lyondell Chemical Arco Chemical Made change 15 735 Capacity = 92 MM Btu/ hr Capacity = 91.8 MM Btu/ hr No change made; insignificant difference. 15 735 Sootblowing ­­ Yes; 4 times/ day; 5 minutes/ event Sootblowing yes; 4 times/ day Added 15 735 Stack gas temp = 615F, velocity = 44.7 ft/ sec Added 15 Add risk modeling information such as dilution factor, land use, etc. Not added to database at this time. Will condsider later when proceeding on risk assessment 15 Expand permitting status to include PM, DRE, CO, waste feed limits, etc. Not necessary. 15 735C1, C2 and 737 C1 and C2 Remove old data (735 and 737 C1 and C2 for 1996 CoC) that is not most recent testing Older data included in database At this point, old data will be kept in the database. It will likely not be used for any MACT setting purposes. 15 735 Remove "s" from Boilers in Report Name/ Date Changed 15 735C3 Testing dates from Oct 21­ 23 Testing data from Oct 21­ 22 and Nov 22 Changed 15 735C3 Cr+ 6 testing done during earlier mini burn Cr+ 6 testing part of C3 Moved 15 735C6 Add new data from mini burn Added new test condition 15 735C7 Add new data from trial burn retest, which includes DRE for dichlorobenzene Added new test condition 15 735C3R3 Cl2 stack gas emissions is "nd" Added 15 735C3, C5, 737C3, C4 Supplied gas flowrates for PM/ Cl train that were missing Not available in copy of test report Added 15 735C3, C4, C5, 737C3, C4 Use Orsat O2 values, not CEMS as reported Only had CEMS O2 levels Replaced as suggested with supplied Orsat O2 values; although note that values are not significantly different 15 735C3 Stack gas temps should be 622, 634 and 632 Stack gas temps of 613, 616, 619 No significant difference 15 Should report max or min hourly rolling averages for process operating parameters Report average of each test run for process operating parameters, not max or min hourly rolling averages No change. Average of each run is most appropriate at this point. 15 735C3, C4 Max fuel feedrates should be used to calculate firing rates Average fuel feedrates used. No change. Although, note that difference between the average and max is not significant. 15 735C3 Corrections to various ash, and metals feedrates No changes. Differences not significant; for example, ash in fuel of 1687.01 vs 1686.7 g/ hr. 15 Objects to location of Tier I feedrate limits No change. Location is unimportant. 15 737 Add "Boiler" to unit ID Name Unit ID Name as "30K" Added 15 737 Sister Facilites ­­ Boiler 70K for Cr+ 6 Sister Facilities ­­ none No change. Boiler 70K has its own performance data (unit ID No. 735) 15 737C5 Add new trial burn retest data report Added new data under test condition 737C5 15 737C3 HC under R3 should be nd HC is listed as nd No change. Note that reporting a "nd" for a CEMS HC measurement is not appropriate or standard practice. 15 737C4R3 OCDD ­ 8.61e­ 6; 2,3,7,8­ TCDF ­ 8.89e­ 5 nd OCDD exact same as requested, TCDF ­­ need to add nd Added nd to TCDF. No significant impact on TEQ level 15 738 Sister Facilities ­­ "Boiler 30K" Unit 737 (Boiler 30K) is used to represent Unit 738 (Boiler 28K). 28K is a sister of 30K. Thus data from 738 will not be used. At this time though it will remain in the database. 16 1018 Source Description should be modified: Additional soot blowing information provided; Several dispersion characteristics: Stack height = 45 ft, stack velocity = 25. 8 ft/ sec, gas temp = 576F; Permitting status = All metals except Cr Adjusted Tier I, Cr under Tier III Soot blowing not described in detail, stack height and velocity not included in database. Temp measurements for two conditions: 1018C11 = 576, 1018C12= 725 Information added or modified as requested. 16 1018 BIF Feedrates provided Previously not available Data added 16 1018C10 Condition is better described as the maximum combustion temperature condition; Condition content = Feed analysis: 10 BIF metals (not chromium only), chlorides, and ash. PM, CO, and Cr+ 6 and total Cr emissions. Trial burn; max combustion temp; PM, CO, Cr+ 6, feed analysis for chromium and ash Modified as requested 16 1018C12 Condition is better described as the risk burn condition at maximum liquid waste feedrates and minimum natural gas flowrate Risk burn; max liquid waste fuel Modified as requested 16 1018C10 CO MHRA for Run 1 = 0.6ppmv 7% O2 0.06 ppmv 7% O2 Modified as requested. Dependant cells also commented on. 16 1018C10 Sampling train parameters for PM, hexavalent and total chromium train provided; Information not available Data added 16 1018C10 Additional feed stream data providedfor : natural gas, ash modifier. Only liquid waste feed analysis shown Data added 16 1018C11 POHC total feedrates (feed and spike) provided Data added 16 1018C11 1018C12 Additional feed stream data provided for natural gas Data added 16 1018C12 Metals feedrate condition averages should be modified: Ba < 10, Hg < 0.2, Tl < 24 Ba < 15.9, Hg < 0.267, Tl = 24 Modified calculations to be consistent in handling of non­ detect runs when calculating condition averages 17 812 More accurate description of Combustor Characteristics= Turbulent burner chamber, closed coupled to a watertube waste heat boiler, 30 MMBtu/ hr installed 1985, 25,000 lb/ hr steam @ 215 psig. Combustor Characteristics = Waste heat boiler, 30 MMBtu/ hr, installed 1985, 25,000 lb/ hr steam @ 215 psig Modified as requested 17 812 Source Description should be modified: Stack Height = 100 ft, Permit status = Tier I adjusted except Cr+ 6 and HCl/ Cl2. Permit Status = Tier I adjusted except Cr+ 6 Information added or modified as requested 17 812C2 Several feed rates should be modified: Run 5, LUWA Bottom total chlorine feedrate = 267 lb/ hr, Chromium feedrates = 5.36E­ 3, 5.48E­ 3, 5.15E­ 3lb/ hr Run 5, LUWA Bottom total chlorine feedrate 265 lb/ hr, Chromium feedrates = 5.0E­ 3, 5.0E­ 3, 5.0E­ 3lb/ hr Modified as requested 17 812C1 812C2 812C3 Units for Scrubber L/ G Ratio are lb/ lb Units for Scrubber L/ G Ratio = gal/ kcaf? Modified as requested 17 813 More accurate description of Combustor Characteristics =Turbulent burner chamber closed coupled to a water tube waste heat boiler and economizer, Steam of 25,000 lb/ hr @ 350 psig. Combustor Characteristics = Steam of 25,000 lb/ hr @ 350 psig Modified as requested 17 813 Source Description should be modified: Stack velocity 78. 9 ft/ sec, Permit status= Tier I adjusted, Sootblowing = 6 min during 813C1 run 4. Stack velocity 78. 9ft/ min, No previous info on permit status or soot blowing. Information added or modified as requested 17 813C1 Average hydrogen feedrate should be modified = 106lb/ hr. Average hydrogen feedrate = 105 lb/ hr. Modified as requested 17 814 More accurate description of Combustor = Process Heater/ Boiler; Primary function to superheat a raw material used in Diphenylamine production. Only a small portion of the total heat input is utilized for steam production. Combustor = Boiler. Modified as requested 17 814 Source Description should be modified: Stack Height = 75ft , Stack velocity 54. 1ft/ sec. No previous info on Stack Height, Stack velocity 54. 1ft/ min. Information added or modified as requested. 17 814C2 Modify sampling train parameters( B run): stack gas flowrate, moisture, and temperature. Modified as requested, although insignificant differences 17 814C2 Each (B run) Ash feedrate should be modified: 1.09,1.17,1.14 lb/ hr. Ash feedrates: 2.32,2.03,2.23 lb/ hr Modified as requested 17 815 More accurate description of Combustor =Process Heater/ Boiler; Primary function to superheat a raw material used in Diphenylamine production. Only a small portion of the total heat input is utilized for steam production. Combustor = Boiler. Modified as requested 17 815 More accurate description of Combustor Characteristics = Turbulent burner chamber, separate tube banks Combustor Characteristics = Turbulent burner chamber. Modified as requested. 17 815 Source Description should be modified: Stack Height = 80.5ft , Stack velocity 34. 1ft/ sec. Stack Height = 41.5 ft, Stack velocity = 34.1 ft/ min. Modified as requested 17 815C1 Firing rate = 15.7 MMBTU/ hr. Firing rate = 17.0 MMBTU/ hr. Modified as requested 18 774 Source Description should be modified: Boiler Nos. 1, 2 and 4 sister facilities. Other Sister Facilities = none. Modified as requested 18 774 Additional stack parameters provided: Stack diameter = 6.5 ft, stack height = 63 ft, Gas temp = 441F, Velocity = 52.9 ft/ sec Data added 18 774C1 Sampling train parameters for PM provided; Gas flowrate = 51467 dscfm, Moisture = 15.6%, Gas Temp = 441F Data added 18 774C1 Two feed rates should be modified: Ag feedrate in T­ 303 feed 0.17 g/ hr, Tl feedrate in T­ 303 feed 0.34 g/ hr. Ag feedrate in T­ 303 feed 2.06 g/ hr, Tl feedrate in T­ 303 feed 0.17 g/ hr. Modified as requested 18 774C1 774C2 Additional feed stream data provided: IPOH feedrate = 2182843 g/ hr, Natural gas heating value = 25089 Data added 19 729 Incorrect EPA ID No. (EPA CTD001159730) CTD001159731 Changed 19 851 Stack diameter = 8" at top; stack height = 74.5 ft above grade Changed 19 851C1 R1 and R2 HC = 0.5 ppmv HC = 0.6 ppmv Corrected 19 851C1 Miscalculations of arsenic, chromium, nickel, and chlorine stack gas emissions concentrations Corrected 19 851 Incorrect POHC emissions rates Corrected 19 851C1 Incorrect Cr stack gas emission rates Corrected 19 851 Incorrect PCDD/ PCDF sampling train parameters Corrected 19 851 Incorrect Ba feedrate Corrected 19 851 Incorrect 2,3,6,7,8­ HpCDD entry Corrected (61.6 vs 61.1) 19 786, 788, 843, 845, 2017, 2018 Couple of incorrect feedrates No change. Feedrates doublechecked and are OK. 19 Many Dow facilities Missing Tier I and III feedrate limits Not provided. Will add when available. 19 2017C1 R1 PM = 0.0062 R1 PM = 0.0054 No change. PM of 0.0054 is correct at 7% O2. Although, R2 and R3 were incorrectly given at stack gas conditions. These are correct with levels at 7% O2. 22 907 Boiler No. 15 (ID No. 907) is no longer in service. Has been closed. Unit identified as no longer burning hazardous waste 22 910 Sister unit Boiler No. 4 is no longer burning hazardous waste Changed as requested 22 908 Burns both pulverized coal and natural gas as supplemental fuels Coal as supplemental fuel Added 22 753 Very small changes to BIF Tier I feedrate limits No change; insignificant difference 23 740 Source Descriptions should be modified: Facility Name = Rohm and Haas Texas, Incorporated; Combustor = Furnace with watertube boiler; Stack Characteristics: Diameter (ft) = 9, Height (ft) = 144 Rohm and Haas; Watertube boiler; Diameter (ft) = 9.2, Height (ft) = 150 Modified as requested 23 740 Feedrate MTEC Calculations Chlorine (nd) = 3613 Lead (nd) = 12.3 Cadmium (nd) = 6.2 Chromium (nd) = 6.2 Feedrate MTEC Calculations Chlorine (nd) = 3605 Lead (nd) = 11.7 Cadmium (nd) = 5.8 Chromium (nd) = 5.8 Commenter used less signifigant figure and calculated MTEC incorrectly; no changes made. 23 740 SVM [Cd & Pb] = 17.5 LVM [As, Be & Cr (Total)] = 124 SVM [Cd & Pb] = 8.8 LVM [As, Be & Cr (Total)] = 62 No change. SVM and LVM calculation non­ detect value( s) is divided by 2 (use of "one­ half" of the detection limit). 23 740 Total Estimated Firing Rate = 101.5 MM Btu/ hr Estimated based on total thermal feedrate using standard F­ factor approach. 212.5 MM Btu/ hr Modified as requested. 23 741 Source Descriptions should be modified: Facility Location = Louisville, KY; Should add "Adjusted" Tier I for all metals, chlorine Knoxville, TN; Tier I for all metals, chlorine Modified as requested. 23 741 Stack Characteristics: Diameter (ft) = 6.5; Requested footnote for gas velocity and temperature. "At sample location on stack which has a diameter of 7.83 feet." Data added. 23 741 Report Details: Report preparer = Focus Environmental, Inc.; Testing firm = TRC Environmental Corporation; Content = PM, CO in stack gas; metals, chlorine and ash in feedstreams Report Details: Report preparer = TRC Environmental Corporation; Testing firm = Focus Environmental, Inc.; Content = PM, CO in stack gas; metals, chlorine in feedstreams Modified as requested 23 741 PM emission rate (g/ hr): Run 1 = 5,339; Run 2 = 5,796; Run 3 = 8,387; Corrected Soot Blowing Avg = 5,857 PM emission rate (g/ hr): Run 1 = 5,430; Run 2 = 5,820; Run 3 = 8,294; Corrected Soot Blowing Avg = not reported Modified as requested, although insignificant differences. Soot corrected average verified and updated. 23 741 Minor Changes Recommended: Main gun feedrate (lb/ hr) = 9, 302 Side gun feedrate (lb/ hr) = 3, 091 Natural gas heating value (Btu/ scf) = 1,022 Gas feedrate (dscfh) = 50,400 Antimony feedrate (g/ hr) = 17. 1 Arsenic feedrate (g/ hr) = 14.1 Lead feedrate (g/ hr) = 56.2 Thallium feedrate (g/ hr) = 112 Combustion Temperature ( o F) = 2,117 Steam Production Rate (lb/ hr)= 154,300 Main gun feedrate (lb/ hr) = 9, 300 Side gun feedrate (lb/ hr) = 3, 100 Natural gas heating value (Btu/ scf) = 1,000 Gas feedrate (dscfh) = 50,000 Antimony feedrate (g/ hr) = 17 Arsenic feedrate (g/ hr) = 14 Lead feedrate (g/ hr) = 56 Thallium feedrate (g/ hr) = 110 Combustion Temperature ( o F) = 2,100 Steam Production Rate (lb/ hr)= 152,000 Modified as requested 23 741 New feed information: Main gun heating value( Btu/ hr)= 11, 000 Side gun heat value( lb/ hr) = 17, 000 Spiking feedrate (lb/ hr) = 31 Spiking heating value (Btu/ lb) = 8, 393 Spiking estimated firing rate (MM Btu/ hr) = 0.3 Data added. 23 741 Chlorine feedrate (g/ hr) = 1,691 Barium feedrate (g/ hr) = 1.1 Hazardous waste estimated firing rate (MM Btu/ hr) = 154.9 Chlorine feedrate (g/ hr) = 1,900 Barium feedrate (g/ hr) = 11 Hazardous waste estimated firing rate (MM Btu/ hr) = 165.5 Modified as requested. 23 741 Feedrate MTEC Calculations Mercury MTEC (ug/ dscm) (nd) = 4 Beryllium MTEC (ug/ dscm) (nd) = 7 etc. Mercury MTEC (ug/ dscm) (nd) = 3 Beryllium MTEC (ug/ dscm) (nd) = 8 Modified feedrates. Note that commenter calculation excluded oxygen correction. 23 741 Feedrate MTEC Calculations SVM [Cd & Pb] (ug/ dscm) = 800 LVM [As, Be & Cr (Total)] (ug/ dscm) = 755 Feedrate MTEC Calculations SVM [Cd & Pb] (ug/ dscm) = 347 LVM [As, Be & Cr (Total)] (ug/ dscm) = 340 No change. SVM and LVM calculation non­ detect value( s) is divided by 2 (use of "one­ half" of the detection limit). Appendix III. Data Summary Sheet Acronym List B Baseline Comm Commercial incinerator HW Hazardous waste IB In­ between MB Mini burn N No spiking N Normal NA Not appropriate NE Not evaluated OS Onsite incinerator PT Performance Test RB Risk Burn RT Research testing SRE System removal efficiency TB Trial Burn U Unknown WC Worst case Y Yes spiking Air Pollution Control Device Acronyms AA Acid absorber AB Afterburner ABS Absorber (packed bed scrubber) BH Baghouse C Cyclone CA Carbon adsorber CB Carbon bed CCS Counter current scrubber CFS Cross flow scrubber CHEAF Mist eliminator filter CI Carbon injection CS Caustic scrubber CSC Caustic scrubber DA Dilution air DI Dry injection scrubbing DM Demister DS Dry scrubber ES Entrainment separator ESP Electrostatic precipitator FF Fabric filter GC Gas cooler GS Gas subcooler HE Heat exchanger HES High energy scrubber HEPA High efficiency particulate air filter HTHE High temperature heat exchanger HS Hydrosonic scrubber IDF Induced draft fan IWS Ionizing wet scrubber LTHE Low temperature heat exchanger MC Multiple cyclones ME Mist eliminator OS Orifice scrubber PB Packed bed scrubber PBS Packed bed scrubber PCS Packed column scrubber PT Packed tower scrubber PTWS Packed tower wet scrubber Q Quench QC Quench column QS Quench separator QS Quench system QT Quench tower RJS Reverse jet scrubber S Scrubber (wet) SC Scrubber (wet) SC Spray column SD( A) Spray dryer adsorber SP Separator SS Spray saturator ST Spray tower VS Venturi scrubber WCS Packed bed water scrubber WESP Wet electrostatic precipitator WHB Waste heat boiler WS Wet scrubber

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.833404

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0021-0002

Notice

Agency Information Collection Activities: Continuing Collection; Comment Request; Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, Notice

44196 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2002 / Notices list is established. The following changes to the existing restricted service list are noted. The contact for the Bureau of Indian Affairs has changed. Delete `` Ms. Malka Pattison'' and replace with `` Dr. James Kardatzke''. As a result of these changes, the revised final restricted service list, for the purpose of commenting on the PA for the St. Lawrence­ FDR Power Project, is as follows: Dr. Robert Kuhn, NY Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Peebles Island, P. O. Box 189, Waterford, NY 12188Ð 0189. William Slade, New York Power Authority, 123 Main Street, White Plains, NY 10601. Kevin Mendik, National Park Service, 15 State Street, Boston, MA 02109. Dr. James Kardatzke, Eastern Region Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 711 Stewarts Ferry Pike, Nashville, TN 37214. Salli Benedict, Henry Lickers, Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, P. O. Box 579, Cornwall, Ontario K6H 5T3. David Blaha, Environmental Resources Management, 2666 Riva Road, Suite 200, Annapolis, MD 21401. Brian Skidders, Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs, Box 366, Rooseveltown, NY 13683. Dr. Laura Henley Dean, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, The Old Post Office Building, Suite 803, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Thomas Tatham, New York Power Authority, 123 Main Street, White Plains, NY 10601. Judith M. Stolfo, Department of the Interior, Office of the Regional Solicitor, One Gateway Center, Suite 612, Newton, MA 02458Ð 2802. Francis Boots, THPO, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, 412 State Route 37, Hogansburg, NY 13655. Maxine Cole, Akwesasne Task Force on the Environment, P. O. Box 992, Hogansburg, NY 13655. James Teitt, Environmental Resources Management, 355 East Campus View Blvd, Suite 250, Columbus, OH 43235. Kimberly Owens, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 02Ð 16487 Filed 6Ð 28Ð 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6717– 01– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7239– 8] Agency Information Collection Activities: Continuing Collection; Comment Request; Notification of Regulated Waste Activity AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that EPA is planning to submit the following continuing Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, EPA ICR #261.14, OMB No. 2050Ð 0028, expires on October 31, 2002. Before submitting the ICRs to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 30, 2002. ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their comments referencing docket number RCRAÐ 2002Ð 0021 to: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the Arlington, VA address below. Comments may also be submitted electronically to: rcradocket epamail. epa. gov. Comments in electronic format should also be identified by the docket number RCRA Ð2002Ð 0021. All electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Commenters should not submit any confidential business information (CBI) electronically. An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U. S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public make an appointment by calling (703) 603Ð 9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/ page. This document and the supporting documents that detail the Notification of Regulated Waste Activity ICR are also electronically available. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on accessing them. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RCRA Hotline For general information, contact the RCRA Hotline at (8000 424Ð 9346, or TDD (800) 553Ð 7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC metropolitan area, call (703) 412Ð 9810, or TDD (703) 412Ð 3233. Notification ICR Details For more detailed information on specific aspects of the Notification information collection request, contact David Eberly by mail at the Office of Solid Waste (5303W), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by phone at (703) 308Ð 8645, or by e­ mail at: eberly. david@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Internet Availability Today's document and the supporting documents that detail the Notification of Regulated Waste Activity ICR are available on the Internet at: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ notify/ index. htm. Note: The official record for this action will be kept in paper form and maintained at the address in the ADDRESSES section above. Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are generators, transporters and owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities. Title: Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, EPA ICR #261.14, OMB No. 2050Ð 0028, expires on October 31, 2002. Abstract: Section 3010 of Subtitle C of RCRA, as amended, requires any person who generates or transports regulated waste or who owns or operates a facility for the treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD) of regulated waste to notify EPA of their activities, including the location and general description of activities and the regulated wastes handled. The facility is then issued an EPA Identification number. The facilites are required to use the Notification Form (EPA Form 8700Ð 12) to notify EPA of their hazardous waste activities. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information VerDate May< 23> 2002 23: 22 Jun 28, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 01JYN1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 01JYN1 44197 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2002 / Notices unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The Agency today begins an effort to examine the notification forms and consider options for reducing their burden and increasing the usefulness of the information these forms collect. The Agency would appreciate any information on the users of this information, how they use this information, how the information could be improved, and how the burden for these forms can be reduced. Therefore, the EPA would like to solicit comments to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e. g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Burden Statement: The estimated average burden for renewing the existing notification ICR is 4.25 hours per respondent for initial notifications and 1.84 hours per respondent for subsequent notifications. This estimates for the notification ICR includes all aspects of the information collection including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering data, and completing and reviewing the form. EPA estimates that the number of respondents per year for notifications is 31,125 (16,174 initial notifications and 14,951 subsequent notifications). For this ICR, collection occurs one time per respondent, unless regulations are revised and promulgated. Timing of the submission of the notification is variable depending on the status of the respondent and the timing of the promulgation of the regulations. The estimated total annual burden on respondents for initial and subsequent notifications is 96,250 hours. These estimates of total annual burden reflect a decrease in burden of 3.9% for all notifications when compared with the previously approved ICR (1999). Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Dated: June 7, 2002. Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Director, Office of Solid Waste. [FR Doc. 02Ð 16464 Filed 6Ð 28Ð 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OEI– 10016; FRL– 6723– 9] Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Alternate Threshold for Low Annual Reportable Amounts; Request for Comment on Renewal Information Collection AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that EPA is planning to submit the following continuing Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the procedures described in 5 CFR 1320.12: Alternate Threshold for Low Annual Reportable Amounts, Toxic Chemical Release Reporting (EPA ICR No. 1704.06, OMB No. 2070Ð 0143). This ICR covers the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with reporting under the alternate threshold for reporting to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), which appear in 40 CFR part 372. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments, identified by the docket control number OEIÐ 10016, must be submitted on or before August 30, 2002. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit III. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For general information, contact The Emergency Planning and Community Right­ toKnow Hotline at (800) 424Ð 9346 or (703) 412Ð 9810, TDD (800) 553Ð 7672, http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hotline/. For technical information about this ICR renewal, contact: Judith Kendall, Toxics Release Inventory Program Division, OEI (2844T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: 202Ð 566Ð 0750; Fax: 202Ð 566Ð 0727; email: kendall. judith@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Does This Notice Apply to Me? A. Affected Entities: Entities that will be affected by this action are those facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use certain toxic chemicals listed on the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and which are required under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right­ to­ Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), to report annually to EPA their environmental releases of such chemicals. Currently, those industries with the following SIC code designations (that meet all other threshold criteria for TRI reporting) must report toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities: 20Ð 39, manufacturing sector 10, metal mining (except for SIC codes 1011, 1081, and 1094) 12, coal mining (except for SIC code 1241 and extraction activities) 4911, 4931 and 4939, electrical utilities that combust coal and/ or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. 4953, RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities 5169, chemicals and allied products wholesale distributors 5171, petroleum bulk plants and terminals 7389, solvent recovery services, and federal facilities in any SIC code To determine whether you or your business is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the VerDate May< 23> 2002 23: 22 Jun 28, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 01JYN1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 01JYN1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.876443

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0022-0001

Notice

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; National Waste Minimization Partnership Program

42251 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 120 / Friday, June 21, 2002 / Notices or protests, as set forth above, is July 10, 2002. Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at http:/ /www. ferc. fed. us/ online/ rims. htm (call 202– 208– 2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001( a)( 1)( iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http:/ /www. ferc. fed. us/ efi/ doorbell. htm. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. 02– 15696 Filed 6– 20– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6717– 01– P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98– 1– 000] Regulations Governing Off­ the­ Record Communications; Public Notice June 17, 2002. This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201( h), of the receipt of exempt and prohibited off­ the­ record communications. Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive an exempt or a prohibited off­ the­ record communication relevant to the merits of a contested on­ the­ record proceeding, to deliver a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication, to the Secretary. Prohibited communications will be included in a public, non­ decisional file associated with, but not part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become part of the decisional record, the prohibited offthe record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off­ the­ record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such requests only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off­ the­ record communication should serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010. Exempt off­ the­ record communications will be included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201( e)( 1)( v). The following is a list of exempt and prohibited off­ the­ record communications recently received in the Office of the Secretary. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. The documents may be viewed on the web at http:// www. ferc. gov using the `` RIMS'' link, select `` Docket# '' and follow the instructions (call 202– 208– 2222 for assistance). EXEMPT Docket No. Date filed Presenter or requester 1. RT02– 2– 000, et al. ................................................................................................................................. 6– 11– 02 Sarah McKinley and Deborah Schweikart. 2. Project Nos. 4204– 000, 4659– 000, 4660– 000 ...................................................................................... 6– 13– 02 Don Klima. 3. RT02– 2– 000, et al. ................................................................................................................................. 6– 13– 02 Laura Chappelle, David A. Svanda, Robert B. Nelson 4. Project No. 11508– 000 ........................................................................................................................... 6– 14– 02 Glen D. Martin. 5. CP98– 150– 000 ....................................................................................................................................... 6– 17– 02 William Gute. Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 02– 15703 Filed 6– 20– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6717– 01– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7232– 8] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; National Waste Minimization Partnership Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that EPA is planning to submit the following proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): National Waste Minimization Partnership Program, EPA ICR No. 2076.01. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 20, 2002. ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their comments referencing docket number F– 00– XXXX– FFFFF to: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U. S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the Arlington, VA, address below. Comments may also be submitted electronically through the Internet to: rcradocket @epamail. epa. gov. Comments in electronic format should also be identified by the docket number F– 00– XXXX– FFFFF. All electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U. S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing in VerDate May< 23> 2002 22: 20 Jun 20, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 21JNN1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 21JNN1 42252 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 120 / Friday, June 21, 2002 / Notices the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9: 00 a. m. to 4: 00 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public make an appointment by calling (703) 603– 9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/ page. This notice and the supporting documents that detail the National Waste Minimization Partnership Program ICR are also available electronically. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on accessing them. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on specific aspects of this information collection, contact Newman Smith, Office of Solid Waste (5302W), U. S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone: (703) 308– 8757, email smith. newman@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those which generate, treat, and store hazardous waste. Title: National Waste Minimization Partnership Program; EPA ICR No. 2076.01. Abstract: EPA is establishing a national program to encourage the minimization of hazardous waste through source reduction and recycling. Participation in the National Waste Minimization Partnership Program is completely voluntary. EPA will use four forms to collect information from participants, called partners, which can be prepared and submitted by hard copy or electronically. Participation begins when an Enrollment Form is submitted and accepted by EPA. The form asks for basic site identification information as well as information on the company's waste minimization goals under the program. Once in the program, partners will also have an opportunity to complete and submit an optional, one­ time Application for Certificate of Past Accomplishments. This form enables partners to notify the Agency of waste minimization accomplished in the past. Partners also can submit a one­ time Application for Certificate of Accomplishment when they accomplish the goals the established for their participation in the program. These certificates will enable the Agency to confirm a partners' progress and measure the overall success of the program. Certificates provide the basis for the Agency to recognize partner accomplishments in a formal (e. g., at an awards ceremony or by congratulatory letter) manner, if appropriate. Recognizing partner achievements is important to help EPA spur other partners on to reduce more waste. Partners also may submit an optional, one­ time Case Studies Submission Form. The form enables a partner to describe its waste minimization techniques, implementation problems, lessons learned, benefits, and relevant implications. The case studies will assist the Agency in better understanding waste minimization approaches and technologies. The information may also help the Agency in sharing lessons learned and effective strategies among the facilities generating hazardous waste, in order to promote continued and effective waste minimization efforts. Sharing effective waste reduction strategies with others is a fundamental objective of the partnership program. Because the program is voluntary, EPA expects that companies would enroll only if their benefits under the program outweigh the costs. Although EPA expects partners to experience a minor burden under the paperwork requirements of the program, the Agency fully expects many companies to realize substantial cost savings (typically more than enough to offset their paperwork costs) through implementation of their waste reduction initiatives. (EPA evidence suggests that cost savings of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars is not unusual for a large corporation.) An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The EPA would like to solicit comments to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e. g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Burden Statement: EPA estimates the annual respondent burden for the National Waste Minimization Partnership Program to be 3,280 hours and $203,306. EPA expects that, in the first year, 60 companies will enroll, and 90 will enroll in each subsequent year. Thus, at the end of the first year, there will be 60 existing partners, 150 at the end of the second year, and 240 at the end of the third year. For purposes of the ICR's burden calculations, EPA has averaged the number of new and existing partners over the three­ year period to conclude that there will be, on average, 80 new partners annually and 150 existing partners annually. The disaggregated burden per form is estimated below: (1) Enrollment Form— EPA estimates that, on average, 80 new partners will fill out this form each year. EPA further estimates that ten percent of existing partners will notify EPA to modify their waste minimization goals each year (i. e., 10% × 150 = 15 partners per year). The total annual hourly burden for this form is estimated to be 2,723 hours. The total annual cost for this form is estimated to be $168,221. (2) Application for Certificate of Past Accomplishments— EPA estimates that two­ thirds of new partners will submit an application each year, or 54 partners per year. The total annual hourly burden for this form is estimated to be 109 hours. The total annual cost for this form is estimated to be $6,878. (3) Application for Certificate of Accomplishment— EPA estimates that 80 percent of existing facilities will submit this one­ time form, or 64 partners per year. The total annual hourly burden for this one­ time form is estimated to be 128 hours. The total annual cost for this one­ time form is estimated to be $8,152. (4) Case Studies Submission Form— EPA expects that 50 percent of existing facilities will submit this one­ time form, or 40 partners per year. The total annual hourly burden for this one­ time form is estimated to be 320 hours. The total annual cost for this one­ time form is estimated to be $20,055. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying VerDate May< 23> 2002 22: 20 Jun 20, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 21JNN1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 21JNN1 42253 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 120 / Friday, June 21, 2002 / Notices information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Dated: May 23, 2002. Elizabeth Cotsworth, Director, Office of Solid Waste. [FR Doc. 02– 15725 Filed 6– 20– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER– FRL– 6630– 4] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564– 7167 or www. epa. gov/ oeca/ ofa. Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed June 10, 2002, through June 14, 2002, Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. EIS No. 020235, FINAL EIS, IBR, NM, Elephant Butte and Caballo Reservoirs, Resource Management Plan (RMP), Implementation, Sierra and Socorro Counties, NM, Wait Period Ends: July 22, 2002, Contact: Clay McDermeit (505) 248– 5391. EIS No. 020236, DRAFT EIS, IBR, NM, City of Albuquerque Drinking Water Project, To Provide a Sustainable Water Supply for Albuquerque through Direct and Full Consumptive Use of the City's San Juan­ Chama (SJC) Water for Potable Purposes, Funding, Right­ of­ Way and COE Section 404 Permits, City of Albuquerque, NM , Comment Period Ends: August 13, 2002, Contact: Lori Robertson (505) 248– 5326. This document is available on the Internet at: http:// www. saj. usace. army. mil/ permit/ occidental. htm. sic¿. EIS No. 020237, DRAFT EIS, BLM, OR, Cascade­ Siskiyou National Monument (CSNM) Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Klamath and Rouge River Basins, Jackson County, OR, Comment Period Ends: September 20, 2002, Contact: Richard Drel (541) 618– 2200. This document is available on the Internet at: www. ca. blm. gov/ palmsprings. EIS No. 020238, DRAFT EIS, AFS, ID, Sixshooter Project, to Reduce the Threats of Insect Infestation and Wildfire, Sixmile and West Fork Creek, Boise National Forest, Emmett Ranger District, Gem County, ID, Comment Period Ends: August 05, 2002, Contact: Jeffery Clark (208) 365– 7000. EIS No. 020239, DRAFT EIS, COE, NJ, South River, Raritan River Basin Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration, Implementation, Draft Integrated Feasibility Report, Middlesex County, NJ, Comment Period Ends: August 05, 2002, Contact: Mark H. Bulas (212) 264– 4663. EIS No. 020240, FINAL EIS, APH, PROGRAMMATIC— EIS Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program, Authorization, Funding and Implementation in 17 Western States, AZ, CA, CO, ID, KS, MT, NB, NV, NM, ND, OK, OR, SD, TX, UT, WA and WY, Wait Period Ends: July 22, 2002, Contact: Charles Brown (301) 734– 8963. This document is available on the Internet at: http:// www. aphis. usda. gov/ ppd/ es/ ppqdocs. htm1. EIS No. 020241, FINAL EIS, NOA, IN, Indiana Lake Michigan Coastal Program Document, Federal Approval and Implementation, Coastal Zone Management, Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties, IN, Wait Period Ends: July 22, 2002, Contact: Diana Olinger (301) 713– 3155. EIS No. 020242, DRAFT EIS, AFS, MO, Rams Horn Project, To Accomplish the Direction and Desired Conditions Identified in the Mark Twain National Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan, Houston/ Rolla/ Creek Ranger District, Phelps and Pulaski Counties, MO, Comment Period Ends: August 05, 2002, Contact: Mark Hamel (417) 967– 4194. This document is available on the Internet at: http:// www. fs. fed. us/ r9/ marktwain/ publications. EIS No. 020244, FINAL EIS, GSA, CA, Los Angeles Federal Building— U. S. Courthouse, Construction of a New Courthouse in the Civic Center, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, CA , Wait Period Ends: July 22, 2002, Contact: Javad Soltani (415) 522– 3493. EIS No. 020245, DRAFT EIS, MMS, AK, Beaufort Sea Planning Area Multiples Sale 186, 195 and 202 Oil and Gas Lease Sales, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf, Offshore Marine Environment, Beaufort Sea Coastal Plain, and the North Slope Borough of Alaska, Comment Period Ends: September 20, 2002, Contact: Dr. George Valiulis (703) 787– 1662. EIS No. 020246, FINAL EIS, BLM, AZ, Las Cienegas Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Las Cienegas National Conservation Area (NCA) and Sonoita Valley Acquisition Planning District, AZ, Wait Period Ends: July 22, 2002, Contact: Karen Simms (520) 258– 7210. EIS No. 020247, DRAFT EIS, AFS, CA, Brown Darby Fuel Reduction Project, Proposal for a Combination of the Salvage Harvesting of Trees Killed and other Fuels Management Activities, Stanislaus National Forest, Calaveras Ranger District, Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties, CA, Comment Period Ends: August 05, 2002, Contact: Kathy Aldrich (209) 795– 1381. This document is available on the Internet at: www. is. ch2m. com/ iidweb. EIS No. 020248, DRAFT EIS, COE, CA, Bolinas Lagoon Ecosystem Restoration, Proposal to Removal up to 1.5 Million Cubic Yard of Sediment from the bottom of the Lagoon to Allow Restoration of Tidal Movement and Eventual Restoration of Tidal Habitat, Marin County, CA, Comment Period Ends: August 05, 2002, Contact: Roger Golden (415) 977– 8703. EIS No. 020249, DRAFT EIS, NPS, MO, Wilson's Creek National Battlefield General Management Plan, Implementation, To Commemorate the Battle of Wilson's Creek and to Preserve the Associated Battlefield, Greene and Christian Counties, MO, Comment Period Ends: August 05, 2002, Contact: Dick Lusardi (417) 732– 2662. EIS No. 020250, FINAL EIS, IBR, CA, American River Pump Station Project, Providing Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) with the Year­ Round Access to its Middle Fork Project (MFP) Water Entitlements from the American River, Placer County, CA, Wait Period Ends: July 22, 2002, Contact: Roderick Hall (916) 989– 7279. Dated: June 18, 2002. B. Katherine Biggs, Associate Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. 02– 15726 Filed 6– 20– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER– FRL– 6630– 5] Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental VerDate jun< 06> 2002 22: 40 Jun 20, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 21JNN1. SGM pfrm15 PsN: 21JNN1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.881591

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0023-0001

Notice

Agency Information Collection Activities: Continuing Collection; Comment Request; Information Collection Request for RCRA Reporting and RecordKeeping Requirements for Incinerators, Boilers and Industrial Furnances Burning Hazardous Waste, Notice

43106 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2002 / Notices Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 208– 1371. This filing is also available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's web site at http:// www. ferc. gov using the `` RIMS'' link, select `` Docket #'' and follow the instructions (call 202– 208– 2222 for assistance). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. m. Preliminary Permit— Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30( b) and 4.36. n. Preliminary Permit— Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30( b) and 4.36. o. Notice of Intent— A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant( s) named in this public notice. p. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit— A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project. q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene— Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents— Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title `` COMMENTS'', `` NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', `` COMPETING APPLICATION'', `` PROTEST'', `` MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above­ named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above­ mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. s. Agency Comments— Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 02– 16116 Filed 6– 25– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6717– 01– P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Meeting June 19, 2002. The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to Section 3( a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. No. 94– 409), 5 U. S. C. 552b: AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. DATE AND TIME: June 26, 2002 (30 Minutes Following Regular Commission Meeting). PLACE: Hearing Room 5, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. STATUS: Closed. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Non­ Public Investigations and Inquiries and Enforcement Related Matters. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. Telephone (202) 208– 0400. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. 02– 16152 Filed 6– 21– 02; 2: 34 pm] BILLING CODE 6717– 01– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7237– 4] Agency Information Collection Activities: Continuing Collection; Comment Request; `` Information Collection Request for RCRA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Incinerators, Boilers and Industrial Furnaces Burning Hazardous Waste'' AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that EPA is planning to submit the following continuing Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Information Collection Request for RCRA Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements for Incinerators, Boilers and Industrial furnaces Burning Hazardous Waste, EPA ICR No. 1361.09, OMB Control No. 2050– 0073, expires 10/ 31/ 02. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. VerDate May< 23> 2002 19: 57 Jun 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 26JNN1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 26JNN1 43107 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2002 / Notices DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 26, 2002. ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their comments referencing EDocket number RCRA– 2002– 0023 to: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20460. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the Arlington, VA, address below. Comments may also be submitted electronically through the Internet to: rcradocket@ epamail. epa. gov. Comments in electronic format should also be identified by the EDocket number RCRA 2002– 0023. All electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of specific characters and any form of encryption. Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5302W), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway 1, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public make an appointment by calling (703) 603– 9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional pages cost $0.15/ page. This notice and the supporting documents that detail the National Waste Minimization Partnership Program ICR are also available electronically. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on accessing them. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, call the RCRA Call Center 1– 800/ 424– 9346. For specific information regarding this notice, call Margaret R. Bailey, 703/ 308– 4043, fax number 703/ 308– 8433, e­ mail `` bailey. margaret@ epa. gov. '' SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those which generate, treat and store hazardous waste. The URL for the Waste Minimization Partnership Program ICR is <http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ minimize/ partner. htm>. I. General Information A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under EDocket No. RCRA– 2002– 0023. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 20460. This Docket Facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703) 603– 9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional pages cost $0.15/ page. This notice and the supporting documents that detail the National Waste Minimization Partnership Program ICR are also available electronically. 2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system. EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search, '' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit 1. B. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late. '' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e­ mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contract information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, VerDate May< 23> 2002 19: 57 Jun 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 26JNN1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 26JNN1 43108 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2002 / Notices EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa.. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search, '' and then key in EDocket No. RCRA– 2002– 0023. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e­ mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e­ mail) to rcradocket@ epamail. epa. gov., Attention EDocket ID No. RCRA– 2002– 0023. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e­ mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e­ mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e­ mail system automatically captures your email address. E­ mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e­ mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By Mail. Send an original and two copies of their comments referencing EDocket number RCRA– 2002– 0023 to: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20460. Attention Docket ID No. . 3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the Arlington, VA, address: USEPA Crystal Station (CS), 2800 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202. 4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: 703/ 308– 8433, Attention Docket ID No. . C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e­ mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternatives. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments. Title: Information Collection Request for RCRA Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements for Incinerators, Boilers and Industrial Furnaces Burning Hazardous Waste, ICR Number 1361.09, OMB Control Number 2050– 0073, expiring 10/ 31/ 02. Abstract: EPA regulates the burning of hazardous waste in incinerators, and cement and lightweight aggregate kilns under 40 CFR part 63, parts 264/ 265 (Subpart O) and part 266 (Subpart H). The Agency promulgated the MACT standards for the above hazardous waste combustion facilities on September 30, 1999 under the joint authority of the Clean Air Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). See 64 FR 52828. The promulgated rule generated legal challenges, petitions and clarification questions from the stakeholders, environmentalists, EPA Regions, States, engineering consultants and the public. The Agency contested several litigation issues and found others amenable to resolution buy amending some portions of the rule. At this time the Agency wishes to renew the ICR and incorporate any changes to burden from the rule amendments. The burden the Agency is taking comment on today, however, is the current OMB inventory burden, which was approved in October 1999. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The EPA would like to solicit comments to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e. g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Burden Statement: The total average annual hourly burden for this ICR is estimated to be 316,892 hours for 1,850 responses, which is roughly 171 hours per response. The total annual cost of this ICR is estimated to be $26,221,000 which represents $7,696.000 for capital/ start­ up costs, and $18,525,000 for operation and maintenance cost. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and VerDate May< 23> 2002 19: 57 Jun 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 26JNN1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 26JNN1 43109 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2002 / Notices providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Dated: June 17, 2002. Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Director, Office of Solid Waste. [FR Doc. 02– 16133 Filed 6– 25– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7238– 2] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: (NESHAPs) Radionuclides AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs): Radionuclides. OMB Control Number 2060– 0191, expiration date is June 30, 2002. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden and cost, where appropriate, it includes the actual data collection instrument. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 26, 2002. ADDRESSES: Send comments, referencing EPA ICR No. 1100.11 and OMB Control No. 2060– 0191, to the following addresses: Susan Auby, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division (Mail Code 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460– 0001; and to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For a copy of the ICR, contact Susan Auby at EPA by phone at (202) 566– 1672, by e­ mail at auby. susan@ epa. gov or download off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr and refer to EPA ICR No. 1100.11. For technical questions about the ICR contact Eleanor ThorntonJones at (202) 564– 9773 or by e­ mail at thornton. eleanord@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs): Radionuclides, OMB Control Number 2060– 0191, expiration date June 30, 2002. This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection. Abstract: On December 15, 1989, pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977 (42 U. S. C. 1857), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated NESHAPs to control radionuclide emissions from several source categories. The regulations were published in 54 FR 51653, and are codified at 40 CFR subparts B, K, R, and W. Information collected is used by EPA to ensure that public health continues to be protected from the hazards of airborne radionuclides by compliance with these standards. If the information were not collected, it is unlikely that a violation of these standards would be identified and, thus, there would be no corrective action initiated to bring the facilities back into compliance. Compliance is demonstrated through emission testing and/ or dose calculation. All facilities are required to calculate, monitor, and maintain their records for 5 years. The rationale for the 5 year recordkeeping requirement is from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 40 CFR part 61, Section 61.95. In some cases, they also report their results to EPA. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8( d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on March 11, 2002; no comments were received. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 94 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Owners and Operators of Elemental Phosphorous, Phosphogypsum Stacks, Underground Uranium Mines, and Uranium Mill Tailings Piles Facilities. Estimated Number of Respondents: 62. Frequency of Response: Annually. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 5,812. Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O& M Cost Burden: $231,350. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1100.11 and OMB Control No. 2060– 0191 in any correspondence. Dated: June 19, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. 02– 16132 Filed 6– 25– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7237– 6] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request: EPA Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program for Analysis of Cryptosporidium Under the Safe Drinking Water Act AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval: EPA Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program for Analysis of Cryptosporidium under the Safe Drinking Water Act, ICR No. 2067.02, OMB Control No. 2040– 0246, expiration date of July 31, 2002. The ICR describes the nature of the information VerDate May< 23> 2002 19: 57 Jun 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 26JNN1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 26JNN1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.889911

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0023-0002

Notice

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Collection Request for RCRA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Incinerators, Boilers and Industrial Furnaces Burning Hazardous Waste, Notice

64366 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2002 / Notices Regional office Staff contact Telephone No. E­ mail address Atlanta ............................................................... Charles Wagner ................................................ 770– 452– 3765 charles. wagner@ ferc. gov Chicago ............................................................. Dave Simon ...................................................... 312– 353– 6701 david. simon@ ferc. gov New York ........................................................... Chuck Goggins ................................................. 212– 273– 5910 charles. goggins@ ferc. gov Portland ............................................................. Pat Regan ......................................................... 503– 944– 6741 patrick. regan@ ferc. gov San Francisco ................................................... John Wiegel ...................................................... 415– 369– 3336 john. wiegel@ ferc. gov By November 1, 2002, an agenda for the workshop and information about the pending license applications will be posted on the Commission's web site under Hydro Licensing Status Workshop 2002. Anyone without access to the Commission's web site, or who have questions should contact Steve Kartalia at 202– 502– 6131, or e­ mail stephen. kartalia@ ferc. gov; or Susan O'Brien at 202– 502– 8449, or e­ mail susan. obrien@ ferc. gov. Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 02– 26500 Filed 10– 17– 02; 8: 45 am BILLING CODE 6717– 01– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7394– 9] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval: Title: 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey; EPA ICR No. 2085.01. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden and cost; where appropriate, it includes the actual data collection instrument. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 18, 2002. ADDRESSES: Send comments, referencing EPA ICR No. 2085.01 to the following addresses: Susan Auby, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division (Mail Code 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460– 0001; and to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For a copy of the ICR contact Susan Auby at EPA by phone at (202) 566– 1672, by E­ Mail at auby. susan@ epa. gov or download off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr and refer to EPA ICR No. 2085.01. For technical questions about the ICR contact David Travers at (202) 564– 4638 or travers. david@ epa. gov SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Information Collection Request for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey EPA ICR No. 2085.01. Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will conduct a voluntary survey to estimate the capital investment needs for drinking water systems. The nationwide survey is authorized by sections 1452( h) and 2452( i)( 4) of the Safe Drinking Water Act and will be used to estimate the cost of providing safe drinking water to consumers over a 20­ year period. The data also will be used to allocate Drinking Water State Revolving Fund monies among the states and as part of an allotment formula for the American Indian and Alaska Native Village setaside program. All states have committed to assist EPA in administering the survey. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8( d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on July 16, 2002; three comments were received. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; collect, validate, and verify information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Community Water Systems. Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,790. Frequency of Response: Once. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 14,809. Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O& M Cost Burden: $0. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 2085.01 in any correspondence. Dated: October 7, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. 02– 26574 Filed 10– 17– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7394– 8] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Information Collection Request for RCRA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Incinerators, Boilers and Industrial Furnaces Burning Hazardous Waste AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval: Information Collection Request for RCRA Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements for Incinerators, Boilers and Industrial Furnaces Burning Hazardous Waste, OMB Control No. 2050– 0073, expiring October 31, 2002. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 15: 11 Oct 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18OCN1. SGM 18OCN1 64367 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2002 / Notices its expected burden and cost; where appropriate, it includes the actual data collection instrument. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 18, 2002. ADDRESSES: Send comments, referencing EPA ICR No. 1361.09 and OMB Control No. 2050– 0073, to the following addresses: Sandy Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division (Mail Code 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460– 0001; and to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For a copy of the ICR contact Susan Auby at EPA by phone at (202) 566– 1672, by e­ mail at auby. susan@ epamail. epa. gov, or download off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr and refer to EPA ICR No. 1361.09. For technical questions about the ICR contact: Margaret R. Bailey, 703/ 308– 4043, fax number 703/ 308– 8433, e­ mail bailey. margaret@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Information Requirements for Boilers and Industrial Furnaces: General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards, Specific Unit Requirements, and Part B Permit Application and Modification Requirements, OMB Control No. 2050– 0073, EPA ICR No. 1361.09, expiring October 31, 2002. This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection. Abstract: EPA regulates the burning of hazardous waste in boilers, incinerators, and industrial furnaces (BIFs) under 40 CFR parts 63, 264, 265, and 266. This ICR describes most of the RCRA paperwork requirements that apply to owners and operators of BIFs. This includes the requirements under the comparable/ syngas fuel specification at 40 CFR 261.38; the general facility requirements at 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts B through H; the requirements applicable to BIF units at 40 CFR part 266; and the RCRA part B permit application and modification requirements at 40 CFR part 270. Examples of the paperwork collected under these requirements include onetime notices, certifications, waste analysis data, inspection and monitoring records, plans, reports, RCRA part B permit applications and modifications. EPA needs this information for the proper implementation, compliance tracking, and enforcement of the RCRA regulations. Based on information from the EPA Regions, the ICR estimates that 91 BIF facilities are currently subject to the RCRA hazardous waste program. Of these, 47 are under interim status and 44 are permitted. This renewal reflects new burden to the RCRA incinerator requirements promulgated on September 30, 1999 (64 FR 52828), and subsequent amendments, but also reflects a substantial reduction in the paperwork burden imposed on these facilities. This burden reduction is caused by a decrease in the BIF universe of 25 boilers which are assumed to receive the comparable fuels exclusions, and a rollback of burden added to another ICR (2050– 0171). Thus, this renewal accounts for the addition of new requirements as well as the burden reductions to the BIF universe affected by the rulemaking, and its subsequent amendments. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8( d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on June 26, 2002 (67 FR 43106), no comments were received. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 156 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Business or other for­ profit. Estimated Number of Respondents: 91. Frequency of Response: Annually. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 307,949 hours. Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O& M Cost Burden: $26,353,000. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1361.09 and OMB Control No. 2050– 0073 in any correspondence. Dated: October 7, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. 02– 26575 Filed 10– 17– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER– FRL– 6634– 2] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information, (202) 564– 7167 or http:// www. epa. gov/ compliance/ nepa/. Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed October 07, 2002 through October 11, 2002 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. EIS No. 020419, Final EIS, BLM, CA, Coachella Valley California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment, Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Trails Management Plan, Implementation, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, CA, Wait Period Ends: November 18, 2002, Contact: Jim Foote (760) 351– 4836. EIS No. 020420, Draft EIS, FHW, MT, US– 89 from Fairfield to Dupuyer Corridors Study, Reconstruction, Widening, and Realignment, Route Connects Yellowstone National Park to the South, with Glacier National Park to the North, Teton and Pondera Counties, MT, Comment Period Ends: December 02, 2002, Contact: Dale W. Paulson (406) 449– 5302. EIS No. 020421, Draft EIS, FHW, OR, Newberg­ Dundee Transportation Improvement Project (TEA 21 Prog. #37), Proposal to Relieve Congestion on Ore. 99W through the Cities of Newberg and Dundee, Bypass Element Location (Tier 1), Yamhill County, OR, Comment Period Ends: December 02, 2002, Contact: Jim Cox (503) 986– 3013. EIS No. 020422, Draft EIS, BLM, TX, NM, El Camino Real De Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail, Comprehensive Management Plan, Implementation, TX and NM, Comment Period Ends: January 15, VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 20: 13 Oct 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18OCN1. SGM 18OCN1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.898253

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0024-0001

Notice

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; 2003 Hazardous Waste Biennial Report, Notice

52720 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2002 / Notices Maintaining or operating such facilities and requiring such additional qualifications as to ownership, continuity of operation, training for personnel, and financial responsibility as may be necessary or desirable. The regulations implementing these requirements are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) Title 40, parts 264 and 265. The collection of this information enables EPA to properly determine whether owners/ operators or hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities meet the requirements of Section 3004( a) of RCRA. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Burden Statement: This proposed ICR is an estimate of the total respondent burden for all activities related to general facility operating requirements, record keeping requirements, contingency plan and emergency reporting requirements, releases from solid waste management units, closure/ post­ closure requirements, financial requirements, corrective action management unit requirements, and conditions applicable to all permits. The total burden to respondents as estimated in the proposed ICR for `` General Facility Standards (# 1571.07)'' is 719,059 hours per year, at a cost of $ 45,380,950 per year. This estimate was based on owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities complying with the information collection requirements set forth in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts B H and by using an average hourly respondent labor cost ( including overhead) of $ 108.00 for legal staff, $ 77.00 for managerial staff, $ 57.00 for technical staff, and $ 29.00 for clerical staff. EPA estimates the total number of respondents per year to be 2,724, which includes both permitted and interim status facilities. The number of respondents varies depending upon the category of each facility and the required activity. The annual public reporting burden and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 319 hours per respondent. For general facility operating standards, there is no associated reporting. The record keeping burden for general facility operating standards is estimated to average 119 hours per respondent per year. This estimate includes time for reading the regulations, preparing and submitting notices, collecting and documenting waste analysis data, and developing a waste analysis plan, inspection schedule, personnel training schedule, and construction quality assurance plan. For operating record requirements, the record keeping burden is estimated to average 131 hours per year. This burden includes time to collect and file information in the operating record. There is no associated reporting burden for these requirements. For contingency plan and emergency procedure requirements, there is no associated reporting burden. The record keeping burden is estimated to average one hour per respondent per year. For requirements covering releases from solid waste management units, the public reporting burden is estimated to average 1 hour per respondent per year. This estimate includes time to read the regulations and prepare and submit demonstrations. There is no associated record keeping burden for these requirements. For closure and post­ closure requirements, the public reporting burden is estimated to average 45 hours per respondent per year. This estimate includes time to read the regulations; prepare and submit plans, notices, demonstrations, certifications, and records; and make modifications to plans. The record keeping burden is estimated to average 1 hour per respondent per year. For financial requirements, the public reporting burden is estimated to average 16 hours per respondent per year. This estimate includes time to read the regulations and prepare and submit financial and liability assurance documentation. There is no associated record keeping burden for these requirements. For permit condition requirements, the public reporting burden is estimated to average 6 hours per respondent per year. This estimate includes time to read the regulations, and prepare and submit information requested by EPA, required by the permit, or required as a result of an incident that occurs at the facility. There is no associated record keeping burden for these requirements. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Dated: August 2, 2002. Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Director, Office of Solid Waste. [ FR Doc. 02 20453 Filed 8 12 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL 7252 9 ] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; 2003 Hazardous Waste ( Biennial) Report AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are announcing our plan to submit the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB): The 2003 Hazardous Waste Report, also known as the Biennial Report. Before submitting this ICR to OMB for review and approval, we are asking for comments on the information collection. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 15, 2002. ADDRESSES: EPA, Office of Solid Waste ( 5302W), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Burchard ( 703) 308 8450, fax: ( 703) 308 8433, burchard. robert@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Affected entities: Entities affected by this action are those which generate, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. Title: `` The 2003 Hazardous Waste Report ( Biennial Report)'' EPA ICR No. 0976.10, OMB Control No. 2050 0024. This ICR renews an on­ going information collection from hazardous waste generators and treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. This collection is done on a two year cycle, and is required by Sections 3002 and 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA). The information collected is collected via a mechanism known as the Biennial Report. The Biennial Report provides information on the quantities, type, and management of hazardous waste in the VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 36 Aug 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUN1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13AUN1 52721 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2002 / Notices United States. The Biennial Report data are used by EPA and the states to understand available capacity to treat, store, dispose, and recycle hazardous wastes; to provide information for analysis of trends in waste generation, waste treatment, recycling, and source reduction; to target facility inspections; and to understand how much waste a state receives from out of state or sends out of state. Data are collected from respondents and entered into an electronic database by state and EPA Regions. States coordinate with EPA Regions and Headquarters to supply EPA with the data. These data are maintained in RCRAInfo, a database residing on centrally managed servers at the Agency's National Computing Center ( accessible through the Envirofacts web page: www. epa. gov/ enviro). Once an initial version of the national database is compiled, EPA Headquarters coordinates a data quality review with the states and EPA Regions. This process identifies cases where the state or Region may want to confirm that data were correctly entered, and where they should contact a respondent to confirm what they reported and provide them with the opportunity to submit an updated report if the original contained errors. Following the submittal of revised data, no further changes are made to the database and it becomes the final version. For the 2003 cycle, we plan to use most of the 2001 Biennial Report forms and instructions. There will be some small changes for 2003: eliminating the reporting of radioactive mixed waste, clarifying the explanations for some of the Source and Management codes, and providing better directions for determining which North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) code is appropriate. We are eliminating radioactive mixed waste because the information is not used by program implementers. We plan to have the 2003 forms and instructions available to the public by the beginning of the 2003 calendar year. Burden Statement An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The EPA solicits comments to help us: ( i) Evaluate whether the information will have practical utility; ( ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's burden estimate; ( iii) find ways to enhance the quality and utility of the information; and ( iv) minimize the burden of the information collection, such as using automated techniques. Based on the 2001 Biennial Report ICR, EPA estimates there will be 20,300 respondents to the 2003 Biennial Report. We also estimate that Biennial Report will impose an annual burden of 195,200 hours on the states and regulated community and require the expenditure of $ 10,260,000. The annual reporting burden is estimated at 17 hours per respondent, which includes time for reviewing instructions, gathering data, completing and reviewing the forms, and submitting the report. The annual record keeping requirement is estimated at 2.5 hours per respondent, which includes the time for filing and storing the Biennial Report submission for three years. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information. Dated: August 6, 2002. Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Director, Office of Solid Waste. [ FR Doc. 02 20454 Filed 8 12 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL 7257 8] Privacy Act of 1974: System of Records, Creation of a New Privacy Act System of Records AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice of establishment of a new system of records. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 ( 5 U. S. C. 552a), the Office of the Inspector General ( OIG) is giving notice that it proposes to establish a new system of records, AutoAudit. This system of records is an automated information tracking and storage system employed in connection with OIG audits, consulting services, and evaluations commenced on or after April 8, 2002. EFFECTIVE DATES: The proposed amendments will be effective without further notice on September 23, 2002 unless comments received require a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Gary Johnson, Acting Assistant Inspector General for Mission Systems, Office of Inspector General ( 2441), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20460. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Johnson, Acting Assistant Inspector General for Mission Systems, on ( 202 566 0848). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OIG, pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, currently maintains four systems of records: ( 1) Investigative Files of the Office of Inspector General ( EPA 40) ; ( 2) Personnel Security Files of the Office of Inspector General ( EPA 41); ( 3) Inspector General's Operation and Reporting ( IGOR) System Audit, Assignment, and Timesheet Files ( EPA 42); and ( 4) Hotline Files of the Office of Inspector General ( EPA 30). The notice for the first three systems of records was published on October 1, 2001 ( 66 FR 49947). The notice for the Hotline system of records was published on February 22, 2002 ( 67 FR 8246). Section 552a( e)( 4) and ( 11) of Title 5, United States Code, provides that the public be afforded a 30­ day period in which to comment on this addition to OIG's existing record systems. Additionally, a copy of this notice has been submitted to the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget, pursuant to 5 U. S. C. 552a( r). AutoAudit, OIG's new automated information tracking and storage system, is an electronic database which organizes and contains assignment work papers. The software cross­ references, indexes, and tracks work papers in a centralized, paper­ less environment. Records maintained in AutoAudit primarily will be accessed by assignment number. In addition, records may be accessed by reference to any information entered into such system, including name, alias, social security number, address, etc. EPA 50 SYSTEM NAME: OIG AutoAudit EPA/ OIG. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: None. SYSTEM LOCATION: National Technology Service Division, Office of Technology Operations and Planning, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; 79 Alexander Drive; Building 4201, MD 34; Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: Individuals covered by the system include the assigned OIG auditor or evaluator, the audit or evaluation VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 36 Aug 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUN1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13AUN1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.903600

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0025-0001

Proposed Rule

Federal Register Notice: Waste Management System; Testing and Monitoring Activities; Proposed Rule: Methods Innovation Rule; Proposed Rule

Wednesday, October 30, 2002 Part III Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 63, 258, et al. Waste Management System; Testing and Monitoring Activities; Proposed Rule: Methods Innovation Rule; Proposed Rule VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66252 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 63, 258, 260, 261, 264, 265, 266, 270, 271, and 279 [FRL– 7394– 6] RIN 2050– AE41 Waste Management System; Testing and Monitoring Activities; Proposed Rule: Methods Innovation Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) proposes to amend a variety of testing and monitoring requirements throughout the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. We are proposing to allow more flexibility when conducting RCRA­ related sampling and analysis, by removing unnecessary required uses of methods found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' also known as `` SW– 846, '' and only retaining the requirement to use SW– 846 methods when the method is the only one capable of measuring a particular property (i. e., it is used to measure a required method­ defined parameter). This is an important step towards a performance­ based measurement system (PBMS), as part of the Agency's efforts towards Innovating for Better Environmental Results. Additionally, we are proposing to: withdraw the reactivity method guidelines from SW– 846 Chapter Seven; amend the ignitability and corrosivity hazardous waste characteristic regulations by clarifying the use of certain methods; incorporate by reference Update IIIB to SW– 846; add Method 25A for analyses conducted in support of certain RCRA air emission standards; and remove a confidence limit requirement for certain feedstream analyses conducted under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, the Agency is announcing the availability of a new guidance document for public comment entitled `` RCRA Waste Sampling Draft Technical Guidance. '' By making this document available for review and comment, it is our intention to provide draft guidance on waste sampling that would be beneficial to the public. These changes should make it easier and more cost effective to comply with affected regulations, without compromising human health or environmental protection. DATES: Send your comments to reach us on or before December 30, 2002. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. Send an original and two copies of your comments to: OSWER Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5305– G, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA– 2002– 0025. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in section I. B. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the RCRA Hotline at (800) 424– 9346 (toll free) or call (703) 412– 9810; or, for hearing impaired, call TDD (800) 553– 7672 or TDD (703) 412– 3323. For more information on specific aspects of this rulemaking, contact Kim Kirkland, Office of Solid Waste (5307W), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460– 0002, (703) 308– 8855, e­ mail address: kirkland. kim@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? i. Docket EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. RCRA– 2002– 0025. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the OSWER Docket, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC, 20004. This Docket Facility is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (202) 566– 1744. To view docket materials, you should call in advance and make an appointment. You may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge (unless the documents require copyright permission). Additional copies cost $0.15 per page. ii. Electronic Access You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search, '' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. You may also view and download docket information from the Internet at: http:// www. epa. gov/ SW– 846. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA public dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. CBI materials will be placed in a separate CBI docket that is not available to the public. Redacted versions of documents containing CBI will be placed in the public dockets. In addition, EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in section I. A. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66253 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002. B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late. '' EPA is not required to consider these late comments, but will make every effort to do so if time and resources permit. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in section I. C. Do not use EPA Dockets or e­ mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. i. Electronically If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e­ mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. 1. EPA Docket Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select `` Information Sources, '' `` Dockets, '' and `` EPA Dockets. '' Once in the system, select `` search, '' and then key in Docket ID No. RCRA– 2002– 0025. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e­ mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 2. E­ mail Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e­ mail) to RCRAdocket epamail. epa. gov, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA– 2002– 0025. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e­ mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e­ mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e­ mail system automatically captures your email address. E­ mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e­ mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 3. Disk or CD ROM You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in section I. B. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. ii. By Mail Send an original and two copies of your comments to: OSWER Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5305– G, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA– 2002– 0025. iii. By Hand Delivery or Courier Deliver your comments to: OSWER Docket, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA– 2002– 0025. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in section I. A. 1. iv. By Facsimile Fax your comments to (703) 603– 9234, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA– 2002– 0025. C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e­ mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 5305– W, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA– 2002– 0025. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. D. How Do I Obtain Copies of SW– 846? Proposed Update IIIB and the Third Edition of SW– 846, as amended by Final Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIA will be available in pdf format on the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ SW– 846. A paper copy of Proposed Update IIIB is also located in the docket for this proposal (see ADDRESSES above). Table 1 below provides sources for both paper and electronic copies of the Third Edition of SW– 846 and all of its updates. VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66254 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1.— SOURCES FOR SW– 846, THIRD EDITION, AND ITS UPDATES Source Available portions of SW– 846 Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512– 1800. —Paper copies of the SW– 846, Third Edition, basic manual and of certain updates, including Final Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III; Draft Update IVA; and Proposed Update IIIB. Subscriber must integrate the updates. National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 605– 6000 or (800) 553– 6847. —Paper copy of an integrated version of SW– 846, Third Edition, as amended by Final Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, and III. —Individual paper copies of the SW– 846, Third Edition, basic manual and of certain updates, including Final Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, IIIA; Draft Updates IVA and IVB; and Proposed Update IIIB. —CD– ROM of integrated version of SW– 846, Third Edition, as amended by Final Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, and III (pdf and WordPerfect electronic copies). —CD– ROM of Draft Update IVA (pdf and WordPerfect electronic copies). Internet http:// www. epa. gov/ SW– 846 ................................. —Integrated version of SW– 846, Third Edition, as amended by Final Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIA (pdf electronic copy). —Proposed Update IIIB (pdf electronic copy). —Draft Updates IVA and IVB (pdf electronic copy). E. What Is the Legal Authority for This Action? We will promulgate the part 258, 260, 261, 264– 266, 270, 271, and 279 regulations under the authority of sections 1006, 2002( a), 3001– 3007, 3010, 3013– 3018, and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (commonly known as RCRA), as amended; and sections 101( 37) and 114 of the Comprehensive Emergency Response and Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (commonly known as CERCLA), as amended. We will promulgate the part 63 regulation under the authority of sections 112 and 114 of the Clean Air Act. F. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? In developing this proposal, we tried to address the concerns of all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rule. We invite you to provide different views on options we propose, new approaches we have not considered, new data, how this rule may effect you, or other relevant information. We welcome your views on all aspects of this proposed rule, but we request comments in particular on comment topics or questions identified within the preamble. Please note however that we are only proposing revisions to small portions of the various RCRA Program regulations and that this proposal does not re­ open other parts of those regulations to public comment or judicial review. Your comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below: Explain your views as clearly as possible. Provide documented technical information and/ or cost data to support your views. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate. Tell us which parts you support, as well as those with which you disagree. sbull; Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. Offer specific alternatives. Refer your comments to specific sections of the proposal, such as the units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory sections. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this proposal. Be sure to identify the appropriate docket number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments. We will respond to both written and electronic comments in a document in the Federal Register or in a response to comments document placed in the official record for this rulemaking. Please note that, if you send electronic comments, we will not reply electronically unless to obtain clarification of text that may be garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form. G. How Is The Rest of this Preamble Organized? We list below the order of the major preamble sections which explain our proposed action. II. Summary of Today's Proposed Rule and Covered Entities III. Background and Purpose of Proposed Action to Reform RCRA­ Related Testing and Monitoring A. How to Determine if a Method Is Appropriate B. Why We Selected the Proposed Approach Over Other Approaches C. Potential Impacts from Removal of Required uses of SW– 846 Analyses IV. Proposed Regulatory Revisions Involving Removal of SW– 846 Requirements A. Removal of Requirements to Use Only SW– 846 in § 260.22( d)( 1)( i) and Appendix IX to Part 261 B. Removal of Requirements to Use Only SW– 846 Method 8290 in § 261.35( b)( 2)( iii)( A) and (B) C. Removal of Requirement to Use Only SW– 846 in § 261.38( c)( 7) D. Removal of Requirements to Use Only SW– 846 Method 8260 in §§ 264.1034( d)( 1)( iii), 264.1063( d)( 2), 265.1034( d)( 1)( iii), and 265.1063( d)( 2) E. Removal of Requirements to Use Only SW– 846 Methods 8260 and 8270 and Revisions to Listing of Method Options in § 265.1084( a)( 3)( iii) and (b)( 3)( iii); and Revisions to § 265.1084( a)( 3)( ii)( C), (b)( 3)( ii)( C), and (c)( 3)( i) F. Removal of Requirements to Use Only SW– 846 in §§ 266.100( d)( 1)( ii) and (g)( 2), and 266.102( b)( 1) G. Removal of Requirement to Use Only SW– 846 in § 266.106( a) H. Removal of Requirements to Use Only SW– 846 in § 266.112( b)( 1) and (b)( 2)( i) I. Removal of Requirements to Use Only SW– 846 in Sections 1.0, 3.0, 10.3, and 10.6 of Appendix IX to Part 266 J. Removal of Requirements to Use Only SW– 846 Methods in §§ 270.19( c)( 1)( iii) and (iv); 270.22( a)( 2)( ii)( B); 270.62( b)( 2)( i)( C) and (D); and 270.66( c)( 2)( i) and (ii) K. Removal of SW– 846 Methods from Incorporation by Reference in § 260.11( a)( 11) V. Proposed Editorial Corrections to SW– 846 References in the RCRA Testing and Monitoring Regulations VI. Proposed Action to Withdraw Reactivity Interim Guidance from SW– 846 Chapter Seven and Remove Required SW– 846 Reactivity Analyses and Threshold Levels from Conditional Delistings VII. Proposed Clarifications to Corrosivity and Ignitability Hazardous Waste Characteristics A. Revision to § 261.22( a)( 2) to Clarify That SW– 846 Method 1110 Is the SW– 846 Standardized Version of the NACE Standard Specified for Corrosivity Characteristic Testing VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66255 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules B. Revisions to § 261.21( a)( 1) to Update References to ASTM Standards, to Clarify That SW– 846 Methods 1010 and 1020 Reference and Use The ASTM Standards Specified for Ignitability Characteristic Testing, and to Remove an Unnecessary Referral to Method Equivalency Petitions; and Revisions to § 260.11( a)( 1) and (2) to Include the Updated References VIII. Availability of Proposed Update IIIB and Invitation for Public Comment on the Update IX. Proposed Addition of Method 25A to §§ 264.1034( c)( 1)( ii) and (iv) and 265.1034( c)( 1)( ii) and (iv) X. Proposed Removal of Requirements from § 63.1208( b)( 8)( i) and (ii) in the NESHAP Standards to Demonstrate Feedstream Analytes Are Not Present at Certain Levels XI. Announcing the Availability of RCRA Waste Sampling Draft Technical Guidance A. Why Is the Agency Releasing this Guidance? B. What is Included in the Draft Guidance? C. Will this Guidance Replace the Existing Chapter Nine of SW– 846? D. Can the Draft Technical Guidance Be Used Now? E. When Will the Guidance Be Finalized? F. Request for Comment XII. State Authorization Procedures A. Applicability of Federal Rules in Authorized States B. Authorization of States for Today's Proposal C. Abbreviated Authorization Procedures XIII. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866 B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et. seq D. Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) E. Protection of Children from Environmental Risks and Safety Risks (Executive Order 13045) F. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (Executive Order 13175) G. Federalism (Executive Order 13132) H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 I. Energy Effects (Executive Order 13211) J. Paperwork Reduction Act II. Summary of Today's Proposed Rule and Covered Entities We, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency), propose to amend our hazardous and nonhazardous solid waste regulations for testing and monitoring activities under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and to amend a testing requirement in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from hazardous waste combustors. These changes should make it easier and more cost effective for regulated entities to comply with the respective RCRA and NESHAP regulations. Specifically we are proposing to: 1. Reform RCRA­ related testing and monitoring by restricting requirements to use SW– 846 to only those situations where the method is the only one capable of measuring the property (i. e., it is used to measure a required methoddefined parameter). This will allow more flexibility in RCRA­ related sampling and analysis by removing unnecessary required uses of SW– 846. 2. Withdraw the cyanide and sulfide reactivity guidance from sections 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 of SW– 846 Chapter Seven and withdraw required uses of reactive cyanide and sulfide methods and threshold levels from conditional delistings. 3. Amend the regulations for the ignitability and corrosivity hazardous waste characteristics by clarifying the use of certain methods. As part of this, we are clarifying in § 261.22( a)( 2) that SW– 846 Method 1110, `` Corrosivity Toward Steel, '' is the standardized SW– 846 method to determine the characteristic of corrosivity toward steel. We also propose to incorporate by reference revisions of the ASTM methods used for the determination of flash point under the characteristic of ignitability. Specifically, we propose to replace references to ASTM Methods D 3278– 78 and D 93– 79 or D 93– 80 in § 261.21( a)( 1) with more current versions of the methods, to be referenced as ASTM Methods D 3278– 96 and D 93– 99c. 4. Incorporate by reference Update IIIB to SW– 846, which includes four revised chapters, including the revised Chapter Seven, and eleven revised methods, including method revisions to remove unnecessary required uses of SW– 846 Chapter Nine, `` Sampling Plan, '' and to update references to the aforementioned ASTM methods. 5. Add Method 25A as an analytical option to analyses conducted in support of air emission standards for process vents and/ or equipment leaks at treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. 6. Remove a requirement to demonstrate that feedstream analytes are not present at levels above the 80% upper confidence limit above the mean for sources subject to NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors. This rule does not propose to add any additional requirements to the regulations. Instead, this rule removes certain existing requirements to use SW– 846, and it clarifies what the Agency considers to be other appropriate methods. Our goal is to make it easier and more cost effective to comply with the RCRA regulations by allowing more flexibility in method selection and use. If you prefer, you can still use the SW– 846 methods referenced in the regulations to demonstrate compliance. As noted earlier in this preamble, we are only proposing revisions to small portions of the various RCRA Program regulations and this proposal does not re­ open other parts of those regulations to public comment or judicial review. You may be covered by this action if you conduct waste sampling and analysis for RCRA­ or NESHAP­ related activities. Covered entities include anyone that generates, treats, stores, or disposes of hazardous or nonhazardous solid waste and are subject to RCRA subtitle C or D sampling and analysis requirements; and entities subject to NESHAP final standards for hazardous waste combustors (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE). All types of industries, governments, and organizations may have entities that generate or manage RCRA­ regulated solid wastes and may be subject to RCRA­ related sampling and analysis requirements. To determine whether your facility, company, business organization, etc., is covered by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in part 63 and in parts 258 through 299 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. III. Background and Purpose of Proposed Action to Reform RCAARelated Testing and Monitoring Currently, either our hazardous and nonhazardous solid waste regulations for testing and monitoring activities (sampling and analysis) under RCRA or the permits or waste analysis plans of facilities regulated by RCRA specify the analytes of concern to be determined in a matrix of concern at a particular regulatory level of concern. Additionally, some recently promulgated regulations specify the confidence level of concern. Most RCRA regulations leave the how (i. e., which test method to use) up to you, a member of the regulated community. However, some RCRA regulations require the use of methods from the EPA publication `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' also known as `` SW– 846.'' We initially issued SW– 846 in 1980 soon after the first RCRA regulations were published. At that time, we intended that SW– 846 serve two roles. VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66256 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules First, we intended that it serve as a guidance manual of generally appropriate and reliable analytical methods for RCRA­ related testing and monitoring. Second, we intended that it serve as a readily­ available source of those few analytical methods which were first required for complying with the RCRA regulations. Over the years, we published regulations that required the use of SW– 846 methods in general. Subsequently, members of the regulated public made it clear to EPA that they would like the opportunity to use other reliable methods in compliance with RCRA, and EPA also decided that some of the SW– 846 requirements were not necessary. The requirement to use SW– 846 in general (e. g., the delisting regulations at § 260.22) does not identify specific SW– 846 methods. These requirements typically include the analyses of many different analytes which can be determined by many different methods. Almost every update to SW– 846 includes at least one method that may be applicable to the requirements. Therefore, whenever we update SW– 846, we must incorporate by reference the new and revised methods into the RCRA regulations as part of a rulemaking. We have to issue the updates as a proposed rule, request public comment, and then promulgate the update in a final rule. This lengthy process delays the timely use of new analytical technologies. Also, in order to use a method different from any required SW– 846 method, members of the regulated community have to develop and submit an equivalency petition, pursuant to § 260.21. This petition process discourages the timely use of new and innovative methods, and is very rarely used by the public, perhaps because it is time­ consuming. When the proposed changes of this rule are implemented, it will not be necessary to submit an equivalency petition in order to use a non­ SW– 846 method for most sampling and analysis scenarios. On May 8, 1998 in the Federal Register (63 FR 25430), we first announced our intent to remove the unnecessary required uses of SW– 846 methods from the RCRA regulations. At that time, we described our reasons for wanting to remove those required uses from the regulations, including our desire to allow more flexibility in method selection and fully implement a performance­ based measurement system (PBMS) in the RCRA Program. We also requested public comment on our plan. The public comments were largely favorable, and we therefore decided to proceed with publication of this proposed rule. You may find summaries of the relevant May 8, 1998 Federal Register public comments and our responses to those comments in the docket to this proposed rule, docket number RCRA– 2002– 0025, at the location listed above under ADDRESSES. Therefore, we propose to restrict the requirement to use a specific SW– 846 method to only those situations where its particular procedure is the only one that is capable of measuring the property (i. e., a method­ defined parameter). For example, to determine compliance with the toxicity characteristic (TC), waste generators must test their waste using SW– 846 Method 1311, `` The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, '' the TCLP, to determine whether the waste leaching potential is greater than the TC levels specified in § 261.24. The TCLP was developed as a means of simulating the leaching potential of waste material placed in a specific environment. It was the test used to develop the particular regulatory thresholds. No other test is known to yield the same leachate concentrations as Method 1311, the TCLP, and therefore we describe the results obtained from Method 1311 as a required `` method­ defined parameter. '' Examples of other SW– 846 methods that will remain required for methoddefined parameters (MDPs) include Method 9040, `` pH Electrometric Measurement, '' to demonstrate whether a waste exhibits the corrosivity characteristic based on pH levels, and Method 9095, `` Paint Filter Liquids Test, '' to demonstrate the absence or presence of free liquids in wastes managed in RCRA­ regulated treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. You cannot replace or modify a method if the method is for determination of a RCRA­ required method­ defined parameter (MDP). However, other MDP methods exist which are not required by the RCRA regulations. It may be possible to modify those methods without adverse regulatory or analytical effects. To summarize, our reasons for restricting required uses of SW– 846 to regulated MDPs include: 1. Allowing the regulated community more flexibility in method use during RCRA­ required testing. 2. Stimulating the development and timely use of innovative and more costeffective monitoring technologies and approaches in the RCRA Program. 3. Allowing more efficient and timely releases of SW– 846 methods by decoupling most of the methods from required uses on the RCRA regulations. 4. Making the RCRA Program more effective by focusing on measurement objectives rather than on measurement technologies. A. How To Determine If A Method Is Appropriate Our proposed revisions to remove required uses of SW– 846 methods include language allowing the use of `` appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources. '' Such a method might be one published by EPA in a different manual or regulation or published by another government agency, a voluntary standards setting organization, or other well­ known sources. We retained mention of the SW– 846 methods in the regulations as guidance and examples of methods that could be appropriate. There are two primary considerations in selecting an appropriate method, as addressed below. i. Appropriate Methods Are Reliable and Accepted as Such in the Scientific Community Methods published by the Agency or other government entities use techniques that have documented reliability and are generally accepted by the scientific community. SW– 846 methods are reviewed by a technical workgroup composed of national expertlevel chemists who provide peer input and determine whether method reliability is sufficiently documented. The technical reliability and acceptance of methods published by other governmental or non­ governmental organizations may also be documented, especially if the methods are subjected to some form of objective scientific review. ii. Appropriate Methods Generate Effective Data Effective data are data of sufficiently known and appropriate quality to be used during project­ specific decisions. An example of such a decision is whether a particular waste is hazardous because a constituent of concern is present above a level of concern. Before sampling and analysis begins, project planners should identify why the analysis is being done, how the data will be used, and how `` good'' the data has to be (e. g., the DQOs). Effective data meet any data quality objectives (DQOs) set by the project planners for the specific project. These objectives (further described below) should be rationally and systematically identified during the planning of the project and development of the project­ specific Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), Waste Analysis Plan (WAP), or Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP). Sampling and analysis documentation VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66257 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules should be sufficient to confirm that the data are effective. Data quality objectives or DQOs generally refer to the necessary quality of the overall decision to be made or, in other words, the tolerable error (i. e., acceptable level of uncertainty for the decision). For example, a DQO for waste analysis may be that one must demonstrate that an analyte is not present above the reported level at the 80 percent upper confidence around the mean, and that the method could have detected the presence of the analyte at that level and confidence limit. A DQO may be specified in a regulation, a permit, a corrective action agreement, or other regulatory or enforcement document. Sometimes you must consider a DQO regulatory specification when selecting an appropriate method. For example, the RCRA comparable fuels' provisions include DQOs in lieu of naming the use of specific methods (see 63 FR 33781, June 19, 1998). You can find guidance on the development of DQOs in EPA's `` Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process'' (EPA QA/ G– 4) found at EPA's Quality Staff's Web site (http:// www. epa. gov/ quality/), in Chapter One, `` Quality Control, '' of SW– 846, and in ASTM D 5792, `` Standard Practice for Generation of Environmental Data Related to Waste Management Activities: Development of Data Quality Objectives. '' You should identify the types of quality control (QC) concepts (e. g., spike recovery analyses, blanks, etc.) you will use to determine if you meet your objectives. For example, selection of an appropriate method is sometimes demonstrated by adequate recovery of spiked or surrogate analytes and reproducible results, or through successful analysis of a standard reference material of a matrix­ type analogous to that of the actual sample matrix. The method may not be appropriate for its intended use if your data show inadequate recovery of an analyte at a level that impairs a decision regarding whether the analyte is present at or below its regulatory level. Such a method would not generate effective data. Based on your QC data, you should determine whether the method generates results that are sufficiently sensitive, unbiased, and precise to demonstrate compliance with the subject regulation. However, you should not focus only on controlling or documenting analytical quality, because regulatory decisions are also susceptible to error due to sampling procedures. If the contaminant variability is not properly addressed during the planning and collection of samples, an incorrect decision could be reached even though the method performed well in terms of laboratory quality control. No matter how accurate or precise the laboratory analysis, the data will provide misleading information if excessive error is introduced by improper sampling procedures. Guidance on identifying the necessary quality control procedures and on minimizing the potential for both analytical and sampling error can be found at the EPA Quality Staff's Web site (http:// www. epa. gov/ quality/) or in Chapters One, Two, and Nine of SW– 846, and in some methods. Finally, you should identify appropriate methods for a specific project before sampling and analysis begins. As the regulated entity, you are ultimately responsible for compliance with a particular regulation. Therefore, you should not rely on the laboratory or other project participant to select an appropriate method. We recommend that you consult with your regulating authority during identification of performance goals and the selection of appropriate methods. iii. Request for Public Comments on Appropriate Method Selection and Use We are interested in public comments regarding the selection and use of other appropriate methods in the RCRA regulations, as described above. We are particularly interested in responses to the following questions: 1. What concerns exist regarding the selection of appropriate methods by the regulated community? 2. What other guidance is needed to aid in the selection of appropriate methods by the regulated community? B. Why We Selected the Proposed Approach Over Other Approaches We considered several approaches to promoting method use flexibility in the RCRA regulations. We selected the `` appropriate method'' approach because it is universally applicable to the subject RCRA regulations. It also requires only minimal revisions to the regulations for implementation. In addition, the option to use `` appropriate methods'' is not new to the RCRA regulations. For example, use of the TCLP, SW– 846 Method 1311, is required for determinations regarding whether a waste is hazardous for the toxicity characteristic (the TC). It generates an extract (the leachate) which is subjected to determinative analysis for comparison with the TC regulatory limits. However, the TCLP procedure does not require specific methods for the leachate determinative analysis, nor does it specify the use of even SW– 846 methods in general for the analysis. It allows method flexibility similar to that proposed by this rule by stating in its sec. 7.2.14: `` The TCLP extract shall be prepared and analyzed according to appropriate analytical methods. '' Before finalizing this rule, we would like the public's opinion of the alternative approaches that we considered, as described below. Please provide specific reasons for your positions regarding the alternative approaches, including perceived advantages or disadvantages. 1. As a variation to the `` appropriate method'' approach described above, should we remove mention of SW– 846 methods as examples of appropriate methods from the subject regulations? We are interested in whether retaining mention of the SW– 846 methods offers significant advantages or disadvantages. (For example, one disadvantage could be that it might leave an incorrect impression that the SW– 846 methods are still preferred by EPA). 2. In lieu of the `` appropriate method'' approach, should we instead add performance criteria to each regulation, such as done in the aforementioned comparable fuel rulemaking, and not mention or require the use of an appropriate method (including any SW– 846 methods)? We did not select this approach because it might not be directly applicable to some regulations and then might require significant regulatory changes with greater impacts. C. Potential Impacts From Removal of Required Uses of SW– 846 Analyses If the regulatory revisions of this proposed rule are promulgated, you can use any appropriate analytical test method in demonstrating compliance with the RCRA regulations, except for those demonstrations involving required method­ defined parameters. For the reasons given in this section, we believe that this action will not significantly or adversely impact the regulated community or other potentially affected parties. In fact, the primary impact of this rule if adopted will be to result in better analytical results and lower costs. All of the entities involved with the task of waste characterization will pay far greater attention to method performance. In addition, project planners and laboratories will be able to identify methods that are potentially less costly to the regulated community. i. Expected Impact on Regulated Entities The use of other appropriate methods will be an option, not a requirement. Regulated entities may continue to use the specified SW– 846 methods to demonstrate compliance and thus VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66258 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules experience no impact from this rulemaking. EPA will also continue to publish and update SW– 846 methods and ensure their scientific soundness by following peer review guidelines and requesting public comment on the methods through Federal Register notices. We primarily believe that an entity will choose to use another appropriate method from that listed in the regulations only when it is beneficial to do so. Method choice will be based on expected efficiencies in cost and performance. For example, you may use methods that are more appropriate for your particular matrix, and cut the cost of using unnecessary standards. Also, a demonstration that another method is appropriate is not new to RCRA­ related sampling and analysis and will not involve much more than what regulated entities already should be doing. For example, you should already be setting method performance goals in your Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) or Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), and evaluating compliance with them based on QC data or other data quality indicators. Some public comments in response to our notice of May 8, 1998, expressed concern regarding the comparability of data generated by different methods for the same purpose. First, this issue is not new, because some regulations already allow the use of more than one method. We also disagree that this should be a concern, provided that any alternative method is also an appropriate method as defined above. Specifically, if both methods generate effective data and meet the same performance goals of the project, then data from both methods are comparable. This has always been EPA's approach in comparing data by different methods, and it is not affected or changed by this proposal. As a stakeholder, you may prefer a more prescriptive approach in the regulations because method­ specific requirements remove the burden of method­ selection decision making. You may believe that this translates into lower costs and better compatibility within a workforce of permit writers and other project participants who may not have method­ selection expertise. We are familiar with this argument and would like to better understand its perspective. However, we believe that many method­ selection decisions should be project specific and thus, when such an approach is applicable, specific methods should not be required in the regulations. Even before this proposed rulemaking, project planners and other participants should be evaluating the effectiveness of methods during facility or waste evaluations. You also may be concerned about the impact of this proposal on existing RCRA permits. RCRA permits are typically effective up to ten years. This proposal, if finalized, would only effect new or reissued permits, and only as an option for flexibility in method selection. Therefore, RCRA permits need not be adversely impacted by this action. Finally, this rule does not propose new information collection or reporting requirements for regulated entities. Sections 260.22( i) (reporting requirements for petitions to exclude wastes) and 264.13( b) and 265.13( b) (reporting requirements for owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities) provide sufficient reporting requirements to cover RCRA­ related testing and analysis documentation regarding the use of other appropriate methods. ii. Expected Impact on States Many of the public comments in response to our May 8, 1998, notice favored State adoption of these revisions, but were concerned that this action will impose additional burden on States. In response, we note that the regulatory changes in this rule are equivalent to or less stringent than the existing Federal regulations which they amend. Therefore, authorized States are not required to adopt and seek authorization for this rulemaking. Nevertheless, we encourage the adoption of these or similar revisions by authorized States in order to promote national adoption of PBMS. In addition, if States choose to adopt these revisions, the impact will not be significant since they already conduct method selection and data quality reviews to determine compliance with their testing and monitoring regulations. iii. Education Efforts by EPA To Facilitate Implementation Many public comments received on our May 8, 1998 notice expressed a need for communication and training, at all levels, to minimize any adverse impacts and promote implementation. Therefore, we plan to educate and train the States, EPA Regions, and the regulated community regarding the implementation of this rule, through such mechanisms as web and internet training modules, workshops, and fact sheets. Over the past six years, we have offered program­ specific training (e. g., `` Analytical Strategy for the RCRA Program: A Performance­ Based Approach'') for EPA Headquarters, Regional, and State personnel involved in RCRA activities that include sampling and analysis. We plan to offer other courses on the evaluation of data and permit writing from a PBMS and effective data standpoint. In addition, we encourage affected entities to contact the Methods Information Communication Service (MICE Service, see ADDRESSES) for answers to any questions or concerns regarding the use of other appropriate methods. These communication and training efforts will help ensure consistency in implementation of this rule by the States, Regions, and regulated community and help limit any associated costs. iv. Request for Public Comment on Impacts and Implementation We request public comment on the impact of this proposed rule and how we might promote its successful implementation. We are particularly interested in public comment to the following questions: 1. What can we do to remove implementation barriers and maximize the benefits from the flexibility provided by this action? 2. What might be the economic impact on the regulated community and other entities as a direct result of this action? 3. What concerns exist regarding implementation and compliance assessments involving the use of other appropriate methods? 4. Are there any technical or programmatic barriers to the implementation of this approach? 5. What guidance or training is needed to assure successful implementation of this action? 6. What new or uncommon data quality problems might be caused by allowing increased flexibility in method selection? IV. Proposed Regulatory Revisions Involving Removal of SW– 846 Requirements Sections IV. A through IV. J address revisions to remove the requirement to use only SW– 846 methods and add the flexibility to use other appropriate methods. The overall basis for these revisions is explained in section II above. Table 2— lists the proposed revisions for each regulation to remove SW– 846 requirements and allow the flexibility to use other appropriate methods. It also lists the preamble section which describes the revisions. As addressed by section IV. K, we also propose to revise the incorporation by reference of SW– 846 in § 260.11 so that it only includes SW– 846 methods required for methodVerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66259 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules defined parameters. Therefore, for each section where we propose to remove the requirement to use only SW– 846 methods, we propose to also remove the SW– 846 incorporation by reference. TABLE 2. REVISIONS TO RCRA REGULATIONS TO REMOVE REQUIRED USES OF SW– 846 METHODS Revised regulation Affected topic or program Preamble section § 260.22( d)( 1)( i) ............................................................................... Delisting ......................................................................................... IV. A Appendix IX to part 261 .................................................................. Delisting ......................................................................................... IV. A §§ 261.35( b)( 2) (iii)( A) and (B) ........................................................ Deletion of certain waste codes following equipment cleaning .... IV. B § 261.38( c)( 7) .................................................................................. Comparable/ syngas fuel exclusion ................................................ IV. C §§ 264.1034( d)( 1) (iii), 264.1063( d) (2), 265.1034( d)( 1) (iii), and 265.1063( d)( 2). Air emission standards for process vents and equipment leaks .. IV. D §§ 265.1084( a)( 3) (iii) and (b)( 3) tanks, (iii), and 265.1084( a)( 3)( ii) (C), (b)( 3)( ii)( C), and (c)( 3)( i). Air emission control requirements for surface impoundments, and containers. IV. E §§ 266.100( d)( 1) (ii) and (g)( 2), and 266.102( b)( 1) ........................ Hazardous wastes burned in boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs). IV. F § 266.106( a) .................................................................................... Control of metal emissions at BIFs ............................................... IV. G §§ 266.112( b)( 1) and (b)( 2)( i) .......................................................... Residues from burning of wastes in BIFs ..................................... IV. H Appendix IX, part 266 ..................................................................... Methods Manual for BIF regulations ............................................. IV. I §§ 270.19( c)( 1) (iii) and (iv), 270.22( a)( 2)( ii)( B), 270.62( b)( 2)( i)( C) and (D), 270.66( c) (2)( i) and (ii). Part B information and trial burn plan requirements for incinerators and BIFs. IV. J We request comment on each of the revisions, particularly in response to the following questions: 1. Does the revision provide adequate flexibility in method selection to facilitate the use of new technologies and encourage a greater focus on the performance of monitoring programs during compliance with the regulation? 2. What are the perceived technical and programmatic barriers to implementing the revision? 3. What is the economic impact of the revision? 4. What guidance or training is needed to aid implementation of the revised regulation? A. Removal of Requirements To Use Only SW– 846 in § 260.22( d)( 1)( i) and Appendix IX to Part 261 Section 260.22( d)( 1)( i) currently states that SW– 846 methods must be used as part of a petition to amend part 261 to exclude (`` delist'') a waste listed with code `` T''. We believe that the mandatory use of only SW– 846 methods for this aspect of a delisting demonstration is not necessary. Therefore, we are proposing to revise § 260.22( d)( 1)( i) by removing the requirement to use only SW– 846 methods, deleting the incorporation by reference referral to § 260.11, and explicitly allowing the use of appropriate methods from other reliable sources. With this revision, if you submit a delisting petition, you will no longer be required to use only SW– 846 methods. We also strongly recommend that you work with your regulating entity (e. g., EPA Region or authorized State) during selection of methods for a delisting demonstration. In this instance, the methods are not being used as required method­ defined parameters. (Note: We are not proposing revisions to § 260.22( d)( 3) of the delisting petition regulations which address the use of methods for determining whether wastes are characteristic hazardous wastes.) We also propose to revise certain conditional delistings (hazardous waste exclusions) in appendix IX, to Part 261 `` Wastes Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22.'' We are revising the delistings to allow the use of appropriate methods besides SW– 846 methods during the required waste analysis. In most cases, we are including the following language in the conditional delistings: `` Analyses must be performed according to appropriate methods such as methods found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in § 260.11, which must be used without substitution). '' With this language, if you are an owner/ operator of the facility, you will have the option to use appropriate methods from other reliable sources besides SW– 846. Some conditional delistings require the use of Methods 9010 (`` Total and Amenable Cyanide: Distillation'') and 9012 (`` Total and Amenable Cyanide (Automated Colorimetric, with Off­ line Distillation''). These methods, although proposed to be retained in § 260.11( a)( 11) as method­ defined parameters because of their required use under § 268.44, the universal treatment standards under the land disposal restrictions regulations are not being used in those delistings for that purpose. Therefore, we believe the facilities should be allowed to use another appropriate method, if they choose to do so. Specifically, we propose to revise the conditional exclusions found in Table 1 of appendix IX of part 261 for the following facilities (listed in order of appearance): —Aptus, Inc., Coffeyville, Kansas —Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, Vertac Superfund site, Jacksonville, Arkansas —BMW Manufacturing Corporation, Greer, South Carolina —Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Sparrows Point, Maryland —DuraTherm, Inc., San Leon, Texas —Eastern Chemical Company, Longview, Texas —Envirite of York, Pennsylvania —Geological Reclamation Operations and Systems, Inc., Morrisville, Pennsylvania —McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma —Occidental Chemical, Ingleside, Texas —Rhodia, Houston, Texas —Syntex Agribusiness, Springfield, Missouri —Texas Eastman, Longview, Texas —Tyco Printed Circuit Group, Melbourne, FL We also propose to revise, as described above, the conditional exclusions found in Table 2 of appendix IX of part 261 for the following facilities (listed in order of appearance): —Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Steelton, Pennsylvania —Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Johnstown, Pennsylvania —BF Goodrich Intermediates Company, Inc., Calvert City, Kentucky —CF& I Steel Corporation, Pueblo, Colorado —Chaparrel Steel Midlothian L. P., Midlothian, Texas —Conversion System, Inc., Horsham, Pennsylvania —DOE– RL, Richland, Washington —Envirite, York, Pennsylvania —Marathon Oil Co., Texas City, Texas VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 18: 41 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66260 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules —Occidental Chemical Corporation, Muscle Shoals Plant, Sheffield, Alabama —Occidental Chemical Corporation, Delaware City, Delaware —Oxy Vinyls, Deer Park, Texas —Roanoke Electric Steel Corporation, Roanoke, Virginia —USX Steel Corporation, USS Division, Southworks Plant, Gary Works, Chicago, Illinois B. Removal of Requirements To Use Only SW– 846 Method 8290 in § 261.35( b)( 2)( iii)( A) and (B) Section 261.35( b)( 2)( iii) addresses the testing of rinses from equipment cleaning when generators are demonstrating that certain wastes from wood preserving processes do not meet the listing definition of hazardous waste code F032 (wastewaters, process residuals, preservative drippage, and spent formulations from wood preserving processes generated at plants that use chlorophenolic formulations). Paragraph (A) of the section currently includes a requirement to use SW– 846 Method 8290, `` Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins (PCDDs) and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (PCDFs) by High­ resolution Gas Chromatography/ High­ resolution Mass Spectrometry. '' The testing of PCDDs and PCDFs using this method does not involve a method­ defined parameter. Therefore, we believe that appropriate methods from other reliable sources should be allowed for this determination. In addition, paragraph (B) of § 261.35( b)( 2)( iii) defines criteria for `` not detected'' values based on information found in SW– 846 Method 8290. We propose that other appropriate methods should be allowed if they meet those criteria. If you are a generator subject to these regulations, you will still be required to test for PCDDs and PCDFs. However, you will have flexibility in method selection and can consider the use of other methods besides SW– 846 Method 8290. C. Removal of Requirement to Use Only SW– 846 in § 261.38( c)( 7) Section 261.38( c)( 7) addresses a demonstration for the exclusion of a waste that meets comparable/ syngas fuel specifications. The section states that, as the waste generator, you `` shall'' develop and follow a plan for the sampling and analysis of the waste, and that the plan `` shall'' be developed in accordance with SW– 846. We propose to revise this section by replacing the second `` shall'' with `` should'' and allow the use of other sampling and analysis guidance, besides that found in SW– 846, during waste analysis plan development, provided the other guidance is appropriate for your demonstration. In this case, other guidance will be appropriate if it addresses procedures needed to meet your sampling and analysis performance goals. D. Removal of Requirements To Use Only SW– 846 Method 8260 in §§ 264.1034( d)( 1)( iii), 264.1063( d)( 2), 265.1034( d)( 1)( iii), and 265.1063( d)( 2) Sections 264.1034( d)( 1)( iii), 264.1063( d)( 2), 265.1034( d)( 1)( iii), and 265.1063( d)( 2) collectively provide test methods and procedures applicable to the air emission standards for process vents and/ or equipment leaks at treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs). SW– 846 Method 9060, `` Total Organic Carbon, '' and SW– 846 Method 8260, `` Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/ Mass Spectrometry, '' are required for the determination of total organic carbon (TOC). Method 9060 is used to directly determine TOC, and thus is used for determination of a methoddefined parameter. If the conditions under which organic carbon is converted to carbon dioxide are altered, there is a significant potential that a smaller or greater fraction of the carbonaceous material will be converted. Method 8260 is used to determine the individual analytes that may be components of the TOC. This use of Method 8260 is not for a methoddefined parameter. Therefore, we propose to revise these sections to allow the use of appropriate methods from other reliable sources in lieu of SW– 846 Method 8260. If you are a facility owner/ operator subject to these regulations, you will still be required to determine the TOC content in your waste. However, if you choose not to directly determine TOC by Method 9060, you will be able to consider the use of appropriate methods other than Method 8260 for the determination of individual analytes. Also, if this rule is finalized, Method 8260 will no longer be incorporated by reference since it will not be solely required by any RCRA regulation. Therefore, we also propose to move the phrase ``( incorporated by reference under § 260.11) '' from after Method 8260 to after Method 9060. This revision will correctly indicate which method remains incorporated by reference. E. Removal of Requirements To Use Only SW– 846 Methods 8260 and 8270 and Revisions to Listing of Method Options in §§ 265.1084( a)( 3)( iii) and (b)( 3)( iii); and Revisions to §§ 265.1084( a)( 3)( ii)( C), (b)( 3)( ii)( C), and (c)( 3)( i) Sections 264.1083 and 265.1084 address the waste determination procedures for the subpart CC air emission control requirements for tanks, surface impoundments, and containers. Section 265.1084 addresses the requirements for interim status treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (facilities that existed at the time that the regulations were established and which needed time to fully comply with the regulations) and provides the details for such procedures. Section 264.1083 addresses the requirements for treatment, storage and disposal facilities which were constructed after the regulations were promulgated and directly references the regulations in § 265.1084. The Agency fully explained the basis and history of the waste determination procedures in these regulations. (See 59 FR 62915, December 6, 1994; 61 FR 4906, February 9, 1996; 61 FR 59942, November 25, 1996; 62 FR 64646, December 8, 1997; and 64 FR 3384, January 21, 1999.) One purpose for waste determination under these regulations is to determine if a unit is exempt from the air emission control requirements. One way that a unit can be exempt from the subpart CC requirements is if it manages a hazardous waste with an average volatile organic (VO) concentration less than 500 parts per million by weight (ppmw). As the owner or operator of the waste management facility, you can make a direct determination of the VO concentration using waste analysis. For the purpose of such a waste determination, you must evaluate the mass of all VO constituents in the waste that have a Henry's Law value greater than or equal to 0.1 mole­ fraction­ inthe gas­ phase/ mole­ fraction­ in­ theliquid phase (0.1 Y/ X), which can also be expressed as 1.8 × 10 –6 atmospheres/ gram­ mole/ m 3 at 25 degrees Celsius. The compounds exceeding these levels are the constituents (analytes) of concern for this determination. (The Henry's Law constant of a compound is one way that is commonly used to predict the potential of a compound to volatilize.) Sections 265.1084( a)( 3)( iii) and (b)( 3)( iii) specify the analytical methods that you must use to determine the VO concentration. The list includes Method 25D (`` Determination of the Volatile Organic Content of Waste Samples'') VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 21: 12 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66261 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules found in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; Methods 624 (`` Purgeables''), 625 (`` Base Neutrals and Acids''), 1624 (`` Volatile Organics by Isotope Dilution GC/ MS''), and 1625 (`` Semivolatile Organics by Isotope Dilution GC/ MS'') found in 40 CFR part 136, appendix A; and Methods 8260 (`` Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/ Mass Spectrometry'') and 8270 (`` Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/ Mass Spectrometry'') found in SW– 846. SW– 846 Methods 8260 and 8270 are listed in § 265.1084( a)( 3)( iii)( F) and (G) and (b)( 3)( iii)( F) and (G). Method 25D is a nonspecific determinative procedure that provides a total volatile organic concentration. The other methods listed in the subject regulation are analyte­ specific determinative procedures. These methods are not being used for methoddefined parameters. We originally offered the analyte­ specific methods as alternatives to Method 25D in response to public comments regarding the aggressiveness, expense, and repeatability of Method 25D. We added those methods and related conditions for their use so that you would have a range of practical and affordable method options. However, for consistency with the intent and purpose of this proposed rule, we propose to remove from §§ 265.1084( a)( 3)( iii) and (b)( 3)( iii) text related to the listing of Methods 624, 625, 1624, 1625, 8260, and 8270 as alternative methods to Method 25D, and add language allowing the use of other appropriate methods from other reliable sources and give Methods 624, 625, 1624, 1625, 8260 and 8270 as examples of such methods. We give our reasons for each revision in the paragraphs to follow. We are removing the listing of Methods 624, 625, 1624, 1625, 8260 and 8270 as method options because, given the addition of the phrase `` or other appropriate methods, '' a listing of these methods is unnecessary. We have retained them as examples of appropriate methods because they cover many of the analytes of interest, and are approved methods for RCRA­ related analyses. By making this change, we are still abiding by our original intent to include methods in the regulations as options to Method 25D. We are not revising that intent; we are only revising how it is expressed in the regulations. This was the original intent of the language added to § 265.1084 in response to public comments. As an owner or operator subject to these regulations, you will have the flexibility to use one or more different methods, provided that the methods are appropriate for the determination. The target analyte lists of Methods 8260 and 8270 might not cover all organic compounds with a Henry's Law constant equal to or greater than 0.1 Y/ X (which can also be expressed as 1.8 × 10 –6 atmospheres/ gram­ mole/ m 3 at 25 degrees Celsius) of concern in a given hazardous waste, and other appropriate methods may be necessary to complete the analysis. On the other hand, you may know that your waste contains only a few analytes of concern and a method with a smaller analyte list is more appropriate. In addition to the above, we propose to correct language in other paragraphs of § 265.1084. First, § 265.1084( a)( 3)( ii)( C), (b)( 3)( ii)( C), and (c)( 3)( i) currently state that an example of an acceptable sampling plan includes a plan incorporating the sampling requirements specified in SW– 846. We propose to revise these sections to make it clear that the sampling procedures found in SW– 846 are not requirements. We intend that information in SW– 846 regarding sampling be only used as guidance. We are not removing the requirements to prepare and maintain an acceptable sampling plan and one which includes the requirements contained in Method 25D. Second, we propose to remove the incorporation by reference for SW– 846 in § 265.1084( a)( 3)( ii)( C), (a)( 3)( iii), (b)( 3)( ii)( C), (b)( 3)( iii), and (c)( 3)( i) since only required methods for the analysis of method­ defined parameters will be retained in § 260.11 should this proposal be finalized, and SW– 846 sampling procedures will not be required for compliance with any regulation under RCRA. F. Removal of Requirements To Use Only SW– 846 in §§ 266.100( d)( 1)( ii) and (g)( 2), and 266.102( b)( 1) Part 266, subpart H, addresses the standards for the management of hazardous wastes burned in boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs). Sections 266.100( d)( 1)( ii) and (g)( 2) currently require the use of SW– 846 methods `` or alternative methods that meet or exceed the SW– 846 method performance, '' when sampling and analyzing feedstocks for a conditional exemption for smelting, melting, and refining furnaces that burn hazardous waste solely for legitimate recovery. Section 266.102( b)( 1) contains the same language regarding waste analysis in support of permits. When we finalized this regulation, we added the use of `` alternative methods'' in response to concerns that SW– 846 method detection limits cannot be achieved when analyzing certain feedstream matrices (see 56 FR 42504, August 27, 1991). The subject rule noted that we could reject the use of an alternative method because it may not meet or exceed the performance capabilities of the SW– 846 methods or the recommended methods. In this instance, the SW– 846 methods are not being used for method­ defined parameters. Therefore, we propose to remove from §§ 266.100( d)( 1)( ii) and (g)( 2) and 266.102( b)( 1) the phrase regarding alternative methods and add language allowing the use of `` appropriate'' procedures from other reliable sources. This change will explicitly allow the use of other appropriate methods and maintain consistency in our language throughout the RCRA regulations regarding the use of other methods. The broad, conforming changes that we are proposing to make throughout the regulations are essentially similar to what is included here. While we are changing specific language here, we are not changing the original intent of the regulation. In fact, we are proposing to use the original intent of this regulation throughout the other RCRA regulations, when applicable. G. Removal of Requirement To Use Only SW– 846 in § 266.106( a) Section 266.106 provides the standards to control emissions of metals at BIFs. Paragraph (a) of this section states that the owner/ operators must comply with the standards for any listed metal of concern that is present at detectable levels using SW– 846 methods. The listed metals of concern include antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, thallium, and silver. In this instance, the SW– 846 methods are not being used for the analysis of methoddefined parameters and their required use is not necessary. Therefore, we propose to revise this section by removing the requirement to use only SW– 846 methods, deleting the reference to § 260.11, and explicitly allowing the use of other appropriate methods. H. Removal of Requirements To Use Only SW– 846 in § 266.112( b)( 1) and (b)( 2)( i) Section 266.112 of the BIF regulations addresses the regulation of residues resulting from the burning or processing of hazardous wastes in BIFs. Paragraph (b)( 1) provides testing requirements for the exclusion of such residues based on comparison of appendix VIII, part 261, constituents in a waste­ derived residue to those in a normal residue. It states that sampling and analysis must be in conformance with the procedures of VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66262 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules SW– 846. The section does not specify the use of any SW– 846 methods for method­ defined parameters. In addition, the preamble to the Hazardous Waste Combustion Maximum Achievable Control Technologies (MACT) rulemaking of September 30, 1999 (64 FR 52828) stated that EPA does not require the use of SW– 846 methods for the analysis of feedstreams in order to be consistent with a move toward PBMS. Therefore, we propose to remove the requirement to use only SW– 846 procedures during the BIF residue exclusion demonstration, to delete the reference to § 260.11, and to explicitly allow the use of other appropriate methods. If you are an owner/ operator subject to this regulation, and you select this option, you will still be required to determine if the residue contains appendix VIII constituents. However, you will have more flexibility in the selection of a method for the determination. In addition, § 266.112( b)( 2)( i) requires the use of only SW– 846 procedures during a residue exclusion demonstration based on a comparison of non­ metal constituent concentrations in the waste­ derived residue with healthbased limits provided in appendix VII to part 266. Under this section, the testing of the residue does not involve a method­ defined parameter and the required use of only SW– 846 methods is not necessary. We propose to revise this section by removing the required use of only SW– 846 procedures and explicitly allowing the use of other appropriate methods. If you are an owner/ operator subject to this regulation, and you select this option, you will still be required to compare levels of non­ metal constituents with the health­ based limits of appendix VII. However, you will have more flexibility in the selection of a method for the determination. We are not revising § 266.112( b)( 2)( ii), which will continue to require the use of the TCLP for the leaching of metal constituents during the residue exclusion demonstration under § 266.112( b)( 2). I. Removal of Requirements To Use Only SW– 846 in Sections 1.0, 3.0, 10.3, and 10.6 of Appendix IX to Part 266 Appendix IX to part 266 contains the methods manual for compliance with the BIF regulations. The last paragraph of section 1.0, `` Introduction, '' currently identifies all SW– 846 methods to the BIF manual as required procedures for determining compliance with the BIF regulations. The section text does not specifically reference the method numbers; instead it only refers to the methods of SW– 846 in general. However, not all of the SW– 846 methods for BIF­ related analysis are used for method­ defined parameters. Therefore, we propose to revise the last paragraph of section 1.0 to explicitly list those SW– 846 methods used for method­ defined parameters in BIFrelated analyses (i. e., air sampling) and which cannot be substituted with other methods. Those methods will remain required for BIF­ related analyses, if this proposal is finalized. These methods include air sampling Methods 0011 (`` Sampling for Selected Aldehyde and Ketone Emissions from Stationary Sources''), 0023 (`` Sampling Method for Polychlorinated Dibenzo­ p­ Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofuran Emissions from Stationary Sources''), 0050 (`` Isokinetic HCl/ Cl2 Emission Sampling Train''), 0051 (`` Midget Impinger HCl/ Cl2 Emission Sampling Train''), 0060 (`` Determination of Metals in Stack Emissions''), and 0061 (`` Determination of Hexavalent Chromium Emissions from Stationary Sources''). The following two methods are those BIF methods which do not involve method­ defined parameters and which can be substituted with other appropriate methods for BIF­ related analyses: SW– 846 Method 9057, `` Determination of Chloride from HCl/ Cl2 Emission Sampling Train (Methods 0050 and 0051) by Anion Chromatography, '' and Method 8315, `` Determination of Carbonyl Compounds by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC). '' We propose to add sentences to the last paragraph of section 1.0 of appendix IX to part 266 that allows the use of appropriate methods from other reliable sources for these determinations. [Note: Methods 0050 and 0051, referenced in the title of Method 9057, describe the collection of stack gas emission samples for subsequent determinative analysis of hydrogen chloride and chlorine. Method 9057, an ion chromatography method, is typically used in the determinative analysis of chloride from the samples generated by those methods. During use of Methods 0050 and 0051, Cl­ ions are collected in separate solutions for subsequent determinative analysis (e. g., using Method 9057). Methods 0050 and 0051 remain required methods for a method­ defined parameter because a change in their sampling procedures (e. g., a change in the nature of the solutions submitted for determinative analysis) could result in different results by the determinative method. However, it is not necessary to exclusively require Method 9057 for the chloride determination because, when appropriate, other determinative methods besides Method 9057 may be used for that determination.] Given the above, we also propose to revise the `` Note'' of section 3.0, `` Sampling and Analytical Methods, '' to reflect that the complete SW– 846 manual will no longer be incorporated by reference as a source of required methods for BIF­ related analyses. Section 10.3, `` Basis, '' addresses the determination of metal concentrations during BIF­ related analyses. Paragraph (2) of this section references SW– 846, as incorporated by reference, as the source for methods for the determinations. Methods for such determinations are not used for method­ defined parameters. Therefore, we propose to revise the section so that other appropriate methods can be used, and remove the indication that these SW– 846 methods are incorporated by reference. Finally, the fourth bullet of paragraph (5) of section 10.6, `` Precompliance Procedures, '' indicates that daily sample composites must be prepared according to SW– 846 procedures. We propose to revise this bullet to allow other appropriate procedures and reflect the intent that SW– 846 sampling procedures only be used as guidance. J. Removal of Requirements To Use Only SW– 846 Methods in §§ 270.19( c)( 1)( iii) and (iv); 270.22( a)( 2)( ii)( B); 270.62( b)( 2)( i)( C) and (D); and 270.66( c)( 2)( i) and (ii) Section 270.19 describes the part B information requirements for incinerators. Paragraph (c)( 1)( iii) of that section states that, when submitting information in lieu of a trial burn, the applicant must identify any hazardous constituents listed in appendix VIII of part 261 that are present in the waste by using SW– 846. Sections 270.62( b)( 2)( i)( C) and (D) and 270.66( c)( 2)( i) and (ii) provide the same requirements for the trial burn plans submitted by hazardous waste incinerator and BIF permit applicants. In addition, § 270.22 provides specific part B information requirements for BIFs. Paragraph (a)( 2)( ii)( B) of that section states that, when seeking to permit BIFs that burn low risk wastes to waive the DRE trial burn, owner/ operators must submit results using SW– 846 analytical techniques documenting the concentrations of the nonmetal compounds of appendix VIII of part 261. Each of the above sections include requirements to use only SW– 846 methods during the analyses of appendix VIII, part 261, constituents. These analyses do not involve the use of SW– 846 methods for method­ defined VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66263 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules parameters. We propose to remove these requirements, to delete the references to § 260.11, and to explicitly allow the use of appropriate methods from other reliable sources. If you are an applicant, you will still be required to conduct analyses for the appendix VIII constituents of concern. However, you will have flexibility in the selection of an appropriate method. K. Removal of SW– 846 Methods From Incorporation by Reference in § 260.11( a)( 11) Currently, all methods of SW– 846 are incorporated by reference at § 260.11( a)( 11) `` when used'' within the RCRA regulations. All of SW– 846 had to be incorporated by reference because some RCRA regulations require in general any SW– 846 method (e. g., the delisting regulations). The required methods had to be incorporated by reference because they are too lengthy for publishing directly in the regulations and they are readily available to the public in the SW– 846 manual. In this rule, we propose to restrict required uses of SW– 846 methods for the analysis of method­ defined parameters. Therefore, we propose to revise § 260.11( a)( 11) to remove the incorporation by reference of all SW– 846 methods except those SW– 846 methods that may be required for the analyses of method­ defined parameters. Those methods will remain incorporated by reference when used for method­ defined parameters and required by the RCRA regulations (a few are not explicitly required by the RCRA regulations at this time). It is important to note that a method listed in § 260.11( a)( 11) because it is used for analysis of a method­ defined parameter is sometimes used for nonmandatory purposes. For example, Methods 9010, `` Total and Amenable Cyanide: Distillation, '' and 9012, `` Total and Amenable Cyanide (Automated Colorimetric, with Off­ line Distillation) '' are listed in some conditional delistings and are not being used for a methoddefined parameter. Therefore, the facilities can use another appropriate method for those analyses. However, these same methods are used as methoddefined parameters under § 268.44, the universal treatment standards under the land disposal restrictions regulations. In that case, the methods cannot be substituted. Therefore, due to the latter scenario, those two methods are incorporated by reference in the regulations at § 260.11( a)( 11). It is the application of a method in a regulation that determines whether a method is being used to analyze a required method­ defined parameter— not simply whether the method is listed in § 260.11( a)( 11). Given this proposal, the SW– 846 methods to remain as incorporated by reference in § 260.11( a)( 11) are listed in Table 3. TABLE 3.— SW– 846 METHODS TO REMAIN IN § 260.11( A)( 11) SW– 846 method Method title 0010 ........................................................ Modified Method 5 Sampling Train. 0011 ........................................................ Sampling for Selected Aldehyde and Ketone Emissions from Stationary Sources. 0020 ........................................................ Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS). 0023 ........................................................ Sampling Method for Polychlorinated Dibenzo­ p­ Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofuran Emissions from Stationary Sources. 0030 ........................................................ Volatile Organic Sampling Train. 0031 ........................................................ Sampling Method for Volatile Organic Compounds (SMVOC). 0040 ........................................................ Sampling of Principal Organic Hazardous Constituents from Combustion Sources Using Tedlar Bags. 0050 ........................................................ Isokinetic HCl/ Cl2 Emission Sampling Train. 0051 ........................................................ Midget Impinger HCl/ Cl2 Emission Sampling Train. 0060 ........................................................ Determination of Metals in Stack Emissions. 0061 ........................................................ Determination of Hexavalent Chromium Emissions from Stationary Sources. 1010 ........................................................ Pensky­ Martens Closed­ Cup Method for Determining Ignitability. 1020 ........................................................ Small Scale Closed­ Cup Method for Determining Ignitability. 1110 ........................................................ Corrosivity Toward Steel. 1310 ........................................................ Extraction Procedure (EP) and Structural Integrity Test. 1311 ........................................................ Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. 1312 ........................................................ Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure. 1320 ........................................................ Multiple Extraction Procedure. 1330 ........................................................ Extraction Procedure for Oily Wastes. 3542 ........................................................ Extraction of Semivolatile Analytes Collected Using Method 0010 (Modified Method 5 Sampling Train). 5041 ........................................................ Analysis for Desorption of Sorbent Cartridges from Volatile Organic Sampling Train (VOST). 9010 ........................................................ Total and Amenable Cyanide: Distillation. 9012 ........................................................ Total and Amenable Cyanide (Automated Colorimetric, with Off­ line Distillation). 9040 ........................................................ pH Electrometric Measurement. 9045 ........................................................ Soil and Waste pH. 9060 ........................................................ Total Organic Carbon (TOC). 9070 ........................................................ n­ Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) for Aqueous Samples. 9071 ........................................................ n­ Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) for Sludge, Sediment, and Solid Samples. 9095 ........................................................ Paint Filter Liquids Test. Please note that we are not adding any new methods to § 260.11( a)( 11)— each method listed above is already a part of SW– 846 and was incorporated by reference during previous rulemakings. We are only removing from incorporation by reference those methods that will no longer be required should this proposal be finalized. For each method retained as incorporated by reference, we are indicating in § 260.11( a)( 11) the promulgated version of the method which was last incorporated by reference and thus which must be used during regulatory compliance. VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66264 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules V. Proposed Editorial Corrections to SW– 846 References in the RCRA Testing and Monitoring Regulations We also propose to correct inaccurate references to SW– 846 (some of which are logical outgrowths to the proposed revision to § 260.11), and clarify method selection flexibility in the RCRA regulations. Table 4 lists and summarizes these proposed changes to the RCRA regulations. TABLE 4.— PROPOSED CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS Regulation Correction or clarification § 258.28( c)( 1)— Liquids restrictions .................... Correction to add `` incorporated by reference in § 260.11'' after mention of SW– 846 Method 9095, `` Paint Filter Liquids Test'' Appendix I to part 258— Constituents for detection monitoring. Correction to include SW– 846 Method 6020 as an example of an appropriate method for detection monitoring. Appendix II to part 258— List of inorganic and organic hazardous constituents. Clarification regarding the use of other appropriate methods by removing the `` Suggested Methods'' and `` PQLs ( g/ L) '' columns, removing footnotes 1, 5 and 6 and revising and renumbering the remaining footnotes, as appropriate. (As noted in footnote 1, the methods and PQLs were given for informational purposes only; and, as noted in footnote 6, the PQLs were directly related to the indicated methods and not part of a regulation.). § 260.21( d)— Petitions for equivalent methods ... Clarification that equivalent methods will be added to § 260.11, instead of just added to SW– 846. §§ 261.3( a)( 2)( v), 279.10( b)( 1)( ii), 279.44( c), 279.53( c), and 279.63( c)— Rebuttable presumption for used oil. Clarification that other appropriate methods beside the example SW– 846 methods can be used in analyses to show that a used oil does not contain hazardous waste. Appendix III to part 261— Chemical analysis test methods. Clarification regarding the use of other appropriate methods. §§ 264.1034( f) and 265.1034( f)— Test methods and procedures. Clarification that appropriate methods other than SW– 846 Method 8260 are allowed to resolve disagreements regarding concentration estimates. Appendix IX to part 264— Ground­ water monitoring list. Clarification regarding the use of other appropriate methods by removing the `` Suggested Methods'' and `` PQLs ( g/ L) '' columns and removing footnotes 1, 5 and 6 and revising and renumbering the subsequent footnotes, as appropriate. (As noted in footnote 1, the methods and PQLs were given for informational purposes only; and, as noted in footnote 6, the PQLs were directly related to the indicated methods and not part of a regulation.). § 265.1081— Definitions ...................................... Correction to SW– 846 reference in definition of `` waste stabilization process''. Appendix IX to part 266— Methods manual for compliance with BIF regulations. Corrections to reflect removal of SW– 846 methods from the manual on June 13, 1997 and clarification in existing guidance regarding use of other appropriate methods and SW– 846. VI. Proposed Action To Withdraw Reactivity Interim Guidance From SW– 846 Chapter Seven and Remove Required SW– 846 Reactivity Analyses and Threshold Levels From Conditional Delistings We are also proposing to withdraw the reactivity interim threshold levels and reactive cyanide and sulfide methods from Chapter Seven of SW– 846 and from certain conditional delistings found in appendix IX to 40 CFR part 261. In particular, July 1985, EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) issued a memorandum entitled `` Interim Thresholds for Toxic Gas Generation. '' This 1985 memorandum contained interim threshold levels for toxic cyanide and sulfide gas generation and draft analytical methods for testing wastes for those levels. This reactive cyanide and reactive sulfide guidance was developed in response to public inquiries about how to evaluate wastes for the characteristic of reactivity under § 261.21( a)( 5). In response to subsequent concerns about the effectiveness of the guidance (as explained further below), EPA's OSW reexamined the guidance, and on April 21, 1998, issued a memorandum entitled `` Withdrawal of Cyanide and Sulfide Reactivity Guidance'' which withdrew the July 1985 guidance. At this time, given the 1998 withdrawal of the reactive cyanide and sulfide interim threshold levels and draft method guidance, EPA proposes to withdraw the same guidance from Chapter Seven, `` Characteristics Introduction and Regulatory Definitions, '' of SW– 846 and to withdraw required uses of the interim threshold levels and methods found in certain conditional exclusions (also called delistings) at 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX. The following paragraphs provide background information regarding the 1985 guidance and its withdrawal in 1998, and provide the basis for this proposal. See the docket, number RCRA– 2002– 0025, of this rulemaking for a copy of the 1985 and 1998 memorandums. 40 CFR 261.23 contains eight narrative descriptions of properties used to identify solid wastes exhibiting the hazardous waste characteristic of reactivity (EPA Hazardous Waste Number D003). The fifth of those properties at § 261.23( a)( 5) addresses cyanide­ and sulfide­ bearing solid wastes. The regulation states that one way a solid waste can be reactive is if `` it is a cyanide­ or sulfide­ bearing waste which, when exposed to pH conditions between 2 and 12.5, can generate toxic gases, vapors or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to human health or the environment. '' The regulation does not require that a particular test method be used for determination of this reactive property. Instead, as with each of the reactivity characteristic properties, the regulated public must base their determination on the narrative standard and knowledge of their waste. Some of the hazardous waste characteristics are defined in terms of properties measurable by standardized testing protocols. However, regarding the reactivity characteristic, EPA noted that available test methods suffered from a number of shortcomings which made it inappropriate to specify a numerically quantified definition with accompanying test protocols (see 45 FR 33110, May 19, 1980). In addition, reactive wastes may exist and pose a hazard under a variety of situations and circumstances, and it would be difficult to adequately quantify and test for all of those situations. The Agency noted that a lack of a quantified definition and accompanying test methods would not cause problems because most generators VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66265 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules of reactive wastes are aware that their wastes possess the property and require special handling. Consequently, the Agency developed the narrative definitions found at § 261.23 as sufficient information to determine whether a waste is hazardous based on reactivity. However, the Agency received many public inquires regarding how to evaluate wastes for the reactivity characteristic property at § 261.23( a)( 5). The Agency therefore initiated studies on the possible development of numerical limits and test methods for the property. On an interim basis, the Agency issued the memorandum in July 1985 which provided interim threshold levels for `` toxic gas generation reactivity. '' These limits were 250 mg of HCN/ kg of waste for total available cyanide and 500 mg of H2S/ kg of waste for total available sulfide. The memorandum provided draft testing methods for measuring the available cyanide and sulfide and noted that ongoing studies may result in changes to the methods. The memorandum also provided a description of the mismanagement scenario used to derive the interim threshold levels. This scenario assumed disposal of cyanide­ and sulfide­ bearing wastes into an open pit containing acidic wastes, resulting in a rapid and high level release of toxic gas. After issuance of the 1985 memorandum, the guidance threshold levels and draft test methods were included in sections 7.3.3 (`` Interim Guidance for Reactive Cyanide'') and 7.3.4 (`` Interim Guidance for Reactive Sulfide'') of Chapter Seven of EPA Publication SW– 846, `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods. '' The 1985 memorandum contained non­ binding interim guidance and was not a regulation. The EPA reactivity threshold limit and method studies mentioned by the document were not successfully completed. No threshold levels or test methods were ever proposed or promulgated and included in § 261.23( a)( 5) as numerically quantified definitions of a reactive hazardous waste. The addition of the 1985 interim limits and draft methods to Chapter Seven of SW– 846 did not change the guidance status of the levels and methods for purposes of judging if a waste exhibits the characteristic of reactivity because the reactivity characteristic at § 261.23 does not specify the limits or use of the SW– 846 methods. EPA intended that the 1985 and Chapter Seven information only be used as guidance of what might be hazardous. Since cyanide and sulfide reactivity under § 261.23( a)( 5) does not specify the use of a SW– 846 method and instead relies on a narrative standard, the SW– 846 methods are not incorporated by reference at § 260.11 for the purpose of determining whether a waste is hazardous based on that property of the reactivity characteristic. However, as noted above in section III. A (`` Removal Of Requirements to Use only SW– 846 in §§ 260.22( d)( 1)( i) and Appendix IX to Part 261'') of this proposal, some conditional delistings were promulgated after 1985 that require the use of SW– 846 methods, including use of the reactive cyanide and reactive sulfide test methods found in SW– 846 Chapter Seven. Some of these conditional delistings also specify the reactive cyanide and sulfide limits of 250 mg/ kg and 500 mg/ kg, respectively, as delisting action levels. In early 1998, the National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) of EPA expressed concerns regarding the effectiveness of the reactivity guidance contained in the 1985 memorandum and Chapter Seven of SW– 846, and urged that EPA withdraw the guidance. Consequently, EPA's OSW conducted a review of the 1985 guidance mismanagement scenario, the derivation of the guidance threshold levels, and the relationship of the scenario and thresholds to the test method results. After this careful review, EPA concluded that NEIC's concerns regarding effectiveness of the guidance were well founded. To summarize, EPA concluded that the guidance had the following significant flaws: (1) The test conditions evaluate a single pH condition and not the range of pH conditions (2 to 12.5) specified in the regulation; (2) the test conditions do not adequately recover the analyte and thus the tests predict low percentages of analyte releases in the waste, (3) the mismanagement scenario and test conditions are not correctly scaled between each other, and (4) the mismanagement scenario of an open pit is not the only exposure of concern and may not represent a plausible worst case scenario. (See the April 21, 1998 memorandum at http:// www. epa. gov/ SW– 846/ for detailed information regarding NEIC's concerns and EPA's conclusions.) EPA consequently withdrew the July 1985 guidance through the aforementioned April 21, 1998 memorandum. Therefore, in conjunction with the 1998 withdrawal of the 1985 cyanide and sulfide reactivity guidance, we propose to remove sections 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 from Chapter Seven of SW– 846. We will include the revised Chapter Seven in Proposed Update IIIB to SW– 846. It is necessary to use a rulemaking to remove sections 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 from Chapter Seven, even though the sections were originally added only as guidance, because as noted above certain conditional delistings found in Tables 1 and 2 of 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX, do require use of the methods in those sections. The 1998 withdrawal of the 1985 guidance did not affect those requirements. Since the delistings require the use of SW– 846 methods, the reactive cyanide and sulfide methods found in SW– 846 are incorporated by reference for the purpose of implementing those specific delisting provisions. We therefore, propose to remove required uses of the SW– 846 Chapter Seven methods for reactive cyanide and sulfide from a number of conditional delistings. In addition, some of the conditional waste exclusions list the reactive cyanide and sulfide interim threshold levels found in the 1985 memorandum and in Chapter Seven as delisting action limits. Therefore, due to Agency concerns regarding the effectiveness of those levels for determining whether a waste is hazardous, the Agency also proposes to remove those levels from the delistings. The Agency notes that the exclusions in 40 CFR part 261 appendix IX only apply to listed hazardous wastes. As noted by §§ 260.22( c)( 2), (d)( 4) and (e)( 4), an excluded waste may still be a hazardous waste by operation of subpart C of part 261, which contains the RCRA regulations addressing characteristic hazardous wastes. Therefore, generators of excluded wastes are still required to continue to determine whether their wastes remain non­ hazardous based on the four hazardous waste characteristics, including the characteristic of reactivity. (EPA's `` RCRA Delisting Program Guidance Manual for the Petitioner, '' March 23, 2000, affirms this requirement by stating that generators with excluded wastes remain obligated to determine whether their waste remains non­ hazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics.) Therefore, removal of required testing for reactive cyanide and sulfide based on the SW– 846 methods and threshold levels does not relieve the generators of delisted wastes from a reactivity characteristic determination. Given the regulatory requirement in § 260.22( c)( 2), (d)( 4) and (e)( 4) it also is not necessary to replace the reactive cyanide and sulfide method requirements or threshold levels in those delistings with language requiring a determination based on the narrative at § 261.23( a)( 5), VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66266 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules or on any other property under the reactivity characteristic. As noted by the 1998 memorandum, we understand that withdrawal of the reactivity guidance meant that waste generators who relied on this guidance in the past might have somewhat greater uncertainty about determining the regulatory status of their cyanide­ and sulfide­ bearing wastes. However, the Agency believes that generators of sulfide­ and cyanide­ bearing wastes can recognize the acute toxicity of sulfides and cyanides without relying on the guidance test methods and threshold levels. Where wastes with high concentrations of soluble sulfides and cyanides are managed, generators have relied on their knowledge of the waste to classify them as D003. Generators should continue to classify their high concentration sulfide­ and cyanidebearing wastes as hazardous based on the narrative standard of 261.23( a)( 5), as they always have been required to do. We are interested in public comments on the removal of the reactivity guidance from Chapter Seven and on the removal of the reactive cyanide and sulfide analytical requirements and threshold levels from the conditional delistings. VII. Proposed Clarifications to Corrosivity and Ignitability Hazardous Waste Characteristics Sections VII. A and VII. B address proposed revisions to the corrosivity characteristic and the ignitability characteristic testing requirements. The revisions include changes to references to ASTM standards and SW– 846 methods. These revisions are nonsubstantive updates of the methods presently used in the regulations and will not affect which wastes are determined to be hazardous based on the characteristics. We request public comment on each of the proposed revisions. A. Revision to § 261.22( a)( 2) To Clarify That SW– 846 Method 1110 Is the SW– 846 Standardized Version of the NACE Standard Specified for Corrosivity Characteristic Testing Section 261.22( a)( 2) defines the hazardous waste characteristic of corrosivity for a liquid which corrodes steel. The required test method for the determination is identified as `` the test method specified in NACE * * * Standard TM– 01– 69 as standardized in *** SW– 846 * * *'' As explained in the May 19, 1980 regulations (see 45 FR 33084) which added § 261.22 to the RCRA regulations, EPA standardized the NACE Standard TM– 01– 69 in SW– 846. As also explained in the background document to the corrosivity characteristic, NACE Standard TM– 01– 69 describes a simple immersion test to determine the rate of corrosion, and the procedure is not completely standardized because it was designed to test the suitability of metals for a variety of uses. In 1980, a public commenter was concerned that the incomplete standardization of the NACE Standard permitted undesired variation in test conditions. EPA agreed and, in response to the public comment, put a standardized version of the method in SW– 846 so that the procedure more clearly defined the appropriate test conditions. At the time, we did not specify which test method of SW– 846 included the standardized version of the NACE method. This SW– 846 method has always been Method 1110, `` Corrosivity Toward Steel. '' Therefore, we propose to add the number of this method to § 261.22( a)( 2) for clarification of which SW– 846 test method is the standardized version of NACE. This revision to § 261.22( a)( 2) does not represent a change to the characteristic. B. Revisions to § 261.21( a)( 1) To Update References to ASTM Standards, To Clarify That SW– 846 Methods 1010 and 1020 Reference and Use the ASTM Standards Specified for Ignitability Characteristic Testing, and To Remove an Unnecessary Referral to Method Equivalency Petitions; and Revisions to § 260.11( a)( 1) and (2) To Include the Updated References Section 261.21( a)( 1) defines the hazardous waste characteristic of ignitability for a liquid which has a flash point less than 60 ° C (140 ° F). For the determination, the section requires the Pensky­ Martens Closed Cup Tester using ASTM Standard D 93– 79 or D 93– 80, or a Setaflash Closed Cup Tester using ASTM Standard D 3278– 78. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has revised these standards. We compared the latest versions of the standards with the ones currently referenced by § 261.21( a)( 1). We found that the differences between ASTM Standard D 3278– 78 and the new version D 3278– 96 were not substantive and will not affect whether a waste is identified as hazardous based on the ignitability characteristic. We also compared ASTM Standard D 93– 80 with the newer versions D 93– 99c and D 93– 00. Again, we found that the D 93– 99c differences were not substantial. However, we found that the D 93– 00 differences may be substantial because that version specifies different sample container volumes for different sample types. Specifically, it requires that all matrices except residual fuel oil be collected in containers not more than 85% or less than 50% full. The revision may significantly affect the characteristic results, since the potential to lose flammable volatile constituents will be greater from sample containers that may now have as much as 50% headspace. We are interested in public comment on this evaluation and conclusion. You can review a copy of our ASTM standard comparisons in the docket (number RCRA– 2002– 0025) to this proposed rule. Given the above, we propose to revise § 261.21( a)( 1) so that the use of `` ASTM Standard D 93– 79 or ASTM Standard D 93– 80'' is replaced by the use of `` ASTM Standard D 93– 99c'' for an ignitability characteristic determination using the Pensky­ Martens Closed Cup Tester. We also request comment on whether we should instead replace the older standard with `` ASTM Standard D 93– 00.'' Please give detailed reasons for your position. Likewise, we propose to revise § 261.21( a)( 1) whereby the use of `` ASTM Standard D 3278– 78'' is replaced by the use of `` ASTM Standard D 3278– 96'' for a determination using the Small Scale Closed Cup Apparatus (formerly called the Setaflash Closed Cup Tester in ASTM D 3278– 78). We also propose to revise the incorporation by reference citations for these methods at § 260.11( a)( 1) and (2) to reflect the updated references of these ASTM methods. In addition, the most current versions of SW– 846 Method 1010, `` PenskyMartens Closed­ Cup Method for Determining Ignitability, '' and Method 1020, `` Setaflash Closed­ Cup Method for Determining Ignitability, '' use the above ASTM standards as their method procedures. A brief summary of the ASTM procedure is provided by each method and the reader is referred to the appropriate ASTM standard for information on how to conduct the subject test. Therefore, we propose to also revise § 261.21( a)( 1) to clarify that the ASTM standards for ignitability characteristic determinations are used and referenced by the subject SW– 846 methods. Finally, regarding § 261.21( a)( 1), we propose to remove the end of the last sentence which refers to the equivalent test method demonstration. This information is adequately addressed in §§ 260.20 and 260.21. It is not necessary to repeat the information regarding method equivalency petitions in each section of a RCRA regulation which requires use of a test method. Also, this revision is consistent with similar sections on testing in part 261 and other parts of the RCRA regulations. VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66267 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules None of the above proposed revisions represent a change to the ignitability characteristic. VIII. Availability of Proposed Update IIIB and Invitation for Public Comment on the Update SW– 846 is a guidance document that changes over time as new information and data are developed. Today, we propose to revise several methods and chapters of SW– 846 and release these revisions as an update to the Third Edition of SW– 846. To date, EPA has finalized Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIA to the Third Edition of the SW– 846 manual. On May 8, 1998 (see 63 FR 25430) and on November 27, 2000 (see 65 FR 70678), we also respectively announced the availability of Draft Update IVA and Draft Update IVB methods and chapters, which we published for guidance purposes only. The revised methods of today's update (Update IIIB) are used for methoddefined parameters and thus, any required uses of those methods will remain in the RCRA regulations (a few of the methods are not explicitly required in the current RCRA regulations). Therefore, we are formally proposing them today as Update IIIB to SW– 846. Our reasons for the method revisions follow. First, as noted earlier, ASTM released Standards D 93– 99c, `` Flash Point by Pensky­ Martins Closed Cup Tester, '' to replace D 93– 80 (which previously replaced D 93– 79) and D 3278– 96, `` Flash Point of Liquids by Small Scale Closed­ Cup Apparatus, '' to replace D 3278– 78. The current versions of SW– 846 Methods 1010 and 1020 reference the older versions of those standards. We propose to replace these out­ of­ date references in Methods 1010 and 1020 with references to the newer versions of the subject ASTM standards. We also propose to revise the title of Method 1020 from `` Setaflash Closed­ Cup Method for Determining Ignitability'' to `` Small Scale Closed Cup Method for Determining Ignitability'' for consistency with the title of ASTM Standard D 3278– 96. None of the above revisions to Methods 1010 and 1020 represent a change to the ignitability characteristic. We also propose to clarify the surface area equation found in Sec. 4.5 of Method 1110, `` Corrosivity Toward Steel. '' We have received questions from the public indicating that the current equation is not sufficiently clear as written, due to the equation font and format. We wish to note that the equation shown in the method can be correctly followed if one uses the rules for mathematical function precedence (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and then division). Nevertheless, we are changing Sec. 4.5 of Method 1110 to a format that is less subject to misinterpretation. This does not represent a significant change to that method or the characteristic because the new presentation does not change the equation or calculation result. We also propose to include in Update IIIB seven revised methods which will be retained at § 260.11( a)( 11) because they might be required for RCRA­ related method­ defined parameters. We are also revising the text in section 6.0 of most of these methods to remove required uses of Chapter Nine during the required uses of those methods. We are making these revisions to clarify that use of sampling directions found in Chapter Nine of SW– 846 is guidance and not required under the RCRA Program. These revisions do not modify any required uses of the methods in the RCRA regulations or the results from using the methods. Regarding Method 9070A, we are adding the suffix `` A'' and a method title, which were inadvertently left out during its last promulgation as part of Update IIIA. To address editorial revisions due to the revised methods, Update IIIB will include a revised Table of Contents and revised Chapters Five, Six, and Eight. Chapters Five, Six, and Eight will be revised to include the new method numbers for the revised methods of Proposed Update IIIB. Also, Chapter Seven will be revised to reflect the withdrawal of the reactive cyanide and sulfide guidance in sections 7.3.3 (`` Interim Guidance for Reactive Cyanide'') and 7.3.4 (`` Interim Guidance for Reactive Sulfide''), and to replace certain characteristic explanatory text with referrals to the regulations themselves. In conclusion, we propose to revise § 260.11( a)( 11) to include the eleven Update IIIB revised methods described above. Table 5 provides a listing of the Update IIIB eleven revised SW– 846 methods and four revised chapters and Table of Contents. The method numbers in the table reflect the appropriate method revision letter suffix (e. g., A, B, C, etc.). These suffixes are not always reflected in the RCRA regulations themselves (e. g., the regulations typically only cite the method number without a suffix), nor are they reflected at § 260.11( a)( 11). However, as noted earlier in this proposal, during compliance with those regulations, the regulated community must only use the latest promulgated revision of those methods as indicated in § 260.11( a)( 11). Table 5 also identifies those sections or parts of each method or chapters which are revised and are open for public comment. We will not consider comments on the other sections or parts of the methods or chapters because those portions are not changed by Proposed Update IIIB. TABLE 5.— REVISED METHODS AND CHAPTERS Method No. Method or chapter title Sections or parts of methods or chapters open for comment Table of Contents ............................................................ References to the revised methods. Chapter Five— Miscellaneous Test ................................. References to the revised methods. Chapter Six— Properties ................................................. References to the revised methods. Chapter Seven— Characteristics Introduction ................. Secs. 7.1.2, 7.2.2, 7.3.2, and removal of secs. 7.3.3 and 7.3.4. Chapter Eight— Methods for Determining Characteristics References to the revised methods. 1010A ................................... Pensky­ Martens Closed­ Cup Method for Determining Ignitability. Secs. 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, and 3.1 and ref. 4 of sec. 4.0. 1020B ................................... Small Scale Closed Cup Method for Determining Ignitability Title and secs. 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, and 2.4 and ref. 4 of sec. 4.0. 1110A ................................... Corrosivity Toward Steel ................................................. Sec. 4.5. 1310B ................................... Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxicity Test Method and Structural Integrity Test. Secs. 1.1 and deleted 6.1 9010C ................................... Total and Amenable Cyanide: Distillation ....................... Secs. 1.1 and deleted 6.1. VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66268 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 5.— REVISED METHODS AND CHAPTERS— Continued Method No. Method or chapter title Sections or parts of methods or chapters open for comment 9012B ................................... Total and Amenable Cyanide (Automated Colorimetric, with Off­ line Distillation). Secs. 1.1 and deleted 6.1. 9040C ................................... pH Electrometric Measurement ...................................... Deleted Sec. 6.1. 9045D ................................... Soil and Waste pH .......................................................... Deleted Sec. 6.1. 9060A ................................... Total Organic Carbon ...................................................... Deleted Sec. 6.1. 9070A ................................... n­ Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) for Aqueous Samples. Title. 9095B ................................... Paint Filter Liquids Test .................................................. Deleted Sec. 6.1. Note: A suffix of `` A'' in the method number indicates revision one (the method has been revised once). A suffix of `` B'' in the method number indicates revision two (the method has been revised twice). A suffix of `` C'' in the method number indicates revision three (the method has been revised three times). IX. Proposed Addition of Method 25A to §§ 264.1034( c)( 1)( ii) and (iv) and 265.1034( c)( 1)( ii) and (iv) We propose to revise §§ 264.1034( c)( 1)( ii) and (iv) and 265.1034( c)( 1)( ii) and (iv) to allow use of Method 25A, as well as Method 18, during analyses in support of air emission standards for process vents and/ or equipment leaks at hazardous waste management facilities. We added the flexibility to use a method other than Method 18 as a result of feedback from the regulated public. Method 18 is a technique best applied when the test matrix is known and the number of target compounds is limited. It identifies individual components. On the other hand, Method 25A is a total volatile organic compound (VOC) measurement method. Members of the regulated public found it difficult to effectively use Method 18 in compliance with the subject regulation because their sources contain up to hundreds of regulated compounds, and because the test matrix changes daily. The Agency believes that allowing the use of Method 25A will solve this problem. Also, from an environmental protection viewpoint, Method 25A may be more protective than Method 18 because it is a total analysis method and responds to total volatile organic carbon without differentiating among individual components. Therefore, this change will allow the needed method selection flexibility without lessening environmental protection. As part of this change, we added equations for the calculation of total mass flow rates for sources utilizing Method 25A. Both Methods 25A and 18 are located in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. X. Proposed Removal of Requirements from § 63.1208( b)( 8)( i) and (ii) in the NESHAP Standards to Demonstrate Feedstream Analytes are not Present at Certain Levels EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Hazardous Waste Combustors on September 30, 1999 pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Sections 63.1208( b)( 8)( i) and (ii) require sources, for each feedstream, to demonstrate that: (1) Each analyte is not present above the reported level at the 80% upper confidence limit around the mean; and (2) the analysis could have detected the presence of the constituent at or below the reported level at the 80% upper confidence limit around the mean. Several stakeholders raised concerns about implementing this requirement. For example, stakeholders questioned the ability to calculate a confidence level around the mean for data distributions that are not `` normal. '' Stakeholders also raised the concern that applying a confidence level criteria to each individual feedstream unnecessarily results in a combined feedstream confidence level that is much higher than 80%. While the original intent of these provisions was to place a greater emphasis on performance rather than protocol, the provisions as written are not clear. For example, the term `` reported level'' is not defined and is not used elsewhere in the regulations. This makes interpretation and application of these provisions difficult. Upon re­ evaluating this provision, we believe that it is inappropriate to require explicit feedstream analytical DQO requirements for hazardous waste combustors in the regulations. The various questions raised by stakeholders suggest that issues relating to feedstream analytical DQOs need to be addressed on a case­ by­ case basis. We therefore propose to delete § 63.1208( b)( 8)( i) and (ii). We will retain the preceding regulatory language that states `` It is your responsibility to ensure that the sampling and analysis procedures are unbiased, precise, and that the results are representative of the feedstream. '' In addition to the above regulatory language, we note that § 63.1209( c) also addresses general feedstream analysis requirements. In particular, § 63.1209( c)( 1) states that a source must, prior to feeding the material, `` obtain an analysis of each feedstream that is sufficient to document compliance with the applicable feedrate limits. '' We believe that sources should develop feedstream analytical DQOs consistent with the general principal of ensuring compliance with their applicable feedstream limits. We anticipate that hazardous waste combustion sources will establish feedstream analytical DQOs that reflect the site­ specific needs at their particular facility, and include these DQOs in their Title V permit (when required by the permitting official) and also in their feedstream analysis plan that is required pursuant to § 63.1209( c). This feedstream analysis plan must be kept on site in the operating record, and is subject to review and approval by the authorized regulatory Agency upon request. XI. Announcing the Availability of the RCRA Waste Sampling Draft Technical Guidance A. Why Is the Agency Releasing this Guidance? As part of the Agency's efforts towards Innovating for Better Environmental Results, we have worked to revise the existing waste sampling guidance in Chapter Nine of SW– 846. Many advances in waste sampling strategies have occurred since the existing waste sampling guidance Chapter Nine was initially published in 1986. The Agency believes that a critical element in a program design is a wellthought out systematic waste sampling or characterization plan for evaluating hazardous wastes. This should include consideration of approaches to address issues regarding evaluating physical and VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66269 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules chemical properties of solid waste. We believe it is our obligation to provide current guidance and better tools to address these environmental monitoring issues in accordance with performance based measurement principles. Several EPA offices have worked closely together to develop this guidance (the Office of Solid Waste, EPA Regions, the Office of Research and Development, and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.) In addition, in order to achieve expert external peer review, we have sought and received considerable input from public stakeholders knowledgeable about sampling issues and techniques. B. What Is Included in the Draft Guidance? The draft technical guidance contains information on how to develop a sampling plan to determine if (1) a solid waste exhibits any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste, (2) a hazardous waste is prohibited from land disposal regulations, and (3) a numeric treatment standard has been met. The guidance can also be used as a tool for implementing and assessing your program. In addition, the guidance is an excellent resource of information on other guidance documents that may help the user meet other sampling objectives such as site characterization under the RCRA corrective action programs. Finally, the guidance includes a glossary of terms, information on fundamental statistical concepts and optimizing the design for obtaining the data, examples of how to control variability and bias in sampling, guidance on selecting equipment and conducting sampling analysis, and information on how to assess data. In addition, we believe the guidance is a good working tool for planning and implementing your sampling program, and assessing sampling information. The guidance includes statistical concepts which can promote the development of scientifically sound and effective data. It is our intention to provide these statistical concepts in a user­ friendly manner. C. Will This Guidance Replace the Existing Chapter Nine of SW– 846? This document will update and replace the original sampling guidance version of Chapter Nine found in EPA publication SW– 846 when the Fourth Edition of SW– 846 is published. It is our intention to make the guidance available as a stand­ alone document titled, `` RCRA Waste Sampling Draft Technical Guidance. '' After receipt of your comments, EPA will evaluate them and then revise the guidance as appropriate. The document when finalized will replace the existing sampling guidance of Chapter Nine, and SW– 846 will reference the separate, stand­ alone sampling guidance document. D. Can the Draft Technical Guidance Be Used Now? By releasing the guidance, EPA immediately makes available a wealth of new statistical concepts, examples, and approaches to waste sampling and characterizations. The Agency believes the regulated community and others will use the guidance when it is appropriate and beneficial to do so. The guidance has undergone extensive technical and peer review from EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), the American Society of Testing and Material (ASTM), and Academia, and is considered a useable tool. The guidance is not required, and does not replace any regulation or impose any regulatory requirement. Through this announcement, we are making it available to assist the public in addressing issues regarding waste sampling and characterization. Users of the guidance will still be obligated to follow regulations which govern any particular program. Furthermore, the Agency believes the public will be pleased with the information contained in this document and will choose to use it immediately when appropriate to do so, because of the quality of information provided. The guidance promotes flexibility and cost effectiveness in achieving improved technologies in sampling design. Finally, the release of the guidance has been requested by the public for some time. Therefore, we believe that this guidance will become an important part of the RCRA program, and will be helpful to users in sampling and characterizing waste streams. We are making the draft technical guidance available to the public on the Web and in the RCRA docket. Please see the instructions in section I. A of the proposed rule for obtaining information on the draft technical guidance via the EPA Internet website or the RCRA docket. E. When Will the Guidance Be Finalized? The guidance may be finalized through one of two courses of action. The Agency may place this guidance on a separate track of its own and finalize it soon after careful consideration of all comments received under this notice of availability. On the other hand, the Agency may announce the availability of the Final Technical Guidance as part of the Final Methods Innovation Rule (MIR) package. Depending on the extent of comments received, the process may take approximately fifteen months. F. Request for Comment The Agency developed the `` RCRA Waste Sampling Draft Technical Guidance'' for use by members of both the regulated community and regulating authorities. By making it available for public comment, we hope to encourage involvement in its development by all stakeholders. All portions of the document are open to comment. Your comments will help us improve the guidance and ensure that it is most beneficial to users. Follow the directions for submitting public comments given in section I. B of this proposed rule and notice of availability. XII. State Authorization Procedures A. Applicability of Federal Rules in Authorized States Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified states to administer the RCRA hazardous waste program within the state. Following authorization, the state requirements authorized by EPA apply in lieu of equivalent Federal requirements and become Federally enforceable as requirements of RCRA. EPA maintains independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. Authorized states also have independent authority to bring enforcement actions under state law. A state may receive authorization by following the approval process described in 40 CFR part 271. 40 CFR part 271 also describes the overall standards and requirements for authorization. After a state receives initial authorization, new Federal regulatory requirements promulgated under the authority in the RCRA statute which existed prior to the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) do not apply in that state until the state adopts and receives authorization for equivalent state requirements. The state must adopt such requirements to maintain authorization. In contrast, under RCRA section 3006( g) (i. e., 42 U. S. C. 6926( g)), new Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed pursuant to HSWA provisions take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. Although authorized states are still required to VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66270 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules update their hazardous waste programs to remain equivalent to the Federal program, EPA carries out HSWA requirements and prohibitions in authorized states, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until EPA authorizes the state to do so. Finally, authorized states are required to modify their programs only when EPA promulgates Federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than existing Federal requirements. RCRA section 3009 allows the states to impose standards more stringent than those in the Federal program. See also § 271.1( i). Therefore, authorized states are not required to adopt Federal regulations, both HSWA and non­ HSWA, that are considered less stringent. B. Authorization of States for Today's Proposal Today's proposal affects many aspects of the RCRA Program and would be promulgated pursuant to both HSWA and non­ HSWA statutory authority. Therefore, when promulgated, the Agency will add the rule to Table 1 in § 271.1( j), which identifies Federal regulations that are promulgated pursuant to the statutory authority that was added by HSWA. States may apply for final authorization for the HSWA provisions, as discussed in the following section of this preamble. Today's proposed rule language provides standards that are equivalent to or less stringent than the existing provisions in the Federal regulations which they would amend. Therefore, States would not be required to adopt and seek authorization for this rulemaking. EPA would implement this rulemaking only in those states which are not authorized for the RCRA Program, and will implement provisions promulgated pursuant to HSWA only in those states which have not received authorization for the HSWA provision that would be amended. In authorized States, the changes will not be applicable until and unless the State revises its program to adopt the revisions. (Note: Procedures and deadlines for State program revisions are set forth in § 271.21.) This rule will provide significant benefits to EPA, states, and the regulated community, without compromising human health or environmental protection. Because this rulemaking would not become effective in authorized states until they adopted and are authorized for it, EPA will strongly encourage states to amend their programs and seek authorization for today's proposal, once it becomes final. C. Abbreviated Authorization Procedures EPA considers today's proposal to be a minor rulemaking and is proposing to add it to the list of minor or routine rulemakings in Table 1 to § 271.21. Placement in this table would enable states to use the abbreviated procedures located in § 271.21( h) when they seek authorization for today's proposed changes after they are promulgated. These abbreviated procedures were established in the HWIR­ media rulemaking (see 63 FR 65927, November 30, 1998). EPA requests comment on this placement in Table 1 to § 271.21. XIII. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must determine whether a proposed regulatory action is `` significant, '' and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The order defines a `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order. OMB determined that this proposed rule is not a `` significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA or the Act), Pub. L. 104– 4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed rules and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed, section 205 of the Act generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. Under section 205, EPA must adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Administrator explains in the final rule why that alternative was not adopted. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must develop under section 203 of the Act a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them on compliance with the regulatory requirements. First, this proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate. The proposed rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments. This proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This is due to the fact that this rule does not add any new regulatory requirements and States need not adopt its revisions. This rule only revises certain regulatory sections to remove required uses of SW– 846 methods and allow the use of other appropriate methods or to clarify allowed flexibility in method selection for meeting RCRA­ related monitoring requirements. Under RCRA, regardless of the method used— the one specified in the regulation or the `` other appropriate method''— regulated entities should be demonstrating that the method is appropriate for its intended use. This rule also does not propose new monitoring or information collection requirements. The additional flexibility allowed by this rule should result in improved data quality at reduced cost. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203 and 205 of UMRA. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66271 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field as defined by Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations under Section 3 of the Small Business Act for SIC; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not­ for­ profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives `` which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. '' 5 U. S. C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. Today's proposed rule, if finalized, is specifically intended to reduce economic burden for all entities. The proposed action will provide greater flexibility and utility to all effected entities, including small entities, by providing an increase in choices of appropriate analytical methods for RCRA applications. It does not create any new regulatory requirements or require any new reports beyond those now required by the revised regulations. In addition, its revisions need not be adopted by regulated entities. Such entities can continue to use the methods specified in the regulations instead of choosing the option to use appropriate methods from other reliable sources. We have therefore concluded that today's proposed rule will relieve regulatory burden for small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) Executive Order 12898, `` Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low­ Income Populations, '' February 11, 1994, requires that regulatory actions be accompanied by an environmental justice analysis. This analysis must look at potentially disproportionate impacts the action may have on minority and/ or low­ income communities. The Agency has determined that the proposed action does not raise environmental justice concerns. The impact of this proposed rule, if finalized, will be to provide increased flexibility in the choice of appropriate analytical methods for RCRA applications. The Agency is not aware of any disproportionate impacts that such flexibility may have on minority and/ or low­ income communities. E. Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (Executive Order 13045) Executive Order 13045, `` Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. Also, EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5– 501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. The action discussed in today's proposed rule is intended to provide regulatory relief, and thus is not strictly subject to Executive Order 13045. F. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (Executive Order 13175) Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249) entitled, `` Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications. `` Policies that have tribal implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. '' Today's proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. For many of the same reasons described above under unfunded mandates, the requirements of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rulemaking. As stated above, this rule does not propose any new regulatory requirements and governments need not adopt it. It does not impose any direct compliance costs on tribal governments. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials. G. Federalism (Executive Order 13132) Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. '' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. '' This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66272 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. As explained above, today's proposed rule does not impose new requirements on the States and its regulatory changes need not be adopted by the States. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. Because these changes are equivalent to or less stringent than the existing Federal program, states would not be required to adopt and seek authorization for them. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials. H. National Technology Transfer And Advancement Act of 1995 Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (`` NTTAA''), Pub. L. 104– 113, section 12( d) (15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rule increases flexibility in the use of methods for RCRA­ related analyses and does not itself identify or require the use of new methods or other technical standards. In fact, this rule, if finalized, may increase the use of available voluntary consensus standards for some RCRA applications, provided that such methods are appropriate for the regulatory application. The only technical standards included in this rule include the proposed replacement of obsolete references to voluntary consensus standards, in this case ASTM Methods D 3278– 78 and D 93– 79 or D 93– 80 for flash point determinations, with references to the most recent versions of those methods, ASTM Methods D 3278– 96 and D 93– 99c, in the SW– 846 methods (Methods 1010 and 1020). The recent versions of the methods are not significantly different from the older versions. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking. I. Energy Effects (Executive Order 13211) This proposed rule is not a `` significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. J. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose any new information collection burden. There are no additional reporting, notification, or recordkeeping provisions associated with today's proposed rule. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in some of the existing regulations being revised by this proposed rule, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control numbers for those information collection requirements, as follows: —40 CFR 258.28: OMB control number 2050– 0122 —40 CFR 260.21 and 260.22: OMB control number 2050– 0053 —40 CFR 261.3: OMB control number 2050– 0085 —40 CFR 261.35: OMB control number 2050– 0115 —40 CRF 264.1034, 264.1063, 265.1034, and 265.1063: OMB control number 2050– 0050 —40 CFR 266.100, 266.102, 266.106, 266.112, Appendix IX to part 63, and 270.22: OMB control number 2050– 0073 —40 CFR 270.19: OMB control number 2050– 0009 —40 CFR 270.62: OMB control numbers 2050– 0009 and 2050– 0149 —40 CFR 270.66: OMB control numbers 2050– 0073 and 2050– 0149 —40 CFR 279.10, 279.44, 279.53 and 279.63: OMB control number 2050– 0124 Copies of the ICR document( s) may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e­ mail at farmer. sandy@ epa. gov, or by calling (202) 260– 2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr. Include the ICR and/ or OMB number in any correspondence. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 258 Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control. 40 CFR Part 260 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 261 Environmental protection, Comparable fuels, syngas fuels, Excluded hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 264 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds. 40 CFR Part 265 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds, Water supply. VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66273 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules 40 CFR Part 266 Environmental protection, Energy, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 270 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply. 40 CFR Part 271 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Indians­ lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply. 40 CFR Part 279 Environmental protection, Petroleum, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: October 9, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, Chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations EPA proposes to amend as set forth below: PART 63— NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq. Subpart EEE— National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Hazardous Waste Combustors 2. Section 63.1208 is amended by revising paragraph (b)( 8) to read as follows: § 63.1208 What are the test methods? * * * * * (b) * * * (8) Feedstream analytical methods. You may use any reliable analytical method to determine feedstream concentrations of metals, chlorine, and other constituents. It is your responsibility to ensure that the sampling and analysis procedures are unbiased, precise, and that the results are representative of the feedstream. * * * * * PART 258— CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS 3. The authority citation for part 258 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U. S. C. 1345( d) and (e); 42 U. S. C 6902( a), 6907, 6912( a), 6944, 6945( c), and 6949a( c). Subpart C— Operating Criteria 4. Section 258.28 is amended by revising paragraph (c)( 1) to read as follows: § 258.28 Liquids restrictions. * * * * * (c) * * * (1) Liquid waste means any waste material that is determined to contain `` free liquids'' as defined by Method 9095 (Paint Filter Liquids Test), included in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods'' (EPA Publication SW– 846), incorporated by reference in § 260.11. * * * * * 5. Appendix I to part 258 is amended by revising footnote 1 to read as follows: Appendix I to Part 258— Constituents for Detection Monitoring 1 * * * * * 1 This list contains 47 volatile organics for which potentially applicable analytical procedures provided in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods'' (EPA Publication SW– 846) include Method 8260; and 15 metals for which SW– 846 provides Methods 6010, and 6020, or the 7000 series of methods. * * * * * 6. Appendix II to part 258 is revised as follows: Appendix II to Part 258— List of Hazardous Inorganic and Organic Constituents Common name 1 CAS RN 2 Chemical abstracts service index name 3 Acenaphthene ............................................................................. 83– 32– 9 ......... Acenaphthylene, 1,2­ dihydro­ Acenaphthylene .......................................................................... 208– 96– 8 ....... Acenaphthylene Acetone ....................................................................................... 67– 64– 1 ......... 2­ Propanone Acetonitrile; Methyl cyanide ........................................................ 75– 05– 8 ......... Acetonitrile Acetophenone ............................................................................. 98– 86– 2 ......... Ethanone, 1­ phenyl­ 2­ Acetylaminofluorene; 2– AAF ................................................... 53– 96– 3 ......... Acetamide, N– 9H­ fluoren­ 2­ yl­ Acrolein ....................................................................................... 107– 02– 8 ....... 2­ Propenal Acrylonitrile ................................................................................. 107– 13– 1 ....... 2­ Propenenitrile Aldrin ........................................................................................... 309– 00– 2 ....... 1,4: 5,8­ Dimethanonaphthalene, 1,2,3,4,10,10­ hexachloro­ 1,4,4a, 5,8,8a­ hexahydro­ (1,4,4a, 5,8,8a)­ Allyl chloride ................................................................................ 107– 05– 1 ....... 1­ Propene, 3­ chloro­ 4­ Aminobiphenyl ......................................................................... 92– 67– 1 ......... [1,1 ­Biphenyl]­ 4­ amine Anthracene .................................................................................. 120– 12– 7 ....... Anthracene Antimony ..................................................................................... (Total) ............ Antimony Arsenic ........................................................................................ (Total) ............ Arsenic Barium ......................................................................................... (Total) ............ Barium Benzene ...................................................................................... 71– 43– 2 ......... Benzene Benzo[ a] anthracene; Benzanthracene ....................................... 56– 55– 3 ......... Benz[ a] anthracene Benzo[ b] fluoranthene .................................................................. 205– 99– 2 ....... Benz[ e] acephenanthrylene Benzo[ k] fluoranthene .................................................................. 207– 08– 9 ....... Benzo[ k] fluoranthene Benzo[ ghi] perylene ..................................................................... 191– 24– 2 ....... Benzo[ ghi] perylene Benzo[ a] pyrene ........................................................................... 50– 32– 8 ......... Benzo[ a] pyrene Benzyl alcohol ............................................................................. 100– 51– 6 ....... Benzenemethanol Beryllium ..................................................................................... (Total) ............ Beryllium alpha­ BHC .................................................................................. 319– 84– 6 ....... Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6­ hexachloro­,( 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 )­ beta­ BHC .................................................................................... 319– 85– 7 ....... Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6­ hexachloro­,( 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 )­ delta­ BHC ................................................................................... 319– 86– 8 ....... Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6­ hexachloro­,( 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 )­ gamma­ BHC; Lindane ................................................................ 58– 89– 9 ......... Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6­ hexachloro­,( 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 )­ Bis( 2­ chloroethoxy) methane ....................................................... 111– 91– 1 ....... Ethane, 1,1 ­[ methylenebis (oxy)] bis [2­ chloro­ Bis( 2­ chloroethyl) ether; Dichloroethyl ether ............................... 111– 44– 4 ....... Ethane, 1,1 ­oxybis[ 2­ chloro­ VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66274 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules Common name 1 CAS RN 2 Chemical abstracts service index name 3 Bis( 2­ chloro­ 1­ methylethyl) ether; 2,2 ­ Dichlorodiisopropyl ether; DCIP, See note 4. 108– 60– 1 ....... Propane, 2,2 ­oxybis[ 1­ chloro­ Bis( 2­ ethylhexyl) phthalate ......................................................... 117– 81– 7 ....... 1,2­ Benzenedicarboxylic acid, bis( 2­ ethylhexyl) ester Bromochloromethane; Chlorobromethane .................................. 74– 97– 5 ......... Methane, bromochloro­ Bromodichloromethane; Dibromochlormethane ......................... 75– 27– 4 ......... Methane, bromodichloro­ Bromoform; Tribromomethane .................................................... 75– 25– 2 ......... Methane, tribromo­ 4­ Bromophenyl phenyl ether ...................................................... 101– 55– 3 ....... Benzene, 1­ bromo­ 4­ phenoxy­ Butyl benzyl phthalate; Benzyl butyl phthalate ........................... 85– 68– 7 ......... 1,2­ Benzenedicarboxylic acid, butyl phenylmethyl ester Cadmium ..................................................................................... (Total) ............ Cadmium Carbon disulfide .......................................................................... 75– 15– 0 ......... Carbon disulfide Carbon tetrachloride ................................................................... 56– 23– 5 ......... Methane, tetrachloro­ Chlordane ................................................................................... 57– 74– 9 ......... 4,7­ Methano­ 1H­ indene, 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,8­ octachloro­ 2,3,3a, 4,7,7a­ hexahydro­ p­ Chloroaniline ............................................................................ 106– 47– 8 ....... Benzenamine, 4­ chloro­ Chlorobenzene ............................................................................ 108– 90– 7 ....... Benzene, chloro­ Chlorobenzilate ........................................................................... 510– 15– 6 ....... Benzeneacetic acid, 4­ chloro­ ­( 4­ chlorophenyl)­ ­hydroxy­, ethyl ester. p­ Chloro­ m­ cresol; 4­ Chloro­ 3­ methylphenol ............................. 59– 50– 7 ......... Phenol, 4­ chloro­ 3­ methyl­ Chloroethane; Ethyl chloride ...................................................... 75– 00– 3 ......... Ethane, chloro­ Chloroform; Trichloromethane .................................................... 67– 66– 3 ......... Methane, trichloro­ 2­ Chloronaphthalene .................................................................. 91– 58– 7 ......... Naphthalene, 2­ chloro­ 2­ Chlorophenol ........................................................................... 95– 57– 8 ......... Phenol, 2­ chloro­ 4­ Chlorophenyl phenyl ether ...................................................... 7005– 72– 3 ..... Benzene, 1­ chloro­ 4­ phenoxy­ Chloroprene ................................................................................ 126– 99– 8 ....... 1,3­ Butadiene, 2­ chloro­ Chromium ................................................................................... (Total) ............ Chromium Chrysene ..................................................................................... 218– 01– 9 ....... Chrysene Cobalt .......................................................................................... (Total) ............ Cobalt Copper ........................................................................................ (Total) ............ Copper m­ Cresol; 3­ Methylphenol ........................................................... 108– 39– 4 ....... Phenol, 3­ methyl­ o­ Cresol; 2­ Methylphenol ............................................................ 95– 48– 7 ......... Phenol, 2­ methyl­ p­ Cresol; 4­ Methylphenol ............................................................ 106– 44– 5 ....... Phenol, 4­ methyl­ Cyanide ....................................................................................... 57– 12– 5 ......... Cyanide 2,4­ D; 2,4­ Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid ....................................... 94– 75– 7 ......... Acetic acid, (2,4­ dichlorophenoxy)­ 4,4 ­DDD ..................................................................................... 72– 54– 8 ......... Benzene 1,1 ­( 2,2­ dichloroethylidene) bis[ 4­ chloro­ 4,4 ­DDE ..................................................................................... 72– 55– 9 ......... Benzene, 1,1 ­( dichloroethenylidene) bis[ 4­ chloro­ 4,4 ­DDT ..................................................................................... 50– 29– 3 ......... Benzene, 1,1 ­( 2,2,2­ trichloroethylidene) bis[ 4­ chloro­ Diallate ........................................................................................ 2303– 16– 4 ..... Carbamothioic acid, bis( 1­ methylethyl)­, S­ (2,3­ dichloro­ 2­ propenyl) ester. Dibenz[ a, h] anthracene ................................................................ 53– 70– 3 ......... Dibenz[ a, h] anthracene Dibenzofuran ............................................................................... 132– 64– 9 ....... Dibenzofuran Dibromochloromethane; Chlorodibromomethane ........................ 124– 48– 1 ....... Methane, dibromochloro­ 1,2­ Dibromo­ 3­ chloropropane; .................................................... 96– 12– 8 ......... Propane, DBCP 1,2­ dibromo­ 3­ chloro­ 1,2­ Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide; EDB .......................... 106– 93– 4 ....... Ethane, 1,2­ dibromo­ Di­ n­ butyl phthalate ..................................................................... 84– 74– 2 ......... 1,2­ Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dibutyl ester o­ Dichlorobenzene; 1,2­ Dichlorobenzene .................................. 95– 50– 1 ......... Benzene, 1,2­ dichloro­ m­ Dichlorobenzene; 1,3­ Dichlorobenzene ................................. 541– 73– 1 ....... Benzene, 1,3­ dichloro­ p­ Dichlorobenzene; 1,4­ Dichlorobenzene .................................. 106– 46– 7 ....... Benzene, 1,4­ dichloro­ 3,3 ­Dichlorobenzidine ................................................................ 91– 94– 1 ......... [1,1 ­Biphenyl]­ 4,4 ­ diamine, 3,3 ­dichloro­ trans­ 1,4­ Dichloro­ 2­ butene ........................................................ 110– 57– 6 ....... 2­ Butene, 1,4­ dichloro­, (E)­ Dichlorodifluoromethane; CFC 12 .............................................. 75– 71– 8 ......... Methane, dichlorodifluoro­ 1,1­ Dichloroethane; Ethyldidene chloride ................................... 75– 34– 3 ......... Ethane, 1,1­ dichloro­ 1,2­ Dichloroethane; Ethylene dichloride ..................................... 107– 06– 2 ....... Ethane, 1,2­ dichloro­ 1,1­ Dichloroethylene; 1,1­ Dichloroethene; Vinylidene chloride .. 75– 35– 4 ......... Ethene, 1,1­ dichloro­ cis­ 1,2­ Dichloroethylene; cis­ 1,2­ Dichloroethene ....................... 156– 59– 2 ....... Ethene, 1,2­ dichloro­( Z)­ trans­ 1,2­ Dichloroethylene; trans­ 1,2­ Dichloroethene ................ 156– 60– 5 ....... Ethene, 1,2­ dichloro­, (E)­ 2,4­ Dichlorophenol ...................................................................... 120– 83– 2 ....... Phenol, 2,4­ dichloro­ 2,6­ Dichlorophenol ...................................................................... 87– 65– 0 ......... Phenol, 2,6­ dichloro­ 1,2­ Dichloropropane ................................................................... 78– 87– 5 ......... Propane, 1,2­ dichloro­ 1,3­ Dichloropropane; Trimethylene dichloride ............................ 142– 28– 9 ....... Propane, 1,3­ dichloro­ 2,2­ Dichloropropane; Isopropylidene chloride ............................ 594– 20– 7 ....... Propane, 2,2­ dichloro­ 1,1­ Dichloropropene ................................................................... 563– 58– 6 ....... 1­ Propene, 1,1­ dichloro­ cis­ 1,3­ Dichloropropene .............................................................. 10061– 01– 5 ... 1­ Propene, 1,3­ dichloro­, (Z)­ trans­ 1,3­ Dichloropropene .......................................................... 10061– 02– 6 ... 1­ Propene, 1,3­ dichloro­, (E)­ Dieldrin ........................................................................................ 60– 57– 1 ......... 2,7: 3,6­ Dimethanonaphth [2,3­ b] oxirene, 3,4,5,6,9,9­ hexachloro­ 1a, 2,2a, 3,6,6a, 7,7a­ octahydro­, (1a 2 , 2a , 3 , 6 , 6a , 7 ,7a )­ Diethyl phthalate ......................................................................... 84– 66– 2 ......... 1,2­ Benzenedicarboxylic acid, diethyl ester O, O­ Diethyl O– 2­ pyrazinyl phosphorothioate; Thionazin ........... 297– 97– 2 ....... Phosphorothioic acid, O, O­ diethyl O­ pyrazinyl ester. Dimethoate .................................................................................. 60– 51– 5 ......... Phosphorodithioic acid, O, O­ dimethyl S­[ 2­( methylamino)­ 2­ oxoethyl] ester p­( Dimethylamino) azobenzene ................................................... 60– 11– 7 ......... Benzenamine, N, N­ dimethyl­ 4­( phenylazo)­ 7,12­ Dimethylbenz[ a] anthracene ................................................ 57– 97– 6 ......... Benz[ a] anthracene, 7,12­ dimethyl­ 3,3 ­Dimethylbenzidine ............................................................... 119– 93– 7 ....... [1,1 ­Biphenyl]­ 4,4 ­diamine, 3,3 ­dimethyl­ alpha, alpha­ Dimethylphenethylamine ........................................ 122– 09– 8 ....... Benzeneethanamine, a , a ­dimethyl­ VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66275 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules Common name 1 CAS RN 2 Chemical abstracts service index name 3 2,4­ Dimethylphenol; m­ Xylenol ................................................... 105– 67– 9 ....... Phenol, 2,4­ dimethyl­ Dimethyl phthalate ...................................................................... 131– 11– 3 ....... 1,2­ Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester m­ Dinitrobenzene ........................................................................ 99– 65– 0 ......... Benzene, 1,3­ dinitro­ 4,6­ Dinitro­ o­ cresol; 4,6­ Dinitro­ 2­ methylphenol ....... 534– 52– 1 ....... Phenol, 2­ methyl­ 4,6­ dinitro­ 2,4­ Dinitrophenol ......................................................................... 51– 28– 5 ......... Phenol, 2,4­ dinitro­ 2,4­ Dinitrotoluene ........................................................................ 121– 14– 2 ....... Benzene, 1­ methyl­ 2,4­ dinitro­ 2,6­ Dinitrotoluene ........................................................................ 606– 20– 2 ....... Benzene, 2­ methyl­ 1,3­ dinitro­ Dinoseb; DNBP; 2­ sec­ Butyl­ 4,6­ dinitrophenol .......................... 88– 85– 7 ......... Phenol, 2­( 1­ methylpropyl)­ 4,6­ dinitro­ Di­ n­ octyl phthalate ..................................................................... 117– 84– 0 ....... 1,2­ Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dioctyl ester Diphenylamine ............................................................................ 122– 39– 4 ....... Benzenamine, N­ phenyl­ Disulfoton .................................................................................... 298– 04– 4 ....... Phosphorodithioic acid, O, O­ diethyl S­[ 2­ (ethylthio) ethyl] ester Endosulfan I ................................................................................ 959– 98– 8 ....... 6,9­ Methano­ 2,4,3­ benzodiox­ athiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10­ hexachloro­ 1,5,5a, 6,9,9a­ hexahydro­, 3­ oxide, Endosulfan II ............................................................................... 33213– 65– 9 ... 6,9­ Methano­ 2,4,3­ benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10­ hexachloro­ 1,5,5a, 6,9,9a­ hexahydro­, 3­ oxide, (3 , 5a , 6 , 9 , 9a )­ Endosulfan sulfate ...................................................................... 1031– 07– 8 ..... 6,9­ Methano­ 2,4,3­ benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10­ hexachloro­ 1,5,5a, 6,9,9a­ hexahydro­, 3,3­ dioxide Endrin .......................................................................................... 72– 20– 8 ......... 2,7: 3,6­ Dimethanonaphth[ 2,3­ b] oxirene, 3,4,5,6,9,9­ hexachloro­ 1a, 2,2a, 3,6,6a, 7,7a­ octahydro­, (1a , 2 , 2a , 3 , 6 , 6a , 7 , 7a )­ Endrin aldehyde .......................................................................... 7421– 93– 4 ..... 1,2,4­ Methe nocyclo­ penta[ cd] pentalene­ 5­ carboxaldehyde, 2,2a, 3,3,4,7­ hexa­ chlorodecahydro­,( 1 , 2 , 2a , 4 ,4a ,5 ,6a ,6b ,7R*)­ Ethylbenzene .............................................................................. 100– 41– 4 ....... Benzene, ethyl­ Ethyl methacrylate ...................................................................... 97– 63– 2 ......... 2­ Propenoic acid, 2­ methyl­, ethyl ester Ethyl methanesulfonate .............................................................. 62– 50– 0 ......... Methanesulfonic acid, ethyl ester Famphur ...................................................................................... 52– 85– 7 ......... Phosphorothioic acid, O­[ 4­ [( dimethylamino) sulfonyl] pheny l] O O­ dimethyl ester Fluoranthene ............................................................................... 206– 44– 0 ....... Fluoranthene Fluorene ...................................................................................... 86– 73– 7 ......... 9H– Fluorene Heptachlor ................................................................................... 76– 44– 8 ......... 4,7­ Methano­ 1H­ indene, 1,4,5,6,7,8,8­ heptachloro­ 3a, 4,7,7atetrahydro Heptachlor epoxide ..................................................................... 1024– 57– 3 ..... 2,5­ Methano­ 2H­ indeno[ 1,2­ b] oxirene, 2,3,4,5,6,7,7­ heptachloro­ 1a, 1b, 5,5a, 6,6a,­ hexahydro 1a ,1b ,2 ,5 ,5a ,6 ,6a ) Hexachlorobenzene .................................................................... 118– 74– 1 ....... Benzene, hexachloro­ Hexachlorobutadiene .................................................................. 87– 68– 3 ......... 1,3­ Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4­ hexachloro­ Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ........................................................ 77– 47– 4 ......... 1,3­ Cyclopentadiene, 1,2,3,4,5,5­ hexachloro­ Hexachloroethane ....................................................................... 67– 72– 1 ......... Ethane, hexachloro­ Hexachloropropene ..................................................................... 1888– 71– 7 ..... 1­ Propene, 1,1,2,3,3,3­ hexachloro­ 2­ Hexanone; Methyl butyl ketone ............................................... 591– 78– 6 ....... 2­ Hexanone Indeno( 1,2,3­ cd) pyrene ............................................................... 193– 39– 5 ....... Indeno[ 1,2,3­ cd] pyrene Isobutyl alcohol ........................................................................... 78– 83– 1 ......... 1­ Propanol, 2­ methyl­ Isodrin ......................................................................................... 465– 73– 6 ....... 1,4,5,8­ Dimethanonaphthalene, 1,2,3,4,1 0,10­ hexachloro1,4,4a 5,8,8a hexahydro­( 1 ,4 ,4a ,5 ,8 ,8a )­ Isophorone .................................................................................. 78– 59– 1 ......... 2­ Cyclohexen­ 1­ one, 3,5,5­ trimethyl­ Isosafrole .................................................................................... 120– 58– 1 ....... 1,3­ Benzodioxole, 5­( 1­ propenyl)­ Kepone ........................................................................................ 143– 50– 0 ....... 1,3,4­ Metheno­ 2H­ cyclobuta­ [cd] pentalen­ 2­ one, 1,1a, 3,3a, 4,5,5,5a, 5b, 6­ decachlorooctahydro­ Lead ............................................................................................ (Total) ............ Lead Mercury ....................................................................................... (Total) ............ Mercury Methacrylonitrile .......................................................................... 126– 98– 7 ....... 2­ Propenenitrile, 2­ methyl­ Methapyrilene ............................................................................. 91– 80– 5 ......... 1,2, Ethanediamine, N, N­ dimethyl­ N ­2­ pyridinyl­ N ­( 2­ thienylmethyl)­ Methoxychlor ............................................................................... 72– 43– 5 ......... Benzene, 1,1 ­ (2,2,2, trichloroethylidene) bis [4­ methoxy­ Methyl bromide; Bromomethane ................................................ 74– 83– 9 ......... Methane, bromo­ Methyl chloride; Chloromethane ................................................. 74– 87– 3 ......... Methane, chloro­ 3­ Methylcholanthrene ................................................................. 56– 49– 5 ......... Benz[ j] aceanthrylene, 1,2­ dihydro­ 3­ methyl­ Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK; 2­ Butanone ...................................... 78– 93– 3 ......... 2­ Butanone Methyl iodide; Iodomethane ....................................................... 74– 88– 4 ......... Methane, iodo­ Methyl methacrylate .................................................................... 80– 62– 6 ......... 2­ Propenoic acid, 2­ methyl­, methyl ester Methyl methanesulfonate ............................................................ 66– 27– 3 ......... Methanesulfonic acid, methyl ester 2­ Methylnaphthalene .................................................................. 91– 57– 6 ......... Naphthalene, 2­ methyl­ Methyl parathion; Parathion methyl ............................................ 298– 00– 0 ....... Phosphorothioic acid, O, O­ dimethyl 4­ Methyl­ 2­ pentanone; Methyl isobutyl ketone ........................... 108– 10– 1 ....... 2­ Pentanone, 4­ methyl­ Methylene bromide; Dibromomethane ....................................... 74– 95– 3 ......... Methane, dibromo­ Methylene chloride; Dichloromethane ........................................ 75– 09– 2 ......... Methane, dichloro­ Naphthalene ................................................................................ 91– 20– 3 ......... Naphthalene 1,4­ Naphthoquinone ................................................................... 130– 15– 4 ....... 1,4­ Naphthalenedione 1­ Naphthylamine ......................................................................... 134– 32– 7 ....... 1­ Naphthalenamine 2­ Naphthylamine ......................................................................... 91– 59– 8 ......... 2­ Naphthalenamine Nickel .......................................................................................... (Total) ............ Nickel VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66276 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules Common name 1 CAS RN 2 Chemical abstracts service index name 3 o­ Nitroaniline; 2­ Nitroaniline ....................................................... 88– 74– 4 ......... Benzenamine, 2­ nitro­ m­ Nitroaniline; 3­ Nitroaniline ...................................................... 99– 09– 2 ......... Benzenamine, 3­ nitro­ p­ Nitroaniline; 4­ Nitroaniline ....................................................... 100– 01– 6 ....... Benzenamine, 4­ nitro­ Nitrobenzene ............................................................................... 98– 95– 3 ......... Benzene, nitro­ o­ Nitrophenol; 2­ Nitrophenol ....................................................... 88– 75– 5 ......... Phenol, 2­ nitro­ p­ Nitrophenol; 4­ Nitrophenol ....................................................... 100– 02– 7 ....... Phenol, 4­ nitro­ N­ Nitrosodi­ n­ butylamine ............................................................ 924– 16– 3 ....... 1­ Butanamine, N­ butyl­ N­ nitroso­ N­ Nitrosodiethylamine ................................................................. 55– 18– 5 ......... Ethanamine, N­ ethyl­ N­ nitroso­ N­ Nitrosodimethylamine .............................................................. 62– 75– 9 ......... Methanamine, N­ methyl­ N­ nitroso­ N­ Nitrosodiphenylamine .............................................................. 86– 30– 6 ......... Benzenamine, N­ nitroso­ N­ phenyl­ N­ Nitrosodipropylamine; N­ Nitroso­ N­ dipropylamine; Di­ npropylnitrosamine 621– 64– 7 ....... 1­ Propanamine, N­ nitroso­ N­ propyl­ N­ Nitrosomethylethalamine ......................................................... 10595– 95– 6 ... Ethanamine, N­ methyl­ N­ nitroso­ N­ Nitrosopiperidine ..................................................................... 100– 75– 4 ....... Piperidine, 1­ nitroso­ N­ Nitrosopyrrolidine .................................................................... 930– 55– 2 ....... Pyrrolidine, 1­ nitroso­ 5­ Nitro­ o­ toluidine ....................................................................... 99– 55– 8 ......... Benzenamine, 2­ methyl­ 5­ nitro­ Parathion ..................................................................................... 56– 38– 2 ......... Phosphorothioic acid, O, O­ diethyl­ O­( 4­ nitrophenyl) ester Pentachlorobenzene ................................................................... 608– 93– 5 ....... Benzene, pentachloro­ Pentachloronitrobenzene ............................................................ 82– 68– 8 ......... Benzene, pentachloronitro­ Pentachlorophenol ...................................................................... 87– 86– 5 ......... Phenol, pentachloro­ Phenacetin .................................................................................. 62– 44– 2 ......... Acetamide, N­( 4­ ethoxyphenyl) Phenanthrene ............................................................................. 85– 01– 8 ......... Phenanthrene Phenol ......................................................................................... 108– 95– 2 ....... Phenol p­ Phenylenediamine ................................................................... 106– 50– 3 ....... 1,4­ Benzenediamine Phorate ....................................................................................... 298– 02– 2 ....... Phosphorodithioic acid, O, O­ diethyl S­[( ethylthio) methyl] ester Polychlorinated biphenyls; PCBs ................................................ See Note 6 .... 1,1 ­Biphenyl, chloro derivatives Pronamide ................................................................................... 23950– 58– 5 ... Benzamide, 3,5­ dichloro­ N­( 1,1­ dimethyl­ 2­ propynyl)­ Propionitrile; Ethyl cyanide ......................................................... 107– 12– 0 ....... Propanenitrile Pyrene ......................................................................................... 129– 00– 0 ....... Pyrene Safrole ......................................................................................... 94– 59– 7 ......... 1,3­ Benzodioxole, 15­( 2­ propenyl)­ Selenium ..................................................................................... (Total) ............ Selenium Silver ........................................................................................... (Total) ............ Silver Silvex; 2,4,5­ TP .......................................................................... 93– 72– 1 ......... Propanoic acid, 12­( 2,4,5­ trichlorophenoxy)­ Styrene ........................................................................................ 100– 42– 5 ....... Benzene, ethenyl­ Sulfide ......................................................................................... 18496– 25– 8 ... Sulfide 2,4,5­ T; 2,4,5­ Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid ................................ 93– 76– 5 ......... Acetic acid, (2,4,5­ trichlorophenoxy)­ 2,3,7,8­ TCDD; 2,3,7,8­ Tetrachlorodibenzo­ p­ dioxin ................... 1746– 01– 6 ..... Dibenzo[ b, e][ 1,4] dioxin, 2,3,7,8­ tetrachloro­ 1,2,4,5­ Tetrachlorobenzene ........................................................ 95– 94– 3 ......... Benzene, 1,2,4,5­ tetrachloro­ 1,1,1,2­ Tetrachloroethane ........................................................... 630– 20– 6 ....... Ethane, 1,1,1,2­ tetrachloro­ 1,1,2,2­ Tetrachloroethane ........................................................... 79– 34– 5 ......... Ethane, 1,1,2,2­ tetrachloro­ Tetrachloroethylene; Tetrachloroethene; Perchloroethylene ...... 127– 18– 4 ....... Ethene, tetrachloro­ 2,3,4,6­ Tetrachlorophenol ........................................................... 58– 90– 2 ......... Phenol, 2,3,4,6­ tetrachloro­ Thallium ...................................................................................... (Total) ............ Thallium Tin ............................................................................................... (Total) ............ Tin Toluene ....................................................................................... 108– 88– 3 ....... Benzene, methyl­ o­ Toluidine .................................................................................. 95– 53– 4 ......... Benzenamine, 2­ methyl­ Toxaphene .................................................................................. See Note 7 .... Toxaphene 1,2,4­ Trichlorobenzene. .............................................................. 120– 82– 1 ....... Benzene, 1,2,4­ trichloro­ 1,1,1­ Trichloroethane; Methylchloroform .................................... 71– 55– 6 ......... Ethane, 1,1,1­ trichloro­ 1,1,2­ Trichloroethane .................................................................. 79– 00– 5 ......... Ethane, 1,1,2­ trichloro­ Trichloroethylene; Trichloroethene ............................................. 79– 01– 6 ......... Ethene, trichloro­ Trichlorofluoromethane; CFC– 11 ............................................... 75– 69– 4 ......... Methane, trichlorofluoro­ 2,4,5­ Trichlorophenol .................................................................. 95– 95– 4 ......... Phenol, 2,4,5­ trichloro­ 2,4,6­ Trichlorophenol .................................................................. 88– 06– 2 ......... Phenol, 2,4,6­ trichloro­ 1,2,3­ Trichloropropane ................................................................ 96– 18– 4 ......... Propane, 1,2,3­ trichloro­ O, O, O­ Triethyl phosphorothioate ................................................ 126– 68– 1 ....... Phosphorothioic acid, O, O, O­ triethyl ester sym­ Trinitrobenzene ................................................................... 99– 35– 4 ......... Benzene, 1,3,5­ trinitro­ Vanadium .................................................................................... (Total) ............ Vanadium Vinyl acetate ............................................................................... 108– 05– 4 ....... Acetic acid, ethenyl ester Vinyl chloride; Chloroethene ....................................................... 75– 01– 4 ......... Ethene, chloro­ Xylene (total) ............................................................................... See Note 8 .... Benzene, dimethyl­ Zinc ............................................................................................. (Total) ............ Zinc 1 Common names are those widely used in government regulations, scientific publications, and commerce; synonyms exist for many chemicals 2 Chemical Abstracts Service registry number. Where `` Total'' is entered, all species in the ground water that contain this element are included. 3 CAS index names are those used in the 9th Cumulative Index. 4 This substance is often called Bis( 2­ chloroisopropyl) ether, the name Chemical Abstracts Service applies to its noncommercial isomer, Propane 2,2 ­oxybis[ 2­ chloro­( CAS RN 39638– 32– 9). 5 Chlordane: This entry includes alpha­ chlordane (CAS RN 5103– 71– 9), beta­ chlordane (CAS RN 5103– 74– 2), gamma­ chlordane (CAS RN 5566– 34– 7), and constituents of chlordane (CAS RN 57– 74– 9 and CAS RN 12789– 03– 6). 6 Polychlorinated biphenyls (CAS RN 1336– 36– 3); this category contains congener chemicals, including constituents of Aroclor­ 1016 (CAS RN 12674– 11– 2), Aroclor­ 1221 (CAS RN 11104– 28– 2), Aroclor­ 1232 (CAS RN 11141– 16– 5), Aroclor­ 1242 (CAS RN 53469– 21– 9), Aroclor­ 1248 (CAS RN 12672– 29– 6), Aroclor­ 1254 (CAS RN 11097– 69– 1), and Aroclor­ 1260 (CAS RN 11096– 82– 5). 7 Toxaphene: This entry includes congener chemicals contained in technical toxaphene (CAS RN 8001– 35– 2), i. e., chlorinated camphene. VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66277 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules 8 Xylene (total): This entry includes o­ xylene (CAS RN 96– 47– 6), m­ xylene (CAS RN 108– 38– 3), p­ xylene (CAS RN 106– 42– 3), and unspecified xylenes (dimethylbenzenes) (CAS RN 1330– 20– 7). PART 260— HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL 7. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6921– 6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939, and 6974. Subpart B— Definitions 8. Section 260.11 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)( 1) and (2) and (a)( 11) to read as follows: § 260.11 References. (a) * * * (1) `` ASTM Standard Test Methods for Flash Point of Liquids by Small Scale Closed­ Cup Apparatus, '' ASTM Standard D 3278– 96, available from American Society for Testing and Materials, at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, http:// www. astm. org, or from Global Engineering Documents, 15 Iverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112, 1– 800– 854– 7179, http:// global. ihs. com. (2) `` ASTM Standard Test Methods for Flash­ Point by Pensky­ Martens Closed Cup Tester, '' ASTM Standard D 93– 99c, available from American Society for Testing and Materials, at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, http:// www. astm. org, or from Global Engineering Documents, 15 Iverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112, 1– 800– 854– 7179, http:// global. ihs. com. * * * * * (11) The following methods found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, Third Edition, as grouped and identified by date (found in bottom right corner of method) and promulgated updated version: Methods 0010, 0020, 0030, and 1320, dated September 1986 and in the Basic Manual; Methods 1311 and 1330, dated July 1992 and in Update I; Method 1312 dated September 1994 and in Update II; Methods 0011, 0023, 0031, 0040, 0050, 0051, 0060, 0061, 3542, and 5041, dated December 1996 and in Update III; Method 9071 dated April 1998 and in Update IIIA; Methods 1010, 1020, 1110, 1310, 9010, 9012, 9040, 9045, 9060, 9070, and 9095, dated [to be determined at publication of final rule] and in Update IIIB. The Third Edition of SW– 846 and Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIB (document number 955– 001– 00000– 1) are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512– 1800. Update IIIA is available through EPA's Methods Information Communication Exchange (MICE) Service. MICE can be contacted by phone at (703) 676– 4690. Copies of the Third Edition of SW– 846 and its updates are also available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 605– 6000 or (800) 553– 6847. The above methods are also available on the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ SW– 846/. Copies of the methods incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Library, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC. * * * * * Subpart C— Rulemaking Petitions 9. Section 260.21 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 260.21 Petitions for equivalent testing or analytical methods. * * * * * (d) If the Administrator amends the regulations to permit use of a new testing method, the method will be incorporated by reference in § 260.11 and added to `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC 20460. 10. Section 260.22 is amended by revising paragraph (d)( 1)( i) to read as follows: § 260.22 Petitions to amend part 261 to exclude a waste produced at a particular facility. * * * * * (d) * * * (1) * * * (i) Does not contain the constituent or constituents (as defined in Appendix VII of part 261 of this chapter) that caused the Administrator to list the waste, by using appropriate methods such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or other reliable sources; or * * * * * PART 261— IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 11. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6921, 6922, 6924( y), and 6938. Subpart A— General 12. Section 261.3 is amended by revising paragraph (a)( 2)( v) introductory text to read as follows: § 261.3 Definition of hazardous waste. (a) * * * (2) * * * (v) Rebuttable presumption for used oil. Used oil containing more than 1000 ppm total halogens is presumed to be a hazardous waste because it has been mixed with halogenated hazardous waste listed in subpart D of part 261 of this chapter. Persons may rebut this presumption by demonstrating that the used oil does not contain hazardous waste (for example, by using appropriate methods such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or other reliable sources to show that the used oil does not contain significant concentrations of halogenated hazardous constituents listed in appendix VIII of part 261 of this chapter). * * * * * Subpart C— Characteristics of Hazardous Waste 13. Section 261.21 is amended by revising paragraph (a)( 1) to read as follows: § 261.21 Characteristic of ignitability. (a) * * * (1) It is a liquid, other than an aqueous solution containing less than 24 percent alcohol by volume and has flash point less than 60 ° C (140 ° F), as determined by a Pensky­ Martens Closed Cup Tester, using the test method specified in ASTM Standard D 93– 99c (incorporated by reference, see § 260.11) which is used and referenced by Method 1010 of `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846 (incorporated by reference, see § 260.11), or a Small Scale Closed­ Cup Apparatus, using the test method specified in ASTM Standard D 3278– 96 (incorporated by reference, see § 260.11) which is used and referenced by Method 1020 of `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846 (incorporated by reference, see § 260.11). * * * * * VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66278 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules 14. Section 261.22 is amended by revising paragraph (a)( 2) introductory text to read as follows: § 261.22 Characteristic of corrosivity. (a) * * * (2) It is a liquid and corrodes steel (SAE 1020) at a rate greater than 6.35 mm (0.250 inch) per year at a test temperature of 55 ° C (130 ° F) as determined by the test method specified in NACE (National Association of Corrosion Engineers) Standard TM– 01– 69 as standardized as Method 1110 in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, and as incorporated by reference in § 260.11 of this chapter. * * * * * Subpart D— Lists of Hazardous Wastes 15. Section 261.35 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)( 2)( iii)( A) and (B) to read as follows: § 261.35 Deletion of certain hazardous waste codes following equipment cleaning and replacement. * * * * * (b) * * * (2) * * * (iii) * * * (A) Rinses must be tested by using appropriate methods such as Method 8290 of `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods'' (EPA Publication SW– 846) or appropriate methods from other reliable sources. (B) `` Not detected'' means at or below the lower method calibration limit (MCL) in SW– 846 Method 8290, Table 1. Other appropriate methods from other reliable sources may be used provided that these criteria are met. * * * * * 16. Section 261.38 is amended by revising paragraph (c)( 7) introductory text to read as follows: § 261.38 Comparable/ Syngas Fuel Exclusion. * * * * * (c) * * * (7) Waste analysis plans. The generator of a comparable/ syngas fuel shall develop and follow a written waste analysis plan which describes the procedures for sampling and analysis of the hazardous waste to be excluded. The waste analysis plan should be developed in accordance with appropriate guidance such as found in the applicable sections of the `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods'' (EPA Publication SW– 846) or other reliable sources. The plan shall be followed and retained at the facility excluding the waste. * * * * * 17. Appendix III to part 261 is revised to read as follows: Appendix III to Part 261— Chemical Analysis Test Methods Note: Examples of appropriate analytical procedures to determine whether a sample contains a given toxic constituent are provided in Chapter Two, `` Choosing the Correct Procedure, '' found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846. Prior to final sampling and analysis method selection, the individual should consult the specific section or method described in SW– 846, if used, for additional guidance on which methods should be employed for a specific sample analysis situation. 16. Appendix IX to part 261 is amended in Table 1: a. In the entry for `` Aptus, Inc, Coffeyville, Kansas, '' under the `` Waste description'' column, by revising paragraphs (2), (3), and (4); b. In the entry for `` Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, Vertac Superfund site, Jacksonville, Arkansas, '' under the `` Waste description'' column, by revising the introductory text of paragraph (1) and by revising paragraph (3)( C); c. In the entry for `` Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Sparrows Point, Maryland, '' under the `` Waste description'' column, by revising the introductory text of paragraph (1); d. In the entry for `` BMW Manufacturing Corporation, Greer, South Carolina, '' under the `` Waste description'' column, by revising the introductory text of paragraph (2); e. In the entry for `` DuraTherm, Incorporated, San Leon, Texas, '' under the `` Waste description'' column, by revising the introductory text of paragraph (3); f. In the entry for `` Eastman Chemical Company, Longview, Texas, '' under the `` Waste description'' column, by revising the introductory text of paragraph (3); g. In the entry for `` Envirite of Pennsylvania (formerly Envirite Corporation), York, Pennsylvania, under the `` Waste description'' column, by revising paragraph (2); h. In the entry for `` Geological Reclamation Operations and Waste Systems, Inc., Morrisville, PA, '' under the `` Waste description'' column by revising the introductory text of paragraph (1); i. In the entry for `` McDonnel Douglas Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma, '' under the `` Waste description'' column by revising paragraph (3); j. In the entry for `` Occidental Chemical, Ingleside, Texas, '' under the `` Waste description'' column, by revising the introductory text of paragraph (3); k. In the entry for `` Rhodia, Houston, Texas, '' under the `` Waste description'' column, by revising the introductory text of paragraph (3); l. In the entry for `` Syntex Agribusiness, Springfield, MO, '' under the `` Waste description'' column, by revising paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6); m. In the entry for `` Texas Eastman, Longview, Texas, '' under the `` Waste description'' column, by revising paragraph 3; n. In the entry for `` Tyco Printed Circuit Group, Melbourne Division, Melbourne, Florida, '' under the `` Waste description'' column, by revising the introductory text of paragraph 1. The revisions read as follows: Appendix IX— Wastes Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 TABLE 1.— WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON­ SPECIFIC SOURCES Facility Address Waste description Aptus, Inc. .......................................... Coffeyville, Kansas ............. ***** (1) * * * VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66279 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1.— WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON­ SPECIFIC SOURCES— Continued Facility Address Waste description (2) A minimum of four grab samples must be taken from each hopper (or other container) of kiln residue generated during each 24 hour run; all grabs collected during a given 24 hour run must then be composited to form one composite sample. A minimum of four grab samples must also be taken from each hopper (or other container) of spray dryer/ baghouse residue generated during each 24 hour run; all grabs collected during a given 24 hour run must then be composited to form one composite sample. Prior to the disposal of the residues from each 24 hour run, a TCLP leachate test must be performed on these composite samples and the leachate analyzed for the TC toxic metals, nickel, and cyanide. If arsenic, chromium, lead or silver TC leachate test results exceed 1.6 ppm, barium levels exceed 32 ppm, cadmium or selenium levels exceed 0.3 ppm, mercury levels exceed 0.07 ppm, nickel levels exceed 10 ppm, or cyanide levels exceed 6.5 ppm, the wastes must be retreated to achieve these levels or must be disposed in accordance with subtitle C of RCRA. Analyses must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in EPA Publication SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). (3) Aptus must generate, prior to the disposal of the residues, verification data from each 24 hour run for each treatment residue (i. e., kiln residue, spray dryer/ baghouse residue) to demonstrate that the maximum allowable treatment residue concentrations listed below are not exceeded. Samples must be collected as specified in Condition (2). Analyses must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in EPA Publication SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). Any residues which exceed any of the levels listed below must be retreated or must be disposed of as hazardous. Kiln residue and spray dryer/ baghouse residue must not exceed the following levels: Aldrin— 0.015 ppm; Benzene— 9.7 ppm; Benzo( a) pyrene— 0.43 ppm; Benzo( b) fluoranthene— 1.8 ppm; Chlordane— 0.37 ppm; Chloroform— 5.4 ppm; Chrysene— 170 ppm; Dibenz( a, h) anthracene— 0.083 ppm; 1,2­ Dichloroethane— 4.1 ppm; Dichloromethane— 2.4 ppm; 2,4­ Dichlorophenol— 480 ppm; Dichlorvos— 260 ppm; Disulfaton— 23 ppm; Endosulfan I— 310 ppm; Fluorene— 120 ppm; Indeno( 1,2,3, cd)­ pyrene— 330 ppm; Methyl parathion— 210 ppm; Nitrosodiphenylamine— 130 ppm; Phenanthrene— 150 ppm; Polychlorinated biphenyls— 0.31 ppm; Tetrachloroethylene— 59 ppm; 2,4,5­ TP (silvex)— 110 ppm; 2,4,6­ Trichlorophenol— 3.9 ppm. (4) Aptus must generate, prior to disposal of residues, verification data from each 24 hour run for each treatment residue (i. e., kiln residue, spray dryer/ baghouse residue) to demonstrate that the residues do not contain tetra­, penta­, or hexachlorodibenzo­ p­ dioxins or furans at levels of regulatory concern. Samples must be collected as specified in Condition (2). The TCDD equivalent levels for the solid residues must be less than 5 ppt. Any residues with detected dioxins or furans in excess of this level must be retreated or must be disposed of as acutely hazardous For this analysis, Aptus must use appropriate methods such as Method 8290 found in EPA Publication SW– 846, a high resolution gas chromatography and high resolution mass spectroscopy (HRGC/ HRMS) analytical method, or use appropriate methods found in other reliable sources. For tetra­ and penta­ chlorinated dioxin and furan homologs, the maximum practical quantitation limit must not exceed 15 ppt for the solid residues. For hexachlorinated dioxin and furan homologs, the maximum practical quantitation limit must not exceed 37 ppt for the solid residues. ***** Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. Vertac Superfund site, Jacksonville, Arkansas. ***** (1) Testing: Sample collection and analyses (including quality control (QC) procedures) must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in EPA Publication SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). ***** (3) * * * VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66280 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1.— WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON­ SPECIFIC SOURCES— Continued Facility Address Waste description (C) Chlorinated dioxins and furans: 2,3,7,8­ Tetrachlorodibenzo­ p­ dioxin equivalents, 4 x 10 7 ppm. The petitioned by­ product must be analyzed for the tetra­, penta­, hexa­, and heptachlorodibenzo­ p­ dioxins, and the tetra­, penta­, hexa­, and heptachlorodibenzofurans to determine the 2,3,7,8­ tetra­ chlorodibenzo­ p­ dioxin equivalent concentration. The analysis must be conducted using appropriate methods such as SW– 846 Method 8290, a high resolution gas chromatography/ high resolution mass spectrometry method, or other appropriate methods found in other reliable sources, and must achieve practical quantitation limits of 15 parts per trillion (ppt) for the tetra­ and penta­ homologs, and 37 ppt for the hexa­ and hepta­ homologs. ***** Bethlehem Steel Corporation ............. Sparrows Point, Maryland .. ***** (1) Testing: Sample collection and analyses (including quality control (QC) procedures) must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in EPA Publication SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). If EPA judges the stabilization process to be effective under the conditions used during the initial verification testing, BSC may replace the testing required in Condition (1)( A) with the testing required in Condition (1)( B). BSC must continue to test as specified in Condition (1)( A) until and unless notified by EPA in writing that testing in Condition (1)( A) may be replaced by Condition (1)( B) (to the extent directed by EPA). ***** BMW Manufacturing Corporation ....... Greer, South Carolina ........ ***** (2) Verification Testing Requirements: Sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in EPA Publication SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). Methods must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which the Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate that representative samples of the BMW Sludge meet the delisting levels in Condition (1). ***** DuraTherm, Incorporated ................... San Leon, Texas ................ ***** (3) Verification Testing Requirements: DuraTherm must perform sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, according to appropriate methods such as those found in EPA Publication SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). If EPA judges the process to be effective under the operating conditions used during the initial verification testing, DuraTherm may replace the testing required in Paragraph (3)( A) with the testing required in Paragraph (3)( B). DuraTherm must continue to test as specified in Paragraph (3)( A) until and unless notified by EPA in writing that testing in Paragraph (3)( A) may be replaced by Paragraph (3)( B). ***** Eastman Chemical Company ............. Longview, Texas ................ ***** (3) Verification Testing Requirements: Eastman must perform sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, according to appropriate methods such as those found in EPA Publication SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). After completion of the initial verification period, Eastman may replace the testing required in Condition (3)( A) with the testing required in Condition (3)( B). Eastman must continue to test as specified in Condition (3)( A) until and unless notified by EPA in writing that testing in Condition (3)( A) may be replaced by Condition (3)( B). ***** Envirite of Pennsylvania (formerly Envirite Corporation). York, Pennsylvania ............. ***** VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66281 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1.— WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON­ SPECIFIC SOURCES— Continued Facility Address Waste description (2) Each batch of treatment residue must be tested for leachable cyanide. If the leachable cyanide levels (using the EP Toxicity test without acetic acid adjustment) exceed 1.26 ppm, the waste must be retreated or managed and disposed as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR Parts 262 to 265 and the permitting standards of 40 CFR Part 270. ***** Geological Reclamation Operations and Systems, Inc.. Morrisville, Pennsylvania .... ***** (1) Testing: Sample collection and analyses, including quality control (QC) procedures, must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in EPA Publication SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). ***** McDonnell Douglas Corporation ........ Tulsa, Oklahoma ................ ***** (3) Verification Testing Requirements: Sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in EPA Publication SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). McDonnell Douglas must stabilize the previously unstabilized waste from the bottom portion of the northwest lagoon of the surface impoundment (which was closed as a landfill using fly ash, kiln dust or similar accepted materials in batches of 500 cubic yards or less. McDonnell Douglas must analyze one composite sample from each batch of 500 cubic yards or less. A minimum of four grab samples must be taken from each waste pile (or other designated holding area) of stabilized waste generated from each batch run. Each composited batch sample must be analyzed, prior to disposal of the waste in the batch represented by that sample, for constituents listed in Condition (1). There are no verification testing requirements for the stabilized wastes in the upper portions of the northwest lagoon, the entire northeast lagoon, and the entire south lagoon of the surface impoundments which were closed as a landfill. ***** Occidental Chemical .......................... Ingleside, Texas ................. ***** (3) Verification Testing Requirements: Sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in EPA Publication SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). If EPA judges the incineration process to be effective under the operating conditions used during the initial verification testing, Occidental Chemical may replace the testing required in Condition (3)( A) with the testing required in Condition (3)( B). Occidental Chemical must continue to test as specified in Condition (3)( A) until and unless notified by EPA in writing that testing in Condition (3)( A) may be replaced by Condition (3)( B). ***** Rhodia ................................................ Houston, Texas .................. ***** (3) Verification Testing Requirements: Rhodia must perform sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, according to appropriate methods such as those found in EPA Publication SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). If EPA judges the process to be effective under the operating conditions used during the initial verification testing, Rhodia may replace the testing required in Condition (3)( A) with the testing required in Condition (3)( B). Rhodia must continue to test as specified in Condition (3)( A) until and unless notified by EPA in writing that testing in Condition (3)( A) may be replaced by Condition (3)( B). ***** Syntex Agribusiness ........................... Springfield, MO ................... ***** VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66282 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1.— WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON­ SPECIFIC SOURCES— Continued Facility Address Waste description (2) Four grab samples of wastewater must be composited from the volume of filtered wastewater collected after each eight hour run and, prior to disposal the composite samples must be analyzed for the EP toxic metals, nickel, and cyanide. If arsenic, chromium, lead, and silver EP leachate test results exceed 0.61 ppm; barium levels exceed 12 ppm; cadmium and selenium levels exceed 0.12 ppm; mercury levels exceed 0.02 ppm; nickel levels exceed 6.1 ppm; or cyanide levels exceed 2.4 ppm, the wastewater must be retreated to achieve these levels or must be disposed in accordance with all applicable hazardous waste regulations Analyses must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in EPA Publication SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). (3) One grab sample must be taken from each drum of kiln and cyclone ash generated during each eight hour run; all grabs collected during a given eight hour run must then be composited to form one composite sample. A composite sample of four grab samples of the separator sludge must be collected at the end of each eight hour run. Prior to the disposal of the residues from each eight hour run, an EP leachate test must be performed on these composite samples and the leachate analyzed for the EP toxic metals, nickel, and cyanide (using a distilled water extraction for the cyanide extraction) to demonstrate that the following maximum allowable treatment residue concentrations listed below are not exceeded. Analyses must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in EPA Publication SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). Any residues which exceed any of the levels listed below must be retreated to achieve these levels or must be disposed in accordance with all applicable hazardous waste regulations. Maximum Allowable Solids Treatment Residue EP Leachate Concentrations (mg/ L), Arsenic— 1.6, Barium— 32, Cadmium— 0.32, Chromium— 1.6, Lead— 1.6, Mercury— 0.065, Nickel— 16, Selenium— 0.32, Silver— 1.6, Cyanide— 6.5. (4) If Syntex stabilizes any of the kiln and cyclone ash or separator sludge, a Portland cement­ type stabilization process must be used and Syntex must collect a composite sample of four grab samples from each batch of stabilized waste. An MEP leachate test must be performed on these composite samples and the leachate analyzed for the EP toxic metals, nickel, and cyanide (using a distilled water extraction for the cyanide leachate analysis) to demonstrate that the maximum allowable treatment residue concentrations listed in Condition (3) are not exceeded during any run of the MEP extraction. Analyses must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in EPA Publication SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). Any residues which exceed any of the levels listed in Condition (3) must be retreated to achieve these levels or must be disposed in accordance with all applicable hazardous waste regulations. (If the residues are stabilized, the analyses required in this condition supercede the analyses required in Condition (3).) VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66283 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1.— WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON­ SPECIFIC SOURCES— Continued Facility Address Waste description (5) Syntex must generate, prior to disposal of residues, verification data from each eight hour run from each treatment residue (i. e., kiln and cyclone ash, separator sludge, and filtered wastewater) to demonstrate that the maximum allowable treatment residue concentrations listed below are not exceeded. Samples must be collected as specified in Conditions (2) and (3). Analyses must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in EPA Publication SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). Any solid or liquid residues which exceed any of the levels listed below must be retreated to achieve these levels or must be disposed in accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA. Maximum Allowable Wastewater Concentrations (ppm): Benz( a) anthracene— 1 x 10 ¥ 4 ; Benzo( a) pyrene— 4 x 10 ¥ 5 ; Benzo( b) fluoranthene— 2 x 10 ¥ 4 ; Chloroform— 0.07; Chrysene— 0.002; Dibenz( a, h) anthracene— 9 x 10 ¥ 6 ; 1,2­ Dichloroethane— 0.06; Dichloromethane— 0.06; Indeno( 1,2,3­ cd) pyrene— 0.002; Polychlorinated biphenyls— 1 x 10 ¥ 4 ; 1,2,4,5­ Tetrachlorobenzene— 0.13; 2,3,4,6­ Tetrachlorophenol— 12; Toluene— 120; Trichloroethylene— 0.04; 2,4,5­ Trichlorophenol— 49; 2,4,6­ Trichlorophenol— 0.02; Maximum Allowable Solid Treatment Residue Concentrations (ppm): Benz( a) anthracene— 1.1; Benzo( a) pyrene— 0.43; Benzo( b) fluoranthene— 1.8; Chloroform— 5.4; Chrysene— 170; Dibenz( a, h) anthracene— 0.083; Dichloromethane— 2.4; 1,2­ Dichloroethane— 4.1; Indeno( 1,2,3­ cd) pyrene— 330; Polychlorinated biphenyls— 0.31; 1,2,4,5­ Tetrachlorobenzene— 720; Trichloroethylene 6.6; 2,4,6­ Trichlorophenol— 3.9. (6) Syntex must generate, prior to disposal of residues, verification data from each eight hour run for each treatment residue (i. e., kiln and cyclone ash, separator sludge, and filtered wastewater) to demonstrate that the residues do not contain tetra­, penta­, or hexachlorodibenzo­ pdioxins or furans at levels of regulatory concern. Samples must be collected as specified in Conditions (2) and (3). The TCDD equivalent levels for wastewaters must be less than 2 ppq and less than 5 ppt for the solid treatment residues. Any residues with detected dioxins or furans in excess of these levels must be retreated or must be disposed as acutely hazardous. For this analysis, Syntex must use appropriate methods, such as SW– 846 Method 8290, a high resolution gas chromatography and high resolution mass spectroscopy (HRGC/ HRMS) analytical method or use appropriate methods found in other reliable sources. For tetra­ and pentachloronated dioxin and furan homologs, the maximum practical quantitation limit must not exceed 15 ppt for solids and 120 ppq for wastewaters. For hexachlorinated homologs, the maximum practical quantitation limit must not exceed 37 ppt for solids and 300 ppq for wastewaters. ***** Texas Eastman .................................. Longview, Texas ................ ***** 3. Verification Testing Requirements: Sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in EPA Publication SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). If EPA judges the incineration process to be effective under the operating conditions used during the initial verification testing described in Paragraph 4 below, Texas Eastman may replace the testing required in Paragraph 4 with the testing required in Paragraph 5 below. Texas Eastman must, however, continue to test as specified in Paragraph 4 until notified by EPA in writing that testing in Paragraph 4 may be replaced by the testing described in Paragraph 5. ***** Tyco Printed Circuit Group, Melbourne Division. Melbourne, Florida ............. ***** VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66284 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1.— WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON­ SPECIFIC SOURCES— Continued Facility Address Waste description (1) Verification Testing Requirements: Sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in EPA Publication SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). Methods must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which the Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate that representative samples of the Tyco Sludge meet the delisting levels in Condition (3). ***** 17. Appendix IX to part 261 is amended in Table 2: a. In the entry for `` Bethlehem Steel Corp., Steelton, PA, '' under the `` Waste description'' column by revising paragraphs (1) and (2); b. In the entry for `` Bethlehem Steel Corp., Johnston, PA, '' under the `` Waste description'' column by revising paragraphs (1) and (2); c. In the entry for `` BF Goodrich Intermediates Company, Inc., Calvert City, Kentucky, '' under the `` Waste description'' column by revising the introductory paragraph and by revising paragraphs (1)( B) and (3); d. In the entry for `` CF& I Steel Corporation, Pueblo, Colorado, '' under the `` Waste description'' column by revising paragraphs (1) and (2); e. In the entry for `` Chaparral Steel Midlothian L. P., Midlothian, Texas, '' under the `` Waste description'' column by revising paragraph (1) and the introductory text of paragraph (3); f. In the entry for `` Conversion Systems, Inc., Horsham, Pennsylvania, '' under the `` Waste description'' column by revising the introductory text of paragraph (1); g. In the entry for `` DOE– RL, Richland, Washington, '' under the `` Waste description'' column by revising the introductory text of paragraph (1) and by revising paragraph (3); h. In the entry for `` Envirite of Pennsylvania (formerly Envirite Corporation), York, Pennsylvania, under the `` Waste description'' column, by revising paragraph (2); i. In the entry for `` Heritage Environmental Services, LLC, at the Nucor Steel Facility, Crawfordsville, Indiana, '' under the `` Waste Description'' column by revising paragraph (2); j. In the entry for `` Marathon Oil Co., Texas City, Texas, '' under the `` Waste description'' column by revising the introductory text of paragraph (1); k. In the entry for `` Occidental Chemical Corp, Muscle Shoals Plant, Sheffield, Alabama, '' under the `` Waste description'' column by revising the introductory paragraph and by revising paragraphs (1)( A) and (3); l. In the entry for `` Occidental Chemical Corporation, Delaware City, Delaware, '' under the `` Waste description'' column by revising the introductory paragraph and by revising paragraph (1)( A), the introductory text of paragraph (2) and by revising paragraph (3); m. In the entry for `` Oxy Vinyls, Deer Park, Texas, '' under the `` Waste description'' column by revising the introductory text of paragraph (3); n. In the entry for `` Roanoke Electric Steel Corp., Roanoke, Virginia, '' under the `` Waste description'' column by revising paragraphs (1)( A), (1)( B), and (2); o. In the entry for `` USX Steel Corporation, USS Division, Southworks Plant, Gary Works, Chicago, Illinois, '' under the `` Waste description'' column by revising the introductory text of paragraph (1) and by revising paragraphs (1)( A) and (2). The revisions read as follows: Appendix IX— Wastes Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 * * * * * TABLE 2.— WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES Facility Address Waste description Bethlehem Steel Corp ........................ Steelton, PA ....................... ***** (1) Testing: (A) Initial Testing: During the first four weeks of operation of the full­ scale treatment system, Bethlehem must collect representative grab samples of each treated batch of the CSEAFD and composite the grab samples daily. The daily composites, prior to disposal, must be analyzed for the EP leachate concentrations of all the EP toxic metals, nickel and cyanide (using distilled water in the cyanide extractions). Analyses must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). Bethlehem must report the analytical test data obtained during this initial period no later than 90 days after the treatment of the first full­ scale batch. VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66285 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2.— WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES— Continued Facility Address Waste description (B) Subsequent Testing: Bethlehem must collect representative grab samples from every treated batch of CSEAFD generated daily and composite all of the grab samples to produce a weekly composite sample. Bethlehem then must analyze each weekly composite sample for the EP leachate concentrations of all the EP toxic metals and nickel. Analyses must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). The analytical data, including all quality control information, must be compiled and maintained on site for a minimum of three years. These data must be furnished upon request and made available for inspection by any employee or representative of EPA or the State of Pennsylvania. (2) Delisting Levels: If the EP extract concentrations resulting from the testing in condition (1)( A) or (1)( B) for chromium, lead, arsenic, or silver exceed 0.315 mg/ L; for barium exceeds 6.3 mg/ l; for cadmium or selenium exceed 0.063 mg/ l; for mercury exceeds 0.0126 mg/ l; for nickel exceeds 3.15 mg/ l; or for cyanide exceeds 4.42 mg/ L; the waste must either be re­ treated or managed and disposed in accordance with subtitle C of RCRA. ***** Bethlehem Steel Corp ........................ Johnstown, PA ................... ***** (1) Testing: (A) Initial Testing: During the first four weeks of operation of the full­ scale treatment system, Bethlehem must collect representative grab samples of each treated batch of the CSEAFD and composite the grab samples daily. The daily composites, prior to disposal, must be analyzed for the EP leachate concentrations of all the EP toxic metals, nickel, and cyanide (using distilled water in the cyanide extractions). Analyses must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). Bethlehem must report the analytical test data obtained during this initial period no later than 90 days after the treatment of the first full­ scale batch. (B) Subsequent Testing: Bethlehem must collect representative grab samples from every treated batch of CSEAFD generated daily and composite all of the grab samples to produce a weekly composite sample. Bethlehem then must analyze each weekly composite sample for the EP leachate concentrations of all the EP toxic metals and nickel. Analyses must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). The analytical data, including all quality control information, must be compiled and maintained on site for a minimum of three years. These data must be furnished upon request and made available for inspection by any employee or representative of EPA or the State of Pennsylvania. (2) If the EP extract concentrations resulting from the testing in condition (1)( A) or (1)( B) for chromium, lead, arsenic, or silver exceed 0.315 mg/ l; for barium exceed 6.3 mg/ l; for cadmium or selenium exceed 0.063 mg/ l; for mercury exceed 0.0126 mg/ l, for nickel exceed 3.15 mg/ l; or for cyanide exceed 4.42 mg/ l; the waste must either be retreated until it meets these levels or managed and disposed in accordance with subtitle C of RCRA. ***** BF Goodrich Intermediates Company, Inc. Calvert City, Kentucky ........ ***** VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66286 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2.— WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES— Continued Facility Address Waste description Brine purification muds and saturator insolubles (EPA, Hazardous Waste No. K071) after August 18, 1989. This exclusion is conditional upon the collection and submission of data obtained from BFG's full­ scale treatment system because BFG's original data was based on data presented by another petitioner using an identical treatment process. To ensure that hazardous constituents are not present in the waste at levels of regulatory concern once the full­ scale treatment facility is in operation, BFG must implement a testing program. All sampling and analyses including quality control procedures) must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). This testing program must meet the following conditions for the exclusion to be valid: (1) * * * (B) Collect representative grab samples from every batch of treated mercury brine purification muds and treated saturator insolubles on a daily basis and composite the grab samples to produce two separate weekly composite samples (one of the treated mercury brine muds and one of the treated saturator insolubles). Prior to disposal of the treated batches, two weekly composite samples must be analyzed for the EP leachate concentrations of all the EP toxic metals (except mercury), nickel, and cyanide (using distilled water in the cyanide extractions). BFG must report the analytical test data, including all quality control data, obtained during this initial period no later than 90 days after the treatment of the first full­ scale batch. (2) * * * (3) If, under condition (1) or (2), the EP leachate concentrations for chromium lead, arsenic, or silver exceed 0.316 mg/ l; for barium exceeds 6.31 mg/ l; for cadmium or selenium exceed 0.063 mg/ l; for mercury exceeds 0.0126 mg/ l, for nickel exceeds 3.16 mg/ l; or for cyanide exceeds 4.42 mg/ l; the waste must either be retreated until it meets these levels or managed and disposed of in accordance with subtitle C of RCRA. ***** CF& I Steel Corporation ...................... Pueblo, Colorado ................ ***** (1) Testing: (A) Initial Testing: During the first four weeks of operation of the full­ scale treatment system, CF& I must collect representative grab samples of each treated batch of the CSEAFD and composite the grab samples daily. The daily composites, prior to disposal, must be analyzed for the EP leachate concentrations of all the EP toxic metals, nickel, and cyanide (using distilled water in the cyanide extractions). Analyses must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). CF& I must report the analytical test data obtained during this initial period no later than 90 days after the treatment of the first full­ scale batch. (B) Subsequent Testing: CF& I must collect representative grab samples from every treated batch of CSEAFD generated daily and composite all of the grab samples to produce a weekly composite sample. CF& I then must analyze each weekly composite sample for the EP leachate concentrations of all of the EP toxic metals and nickel. Analyses must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). The analytical data, including all quality control information, must be compiled and maintained on site for a minimum of three years. These data must be furnished upon request and made available for inspection by any employee or representative of EPA or the State of Colorado. (2) Delisting levels: If the EP extract concentrations determined in conditions (1)( A) or (1)( B) for chromium, lead, arsenic, or silver exceed 0.315 mg/ l; for barium exceeds 6.3 mg/ l; for cadmium or selenium exceed 0.063 mg/ l; for mercury exceeds 0.0126 mg/ l; for nickel exceeds 3.15 mg/ l; or for cyanide exceeds 4.42 mg/ l; the waste must either be retreated or managed and disposed in accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA. ***** VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66287 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2.— WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES— Continued Facility Address Waste description Chaparral Steel Midlothian, L. P ......... Midlothian, Texas ............... ***** (1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for the constituent total lead in the approximately 2,500 cubic yards (500,000 gallons) per calender year of raw leachate from Landfill No. 3, storm water from the baghouse area, and other K061 wastewaters that is transferred from the storage tank to nonhazardous management must not exceed 0.69 mg/ l (ppm). Constituents must be measured in the waste by appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). (3) Verification Testing Requirements: Sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). Chaparral Steel must analyze one composite sample from each batch of untreated wastewater transferred from the hazardous waste storage tank to non­ hazardous waste management. Each composited batch sample must be analyzed, prior to non­ hazardous management of the waste in the batch represented by that sample for the constituent lead as listed in Condition (1). Chaparral may treat the waste as specified in Condition (2). If EPA judges the treatment process to be effective during the operating conditions used during the initial verification testing, Chaparral Steel may replace the testing requirement in Condition (3)( A) with the testing requirement in Condition (3)( B). Chaparral must continue to test as specified in (3)( A) until and unless notified by EPA or designated authority that testing in Condition (3)( A) may be replaced with by Condition (3)( B). ***** Conversion Systems, Inc ................... Horsham, Pennsylvania ..... ***** (1) Verification Testing Requirements: Sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). ***** DOE– RL ............................................. Richland, Washington ........ ***** (1) Testing: Sample collection and analyses (including quality control (QC) procedures) must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). If EPA judges the treatment process to be effective under the operating conditions used during the initial verification testing, DOE may replace the testing required in Condition (1)( A) with the testing required in Condition (1)( B). DOE must continue to test as specified in Condition (1)( A) until notified by EPA in writing that testing in Condition (1) (A) may be replaced by Condition (1)( B). ***** (2) * * * (3) Delisting Levels: All total constituent concentrations in the waste samples must be measured using appropriate methods such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/ Chemical Methods '' U. S. EPA Publication SW– 846, or other reliable sources (with the exception of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). All total constituent concentrations must be equal to or less than the following levels (ppm): Inorganic Constituents: Ammonium— 10.0; Antimony— 0.06; Arsenic— 0.5; Barium— 20.0; Beryllium— 0.04; Cadmium— 0.05; Chromium— 1.0; Cyanide 2.0; Fluoride— 40.0; Lead— 0.15; Mercury— 0.02; Nickel— 1.0; Selenium 0.5; Silver— 2.0; Vanadium— 2.0; Zinc— 100.0. VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66288 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2.— WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES— Continued Facility Address Waste description Organic Constituents: Acetone— 40.0; Benzene— 0.05; Benzyl alcohol— 100.0; 1­ Butyl alcohol— 40.0; Carbon tetrachloride— 0.05; Chlorobenzene 1.0; Chloroform— 0.1; Cresol— 20.0; 1,4­ Dichlorobenzene— 0.75; 1,2­ Dichloroethane— 0.05; 1,1­ Dichloroethylene— 0.07; Di­ n­ octyl phthalate— 7.0; Hexachloroethane— 0.06; Methyl ethyl ketone— 200.0; Methyl isobutyl ketone— 30.0; Naphthalene— 10.0; Tetrachloroethylene— 0.05; Toluene— 10.0; Tributyl phosphate— 0.2; 1,1,1­ Trichloroethane— 2.0; 1,1,2­ Trichloroethane— 0.05; Trichloroethylene 0.05; Vinyl Chloride— 0.02. ***** Envirite of Pennsylvania (formerly Envirite Corporation). York, Pennsylvania ............. ***** (2) Each batch of treatment residue must be tested for leachable cyanide. If the leachable cyanide levels (using the EP Toxicity test without acetic acid adjustment) exceed 1.26 ppm, the waste must be re­ treated or managed and disposed as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR Parts 262 to 265 and the permitting standards of 40 CFR Part 270. ***** Heritage Environmental Services, LLC, at the Nucor Steel facility. Crawfordsville, Indiana ....... ***** (2) Verification Testing: On a monthly basis, Heritage or Nucor must analyze two samples of the waste using the TCLP, SW– 846 Method 1311, with an extraction fluid of ph 12 ± 0.05 standard units and for the mercury determinative analysis of the leachate using an appropriate method such as Method 7470 found in EPA Publication SW– 846, or use an appropriate method found in other reliable sources. The constituent concentrations measured must be less then the delisting levels established in Paragraph (1). ***** Marathon Oil Co ................................. Texas City, TX .................... ***** (1) Testing: Sample collection and analyses (including quality control (QC) procedures) must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). If EPA judges the treatment process to be effective under the operating conditions used during the initial verification testing, Marathon may replace the testing required in Condition (1)( A) with the testing required in Condition (1)( B). Marathon must continue to test as specified in Condition (1)( A), including testing for organics in Conditions (3)( B) and (3)( C), until and unless notified by EPA in writing that testing in Condition (1)( A) may be replaced by Condition (1)( B), or that testing for organics may be terminated as described in (1)( C) (to the extent directed by EPA). ***** Occidental Chemical Corp., Muscle Shoals Plant. Sheffield, Alabama ............. ***** Retorted wastewater treatment sludge from the mercury cell process in chlorine production (EPA Hazardous Waste No. K106) after September 19, 1989. This exclusion is conditional upon the submission of data obtained from Occidental's full­ scale retort treatment system because Occidental's original data were based on a pilot­ scale retort system. To ensure that hazardous constituents are not present in the waste at levels of regulatory concern once the full­ scale treatment facility is in operation Occidental must implement a testing program. All sampling and analyses (including quality control procedures) must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). This testing program must meet the following conditions for the exclusion to be valid: (1) * * * VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66289 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2.— WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES— Continued Facility Address Waste description (A) Collect representative grab samples from every batch of retorted material and composite the grab samples to produce a weekly composite sample. The weekly composite samples, prior to disposal or recycling, must be analyzed for the EP leachate concentrations of all the EP toxic metals (except mercury), nickel, and cyanide (using distilled water in the cyanide extractions). Occidental must report the analytical test data, including all quality control data, obtained during this initial period no later than 90 days after the treatment of the first full­ scale batch. *** (2) * * * (3) If, under condition (1) or (2), the EP leachate concentrations for chromium lead, arsenic, or silver exceed 1.616 mg/ l; for barium exceeds 32.3 mg/ l; for cadmium or selenium exceed 0.323 mg/ l; for mercury exceeds 0.065 mg/ l, for nickel exceeds 16.15 mg/ l; or for cyanide exceeds 22.61 mg/ l; the waste must either be retreated until it meets these levels or managed and disposed of in accordance with subtitle C of RCRA. ***** Occidental Chemical Corporation ...... Delaware City, Delaware .... ***** Sodium chloride treatment muds (NaCl– TM), sodium chloride saturator cleanings (NaCl– SC), and potassium chloride treatment muds (KCl– TM) (all classified as EPA Hazardous Waste No. K071) generated at a maximum combined rate (for all three wastes) of 1,018 tons per year. This exclusion was published on April 29, 1991 and is conditioned upon the collection of data from Occidental's full­ scale brine treatment system because Occidental's request for exclusion was based on data from a laboratory scale brine treatment process. To ensure that hazardous constituents are not present in the waste at levels of regulatory concern once the full­ scale treatment system is in operation, Occidental must implement a testing program for the petitioned waste. All sampling and analyses (including quality control (QC) procedures) must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). This testing program must meet the following conditions for the exclusion to be valid: (1) * * * (A) Collect representative grab samples from each batch of the three treated wastestreams (sodium chloride saturator cleanings (NaCl– SC), sodium chloride treatment muds (NaCl– TM) and potassium chloride treatment muds (KCl– TM)) on an as generated basis and composite the samples to produce three separate weekly composite samples (of each type of K071 waste). The three weekly composite samples, prior to disposal must be analyzed for the EP leachate concentrations of all the EP toxic metals (except mercury), nickel, and cyanide (using distilled water in the cyanide extractions). Occidental must report the waste volumes produced and the analytical test data, including all quality control data, obtained during this initial period, no later than 90 days after the treatment of the first full­ scale batch. *** (2) Subsequent Testing: After the first four weeks of full­ scale treatment operations, Occidental must do the following; all sampling and analyses (including quality control procedures) must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution): *** (3) If, under conditions (1) or (2), the EP leachate concentrations for chromium lead, arsenic, or silver exceed 0.77 mg/ l; for barium exceeds 15.5 mg/ l; for cadmium or selenium exceed 0.16 mg/ l; for mercury exceeds 0.031 mg/ l, or for nickel or total cyanide exceeds 10.9 mg/ l; the waste must either be retreated or managed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable hazardous waste regulations. ***** Oxy Vinyls .......................................... Deer Park, Texas ............... ***** VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66290 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2.— WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES— Continued Facility Address Waste description (3) Verification Testing Requirements: Sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). If EPA judges the incineration process to be effective under the operating conditions used during the initial verification testing, Oxy Vinyls may replace the testing required in Condition (3)( A) with the testing required in Condition (3)( B). Oxy Vinyls must continue to test as specified in Condition (3)( A) until and unless notified by EPA in writing that testing in Condition (3)( A) may be replaced by Condition (3)( B). ***** Roanoke Electric Steel Corp .............. Roanoke, VA ...................... ***** (1) * * * (A) Initial Testing: During the first four weeks of operation of the full­ scale treatment system, Roanoke must collect representative grab samples of each treated batch of the CSEAFD and composite the grab samples daily. The daily composites, prior to disposal, must be analyzed for the EP leachate concentrations of all the EP toxic metals, nickel and cyanide (using distilled water in the cyanide extractions). Analyses must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). Roanoke must report the analytical test data obtained during this initial period no later than 90 days after the treatment of the first full­ scale batch. (B) Subsequent Testing: Roanoke must collect representative grab samples from every treated batch of CSEAFD generated daily and composite all of the grab samples to produce a weekly composite sample. Roanoke then must analyze each weekly composite sample for all of the EP toxic metals and nickel. Analyses must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). The analytical data, including all quality control information, must be compiled and maintained on site for a minimum of three years. These data must be furnished upon request and made available for inspection by any employee or representative of EPA or the State of Virginia. (2) Delisting levels: If the EP extract concentrations for chromium, lead, arsenic, or silver exceed 0.315 mg/ l; for barium exceeds 6.3 mg/ l; for cadmium or selenium exceed 0.63 mg/ l; for mercury exceeds 0.0126 mg/ l, for nickel exceeds 3.15 mg/ l, or for cyanide exceeds 1.26 mg/ l; the waste must either be re­ treated or managed and disposed in accordance with subtitle C of RCRA. ***** USX Steel Corporation, USS Division, Southworks Plant, Gary Works. Chicago, Illinois .................. ***** (1) Testing: Sample collection and analyses (including quality control (QC) procedures) must be performed according to appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of SW– 846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution). (A) Initial Testing: During the first four weeks of operation of the full­ scale treatment system, USX must collect representative grab samples of each treated batch of the CSEAFD and composite the grab samples daily. The daily composites, prior to disposal, must be analyzed for the EP leachate concentrations of all the EP toxic metals, nickel, and cyanide (using distilled water in the cyanide extractions). USX must report the analytical test data, including quality control information, obtained during this initial period no later than 90 days after the treatment of the first full­ scale batch. *** VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66291 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2.— WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES— Continued Facility Address Waste description (2) Delisting levels: If the EP extract concentrations for chromium, lead, arsenic, or silver exceed 0.315 mg/ l; for barium exceeds 6.3 mg/ l; for cadmium or selenium exceed 0.063 mg/ l; for mercury exceeds 0.0126 mg/ l; for nickel exceeds 3.15 mg/ l; or for cyanide exceeds 4.42 mg/ l, the waste must either be re­ treated until it meets these levels or managed and disposed in accordance with subtitle C of RCRA. * * * * * PART 264— STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES 20. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6924, and 6925. Subpart AA— Air Emissions Standards for Process Vents 21. Section 264.1034 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)( 1)( ii), (c)( 1)( iv), (d)( 1)( iii) and (f) to read as follows: § 264.1034 Test methods and procedures. * * * * * (c) * * * (1) * * * (ii) Method 18 or Method 25A in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, for organic content. If Method 25A is used, the organic HAP used as the calibration gas must be the single organic HAP representing the largest percent by volume of the emissions. The use of Method 25A is acceptable if the response from the high­ level calibration gas is at least 20 times the standard deviation of the response from the zero calibration gas when the instrument is zeroed on the most sensitive scale. * * * * * (iv) Total organic mass flow rates shall be determined by the following equation: (A) For sources utilizing Method 18. E Q CMW h n = [ ] [ ] i= 2sdii 1 6 10 0.0416 Where: Eh = Total organic mass flow rate, kg/ h; Q2sd = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting control device, as determined by Method 2, dscm/ h; n = Number of organic compounds in the vent gas; Ci = Organic concentration in ppm, dry basis, of compound i in the vent gas, as determined by Method 18; MWi = Molecular weight of organic compound i in the vent gas, kg/ kg mol; 0.0416 = Conversion factor for molar volume, kg­ mol/ m3 (@ 293 K and 760 mm Hg); 10 ¥ 6 = Conversion from ppm (B) For sources utilizing Method 25A. Eh = (Q)( C)( MW)( 0.0416)( 10 ¥ 6 ) Where: Eh = Total organic mass flow rate, kg/ h; Q = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting control device, as determined by Method 2, dscm/ h; C = Organic concentration in ppm, dry basis, as determined by Method 25A; MW = Molecular weight of propane, 44; 0.0416 = Conversion factor for molar volume, kg­ mol/ m3 (@ 293 K and 760 mm Hg); 10 ¥ 6 = Conversion from ppm. * * * * * (d) * * * (1) * * * (iii) Each sample shall be analyzed and the total organic concentration of the sample shall be computed using Method 9060 (incorporated by reference under § 260.11) of `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846; or analyzed for individual organic constituents by using appropriate methods such as Method 8260 of EPA Publication SW– 846, or using appropriate methods from other reliable sources. * * * * * (f) When an owner or operator and the Regional Administrator do not agree on whether a distillation, fractionation, thin­ film evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or steam stripping operation manages a hazardous waste with organic concentrations of at least 10 ppmw based on knowledge of the waste, the dispute may be resolved by using appropriate methods such as Method 8260 of `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste'' (EPA Publication SW– 846) or by using appropriate methods from other reliable sources. Subpart BB— Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks 22. Section 264.1063 is amended by revising paragraph (d)( 2) to read as follows: § 264.1063 Test methods and procedures. * * * * * (d) * * * (2) Method 9060 (incorporated by reference under § 260.11) of `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or analyzed for its individual organic constituents by using appropriate methods such as Method 8260 of EPA Publication SW– 846 or using appropriate methods from other reliable sources; or * * * * * 23. Appendix IX to part 264 is revised as follows: Appendix IX to Part 264— Ground Water Monitoring List GROUND­ WATER MONITORING LIST Common name 1 CAS RN 2 Chemical abstracts service index name 3 Acenaphthene ............................................................................. 83– 32– 9 ......... Acenaphthylene, 1,2­ dihydro­ Acenaphthylene .......................................................................... 208– 96– 8 ....... Acenaphthylene Acetone ....................................................................................... 67– 64– 1 ......... 2­ Propanone Acetophenone ............................................................................. 98– 86– 2 ......... Ethanone, 1­ phenyl­ Acetonitrile; Methyl cyanide ........................................................ 75– 05– 8 ......... Acetonitrile 2­ Acetylaminofluorene; 2­ AAF .................................................... 53– 96– 3 ......... Acetamide, N­ 9H­ fluoren­ 2­ yl­ Acrolein ....................................................................................... 107– 02– 8 ....... 2­ Propenal VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 EP30OC02.000</ MATH> 66292 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules GROUND­ WATER MONITORING LIST— Continued Common name 1 CAS RN 2 Chemical abstracts service index name 3 Acrylonitrile ................................................................................. 107– 13– 1 ....... 2­ Propenenitrile Aldrin ........................................................................................... 309– 00– 2 ....... 1,4: 5,8­ Dimethanonaphthalene, 1,2,3,4,10,10­ hexachloro­ 1,4,4a, 5,8,8a­ hexahydro­ (1 ,4 , 4a ,5 ,8 ,8a )­ Allyl chloride ................................................................................ 107– 05– 1 ....... 1­ Propene, 3­ chloro­ 4­ Aminobiphenyl ......................................................................... 92– 67– 1 ......... [1,1 ­Biphenyl]­ 4­ amine Aniline ......................................................................................... 62– 53– 3 ......... Benzenamine Anthracene .................................................................................. 120– 12– 7 ....... Anthracene Antimony ..................................................................................... (Total) ............ Antimony Aramite ........................................................................................ 140– 57– 8 ....... Sulfurous acid, 2­ chloroethyl 2­[ 4­( 1,1­ dimethylethyl) phenoxy]­ 1­ methylethyl ester Arsenic ........................................................................................ (Total) ............ Arsenic Barium ......................................................................................... (Total) ............ Barium Benzene ...................................................................................... 71– 43– 2 ......... Benzene Benzo[ a] anthracene; Benzanthracene ....................................... 56– 55– 3 ......... Benz[ a] anthracene Benzo[ b] fluoranthene .................................................................. 205– 99– 2 ....... Benz[ e] acephenanthrylene Benzo[ k] fluoranthene .................................................................. 207– 08– 9 ....... Benzo[ k] fluoranthene Benzo[ ghi] perylene ..................................................................... 191– 24– 2 ....... Benzo[ ghi] perylene Benzo[ a] pyrene ........................................................................... 50– 32– 8 ......... Benzo[ a] pyrene Benzyl alcohol ............................................................................. 100– 51– 6 ....... Benzenemethanol Beryllium ..................................................................................... (Total) ............ Beryllium alpha­ BHC .................................................................................. 319– 84– 6 ....... Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6­ hexachloro­,( 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 )­ beta­ BHC .................................................................................... 319– 85– 7 ....... Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6­ hexachloro­,( 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 )­ delta­ BHC ................................................................................... 319– 86– 8 ....... Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6­ hexachloro­,( 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 )­ gamma­ BHC; Lindane ................................................................ 58– 89– 9 ......... Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6­ hexachloro­,( 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 )­ Bis( 2­ chloroethoxy) methane ....................................................... 111– 91– 1 ....... Ethane, 1,1 ­[ methylenebis (oxy)] bis [2­ chloro­ Bis( 2­ chloroethyl) ether ................................................................ 111– 44– 4 ....... Ethane, 1,1 ­oxybis[ 2­ chloro­ Bis( 2­ chloro­ 1­ methylethyl) ether; 2,2 ­Dichlorodiisopropyl ether 108– 60– 1 ....... Propane, 2,2 ­oxybis[ 1­ chloro­ Bis( 2­ ethylhexyl) phthalate ......................................................... 117– 81– 7 ....... 1,2­ Benzenedicarboxylic acid, bis( 2­ ethylhexyl) ester Bromodichloromethane ............................................................... 75– 27– 4 ......... Methane, bromodichloro­ Bromoform; Tribromomethane .................................................... 75– 25– 2 ......... Methane, tribromo­ 4­ Bromophenyl phenyl ether ...................................................... 101– 55– 3 ....... Benzene, 1­ bromo­ 4­ phenoxy­ Butyl benzyl phthalate; Benzyl butyl phthalate ........................... 85– 68– 7 ......... 1,2­ Benzenedicarboxylic acid, butyl phenylmethyl ester Cadmium ..................................................................................... (Total) ............ Cadmium Carbon disulfide .......................................................................... 75– 15– 0 ......... Carbon disulfide Carbon tetrachloride ................................................................... 56– 23– 5 ......... Methane, tetrachloro­ Chlordane ................................................................................... 57– 74– 9 ......... 4,7­ Methano­ 1H­ indene, 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,8­ octachloro­ 2,3,3a, 4,7,7a­ hexahydro­ p­ Chloroaniline ............................................................................ 106– 47– 8 ....... Benzenamine, 4­ chloro­ Chlorobenzene ............................................................................ 108– 90– 7 ....... Benzene, chloro­ Chlorobenzilate ........................................................................... 510– 15– 6 ....... Benzeneacetic acid, 4­ chloro­ a ­( 4­ chlorophenyl)­ a ­hydroxy­, ethyl ester p­ Chloro­ m­ cresol ....................................................................... 59– 50– 7 ......... Phenol, 4­ chloro­ 3­ methyl­ Chloroethane; Ethyl chloride ...................................................... 75– 00– 3 ......... Ethane, chloro­ Chloroform .................................................................................. 67– 66– 3 ......... Methane, trichloro­ 2­ Chloronaphthalene .................................................................. 91– 58– 7 ......... Naphthalene, 2­ chloro­ 2­ Chlorophenol ........................................................................... 95– 57– 8 ......... Phenol, 2­ chloro­ 4­ Chlorophenyl phenyl ether ...................................................... 7005– 72– 3 ..... Benzene, 1­ chloro­ 4­ phenoxy­ Chloroprene ................................................................................ 126– 99– 8 ....... 1,3­ Butadiene, 2­ chloro­ Chromium ................................................................................... (Total) ............ Chromium Chrysene ..................................................................................... 218– 01– 9 ....... Chrysene Cobalt .......................................................................................... (Total) ............ Cobalt Copper ........................................................................................ (Total) ............ Copper m­ Cresol ..................................................................................... 108– 39– 4 ....... Phenol, 3­ methyl­ o­ Cresol ...................................................................................... 95– 48– 7 ......... Phenol, 2­ methyl­ p­ Cresol ...................................................................................... 106– 44– 5 ....... Phenol, 4­ methyl­ Cyanide ....................................................................................... 57– 12– 5 ......... Cyanide 2,4­ D; 2,4­ Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid ....................................... 94– 75– 7 ......... Acetic acid, (2,4­ dichlorophenoxy)­ 4,4 ­DDD ..................................................................................... 72– 54– 8 ......... Benzene 1,1 ­( 2,2­ dichloroethylidene) bis[ 4­ chloro­ 4,4 ­DDE ..................................................................................... 72– 55– 9 ......... Benzene, 1,1 ­( dichloroethenylidene) bis[ 4­ chloro­ 4,4 ­DDT ..................................................................................... 50– 29– 3 ......... Benzene, 1,1 ­( 2,2,2­ trichloroethylidene) bis[ 4­ chloroDiallate ........................................................................................ 2303– 16– 4 ..... Carbamothioic acid, bis( 1­ methylethyl)­, S­ (2,3­ dichloro­ 2­ propenyl) ester Dibenz[ a, h] anthracene ................................................................ 53– 70– 3 ......... Dibenz[ a, h] anthracene Dibenzofuran ............................................................................... 132– 64– 9 ....... Dibenzofuran Dibromochloromethane; Chlorodibromomethane ....................... 124– 48– 1 ....... Methane, dibromochloro1,2 Dibromo­ 3­ chloropropane; DBCP ......................................... 96– 12– 8 ......... Propane, 1,2­ dibromo­ 3­ chloro1,2 Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide .................................... 106– 93– 4 ....... Ethane, 1,2­ dibromoDi n­ butyl phthalate ..................................................................... 84– 74– 2 ......... 1,2­ Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dibutyl ester o­ Dichlorobenzene ...................................................................... 95– 50– 1 ......... Benzene, 1,2­ dichlorom Dichlorobenzene ..................................................................... 541– 73– 1 ....... Benzene, 1,3­ dichlorop Dichlorobenzene ...................................................................... 106– 46– 7 ....... Benzene, 1,4­ dichloro3,3 ­Dichlorobenzidine ................................................................ 91– 94– 1 ......... [1,1 ­Biphenyl]­ 4,4 ­diamine, 3,3 dichloroVerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66293 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules GROUND­ WATER MONITORING LIST— Continued Common name 1 CAS RN 2 Chemical abstracts service index name 3 trans­ 1,4­ Dichloro­ 2­ butene ........................................................ 110– 57– 6 ....... 2­ Butene, 1,4­ dichloro­, (E) Dichlorodifluoromethane ............................................................. 75– 71– 8 ......... Methane, dichlorodifluoro1,1 Dichloroethane ...................................................................... 75– 34– 3 ......... Ethane, 1,1­ dichloro1,2 Dichloroethane; Ethylene dichloride ..................................... 107– 06– 2 ....... Ethane, 1,2­ dichloro1,1 Dichloroethylene; Vinylidene chloride .................................. 75– 35– 4 ......... Ethene, 1,1­ dichlorotrans 1,2­ Dichloroethylene .......................................................... 156– 60– 5 ....... Ethene, 1,2­ dichloro­, (E) 2,4 Dichlorophenol ...................................................................... 120– 83– 2 ....... Phenol, 2,4­ dichloro2,6 Dichlorophenol ...................................................................... 87– 65– 0 ......... Phenol, 2,6­ dichloro1,2 Dichloropropane ................................................................... 78– 87– 5 ......... Propane, 1,2­ dichlorocis 1,3­ Dichloropropene .............................................................. 10061– 01– 5 ... 1­ Propene, 1,3­ dichloro­, (Z) trans 1,3­ Dichloropropene .......................................................... 10061– 02– 6 ... 1­ Propene, 1,3­ dichloro­, (E) Dieldrin ........................................................................................ 60– 57– 1 ......... 2,7: 3,6­ Dimethanonaphth [2,3­ b] oxirene, 3,4,5,6,9,9­ hexachloro­ 1a, 2,2a, 3,6,6a, 7,7a­ octahydro­, (1a ,2 ,2a ,3 ,6 ;, 6a ,7 ,7a Diethyl phthalate ......................................................................... 84– 66– 2 ......... 1,2­ Benzenedicarboxylic acid, diethyl ester O, O­ Diethyl O­ 2­ pyrazinyl phosphorothioate; Thionazin ............ 297– 97– 2 ....... Phosphorothioic acid, O, O­ diethyl O­ pyrazinyl ester Dimethoate .................................................................................. 60– 51– 5 ......... Phosphorodithioic acid, O, O­ dimethyl S­[ 2­( methylamino)­ 2­ oxoethyl] ester p­( Dimethylamino) azobenzene ................................................... 60– 11– 7 ......... Benzenamine, N, N­ dimethyl­ 4­ (phenylazo) 7,12 Dimethylbenz[ a] anthracene ................................................ 57– 97– 6 ......... Benz[ a] anthracene, 7,12­ dimethyl3,3 ­Dimethylbenzidine ............................................................... 119– 93– 7 ....... [1,1 ­Biphenyl]­ 4,4 ­diamine, 3,3 dimethylalpha alpha­ Dimethylphenethylamine ........................................ 122– 09– 8 ....... Benzeneethanamine, a , dimethyl2,4 Dimethylphenol ..................................................................... 105– 67– 9 ....... Phenol, 2,4­ dimethylDimethyl phthalate ...................................................................... 131– 11– 3 ....... 1,2­ Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester m­ Dinitrobenzene ........................................................................ 99– 65– 0 ......... Benzene, 1,3­ dinitro4,6 Dinitro­ o­ cresol ..................................................................... 534– 52– 1 ....... Phenol, 2­ methyl­ 4,6­ dinitro2,4 Dinitrophenol ......................................................................... 51– 28– 5 ......... Phenol, 2,4­ dinitro2,4 Dinitrotoluene ........................................................................ 121– 14– 2 ....... Benzene, 1­ methyl­ 2,4­ dinitro2,6 Dinitrotoluene ........................................................................ 606– 20– 2 ....... Benzene, 2­ methyl­ 1,3­ dinitroDinoseb DNBP; 2­ sec­ Butyl­ 4,6­ dinitrophenol .......................... 88– 85– 7 ......... Phenol, 2­( 1­ methylpropyl)­ 4,6­ dinitroDi n­ octyl phthalate ..................................................................... 117– 84– 0 ....... 1,2­ Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dioctyl ester 1,4­ Dioxane ................................................................................. 123– 91– 1 ....... 1,4­ Dioxane Diphenylamine ............................................................................ 122– 39– 4 ....... Benzenamine, N­ phenylDisulfoton .................................................................................... 298– 04– 4 ....... Phosphorodithioic acid, O, O­ diethyl S­[ 2­( ethylthio) ethyl] ester Endosulfan I ................................................................................ 959– 98– 8 ....... 6,9­ Methano­ 2,4,3­ benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10­ hexachloro­ 1,5,5a, 6,9,9a­ hexahydro­, 3­ oxide, (3 ,5a ,6 ,9 ,9a Endosulfan II ............................................................................... 33213– 65– 9 ... 6,9­ Methano­ 2,4,3­ benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10­ hexachloro­ 1,5,5a, 6,9,9a­ hexahydro­, 3­ oxide, (3 ,5a ,6 ,9 ,9a Endosulfan sulfate ...................................................................... 1031– 07– 8 ..... 6,9­ Methano­ 2,4,3­ benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10­ hexachloro­ 1,5,5a, 6,9,9a­ hexahydro­, 3,3­ dioxide Endrin .......................................................................................... 72– 20– 8 ......... 2,7: 3,6­ Dimethanonaphth[ 2,3­ b] oxirene, 3,4,5,6,9,9­ hexachloro­ 1a, 2,2a, 3,6,6a, 7,7a­ octahydro­, (1a ,2 ,2a ,3 ,6 , 6a ,7 , 7a Endrin aldehyde .......................................................................... 7421– 93– 4 ..... 1,2,4­ Methenocyclopenta[ cd] pentalene­ 5­ carboxaldehyde, 2,2a, 3,3,4,7­ hexachlorodecahydro 1 ,2 ,2a ,4 ,4a ,5 ,6a , 6b ,7R*) Ethylbenzene .............................................................................. 100– 41– 4 ....... Benzene, ethylEthyl methacrylate ...................................................................... 97– 63– 2 ......... 2­ Propenoic acid, 2­ methyl­, ethyl ester Ethyl methanesulfonate .............................................................. 62– 50– 0 ......... Methanesulfonic acid, ethyl ester Famphur ...................................................................................... 52– 85– 7 ......... Phosphorothioic acid, O­[ 4­[( dimethylamino) sulfonyl] pheny l] O O­ dimethyl ester Fluoranthene ............................................................................... 206– 44– 0 ....... Fluoranthene Fluorene ...................................................................................... 86– 73– 7 ......... 9H­ Fluorene Heptachlor ................................................................................... 76– 44– 8 ......... 4,7­ Methano­ 1H­ indene, 1,4,5,6,7,8,8­ heptachloro­ 3a, 4,7,7atetrahydro Heptachlor epoxide ..................................................................... 1024– 57– 3 ..... 2,5­ Methano­ 2H­ indeno[ 1,2­ b] oxirene, 2,3,4,5,6,7,7­ heptachloro­ 1a, 1b, 5,5a, 6,6a,­ hexahydro­, (1a ,1b ,2 ,5 ,5a ,6 ,6a ) Hexachlorobenzene .................................................................... 118– 74– 1 ....... Benzene, hexachloro­ Hexachlorobutadiene .................................................................. 87– 68– 3 ......... 1,3­ Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4­ hexachloro­ Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ........................................................ 77– 47– 4 ......... 1,3­ Cyclopentadiene, 1,2,3,4,5,5­ hexachloro­ Hexachloroethane ....................................................................... 67– 72– 1 ......... Ethane, hexachloro­ Hexachlorophene ........................................................................ 70– 30– 4 ......... Phenol, 2,2 ­methylenebis[ 3,4,6­ trichloro­ Hexachloropropene ..................................................................... 1888– 71– 7 ..... 1­ Propene, 1,1,2,3,3,3­ hexachloro­ 2­ Hexanone ................................................................................ 591– 78– 6 ....... 2­ Hexanone Indeno( 1,2,3­ cd) pyrene ............................................................... 193– 39– 5 ....... Indeno[ 1,2,3­ cd] pyrene Isobutyl alcohol ........................................................................... 78– 83– 1 ......... 1­ Propanol, 2­ methyl­ Isodrin ......................................................................................... 465– 73– 6 ....... 1,4,5,8­ Dimethanonaphthalene, 1,2,3,4,1 0,10­ hexachloro1,4,4a 5,8,8a hexahydro­( 1 ,4 ,4a ,5 ,8 ,8a )­ Isophorone .................................................................................. 78– 59– 1 ......... 2­ Cyclohexen­ 1­ one, 3,5,5­ trimethyl­ VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66294 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules GROUND­ WATER MONITORING LIST— Continued Common name 1 CAS RN 2 Chemical abstracts service index name 3 Isosafrole .................................................................................... 120– 58– 1 ....... 1,3­ Benzodioxole, 5­( 1­ propenyl)­ Kepone ........................................................................................ 143– 50– 0 ....... 1,3,4­ Metheno­ 2H­ cyclobuta­ [cd] pentalen­ 2­ one, 1,1a, 3,3a, 4,5,5,5a, 5b, 6­ decachlorooctahydro­ Lead ............................................................................................ (Total) ............ Lead Mercury ....................................................................................... (Total) ............ Mercury Methacrylonitrile .......................................................................... 126– 98– 7 ....... 2­ Propenenitrile, 2­ methyl­ Methapyrilene ............................................................................. 91– 80– 5 ......... 1,2, Ethanediamine, N, N­ dimethyl­ N ­2­ pyridinyl­ N ­( 2­ thienylmethyl)­ Methoxychlor ............................................................................... 72– 43– 5 ......... Benzene, 1,1 ­( 2,2,2, trichloroethylidene) bis [4­ methoxy­ Methyl bromide; Bromomethane ................................................ 74– 83– 9 ......... Methane, bromo­ Methyl chloride; Chloromethane ................................................. 74– 87– 3 ......... Methane, chloro­ 3­ Methylcholanthrene ................................................................. 56– 49– 5 ......... Benz[ j] aceanthrylene, 1,2­ dihydro­ 3­ methyl­ Methylene bromide; Dibromomethane ....................................... 74– 95– 3 ......... Methane, dibromo­ Methylene chloride; Dichloromethane ........................................ 75– 09– 2 ......... Methane, dichloro­ Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK ........................................................... 78– 93– 3 ......... 2­ Butanone Methyl iodide; Iodomethane ....................................................... 74– 88– 4 ......... Methane, iodo­ Methyl methacrylate .................................................................... 80– 62– 6 ......... 2­ Propenoic acid, 2­ methyl­, methyl ester Methyl methanesulfonate ............................................................ 66– 27– 3 ......... Methanesulfonic acid, methyl ester 2­ Methylnaphthalene .................................................................. 91– 57– 6 ......... Naphthalene, 2­ methyl­ Methyl parathion; Parathion methyl ............................................ 298– 00– 0 ....... Phosphorothioic acid, O, O­ dimethyl O­( 4­ nitrophenyl) ester 4­ Methyl­ 2­ pentanone; Methyl isobutyl ketone ........................... 108– 10– 1 ....... 2­ Pentanone, 4­ methyl­ Naphthalene ................................................................................ 91– 20– 3 ......... Naphthalene 1,4­ Naphthoquinone ................................................................... 130– 15– 4 ....... 1,4­ Naphthalenedione 1­ Naphthylamine ......................................................................... 134– 32– 7 ....... 1­ Naphthalenamine 2­ Naphthylamine ......................................................................... 91– 59– 8 ......... 2­ Naphthalenamine Nickel .......................................................................................... (Total) ............ Nickel o­ Nitroaniline ............................................................................... 88– 74– 4 ......... Benzenamine, 2­ nitro­ m­ Nitroaniline .............................................................................. 99– 09– 2 ......... Benzenamine, 3­ nitro­ p­ Nitroaniline ............................................................................... 100– 01– 6 ....... Benzenamine, 4­ nitro­ Nitrobenzene ............................................................................... 98– 95– 3 ......... Benzene, nitro­ o­ Nitrophenol .............................................................................. 88– 75– 5 ......... Phenol, 2­ nitro­ p­ Nitrophenol .............................................................................. 100– 02– 7 ....... Phenol, 4­ nitro­ 4­ Nitroquinoline 1­ oxide .............................................................. 56– 57– 5 ......... Quinoline, 4­ nitro­, 1­ oxide N­ Nitrosodi­ n­ butylamine ............................................................ 924– 16– 3 ....... 1­ Butanamine, N­ butyl­ N­ nitroso­ N­ Nitrosodiethylamine ................................................................. 55– 18– 5 ......... Ethanamine, N­ ethyl­ N­ nitroso­ N­ Nitrosodimethylamine .............................................................. 62– 75– 9 ......... Methanamine, N­ methyl­ N­ nitroso­ N­ Nitrosodiphenylamine .............................................................. 86– 30– 6 ......... Benzenamine, N­ nitroso­ N­ phenyl­ N­ Nitrosodipropylamine; Di­ n­ propylnitrosamine ........................ 621– 64– 7 ....... 1­ Propanamine, N­ nitroso­ N­ propyl­ N­ Nitrosomethylethylamine ......................................................... 10595– 95– 6 ... Ethanamine, N­ methyl­ N­ nitroso­ N­ Nitrosomorpholine ................................................................... 59– 89– 2 ......... Morpholine, 4­ nitroso­ N­ Nitrosopiperidine ..................................................................... 100– 75– 4 ....... Piperidine, 1­ nitroso­ N­ Nitrosopyrrolidine .................................................................... 930– 55– 2 ....... Pyrrolidine, 1­ nitroso­ 5­ Nitro­ o­ toluidine ....................................................................... 99– 55– 8 ......... Benzenamine, 2­ methyl­ 5­ nitro­ Parathion ..................................................................................... 56– 38– 2 ......... Phosphorothioic acid, O, O­ diethyl­ O­( 4­ nitrophenyl) ester Polychlorinated biphenyls; PCBs ................................................ See Note 4 .... 1,1 ­Biphenyl, chloro derivatives Polychlorinated dibenzo­ p­ dioxins; PCDDs ................................ See Note 5 .... Dibenzo[ b, e][ 1,4] dioxin, chloro derivatives Polychlorinated dibenzofurans; PCDFs ...................................... See Note 6 .... Dibenzofuran, chloro derivatives Pentachlorobenzene ................................................................... 608– 93– 5 ....... Benzene, pentachloro­ Pentachloroethane ...................................................................... 76– 01– 7 ......... Ethane, pentachloro­ Pentachloronitrobenzene ............................................................ 82– 68– 8 ......... Benzene, pentachloronitro­ Pentachlorophenol ...................................................................... 87– 86– 5 ......... Phenol, pentachloro­ Phenacetin .................................................................................. 62– 44– 2 ......... Acetamide, N­( 4­ ethoxyphenyl) Phenanthrene ............................................................................. 85– 01– 8 ......... Phenanthrene Phenol ......................................................................................... 108– 95– 2 ....... Phenol p­ Phenylenediamine ................................................................... 106– 50– 3 ....... 1,4­ Benzenediamine Phorate ....................................................................................... 298– 02– 2 ....... Phosphorodithioic acid, O, O­ diethyl S­ [( ethylthio) methyl] ester 2­ Picoline .................................................................................... 109– 06– 8 ....... Pyridine, 2­ methyl­ Pronamide ................................................................................... 23950– 58– 5 ... Benzamide, 3,5­ dichloro­ N­( 1,1­ dimethyl­ 2­ propynyl)­ Propionitrile; Ethyl cyanide ......................................................... 107– 12– 0 ....... Propanenitrile Pyrene ......................................................................................... 129– 00– 0 ....... Pyrene Pyridine ....................................................................................... 110– 86– 1 ....... Pyridine Safrole ......................................................................................... 94– 59– 7 ......... 1,3­ Benzodioxole, 5­( 2­ propenyl)­ Selenium ..................................................................................... (Total) ............ Selenium Silver ........................................................................................... (Total) ............ Silver Silvex; 2,4,5­ TP .......................................................................... 93– 72– 1 ......... Propanoic acid, 2­( 2,4,5­ trichlorophenoxy)­ Styrene ........................................................................................ 100– 42– 5 ....... Benzene, ethenyl­ Sulfide ......................................................................................... 18496– 25– 8 ... Sulfide 2,4,5­ T; 2,4,5 Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid .................................. 93– 76– 5 ......... Acetic acid, (2,4,5­ 2,4,5­ trichlorophenoxy)­ 2,3,7,8­ TCDD; 2,3,7,8­ Tetrachlorodibenzo­ p­ dioxin ................... 1746– 01– 6 ..... Dibenzo[ b, e][ 1,4] dioxin, 2,3,7,8­ tetrachloro­ 1,2,4,5­ Tetrachlorobenzene ........................................................ 95– 94– 3 ......... Benzene, 1,2,4,5­ tetrachloro­ 1,1,1,2­ Tetrachloroethane ........................................................... 630– 20– 6 ....... Ethane, 1,1,1,2­ tetrachloro­ VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66295 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules GROUND­ WATER MONITORING LIST— Continued Common name 1 CAS RN 2 Chemical abstracts service index name 3 1,1,2,2­ Tetrachloroethane ........................................................... 79– 34– 5 ......... Ethane, 1,1,2,2­ tetrachloro­ Tetrachloroethylene; Perchloroethylene; Tetrachloroethene ...... 127– 18– 4 ....... Ethene, tetrachloro­ 2,3,4,6­ Tetrachlorophenol ........................................................... 58– 90– 2 ......... Phenol, 2,3,4,6­ tetrachloro­ Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate; Sulfotepp ................................. 3689– 24– 5 ..... Thiodiphosphoric acid ([( HO) 2 P( S)] 2 O), tetraethyl ester Thallium ...................................................................................... (Total) ............ Thallium Tin ............................................................................................... (Total) ............ Tin Toluene ....................................................................................... 108– 88– 3 ....... Benzene, methyl­ o­ Toluidine .................................................................................. 95– 53– 4 ......... Benzenamine, 2­ methyl­ Toxaphene .................................................................................. 8001– 35– 2 ..... Toxaphene 1,2,4­ Trichlorobenzene ............................................................... 120– 82– 1 ....... Benzene, 1,2,4­ trichloro­ 1,1,1­ Trichloroethane; Methylchloroform .................................... 71– 55– 6 ......... Ethane, 1,1,1­ trichloro­ 1,1,2­ Trichloroethane .................................................................. 79– 00– 5 ......... Ethane, 1,1,2­ trichloro­ Trichloroethylene; Trichloroethene ............................................. 79– 01– 6 ......... Ethene, trichloro­ Trichlorofluoromethane ............................................................... 75– 69– 4 ......... Methane, trichlorofluoro­ 2,4,5­ Trichlorophenol .................................................................. 95– 95– 4 ......... Phenol, 2,4,5­ trichloro­ 2,4,6­ Trichlorophenol .................................................................. 88– 06– 2 ......... Phenol, 2,4,6­ trichloro­ 1,2,3­ Trichloropropane ................................................................ 96– 18– 4 ......... Propane, 1,2,3­ trichloro­ O, O, O­ Triethyl phosphorothioate ................................................ 126– 68– 1 ....... Phosphorothioic acid, O, O, O­ triethyl ester sym­ Trinitrobenzene ................................................................... 99– 35– 4 ......... Benzene, 1,3,5­ trinitro­ Vanadium .................................................................................... (Total) ............ Vanadium Vinyl acetate ............................................................................... 108– 05– 4 ....... Acetic acid, ethenyl ester Vinyl chloride .............................................................................. 75– 01– 4 ......... Ethene, chloro­ Xylene (total) ............................................................................... 1330– 20– 7 ..... Benzene, dimethyl­ Zinc ............................................................................................. (Total) ............ Zinc 1 Common names are those widely used in government regulations, scientific publications, and commerce; synonyms exist for many chemicals 2 Chemical Abstracts Service registry number. Where `` Total'' is entered, all species in the ground water that contain this element are included. 3 CAS index names are those used in the 9th Cumulative Index. 4 Polychlorinated biphenyls (CAS RN 1336– 36– 3); this category contains congener chemicals, including constituents of Aroclor­ 1016 (CAS RN 12674– 11– 2), Aroclor­ 1221 (CAS RN 11104– 28– 2), Aroclor­ 1232 (CAS RN 11141– 16– 5), Aroclor­ 1242 (CAS RN 53469– 21– 9), Aroclor­ 1248 (CAS RN 12672– 29– 6), Aroclor­ 1254 (CAS RN 11097– 69– 1), and Aroclor­ 1260 (CAS RN 11096– 82– 5). 5 This category contains congener chemicals, including tetrachlorodibenzo­ p­ dioxins (see also 2,3,7,8– TCDD), pentachlorodibenzo­ p­ dioxins, and hexachlorodibenzo­ p­ dioxins. 6 This category contains congener chemicals, including tetrachlorodibenzofurans, pentachlorodibenzofurans, and hexachlorodibenzofurans. PART 265— INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES 24. The authority citation for part 265 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6906, 6912, 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 6935, 6936 and 6937, unless otherwise noted. Subpart AA— Air Emission Standards for Process Vents 25. Section 265.1034 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)( 1)( ii), (c)( 1)( iv), (d)( 1)( iii) and (f) to read as follows: § 265.1034 Test methods and procedures. * * * * * (c) * * * (1) * * * (ii) Method 18 or Method 25A in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, for organic content. If Method 25A is used, the organic HAP used as the calibration gas must be the single organic HAP representing the largest percent by volume of the emissions. The use of Method 25A is acceptable if the response from the high­ level calibration gas is at least 20 times the standard deviation of the response from the zero calibration gas when the instrument is zeroed on the most sensitive scale. * * * * * (iv) Total organic mass flow rates shall be determined by the following equation: (A) For sources utilizing Method 18. E Q CMW h n = [ ] [ ] i= 2sdii 1 6 10 0.0416 Where: Eh = Total organic mass flow rate, kg/ h; Q2sd = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting control device, as determined by Method 2, dscm/ h; n = Number of organic compounds in the vent gas; Ci = Organic concentration in ppm, dry basis, of compound i in the vent gas, as determined by Method 18; MWi = Molecular weight of organic compound i in the vent gas, kg/ kg mol; 0.0416 = Conversion factor for molar volume, kg­ mol/ m3 (@ 293 K and 760 mm Hg); 10 ¥ 6 Conversion from ppm (B) For sources utilizing Method 25A. Eh = (Q)( C)( MW)( 0.0416)( 10 ¥ 6 ) Where: Eh = Total organic mass flow rate, kg/ h; Q = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting control device, as determined by Method 2, dscm/ h; C = Organic concentration in ppm, dry basis, as determined by Method 25A; MW = Molecular weight of propane, 44; 0.0416 = Conversion factor for molar volume, kg­ mol/ m3 (@ 293 K and 760 mm Hg); 10 ¥ 6 = Conversion from ppm. * * * * * (d) * * * (1) * * * (iii) Each sample shall be analyzed and the total organic concentration of the sample shall be computed using Method 9060 (incorporated by reference under § 260.11) of `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846; or analyzed for its individual organic constituents by using appropriate methods such as Method 8260 of EPA Publication SW– 846, or using appropriate methods from other reliable sources. * * * * * (f) When an owner or operator and the Regional Administrator do not agree on VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 EP30OC02.001</ MATH> 66296 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules whether a distillation, fractionation, thin­ film evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or steam stripping operation manages a hazardous waste with organic concentrations of at least 10 ppmw based on knowledge of the waste, the dispute may be resolved using an appropriate method such as Method 8260 of `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste'' (EPA Publication SW– 846) or using appropriate methods from other reliable sources. Subpart BB— Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks 26. Section 265.1063 is amended by revising paragraph (d)( 2) to read as follows: § 265.1063 Test methods and procedures. * * * * * (d) * * * (2) Method 9060 (incorporated by reference under § 260.11) of `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, '' EPA Publication SW– 846 or analyzed for its individual organic constituents by using appropriate methods such as Method 8260 of EPA Publication SW– 846 or using appropriate methods from other reliable sources; or * * * * * Subpart CC— Air Emission Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and Containers 27. Section 265.1081 is amended by revising the definition `` Waste stabilization process'' to read as follows: § 265.1081 Definitions. * * * * * Waste stabilization process means any physical or chemical process used to either reduce the mobility of hazardous constituents in a hazardous waste or eliminate free liquids as determined by Test Method 9095 (Paint Filter Liquids Test) in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, as incorporated by reference in § 260.11. A waste stabilization process includes mixing the hazardous waste with binders or other materials, and curing the resulting hazardous waste and binder mixture. Other synonymous terms used to refer to this process are `` waste fixation'' or `` waste solidification. '' This does not include the adding of absorbent materials to the surface of a waste, without mixing, agitation, or subsequent curing, to absorb free liquid. 28. Section 265.1084 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)( 3)( ii)( C), (a)( 3)( iii), (b)( 3)( ii)( C), (b)( 3)( iii), and (c)( 3)( i) to read as follows: § 265.1084 Waste determination procedures. (a) * * * (3) * * * (ii) * * * (C) All samples shall be collected and handled in accordance with written procedures prepared by the owner or operator and documented in a site sampling plan. This plan shall describe the procedure by which representative samples of the hazardous waste stream are collected such that a minimum loss of organics occurs throughout the sample collection and handling process, and by which sample integrity is maintained. A copy of the written sampling plan shall be maintained onsite in the facility operating records. An example of an acceptable sampling plan includes a plan incorporating sample collection and handling procedures in accordance with the guidance found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or in Method 25D in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. * * * * * (iii) Analysis. Each collected sample shall be prepared and analyzed in accordance with Method 25D in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or using one or more other appropriate methods from other reliable sources. If Method 25D in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A is not used, then one or more methods should be chosen that are appropriate to ensure that the waste determination accounts for and reflects all organic compounds in the waste with Henry's law constant values at least 0.1 mole­ fraction­ in­ thegas phase/ mole­ fraction­ in­ the­ liquidphase (0.1 Y/ X) [which can also be expressed as 1.8 × 10 ¥ 6 atmospheres/ gram­ mole/ m 3 ] at 25 degrees Celsius. Examples of other methods from other reliable sources which might be appropriate include Method 8260 or 8270 in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846; or Method 624, 625, 1624, or 1625 of 40 CFR part 136, appendix A. At the owner or operator's discretion, the owner or operator may adjust test data obtained by any appropriate method to discount any contribution to the total volatile organic concentration that is a result of including a compound with a Henry's law constant value of less than 0.1 Y/ X at 25 degrees Celsius. To adjust these data, the measured concentration of each individual chemical constituent contained in the waste is multiplied by the appropriate constituent­ specific adjustment factor (fm25D). If the owner or operator elects to adjust test data, the adjustment must be made to all individual chemical constituents with a Henry's law constant value greater than or equal to 0.1 Y/ X at 25 degrees Celsius contained in the waste. Constituentspecific adjustment factors (fm25D) can be obtained by contacting the Waste and Chemical Processes Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. In addition to the requirement to reflect all organic compounds in the waste with Henry's law constant values greater than or equal to 0.1 Y/ X [which can also be expressed as 1.8 × 10 ¥ 6 atmospheres/ gram­ mole/ m 3 ] at 25 degrees Celsius, other appropriate methods include: (A) Any EPA standard method that has been validated in accordance with `` Alternative Validation Procedure for EPA Waste and Wastewater Methods'', 40 CFR part 63, appendix D. (B) Any other analysis method that has been validated in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 5.1 or Section 5.3, and the corresponding calculations in Section 6.1 or Section 6.3, of Method 301 in 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. The data are acceptable if they meet the criteria specified in Section 6.1.5 or Section 6.3.3 of Method 301. If correction is required under section 6.3.3 of Method 301, the data are acceptable if the correction factor is within the range 0.7 to 1.30. Other sections of Method 301 are not required. * * * * * (b) * * * (3) * * * (ii) * * * (C) All samples shall be collected and handled in accordance with written procedures prepared by the owner or operator and documented in a site sampling plan. This plan shall describe the procedure by which representative samples of the hazardous waste stream are collected such that a minimum loss of organics occurs throughout the sample collection and handling process, and by which sample integrity is maintained. A copy of the written sampling plan shall be maintained onsite in the facility operating records. An example of an acceptable sampling plan includes a plan incorporating sample collection and handling procedures in accordance with the guidance found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or in Method 25D in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. * * * * * (iii) Analysis. Each collected sample shall be prepared and analyzed in accordance with Method 25D in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or using one or VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66297 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules more appropriate methods from other reliable sources. When the owner or operator is making a waste determination for a treated hazardous waste that is to be compared to an average VO concentration at the point of waste origination or the point of waste entry to the treatment system, to determine if the conditions of § 264.1082( c)( 2)( i) through (c)( 2)( vi) of this part, or § 265.1083( c)( 2)( i) through (c)( 2)( vi) of this subpart are met, then the waste samples shall be prepared and analyzed using the same method or methods as were used in making the initial waste determinations at the point of waste origination or at the point of entry to the treatment system. If Method 25D in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A is not used, then one or more methods should be chosen that are appropriate to ensure that the waste determination accounts for and reflects all organic compounds in the waste with Henry's law constant values at least 0.1 molefraction in­ the­ gas­ phase/ mole­ fractionin the­ liquid­ phase (0.1 Y/ X) [which can also be expressed as 1.8 × 10 ¥ 6 atmospheres/ gram­ mole/ m 3 ] at 25 degrees Celsius. Examples of other methods from other reliable sources which might be appropriate include Method 8260 or 8270 in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846; or Method 624, 625, 1624, or 1625 of 40 CFR part 136, appendix A. At the owner or operator's discretion, the owner or operator may adjust test data obtained by any appropriate method to discount any contribution to the total volatile organic concentration that is a result of including a compound with a Henry's law constant value less than 0.1 Y/ X at 25 degrees Celsius. To adjust these data, the measured concentration of each individual chemical constituent in the waste is multiplied by the appropriate constituent­ specific adjustment factor (fm25D). If the owner or operator elects to adjust test data, the adjustment must be made to all individual chemical constituents with a Henry's law constant value greater than or equal to 0.1 Y/ X at 25 degrees Celsius contained in the waste. Constituent­ specific adjustment factors (fm25D) can be obtained by contacting the Waste and Chemical Processes Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. In addition to the requirement to reflect all organic compounds in the waste with Henry's law constant values greater than or equal to 0.1 Y/ X [which can also be expressed as 1.8 × 10 ¥ 6 atmospheres/ gram­ mole/ m 3 ] at 25 degrees Celsius, other appropriate methods include: (A) Any EPA standard method that has been validated in accordance with `` Alternative Validation Procedure for EPA Waste and Wastewater Methods'', 40 CFR part 63, appendix D. (B) Any other analysis method that has been validated in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 5.1 or Section 5.3, and the corresponding calculations in Section 6.1 or Section 6.3, of Method 301 in 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. The data are acceptable if they meet the criteria specified in Section 6.1.5 or Section 6.3.3 of Method 301. If correction is required under section 6.3.3 of Method 301, the data are acceptable if the correction factor is within the range 0.7 to 1.30. Other sections of Method 301 are not required. * * * * * (c) * * * (3) * * * (i) Sampling. A sufficient number of samples shall be collected to be representative of the waste contained in the tank. All samples shall be collected and handled in accordance with written procedures prepared by the owner or operator and documented in a site sampling plan. This plan shall describe the procedure by which representative samples of the hazardous waste are collected such that a minimum loss of organics occurs throughout the sample collection and handling process and by which sample integrity is maintained. A copy of the written sampling plan shall be maintained on­ site in the facility operating records. An example of an acceptable sampling plan includes a plan incorporating sample collection and handling procedures in accordance with the guidance found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or in Method 25D in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. * * * * * PART 266— STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES 29. The authority citation for part 266 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 1006, 2002( a), 3001– 3009, 3014, 6905, 6906, 6912, 6922, 6924– 6927 and 6937. Subpart H— Hazardous Waste Burned in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces 30. Section 266.100 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)( 1)( ii) and (g)( 2) to read as follows: § 266.100 Applicability. * * * * * (d) * * * (1) * * * (ii) Sample and analyze the hazardous waste and other feedstocks as necessary to comply with the requirements of this paragraph by using appropriate methods such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or other reliable sources. The owner or operator shall use the best available method for the particular determination; and * * * * * (g) * * * (2) Sample and analyze the hazardous waste as necessary to document that the waste is burned for recovery of economically significant amounts of precious metal, by using appropriate methods such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or other reliable sources. The owner or operator shall use the best available method for the particular determination; and * * * * * 31. Section 266.102 is amended by revising paragraph (b)( 1) to read as follows: § 266.102 Permit standards for burners. * * * * * (b) Hazardous waste analysis. (1) The owner or operator must provide an analysis of the hazardous waste that quantifies the concentration of any constituent identified in appendix VIII of part 261 of this chapter that may reasonably be expected to be in the waste. Such constituents must be identified and quantified if present, at levels detectable by using appropriate analytical procedures such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or other reliable sources. The owner or operator shall use the best available method for the particular determination. The appendix VIII, part 261 constituents excluded from this analysis must be identified and the basis for their exclusion explained. This analysis will be used to provide all information required by this subpart and §§ 270.22 and 270.66 of this chapter and to enable the permit writer to prescribe such permit conditions as necessary to protect human health and the environment. Such analysis must be included as a portion of the part B permit application, or, for facilities operating under the interim status standards of this subpart, as a portion of VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66298 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules the trial burn plan that may be submitted before the part B application under provisions of § 270.66( g) of this chapter as well as any other analysis required by the permit authority in preparing the permit. Owners and operators of boilers and industrial furnaces not operating under the interim status standards must provide the information required by §§ 270.22 or 270.66( c) of this chapter in the part B application to the greatest extent possible. * * * * * 32. Section 266.106 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 266.106 Standards to control metals emissions. (a) General. The owner or operator must comply with the metals standards provided by paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) of this section for each metal listed in paragraph (b) of this section that is present in the hazardous waste at detectable levels by using appropriate analytical procedures such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods'' (EPA Publication SW– 846) or other reliable sources. * * * * * 33. Section 266.112 is amended by revising paragraph (b)( 1), introductory text, and paragraph (b)( 2)( i) to read as follows: § 266.112 Regulation of residues. * * * * * (b) * * * (1) Comparison of waste­ derived residue with normal residue. The wastederived residue must not contain appendix VIII, part 261 constituents (toxic constituents) that could reasonably be attributable to the hazardous waste at concentrations significantly higher than in residue generated without burning or processing of hazardous waste, using the following procedure. Toxic compounds that could reasonably be attributable to burning or processing the hazardous waste (constituents of concern) include toxic constituents in the hazardous waste, and the organic compounds listed in appendix VIII of this part that may be generated as products of incomplete combustion. Sampling and analyses shall be conducted by using appropriate methods such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or other reliable sources. For polychlorinated dibenzo­ pdioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans analyses must be performed to determine specific congeners and homologues, and the results converted to 2,3,7,8– TCDD equivalent values using the procedure specified in section 4.0 of appendix IX of this part. * * * * * (2) Comparison of waste­ derived residue concentrations with healthbased limits—( i) Nonmetal constituents. The concentration of each nonmetal toxic constituent of concern (specified in paragraph (b)( 1) of this section) in the waste­ derived residue must not exceed the health­ based level specified in appendix VII of this part, or the level of detection (which must be determined by using appropriate analytical procedures such as those contained in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or other reliable sources), whichever is higher. If a health­ based limit for a constituent of concern is not listed in appendix VII of this part, then a limit of 0.002 micrograms per kilogram or the level of detection (which must be determined by using appropriate analytical procedures such as those found in EPA Publication SW– 846 or other reliable sources), whichever is higher, must be used. The levels specified in appendix VII of this part (and the default level of 0.002 micrograms per kilogram or the level of detection for constituents as identified in Note 1 of appendix VII of this chapter) are administratively stayed under the condition, for those constituents specified in paragraph (b)( 1) of this section, that the owner or operator complies with alternative levels defined as the land disposal restriction limits specified in § 268.43 of this chapter for F039 nonwastewaters. In complying with those alternative levels, if an owner or operator is unable to detect a constituent despite documenting use of best good­ faith efforts as defined by applicable Agency guidance or standards, the owner or operator is deemed to be in compliance for that constituent. Until new guidance or standards are developed, the owner or operator may demonstrate such goodfaith efforts by achieving a detection limit for the constituent that does not exceed an order of magnitude above the level provided by § 268.43 of this chapter for F039 nonwastewaters. In complying with the § 268.43 of this chapter F039 nonwastewater levels for polychlorinated dibenzo­ p­ dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzo­ furans, analyses must be performed for total hexachlorodibenzo­ p­ dioxins, total hexachlorodibenzofurans, total pentachlorodibenzo­ p­ dioxins, total pentachlorodibenzofurans, total tetrachlorodibenzo­ p­ dioxins, and total tetrachlorodibenzofurans. Note to paragraph (b)( 2)( i): The administrative stay, under the condition that the owner or operator complies with alternative levels defined as the land disposal restriction limits specified in § 268.43 of this chapter for F039 nonwastewaters, remains in effect until further administrative action is taken and notice is published in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations. * * * * * 34. Appendix IX of part 266 is amended to: a. Revise sections 1.0 and section 3.0, b. Revise the first paragraph of section 4.0, c. Revise paragraph (2) of section 10.3, d. Revise the fifth bullet of paragraph (1) of section 10.5, e. Revise the third dash text under the second bullet of paragraph (2) of section 10.5, f. Revise the third and fifth bullets of paragraph (5) of section 10.5, g. Revise the fourth bullet of paragraph (1) of section 10.6, h. Revise the third and fourth bullets of paragraph (5) of section 10.6. The revisions read as follows: Appendix IX— Methods Manual for Compliance with the BIF Regulations * * * * * Section 1.0 Introduction This document presents required methods for demonstrating compliance with U. S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs) burning hazardous waste (see 40 CFR part 266, subpart H). The methods included in this document are: 1. Performance Specifications for Continuous Emission Monitoring (CEM) of Carbon Monoxide, Oxygen, and Hydrocarbons in Stack Gases. 2. Procedures for Estimating the Toxicity Equivalency of Chlorinated Dibenzo­ p­ dioxin and Dibenzofuran Congeners. 3. Hazardous Waste Combustion Air Quality Screening Procedures (HWCAQSP). 4. Simplified Land Use Classification Procedure for Compliance with Tier I and Tier II Limits. 5. Statistical Methodology for Bevill Residue Determinations. 6. Procedures for Determining Default Values for Air Pollution Control System Removal Efficiencies. 7. Procedures for Determining Default Values for Partitioning of Metals, Ash, and Total Chloride/ Chlorine. 8. Alternate Methodology for Implementing Metals Controls. a. Sampling and analytical methods for multiple metals, hexavalent chromium, HCl and chlorine, polychlorinated dibenzo­ pdioxins and dibenzofurans, and aldehydes and ketones can be found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/ Chemical Methods'' (EPA Publication SW– 846). Additional methods referenced in VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 18: 41 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66299 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules subpart H of part 266 but not included in this document can be found in 40 CFR parts 60 and 61, and SW– 846. b. The CEM performance specifications of section 2.0, the relevant sampling Methods 0011, 0023A, 0050, 0051, 0060, and 0061 of SW– 846, incorporated by reference in § 260.11, and the toxicity equivalency procedure for dioxins and furans of section 4.0 are required procedures for determining compliance with BIF regulations. For the determination of chloride from HCl/ Cl2 emission sampling train, you must use appropriate methods such as Method 9057 of SW– 846 or other appropriate methods from other reliable sources. For the determination of carbonyl compounds by high­ performance liquid chromatography, you must use appropriate methods such as Method 8315 of SW– 846 or other appropriate methods from other reliable sources. The CEM performance specifications are interim. The finalized CEM performance specifications will be published in 40 CFR parts 60 and 61. * * * * * Section 3.0 Sampling and Analytical Methods Note: The sampling and analytical methods to the BIF manual are published in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846. Section 4.0 Procedure for Estimating the Toxicity Equivalency of Chlorinated Dibenzo­ p­ Dioxin and Dibenzofuran Congeners PCDDs and PCDFs must be determined using the most recent version of SW– 846 Method 0023A, as identified and incorporated by reference in § 260.11. In this method, individual congeners or homologues 1 are measured and then summed to yield a total PCDD/ PCDF value. No toxicity factors are specified in the method to compute risks from such emissions. * * * * * Section 10.0— Alternative Methodology for Implementing Metals Controls * * * * * 10.3 Basis * * * * * (2) The metal concentrations in the collected kiln dust can be accurately and representatively measured (by using appropriate procedures such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods'' (EPA Publication SW– 846) or other reliable sources). * * * * * 10.5 Implementation Procedures * * * * * (1) * * * Follow appropriate guidelines such as those described in SW– 846 or other reliable sources for preparing test plans and waste analysis plans for the following tests: * * * * * (2) * * * —Follow appropriate sampling and analytical procedures such as those described in SW– 846 or other reliable sources and the waste analysis plan as they pertain to the condition and accessibility of the dust. * * * * * (5) * * * Follow the sampling, compositing, and analytical procedures described in this method and in other appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources, as they pertain to the condition and accessibility of the kiln dust. *** Samples must be collected at least once every 8 hours, and a daily composite must be prepared according to appropriate procedures such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources. * * * * * 10.6 Precompliance Procedures * * * * * (1) * * * Follow appropriate procedures such as those described in SW– 846 or other reliable sources for preparing waste analysis plans for the following tasks: * * * * * (5) * * * Follow the sampling, compositing, and analytical procedures described in this method and in other appropriate methods such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources as they pertain to the condition and accessibility of the kiln dust. Samples must be collected at least once every 8 hours, and a daily composite must be prepared according to appropriate procedures such as those found in SW– 846 or other reliable sources. * * * * * PART 270— EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT 35. The authority citation for part 270 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912, 6924, 6925, 6927, 6939, and 6974. Subpart B— Permit Application 36. Section 270.19 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)( 1)( iii) and (iv) to read as follows: § 270.19 Specific part B information requirements for incinerators. * * * * * (c) * * * (1) * * * (iii) An identification of any hazardous organic constituents listed in part 261, appendix VIII, of this chapter, which are present in the waste to be burned, except that the applicant need not analyze for constituents listed in part 261, appendix VIII, of this chapter which would reasonably not be expected to be found in the waste. The constituents excluded from analysis must be identified and the basis for their exclusion stated. The waste analysis must rely on appropriate analytical techniques such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or other reliable sources. (iv) An approximate quantification of the hazardous constituents identified in the waste, within the precision produced by appropriate analytical methods such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or other reliable sources. * * * * * 37. Section 270.22 is amended by revising paragraph (a)( 2)( ii)( B) to read as follows: § 270.22 Specific part B information requirements for boilers and industrial furnaces burning hazardous wastes. * * * * * (a) * * * (2) * * * (ii) * * * (B) Results of analyses of each waste to be burned, documenting the concentrations of nonmetal compounds listed in appendix VIII of part 261 of this chapter, except for those constituents that would reasonably not be expected to be in the waste. The constituents excluded from analysis must be identified and the basis for their exclusion explained. The analysis must rely on appropriate analytical techniques such as those found in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, EPA Publication SW– 846, or other reliable sources. * * * * * Subpart F— Special Forms of Permits 38. Section 270.62 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)( 2)( i)( C) and (D) to read as follows: § 270.62 Hazardous waste incinerator permits. * * * * * (b) * * * (2) * * * VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66300 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules (i) * * * (C) An identification of any hazardous organic constituents listed in part 261, appendix VIII of this chapter, which are present in the waste to be burned, except that the applicant need not analyze for constituents listed in part 261, appendix VIII, of this chapter which would reasonably not be expected to be found in the waste. The constituents excluded from analysis must be identified, and the basis for the exclusion stated. The waste analysis must rely on appropriate analytical techniques such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or other reliable sources. (D) An approximate quantification of the hazardous constituents identified in the waste, within the precision produced by appropriate analytical methods such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or other reliable sources. * * * * * 39. Section 270.66 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)( 2)( i) and (ii) to read as follows: § 270.66 Permits for boilers and industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste. * * * * * (c) * * * (2) * * * (i) An identification of any hazardous organic constituents listed in appendix VIII, part 261, of this chapter that are present in the feed stream, except that the applicant need not analyze for constituents listed in appendix VIII that would reasonably not be expected to be found in the hazardous waste. The constituents excluded from analysis must be identified and the basis for this exclusion explained. The waste analysis must be conducted in accordance with appropriate analytical techniques such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or other reliable sources. (ii) An approximate quantification of the hazardous constituents identified in the hazardous waste, within the precision produced by appropriate analytical methods such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or other source. * * * * * PART 271— REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS 40. The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a) and 6926. 41. Section 271.1( j) is amended by adding the following entry to Table 1 in chronological order by date of publication in the Federal Register, to read as follows: § 271.1 Purpose and scope. (j) * * * TABLE 1.— REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984 Promulgation date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date [Date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register (FR)]. Process Vent and Equipment Leak Organic Air Emission Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities [FR page numbers] ........... [Date of publication of final rule]. [Date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register (FR)]. Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces. [FR page numbers] ........... [Date of publication of final rule]. [Date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register (FR)]. Air Emission Standards Tanks, Surface Impoundments and Containers. [FR page numbers] ........... [Date of publication of final rule]. 42. Section 271.21 is amended by adding the following entry to Table 1 in chronological order by date of publication in the Federal Register, to read as follows: § 271.21 Procedures for revision of State programs. * * * * * TABLE 1 TO SEC. 271.21 Title of regulation Promulgation date Federal Register reference Office of Solid Waste Testing and Monitoring Activities, Methods Innovation Rule. [Date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register (FR)]. [FR page numbers]. Process Vent and Equipment Leak Organic Air Emission Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. [Date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register (FR)]. [FR page numbers]. Burning of hazardous waste in boilers and industrial furnaces [Date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register (FR)]. [FR page numbers]. Air Emissions Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments and Containers. [Date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register (FR)]. [FR page numbers]. PART 279— STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF USED OIL 43. The authority citation for part 279 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sections 1006, 2002( a), 3001 through 3007, 3010, 3014, and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6921 through 6927, 6930, 6934, and 6974); and sections 101( 37) and 114( c) of CERCLA (42 U. S. C. 9601( 37) and 9614( c)). VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3 66301 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules Subpart B— Applicability 44. Section 279.10 is amended by revising paragraph (b)( 1)( ii) introductory text to read as follows: § 279.10 Applicability. * * * * * (b) * * * (1) * * * (ii) Rebuttable presumption for used oil. Used oil containing more than 1,000 ppm total halogens is presumed to be a hazardous waste because it has been mixed with halogenated hazardous waste listed in subpart D of part 261 of this chapter. Persons may rebut this presumption by demonstrating that the used oil does not contain hazardous waste (for example, by using an appropriate analytical method such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Chemical/ Physical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or other reliable sources to show that the used oil does not contain significant concentrations of halogenated hazardous constituents listed in appendix VIII of part 261 of this chapter). * * * * * Subpart E— Standards for Used Oil Transporter and Transfer Facilities 45. Section 279.44 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 279.44 Rebuttable presumption for used oil. * * * * * (c) If the used oil contains greater than or equal to 1,000 ppm total halogens, it is presumed to be a hazardous waste because it has been mixed with halogenated hazardous waste listed in subpart D of part 261 of this chapter. The owner or operator may rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the used oil does not contain hazardous waste (for example, by using an appropriate analytical method such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Chemical/ Physical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or other reliable sources to show that the used oil does not contain significant concentrations of halogenated hazardous constituents listed in Appendix VIII of part 261 of this chapter). * * * * * Subpart F— Standards for Used Oil Processors and Re­ Refiners 46. Section 279.53 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory text to read as follows: § 279.53 Rebuttable presumption for used oil. * * * * * (c) If the used oil contains greater than or equal to 1,000 ppm total halogens, it is presumed to be a hazardous waste because it has been mixed with halogenated hazardous waste listed in subpart D of part 261 of this chapter. The owner or operator may rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the used oil does not contain hazardous waste (for example, by using an appropriate analytical method such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Chemical/ Physical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or other reliable sources to show that the used oil does not contain significant concentrations of halogenated hazardous constituents listed in Appendix VIII of part 261 of this chapter). * * * * * Subpart G— Standards for Used Oil Burners Who Burn Off­ Specification Used Oil for Energy Recovery 47. Section 279.63 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory text to read as follows: § 279.63 Rebuttable presumption for used oil. * * * * * (c) If the used oil contains greater than or equal to 1,000 ppm total halogens, it is presumed to be a hazardous waste because it has been mixed with halogenated hazardous waste listed in subpart D of part 261 of this chapter. The owner or operator may rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the used oil does not contain hazardous waste (for example, by using an appropriate analytical method such as those found in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Chemical/ Physical Methods, '' EPA Publication SW– 846, or other reliable sources to show that the used oil does not contain significant concentrations of halogenated hazardous constituents listed in Appendix VIII of part 261 of this chapter). * * * * * [FR Doc. 02– 26441 Filed 10– 29– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 56 Oct 29, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30OCP3. SGM 30OCP3

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.915336

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0025-0007

Supporting & Related Material

United States Solid Waste and EPA530­ D­ 02­ 002 Environmental Protection Emergency Response August 2002 Agency (5305W) www. epa. gov/ osw Office of Solid Waste RCRA Waste Sampling Draft Technical Guidance Planning, Implementation, and Assessment EPA530­ D­ 02­ 002 August 2002 RCRA Waste Sampling Draft Technical Guidance Planning, Implementation, and Assessment Office of Solid Waste U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 i DISCLAIMER The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste (EPA or the Agency) has prepared this draft document to provide guidance to project planners, field personnel, data users, and other interested parties regarding sampling for the evaluation of solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA does not make any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report. EPA does not assume any liability with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report. Reference to trade names or specific commercial products, commodities, or services in this report does not represent or constitute an endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by EPA of the specific commercial product, commodity, or service. In addition, the policies set out in this document are not final Agency action, but are intended solely as guidance. They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. EPA officials may decide to follow the guidance provided in this document, or to act at variance with the guidance, based on an analysis of specific site or facility circumstances. The Agency also reserves the right to change this guidance at any time without public notice. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Development of this document was funded, wholly or in part, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U. S. EPA) under Contract No. 68­ W6­ 0068 and 68­ W­ 00­ 122. It has been reviewed by EPA and approved for publication. It was developed under the direction of Mr. Oliver M. Fordham, Office of Solid Waste (OSW) and Kim Kirkland (OSW) in collaboration with Dr. Brian A. Schumacher, Office of Research and Development (ORD). This document was prepared by Mr. Robert B. Stewart, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). Additional writers included Dr. Kirk Cameron (MacStat Consulting, Ltd.), Dr. Larry P. Jackson (Environmental Quality Management), Dr. John Maney (Environmental Measurements Assessment Co.), Ms. Jennifer Bramlett (SAIC), and Mr. Oliver M. Fordham (U. S. EPA). EPA gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the technical reviewers involved in this effort, including the following: U. S. EPA Program Offices Deana Crumbling, TIO Evan Englund, ORD George Flatman, ORD Joan Fisk, OERR David Friedman, ORD Chris Gaines, OW Gail Hansen, OSW Barnes Johnson, OSW Joe Lowry, NEIC John Nocerino, ORD Brian A. Schumacher, ORD Jim Thompson, OECA Jeff Van Ee, ORD Brad Venner, NEIC John Warren, OEI U. S. EPA Regions Dan Granz, Region I Bill Cosgrove, Region IV Mike Neill, Region IV Judy Sophianopoulos, Region IV Brian Freeman, Region V Gene Keepper, Region VI Gregory Lyssy, Region VI Bill Gallagher, Region VI Deanna Lacy, Region VI Maria Martinez, Region VI Walt Helmick, Region VI Charles Ritchey, Region VI Terry Sykes, Region VI Stephanie Doolan, Region VII Dedriel Newsome, Region VII Tina Diebold, Region VIII Mike Gansecki, Region VIII Roberta Hedeen, Region X Mary Queitzsch, Region X ASTM Subcommittee D­ 34 Brian M. Anderson, SCA Services Eric Chai, Shell Alan B. Crockett, INEL Jim Frampton, CA DTSC Susan Gagner, LLNL Alan Hewitt, CRREL Larry Jackson, EQM John Maney, EMA Other Organizations Jeffrey Farrar, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation Jeff Myers, Westinghouse SMS Rock Vitale, Environmental Standards Ann Strahl, Texas NRCC iii CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1 1.1 What Will I Find in This Guidance Document? .......................... 1 1.2 Who Can Use This Guidance Document? ............................. 1 1.3 Does This Guidance Document Replace Other Guidance? ................ 2 1.4 How Is This Document Organized? .................................. 3 2 SUMMARY OF RCRA REGULATORY DRIVERS FOR WASTE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS ........................................................... 6 2.1 Background ..................................................... 6 2.2 Sampling For Regulatory Compliance ................................ 8 2.2.1 Making a Hazardous Waste Determination ....................... 8 2.2.2 Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Program ...................... 9 2.2.3 Other RCRA Regulations and Programs That May Require Sampling and Testing .............................................. 10 2.2.4 Enforcement Sampling and Analysis .......................... 10 3 FUNDAMENTAL STATISTICAL CONCEPTS ............................... 13 3.1 Populations, Samples, and Distributions ............................. 14 3.1.1 Populations and Decision Units .............................. 14 3.1.2 Samples and Measurements ................................ 15 3. 1. 3 Distributions ............................................. 17 3.2 Measures of Central Tendency, Variability, and Relative Standing ......... 18 3.2.1 Measures of Central Tendency ............................... 18 3.2.2 Measures of Variability ..................................... 19 3.2.3 Measures of Relative Standing ............................... 21 3.3 Precision and Bias .............................................. 21 3.4 Using Sample Analysis Results to Classify a Waste or to Determine Its Status Under RCRA ................................................... 24 3.4.1 Using an Average To Determine Whether a Waste or Media Meets the Applicable Standard ....................................... 24 3.4.2 Using a Proportion or Percentile To Determine Whether a Waste or Media Meets an Applicable Standard .......................... 26 3.4.2.1 Using a Confidence Limit on a Percentile to Classify a Waste or Media ........................................ 27 3.4.2.2 Using a Simple Exceedance Rule Method To Classify a Waste ........................................ 27 3.4.3 Comparing Two Populations ................................. 28 3. 4. 4 Estimating Spatial Patterns.................................. 29 4 PLANNING YOUR PROJECT USING THE DQO PROCESS ................... 30 4. 1 Step 1: State the Problem ........................................ 32 4.1.1 Identify Members of the Planning Team ........................ 32 iv 4.1.2 Identify the Primary Decision Maker ........................... 32 4. 1. 3 Develop a Concise Description of the Problem................... 32 4.2 Step 2: Identify the Decision ...................................... 33 4.2.1 Identify the Principal Study Question .......................... 33 4.2.2 Define the Alternative Actions That Could Result from Resolution of the Principal Study Question.................................... 34 4. 2. 3 Develop a Decision Statement ............................... 34 4.2.4 Organize Multiple Decisions ................................. 34 4.3 Step 3: Identify Inputs to the Decision ............................... 34 4.3.1 Identify the Information Required ............................. 34 4. 3. 2 Determine the Sources of Information ......................... 35 4.3.3 Identify Information Needed To Establish the Action Level .......... 35 4.3.4 Confirm That Sampling and Analytical Methods Exist That Can Provide the Required Environmental Measurements ..................... 36 4.4 Step 4: Define the Study Boundaries ................................ 36 4.4.1 Define the Target Population of Interest ........................ 36 4.4.2 Define the Spatial Boundaries ................................ 37 4.4.3 Define the Temporal Boundary of the Problem ................... 37 4.4.4 Identify Any Practical Constraints on Data Collection .............. 38 4. 4. 5 Define the Scale of Decision Making .......................... 38 4. 5 Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule................................... 39 4. 5. 1 Specify the Parameter of Interest ............................. 39 4. 5. 2 Specify the Action Level for the Study ......................... 40 4. 5. 3 Develop a Decision Rule.................................... 41 4. 6 Step 6: Specify Limits on Decision Errors ............................ 41 4.6.1 Determine the Possible Range on the Parameter of Interest ........ 43 4.6.2 Identify the Decision Errors and Choose the Null Hypothesis ........ 43 4.6.3 Specify a Range of Possible Parameter Values Where the Consequences of a False Acceptance Decision Error are Relatively Minor (Gray Region) ....................................... 45 4.6.4 Specify an Acceptable Probability of Making a Decision Error ....... 47 4. 7 Outputs of the First Six Steps of the DQO Process ..................... 48 5 OPTIMIZING THE DESIGN FOR OBTAINING THE DATA ..................... 50 5. 1 Review the Outputs of the First Six Steps of the DQO Process ............ 50 5. 2 Consider Data Collection Design Options............................. 51 5.2.1 Simple Random Sampling ................................... 57 5.2.2 Stratified Random Sampling ................................. 57 5. 2. 3 Systematic Sampling....................................... 59 5. 2. 4 Ranked Set Sampling ...................................... 60 5.2.5 Sequential Sampling ....................................... 61 5. 2. 6 Authoritative Sampling ..................................... 62 5.2.6.1 Judgmental Sampling ............................. 63 5.2.6.2 Biased Sampling ................................. 64 5. 3 Composite Sampling............................................. 64 5.3.1 Advantages and Limitations of Composite Sampling .............. 65 5. 3. 2 Basic Approach To Composite Sampling ....................... 66 5. 3. 3 Composite Sampling Designs................................ 67 v 5.3.3.1 Simple Random Composite Sampling ................. 67 5.3.3.2 Systematic Composite Sampling ..................... 68 5. 3. 4 Practical Considerations for Composite Sampling ................ 69 5.3.5 Using Composite Sampling To Obtain a More Precise Estimate of the Mean................................................... 69 5.3.6 Using Composite Sampling To Locate Extreme Values or "Hot Spots" ............................................ 71 5.4 Determining the Appropriate Number of Samples Needed To Estimate the Mean......................................................... 73 5.4.1 Number of Samples to Estimate the Mean: Simple Random Sampling 75 5.4.2 Number of Samples to Estimate the Mean: Stratified Random Sampling................................................ 77 5.4.2.1 Optimal Allocation ................................ 78 5.4.2.2 Proportional Allocation ............................. 78 5.4.3 Number of Samples to Estimate the Mean: Systematic Sampling .... 80 5.4.4 Number of Samples to Estimate the Mean: Composite Sampling .... 80 5.5 Determining the Appropriate Number of Samples to Estimate A Percentile or Proportion ..................................................... 81 5.5.1 Number of Samples To Test a Proportion: Simple Random or Systematic Sampling....................................... 81 5.5.2 Number of Samples When Using a Simple Exceedance Rule ....... 83 5. 6 Selecting the Most Resource­ Effective Design......................... 84 5.7 Preparing a QAPP or WAP ........................................ 84 5.7.1 Project Management ....................................... 85 5. 7. 2 Measurement/ Data Acquisition............................... 86 5. 7. 3 Assessment/ Oversight ..................................... 86 5.7.4 Data Validation and Usability ................................ 86 5. 7. 5 Data Assessment ......................................... 87 6 CONTROLLING VARIABILITY AND BIAS IN SAMPLING ..................... 88 6.1 Sources of Random Variability and Bias in Sampling .................... 88 6.2 Overview of Sampling Theory ...................................... 90 6.2.1 Heterogeneity ............................................ 90 6. 2. 2 Types of Sampling Error .................................... 91 6.2.2.1 Fundamental Error ................................ 92 6.2.2.2 Grouping and Segregation Error ..................... 93 6.2.2.3 Increment Delimitation Error ........................ 94 6.2.2.4 Increment Extraction Error .......................... 94 6.2.2.5 Preparation Error ................................. 94 6.2.3 The Concept of "Sample Support" ............................ 94 6.3 Practical Guidance for Reducing Sampling Error ....................... 95 6. 3. 1 Determining the Optimal Mass of a Sample ..................... 96 6.3.2 Obtaining the Correct Shape and Orientation of a Sample .......... 98 6.3.2.1 Sampling of a Moving Stream of Material .............. 98 6.3.2.2 Sampling of a Stationary Batch of Material ............. 99 6.3.3 Selecting Sampling Devices That Minimize Sampling Errors ........ 99 6.3.3.1 General Performance Goals for Sampling Tools and Devices ........................................ 99 vi 6.3.3.2 Use and Limitations of Common Devices ............. 100 6.3.4 Special Considerations for Sampling Waste and Soils for Volatile Organic Compounds ...................................... 101 7 IMPLEMENTATION: SELECTING EQUIPMENT AND CONDUCTING SAMPLING ......................................................... 102 7.1 Selecting Sampling Tools and Devices .............................. 102 7.1.1 Step 1: Identify the Waste Type or Medium to be Sampled ........ 104 7.1.2 Step 2: Identify the Site or Point of Sample Collection ............ 104 7.1.2.1 Drums and Sacks or Bags ......................... 104 7.1.2.2 Surface Impoundments ........................... 105 7.1.2.3 Tanks ......................................... 105 7.1.2.4 Pipes, Point Source Discharges, or Sampling Ports ..... 106 7.1.2.5 Storage Bins, Roll­ Off Boxes, or Collection Hoppers .... 106 7.1.2.6 Waste Piles .................................... 106 7.1.2.7 Conveyors ..................................... 106 7.1.2.8 Structures and Debris ............................ 107 7.1.2.9 Surface or Subsurface Soil ........................ 107 7. 1. 3 Step 3: Consider Device­ Specific Factors ..................... 107 7.1.3.1 Sample Type ................................... 108 7.1.3.2 Sample Volume ................................. 108 7.1.3.3 Other Device­ Specific Considerations ................ 108 7. 1. 4 Step 4: Select the Sampling Device.......................... 108 7.2 Conducting Field Sampling Activities ............................... 122 7. 2. 1 Selecting Sample Containers ............................... 122 7.2.2 Sample Preservation and Holding Times ...................... 123 7. 2. 3 Documentation of Field Activities ............................ 124 7. 2. 4 Field Quality Control Samples............................... 124 7.2.5 Sample Identification and Chain­ of­ Custody Procedures .......... 125 7.2.6 Decontamination of Equipment and Personnel .................. 128 7.2.7 Health and Safety Considerations ............................ 130 7.2.8 Sample Packaging and Shipping ............................ 131 7.2.8.1 Sample Packaging ............................... 131 7.2.8.2 Sample Shipping ................................ 133 7.3 Using Sample Homogenization, Splitting, and Subsampling Techniques . . . 134 7.3.1 Homogenization Techniques ................................ 134 7. 3. 2 Sample Splitting ......................................... 135 7. 3. 3 Subsampling ............................................ 135 7.3.3.1 Subsampling Liquids ............................. 136 7.3.3.2 Subsampling Mixtures of Liquids and Solids ........... 136 7.3.3.3 Subsampling Soils and Solid Media ................. 136 8 ASSESSMENT: ANALYZING AND INTERPRETING DATA .................. 139 8.1 Data Verification and Validation ................................... 139 8. 1. 1 Sampling Assessment..................................... 139 8.1.1.1 Sampling Design ................................ 140 vii 8.1.1.2 Sampling Methods ............................... 141 8.1.1.3 Sample Handling and Custody Procedures ............ 141 8.1.1.4 Documentation ................................. 141 8.1.1.5 Control Samples ................................ 142 8. 1. 2 Analytical Assessment .................................... 142 8.1.2.1 Analytical Data Verification ........................ 143 8.1.2.2 Analytical Data Validation (Evaluation) ............... 144 8. 2 Data Quality Assessment ........................................ 145 8.2.1 Review the DQOs and the Sampling Design ................... 145 8.2.2 Prepare Data for Statistical Analysis .......................... 145 8.2.3 Conduct Preliminary Review of the Data and Check Statistical Assumptions ............................................ 147 8.2.3.1 Statistical Quantities ............................. 147 8.2.3.2 Checking Data for Normality ....................... 147 8.2.3.3 How To Assess "Outliers" ......................... 148 8.2.4 Select and Perform Statistical Tests .......................... 149 8.2.4.1 Data Transformations in Statistical Tests ............. 150 8.2.4.2 Treatment of Nondetects .......................... 154 8.2.5 Draw Conclusions and Report Results ........................ 154 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms ............................................. 157 Appendix B: Summary of RCRA Regulatory Drivers for Conducting Waste Sampling and Analysis ....................................................... 171 Appendix C: Strategies for Sampling Heterogeneous Wastes .................... 191 Appendix D: A Quantitative Approach for Controlling Fundamental Error .......... 197 Appendix E: Sampling Devices ............................................. 201 Appendix F: Statistical Methods ............................................ 241 Appendix G: Statistical Tables .............................................. 263 Appendix H: Statistical Software ............................................ 273 Appendix I: Examples of Planning, Implementation, and Assessment for RCRA Waste Sampling .................................................... 277 Appendix J: Summary of ASTM Standards ................................... 305 References .............................................................. 323 Index ................................................................... 337 viii LIST OF ACRONYMS AL Action Level ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BDAT Best Demonstrated Available Technology BIF Boiler and Industrial Furnace CERCLA Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations DOT Department of Transportation DQA Data Quality Assessment DQO Data Quality Objective EA Exposure area FR Federal Register HWIR Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (waste) IATA International Air Transport Association ICR Ignitability, Corrosivity, and Reactivity IDW Investigation­ derived waste LCL Lower confidence limit LDR Land Disposal Restrictions ORD Office of Research and Development OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSW Office of Solid Waste PBMS Performance­ based measurement system ppm Parts per million QAD Quality Assurance Division QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QA/ QC Quality Assurance/ Quality Control RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RT Regulatory Threshold SOP Standard operating procedure SWMU Solid waste management unit TC Toxicity Characteristic TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure TSDF Treatment, storage, or disposal facility UCL Upper confidence limit USEPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (we, us, our, EPA, the Agency) UTS Universal Treatment Standard VOC Volatile organic compound WAP Waste analysis plan 1 If a solid waste is not excluded from regulation under 40 CFR 261, then a generator must determine whether the waste exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous waste. A generator may determine if a waste exhibits a characteristic either by testing the waste or applying knowledge of the waste, the raw materials, and the processes used in its generation. 1 ASSESSMENT Data Verification & Validation, Data Quality Assessment, Conclusions Drawn from Data IMPLEMENTATION Field Sample Collection, Sample Analysis, and Associated Quality Assurance/ Quality Control Activities PLANNING Data Quality Objectives Process, Quality Assurance Project Plan or Waste Analysis Plan Figure 1. QA Planning and the Data Life Cycle (after USEPA 1998a). RCRA WASTE SAMPLING DRAFT TECHNICAL GUIDANCE 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 What Will I Find in This Guidance Document? You'll find recommended procedures for sampling solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The regulated and regulatory communities can use this guidance to develop sampling plans to determine if (1) a solid waste exhibits any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste 1 , (2) a hazardous waste is prohibited from land disposal, and (3) a numeric treatment standard has been met. You also can use information in this document along with that found in other guidance documents to meet other sampling objectives such as site characterization under the RCRA corrective action program. This guidance document steps you through the three phases of the sampling and analysis process shown in Figure 1: planning, implementation, and assessment. Planning involves "asking the right questions." Using a systematic planning process such as the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Process helps you do so. DQOs are the specifications you need to develop a plan for your project such as a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) or a waste analysis plan (WAP). Implementation involves using the field sampling procedures and analytical methods specified in the plan and taking measures to control error that might be introduced along the way. Assessment is the final stage in which you evaluate the results of the study in terms of the original objectives and make decisions regarding management or treatment of the waste. 1.2 Who Can Use This Guidance Document? Any person who generates, treats, stores, or disposes of solid and hazardous waste and conducts sampling and analysis under RCRA can use the information in this guidance document. 2 For the development of a technically sound sampling and project plan, seek competent advice during the initial stages of project design. This is particularly true in the early developmental stages of a sampling plan when planners need to understand basic statistical concepts, how to establish objectives, and how the results of the project will be evaluated. This document is a practical guide, and many examples are included throughout the text to demonstrate how to apply the guidance. In addition, we have included a comprehensive glossary of terms in Appendix A to help you with any unfamiliar terminology. We encourage you to review other documents referenced in the text, especially those related to the areas of sampling theory and practice and the statistical analysis of environmental data. 1.3 Does This Guidance Document Replace Other Guidance? EPA prepared this guidance document to update technical information contained in other sources of EPA guidance such as Chapter Nine "Sampling Plan" found in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, EPA publication SW­ 846 (1986a). This draft guidance document does not replace SW­ 846 Chapter Nine, nor does it create, amend, or otherwise alter any regulation. Since publication of SW­ 846 Chapter Nine, EPA has published a substantial body of additional sampling and statistical guidance documents that support waste and site characterization under both RCRA and the Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA) or "Superfund." Most of these guidance documents, which focus on specific Agency regulations or program initiatives, should continue to be used, as appropriate. Relevant EPA guidance documents, other references, and resources are identified in Appendix B and throughout this document. In addition to RCRA program­ specific guidance documents issued by EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW), EPA's Office of Environmental Information's Quality Staff has developed policy for quality assurance, guidance documents and software tools, and provides training and outreach. For example, the Quality Staff have issued guidance on the following key topic areas: ° The data quality objectives process (USEPA 2000a, 2000b, and 2001a) ° Preparation of quality assurance project plans (USEPA 1998a and 2001b) and sampling plans (2000c) ° Verification and validation of environmental data (USEPA 2001c) ° Data quality assessment (USEPA 2000d). Information about EPA's Quality System and QA procedures and policies can be found on the World Wide Web at http:// www. epa. gov/ quality/. If you require additional information, you should review these documents and others cited in this document. In the future, EPA may issue additional supplemental guidance supporting other regulatory initiatives. Finally, other organizations including EPA Regions, States, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Department of Defense (e. g., the Air Force Center for Environmental 3 Excellence), and the Department of Energy have developed a wide range of relevant guidance and methods. Consult these resources for further assistance, as necessary. 1.4 How Is This Document Organized? As previously indicated in Figure 1, this guidance document covers the three components of a sampling and analysis program: planning, implementation, and assessment. Even though the process is pictured in a linear format, in practice a sampling program should include feedback between the various components. You should review and analyze data as collected so you can determine whether the data satisfy the objectives of the study and if the approach or objectives need to be revised or refined, and so you can make reasoned and intelligent decisions. The remaining sections of this guidance document address specific topics pertaining to various components of a sampling program. These sections include the following: Section 2 ­ Summary of RCRA Regulatory Drivers for Waste Sampling and Analysis – This section identifies and summarizes the major RCRA programs that specify some sort of sampling and testing to determine if a waste is a hazardous waste, to determine if a hazardous waste treatment standard is attained, and other determinations. Section 3 ­ Fundamental Statistical Concepts ­­ This section provides an overview of fundamental statistical concepts and how the sample analysis results can be used to classify a waste or determine its status under RCRA. The section serves as a refresher to those familiar with basic statistics. In those cases where you require more advanced techniques, seek the assistance of a professional environmental statistician. Detailed guidance on the selection and use of statistical methods is provided in Section 8 and Appendix F. Section 4 ­ Planning Your Project Using the DQO Process ­­ The first phase of sampling involves development of DQOs using the DQO Process or a similar structured systematic planning process. The DQOs provide statements about the expectations and requirements of the data user (such as the decision maker). Section 5 ­ Optimizing the Design for Obtaining the Data ­­ This section describes how to link the results of the DQO Process with the development of the QAPP. You optimize the sampling design to control sampling errors within acceptable limits and minimize costs while continuing to meet the sampling objectives. You document the output of the DQO Process in a QAPP, WAP, or similar planning document. Here is where you translate the data requirements into measurement performance specifications and QA/ QC procedures. Section 6 ­ Controlling Variability and Bias in Sampling ­­ In this section, we recognize that random variability and bias (collectively known as "error") in sampling account for a significant portion of the total error in the sampling and analysis process – far outweighing typical analytical error. To address this concern, the section describes the sources of error in sampling and offers some strategies for minimizing those errors. 4 Section 7 ­ Implementation: Selecting Equipment and Conducting Sampling ­­ In this section, we describe the steps for selecting sampling equipment based on the physical and chemical characteristics of the media to be sampled and the type of RCRA unit or location from which the samples will be obtained. The section provides guidance on field sampling activities, such as documentation, chain­ of­ custody procedures, decontamination, and sample packaging and shipping. Finally, guidance is provided on sample homogenization (or mixing), splitting, and subsampling. Section 8 ­ Assessment: Analyzing and Interpreting Data ­­ Once you have obtained the data in accordance with the elements of the QAPP or WAP, you should evaluate the data to determine whether you have satisfied the DQOs. Section 8 describes the data quality assessment (DQA) process and the statistical analysis of waste­ sampling data. Appendix A ­ Glossary of Terms ­­ This appendix comprises a glossary of terms that are used in this document. Appendix B ­ Summary of RCRA Regulatory Drivers for Conducting Waste Sampling and Analysis ­­ An overview of the RCRA regulatory requirements and other citations related to waste sampling and testing is provided in this appendix. Appendix C ­ Strategies for Sampling Heterogeneous Wastes ­­ The heterogeneity of a waste or media plays an important role in how you collect and handle samples and what type of sampling design you use. This appendix provides a supplemental discussion of large­ scale heterogeneity of waste and its impact on waste­ sampling strategies. Various types of large­ scale heterogeneity are identified and techniques are described for stratifying a waste stream based on heterogeneity. Stratified sampling can be a cost­ effective approach for sampling and analysis of heterogeneous wastes. Appendix D ­ A Quantitative Approach for Controlling Fundamental Error ­­ The mass of a sample can influence our ability to obtain reproducible analytical results. This appendix provides an approach for determining the appropriate mass of a sample of particulate material using information about the size and shape of the particles. Appendix E ­ Sampling Devices ­­ This appendix provides descriptions of recommended sampling devices. For each type of sampling device, information is provided in a uniform format that includes a brief description of the device and its use, advantages and limitations of the device, and a figure to indicate the general design of the device. Each summary also identifies sources of other guidance on each device, particularly any relevant ASTM standards. Appendix F ­ Statistical Methods ­­ This appendix provides statistical guidance for the analysis of data generated in support of a waste­ testing program under RCRA. Appendix G ­ Statistical Tables ­­ A series of statistical tables needed to perform the statistical tests used in this guidance document are presented here. Appendix H ­ Statistical Software ­­ A list of statistical software and "freeware" nocost software) that you might find useful in implementing the statistical methods outlined 5 in this guidance document is contained in this appendix, as are Internet addresses at which you can download no­ cost software. Appendix I ­ Examples of Planning, Implementation, and Assessment for RCRA Waste Sampling ­­ Two hypothetical examples of how to apply the planning, implementation, and assessment guidance provided in this guidance document are provided here. Appendix J ­ Summaries of ASTM Standards ­­ This appendix provides summaries of ASTM standards related to waste sampling and referenced in this document. 6 2 SUMMARY OF RCRA REGULATORY DRIVERS FOR WASTE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS 2.1 Background Through RCRA, Congress provided EPA with the framework to develop regulatory programs for the management of solid and hazardous waste. The provisions of RCRA Subtitle C establish the criteria for identifying hazardous waste and managing it from its point of generation to ultimate disposal. EPA's regulations set out in 40 CFR Parts 260 to 279 are the primary source for the requirements of the hazardous waste program. These regulations were developed over a period of 25 years. While EPA's approach for developing individual regulations may have evolved over this period, the current RCRA statute and codified regulations remain the standard for determining compliance. Many of the RCRA regulations either require the waste handler to conduct sampling and analysis, or they include provisions under which sampling and analysis can be performed at the discretion of the waste handler. If the regulations require sampling and analysis of a waste or environmental media, then any regulatory requirements for conducting the sampling and analysis and for evaluating the results must be followed. Regardless of whether there are regulatory requirements to conduct sampling, some waste handlers may wish to conduct a sampling program that allows them to quantify any uncertainties associated with their waste classification decisions. The information in this document can be used to aid in the planning and implementation of such a sampling program. Some RCRA regulations do not specify sampling and analysis requirements and/ or do not specify how the sample analysis results should be evaluated. In many cases, this is because EPA realized that the type, quantity, and quality of data needed should be specified on a sitespecific basis, such as in the waste analysis plan of a permitted facility. In those situations, you can use the guidance in this document to help you plan and implement the sampling and analysis program, evaluate the sample analysis results against the regulatory standards, and quantify the level of uncertainty associated with the decisions. This section identifies the major RCRA programs that specify some sort of sampling and testing to determine if a waste is a hazardous waste, to determine if a hazardous waste treatment standard is attained, or to meet other objectives such as site characterization. Table 1 provides a listing of these major RCRA programs that may require waste sampling and testing as part of their implementation. Appendix B provides a more detailed listing of the regulatory citations, the applicable RCRA standards, requirements for demonstrating attainment or compliance with the standards, and relevant USEPA guidance documents. Prior to conducting a waste sampling and testing program to comply with RCRA, review the specific regulations in detail. Consult the latest 40 CFR, related Federal Register notices, and EPA's World Wide Web site (www. epa. gov) for new or revised regulations. In addition, because some states have requirements that differ from EPA regulations and guidance, we recommend that you consult with a representative from your State if your State is authorized to implement the regulation. 7 Table 1. Major RCRA Program Areas Involving Waste Sampling and Analysis 1 40 CFR Citation Program Description Hazardous Waste Identification § 261.3( a)( 2)( v) Used oil rebuttable presumption (also Part 279, Subparts B, E, F and G standards for the management of used oil) § 261.3( c)( 2)( ii)( C) Generic exclusion levels for K061, K062, and F006 nonwastewater HTMR residues § 261.21 Characteristic of Ignitability § 261.22 Characteristic of Corrosivity § 261.23 Characteristic of Reactivity § 261.24 Toxicity Characteristic § 261.38( c)( 8) Exclusion of Comparable Fuels from the Definition of Solid and Hazardous Waste Part 261, Appendix I Representative Sampling Methods Mixed Hazardous Waste Joint EPA­ NRC sampling guidance. See November 20, 1997 Federal Register (62 FR 62079) Land Disposal Restriction Program § 268.6 Petitions to Allow Land Disposal of a Waste Prohibited Under Subpart C of Part 268 (No­ Migration Petition). Sampling and testing criteria are specified at § 268.6( b)( 1) and (2). § 268.40 Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) concentration­ level standards § 268.44 Land Disposal Restriction Treatability Variance § 268.49( c)( 1) Alternative LDR Treatment Standards for Contaminated Soil Other RCRA Programs and References § 260.10 Definitions (for Representative Sample) Part 260, Subpart C Rulemaking Petitions Part 262, Subpart A Generator Standards ­ General (including § 262.11 Hazardous Waste Determination) Part 262, Subpart C Pre­ Transport Requirements Part 264, Subpart A Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility Standards ­ General Parts 264/ 265, Subpart B Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility Standards ­ General Facility Standards Parts 264/ 265, Subpart F Releases from Solid Waste Management Units (ground­ water monitoring) Parts 264/ 265, Subpart G Closure and Post­ Closure Parts 264, Subpart I Use and Management of Containers Parts 264/ 265 ­ Subpart J Tank Systems 1. Expanded descriptions of the programs listed in Table 1 are given in Appendix B. 8 Table 1. Major RCRA Program Areas Involving Waste Sampling and Analysis (continued) 40 CFR Citation Program Description Other RCRA Programs and References (continued) Parts 264/ 265 ­ Subpart M Land Treatment Part 264/ 265 ­ Subpart O Incinerators Part 264, Subpart S Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units (including § 264.552 Corrective Action Management Units) Parts 264/ 265 ­ Subparts AA/ BB/ CC Air Emission Standards Part 266 ­ Subpart H Hazardous Waste Burned in Boiler and Industrial Furnaces (BIFs) (including § 266.112 Regulation of Residues) Part 270 ­ Subpart B Permit Application, Hazardous Waste Permitting Part 270 ­ Subpart C Conditions Applicable to All Permits Part 270 ­ Subpart F Special Forms of Permits Part 273 Standards for Universal Waste Management Part 279 Standards for the Management of Used Oil 2.2 Sampling For Regulatory Compliance Many RCRA programs involve sampling and analysis of waste or environmental media by the regulated community. Sampling and analysis often is employed to make a hazardous waste determination (see Section 2.2.1), to determine if a waste is subject to treatment or, if so, has been adequately treated under the Land Disposal Restrictions program (see Section 2.2.2), or in responding to other RCRA programs that include routine monitoring, unit closure, or cleanup (see Section 2.2.3). 2.2.1 Making a Hazardous Waste Determination Under RCRA, a hazardous waste is defined as a solid waste, or a combination of solid wastes which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness, or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed, or otherwise managed. The regulatory definition of a hazardous waste is found in 40 CFR § 261.3. Solid wastes are defined by regulation as hazardous wastes in two ways. First, solid wastes are hazardous wastes if EPA lists them as hazardous wastes. The lists of hazardous wastes are found in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D. Second, EPA identifies the characteristics of a hazardous waste based on criteria in 40 CFR § 261.10. Accordingly, solid wastes are hazardous if they exhibit any of the following four characteristics of a hazardous waste: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (based on the results of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, or TCLP). Descriptions of the hazardous waste characteristics are found in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C. 1 Since the 40 CFR Part 261 Appendix I sampling methods are not formally adopted by the EPA Administrator, a person who desires to employ an alternative sampling method is not required to demonstrate the equivalency of his or her method under the procedures set forth in §§ 260.20 and 260.21 (see comment at § 261.20( c)). 9 Generators must conduct a hazardous waste determination according to the hierarchy specified in 40 CFR § 262.11. Persons who generate a solid waste first must determine if the solid waste is excluded from the definition of hazardous waste under the provisions of 40 CFR § 261.4. Once the generator determines that a solid waste is not excluded, then he/ she must determine if the waste meets one or more of the hazardous waste listing descriptions and determine whether the waste is mixed with a hazardous waste, is derived from a listed hazardous waste, or contains a hazardous waste. For purposes of compliance with 40 CFR Part 268, or if the solid waste is not a listed hazardous waste, the generator must determine if the waste exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous waste. This evaluation involves testing the waste or using knowledge of the process or materials used to produce the waste. When a waste handler conducts testing to determine if the waste exhibits any of the four characteristics of a hazardous waste, he or she must obtain a representative sample (within the meaning of a representative sample given at § 260.10) using the applicable sampling method specified in Appendix I of Part 261 or alternative method (per § 261.20( c)) 1 and test the waste for the hazardous waste characteristics of interest at § 261.21 through 261.24. For the purposes of subpart 261, the identification of hazardous waste, the regulations state that a sample obtained using any of the applicable sampling methods specified in Appendix I of Part 261 to be a representative sample within the meaning of the Part 260 definition of representative sample. Since these sampling methods are not officially required, anyone desiring to use a different sampling method may do so without demonstrating the equivalency of that method under the procedures set forth in § 260.21. The user of an alternate sampling method must use a method that yields samples that "meet the definition of representative sample found in Part 260" (45 FR 33084 and 33108, May 18, 1990). Such methods should enable one to obtain samples that are equally representative as those specified in Appendix I of Part 261. The planning process and much of the information described in this guidance document may be helpful to someone regulated under Part 261 wishing to use an alternate sampling method. The guidance should be help full as well for purposes other than Part 261. Certain states also may have requirements for identifying hazardous wastes in addition to those requirements specified by Federal regulations. States authorized to implement the RCRA or HSWA programs under Section 3006 of RCRA may promulgate regulations that are more stringent or broader in scope than Federal regulations. 2.2.2 Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Program The LDR program regulations found at 40 CFR Part 268 require that a hazardous waste generator determine if the waste has to be treated before it can be land disposed. This is done by determining if the hazardous waste meets the applicable treatment standards at § 268.40, § 268.45, or §268.49. EPA expresses treatment standards either as required treatment technologies that must be applied to the waste or as contaminant concentration levels that must 10 be met. (Alternative LDR treatments standards have been promulgated for contaminated soil, debris, and lab packs.) Determining the need for waste treatment can be made by either of two ways: testing the waste or using knowledge of the waste (see § 268.7( a)). If a hazardous waste generator is managing and treating prohibited waste or contaminated soil in tanks, containers, or containment buildings to meet the applicable treatment standard, then the generator must develop and follow a written waste analysis plan (WAP) in accordance with § 268.7( a)( 5). A hazardous waste treater must test their waste according to the frequency specified in their WAP as required by 40 CFR 264.13 (for permitted facilities) or 40 CFR 265.13 (for interim status facilities). See § 268.7( b). If testing is performed, no portion of the waste may exceed the applicable treatment standard, otherwise, there is evidence that the standard is not met (see 63 FR 28567, March 26, 1998). Statistical variability is "built in" to the standards (USEPA 1991c). Wastes that do not meet treatment standards can not be land disposed unless EPA has granted a variance, extension, or exclusion (or the waste is managed in a "no­ migration unit"). In addition to the disposal prohibition, there are prohibitions and limits in the LDR program regarding the dilution and storage of wastes. The program also requires tracking and recordkeeping to ensure proper management and safe land disposal of hazardous wastes. General guidance on the LDR program can be found in Land Disposal Restrictions: Summary of Requirements (USEPA 2001d). Detailed guidance on preparing a waste analysis plan (WAP) under the LDR program can be found in Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Wastes ­ A Guidance Manual (USEPA 1994a). Detailed guidance on measuring compliance with the alternative LDR treatment standards for contaminated soil can be found in Guidance on Demonstrating Compliance With the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Alternative Soil Treatment Standards (USEPA 2002a). 2.2.3 Other RCRA Regulations and Programs That May Require Sampling and Testing In addition to the RCRA hazardous waste identification regulations and the LDR regulations, EPA has promulgated other regulations and initiated other programs that may involve sampling and testing of solid waste and environmental media (such as ground water or soil). Programspecific EPA guidance should be consulted prior to implementing a sampling or monitoring program to respond to the requirements of these regulations or programs. For example, EPA has issued separate program­ specific guidance on sampling to support preparation of a delisting petition, ground­ water and unsaturated zone monitoring at regulated units, unit closure, corrective action for solid waste management units, and other programs. See also Appendix B of this document. 2.2.4 Enforcement Sampling and Analysis The sampling and analysis conducted by a waste handler during the normal course of operating a waste management operation might be quite different than the sampling and analysis conducted by an enforcement agency. The primary reason is that the data quality objectives (DQOs) of the enforcement agency often may be legitimately different from those of a waste handler. Consider an example to illustrate this potential difference in approach: Many of 11 RCRA's standards were developed as concentrations that should not be exceeded (or equaled) or as characteristics that should not be exhibited for the waste or environmental media to comply with the standard. In the case of such a standard, the waste handler and enforcement officials might have very different objectives. An enforcement official, when conducting a compliance sampling inspection to evaluate a waste handler's compliance with a "do not exceed" standard, take only one sample. Such a sample may be purposively selected based on professional judgment. This is because alI the enforcement official needs to observe – for example to determine that a waste is hazardous – is a single exceedance of the standard. A waste handler, however, in responding to the same regulatory standard may want to ensure, with a specified level of confidence, that his or her waste concentrations are low enough so that it would be unlikely, for example, that an additional sample drawn from the waste would exceed the regulatory standard. In designing such an evaluation the waste handler could decide to take a sufficient number of samples in a manner that would allow evaluation of the results statistically to show, with the desired level of confidence, that there is a low probability that another randomly selected sample would exceed the standard. An important component of the enforcement official's DQO is to "prove the positive." In other words, the enforcement official is trying to demonstrate whether the concentration of a specific constituent in some portion of the waste exceeds the "do not exceed" regulatory level. The "prove the positive" objective combined with the "do not exceed" standard only requires a single observation above the regulatory level in order to draw a valid conclusion that at least some of the waste exceeds the level of concern. The Agency has made it clear that in "proving the positive," the enforcement agency's DQOs may not require low detection limits, high analyte recoveries, or high degrees of precision: "If a sample possesses the property of interest, or contains the constituent at a high enough level relative to the regulatory threshold, then the population from which the sample was drawn must also possess the property of interest or contain that constituent. Depending on the degree to which the property of interest is exceeded, testing of samples which represent all aspects of the waste or other material may not be necessary to prove that the waste is subject to regulation" (see 55 FR 4440, "Hazardous Waste Management System: Testing and Monitoring Activities," February 8, 1990). A waste handler may have a different objective when characterizing his or her waste. Instead, the waste handler may wish to "prove the negative." While proving the negative in absolute terms is not realistic, the waste handler may try to demonstrate with a desired level of confidence that the vast majority of his or her waste is well below the standard such that another sample or samples taken from the waste would not likely exceed the regulatory standard. The Agency also has spoken to the need for sound sampling designs and proper quality control when one is trying to "prove the negative:" "The sampling strategy for these situations (proving the negative) should be thorough enough to insure that one does not conclude a waste is nonhazardous when, in fact, it is hazardous. For example, one needs to take enough samples so that one does not miss areas of high concentration in an otherwise clean material. Samples must be handled so that properties do not change and 12 contaminants are not lost. The analytical methods must be quantitative, and regulatory detection limits must be met and documented" (see 55 FR 4440, "Hazardous Waste Management System: Testing and Monitoring Activities," February 8, 1990). "Proving the negative" can be a more demanding objective for the waste handler in terms of the sampling strategy and resources than that faced by the enforcement official. To address this objective the waste handler could use the advice in this or similar guidance documents. In doing so, the waste handler should establish objectives using a systematic planning process, design a sampling and analysis plan based on the objectives, collect and analyze the appropriate number of samples, and use the information from the sample analysis results for decision­ making. The distinction between a sampling strategy designed to "prove the negative" versus one designed to "prove the positive" also has been supported in a recent judicial ruling. In United States v. Allen Elias (9 th Cir. 2001) the Government used a limited number of samples to prove that hazardous waste was improperly managed and disposed. The court affirmed that additional sampling by the Government was not necessary to "prove the positive." 13 3 FUNDAMENTAL STATISTICAL CONCEPTS Throughout the life cycle of a waste­ testing program, the tools of statistics often are employed in planning, implementation, and assessment. For example, in the planning phase, you may state certain project objectives quantitatively and use statistical terminology. Designing and implementing a sampling plan requires an understanding of error and uncertainty. Statistical techniques can be used to describe and evaluate the data and to support decisions regarding the regulatory status of a waste or contaminated media, attainment of treatment or cleanup goals, or whether there has been a release to the environment. Because statistical concepts may be used throughout the sampling and analysis program, an understanding of basic statistical concepts and terminology is important. While statistical methods can be valuable in designing and implementing a scientifically sound waste­ sampling program, their use should not be a substitute for knowledge of the waste or as a substitute for common sense. Not every problem can, or necessarily must, be evaluated using probabilistic techniques. Qualitative expressions of decision confidence through the exercise of professional judgment (such as a "weight of evidence" approach) may well be sufficient, and in some cases may be the only option available (Crumbling 2001). If the objective of the sampling program is to make a hazardous waste determination, the regulations allow that a single representative sample is sufficient to classify a waste as hazardous. If a representative sample is found to have the properties set forth for the corrosivity, ignitability, reactivity, or toxicity characteristics, then the waste is hazardous. The regulations do not address directly what is a sufficient number of samples to classify a solid waste as nonhazardous. However, for a petition to reclassify (delist) a listed hazardous waste, which includes a determination that the listed hazardous waste is not a characteristic hazardous waste (a "nonhazardous" classification), the regulations provide that at least four representative samples sufficient to represent the variability or uniformity of the waste must be tested (40 CFR 260.22). This approach is not necessarily based on any statistical method but reflects concepts of proving the negative and proving the positive (see also Section 2.2.4). Even if you have no formal training in statistics, you probably are familiar with basic statistical concepts and how samples are used to make inferences about the population from which the samples were drawn. For example, the news media frequently cite the results of surveys that make generalized conclusions about public opinion based on interviews with a relatively small proportion of the population. These results, however, are only estimates because no matter how carefully a survey is done, if repeated over and over in an identical manner, the answer will be a little different each time. There always will be some random sampling variation because it is not possible to survey every member of a population. There also will be measurement and estimation errors because of mistakes made in how data are obtained and interpreted. Responsible pollsters report this as their "margin of error" along with the findings of the survey Do the RCRA regulations require statistical sampling? Some RCRA regulations require the use of statistical tests (e. g., to determine if there has been a release to ground water from a waste management unit under 40 CFR Subpart F), whereas, other RCRA regulations do not require the use of statistical tests (such as those for determining if a solid waste is or is not a hazardous waste or determining compliance with LDR treatment standards). Even where there is no regulatory obligation to conduct sampling or apply statistical tests to evaluate sampling results, statistical methods can be useful in interpreting data and managing uncertainty associated with waste classification decisions. 14 (Edmondson 1996). Similar to surveys of human populations, waste characterization studies can be designed in such a way that a population can be identified, samples can be collected, and the uncertainty in the results can be reported. The following sections provide a brief overview of the statistical concepts used in this guidance. Four general topics are described: ° Populations, samples, and distributions (Section 3.1) ° Measures of central tendency, variability, and relative standing (Section 3.2) ° Precision and bias (Section 3.3) ° Using sample analysis results to classify a waste or determine its status under RCRA (Section 3.4). Guidance on selecting and using statistical methods for evaluating data is given in Section 8.2 and Appendix F of this document. Statistical tables are given in Appendix G. Additional statistical guidance can be found in Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, EPA QA/ G­ 9 (USEPA 2000d) and other references cited. 3.1 Populations, Samples, and Distributions A "population" consists of all the waste or media whose characteristics are to be studied and estimated. A set of observations, known as a statistical sample, is a portion of the population that is studied in order to learn about the whole population. Sampling is necessary when a study of the entire population would be too expensive or physically impossible. Inferences about the population are made from samples selected from the population. For example, the sample mean (or average) is a consistent estimator of the population mean. In general, estimates made from samples tend to more closely approximate the true population parameter as the number of samples increases. The precision of these inferences depends on the theoretical sampling distribution of the statistic that would occur if the sampling process were repeated over and over using the same sampling design and number of samples. 3.1.1 Populations and Decision Units A "population" is the entire selection of interest for study. Populations can have spatial boundaries, which define the physical area to be studied, and temporal boundaries, which describe the time interval the study will represent. The definition of the population can be subjective, defined by regulation or permit condition, or based on risks to human health and the environment. In all cases, however, the population needs to be finite and have well­ defined, unambiguous physical and/ or temporal boundaries. The physical boundary defines the size, shape, orientation, and location of the waste or media about which a decision will be made. For a large population of waste or media, you may wish to subdivide the population into smaller units about which decisions can be made, rather than attempt to characterize the entire 15 population. These units are called "decision units," and they may represent a single type of waste at the point of waste generation, a waste from a single batch operation, waste generated over a specified time, or a volume of waste or contaminated media (such as soil) subject to characterization, removal, and/ or treatment. The concept of a decision unit is similar to an "exposure unit" (Neptune, et al. 1990, Blacker and Goodman 1994a and 1994b, Myers 1997), or "exposure area" (USEPA 1992a and 1996a) in EPA's Superfund program in which risk­ based decisions consider the mass or area of the waste or media. A decision unit also is analogous to a "remediation unit" as described in EPA's Data Quality Objective Process for Superfund (USEPA 1993a). When using samples to determine whether a solid waste is a hazardous waste, that determination must be made at the point of generation (i. e., when the waste becomes a solid waste). Hypothetical examples of populations or decision units that might be encountered in the context of RCRA waste characterization follow: ° Filter cake being placed in a 25­ cubic­ yard roll­ off bin at the point of waste generation ° Waste water contained in a 55­ gallon drum ° Liquid waste flowing from the point of generation during a specified time interval ° A block of soil (e. g., 10­ feet­ by­ 10­ feet square, 6­ inches deep) within a solid waste management unit (SWMU). In some situations, it will be appropriate to define two separate populations for comparison to each other. For example, in monitoring a land­ based waste management unit to determine if there has been a release to the subsurface at statistically significant levels above background, it is necessary to establish two populations: (1) a background population and (2) an exposed (or downgradient) population in the soil, pore­ water, or ground­ water system. In situations in which the boundaries of the waste or contamination are not obvious or cannot be defined in advance (such as the case of contaminated soil in situ, as opposed to excavated soil in a pile), the investigator is interested in the location of the contamination as well as the concentration information. Such a sampling objective is best addressed by spatial analysis, for example, by using geostatistical methods (See also Section 3.4.4). 3.1.2 Samples and Measurements Samples are portions of the population. Using information from a set of samples (such as measurements of chemical concentrations) and the tools of inductive statistics, inferences can be made about the population. The validity of the inferences depends on how closely the samples represent the physical and chemical properties of the population of interest. In this document, we use the word "sample" in several different ways. To avoid confusion, definitions of terms follow: 16 1 Quart Waste Instrument ? Primary Sample (e. g., a core) Field Sample 1 Gram Subsample Population or "Decision Unit" Sample analysis results used to make conclusions about the waste Figure 2. Very small analytical samples are used to make decisions about much larger volumes (modified after Myers 1997). Sample: A portion of material that is taken from a larger quantity for the purpose of estimating properties or composition of the larger quantity (from ASTM D 6233­ 98). Statistical sample: A set of samples or measurements selected by probabilistic means (i. e., by using some form of randomness). We sometimes refer to a "set of samples" to indicate more than one individual sample that may or may not have been obtained by probabilistic means. Outside the fields of waste management and environmental sciences, the concept of a sample or "sampling unit" is fairly straightforward. For example, a pollster measures the opinions of individual human beings, or the QC engineer measures the diameter of individual ball bearings. It is easy to see that the measurement and the sampling unit correspond; however, in sampling waste or environmental media, what is the appropriate "portion" that should be in a sampling unit? The answer to this question requires consideration of the heterogeneities of the sample media and the dimension of the sampling problem (in other words, are you sampling over time or sampling over space?). The information can be used to define the appropriate size, shape, and orientation of the sample. The size, shape, and orientation of a sample are known as the sample support, and the sample support will affect the measurement value obtained from the sample. As shown in Figure 2, after a sample of a certain size, shape, and orientation is obtained in the field (as the primary sample), it is handled, transported, and prepared for analysis. At each stage, changes can occur in the sample (such as the gain or loss of constituents, changes in the particle size distribution, etc.). These changes accumulate as errors throughout the sampling process such that measurements made on relatively small analytical samples (often less than 1 gram) may no longer "represent" the population of interest. Because sampling and analysis results may be relied upon to make decisions about a waste or media, it is important to understand the sources of the errors introduced at each stage of sampling and take steps to minimize or control those errors. In doing so, samples will be sufficiently "representative" of the population from which they are obtained. The RCRA solid waste regulations at 40 CFR §260.10 define a representative sample as: "a sample of a universe or whole (e. g., waste pile, lagoon, ground water) which can be expected to exhibit the average properties of the universe or whole." 17 Total Pb (mg/ L) Frequency Histogram 2 0 1 0 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Figure 3. Histogram representing the distribution of total lead (Pb) in 11 samples of No. 2 fuel oil (USEPA 1998b). Concentration Frequency Mean = Median = Mode (a) Normal Distribution Frequency Concentration Mean = Median = Mode (b) Lognormal Distribution Mean Mode Median Figure 4. Examples of two distributions: (a) normal distribution and (b) lognormal distribution RCRA implementors, at a minimum, must use this definition when a representative sample is called for by the regulations. Various other definitions of a representative sample have been developed by other organizations. For example, ASTM in their consensus standard D 6044­ 96 defines a representative sample as "a sample collected in such a manner that it reflects one or more characteristics of interest (as defined by the project objectives) of a population from which it was collected" (ASTM D 6044). A detailed discussion of representativeness also is given in Guidance on Data Quality Indicators (USEPA 2001e). 3.1.3 Distributions Because the concentration of constituents of concern will not be the same for every individual sample, there must be a distribution of concentrations among the population. Understanding the distributional characteristics of a data set is an important first step in data analysis. If we have a sufficient number of samples selected from a population, a picture of the distribution of the sample data can be represented in the form of a histogram. A histogram, which offers a simple graphical representation of the shape of the distribution of data, can be constructed by dividing the data range into units or "bins" (usually of equal width), counting the number of points within each unit, and displaying the data as the height or area within a bar graph. Figure 3 is an example of a histogram made using analysis results for total lead in 11 samples of No. 2 fuel oil (data set from USEPA 1998b). Guidance on constructing histograms can be found in EPA's Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, EPA QA/ G­ 9 (USEPA 2000d). With a sufficiently large number of samples, the bars of the histogram could be "blended together" to form a curve known as a probability density function (PDF). Figure 4 shows two probability density functions you might encounter: Figure 4( a) is a normal distribution with its familiar symmetrical mound­ shape. Figure 4( b) is a lognormal distribution in which the natural log­ transformed values exhibit a normal distribution. A lognormal distribution indicates that a relatively small proportion of the population includes some relatively large values. 18 Normal Probability Plot Probability Total Pb (mg/ L) N of data: 11 Std Dev: 4. 7209 Average: 9. 21546 2 0 1 0 0 .999 .9 9 .9 5 .8 0 .5 0 .2 0 .0 5 .0 1 .001 Figure 5. Normal probability plot Many of the tools used in statistics are based on the assumption that the data are normally distributed, can be transformed to a normal scale, or can be treated as if they are approximately normal. The assumption of a normal distribution often can be made without significantly increasing the risk of making a "wrong" decision. Of course, the normal and lognormal distributions are assumed models that only approximate the underlying population distribution. Another distribution of interest is known as the binomial distribution. The binomial distribution can be used when the sample analysis results are interpreted as either "fail" or "pass" (e. g., a sample analysis result either exceeds a regulatory standard or does not exceed the standard). In some cases, you may not be able to "fit" the data to any particular distributional model. In these situations, we recommend you consider using a "distribution­ free" or "nonparametric" statistical method (see Section 8.2). A simple but extremely useful graphical test for normality is to graph the data as a probability plot. In a probability plot, the vertical axis has a probability scale and the horizontal axis has a data scale. In general, if the data plot as a straight line, there is a qualitative indication of normality. If the natural logarithms of the data plot as a straight line, there is an indication of lognormality. Figure 5 provides an example of a normal probability plot created from the same data used to generate the histogram in Figure 3. Guidance on constructing probability plots can be found in EPA's Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, EPA QA/ G­ 9 (USEPA 2000d). Section 8 (Assessment: Analyzing and Interpreting Data) provides guidance on checking the distribution of data sets and provides strategies for handling sample data exhibiting a nonnormal distribution. 3.2 Measures of Central Tendency, Variability, and Relative Standing In addition to graphical techniques for summarizing and describing data sets, numerical methods can be used. Numerical methods can be used to describe the central tendency of the set of measurements, the variability or spread of the data, and the relative standing or relative location of a measurement within a data set. 3.2.1 Measures of Central Tendency The average or mean often is used as a measure of central tendency. The mean of a set of quantitative data is equal to the sum of the measurements divided by the number of measurements contained in the data set. Other measures of central tendency include the 19 median (the midpoint of an ordered data set in which half the values are below the median and half are above) and the mode (the value that occurs most often in the distribution). For distributions that are not symmetrical, the median and the mean do not coincide. The mean for a lognormal distribution, for instance, will exceed its median (see Figure 4( b)). The true population mean, (" mu"), is the average of the true measurements (e. g., of the µ constituent concentration) made over all possible samples. The population mean is never known because we cannot measure all the members of a population (or all possible samples). We can, however, estimate the population mean by taking random samples from the population. The average of measurements taken on random samples is called the sample mean. The sample mean is denoted by the symbol (" x­ bar") and calculated by summing the value x obtained from each random sample ( ) and dividing by the number of samples ( ): xi n x n xi i n = = 1 1 Equation 1 Box 1 provides an example calculation of the sample mean. Box 1. Example Calculation of the Sample Mean Using Equation 1 and the following four data points in parts per million (ppm): 86, 90, 98, and 104, the following is an example of computing the sample mean. x n x i i n = = + + + = = 1 86 90 98104 4 95ppm 1 Therefore, the sample mean is 95 ppm. 3.2.2 Measures of Variability Random variation in the population is described by "dispersion" parameters ­­ the population variance ( ) and the population standard deviation ( ). Because we cannot measure all 2 possible samples that comprise the population, the values for and are unknown. The 2 variance, however, can be estimated from a statistical sample of the population by the sample variance: s n x x i i n 2 2 1 1 1 = = () Equation 2 The variance calculated from the samples is known as the sample variance ( ) and it s 2 includes random variation in the population as well as random variation that can be introduced by sample collection and handling, sample transport, and sample preparation and analysis. The sample variance is an estimate of the variance that one would obtain if the entire set of all possible samples in the population were measured using the same measurement process as is 20 Frequency Concentration 50th Percentile = Mean 99th Percentile 68% 95% 99 7% . 3 + 3 2 + 2 + 1 1 Figure 6. Percentage of values falling within 1, 2, and 3 standard deviations of the mean of a normal distribution. The figure also shows the relationship between the mean, the 50 th percentile, and the 99 th percentile in a normal distribution. being employed for the samples. If there were no sample handling or measurement error, n this sample variance ( ) would estimate the population variance ( ). s 2 2 The population standard deviation ( ) is estimated by , the sample standard deviation: s s s = 2 Equation 3 Box 2 provides an example calculation of the sample variance and sample standard deviation. Box 2. Example Calculations of Sample Variance and Standard Deviation Using Equation 2 and the data points in Box 1, the following is an example calculation of the sample variance: [ ] s 2 2 222 86 94 5 90 94 5 98 94 5 104 94 5 4 1 195 3 65 = + + + = = ( .) ( .) ( .) ( .) Using Equation 3, the sample standard deviation is then calculated as follows: s s = = 2 81 . The standard deviation is used to measure the variability in a data set. For a normal distribution, we know the following (see Figure 6): ° Approximately 68 percent of measurements will fall within 1 standard deviation ± of the mean ° Approximately 95 percent of the measurements will fall within 2 standard ± deviations of the mean ° Almost all (99.74 percent) of the measurements will fall within 3 standard ± deviations of the mean. Estimates of the standard deviation, combined with the assumption of a normal distribution, allow us to make quantitative statements about the spread of the data. The larger the spread in the data, the less certainty we have in estimates or decisions made from the data. As discussed in the following section, a small spread in the data offers 21 more certainty in estimates and decisions made from the data. Because is an estimate of a population parameter based on a statistical sample, we expect x its value to be different each time a new set of samples is drawn from the population. The means calculated from repeated statistical samples also form a distribution. The estimate of the standard deviation of the sampling distribution of means is called the standard error. The standard error of the mean ( ) is estimated by: sx s s n x = Equation 4 The standard error is used in equations to calculate the appropriate number of samples to estimate the mean with specified confidence (see Section 5.4), and it is used in statistical tests to make inferences about (see Appendix F). x 3.2.3 Measures of Relative Standing In addition to measures of central tendency and variability to describe data, we also may be interested in describing the relative standing or location of a particular measurement within a data set. One such measure of interest is the percentile ranking. A population percentile represents the percentage of elements of a population having values less than a specified value. Mathematically, for a set of measurements the percentile (or quantile) is a n pth number such that of the measurements fall below the percentile, and p% pth ()% 100 p fall above it. For example, if a measurement is located at the 99 th percentile in a data set, it means that 99 percent of measurements are less than that measurement, and 1 percent are above. In other words, almost the entire distribution lies below the value representing the 99 th percentile. Figure 6 depicts the relationship between the mean, the 50 th percentile, and the 99 th percentile in a normal distribution. Just like the mean and the median, a percentile is a population parameter that must be estimated from the sample data. As indicated in Figure 6, for a normal distribution a "point estimate" of a percentile ( ) can be obtained using the sample mean ( ) and the sample $ xp x standard deviation ( ) by: s $ x xzs p p = + Equation 5 where is the quantile of the standard normal distribution. (Values of that zp pth zp correspond to values of can be obtained from the last row of Table G­ 1 in Appendix G). A p probability plot (see Figure 5) offers another method of estimating normal percentiles. See EPA's Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, EPA QA/ G­ 9 (USEPA 2000d) for guidance on constructing probability plots and estimating percentiles. 22 100 90 110 120 130 80 70 100 90 110 120 130 80 70 True Concentration = 100 ppm Precise Unbiased Precise Biased 170 Frequency Concentration Ave. = 170 True Value (a) (b) Frequency Concentration Ave. = 100 = True Value Frequency Concentration Ave. = 150 True Value 100 90 110 120 130 80 70 100 90 110 120 130 80 70 True Concentration = 100 ppm Imprecise Unbiased Imprecise Biased 170 Frequency Concentration Ave. = 100 = True Value (c) (d) 170 Figure 7. Shots at a target illustrate precision and bias (modified after Jessen 1978). 3.3 Precision and Bias The representativeness of a statistical sample (that is, a set of samples) can be described in terms of precision and bias. Precision is a measurement of the closeness of agreement between repeated measurements. Bias is the systematic or consistent over­ or underestimation of the true value (Myers 1997, USEPA 2000d). The analogy of a target often is used to illustrate the concepts of precision and bias. In Figure 7, the center of each target represents the true (but unknown) average concentration in a batch of waste. The "shots" in targets (a) through (d) represent measurement results from samples taken to estimate the true concentration. The figure also can be used to illustrate precision and bias associated with measurement processes within a laboratory in which the same sample is analyzed multiple times (for example, four times). Figure 7( a) indicates high precision and low bias in the sampling and analysis results. Generally, high precision and minimal bias are required when one or more chemical constituents in a solid waste are present at concentrations close to the applicable regulatory threshold or action level. Note that each of the measurements in Figure 7( a) is in close agreement with the true value. These measurements can be described as having high accuracy. If the sampling and measurement process is very precise but suffers from bias (such as use of an incorrect sampling procedure or contamination of an analytical instrument), the situation could be as pictured in Figure 7( b) in which the repeated measurements are close to one another but not close to the true value. In fact, the data express a significant 70 percent bias that might go undetected if the true value is not known. The opposite situation is depicted in Figure 7( c), where the data show low precision (that is, high dispersion around the mean) but are unbiased because the samples lack any systematic error and the average of the measurements reflects the true average concentration. Precision in sampling can be improved by increasing the number of samples, increasing the volume 23 (mass) of each sample, or by employing a composite sampling strategies. Note, however, that relatively imprecise results can be tolerated if the contaminants of concern occur at levels either far below or far above their applicable thresholds. Figure 7( d) depicts the situation where the sampling and analytical process suffers from both imprecision and bias. In both Figures 7( b) and (d), the bias will result in an incorrect estimate of the true concentration, even if innumerable samples are collected and analyzed to control the impact of imprecision (i. e., bias will not "cancel out" with increasing numbers of samples). There are several types and causes of bias, including sampling bias, analytical bias, and statistical bias: Sampling Bias: There are three potential sources of sampling bias: (1) Bias can be introduced in the field and the laboratory through the improper selection and use of devices for sampling and subsampling. Bias related to sampling tools can be minimized by ensuring all of the material of interest for the study is accessible by the sampling tool. (2) Bias can be introduced through improper design of the sampling plan. Improper sampling design can cause parts of the population of interest to be over­ or undersampled thereby causing the estimated values to be systematically shifted away from the true values. Bias related to sampling design can be minimized by ensuring the sampling protocol is impartial so there is an equal chance for each part of the waste to be included in the sample over both the spatial and temporal boundaries defined for the study. (3) Bias can be introduced in sampling due to the loss or addition of contaminants during sampling and sample handling. This bias can be controlled using sampling devices made of materials that do not sorb or leach constituents of concern, and by use of careful decontamination and sample handling procedures. For example, agitation or homogenization of samples can cause a loss of volatile constituents, thereby indicating a concentration of volatiles lower than the true value. Proper decontamination of sampling equipment between sample locations or the use of disposable devices, and the use of appropriate sample containers and preservatives also can control bias in field sampling. Analytical Bias: Analytical (or measurement) bias is a systematic error caused by instrument contamination, calibration drift, or by numerous other causes, such as extraction inefficiency by the solvent, matrix effect, and losses during shipping and handling. Statistical Bias: After the sample data have been obtained, statistics are used to estimate population parameters using the sample data. Statistical bias can occur in two situations: (1) when the assumptions made about the sampling distribution are not consistent with the underlying population distribution, or (2) when the statistical estimator itself is biased. Returning to Figure 7, note that each target has an associated frequency distribution curve. Frequency curves are made by plotting a concentration value versus the frequency of occurrence of that concentration. The curves show that as precision decreases (i. e., the variance increases), the curve flattens out and an increasing number of measurements are 2 found further away from the average (figures c and d). More precise measurements result in steeper curves (figures a and b) with the majority of measurements relatively closer to the 24 average value in normally distributed data. The greater the bias (figures b and d) the further the average of the measurements is shifted away from the true value. The smaller the bias (figures a and c) the closer the average of the samples is to the true average. Representative samples are obtained by controlling (at acceptable levels) random variability ( ) and systematic error (or bias) in sampling and analysis. Quality control procedures and 2 samples are used to estimate the precision and bias of sampling and analytical results. 3.4 Using Sample Analysis Results to Classify a Waste or to Determine Its Status Under RCRA If samples are used to classify a waste or determine its regulatory status, then the sampling approach (including the number and type of samples) must meet the requirements specified by the regulations. Regardless of whether or not the regulations specify sampling requirements or the use of a statistical test, the Agency encourages waste handlers to use a systematic planning process such as the DQO Process to set objectives for the type, quantity, and quality of data needed to ensure with some known level of assurance that the regulatory standards are achieved. After consideration of the objectives identified in the planning process, careful implementation of the sampling plan, and review of the analytical results, you can use the sample analysis results to classify a waste or make other decisions regarding the status of the waste under RCRA. The approach you select to obtain and evaluate the results will be highly dependent on the regulatory requirements (see Section 2 and Appendix B) and the data quality objectives (see Section 4 and Section 5). The following sections provide a conceptual overview of how you can use sample analysis results to classify a waste or determine its status under RCRA. Guidance is provided on the following topics: ° Using an average to measure compliance with a fixed standard (Section 3.4.1) ° Using the maximum sample analysis result or an upper percentile to measure compliance with a fixed standard (Section 3.4.2) There are other approaches you might use to evaluate sample analysis results, including tests that compare two populations, such as "downgradient" to "background" (see Section 3.4.3), and analysis of spatial patterns of contamination (see Section 3.4.4). Detailed statistical guidance, including the necessary statistical equations, is provided in Section 8.2 and Appendix F. 3.4.1 Using an Average To Determine Whether a Waste or Media Meets the Applicable Standard The arithmetic average (or mean) is a common parameter used to determine whether the concentration of a constituent in a waste or media is below a fixed standard. The mean often is used in cases in which a long­ term (chronic) exposure scenario is assumed (USEPA 1992c) or where some average condition is of interest. 25 Sample Set 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sample Mean Confidence Interval µ Figure 8. 80­ percent confidence intervals calculated from 10 equal­ sized sets of samples drawn at random from the same waste stream Concentration Frequency Concentration Frequency A B 95% UCL 95% UCL Waste inappropriately judged a solid waste Waste appropriately judged to achieve the exclusion level Specification Level Specification Level Sample mean true mean Figure 9. Example of how sampling precision could impact a waste exclusion demonstration under 40 CFR 261.38. Due to imprecision (A), the waste is inappropriately judged a solid waste. With more precise results (B), the entire confidence interval lies below the specification level, and the waste is appropriately judged eligible for the comparable fuels exclusion. Because of the uncertainty associated with estimating the true mean concentration, a confidence interval on the mean is used to define the upper and lower limits that bracket the true mean with a known level of confidence. If the upper confidence limit (UCL) on the mean is less than the fixed standard, then we can conclude the true average is below the standard with a known amount of confidence. As an alternative to using a statistical interval to draw conclusions from the data, you could use hypothesis testing as described in EPA's Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/ G­ 4 (USEPA 2000b) and Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, EPA QA/ G­ 9 (USEPA 2000d). Confidence intervals are calculated using the sample analysis results. Figure 8 shows what is expected to happen when ten different sets of samples are drawn from the same waste and a confidence interval for the mean is calculated for each set of samples. The true (but unknown) mean ( ) – shown as a vertical line – µ does not change, but the positions of the sample means ( ) and confidence x intervals (shown as the horizontal lines) do change. For most of the sampling events, the confidence interval contains the true mean, but sometimes it does not. In this particular example, we expect 8 out of 10 intervals to contain the true mean, so we call this an "80­ percent confidence interval on the mean." In practice, you only have one set of data from one sampling event, not ten. Note that an equal degree of uncertainty is associated with the parameter of interest being located outside each of the two interval endpoints. Consequently, the confidence interval employed in this example is, for all practical purposes, a 90­ percent interval. We will refer to this as a "one­ sided 90­ percent confidence limit on the mean." Of course, other levels of confidence could be used, such as a 95­ percent confidence limit. The width of the confidence interval (defined by the upper and lower confidence limits) is an indicator of the precision of the estimate of the parameter of interest. Generally, one can improve precision (i. e., reduce the standard error, ) by taking more samples, s n / increasing the physical size of each 26 sample (i. e., increasing the sample support), and by minimizing random variability introduced in the sampling and measurement processes. For example, Figure 9 shows how sampling precision can affect the ability to claim an exclusion from the definition of solid waste under the comparable fuels regulations at 40 CFR 261.38. In Figure 9 "A," the sampling results are unbiased, but they are not sufficiently precise. In fact, the imprecision causes the confidence intervals to "straddle" the specification level; thus, there is not statistically significant evidence that the mean is below the standard. Imprecision can be caused by the heterogeneity of the material sampled, by random errors in the field and laboratory, and by too few samples. In Figure 9 "B," the results also are unbiased, but significant improvement in precision is observed (e. g., because more or larger samples were analyzed and errors were kept within acceptable limits), allowing us to conclude that the mean is indeed below the specification level. Detailed guidance on the calculation of confidence limits for the mean can be found in Appendix F of this document. 3.4.2 Using a Proportion or Percentile To Determine Whether a Waste or Media Meets an Applicable Standard Under RCRA, some regulatory thresholds are defined as concentration values that cannot be exceeded (e. g., the RCRA LDR program concentration­ based treatment standards for hazardous waste specified at § 268.40 and § 268.48), concentration values that cannot be equaled or exceeded (e. g., the Toxicity Characteristic maximum concentration levels specified at § 261.24), or waste properties that cannot be exhibited (e. g., ignitability per § 261.21, corrosivity per § 261.22, or reactivity per § 261.23) for the waste to comply with the regulatory standard. To demonstrate compliance with such a standard using sampling, it is necessary to consider the waste or site (whose boundaries are defined as a decision unit) as a population of discrete sample units (of a defined size, shape, and orientation). Ideally, none of these sample units may exceed the standard or exhibit the properties of concern for the waste or site to be in compliance with the standard. However, since it is not possible to know the status of all portions of a waste or site, samples must be used to infer ­ using statistical methods ­ what proportion or percentage of the waste complies, or does not comply, with the standard. Generally, few if any samples drawn from the population of interest may exceed the regulatory standard or exhibit the property of concern to demonstrate with reasonable confidence that a high proportion or percentage of the population complies with the standard. Two simple methods for measuring whether a specified proportion or percentile of a waste or media meets an applicable standard are described in the following sections: ° Using an upper confidence limit on a percentile to classify a waste or media (Section 3.4.2.1), and ° Using a simple exceedance rule method to classify a waste or media (Section 3.4.2.2). 1 EPA uses a narrative criteria to define most reactive wastes, and waste handlers should use their knowledge to determine if a waste is sufficiently reactive to be regulated. 27 Frequency Concentration Sample Mean Regulatory Threshold UCL on Upper Percentile or "Tolerance Limit" "Point estimate" of 99th percentile Confidence Interval on 99th Percentile Figure 10. For a high percentile (e. g., the 99 th percentile) to be less than an applicable standard, the mean concentration must be well below the standard. 3.4.2.1 Using a Confidence Limit on a Percentile to Classify a Waste or Media A percentile is a population parameter. We cannot know the true value of that parameter, but we can estimate it from a statistical sample drawn from the population by using a confidence interval for a percentile. If the upper confidence limit (UCL) on the upper percentile is below the fixed standard, then there is statistically significant evidence that the specified proportion of the waste or media attains the standard (see Figure 10). If the UCL on the upper percentile exceeds the standard (but all sample analysis results are below the standard), then the waste or media still could be judged in compliance with the standard; however, you would not have the specified degree of confidence that the specified proportion of the waste or media complies with the standard (see also the exceedance rule method, Section 3.4.2.2). Detailed guidance on the calculation of confidence limits for percentiles can be found in Section 8.2 and Appendix F of this document. Methods also are given in Conover (1999), Gilbert (1987, page 136), Hahn and Meeker (1991), and USEPA (1989a). A possible alternative to using a confidence limit on a percentile is the use of the "one­ sample test for proportions" (see Section 3.2.2.1 of USEPA 2000d). 3.4.2.2 Using a Simple Exceedance Rule Method To Classify a Waste One of the most straightforward methods for determining whether a given proportion or percentage of a waste (that is, all possible samples of a given sample support) complies with an applicable standard is to use a simple exceedance rule. To apply the method, simply obtain a number of samples and require that zero or few sample analysis results be allowed to exceed the applicable standard or possess the property (or "attribute") of interest. The method (also known as "inspection by attributes") is from a class of methods known as acceptance sampling plans (Schilling 1982, ASQ 1988 and 1993, and DoD 1996). One simple form of the exceedance rule, sometimes used by regulatory enforcement agencies, specifies zero exceedances in a set of samples. This method can be used to classify a waste (i. e., determine if it exhibits the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity 1 , or toxicity) or to determine its status under RCRA (that is, to determine if the waste is prohibited from land disposal or if it attains an LDR treatment standard). The method is attractive because it is simple (e. g., because sample analysis results are 28 recorded as either "pass" or "fail" and statistical tables can be used instead of equations), it does not require an assumption about the form of the underlying distribution, and it can be used when a large proportion of the data are reported as less than a quantitation limit. Furthermore, the method has statistical properties that allow the waste handler to have a known level of confidence that at least a given proportion of the waste complies with the standard. One potential drawback of using an exceedance rule is that with a small number of samples, you might not be able to conclude with high confidence that a high proportion of the waste complies with the applicable standard (unless you have sufficient knowledge of the waste indicating there is little variability in concentrations or properties). That is, with a small number of samples, there is little statistical power: an unacceptably large proportion of the waste or site could exceed the standard or exhibit the property even though no such exceedances or properties were observed in the samples. Increasing the number of samples will improve the statistical performance. As a practical matter, it is suggested that you scale the statistical performance and acceptance requirements (and thus, the number of samples) to the size of the lot or batch of waste of interest. For example, when large and/ or very heterogeneous volumes of waste are the subject of the study, decision­ makers may require high confidence that a high proportion of the waste meets the applicable standard. A relatively large number of samples will be required to satisfy these criteria if the exceedance rule is used. On the other hand, decision­ makers may choose to relax the statistical performance criteria when characterizing a small volume of waste (or a very homogeneous waste) and thus fewer samples would be needed. Detailed guidance on the use of an exceedance rule is provided in Section 5.5.2 and in Appendix F, Section F. 3.2, of this document. The exceedance rule method also is described in Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of Cleanup Standards. Volume 1: Soils and Solid Media (USEPA 1989a, Section 7.4). 3.4.3 Comparing Two Populations Some environmental studies do not involve testing compliance against a fixed standard but require comparison of two separate data. This type of analysis is common for detecting releases to ground water at waste management units such as landfills and surface impoundments, detecting releases to soil and the unsaturated zone at land treatment units, or determining if site contamination is distinguishable from natural background concentrations. In these situations, the operator must compare "on site" or "downgradient" concentrations to "background." For example, at a new land­ based waste management unit (such as a new landfill), we expect the concentrations in a set of samples from downgradient locations to be similar to a set of samples from background locations. If a statistically significant change in downgradient conditions is detected, then there may be evidence of a release to the environment. Statistical methods called two­ sample tests can be used to make such comparisons (they are called twosample tests because two sets of samples are used). A two­ sample test also could be used to measure changes in constituent concentrations in a waste or soil "before" treatment and "after" treatment to assess the effectiveness of the treatment process (see USEPA 2002a). For detailed guidance on the use of two­ sample tests, see EPA's G­ 9 guidance (USEPA 2000d) and EPA's guidance on the statistical analysis of ground­ water monitoring data (USEPA 1989b 29 and 1992b). Note that detecting a release to the environment may not necessarily involve use of a statistical test and may not even involve sampling. For example, observation of a broken dike at a surface impoundment may indicate that a release has occurred. 3.4.4 Estimating Spatial Patterns Under some circumstances, a site investigator may wish to determine the location of a contaminant in the environment as well as its concentration. Knowledge of spatial trends or patterns may be of particular value when conducting risk assessments or locating areas for clean­ up or removal under the RCRA Corrective Action program. Estimation of spatial patterns is best addressed by geostatistics or other spatial data analysis methods. Geostatistical models are based on the notion that elements of the population that are close together in space and/ or time exhibit an identifiable relationship or positive correlation with one another. Geostatistical techniques attempt to recognize and describe the pattern of spatial dependence and then account for this pattern when generating statistical estimates. On the other hand, "classical" methods assume that members of a population are not correlated (USEPA 1997a). While a full treatment of spatial analysis and geostatistics is beyond the scope of this guidance, certain techniques recommended in the guidance require consideration of spatial differences. For example, you may need to consider whether there are any spatial correlations in a waste or site when selecting a sampling design. There are some relatively simple graphical techniques that can be used to explore possible spatial patterns or relationships in data. For example, posting plots or spatial contour maps can be generated manually or via software (e. g., see EPA's Geo­ EAS software described in Appendix H). Interested readers can find a more comprehensive explanation of spatial statistics in texts such as Myers (1997), Isaaks and Srivastava (1989), Journel (1988), USEPA (1991a, 1997a), or consult a professional environmental statistician or geostatistician. 30 Specify Limits on Decision Errors Develop a Decision Rule Define the Study Boundaries Identify Inputs to the Decision Identify the Decision State the Problem Optimize the Design for Obtaining Data Figure 11. The seven steps of the DQO Process (from USEPA 2000b) 4 PLANNING YOUR PROJECT USING THE DQO PROCESS To be successful, a waste­ testing program must yield data of the type and quality necessary to achieve the particular purpose of the program. This is accomplished through correct, focused, and well­ documented sampling, testing, and data evaluation activities. In each case, a clear understanding of the program objectives and thorough planning of the effort are essential for a successful, cost­ effective waste­ testing program. Each program design is unique because of the many possible variables in waste sampling and analysis such as regulatory requirements, waste and facility­ specific characteristics, and objectives for the type and quantity of data to be provided. Nonetheless, a systematic planning process such as the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Process, which takes these variables into account, can be used to guide planning efforts. EPA recommends using the DQO Process when data are being used to select between two opposing conditions, such as determining compliance with a standard. The DQO Process yields qualitative and quantitative statements that: ° Clarify the study objectives ° Define the type, quantity, and quality of required data ° Determine the most appropriate conditions from which to collect the samples ° Specify the amount of uncertainty you are willing to accept in the results ° Specify how the data will be used to test a decision rule. The outputs of the DQO Process are used to define the quality control requirements for sampling, analysis, and data assessment. These requirements are then incorporated into a QAPP, WAP, or other similar planning document. The DQO Process comprises seven planning steps depicted in Figure 11. The figure shows one of the most important features of the process: its iterative nature. You don't have to "get it right the first time." You can use existing information to establish DQOs. If the initial design is not feasible, then you can iterate through one or more of the earlier planning steps to identify a sampling design that will meet the budget and generate data that are adequate for the decision. This way, you can evaluate sampling designs and related costs in advance before significant time and resources are expended to collect and analyze samples. In a practical sense, the DQO Process offers a structured approach to "begin with the end in 1 In some cases, it might be appropriate and cost­ effective to collect data beyond that required to support a near­ term decision. For example, if a drill rig is mobilized to collect deep soil samples to determine the need for remediation, it would be cost­ effective to also collect relatively low­ cost data (such as geotechnical parameters, total organic carbon, moisture content, etc.) needed by engineers to design the remedy. Otherwise, unnecessary costs might be incurred to remobilize a drill rig to obtain data that could have been obtained in the initial effort. 31 mind." It is a framework for asking the right questions and using the answers to develop and implement a cost­ effective plan for data collection. The DQO Process does not necessarily proceed in a linear fashion or involve rigid procedures; rather, it is a thought process to enable you to get useful information in a cost­ effective manner. Failure to establish DQOs before implementing field and laboratory activities can cause difficulties in the form of inefficiencies, increased or unnecessary costs, or the generation of unusable data. For example, if the limit of quantitation for sample analysis is greater than the Action Level, then the data will not be useable for its intended purpose; or, if you do not collect enough samples, then you may not be able to draw conclusions with the desired level of confidence. When properly used, the DQO Process: ° Provides a good way to document the key activities and decisions necessary to address the problem and to communicate the approach to others. ° Involves key decision makers, other data users, and technical experts in the planning process before data collection begins which helps lead to a consensus prior to beginning the project and makes it easier to change plans when circumstances warrant because involved parties share common understandings, goals, and objectives. ° Develops a consensus approach to limiting decision errors that strikes a balance between the cost of an incorrect decision and the cost of reducing or eliminating the possible mistake. ° Saves money by greatly reducing the tendency to collect unneeded data by encouraging the decision makers to focus on data that support only the decision( s) necessary to solve the problem( s). When used with a broader perspective in mind, however, the DQO Process may help identify opportunities to consolidate multiple tasks and improve the efficiency of the data collection effort. 1 Systematic Planning and the DQO Process: EPA References and Software Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/ G­ 4, August 2000, EPA/ 600/ R­ 96/ 055. Provides guidance on how to perform the DQO Process. Data Quality Objectives Decision Error Feasibility Trials Software (DEFT) ­ User's Guide, EPA QA/ G­ 4D, September 2001, EPA/ 240/ B­ 01/ 007 (User's Guide and Software). PC­ based software for determining the feasibility of data quality objectives defined using the DQO Process. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process for Hazardous Waste Sites, EPA QA/ G­ 4HW, January 2000, EPA/ 600/ R­ 00/ 007. Provides guidance on applying the DQO Process to hazardous waste site investigations. 32 DQO Step 1: State the Problem Purpose To define the problem so that the focus of the study will be unambiguous. Activities ° Identify members of the planning team. ° Identify the primary decision maker( s). ° Develop a concise description of the problem. ° Determine resources – budget, personnel, and schedule. The remainder of this section addresses how the DQO Process can be applied to RCRA wastecharacterization studies. While the discussion is based on EPA's G­ 4 guidance (USEPA 2000b), some steps have been modified or simplified to allow for flexibility in their use. Keep in mind that not all projects or decisions (such as a hazardous waste determination) will require the full level of activities described in this section, but the logic applies nonetheless. In fact, EPA encourages use of a "graded approach" to quality assurance. A graded approach bases the level of management and QA/ QC activities on the intended use of the results and the degree of confidence needed in their quality (USEPA 2001f). 4.1 Step 1: State the Problem Before developing a data gathering program, the first step is to state the problem or determine what question or questions are to be answered by the study. For many waste characterization or monitoring programs the questions are spelled out in the applicable regulations; however, in some cases, determining the actual problem or question to be answered may be more complex. As part of this step, perform the four activities described in the following sections. 4.1.1 Identify Members of the Planning Team The planning team comprises personnel representing all phases of the project and may include stakeholders, decision makers, technical project managers, samplers, chemists, process engineers, QA/ QC managers, statisticians, risk assessors, community leaders, grass roots organizations, and other data users. 4.1.2 Identify the Primary Decision Maker Identify the primary decision maker( s) or state the process by which the decision will be made (for example, by consensus). 4.1.3 Develop a Concise Description of the Problem Develop a problem description to provide background information on the fundamental issue to be addressed by the study. For RCRA waste­ related studies, the "problem" could involve determining one of the following: (1) if a solid waste should be classified as a hazardous waste, (2) if a hazardous waste is prohibited from land disposal, (3) if a treated hazardous waste attains the applicable treatment standard, (4) if a cleanup goal has been attained, or (5) if hazardous constituents have migrated from a waste management unit. Summarize existing information into a "conceptual model" or conceptual site model (CSM) including previous sampling information, preliminary estimates of summary statistics such as the mean and standard deviation, process descriptions and materials used, and any spatial and temporal boundaries of the waste or study area that can be defined. A CSM is a 33 DQO Step 2: Identify the Decision Purpose To define what specific decisions need to be made or what questions need to be answered. Activities ° Identify the principal study question. ° Define the alternative actions that could result from resolution of the principal study question. ° Develop a decision statement. ° Organize multiple decisions. three­ dimensional "picture" of site conditions at a discrete point in time (a snapshot) that conveys what is known or suspected about the facility, releases, release mechanisms, contaminant fate and transport, exposure pathways, potential receptors, and risks. The CSM does not have to be based on a mathematical or computer model, although these tools often help to visualize current information and predict future conditions. The CSM should be documented by written descriptions of site conditions and supported by maps, cross sections, analytical data, site diagrams that illustrate actual or potential receptors, and any other descriptive, graphical, or tabular illustrations necessary to present site conditions. 4.1.4 Specify Available Resources and Relevant Deadlines Identify available financial and human resources, identify deadlines established by permits or regulations, and establish a schedule. Allow time for developing acceptance and performance criteria, preparing planning documents (such as a QAPP, sampling plan, and/ or WAP), collecting and analyzing samples, and interpreting and reporting data. 4.2 Step 2: Identify the Decision The goal of this step is to define the questions that the study will attempt to answer and identify what actions may be taken based on the outcome of the study. As part of this step, perform the four activities described in the following sections. 4.2.1 Identify the Principal Study Question Based on the problem identified in Step 1, identify the study question and state it as specifically as possible. This is an important step because the manner in which you frame the study question can influence whether sampling is even appropriate, and if so, how you will evaluate the results. Here are some examples of study questions that might be posed in a RCRA­ related waste study: ° Does the filter cake from the filter press exhibit the TC at its point of generation? ° Does the treated waste meet the universal treatment standard (UTS) for land disposal under 40 CFR 268? ° Has the soil remediation at the SWMU attained the cleanup goal for benzene? ° Have hazardous constituents migrated from the land treatment unit to the underlying soil at concentrations significantly greater than background concentrations? ° Are radioactive and hazardous wastes colocated, producing a mixed waste management scenario? 2 Testing alone might not be sufficient to determine if a solid waste is hazardous waste. You also should apply knowledge of the waste generation process to determine if the solid waste is a hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261. 34 DQO Step 3: Identify Inputs to the Decision Purpose To identify data or other information required to resolve the decision statement. Activities ° Identify the information required to resolve the decision statement. ° Determine the sources of information. ° Identify information needed to establish the Action Level. ° Identify sampling and analysis methods that can meet the data requirements. Before conducting a waste­ sampling and testing program to comply with RCRA, you should review the specific regulatory requirements in 40 CFR in detail and consult with staff from your EPA region or the representative from your State (if your State is authorized to implement the regulation). 4.2.2 Define the Alternative Actions That Could Result from Resolution of the Principal Study Question Generally, two courses of action will result from the outcome of the study. One that involves action, such as deciding to classify a solid waste as a hazardous waste, and one that requires an alternative action, such as deciding to classify a solid waste as a nonhazardous solid waste. 2 4.2.3 Develop a Decision Statement In performing this activity, simply combine the principal study question and the alternative actions into a "decision statement." For example, you may wish to determine whether a waste exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic. The decision statement should be in writing (for example, in the QAPP) and agreed upon by the planning team. This approach will help avoid misunderstandings later in the process. 4.2.4 Organize Multiple Decisions If several separate decisions statements must be defined to address the problem, then you should list them and identify the sequence in which they should be resolved. For example, if you classify a solid waste as a nonhazardous waste, then you will need to make a waste management decision. Options might include land disposal (e. g., in an industrial landfill or a municipal solid waste landfill), recycling, or some other use. You might find it helpful to document the decision resolution sequence and relationships in a diagram or flowchart. 4.3 Step 3: Identify Inputs to the Decision In most cases, it will be necessary to collect data or new information to resolve the decision statement. To identify the type and source of this information, perform the activities outlined in the following four sections. 4.3.1 Identify the Information Required For RCRA­ related waste studies, information requirements typically will 35 include samples to be collected, variables to be measured (such as total concentrations, TCLP results, or results of tests for other characteristics, such as reactivity, ignitability, and corrosivity), the units of measure (such as mg/ L), the form of the data (such as on a dry weight basis), and waste generation or process knowledge. 4.3.2 Determine the Sources of Information Identify and list the sources of information needed and qualitatively evaluate the usefulness of the data. Existing information, such as analytical data, can be very valuable. It can help you calculate the appropriate number of new samples needed (if any) and reduce the need to collect new data (see also Section 5.4). 4.3.3 Identify Information Needed To Establish the Action Level The Action Level is the threshold value that provides the criterion for choosing between alternative actions. Under RCRA, there are several types of Action Levels. The first type of Action Level is a fixed standard or regulatory threshold (RT) usually specified as a concentration of a hazardous constituent (e. g., in mg/ L). Examples of regulatory thresholds that are Action Levels in the RCRA regulations include the TC Regulatory Levels at 40 CFR 261.24 and the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) numeric treatment standards at 40 CFR 268.40. Another criterion for choosing between alternative actions is defined by the property of a waste. Three such properties are defined in the RCRA regulations: ignitability (§ 261.21), corrosivity (§ 261.22), and reactivity (§ 261.23). The results of test methods used to determine if a waste is ignitable, corrosive, or reactive are interpreted as either "pass" or "fail" ­­ i. e., the waste either has the property or it does not. Note that a concentration measurement, such as a TCLP sample analysis result, also can be interpreted as either "pass" or "fail" based on whether the value is less than or greater than a specified threshold. A third criterion for choosing between alternative actions involves making a comparison between constituent concentrations at different times or locations to determine if there has been a change in process or environmental conditions over time. In these situations, you need to determine if the two sets of data are different relative to each other rather than checking for compliance with a fixed standard. Finally, an Action Level can represent a proportion of the population having (or not having) some characteristic. For example, while it might be desirable to have all portions of a waste or site comply with a standard, it would be more practical to test whether some high proportion (e. g., 0.95) of units of a given size, shape, and orientation comply with the standard. In such a case, the Action Level could be set at 0.95. For more information on identifying the Action Level, see Section 2 (RCRA regulatory drivers for waste sampling and testing), the RCRA regulations in 40 CFR, ASTM Standard D 6250 (Standard Practice for Derivation of Decision Point and Confidence Limit for Statistical Testing of Mean Concentration in Waste Management Decisions), or consult with your State or EPA Regional staff. 3 The physical size (expressed as mass or volume), shape, and orientation of a sample is known as the sample support. Sample support plays an important role in characterizing waste or environmental media and in minimizing variability caused by the sampling process. The concept of support is discussed in greater detail in Section 6.2.3. 36 DQO Step 4: Define the Study Boundaries Purpose To define the spatial and temporal boundaries that are covered by the decision statement. Activities ° Define the target population of interest. ° Define the "sample support" ° Define the spatial boundaries that clarify what the data must represent. ° Define the time frame for collecting data and making the decision. ° Identify any practical constraints on data collection. ° Determine the smallest subpopulation, area, volume, or time for which separate decisions must be made. 4.3.4 Confirm That Sampling and Analytical Methods Exist That Can Provide the Required Environmental Measurements Identify and evaluate candidate sampling and analytical methods capable of yielding the required environmental measurements. You will need to revisit this step during Step 7 of the DQO Process (" Optimize the Design for Obtaining the Data") after the quantity and quality of the necessary data are fully defined. In evaluating sampling methods, consider the medium to be sampled and analyzed, the location of the sampling points, and the size, shape and orientation of each sample (see also Section 6, "Controlling Variability and Bias in Sampling" and Section 7, "Implementation: Selecting Equipment and Conducting Sampling"). In evaluating analytical methods, choose the appropriate candidate methods for sample analyses based on the sample matrix and the analytes to be determined. Guidance on the selection of analytical methods can be found in Chapter Two of SW­ 846 (" Choosing the Correct Procedure"). Up­ to­ date information on analytical methods can be found at SW­ 846 "On Line" at http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ test/ main. htm. 4.4 Step 4: Define the Study Boundaries In this step of the DQO Process, you should identify the target population of interest and specify the spatial and temporal features of that population that are pertinent for decision making. To define the study boundaries, perform the activities described in the following five sections. 4.4.1 Define the Target Population of Interest It is important for you to clearly define the target population to be sampled. Ideally, the target population coincides with the population to be sampled (Cochran 1977) – that is, the target population should represent the total collection of all possible sampling units that could be drawn. Note that the "units" that make up the population are defined operationally based on their size, shape, orientation, and handling (i. e., the "sample support"). 3 The sampling unit definition must be considered when defining the target population because any changes in the definition can affect the population characteristics. See Section 6.3.1 for guidance on establishing the appropriate size (mass) of a sample, and see Section 6.3.2 for guidance on 37 establishing the appropriate shape and orientation of sample. Define the target population in terms of sampling units, the decision­ making volume, and the location of that volume. Sampling at the point of generation is required by regulation when determining the regulatory status of a waste. See 55 FR 11804, March 29, 1990, and 55 FR 22652, June 1, 1990. 4.4.2 Define the Spatial Boundaries If sampling at the point of waste generation (i. e., before the waste is placed in a container or transport unit), then the sampling problem could involve collecting samples of a moving stream of material, such as from a conveyor, discharge pipe, or as poured into a container or tank. If so, then physical features such as the width of the flow or discharge and the rate of flow or discharge will be of interest for defining the spatial boundary of the problem. If the sampling problem involves collecting samples from a waste storage unit or transport container, then the spatial boundaries can be defined by some physical feature, such as volume, length, width, height, etc. The spatial boundaries of most waste storage units or containers can be defined easily. Examples of these units follow: ° Container such as a drum or a roll­ off box ° Tank ° Surface Impoundment ° Staging Pile ° Waste Pile ° Containment Building. In other cases, the spatial boundary could be one or more geographic areas, such as areas representing "background" and "downgradient" conditions at a land treatment unit. Another example is a SWMU area that has been subject to remediation where the objective is verify that the cleanup goal has been achieved over a specified area or volume at the SWMU. If the study requires characterization of subsurface soils and ground water, then consult other guidance (for example, see USEPA 1989a, 1989b, 1991d, 1992a, 1993c, and 1996b). To help the planning team visualize the boundary, it may be helpful to prepare a drawing, map, or other graphical image of the spatial boundaries, including a scale and orientation (e. g., a north arrow). If appropriate and consistent with the intended use of the information, maps also should identify relevant surface features (such as buildings, structures, surface water bodies, topography, etc.) and known subsurface features (pipes, utilities, wells, etc.). If samples of waste will be taken at the point of generation (e. g., when the waste becomes a solid waste), the location of that point should be defined in this step of the DQO Process. 4.4.3 Define the Temporal Boundary of the Problem A temporal boundary could be defined by a permit or regulation (such as the waste generated per day) or operationally (such as the waste generated per "batch" or truck load). You should 38 determine the time frame to which the decision applies and when to collect the data. In some cases, different time intervals might be established to represent different populations (e. g., in the case where there is a process change over time that affects the character of the waste). Waste characteristics or chemistry, such as the presence of volatile constituents, also could influence the time frame within which samples are collected. For example, volatilization could occur over time. 4.4.4 Identify Any Practical Constraints on Data Collection Identify any constraints or obstacles that could potentially interfere with the full implementation of the data collection design. Examples of practical constraints include physical access to a sampling location, unfavorable weather conditions, worker health and safety concerns, limitations of available sampling devices, and availability of the waste (e. g., as might be the case for wastes generated from batch processes) that could affect the schedule or timing of sample collection. 4.4.5 Define the Scale of Decision Making Define the smallest, most appropriate subsets of the population (sub­ populations), waste, or media to be characterized based on spatial or temporal boundaries. The boundaries will define the unit of waste or media about which a decision will be made. The unit is known as the decision unit. When defining the decision unit, the consequences of making a decision error should be carefully considered. The consequences of making incorrect decisions (Step 6) are associated with the size, location, and shape of the decision unit. For example, if a decision, based on the data collected, results in a large volume of waste being classified as nonhazardous, when in fact a portion of the waste exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic (e. g., due to the presence of a "hot spot"), then the waste generator could potentially be found in violation of RCRA . To limit risk of managing hazardous waste with nonhazardous waste, the waste handler should consider dividing the waste stream into smaller decision units – such as the volume of waste that would be placed into an individual container to be shipped for disposal – and make a separate waste classification decision regarding each decision unit. The planning team may establish decision units based on several considerations: °Risk – The scale of the decision making could be defined based on an exposure scenario. For example, if the objective is to evaluate exposures via direct contact with surface soil, each decision unit could be defined based on the geographic area over which an individual is assumed to move randomly across over time. In EPA's Superfund program, such a unit is known as an "exposure area" or EA (USEPA 1992c and 1996f). An example of an EA from EPA's Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide (USEPA 1996f) is the top 2 centimeters of soil across a 0.5­ acre area. In this example, the EA is the size of a suburban residential lot and the depth represents soil of the greatest concern for incidental ingestion of soil, dermal contact, and inhalation of fugitive dust. If evaluation of a decision unit or EA for the purpose of making a cleanup 39 DQO Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule Purpose To define the parameter of interest, specify the Action Level and integrate previous DQO outputs into a single statement that describes a logical basis for choosing among alternative actions; i. e., define how the data will be used to make a decision. Activities ° Specify the parameter of interest (mean, median, percentile). ° Specify the Action Level for the study. ° Develop a decision rule. decision finds that cleanup is needed, then the same decision unit or EA should be used when evaluating whether the cleanup standard has been attained. Furthermore, the size, shape, and orientation (the "sample support") of the samples used to determine that cleanup was necessary should be the same for samples used to determine whether the cleanup standard is met (though this last condition is not strictly necessary when the parameter of interest is the mean). ° Operational Considerations – The scale of the decision unit could be defined based on operational considerations, such as the need to characterize each "batch" of waste after it has been treated or the need to characterize each drum as it is being filled at the point of waste generation. As a practical matter, the scale for the decision making often is defined by the spatial boundaries – for example as defined by a container such as a drum, roll­ off box, truck load, etc. or the time required to fill the container. ° Other – The possibility of "hot spots" (areas of high concentration of a contaminant) may be apparent to the planning team from the history of the facility. In cases where previous knowledge (or planning team judgment) includes identification of areas that have a higher potential for contamination, a scale may be developed to specifically represent these areas. Additional information and considerations on defining the scale of the decision making can be found in Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process for Hazardous Waste Site Operations EPA QA/ G­ 4HW (USEPA 2000a) and Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process EPA QA/ G­ 4 (USEPA 2000b). 4.5 Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule A statement must be developed that combines the parameter of interest and the Action Levels with the DQO outputs already developed. The combination of these three elements forms the decision rule and summarizes what attributes the decision maker wants to study and how the information will assist in solving the central problem. To develop the decision rule, perform the activities described in the following three sections: 4.5.1 Specify the Parameter of Interest A statistical "parameter" is a descriptive measure of a population such as the population mean, median, or a percentile (see also Section 3.2). See Table 2. Some of the RCRA regulations specify the parameter of interest. For example, the comparable fuels sampling and analysis requirements at 40 CFR 261.38( c)( 8)( iii)( A) specify the mean as the parameter of interest, and the ground­ water monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 264.97 specify the parameter of interest for each statistical 4 EPA uses a narrative criteria to define most reactive wastes, and waste handlers should use their knowledge to determine if a waste is sufficiently reactive to be regulated. 40 test. Other RCRA regulations do not specify the parameter of interest, however, you can select a parameter based on what the Action Level is intended to represent. In general, if an Action Level is based on long­ term average health effects, the parameter of interest could be the population mean (USEPA 1992a). If the Action Level represents a value that should never (or rarely) be exceeded, then the parameter of interest could be an upper population percentile, which can serve as a reasonable approximation of the maximum value. If the objective of the study does not involve estimation of a parameter or testing a hypothesis, then specification of a parameter is not necessary. Table 2. Population Parameters and Their Applicability to a Decision Rule Parameter Definition Appropriate Conditions for Use Mean Average Estimate central tendency: Comparison of middle part of population to an Action Level. Median Middle observation of the distribution; 50 th percentile; half of data are above and below May be preferred to estimate central tendency if the population contains many values that are less than the limit of quantitation. The median is not a good choice if more than 50% of the population is less than the limit of quantitation because a true median does not exist in this case. The median is not influenced by the extremes of the contaminant distribution. Percentile Specified percent of sample that is equal to or below the given value For cases where it is necessary to demonstrate that, at most, only a small portion of a population could exceed the Action Level. Sometimes selected if the decision rule is being developed for a chemical that can cause acute health effects. Also useful when a large part of the population contains values less than the detection limit. 4.5.2 Specify the Action Level for the Study You should specify an Action Level or concentration limit that would cause the decision maker to choose between alternative actions. Examples of Action Levels follow: ° Comparable/ syngas fuel constituent specification levels specified at § 261.38 ° Land disposal restrictions concentration level treatment standards at § 268.40 and § 268.48 ° Risk­ based cleanup levels specified in a permit as part of a corrective action ° "Pass" or "fail" thresholds for tests for ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity 4 , and toxicity. Also, be sure the detection or quantitation limits for the analytical methods identified in DQO Step 3 (Section 4.3) are below the Action Level, if possible. 41 Step 6: Specify Limits on Decision Errors Purpose To specify the decision maker's tolerable limits on decision error. Activities ° Identify potential sources of variability and bias in the sampling and measurement processes (see Section 6) ° Determine the possible range on the parameter of interest. ° Choose the null hypothesis. ° Consider the consequences of making an incorrect decision. ° Specify a range of values where the consequences are minor (the "gray region") ° Specify an acceptable probability of making a decision error. If your objective is to compare "onsite" to "background" to determine if there is a statistically significant increase above background (as would be the case for monitoring releases from a land treatment unit under § 264.278), you will not need to specify an Action Level; rather, the Action Level is implicitly defined by the background concentration levels and the variability in the data. A summary of methods for determining background concentrations in soil can be found in USEPA 1995a. Methods for determining background concentrations in ground water can be found in USEPA 1989b and 1992b. Finally, note that some studies will not require specification of a regulatory or risk­ based Action Level. For example, if the objective may be to identify the existence of a release, samples could be obtained to verify the presence or absence of a spill, leak, or other discharge to the environment. Identifying a potential release also could include observation of abandoned or discarded barrels, containers, and other closed receptacles containing hazardous wastes or constituents (see 61 FR No. 85, page 19442). 4.5.3 Develop a Decision Rule After you have completed the above activities, you can construct a decision rule by combining the selected population parameter and the Action Level with the scale of the decision making (from DQO Process Step 4) and the alternative action (from DQO Step 2). Decision rules are expressed as "if (criterion)..., then (action)...." A hypothetical example follows: "If the true 95 th percentile of all possible 100­ gram samples of the waste being placed in the 20­ cubic yard container is less than 5.0 mg/ L TCLP lead, then the solid waste will be classified as nonhazardous waste. Otherwise, the solid waste will be classified as a RCRA hazardous waste." Note that this is a functional decision rule based on an ideal condition (i. e., knowledge of the true concentration that equals the 95 th percentile of all possible sample analysis results). It also identifies the boundary of the study by specifying the sample unit (100­ gram samples in accordance with the TCLP) and the size of the decision unit. It does not, however, specify the amount of uncertainty the decision maker is willing to accept in the estimate. You specify that in the next step. 4.6 Step 6: Specify Limits on Decision Errors Because samples represent only a portion of the population, the information available to make decisions will be incomplete; hence, decision errors sometimes will be made. Decision errors occur because decisions are made using estimates of the parameter of interest, rather than the true (and unknown) value. In fact, if you repeatedly sampled and analyzed a waste over and over in an identical manner the results would be a little different each time (see Figure 8 in Section 3). This variability 5 Statisticians sometimes refer to a Type I error as a "false positive," and a Type II error as a "false negative." The terms refer to decision errors made relative to a null hypothesis, and the terms may not necessarily have the same meaning as those used by chemists to describe analytical detection of a constituent when it is not really present (" false positive") or failure to detect a constituent when it really is present (" false negative"). 6 An exception to this assumption is found in "detection monitoring" and "compliance monitoring" in which underlying media (such as soil, pore water, or ground water) at a new waste management unit are presumed "clean" until a statistically significant increase above background is demonstrated (in the case of detection monitoring) or a statistically significant increase over a fixed standard is demonstrated (in the case of compliance or assessment monitoring). 42 in the results is caused by the non­ homogeneity of the waste or media, slight differences in how the samples of the waste were collected and handled, variability in the analysis process, and the fact that only a small portion of the waste is usually ever sampled and tested. (See Section 6.1 for a more detailed discussion of sources of variability and bias in sampling). For example, if you conduct sampling and analysis of a solid waste and classify it as "nonhazardous" based on the results, when in fact it is a hazardous waste, you will have made a wrong decision or decision error. Alternatively, if you classify a solid waste as hazardous, when in fact it is nonhazardous, you also will have made a decision error. There are two types of decision error. A "Type I" or "false rejection" decision error occurs if you reject the null hypothesis when it is true. (The "null hypothesis" is simply the situation presumed to be true or the "working assumption".) A "Type II" or "false acceptance" decision error occurs if you accept the null hypothesis when it is false. 5 Table 3 summarizes the four possible situations that might arise when a hypothesis is tested. The two possible true conditions correspond to the two columns of the table: the null hypothesis or "baseline assumption" is either true or the alternative is true. The two kinds of decisions are shown in the body of the table. Either you decide the baseline is true, or you decide the alternative is true. Associated with these two decisions are the two types of risk – the risk of making a Type I (false rejection) error (denoted by ) and the risk of making a Type II (false acceptance) error (denoted by ). You can improve your chances of making correct decisions by reducing and (which often requires more samples or a different sampling design) and by using field sampling techniques that minimize errors related to sampling collection and handling (see also Sections 6 and 7). Table 3. Conclusions and Consequences for a Test of Hypotheses True Condition Baseline is True Alternative is True Decision Based on Sample Data Baseline is True Correct Decision Type II (false acceptance) error (probability ) Alternative is True Type I (false rejection) error (probability ) Correct Decision For many sampling situations under RCRA, the most conservative (i. e., protective of the environment) approach is to presume that the constituent concentration in the waste or media exceeds the standard in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. 6 For example, in 43 testing a solid waste to determine if it exhibits the TC, the null hypothesis can be stated as follows: "the concentration is equal to or greater than the TC regulatory level." The alternative hypothesis is "the concentration is less than the TC regulatory level." After completion of the sampling and analysis phase, you conduct an assessment of the data. If your estimate of the parameter of interest is less than the threshold when the true value of the parameter exceeds the threshold, you will make a decision error (a Type I error). If the estimate of the parameter of interest is greater than the threshold when the true value is less than the threshold, you also will make an error (a Type II error) ­­ but one that has little potential adverse impacts to human health and the environment. Note that during the planning phase and during sampling you will not know which kind of error you might make. Later, after a decision has been made, if you rejected the null hypothesis then you either made a Type I (false rejection) decision error or not; you could not have made a Type II (false acceptance) decision error. On the other hand, if you did not reject the null hypothesis, then you either made a Type II (false acceptance) error or not; you could not have made a Type I (false rejection) error. In either case, you will know which type of error you might have made and you will know the probability that the error was made. In the RCRA program, EPA is concerned primarily with controlling errors having the most adverse consequences for human health and the environment. In the interest of protecting the environment and maintaining compliance with the regulations, there is an incentive on the part of the regulated entity to minimize the chance of a Type I decision error. The statistical methods recommended in this document emphasize controlling the Type I (false rejection) error rate and do not necessarily require specification of a Type II (false acceptance) error rate. The question for the decision maker then becomes, what is the acceptable probability (or chance) of making a decision error? To answer this question, four activities are suggested. These activities are based on guidance found in Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process QA/ G­ 4 (USEPA 2000b) but have been tailored for more direct application to RCRA waste­ related studies. The Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process EPA QA/ G­ 4 also provides detailed guidance on the use of a graphical construct called a Decision Performance Curve to represent the quality of a decision process. 4.6.1 Determine the Possible Range on the Parameter of Interest Establish the possible range (maximum and minimum values) of the parameter of interest using data from a pilot study, existing data for a similar waste stream, or process knowledge (e. g., using a materials­ balance approach). It is desirable, but not required, to have an estimate of the standard deviation as well. 4.6.2 Identify the Decision Errors and Choose the Null Hypothesis Table 4 presents four examples of decision errors that could be made in a RCRA waste study. In the first three examples, the consequences of making a Type I error could include increased risk to human health and the environment or a potential enforcement action by a regulatory authority. The consequences of making a Type II error could include unnecessary financial and administrative resources required to manage the waste as hazardous (when, in fact, it is not) or continuing site cleanup activities when, in fact, the site is "clean." 44 Table 4. Examples of Possible Decision Errors in RCRA Waste Studies Regulatory Requirement "Null Hypothesis" (baseline condition) Possible Decision Errors Type I Error ( ) "False Rejection" Type II Error ( ) "False Acceptance" Example 1: Under 40 CFR 261.11, conduct sampling to determine if a solid waste is a hazardous waste by the TC. The solid waste contains TC constituents at concentrations equal to or greater than their applicable regulatory levels (i. e., the solid waste is a hazardous waste). Concluding the waste is not hazardous when, in fact, it is. Deciding the waste is hazardous when, in fact, it is not. Example 2: Under 40 CFR 268.7, conduct sampling and testing to certify that a hazardous waste has been treated so that concentrations of hazardous constituents meet the applicable LDR treatment standards. The concentration of the hazardous constituents exceeds the treatment standard (i. e., the treatment standard has not been attained). Concluding the treatment standard has been met when, in fact, it has not. Concluding the treatment standard has not been met when, in fact, it has. Example 3: Under 40 CFR 264.101 (and proposed Subpart S ­ Corrective Action at SWMUs), a permittee conducts testing to determine if a remediation at a SWMU has attained the risk­ based cleanup standard specified in the permit.* The mean concentration in the SWMU is greater than the risk­ based cleanup standard (i. e., the site is contaminated).* Concluding the site is "clean" when, in fact, it is contaminated. Concluding the site is still contaminated when, in fact, it is "clean." Example 4: Under 40 CFR 264.98( f), detection monitoring, monitor ground water at a regulated unit to determine if there is a statistically significant increase of contamination above background. The level of contamination in each point of compliance well does not exceed background. Concluding the contaminant concentration in a compliance well exceeds background when, in fact, it does not. Concluding the contaminant concentration in a compliance well is similar to background when, in fact, it is higher. * If the cleanup standard is based on "background" rather than a risk­ based cleanup standard, then the hypotheses would be framed in reverse where the mean background and on­ site concentrations are presumed equal unless there is strong evidence that the site concentrations are greater than background. * A parameter other than the mean may be used to evaluate attainment of a cleanup standard (e. g., see USEPA 1989a). In Example 4, however, the null hypothesis is framed in reverse of Examples 1 through 3. When conducting subsurface monitoring to detect contamination at a new unit (such as in detection monitoring in the RCRA ground­ water monitoring program), the natural subsurface environment is presumed uncontaminated until statistically significant increases over the background concentrations are detected. Accordingly, the null hypothesis is framed such that the downgradient conditions are consistent with the background. In this case, EPA's emphasis on the protection of human health and the environment calls for minimizing the Type II error the mistake of judging downgradient concentrations the same as the background when, in fact, 45 they are higher. Detailed guidance on detection and compliance monitoring can be found in RCRA Ground­ Water Monitoring: Draft Technical Guidance (USEPA 1992c) and EPA's guidance on the statistical analysis of ground­ water monitoring data at RCRA facilities (USEPA 1989b and 1992b). 4.6.3 Specify a Range of Possible Parameter Values Where the Consequences of a False Acceptance Decision Error are Relatively Minor (Gray Region) The "gray region" is one component of the quantitative decision performance criteria the planning team establishes during the DQO Process to limit impractical and infeasible sample sizes. The gray region is a range of possible parameter values near the action level where it is "too close to call." This gray area is where the sample data tend toward rejecting the baseline condition, but the evidence (data statistics) is not sufficient to be overwhelming. In essence, the gray region is an area where it will not be feasible to control the false acceptance decision error limits to low levels because the high costs of sampling and analysis outweigh the potential consequences of choosing the wrong course of action. In statistical language, the gray region is called the "minimum detectable difference" and is often expressed as the Greek letter delta ( ). This value is an essential part of the calculations for determining the number of samples that need to be collected so that the decision maker may have confidence in the decision made based on the data collected. The first boundary of the gray region is the Action Level. The other boundary of the gray region is established by evaluating the consequences of a false acceptance decision error over the range of possible parameter values in which this error may occur. This boundary corresponds to the parameter value at which the consequences of a false acceptance decision error are significant enough to have to set a limit on the probability of this error occurring. The gray region (or "area of uncertainty") establishes the minimum distance from the Action Level where the decision maker would like to begin to control false acceptance decision errors. In general, the narrower the gray region, the greater the number of samples needed to meet the criteria because the area of uncertainty has been reduced. The quality of the decision process, including the boundaries of the gray region, can be depicted graphically using a Decision Performance Goal Diagram (DPGD). Detailed guidance on the construction and use of DPGDs is given in EPA DQO guidance documents (e. g., USEPA 2000a and 2000b) and in Data Quality Objectives Decision Error Feasibility Trials Software (DEFT) User's Guide (USEPA 2001a). Figure 12( a) and Figure 12( b) show how some of the key outputs of Step 6 of the DQO Process are depicted in a DPGD when the parameter of interest is the mean (Figure 12( a)) and a percentile (Figure 12( b) . The DPGD given in Figure 12( a) shows how the boundaries of the gray region are set when the null hypothesis is established as "the true mean concentration exceeds the standard." Notice that the planning team has set the action level at 5 ppm and the other boundary of the gray region at 4 ppm. This implies that when the mean calculated from the sample data is less than 4 ppm (and the planning assumptions regarding variability hold true), then the data will be considered to provide "overwhelming evidence" that the true mean (unknown, of course) is below the action level. 46 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Gray Region (Relatively large decision error rates are considered tolerable.) Action Level True value of the parameter (mean concentration, ppm) Low High 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tolerable false rejection decision error rate Tolerable false acceptance decision error rate Baseline Alternative Probability of Deciding that the Parameter Exceeds the Action Level Figure 12( a). Decision Performance Goal Diagram where the mean is the parameter of interest. Null hypothesis (baseline condition): the true mean exceeds the action level. 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Gray Region (Relatively large decision error rates are considered tolerable.) Action Level (P0) True value of the parameter (true proportion of all possible samples of a given support that have concentrations less than the applicable standard) Low High 0. 80 0.875 0. 95 0. 975 Tolerable false acceptance decision error rate Tolerable false rejection decision error rate Alternative Baseline Probability of Deciding that the Parameter Exceeds the Action Level 0.90 0.825 0.775 1. 00 0.925 0.85 Figure 12( b). Decision Performance Goal Diagram where a percentile is the parameter of interest. Null hypothesis (baseline condition): true proportion ­­ of all possible samples of a given support that are less than the applicable standard ­­ is less than 0.90. 47 Now consider the DPGD given in Figure 12( b). The figure shows how the gray region is set when the null hypothesis is established as "the true proportion of samples below the concentration standard is less than 0.90." Notice in this example the planning team has set the action level at 0.90 and the other boundary of the gray region at 0.95. This implies that when the proportion of samples that comply with the standard is greater than 0.95, then the data will be considered to provide "overwhelming evidence" that the true proportion (unknown, of course) is greater than the action level of 0.90. The term "samples" refers to all possible samples of a specified size, shape, and orientation (or sample support) drawn from the DQO decision unit. Sampling procedures and sample support can affect the measurement value obtained on individual samples and have a profound effect on the shape of the sampling distribution. Thus, the outcome of statistical procedures that examine characteristics of the upper tail of the distribution can be influenced by the sample support – more so than when the mean is the parameter of interest. Accordingly, when testing for a proportion, a complete statement of the null hypothesis should include specification of the sample support. See Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 for guidance on establishing the appropriate sample support as part of the DQO Process. 4.6.4 Specify an Acceptable Probability of Making a Decision Error You can never completely eliminate decision errors or even know when they have occurred, but you can quantify the probability of making such errors. In this activity, you establish the acceptable probability of making a decision error. The Type I error rate ( ) is a measure of the amount of "mistrust" you have in the conclusion (Myers 1997) and is also known as the significance level for a test. The flip side of this is the amount of faith or confidence you have in the conclusion. The confidence level is denoted mathematically as . As stated previously, the Type I error (the error of falsely rejecting 1 the null hypothesis) is of greatest concern from the standpoint of environmental protection and regulatory compliance. The probability of making a Type II error (the error of falsely accepting the null hypothesis) also can be specified. For example, if the sample data lead you to conclude that a waste does not qualify for the comparable fuels exclusion (40 CFR 261.38), when the true mean concentration in the waste is in fact below the applicable standard, then a Type II (false acceptance error) has been made. (Note that some of the statistical methods given in this document do not require specification of a Type II error rate). As a general rule, the lower you set the probability of making a decision error, the greater the cost in terms of the number of samples required, time and personnel required for sampling and analysis, and financial resources required. An acceptable probability level for making a decision error should be established by the planning team after consideration of the RCRA regulatory requirements, guidance from EPA or the implementing agency, the size (volume or weight) of the decision unit, and the consequences of making a decision error. In some cases, the RCRA regulations specify the Type I or Type II (or both) error rates that should be used. For example, when testing a waste to determine whether it qualifies for the comparable/ syngas fuel exclusion under 40 CFR 261.38, the regulations require that the determination be made with a Type I error rate set at 5 7 Under §261.38( c)( 8)( iii)( A), a generator must demonstrate that "each constituent of concern is not present in the waste above the specification level at the 95% upper confidence limit around the mean." 48 percent (i. e., ). 7 = 0 05 . In other cases, the regulations do not specify any decision error limits. The planning team must specify the decision error limits based on their knowledge of the waste; impacts on costs, human health, and ecological conditions; and the potential consequences of making a decision error. For example, if the quantity of waste (that comprises a decision unit) is large and/ or heterogeneous, then a waste handler may require high confidence (e. g., 95 or 99 percent) that a high proportion of the waste or media complies with the applicable standard. On the other hand, if the waste quantity is a relatively small (e. g., a drum) and sampling and measurement error can be minimized, then the waste handler may be willing to relax the confidence level required or simply use a nonstatistical (e. g., judgmental) sampling design and reduce the number of samples to be taken. For additional guidance on controlling errors Section 6 and EPA's DQO guidance (USEPA 2000a and 2000b). 4.7 Outputs of the First Six Steps of the DQO Process Table 5 provides a summary of the outputs of the first six steps of the DQO Process. Typically, this information will be incorporated into a QAPP, WAP, or other similar planning document (as described in Section 5.7). The DQOs can be simple and straight forward for simple projects and can be documented in just a few pages with little or no supporting data. For more complex projects, the DQOs can be more lengthy, and the supporting data may take up volumes. The team that will be optimizing the sample design( s) will need the information to support their plan development. The project manager and the individuals who assess the overall outcome of the project also will need the information to determine if the DQOs were achieved. Keep in mind that the DQO Process is an iterative one; it might be necessary to return to earlier steps to modify inputs when new data become available or to change assumptions if achieving the original DQOs is not realistic or practicable. The last step (Step 7) in the DQO Process is described in detail in the next section of this document. Example applications of the full DQO Process are presented in Appendix "I." 49 Table 5. Summary of Outputs of the First Six Steps of the DQO Process DQO Step Expected Outputs 1. State the Problem ° List of members of the planning/ scoping team and their role/ expertise in the project. Identify individuals or organizations participating in the project (e. g. facility name) and discuss their roles, responsibilities, and organization. ° A concise description of the problem. ° Summary of available resources and relevant deadlines. 2. Identify the Decision ° A decision statement that links the principal study question to possible actions that will solve the problem or answer the question. 3. Identify Inputs to the Decision ° A list of informational inputs needed to resolve the decision statement, how the information will be used, sources of that information, and an indication of whether the information is available for will need to be obtained. ° A list of environmental variables or characteristics that will be measured. 4. Define the Boundaries ° A detailed description of the spatial and temporal boundaries of the problem (i. e., define the population, each decision unit, and the sample support). ° Options for stratifying the population under study. ° Any practical constraints that may interfere with the study. 5. Develop a Decision Rule ° The parameter of interest that characterizes the population. ° The Action Level or other method for testing the decision rule. ° An "if ... then..." statement that defines the conditions that would cause the decision maker to choose among alternative actions. 6. Specify Limits on Decision Errors ° Potential variability and bias in the candidate sampling and measurement methods ° The baseline condition (null hypothesis) ° The boundaries of the gray region ° The decision maker's tolerable decision error rates based on a consideration of consequences of making an incorrect decision. 50 5 OPTIMIZING THE DESIGN FOR OBTAINING THE DATA This section describes DQO Process Step 7, the last step in the DQO Process. The purpose of this step is to identify an optimal design for obtaining the data. An optimal sampling design is one that obtains the requisite information from the samples for the lowest cost and still satisfies the DQOs. You can optimize the sampling design by performing five activities that are described in detail in this section. These activities are based on those described in Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process EPA QA/ G­ 4 (USEPA 2000b), but they have been modified to more specifically address RCRA waste­ related studies. In this final planning step, combine the data collection design information with the other outputs of the DQO Process and document the approach in a planning document such as a QAPP, WAP, or similar planning document. As part of this step, it may be necessary to work through Step 7 more than once after revisiting the first six steps of the DQO Process. 5.1 Review the Outputs of the First Six Steps of the DQO Process Each of the steps in the DQO Process has a series of outputs that include qualitative and quantitative information about the study. The outputs of the first six steps of the DQO Process, as described in Section 4, serve as inputs to DQO Step 7. Review the existing information and DQO outputs (see Table 5). Determine if any data gaps exist and determine whether filling those gaps is critical to completion of the project. Data gaps can be filled by means of a "preliminary study" or "pilot study." A preliminary study or pilot can include collection of samples to obtain preliminary estimates of the mean and standard deviation. In addition, a preliminary study can help you verify waste or site conditions, identify unexpected conditions or materials present, gain familiarization with the waste and facility operations, identify how the waste can be accessed, check and document the physical state of the material to be sampled, and identify potential health and safety hazards that may be present. Review the potential sources of variability and bias (" error") that might be introduced in the sampling design and measurement processes. See Section 6 for a discussion of sources of error in sampling and analysis. Step 7: Optimize the Design for Collecting the Data Purpose To identify a resource­ effective data collection design for generating data that are expected to satisfy the DQOs. Activities ° Review the outputs of the first six steps of the DQO Process (see Section 5.1). ° Consider various data collection design options, including sampling and analytical design alternatives (see Section 5.2), and composite sampling options (see Section 5.3). ° For each data collection design alternative, determine the appropriate number of samples (see Section 5.4 or 5.5). ° Select the most resource­ effective design that satisfies all of the data needs for the least costs (see Section 5.6). ° Prepare a QAPP, WAP, or similar planning document as needed to satisfy the project and regulatory requirement (see Section 5.7). 51 5.2 Consider Data Collection Design Options Data collection design incorporates two interdependent activities ­­ the sample collection design and analytical design. Sampling Design: In developing a sampling design, you consider various strategies for selecting the locations, times, and components for sampling, and you define appropriate sample support. Examples of sampling designs include simple random, stratified random, systematic, and judgmental sampling. In addition to sampling designs, make sure your organization has documented standard operation procedures (SOPs) that describe the steps to be followed when implementing a sampling activity (e. g., equipment preparation, sample collection, decontamination). For guidance on suggested content and format for SOPs, refer to Guidance for the Preparing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) EPA QA/ G­ 6 (USEPA 2001c). Sampling QA/ QC activities also should be part of sampling design. Activities used to document, measure, and control data quality include project­ specific quality controls (e. g., duplicate samples, equipment blanks, field blanks, and trip blanks) and the associated quality assessments (e. g., audits, reviews) and assurances (e. g., corrective actions, reports to management). These activities typically are documented in the QAPP (see Section 5.7 and USEPA 1998a). Analytical Design: In DQO Steps 3 and 5, an Action Level and candidate analytical methods were identified. The information should be used to develop analytical options in terms of cost, method performance, available turnaround times, and QA/ QC requirements. The analytical options can be used as the basis for designing a performance­ based cost­ effective analytical plan (e. g., deciding between lower­ cost field analytical methods and/ or higher cost laboratory methods). Candidate laboratories should have adequate SOPs that describe the steps to be followed when implementing an analytical activity (e. g., sample receipt procedures, subsampling, sample preparation, cleanup, instrumental analysis, data generation and handling). If field analytical techniques are used, hard copies of the analytical methods or SOPs should be available in the field. Refer to Chapter Two of SW­ 846 for guidance on the selection of analytical methods. The goal of this step is to find cost­ effective design alternatives that balance the number of samples and the measurement performance, given the feasible choices for sample designs and measurement methods. Sampling design is the "where, when, and how" component of the planning process. In the context of waste sampling under RCRA, there are two categories of sampling designs: (1) probability sampling and (2) authoritative (nonprobability) sampling. The choice of a sampling design should be made after consideration of the DQOs and the regulatory requirements. Probability sampling refers to sampling designs in which all parts of the waste or media under study have a known probability of being included in the sample. In cases in which all parts of the waste or media are not accessible for sampling, the situation should be documented so its potential impacts can be addressed in the assessment phase. Probability samples can be of various types, but in some way, they all make use of randomization, which allows probability statements to be made about the quality of estimates derived from the resultant data. 52 Probability sampling designs provide the ability to reliably estimate variability, the reproducibility of the study (within limits), and the ability to make valid statistical inferences. Five types of probability sampling designs are described in Sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.5: ° Simple random sampling ° Stratified random sampling ° Systematic sampling ° Ranked set sampling ° Sequential sampling. A strategy that can be used to improve the precision (reproducibility) of most sampling designs is composite sampling. Composite sampling is not a sampling design in and of itself, rather composite sampling is a strategy used as part of a probability sampling design or an authoritative sampling design. Composite sampling is discussed in Section 5.3. One common misconception of probability sampling procedures is that these procedures preclude the use of important prior information. Indeed, just the opposite is true. An efficient sampling design is one that uses all available prior information to help design the study. Information obtained during DQO Step 3 (" Identify Inputs to the Decision") and DQO Step 4 (" Define the Study Boundaries") should prove useful at this stage. One of the activities suggested in DQO Step 4 is to segregate the waste stream or media into less heterogeneous subpopulations as a means of segregating variability. To determine if this activity is appropriate, it is critical to have an understanding of the various kinds of heterogeneity the constituent of concern exhibits within the waste or media (Pitard 1993). Making assumptions that a waste stream is homogeneous can result in serious sampling errors. In fact, some authors suggest the word "homogeneous" be removed from our sampling vocabulary (Pitard 1993, Myers 1997). Table 6 provides a summary of sampling designs discussed in this guidance along with conditions for their use, their advantages, and their disadvantages. Figure 13 provides a graphical representation of the probability sampling designs described in this guidance. A number of other sampling designs are available that might perform better for your particular situation. Examples include cluster sampling and double sampling. If an alternative sampling design is required, review other publications such as Cochran (1977), Gilbert (1987), USEPA (2000c) and consult a professional statistician. Sampling Over Time or Space? An important feature of probability sampling designs is that they can be applied along a line of time or in space (see Figure 13) or both (Gilbert 1987): Time Sampling designs applied over time can be described by a one­ dimensional model that corresponds to flowing streams such as the following: ° Solid materials on a conveyor belt ° A liquid stream, pulp, or slurry moving in a pipe or from a discharge point (e. g., from the point of waste generation) ° Continuous elongated piles (Pitard 1993). Space For practical reasons, sampling of material over a threedimensional space is best addressed as though the material consists of a series of overlapping twodimensional planes of more­ or­ less uniform thickness (Pitard 1993, Gy 1998). This is the case for obtaining samples from units such as the following: ° Drums, tanks, or impoundments containing single or multi­ phasic liquid wastes ° Roll­ off bins, relatively flat piles, or other storage units ° Landfills, soil at a land treatment unit, or a SWMU. 53 Table 6. Guidance for Selection of Sampling Designs Sampling Design Appropriate Conditions for Use Advantages Limitations Probability Sampling Simple Random Sampling (Section 5.2.1) Useful when the population of interest is relatively homogeneous (i. e., there are no major patterns or "hot spots" expected). ° Provides statistically unbiased estimates of the mean, proportions, and the variability. ° Easy to understand and implement. ° Least preferred if patterns or trends are known to exist and are identifiable. ° Localized clustering of sample points can occur by random chance. Stratified Random Sampling (Section 5.2.2) Most useful for estimating a parameter (e. g., the mean) of wastes exhibiting high heterogeneity (e. g., there are distinct portions or components of the waste with high and low constituent concentrations or characteristics). ° Ensures more uniform coverage of the entire target population. ° Potential for achieving greater precision in estimates of the mean and variance. ° May reduce costs over simple random and systematic sampling designs because fewer samples may be required. ° Enables computation of reliable estimates for population subgroups of special interest. ° Requires some prior knowledge of the waste or media to define strata and to obtain a more precise estimate of the mean. ° Statistical procedures for calculating the number of samples, the mean, and the variance are more complicated than for simple random sampling. Systematic Sampling (Section 5.2.3) Useful for estimating spatial patterns or trends over time. ° Preferred over simple random when sample locations are random within each systematic block or interval. ° Practical and easy method for designating sample locations. ° Ensures uniform coverage of site, unit, or process. ° May be lower cost than simple random sampling because it is easier to implement. ° May be misleading if the sampling interval is aligned with the pattern of contamination, which could happen inadvertently if there is inadequate prior knowledge of the pattern of contamination. ° Not truly random, but can be modified through use of the "random within blocks" design. 54 Table 6. Guidance for Selection of Sampling Designs (Continued) Sampling Design Appropriate Conditions for Use Advantages Limitations Probability Sampling (continued) Ranked Set Sampling (Section 5.2.4) ° Useful for reducing the number of samples required. ° Useful when the cost of analysis is much greater than the cost of collecting samples. ° Inexpensive auxiliary variable (based on expert knowledge or measurement) is needed and can be used to rank randomly selected population units with respect to the variable of interest. ° Useful if the ranking method has a strong relationship with accurate measurements. ° Can reduce analytical costs. ° Requires expert knowledge of waste or process or use of auxiliary quantitative measurements to rank population units. Sequential Sampling (Section 5.2.5) ° Applicable when sampling and/ or analysis are quite expensive, when information concerning sampling and/ or measurement variability is lacking, when the waste and site characteristics of interest are stable over the time frame of the sampling effort, or when the objective of the sampling effort is to test a specific hypothesis. ° May not be especially useful if multiple waste characteristics are of interest or if rapid decision making is necessary. ° Can reduce the number of samples required to make a decision. ° Allows a decision to be made with less sampling if there is a large difference between the two populations or between the true value of the parameter of interest and the standard. ° If the concentration of the constituent of concern is only marginally different from the action level, sequential procedures will require an increasing number of samples approaching that required for other designs such as simple random or systematic sampling. 55 Table 6. Guidance for Selection of Sampling Designs (Continued) Sampling Design Appropriate Conditions for Use Advantages Limitations Authoritative Sampling Judgmental (Section 5.2.6.1) ° Useful for generating rough estimates of the average concentration or typical property. ° To obtain preliminary information about a waste stream or site to facilitate planning or to gain familiarity with the waste matrix for analytical purposes. ° To assess the usefulness of samples drawn from a small portion of the waste or site. ° To screen samples in the field to identify "hot" samples for subsequent analysis in a laboratory. ° Can be very efficient with sufficient knowledge of the site or waste generation process. ° Easy to do and explain. ° The utility of the sampling design is highly dependent on expert knowledge of waste. ° Nonprobability­ based so inference to the general population is difficult. ° Cannot determine reliable estimates of variability. Biased (Section 5.2.6.2) ° Useful to estimate "worst­ case" or "best­ case" conditions (e. g., to identify the composition of a leak, spill, or waste of unknown composition). 56 Sampling Over Space (two­ dimensional plan view) Sampling Over Time or Along a Transect onedimensional Simple Random Sampling (a) Simple Random Sampling (b) Stratified Random Sampling Strata high medium low (c) Strata Stratified Random Sampling high medium low (d) Systematic Grid Sampling (e) Systematic Sampling (f) Random Sampling Within Blocks (g) Random Sampling Within Segments (h) Figure 13. Probability sampling designs over space or along an interval (modified after Cochran 1977 and Gilbert 1987) 57 Box 3. Simple Random Sampling: Procedure 1. Divide the area of the study into N equal­ size grids, intervals (if sampling over time), or other units. The spacing between adjacent sampling locations should be established in the DQOs, but the length should be measurable in the field with reasonable accuracy. The total number of possible sampling locations (N) should be much larger than n (the number of samples to be collected).* 2. Assign a series of consecutive numbers to each location between 1 and N. 3. Draw n integers between 1 and N from a random number table or use the random number function on a hand­ held calculator (i. e., generate a random number between 0 and 1 and multiply the number by N). 4. Collect samples at each of the n locations or intervals. * For additional guidance on calculating spacing between sampling locations, see Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of Cleanup Standards, Volume I: Soil and Solid Media (USEPA 1989a). 5.2.1 Simple Random Sampling The simplest type of probability sampling is simple random sampling (without replacement), in which every possible sampling unit in the target population has an equal chance of being selected. Simple random samples, like the other samples, can be either samples in space (Figure 13( a)) or in time (Figure 13( b)) and are often appropriate at an early stage of an investigation in which little is known about nonrandom variation within the waste generation process or the site. All of the sampling units should have equal volume or mass, and ideally be of the same shape and orientation if applicable (i. e., they should have the same "sample support"). With a simple random sample, the term "random" should not be interpreted to mean haphazard; rather, it has the explicit meaning of equiprobable selection. Simple random samples are generally developed through use of a random number table (found in many statistical text books), a random number function on a hand­ held calculator, or by a computer. One possible disadvantage of pure random sampling is that localized clustering of sample points can occur. If this occurs, one option is to select a new random time or location for the sample. Spatial or temporal biases could result if unknown trends, patterns, or correlations are present. In such situations, stratified random sampling or systematic sampling are better options. 5.2.2 Stratified Random Sampling In stratified random sampling, a heterogeneous unit, site, or process is divided into nonoverlapping groups called strata. Each stratum should be defined so that internally it is relatively homogeneous (that is, the variability within each stratum is less than the variability observed over the entire population) (Gilbert 1987). After each stratum is defined, then simple random sampling is used within each stratum (see Figure 13( c) and 15( d)). For very heterogeneous wastes, stratified random sampling can be used to obtain a more efficient estimate of the parameter of interest (such as the mean) than can be obtained from simple random sampling. It is important to note that stratified random sampling, as described in this guidance, can be used when the objective is to make a decision about the whole population or decision unit. If the objective is to determine of a solid waste is a hazardous waste or to measure attainment of a treatment standard for a hazardous waste, then any obvious "hot spots" or high concentration wastes should be characterized separately from low concentration wastes to minimize mixing of 58 Box 4. Stratified Random Sampling: Procedure 1. Use prior knowledge of the waste stream or site to divide the target population into L nonoverlapping strata such that the variability within stratum is less than the variability of the entire population (for example, see Figure 13c and Figure 13d). The strata can represent area, volume, mass, or time intervals. 2. Assign a weight to each stratum. The value Wh hth of each should be determined based on its relative Wh importance to the data user, or it can be the proportion of the volume, mass, or area of the waste that is in stratum . h 3. Conduct random sampling within each stratum. hazardous waste with nonhazardous wastes and to prevent impermissible dilution (see also Appendix C). If the objective of the sampling effort is to identify nonrandom spatial patterns (for example, to create a map of contamination in shallow soils), then consider the use of a geostatistical technique to evaluate the site. In stratified random sampling it is usually necessary to incorporate prior knowledge and professional judgment into a probabilistic sampling design. Generally, wastes or units that are "alike" or anticipated to be "alike" are placed together in the same stratum. Units that are contiguous in space (e. g., similar depths) or time are often grouped together into the same stratum, but characteristics other than spatial or temporal proximity can be employed. For example, you could stratify a waste based on particle size (such that relatively large pieces of contaminated debris are assigned to one stratum and unconsolidated fines assigned to a separate stratum). This is called stratification by component. See Appendix C of this guidance for additional information on stratification, especially as a strategy for sampling heterogeneous wastes, such as debris. In stratified random sampling a decision must be made regarding the allocation of samples among strata. When chemical variation within each stratum is known, samples can be allocated among strata using optimum allocation in which more samples are allocated to strata that are large, more variable internally, or cheaper to sample (Cochran 1977, Gilbert 1987). An alternative is to use proportional allocation. In proportional allocation, the sampling effort in each stratum is directly proportional to the size (for example, the mass) of the stratum. See Section 5.4.2 for guidance on determining optimum and proportional allocation of samples to strata. There are several advantages to stratified random sampling. Stratified random sampling: ° Ensures more uniform coverage of the entire target population ° Ensures that subareas that contribute to overall variability are included in the sample ° Achieves greater precision in certain estimation problems ° Generally will be more cost­ effective than simple random sampling even when imperfect information is used to form the strata. There are also some disadvantages to stratified random sampling. Stratified random sampling is slightly more difficult to implement in the field and statistical calculations for stratified sampling are more complex than for simple random sampling (e. g., due to the use of weighting factors and more complex equations for the appropriate number of samples). 59 Box 5: Systematic Sampling: Procedure Sampling Over Space 1. Determine the size of the area to be sampled. 2. Denote the surface area of the sample area by . A 3. Assuming a square grid is used, calculate the length of spacing between grid nodes (L) L A n = where n is the number of samples. The distance L should be rounded to the nearest unit that can be easily measured in the field. 4. To determine the sampling locations, randomly select an initial sampling point within the area to be sampled. Using this location as one intersection of two gridlines, construct gridlines parallel to the original grid and separated by distance L. 5. Collect samples at each grid node (line intersection) (see Figure 13e). Alternatively, randomly select a sampling point within each grid block (see Figure 13g). Sampling Along a Line (e. g., Over Time) 1. Determine the start time and point and the total length of time (N) over which the samples will be collected. 2. Decide how many samples (n) will be collected over the sampling period. 3. Calculate a sampling interval where . k N n = 4. Randomly select a start time and collect a sample every kth interval until n samples have been obtained (see Figure 13f). Alternatively, randomly select a sampling point within each interval (Figure 13h). 5.2.3 Systematic Sampling Systematic sampling entails taking samples at a preset interval of time or in space and using a randomly selected time or location as the first sampling point (Gilbert 1987). Systematic sampling over space involves establishing a two­ dimensional grid of the unit or waste under investigation (Figure 13( e)). The orientation of the grid is sometimes chosen randomly and various types of systematic samples are possible. For example, points may be arranged in a pattern of squares (rectangular grid sampling) or a pattern of equilateral triangles (triangular grid sampling). The result of either approach is a simple pattern of equally spaced points at which sampling is to be performed. As shown in Figure 13( f), systematic sampling also can be conducted along a transect (every five feet, for example), along time intervals (every hour, for example), or by flow or batches (every 10,000 gallons, for example) (King 1993). The systematic sampling approach is attractive because it can be easily implemented in the field, but it has some limitations such as not being truly random. You can improve on this sampling design by using random sampling within each grid block (Figure 13( g)) or within each time interval (Figure 13( h)). This approach maintains the condition of equiprobability during the sampling event (Myers 1997) and can be considered a form of stratified random sampling in which each of the boundaries of the strata are arbitrarily defined (rather than using prior information) and only one random sample is taken per stratum (Gilbert 1987). This approach is advantageous because it avoids potential problems caused by cycles or trends. Systematic sampling also is preferred when one of the objectives is to locate "hot spots" within a site or otherwise map the pattern of concentrations over an area (e. g., using geostatistical techniques). Even without using geostatistical methods, "hot spots" or other patterns could be identified by using a systematic design (see "ELIPGRID" software in Appendix H and Gilbert 1987, page 119). On the other hand, the systematic sampling design should be used with caution whenever there is a possibility of some type of cyclical pattern in the waste unit or 60 A AAA t1 t2 t3 Time Concentration 0 Period * * * ** B BB B BB * Mean Concentration Figure 14. Potential pitfall of systematic sampling over time: cyclic trend combined with a systematic sampling design (after Cochran 1977 and Gilbert 1987) process that might match the sampling frequency, especially processes being measured over time (such as discharges from a pipe or material on a conveyor). Figure 14 illustrates the potential disadvantage of using systematic sampling when cyclic trends are present. When there is a cyclic trend in a waste generation process, using a uniform pattern of sampling points can result in samples with very unusual properties. The sets of points labeled "A" and "B" are systematic samples for which the sampling intervals are one period and onehalf period, respectively. The points labeled "A" would result in a biased estimate of the mean but a sampling variance of zero. The points labeled "B" would result in an unbiased estimate of the mean with very small variance, even a zero variance if the starting point happened to be aligned exactly with the mean. 5.2.4 Ranked Set Sampling Ranked set sampling (RSS) (McIntyre 1952) can create a set of samples that at a minimum is equivalent to a simple random sample, but can be as much as two to three times more efficient than simple random sampling. This is because RSS uses the availability of expert knowledge or an inexpensive surrogate measurement or auxiliary variable that is correlated with the more expensive measurement of interest. The auxiliary variable can be a qualitative measure, such as visual inspection for color or an inexpensive quantitative (or semi­ quantitative) measure that can be obtained from a field instrument such as a photoionization detector for volatile organics or an X­ ray fluorescence analyzer for elemental analysis. RSS exploits this correlation to obtain a sample that is more representative of the population than would be obtained by random sampling, thereby leading to more precise estimates of the population parameters than random sampling. RSS is similar to other probabilistic sampling designs such as simple random sampling in that sampling points are identified and samples are collected. In RSS, however, only a subset of the samples are selected for analysis. RSS consists of creating m groups, each of size m (for a total of "m x m" initial samples), then ranking the surrogate from largest to smallest within each group. One sample from each group is then selected according to a specified procedure and these m samples are analyzed for the more expensive measurement of interest (see Box 6 and Figure 15). The true mean concentration of the characteristic of interest is estimated by the arithmetic sample mean of the measured samples (e. g., by Equation 1). The population variance and standard deviation also are estimated by the traditional equations (e. g., by Equations 2 and 3). For additional information on RSS, see USEPA 1995b, USEPA 2000c, and ASTM D 6582 Standard Guide for Ranked Set Sampling: Efficient Estimation of a Mean Concentration in Environmental Sampling. 61 5.2.5 Sequential Sampling In sequential testing procedures (Wald 1973), sampling is performed by analyzing one (or more) sample( s) at a time until enough data have been collected to meet the statistical confidence level that the material does not exceed the critical level. The expected sample size, using this sequential procedure, can be approximately 30­ to 60­ percent lower than a corresponding fixed sample size test with the same power. The sequential procedure is especially helpful in situations in which the contamination is very high or very low relative to the action level. In these situations, the sequential procedure will quickly accumulate enough evidence to conclude that the waste or site either meets or fails to meet the standard. Figure 16 shows how the procedure operates in a simple example for determining the mean concentration of a constituent of concern in soil. This particular example involves clean closure of a waste management unit, however, the approach could be used for other situations in which the mean is the parameter of interest. The procedure consists of analyzing groups of samples and calculating the mean and 80­ percent confidence interval (or upper 90­ percent confidence limit) for the mean after analysis of each group of samples. The horizontal axis represents the number of sample units evaluated. The vertical axis represents the concentration of the contaminant; plotted are the mean and 80­ percent confidence interval after analysis of n samples. The , against which the sample is to be judged, is shown as a horizontal line. AL The sampled units are analyzed first in a small lot (e. g., five samples). After each evaluation the mean and confidence interval on the mean are determined (point "a"). If the 90­ percent UCL on the mean value stays above the critical value, , after successive increments are analyzed, AL the soil in the unit cannot be judged to attain the action level (point "b"). If the UCL goes below Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Rank 1 234 Sample sent for analysis Sample ignored m = 4 For example, if 12 samples are needed, the process is repeated 2 more times using fresh samples. Figure 15. Ranked set sampling. After the samples are ranked in order from lowest to highest, a sample is selected for analysis from Set 1 with Rank 1, from Set 2 with Rank 2, etc. Box 6. Ranked Set Sampling: Procedure 1. Identify some auxiliary characteristic by which samples can be ranked in order from lowest to highest (e. g., by use of a low­ cost field screening method). 2. Randomly select samples m m × from the population (e. g., by using simple random sampling). 3. Arrange these samples into sets of m size . m 4. Within each set, rank the samples by using only the auxiliary information on the samples. 5. Select the samples to be analyzed as follows (see Figure 17): ° In Set 1, select the sample with rank 1 ° In Set 2, select the sample with rank 2, etc ... ° In Set , select the unit with rank m . m 6. Repeat Steps 1 through 5 for cycles to obtain a total of samples for analysis. r n mr = 62 a b c d Mean calculated from n samples AL ­ Risk­ based action level Confidence Interval 5 10 20 40 Concentration AL Soil does not attain AL Soil attains AL Cumulative number of samples (n) Figure 16. Example of sequential testing for determining if concentrations of a constituent of concern in soil at a closed waste management unit are below a risk­ based action level (AL). the critical value line, it may be concluded that the soil attains the standard. In the figure, the total number of samples is successively increased until the 90­ percent UCL falls below the critical level (points "c" and "d"). A sequential sampling approach also can be used to test a percentile against a standard. A detailed description of this method is given in Chapter 8 of Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of Cleanup Standards Volume 1: Soil and Solid Media (USEPA 1989a). In sequential sampling, the number of samples is not fixed a priori; rather, a statistical test is performed after each analysis to arrive at one of three possible decisions: reject the hypothesis, accept the hypothesis, or perform another analysis. This strategy is applicable when sampling and/ or analyses are quite expensive, when information concerning sampling and/ or measurement variability is lacking, when the waste and site characteristics of interest are stable over the time frame of the sampling effort, or when the objective of the sampling effort is to test a specific hypothesis. It may not be especially useful if multiple waste characteristics are of interest or if rapid decision making is necessary. In planning for a sequential sampling program, the following considerations are important: ° Pre­ planning the effort between the field and laboratory, including developing a system of pre­ planned paperwork and sample containers ° Arranging for a system of rapid delivery of samples to the laboratory ° Providing rapid turnaround in the laboratory ° Rapidly returning data to the planners, supervisors, and others responsible for decision making. If the sequential sampling program is carried out using field methods (e. g., portable detectors), much of the inconvenience involved with shipping and return of results can be avoided. 5.2.6 Authoritative Sampling Authoritative sampling is a nonstatistical sampling design because it does not assign an equal probability of being sampled to all portions of the population. This type of sampling should be considered only when the objectives of the investigation do not include the estimation of a population parameter. For example, authoritative sampling might be appropriate when the objective of a study is to identify specific locations of leaks, or when the study is focused solely 63 on the sampling locations themselves. The validity of the data gathered with authoritative sampling is dependent on the knowledge of the sampler and, although valid data sometimes can be obtained, it is not recommended for the chemical characterization of wastes when the parameter of interest (such as the mean) is near the action level. Authoritative sampling (also known as judgmental sampling, biased sampling, nonprobability sampling, nonstatistical sampling, purposive sampling, or subjective sampling) may be appropriate under circumstances such as the following: ° You need preliminary information about a waste stream or site to facilitate planning or to gain familiarity with the waste matrix for analytical purposes. ° You are conducting sampling for a RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) to identify a potential or actual release to the environment. ° You have encountered a spill of an unknown chemical and need to determine the chemical makeup of the spilled material. ° You have access to only small portions of the population and judgment is applied to assess the usefulness of samples drawn from the small portion. ° You are screening samples in the field, using an appropriate field method, to identify "hot" samples for subsequent analysis in a laboratory. ° You are sampling to support case development for an enforcement agency or to "prove the positive" (see also Section 2.2.4). With authoritative sampling, it is not possible to accurately estimate the population variance. Also, due to its subjective nature, the use of authoritative sampling by the regulated community to demonstrate compliance with regulatory standards generally is not advisable except in those cases in which a small volume of waste is in question or where the concentration is either well above or well below the regulatory threshold. The ASTM recognizes two types of authoritative sampling: judgmental sampling and biased sampling (ASTM D 6311). 5.2.6.1 Judgmental Sampling Judgmental sampling is a type of authoritative sampling. The goal of judgmental sampling is to use process or site knowledge to choose one or more sampling locations to represent the "average" concentration or "typical" property. Judgmental sampling designs can be cost­ effective if the people choosing the sampling locations have sufficient knowledge of the waste. If the people choosing the sampling locations intentionally distort the sampling by a prejudiced selection, or if their knowledge is wanting, judgmental sampling can lead to incorrect and sometimes very costly decisions. Accurate and useful data can be generated from judgmental sampling more easily if the population is relatively homogeneous and the existence of any strata and their boundaries is known. The disadvantages of judgmental sampling designs follow: 1 Some authors use the term "discrete sample" to refer to an individual sample that is used to form a composite sample. The RCRA regulations often use the term "grab sample." For the purpose of this guidance, the terms "discrete," "grab," and "individual" sample have the same meaning. 64 ° It can be difficult to demonstrate that prejudice was not employed in sampling location selection ° Variances calculated from judgmental samples may be poor estimates of the actual population variance ° Population statistics cannot be generated from the data due to the lack of randomness. An example application of judgement sampling is given in Appendix C of Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process for Hazardous Waste Site Operations (USEPA 2000a). 5.2.6.2 Biased Sampling Biased sampling is the type of authoritative sampling that intends not to estimate average concentrations or typical properties, but to estimate "worst" or "best" cases (ASTM D 6051­ 96). The term "biased," as used here, refers to the collection of samples with expected very high or very low concentrations. For example, a sample taken at the source of a release could serve as an estimate of the "worst­ case" concentration found in the affected media. This information would be useful in identifying the constituent of concern and estimating the maximum level of contamination likely to be encountered during a cleanup. At times, it may be helpful to employ a "best case" or both a "best­ case" and "worst­ case" biased sampling approach. For example, if there is a range of wastes and process knowledge can be used to identify the wastes likely to have the lowest and highest contamination levels, then these two extremes could be sampled to help define the extent of the problem. Biased sampling, while having the ability to cost­ effectively generate information, has similar disadvantages to that of judgmental sampling. 5.3 Composite Sampling Composite sampling is a strategy in which multiple individual or "grab" samples (from different locations or times) are physically combined and mixed into a single sample so that a physical, rather than a mathematical, averaging takes place. 1 Figure 17 illustrates the concept of composite samples. For a well­ formed composite, a single measured value should be similar to the mean of measurements of the individual components of the composite (Fabrizio, et al. 1995). Collection of multiple composite samples can provide improved sampling precision and reduce the total number of analyses required compared to noncomposite sampling. This strategy is sometimes employed to reduce analysis costs when analysis costs are large relative to sampling costs. The appropriateness of using composite sampling will be highly dependent on the DQOs (Myers 1997), the constituent of concern, and the regulatory requirements. To realize the full benefits of composite sampling, field and laboratory personnel must carefully 65 Composite Individual Field Samples Composite Figure 17. Forming composite samples from individual samples (from USEPA 1995c). follow correct procedures for sample collection, mixing, and subsampling (see Sections 6 and 7). 5.3.1 Advantages and Limitations of Composite Sampling A detailed discussion of the advantages and limitations of composite sampling is presented in the Standard Guide for Composite Sampling and Field Subsampling for Environmental Waste Management Activities (ASTM D 6051­ 96) and EPA's Guidance for Choosing a Sampling Design for Environmental Data Collection, EPA QA/ G­ 5S (USEPA 2000c). Additional information on composite sampling can be found in Edland and van Belle (1994), Gilbert (1987), Garner, et al. (1988 and 1989), Jenkins, et al. (1996 and 1997), Myers (1997), and USEPA (1995c). Advantages Three principal advantages to using composite sampling (see ASTM D 6051­ 96) follow: ° It can improve the precision (i. e., reduce between­ sample variance) of the estimate of the mean concentration of a constituent in a waste or media (see Section 5.3.5) ° It can reduce the cost of estimating a mean concentration, especially in cases in which analytical costs greatly exceed sampling costs or in which analytical capacity is limited ° A "local" composite sample, formed from several increments obtained from a localized area, is an effective way to increase the sample support, which reduces grouping and segregation errors (see also Section 6.2.2.2) ° It can be used to determine whether the concentration of a constituent in one or more individual samples used to form a composite might exceed a fixed standard (i. e., is there a "hot spot"?) (see Section 5.3.6). Limitations Composite sampling should not be used if the integrity of the individual sample values changes because of the physical mixing of samples (USEPA 1995c). The integrity of individual sample values could be affected by chemical precipitation, exsolvation, or volatilization during the pooling and mixing of samples. For example, volatile constituents can be lost upon mixing of samples or interactions can occur among sample constituents. In the case of volatile constituents, compositing of individual sample extracts within a laboratory environment may be a reasonable alternative to mixing individual samples as they are collected. 66 Listed below are some additional conditions under which compositing usually is not advantageous: ° When regulations require the use of discrete or grab samples. For example, compliance with the LDR numeric treatment standards for non­ wastewaters typically is to be determined using "grab" samples rather than composite samples. Grab samples processed, analyzed, and evaluated individually normally reflect maximum process variability, and thus reasonably characterize the range of treatment system performance. Typically, grab samples are used to evaluate LDR non­ wastewaters and composite samples are used to evaluate LDR wastewaters, except when evaluating wastewaters for metals (D004 through D011) for which grab samples are required [40 CFR 268.40( b)]. ° When data users require specific data points to generate high­ end estimates or to calculate upper percentiles ° When sampling costs are much greater than analytical costs ° When analytical imprecision outweighs sampling imprecision and population heterogeneity ° When individual samples are incompatible and may react when mixed ° When properties of discrete samples, such as pH or flash point, may change qualitatively upon mixing. (Compositing of individual samples from different locations to be tested for hazardous waste characteristic properties, such as corrosivity, reactivity, ignitability, and toxicity, is not recommended) ° When analytical holding times are too short to allow for analysis of individual samples, if testing of individual samples is required later (for example, to identify a "hot" sample) (see Section 5.3.6) ° When the sample matrix impedes correct homogenization and/ or subsampling ° When there is a need to evaluate whether the concentrations of different contaminants are correlated in time or space. 5.3.2 Basic Approach To Composite Sampling The basic approach to composite sampling involves the following steps: ° Identify the boundaries of the waste or unit. The boundaries may be spatial, temporal, or based on different components or strata in the waste (such as battery casings and soil) ° Conduct sampling in accordance with the selected sampling design and collect a set of n x g individual samples where g is the number of individual samples used to form each composite and n is the number of such composites 2 By the Central Limit Theorem (CLT), we expect composite samples to generate normally distributed data. The CLT states that if a population is repeatedly sampled, the means of all the sampling events will tend to form a normal distribution, regardless of the shape of the underlying distribution. 67 A B C C B A B A C n g = 9 individual field samples na nb nc n = 3 composite samples Decision Unit Boundary Subsamples analyzed xa xb xc Figure 18. A basic approach to composite sampling. The figure shows how composite sampling can be integrated into a simple random sampling design. Random samples with the same letter are randomly grouped into composite samples to obtain an estimate of the unit­ wide mean. ° Group either randomly or systematically the set of n x g individual samples into n composite samples and thoroughly mix and homogenize each composite sample ° Take one or more subsamples from each composite ° Analyze each subsample for the constituent( s) of concern. The n composite samples can then be used to estimate the mean and variance (see Section 5.3.5) or identify "hot spots" in the waste (see Section 5.3.6). 5.3.3 Composite Sampling Designs Composite sampling can be implemented as part of a statistical sampling design, such as simple random sampling and systematic sampling. The choice of a sampling design to use with compositing will depend upon the study objectives. 5.3.3.1 Simple Random Composite Sampling Figure 18 shows how composite sampling can be integrated into a simple random sampling design. In this figure, the decision unit could represent any waste or media about which a decision must be made (such as a block of contaminated soil at a SWMU). Randomly positioned field samples are randomly grouped together into composite samples. The set of composite samples can then be used to estimate the mean and the variance. Because the compositing process is a mechanical way of averaging out variabilities in concentrations from location to location over a unit, the resulting concentration data should tend to be more normally distributed than individual samples (Exner, et al. 1985). This is especially advantageous because the assumption of many statistical tests is that the underlying data exhibit an approximately normal distribution. 2 68 A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D Decision Unit Boundary Figure 19. Systematic composite sampling across a unit or site. Samples with the same letter are pooled into composites. A A A A B B B B C C C C D D D D E E E E F F F F Decision Unit Boundary Figure 20. Systematic sampling within grid blocks or intervals. Samples with the same letter are pooled into a composite sample. 5.3.3.2 Systematic Composite Sampling A systematic composite sampling design is shown in Figure 19. The design can be used to estimate the mean concentration because each composite sample is formed from field samples obtained across the entire unit. For example, each field sample collected at the "A" locations is pooled and mixed into one composite sample. The process is then repeated for the "B," "C," and "D" locations. The relative location of each individual field sample (such as "A") should be the same within each block. This design is particularly advantageous because it is easy to implement and explain and it provides even coverage of the unit. Exner, et al. (1985) demonstrated how this design was used to make cleanup decisions for blocks of soil contaminated with tetrachlorodibenzo­ p­ dioxin. A second type of systematic composite involves collecting and pooling samples from within grid blocks, time intervals, or batches of waste grouped together (see Figure 20). If there is spatial correlation between the grid blocks, compositing within grids can be used to estimate block­ to­ block variability (Myers 1997) or improve the estimate of the mean within a block or interval (if multiple composite samples are collected within each block). In fact, compositing samples collected from localized areas is an effective means to control "short­ range" (small­ scale) heterogeneity (Pitard 1993). When this type of compositing is used on localized areas in lieu of "grab" sampling, it is an attractive option to improve representativeness of individual samples (Jenkins, et al. 1996). Systematic sampling within time intervals could be used in cases in which compositing occurs as part of sample collection (such as sampling of liquid effluent with an autosampling device into a single sample container over a specified time period). 3 ASTM D 6051, Standard Guide for Composite Sampling and Field Subsampling for Environmental Waste Management Activities, also provides a procedure for estimating the precision of a single composite sample. 69 If the individual field sample locations are independent (that is, they have no temporal or spatial correlation), then compositing within blocks can be an efficient strategy for estimating the population mean. If the assumption of sample independence cannot be supported, then an alternative design should be selected if the objective is to estimate the mean. 5.3.4 Practical Considerations for Composite Sampling In creating composite samples from individual field samples, it is possible that a relatively large volume of material will need to be physically mixed at some point ­­ either in the field or in the laboratory. Thorough mixing is especially important when the individual samples exhibit a high degree of heterogeneity. Once the individual samples are mixed, one or more subsamples must be taken because the entire composite sample usually cannot be analyzed directly. A decision must be made as to where the individual samples will be combined into the composite samples. Because large samples (e. g., several kilograms or more) may pose increased difficulties to the field team for containerization and shipping and pose storage problems for the laboratory due to limited storage space, there may be a distinct advantage to performing mixing or homogenization in the field. There are, however, some disadvantages to forming the composite samples in the field. As pointed out by Mason (1992), the benefits of homogenization may be temporary because gravity induced segregation can occur during shipment of the samples. Unless homogenization (mixing), particle size reduction, and subsampling are carried out immediately prior to analysis, the benefits of these actions may be lost. Therefore, if practical, it may be best to leave the mixing and subsampling operations to laboratory personnel. See Section 7.3 of this document and ASTM standards D 6051 and D 6323 for guidance on homogenization, particle size reduction, and subsampling. 5.3.5 Using Composite Sampling To Obtain a More Precise Estimate of the Mean When analytical error is minor compared to sampling error, then composite sampling can be a resource­ efficient mechanism for increasing the precision of estimates of the population mean. If composite sampling is to be used to estimate the mean with a specified level of confidence, then multiple composite samples can be used to estimate the mean and variance. Alternately, confidence limits can be constructed around the sample analysis result for a single composite sample if an estimate of the variance of the fundamental error is available (see Gy 1998, page 73). 3 See Section 6.2.2.1 for a discussion of fundamental error. The population mean ( ) can be estimated from the analysis of composite samples (each µ n made from individual samples). The population mean ( ) is estimated by the sample mean g µ () by x x n xi i n = = 1 1 Equation 6 70 The sample variance ( ) can then be calculated by s 2 s n x x i i n 2 1 2 1 1 = = () Equation 7 Note that Equations 6 and 7 are the same as Equations 1 and 2, respectively, for the mean and variance. When the equations are used for composite sampling, is the measurement value xi from a subsample taken from each composite sample rather than each individual sample. n Use of these equations assumes equal numbers of individual field samples ( ) are used to g form each composite, and equal numbers of subsamples are taken from each composite sample and analyzed. If these assumptions are not correct, an alternative approach described in Gilbert (1987, page 79) can be used. By increasing the number of individual field samples ( ) per composite sample, there will be a g corresponding decrease in the standard error ( ), thus improving the precision of the estimate sx of the mean. Edland and van Belle (1994) show that by doubling the number of individual samples per composite (or laboratory) sample, the expected size of the confidence interval around the mean decreases by a factor of , which is a 29­ percent decrease in the 1 2 / expected width of the confidence interval. One of the key assumptions underlying the above discussion is that variances between the samples greatly exceed the random error variance of the analytical method (Garner, et al. 1988). Williams, et al. (1989) demonstrated the benefits of using composite sampling to obtain a more precise estimate of the mean. One of their objectives was to study the efficiency of using composite sampling as compared to collecting individual samples for the purpose of estimating the mean concentration at a site. Five sites known to have radium contamination in shallow soils were extensively sampled. At each site, shallow soil samples were collected at approximately uniformly spaced points over the entire site. Three types of samples were taken: (1) individual 500­ gram samples, (2) composite samples consisting of ten 50­ gram aliquots uniformly spaced over the site, and (3) composite samples consisting of twenty 25­ gram aliquots uniformly spaced over the site. The samples were measured for 226 Ra. The results indicated the individual samples yielded the least precision, even when more than twice as many individual samples were collected. Sixty­ six individual samples produced a standard error of 1.35, while the thirty 10­ aliquot composites and the thirty 20­ aliquot composite samples produced standard errors of 0.76 and 0.51 respectively. The results demonstrate that composite sampling can produce more precise estimates of the mean with fewer analytical samples. Box 7 provides an example of how a mean and variance can be estimated using composite sampling combined with systematic sampling. 71 5.3.6 Using Composite Sampling To Locate Extreme Values or "Hot Spots" One disadvantage of composite sampling is the possibility that one or more of the individual samples making up the composite could be "hot" (exceed a fixed standard), but remain undetected due to dilution that results from the pooling process. If the sampling objective is to determine if any one or more individual samples is "hot," composite sampling can still be used. 1 n · g = 20 ….. 2 One measurement taken on each composite sample 5 g = 4 n = 5 (composites) t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t17 t18 t19 t20 Sampling Point Waste Preparation Process Fuel Storage Tank Figure 21. Example of systematic composite sampling Box 7. Example of How To Estimate the Mean and Variance Using Systematic Composite Sampling (Assume Samples Are Independent) Under 40 CFR 261.38, a generator of hazardous waste­ derived fuel is seeking an exclusion from the definition of solid and hazardous­ waste. To prepare the one­ time notice under 40 CFR 261.38( c), the generator requires information on the mean and variance of the concentrations of constituents of concern in the waste as generated. The generator elects to use composite samples to estimate the mean and variance of the nonvolatile constituents of concern. Using a systematic sampling design, a composite sample is prepared by taking an individual (grab) sample at regular time intervals t1 through t4. The set of four grab samples are thoroughly mixed to form a composite, and one subsample is taken from each composite for analysis. The process is repeated until five composite samples are formed (see Figure 21). (Note: If the assumption of independent samples cannot be supported, then a simple random design should be used in which the 20 grab samples are randomly grouped to form the five composites). The analytical results for one of the constituents of concern, in ppm, are summarized as follows for the composite samples (n1 through n5): 2.75, 3.71, 3.28, 1.95, and 5.10. Using Equations 6 and 7 for the mean and variance of composite samples, the following results are obtained: x n x ppm s n x x i i n i i n = = = = = + + + + = = = 1 1679 5 3 36 1 1 1 4 0 3721 01225 0 0064 199 303 138 1 2 1 2 . . () . . . ... The standard error is obtained as follows: s s n ppm x = = = 117 5 052 . . 72 A procedure for detecting hot spots using composite sampling is given below. The approach assumes the underlying distribution is normal and the composite samples were formed from equal­ sized individual samples. Let be some "action level" or regulatory threshold that cannot be exceeded in an individual AL sample. Note that must be large relative to the quantitation limit for the constituent of AL concern. For a measurement from a composite sample formed from individual samples, xi g the following rules apply, assuming analytical and sampling error are negligible: ° If , then no single individual sample can be x AL g i < > AL ° If , then at least one must, and as many as all individual samples may, x AL i > be > AL ° If , then at least one of the individual samples must be . x AL g i > g > AL As a general rule, we can say that no more than individual samples can be . g x AL i > AL If one or more of the composites are "hot" (i. e., ), then it might be desirable to go back > AL and analyze the individual samples used to form the composite. Consider saving splits of each individual field sampling so individual samples can be analyzed later, if needed. If compositing is used to identify a hot spot, then the number of samples that make up the composite should be limited to avoid overall dilution below the analytical limit. It is possible for a composite sample to be diluted to a concentration below the quantitation limit if many of the individual samples have concentrations near zero and a single individual sample has a concentration just above the action level. Mason (1992) and Skalski and Thomas (1984) suggest the maximum number of identically sized individual samples ( ) that can be used to g form such a composite should not exceed the action level ( ) divided by the quantitation limit AL ( ). But the relationship of indicates that the theoretical maximum number of QL g ALQL / samples to form a composite can be quite high, especially given a very low quantitation limit. As a practical matter, the number of individual samples used to form a composite should be kept to a minimum (usually between 2 and 10). An example of the above procedure, provided in Box 8, demonstrates how a "hot" drum can be identified through the analysis of just nine samples (five composites plus four individual analyses), resulting in considerable savings in analytical costs over analysis of individual samples from each of the 20 drums. 73 5.4 Determining the Appropriate Number of Samples Needed To Estimate the Mean This section provides guidance for determining the appropriate number of samples ( ) needed n to estimate the mean. The procedures can be used when the objective is to calculate a confidence limit on the mean. If the objective is to estimate a percentile, see Section 5.5. To calculate the appropriate number of samples, it is necessary to assemble existing data identified in DQO Step 3 (" Identify Inputs to the Decision") and Step 6 (" Specify Limits on Decision Errors"). If the parameter of interest is the mean, you can calculate using equations n presented in the following sections or by using EPA's DEFT software (USEPA 2001a). ….. One measurement taken on each composite sample Point of Waste Generation 1 2 5 Composite Samples Grab Samples Waste Figure 22. Composite sampling strategy for locating a "hot" drum Box 8. How To Locate a "Hot Spot" Using Composite Sampling ­ Hypothetical Example A secondary lead smelter produces a slag that under some operating conditions exhibits the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) for lead. At the point of generation, a grab sample of the slag is taken as the slag is placed in each drum. A composite sample is formed from the four grab samples representing a set of four drums per pallet. The process is repeated until five composite samples representing five sets of four drums (20 drums total) have been prepared (see Figure 22). The generator needs to know if the waste in any single drum in a given set of four drums contains lead at a total concentration exceeding 100 ppm. If the waste in any single drum exceeds 100 ppm, then its maximum theoretical TCLP leachate concentration could exceed the regulatory limit of 5 mg/ L. Waste in drums exceeding 100 ppm total lead will be tested using the TCLP to determine if the total leachable lead equals or exceeds the TC regulatory limit. The sample analysis results for total lead are measured as follows (in ppm) in composite samples n1 through n5 : 6, 9, 18, 20, and 45. Using the approach for locating a "hot spot" in a composite sample, we observe that all of the composite samples except for n5 are less than or 100 ppm/ 4 (i. e., 25 AL g / ppm). The result for n5 (45 ppm) is greater than 25 ppm, indicating a potential exceedance of the TC regulatory level. A decision about the set of drums represented by n5 can be made as follows: No more than individual samples can be , or no more than or 1 (round g x AL i > AL () . 4 45 100 18 ppm ppm = down) individual sample exceeds 100 ppm total lead. We now know that it is possible that one of the four drums on the fifth palette exceeds 100 ppm, but we do not know which one. As a practical matter, analysis of all four of the individual samples should reveal the identity of the "hot" drum (if, indeed, one exists); however, the above process of elimination could be repeated on two new composite samples formed from samples taken from just the four drums in question. 4 One exception is when sequential sampling is used in which the number of samples is not fixed a priori; rather, the statistical test is performed after each round of sampling and analysis (see Section 5.2.5). 74 Alternative equations can be found in the statistical literature and guidance, including ASTM (Standard D 6311), Cochran (1977), Gilbert (1987), and USEPA (2000a, 2000b, and 2000d). The equations presented here should yield the approximate minimum number of samples needed to estimate the mean within the precision and confidence levels established in the DQO Process; however, it is prudent to collect a somewhat greater number of samples than indicated by the equations. 4 This is recommended to protect against poor preliminary estimates of the mean and standard deviation, which could result in an underestimate of the appropriate number of samples to collect. For analytes with long holding times (e. g., 6 months), it may be possible to process and store extra samples appropriately until analysis of the initially identified samples is completed and it can be determined if analysis of the additional samples is warranted. It is important to note that the sample size equations do not account for the number or type of control samples (or quality assessment samples) required to support the QC program associated with your project. Control samples may include blanks (e. g., trip, equipment, and laboratory), field duplicates, spikes, and other samples used throughout the data collection process. Refer to Chapter One of SW­ 846 for recommendations on the type and number of control samples needed to support your project. It is best to first determine how each type of control sample is to be used, then to determine the number of that type based on their use (van Ee, et al. 1990). A key assumption for use of the sample size equations is that you have some prior estimate of the total study error, measured as the sample standard deviation ( ) or sample variance ( ). s s 2 Since total study error includes variability associated with the sampling and measurement methods (see Section 6), it is important to understand the relative contributions that sampling and analysis activities make to the overall estimate of variability. Lack of prior information regarding population and measurement variability is one of the most frequently encountered difficulties in sampling. It quickly resembles a "chicken­ and­ the­ egg" question for investigators – you need an estimate of the standard deviation to calculate how many samples you need, yet you cannot derive that estimate without any samples. To resolve this seemingly paradoxical question, two options are available: Option 1. Conduct a pilot study. A pilot study (sometimes called an exploratory or preliminary study) is the preferred method for obtaining estimates of the mean and standard deviation, as well as other relevant information. The pilot study is simply phase one of a multi­ phase sampling effort (Barth, et al. 1989). For some pilot studies, a relatively small number of samples (e. g., four or five or more) may provide a suitable preliminary estimate of the standard deviation. Option 2. Use data from a study of a similar site or waste stream. In some cases, you might be able to use sampling and analysis data from another facility or similar operation that generates the same waste stream and uses the same process. If neither of the above options can provide a suitable estimate of the standard deviation ( ), a s crude approximation of still can be obtained using the following approach adopted from s 75 USEPA 1989a (page 6­ 6). The approximation is based on the judgment of a person knowledgeable of the waste and his or her estimate of the range within which constituent concentrations are likely to fall. Given a range of constituent concentrations in a waste, but lacking the individual data points, an approximate value for may be computed by dividing the s range (the estimated maximum concentration minus the minimum concentration) by 6, or . This approximation method should be used only if no other alternative is s Range /6 available. The approach is based on the assumption that more than 99 percent of all normally distributed measurements will fall within three standard deviations of the mean; therefore, the length of this interval is . 6s 5.4.1 Number of Samples to Estimate the Mean: Simple Random Sampling In Step 6 of the DQO Process (" Specify Limits on Decision Errors"), you established the width of the gray region ( ) and acceptable probabilities for making a decision error ( and ). Using this information, along with an estimate of the standard deviation ( ), calculate the s appropriate number of samples ( ) for simple random sampling using n n z zsz = + + () 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 Equation 8 where = the quantile of the standard normal distribution (from the last row of z1 pth Table G­ 1, Appendix G), where is the probability of making a Type I set in DQO Step 6 (Section 4.6.4). = the quantile of the standard normal distribution (from the last row of z1 pth Table G­ 1, Appendix G), where is the probability of making a Type II error set in DQO Step 6 (Section 4.6.4). = an estimate of the standard deviation. s = the width of the gray region from DQO Step 6. An example application of Equation 8 is presented in Box 9. Two assumptions underlie the use of Equation 8. First, it is assumed that data are drawn from an approximately normal distribution. Second, it is assumed the data are uncorrelated. In correlated data, two or more samples taken close to each other (in time or in space) will have similar concentrations (Gilbert 1987). In situations in which spatial or temporal correlation is expected, some form of systematic sampling is preferred. If the underlying population appears to exhibit a lognormal distribution, normal theory sample size equations (such as Equation 8) still can be used though they will tend to underestimate the minimum number of samples when the geometric standard deviation ( ) is low (e. g., exp( ) sy 2). If the underlying distribution is known to be lognormal, the method given by Land (1971, 1975) and Gilbert (1987) for calculating confidence limits for a lognormal mean can be solved "in reverse" to obtain . (A software tool for performing the calculation, MTCAStat 3.0, is n published by the Washington Department of Ecology. See Appendix H). Also, techniques described by Perez and Lefante (1996 and 1997) can be used to estimate the sample sizes needed to estimate the mean of a lognormal distribution. Otherwise, consult a professional statistician for assistance. 76 Box 9. Number of Samples Required to Estimate the Mean Using Simple Random Sampling: Hypothetical Example Under 40 CFR 261.38, a generator of hazardous waste­ derived fuel is seeking an exclusion from the definition of solid and hazardous­ waste. To prepare the one­ time notice under 40 CFR 261.38( c), the generator plans to conduct waste sampling and analysis to support the exclusion. The output of the first six steps of the DQO Process are summarized below: Step 1: State the Problem: The planning team reviewed the applicable regulations, historical analyses, and process chemistry information. The problem is to determine whether Appendix VIII constituents present in the waste are at concentration levels less than those specified in Table 1 of §261.38. Step 2: Identify the Decision: If the waste attains the specification levels, then it will be judged eligible for the exclusion from the definition of hazardous and solid waste. Step 3: Identify Inputs to the Decision: Sample analysis results are required for a large number of constituents present in the waste, however, most constituents are believed to be present at concentrations well below the specification levels. Historically, benzene concentrations have been most variable, therefore, the planning team will estimate the number of samples required to determine if the specification level for benzene is attained. Step 4: Define the Boundaries: The DQO decision unit is defined as the batch of waste generated over a one­ week period. Samples will be taken as the waste exits the preparation process and prior to storage in a fuel tank (i. e., at the point of generation). Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule: The RCRA regulations at 40 CFR 261.38( c)( 8)( iii)( A) specify the mean as the parameter of interest. The "Action Level" for benzene is specified in Table 1 of §268.38 as 4,100 ppm. If the mean concentration of benzene within the DQO decision unit is less than or equal to 4,100 ppm, then the waste will be considered eligible for the exclusion (for benzene). Otherwise, the waste will not be eligible for the exclusion for benzene. (Note that the demonstration must be made for all Appendix VIII constituents known to be present in the waste). Step 6: Specify Limits on Decision Errors: In the interest of being protective of the environment, the null hypothesis was established as "the mean concentration of benzene within the decision unit boundary exceeds 4,100 ppm," or Ho: mean (benzene) > 4,100 ppm. The boundaries of the gray region were set at the Action Level (4,100 ppm) and at a value less than the Action Level at 3000 ppm. The regulations at §261.38( c)( 8)( iii)( A) specify a Type I (false rejection) error rate ( ) of 0.05. The regulations do not specify a Type II (false acceptance) error rate ( ), but the planning team deemed a false acceptance as of lesser concern than a false rejection, and set the false acceptance rate at 0.25. Sample analysis results from previous sampling and analyses indicate the standard deviation ( ) of benzene concentrations is about 1,200 ppm. s What is the appropriate number of samples to collect and analyze for a simple random sampling design? Solution: Using Equation 8 and the outputs of the first six steps of the DQO Process, the number of samples is determined as: n z zsz = + + = + = () (. () (. .( 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1645+ 0.674) (1200) 4100 3000 1645) 2 7 75 8 round up) where the values for and are obtained from the last row of Table G­ 1 in Appendix G. z1 z1 77 x Wx st h h h L = = 1 5.4.2 Number of Samples to Estimate the Mean: Stratified Random Sampling An important aspect of a stratified random sampling plan is deciding how many samples to collect within each of the strata (Gilbert 1987). There are many ways to design a stratified random sampling plan; the development here makes the following assumptions (refer to Section 5.2.2 for a description of terms and symbols used below): ° Weights for each stratum ( ) are known in advance. One possible way to Wh assign weights to each stratum is to calculate the ratio between the waste volume classified as the stratum and the total waste volume. hth ° The number of possible sample units (i. e., physical samples) of a certain physical size is much larger than the number of sample units that will be collected and analyzed. As a general guide, this assumption should be reasonable as long as the ratio between the stratum waste volume and the volume of the individual samples is at least 100. Otherwise, you may need to consider formulas that include the finite population correction (see Cochran 1977, page 24). ° The number of sample units to be collected and analyzed in each stratum, due to analytical costs and other considerations, generally will be fairly small. ° A preliminary estimate of variability ( ) is available for each stratum. If this is sh 2 not the case, one can use an estimate of the overall variability ( ) as a s 2 substitute for the separate stratum estimates. By ignoring possible differences in the variance characteristics of separate strata, the sample size formulas given below may tend to underestimate the necessary number of samples for each strata ( ). nh Given a set of stratum weights and sample measurements in each stratum, the overall mean ( ) and overall standard error of the mean ( ) (i. e., for the entire waste under study) are xst sxst computed as follows for a stratified random sample: Equation 9 and s W s n x h h L h h st = = 2 1 2 Equation 10 Note that and in these formulas represent the arithmetic mean and sample variance for xh sh 2 the measurements taken within each stratum. In general, there are two approaches for determining the number of samples to take when stratified random sampling is used: optimal allocation and proportional allocation. 78 5.4.2.1 Optimal Allocation In optimal allocation, the number of samples assigned to a stratum ( ) is proportional to the nh relative variability within each stratum and the relative cost of obtaining samples from each stratum. The number of samples can be determined to minimize the variance for a fixed cost or to minimize the cost for a prespecified variance. Optimal allocation requires considerable advance knowledge about the relative variability within each stratum and the costs associated with obtaining samples from each stratum; therefore, we recommend the use of proportional allocation (see below) as an alternative. For more complex situations in which optimal allocation is preferred, consult a statistician or see Cochran (1977, page 96), Gilbert (1987, page 50), or USEPA (1989a (page 6­ 13)). 5.4.2.2 Proportional Allocation In proportional allocation, the number of samples assigned to a stratum ( ) is proportional to nh the stratum size, that is, . To determine the total number of samples ( ) so that a n nW h h = n true difference ( ) between the mean waste concentration and the Action Level can be detected with Type I error rate and Type II error rate , use the following equation: n t t W s df df h h h L = + = 1 1 2 2 2 1 ,, Equation 11 To use this formula correctly, the degrees of freedom ( ) connected with each ­quantile df t (from Table G­ 1, Appendix G) in the above equation must be computed as follows: df W s W s nW h h L h h h h L = = = 2 1 2 2 4 1 1 Equation 12 Because the degrees of freedom also depend on n, the final number of samples must be computed iteratively. Then, once the final total number of samples is computed, the number of samples for each stratum is determined by multiplying the total number of samples by the stratum weight. An example of this approach is presented in Box 10. If only an overall estimate of is available in the preliminary data, Equation 11 reduces to: s 2 n t ts df df = + 1 1 2 2 2 ,, Equation 13 and Equation 12 reduces to df W nW h h h L = = 1 1 2 1 Equation 14 79 Box 10. Number of Samples Required to Estimate the Mean Using Stratified Random Sampling – Proportional Allocation: Hypothetical Example Under the RCRA Corrective Action program, a facility owner has conducted a cleanup of a solid waste management unit (SWMU) in which the contaminant of concern is benzene. The cleanup involved removal of all waste residues, contaminated subsoils, and structures. The facility owner needs to conduct sampling and analysis to confirm that the remaining soils comply with the cleanup standard. Step 1: State the Problem: The planning team needs to confirm that soils remaining in place contain benzene at concentrations below the risk­ based levels established by the authorized state as part of the cleanup. Step 2: Identify the Decision: If the soils attain the cleanup standard, then the land will be used for industrial purposes. Otherwise, additional soil removal will be required. Step 3: Identify Inputs to the Decision: A sampling program will be conducted, and sample analysis results for benzene will be used to make the cleanup attainment determination. Step 4: Define the Boundaries: The DQO decision unit is the top 6 inches of soil within the boundary of the SWMU. Based on prior sample analysis results and field observations, two strata are identified: fine­ grained soils in 20 percent of the unit (" Stratum 1"), and coarse­ grained soils comprising the other 80 percent of the unit (" Stratum 2"). Based on the relative mass of the two strata, a weighting factor is assigned to each stratum such that Wh hth and . W1 02 = . W2 08 = . Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule: The parameter of interest is established as the mean, and the Action Level for benzene is set at 1.5 mg/ kg. If the mean concentration of benzene within the DQO decision unit is less than or equal to 1.5 mg/ kg, then the unit will be considered "clean." Otherwise, another layer of soil will be removed. Step 6: Specify Limits on Decision Errors: In the interest of being protective of the environment, the null hypothesis is established as "the mean concentration of benzene within the decision unit boundary exceeds 1.5 mg/ kg," or Ho: mean (benzene) > 1.5 mg/ kg. The boundaries of the gray region are set at the Action Level (1.5 mg/ kg) and at a value less than the Action Level at 1.0 mg/ kg. The Type I error rate ( ) is set at 0.10 and the Type II error rate ( ) is set at 0.25. Sample analysis results from initial non­ composite samples provided an n = 8 estimate of the overall standard deviation of , and the standard deviations ( ) within each stratum of s = 183 . sh hth and (and and ). s1 25 = . s2 13 = . s1 2 625 = . s2 2 169 = . What is the appropriate number of samples to collect and analyze for a stratified random sampling design? Solution: Using Equation 12 for the degrees of freedom under proportional allocation: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) df1 2 2 2 02 625 08 169 02 625 8 02 1 08 169 8 08 1 2 3 2 = × + × × + × = (. . ) (. . ) .. . .. . . Then, looking up the t­ quantiles (from Table G­ 1, Appendix G) with 2 degree of freedom and taking (i. e., = 05 . 1.5 ppm ­ 1.0 ppm), the total sample size (using Equation 12) works out to [ ] ( ) ( ) n1 2 2 1886 0816 05 02 625 169 76 = + × + 08× = .. . (. . ) (. . ) Since the equations must be solved iteratively, recompute the formulas using . The same calculations give n = 76 and . After two more iterations, the sample size stabilizes at . Using the proportional df 2 48 = n2 41 = n = 42 allocation with one should take 42( 0.2) = 8.4 (round up to 9) measurements from the first stratum and n = 42 42( 0.8) = 33.6 (round up to 34) measurements from the second stratum. Since four samples already were collected from each stratum, at least five additional random samples should be obtained from the first stratum and at least thirty additional random samples should be collected from the second stratum. 80 In the example in Box 10, stratified random sampling provides a more efficient and costeffective design compared to simple random sampling of the same unit. If simple random sampling were used, a total of 52 samples would be required. With stratified random sampling, only 42 samples are required, thereby reducing sampling and analytical costs. 5.4.3 Number of Samples to Estimate the Mean: Systematic Sampling Despite the attractiveness and ease of implementation of systematic sampling plans, whether via a fixed square, rectangular, or triangular grid, or through the use of systematic random sampling, methods for estimating the standard error of the mean are beyond the scope of this guidance (for example, see Cochran 1977) and often involve more advanced geostatistical techniques (for example, see Myers 1997). An alternate approach is to treat the set of systematic samples as though they were obtained using simple random sampling. Such an approach should provide reasonable results as long as there are no strong cyclical patterns, periodicities, or significant spatial correlations between adjacent sample locations. If such features are present or suspected to be present, consultation with a professional statistician is recommended. By regarding the systematic sample as a simple random sample, one can simply use the algorithm and formulas for simple random sampling described in Section 5.4.1 (Equation 8) to estimate the necessary sample size. As with all the sampling designs described in this section, you should have a preliminary estimate of the sample variance before using the sample size equation. 5.4.4 Number of Samples to Estimate the Mean: Composite Sampling In comparison to noncomposite sampling, composite sampling may have the effect of minimizing between­ sample variation, thereby reducing somewhat the total number of composite samples that must be submitted for analysis. The appropriate number of composite samples to be collected from a waste or media can be estimated by Equation 8 for simple random and systematic composite sampling. Equation 11 can be used when composite sampling will be implemented with a stratified random sampling design (using proportional allocation). Any preliminary or pilot study conducted to estimate the appropriate number of composite samples should be generated using the same compositing scheme planned for the confirmatory study. If the preliminary or pilot study data were generated using random "grab" samples rather than composites, then the sample variance ( ) in the s 2 sample size equations should be replaced with where is the number of individual or s g 2 g grab samples used to form each composite (Edland and Van Belle 1994, page 45). Additional guidance on the optimal number of samples required for composite sampling and the number of subsample aliquots required to achieve maximum precision for a fixed cost can be found in Edland and van Belle (1994, page 36 and page 44), Exner, et al. (1985, page 512), and Gilbert (1987, page 78). 81 5.5 Determining the Appropriate Number of Samples to Estimate A Percentile or Proportion This section provides guidance for determining the appropriate number of samples ( ) needed n to estimate an upper percentile or proportion with a prespecified level of confidence. The approaches can be used when the objective is to determine whether the upper percentile is less than a concentration standard or whether a given proportion of the population or decision unit is less than a specified value. Two methods for determining the appropriate number of samples are given below: (1) Section 5.5.1 provides a method based on the assumption that the population is large and the samples are drawn at random from the population, and (2) Section 5.5.2 provides a method with similar assumptions but only requires specification of the level of confidence required and the number of exceedances allowed (usually zero). For both methods, it is assumed that the measurements can be expressed as a binary variable – that is, that the sample analysis results can be interpreted as either in compliance with the applicable standard (" pass") or not in compliance with the applicable standard (" fail"). 5.5.1 Number of Samples To Test a Proportion: Simple Random or Systematic Sampling This section provides a method for determining the appropriate number of samples when the objective is to test whether a proportion or percentile of a population complies with an applicable standard. A population proportion is the ratio of the number of elements of a population that has some specific characteristic to the total number of elements. A population percentile represents the percentage of elements of a population having values less than some value. The number of samples needed to test a proportion can be calculated using n z GR GR z AL AL = + 1 1 2 1 1 () () Equation 15 where = false rejection error rate = false acceptance error rate = the percentile of the standard normal distribution (from the last row of z p pth Table G­ 1 in Appendix G) = the Action Level (e. g., the proportion of all possible samples of a given AL support that must comply with the standard) = other bound of the gray region, GR = width of the gray region ( ), and GR AL = the number of samples. n An example calculation of using the approach described here is presented in Box 11. n 82 Box 11. Example Calculation of the Appropriate Number of Samples Needed To Test a Proportion – Simple Random or Systematic Sampling A facility is conducting a cleanup of soil contaminated with pentachlorophenol (PCP). Based on the results of a field test method, soil exceeding the risk­ based cleanup level of 10 mg/ kg total PCP will be excavated, classified as a solid or hazardous waste, and placed into roll­ off boxes for subsequent disposal, or treatment (if needed) and disposal. The outputs of the first six steps of the DQO Process are summarized below. Step 1: State the Problem: The project team needs to decide whether the soil being placed in each roll­ off box is a RCRA hazardous or nonhazardous waste. Step 2: Identify the Decision: If the excavated soil is hazardous, it will be treated to comply with the applicable LDR treatment standard and disposed as hazardous waste. If it is nonhazardous, then it will be disposed as solid waste in a permitted industrial waste landfill (as long as it is not mixed with a listed hazardous waste). Step 3: Identify Inputs to the Decision: The team requires sample analysis results for TCLP PCP to determine compliance with the RCRA TC regulatory threshold of 100 mg/ L. Step 4: Define the Boundaries: The DQO "decision unit" for each hazardous waste determination is defined as a roll­ off box of contaminated soil. The "support" of each sample is in part defined by SW­ 846 Method 1311 (TCLP) as a minimum mass of 100­ grams with a maximum particle size of 9.5 mm. Samples will be obtained as the soil is excavated and placed in the roll­ off box (i. e., at the point of generation). Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule: The project team wants to ensure with reasonable confidence that little or no portions of the soil in the roll­ off box are hazardous waste. The parameter of interest is then defined as the 90 th percentile. If the 90 th percentile concentration of PCP is less than 100 mg/ L TCLP, then the waste will be classified as nonhazardous. Otherwise, it will be considered hazardous. Step 6: Specify Limits on Decision Errors: The team establishes the null hypothesis (Ho) as the "true proportion (P) of the waste that complies with the standard is less than 0.90," or Ho: P < 0.90. The false rejection error rate ( ) is set at 0.10. The false acceptance error rate ( ) is set at 0.30. The Action Level ( ) is 0.90, and the other AL boundary of the gray region ( ) is set at 0.99. GR How many samples are required? Solution: Using Equation 15 and the outputs of the first six steps of the DQO Process, the number of samples ( ) n is determined as: = + = 0524 0991 099 1282 0901 090 099 090 235 24 2 . .( .) . .( .) .. . where the values for and are obtained from the last row of Table G­ 1 in Appendix G. z1 z1 83 5.5.2 Number of Samples When Using a Simple Exceedance Rule If a simple exceedance rule is used (see Section 3.4.2.2), then it is possible to estimate the number of samples required to achieve a prespecified level of confidence that a given fraction of the waste or site has a constituent concentration less than the standard or does not exhibit a characteristic or property of concern. The approach is based on the minimum sample size required to determine a nonparametric (distribution­ free) one­ sided confidence bound on a percentile (Hahn and Meeker 1991 and USEPA 1989a). If the exceedance rule specifies no exceedance of the standard in any sample, then the number of samples that must achieve the standard can be obtained from Table G­ 3a in Appendix G. The table is based on the expression: n = log( ) log( p) Equation 16 where alpha ( ) is the probability of a Type I error and is the proportion of the waste or site p that must comply with the standard. Alternatively, the equation can be rearranged so that statistical performance ) can determined for a fixed number of samples: (1 () 1 = 1 p n Equation 17 Notice that the method does not require specification of the other bound of the gray region, nor does it require specification of a Type II (false acceptance) error rate ( ). If the decision rule allows one exceedance of the standard in a set of samples, then the number of samples required can be obtained from Table G­ 3b in Appendix G. An example application of the above equations is presented in Box 12. See also Appendix F, Section F. 3.2. Box 12. Example Calculation of Number of Samples Needed When a Simple Exceedance Rule Is Used – Simple Random or Systematic Sampling What is the minimum number of samples required (with no exceedance of the standard in any of the samples) to determine with at least 90­ percent confidence ) that at least 90 percent of all possible samples from (1 090 = . the waste (as defined by the DQO decision unit) are less than the applicable standard? From Table G­ 3a, we find that for and that 22 samples are required. Alternately, using 1 090 = a . p = 090 . Equation 16, we find n = = = = log( ) log(p) . ) . ) . log(010 log(090 1 0.0457 218 22 If only 11 samples were analyzed (with no exceedance of the standard in any of the samples), what level of confidence can we have that at least 90 percent of all possible samples are less than the standard? Using Equation 17, we find () . 1 11090 11 0.3138 0.6862 = = = 1 = p n Rounding down, we can say with at least 68 percent confidence that at least 90 percent of all possible samples would be less than the applicable standard. 84 5.6 Selecting the Most Resource­ Effective Design If more than one sampling design option is under consideration, evaluate the various designs based on their cost and the ability to achieve the data quality and regulatory objectives. Choose the design that provides the best balance between the expected cost and the ability to meet the objectives. To improve the balance between meeting your cost objectives and achieving the DQOs, it might be necessary to modify either the budget or the DQOs. As can be seen from the sample size equations in Section 5.4 and 5.5, there is an interrelationship between the appropriate number of samples and the desired level of confidence, expected variability (both population and measurement variability), and the width of the gray region. To reduce costs (i. e., decrease the number of samples required), several options are available: ° Decrease the confidence level for the test ° Increase the width of the "gray region" (not recommended if the parameter of interest is near the Action Level) ° Divide the population into smaller less heterogeneous decision units, or use a stratified sampling design in which the population is broken down into parts that are internally less heterogeneous ° Employ composite sampling (if non­ volatile constituents are of interest and if allowed by the regulations). Note that seemingly minor modifications to the sampling design using one or more of the above strategies may result in major increases or decreases in the number of samples needed. When estimating costs, be sure to include the costs for labor, travel and lodging (if necessary), expendable items (such as personal protective gear, sample containers, preservatives, etc.), preparation of a health and safety plan, sample and equipment shipping, sample analysis, assessment, and reporting. Some sampling plans (such as composite sampling) may require fewer analyses and associated analytical costs, but might require more time to implement and not achieve the project objectives. EPA's Data Quality Objectives Decision Error Feasibility Trials Software (DEFT) (USEPA 2001a) is one tool available that makes the process of selecting the most resource effective design easier. 5.7 Preparing a QAPP or WAP In this activity, the outputs of the DQO Process and the sampling design are combined in a planning document such as a QAPP or WAP. The Agency has developed detailed guidance on how to prepare a QAPP (see USEPA 1998a) or WAP (see USEPA 1994a). The minimum requirements for a WAP are specified at 40 CFR §264.13. The following discussion is focused on the elements of a QAPP; however, the information can be used to help develop a WAP. For additional guidance on selecting the most resourceefficient design, see ASTM standard D 6311­ 98, Standard Guide for Generation of Environmental Data Related to Waste Management Activities: Selection and Optimization of Sampling Design. 85 Additional EPA Guidance on Preparing a QAPP or WAP ° Chapter One, SW­ 846 ° EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/ R­ 5 (replaces QAMS­ 005/ 80) (USEPA 2001b) ° EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/ G­ 5 (EPA/ 600/ R­ 98/ 018) (USEPA 1998a) ° Guidance for Choosing a Sampling Design for Environmental Data Collection, EPA QA/ G­ 5S ­ Peer Review Draft (EPA QA/ G­ 5S) (USEPA 2000c) ° Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, And Dispose Of Hazardous Wastes, a Guidance Manual (USEPA 1994a) The QAPP is a critical planning document for any environmental data collection operation because it documents project activities including how QA and QC activities will be implemented during the life cycle of a project. The QAPP is the "blueprint" for identifying how the quality system of the organization performing the work is reflected in a particular project and in associated technical goals. QA is a system of management activities designed to ensure that data produced by the operation will be of the type and quality needed and expected by the data user. QA, acknowledged to be a management function emphasizing systems and policies, aids the collection of data of needed and expected quality appropriate to support management decisions in a resource­ efficient manner. The activities addressed in the QAPP cover the entire project life cycle, integrating elements of the planning, implementation, and assessment phases. If the DQOs are documented (e. g., in a memo or report format), include the DQO document as an attachment to the QAPP to help document the technical basis for the project and to document any agreements made between stakeholders. As recommended in EPA QA/ G­ 5 (USEPA 1998a), a QAPP is composed of four sections of project­ related information called "groups," which are subdivided into specific detailed "elements." The elements and groups are summarized in the following subsections. 5.7.1 Project Management The QAPP (or WAP) is prepared after completion of the DQO Process. Much of the following guidance related to project management can be excerpted from the outputs of the DQO Process. The following group of QAPP elements covers the general areas of project management, project history and objectives, and roles and responsibilities of the participants. The following elements ensure that the project's goals are clearly stated, that all participants understand the goals and the approach to be used, and that project planning is documented: ° Title and approval sheet ° Table of contents and document control format ° Distribution list ° Project/ task organization and schedule (from DQO Step 1) ° Problem definition/ background (from DQO Step 1) ° Project/ task description (from DQO Step 1) ° Quality objectives and criteria for measurement data (DQO Step 3) 86 ° Special training requirements/ certification ° Documentation and records. For some projects, it will be necessary to include the names and qualifications of the person( s) who will obtain the samples (e. g., as required under 40 CFR §261.38( c)( 7) in connection with testing for the comparable fuels exclusion). 5.7.2 Measurement/ Data Acquisition This group of QAPP elements covers all aspects of measurement system design and implementation, ensuring that appropriate methods for sampling, analysis, data handling, and QC are employed and thoroughly documented. Apart from the sample design step (DQO Step 7), the following information should be included in the QAPP or incorporated by reference: ° Sampling process design/ experimental design (DQO Steps 5 and 7) ° Sampling methods and SOPs ° Sample handling and chain­ of­ custody requirements ° Analytical methods and SOPs (DQO Step 3) ° QC requirements; ° Instrument/ equipment testing, inspection, and maintenance requirements ° Instrument calibration and frequency ° Inspection/ acceptance requirements for supplies and consumables ° Data acquisition requirements (non­ direct measurements) ° Data management. For some projects, under various circumstances it may be appropriate to include hard copies of the SOPs in the QAPP, rather than incorporate the information by reference. For example, under the performance­ based measurement system (PBMS) approach, alternative sampling and analytical methods can be used. Such methods can be reviewed and used more readily if actual copies of the SOPs are included in the QAPP. Hard copies of SOPs also are critically important when field analytical techniques are used. Field personnel must have detailed instructions available to ensure that the methods are followed. If it is discovered that deviation from an SOP is required due to site­ specific circumstances, the deviations can be documented more easily if hard copies of the SOPs are available in the field with QAPP. 5.7.3 Assessment/ Oversight The purpose of assessment is to ensure that the QAPP is implemented as prescribed. The elements below address the activities for assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of the project and the associated QA/ QC activities: ° Assessments and response actions ° Reports to management. 5.7.4 Data Validation and Usability Implementation of these elements ensures that the data conform to the specified criteria, thus enabling reconciliation with the project's objectives. The following elements cover QA activities that occur after the data collection phase of the project has been completed: 87 ° Data review, verification, and validation requirements ° Verification and validation methods ° Reconciliation with DQOs. 5.7.5 Data Assessment Historically, the focus of most QAPPs has been on analytical methods, sampling, data handling, and quality control. Little attention has been paid to data assessment and interpretation. We recommend that the QAPP address the data assessment steps that will be followed after data verification and validation. While it may not be possible to specify the statistical test to be used in advance of data generation, the statistical objective (identified in the DQO Process) should be stated along with general procedures that will be used to test distributional assumptions and select statistical tests. EPA's Guidance for Data Quality Assessment (USEPA 2000d) suggests the following five­ step methodology (see also Section 8 for a similar methodology): 1. Review the DQOs 2. Conduct a preliminary data review 3. Select the statistical test 4. Verify the assumptions of the test 5. Draw conclusions from the Data. The degree to which each QAPP element should be addressed will be dependent on the specific project and can range from "not applicable" to extensive documentation. The final decision on the specific need for these elements for project­ specific QAPPs will be made by the regulatory agency. Documents prepared prior to the QAPP (e. g., SOPs, test plans, and sampling plans) can be appended or, in some cases, incorporated by reference. 88 6 CONTROLLING VARIABILITY AND BIAS IN SAMPLING The DQO Process allows you to identify the problem to be solved, set specific goals and objectives, establish probability levels for making incorrect decisions, and develop a resourceefficient data collection and analysis plan. While most of the sampling designs suggested in this guidance incorporate some form of randomness so that unbiased estimates can be obtained from the data, there are other equally important considerations (Myers 1997). Sampling and analysis activities must also include use of correct devices and procedures to minimize or control random variability and biases (collectively known as "error") that can be introduced in field sampling, sample transport, subsampling, sample preparation, and analysis. Sampling error can lead to incorrect conclusions irrespective of the quality of the analytical measurements and the appropriateness of the statistical methods used to evaluate the data. This section is organized into three subsections which respond to these questions: 1. What are the sources of error in sampling (Section 6.1)? 2. What is sampling theory (Section 6.2)? 3. How can you reduce or otherwise control sampling error in the field and laboratory (Section 6.3)? 6.1 Sources of Random Variability and Bias in Sampling In conducting sampling, we are interested in obtaining an estimate of a population parameter (such as the mean, median, or a percentile); but an estimate of a parameter made from measurements of samples always will include some random variability (or variances) and bias (or a systematic shift away from the true value) due primarily to (1) the inherent variability of the waste or media (the "between­ sampling­ unit variability") and (2) imprecision in the methods used to collect and analyze the samples (the "within­ sampling­ unit variability") (USEPA 2001e). Errors caused by the sample collection process can be much greater than the preparation, analytical, and data handling errors (van Ee, et al. 1990, Crockett, et al 1996) and can dominate the overall uncertainty associated with a characterization study (Jenkins, et al. 1996 and 1997). In fact, analytical errors are usually well­ characterized, well­ understood, and well­ controlled by laboratory QA/ QC, whereas sampling and sample handling errors are not usually well­ characterized, well­ understood, or well­ controlled (Shefsky 1997). Because sampling error contributes to overall error, it is important for field and laboratory personnel to understand the sources of sampling errors and to take measures to control them in field sampling. The two components of error ­­ random variability and bias ­­ are independent. This concept is demonstrated in the "target" diagram (see Figure 7 in Section 2), in which random variability (expressed as the variance, ) refers to the "degree of clustering" and bias ( ) relates 2 µ x to the "amount of offset from the center of the target" (Myers 1997). Random variability and bias occur at each stage of sampling. Variability occurs due to the heterogeneity of the material sampled and random variations in the sampling and sample handling procedures. In addition, bias can be introduced at each stage by the sampling device (or the manner in which it is used), sample handling and transport, subsampling, and analysis. 89 MSE(x bias )() = + 2 2 Systematic Error (Bias) Random Variability where bias = Sum of all biases Analytical variability Between­ sampling­ unit variability (population variability) Sampling and subsampling variability including Analytical bias Sampling bias (e. g., improper selection and use of sampling devices; loss or gain of constituents during sampling, transport, storage, subsampling, and sample preparation) Statistical bias Mistakes, blunders, sabotage h h h b 2 = s 2 = a 2 = h 22 2 2 = + + b sa Figure 23. Components of error and the additivity of variances and biases in sampling and analysis While it is common practice to calculate the variability of sample analysis results "after the fact," it is more difficult to identify the sources and potential impacts of systematic sampling bias. As discussed in more detail below, it usually is best to understand the potential sources of error "up front" and take measures to minimize them when planning and implementing the sampling and analysis program. Even though random variability and bias are independent, they are related quantitatively (see Figure 23). Errors expressed as the variance can be added together to estimate overall or "total study error." Biases can be added together to estimate overall bias (though sampling bias is difficult to measure in practice). Conceptually, the sum of all the variances can be added to the sum of all biases (which is then squared) and expressed as the mean square error () MSE x () which provides a quantitative way of measuring the degree of representativeness of the samples. In practice, it is not necessary to try to calculate mean square error, however, we suggest you understand the sources and impacts of variability and bias so you can take steps to control them in sampling and improve the representativeness of the samples. (See Sections 5.2.4 and 5.2.5 of EPA's Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, EPA QA/ G­ 9 ­ QA00 Update (USEPA 2000d) for a more detailed discussion of how to address measurement variability and bias in the sampling design). The relatively new science of sampling theory and practice (Myers 1997) provides a technically based approach for addressing sampling errors (see Section 6.2). Sampling theory recognizes that sampling errors arise from or are related to the size and distribution of particles in the waste, the weight of the sample, the shape and orientation of the sampling device, the manner 90 in which the sample is collected, sample handling, and the manner in which subsampling is performed within the laboratory. Sampling theory applies to particulate solids, liquids, and mixtures of solids and liquids. Understanding sampling theory does not allow us to completely eliminate sampling and analytical errors, but sampling theory does allow us to identify the sources and magnitudes of sampling errors so we can take steps to minimize those that are the largest. In doing so, samples will be more precise and unbiased (i. e., more "representative"), thus reducing the number of samples required (lowering costs) and improving our ability to achieve the decision error rate specified in the DQOs. 6.2 Overview of Sampling Theory A number of environmental scientists have recognized a set of sampling theories developed by Dr. Pierre Gy (Gy 1982 and 1998) and others (Ingamells and Switzer 1973; Ingamells 1974; Ingamells and Pitard 1986; Pitard 1989; and Visman 1969) as one set of tools for improving sampling. These researchers have studied the sources of sampling error (particularly in the sampling of particulate matter) and developed techniques for quantifying the amount of error that can be introduced by the physical sampling process. The theories were originally developed in support of mineral exploration and mining and more recently were adopted by EPA for soil sampling (van Ee, et al. 1990; Mason 1992). Under some conditions, however, the theories can be applied to waste sampling as a means for improving the efficiency of the sampling and analysis process (Ramsey, et al. 1989). As discussed in the context of this guidance, Gy's theories focus on minimizing error during the physical collection of a sample of solid and liquid media and should not be confused with the statistical sampling designs such as simple random, stratified random, etc. discussed in Section 5. Both sampling theory and sampling design, however, are critical elements in sampling: Gy's theories facilitate collection of "correct" individual samples, while statistical sampling designs allow us to conduct statistical analyses and make conclusions about the larger mass of waste or environmental media (i. e., the decision unit). The following three subsections describe key aspects of sampling theory including heterogeneity, sampling errors, and the concept of sample support. The descriptions are mostly qualitative and intended to provided the reader with an appreciation for the types and complexities of sampling error. Detailed descriptions of the development and application of sampling theory can be found in Sampling for Analytical Purposes (Gy 1998), Geostatistical Error Management (Myers 1997), Pierre Gy's Sampling Theory and Sampling Practice (Pitard 1993), and in EPA's guidance document Preparation of Soil Sampling Protocols: Sampling Techniques and Strategies (Mason 1992). 6.2.1 Heterogeneity One of the underlying principles of sampling theory is that the medium to be sampled is not uniform in its composition or in the distribution of constituents in the medium, rather, it is heterogeneous. Heterogeneity causes the sampling errors. Appropriate treatment of heterogeneity in sampling depends on the scale of observation. Largescale variations in a waste stream or site affect where and when we take samples. Small­ scale variations in a waste or media affect the size, shape, and orientation of individual field samples and laboratory subsamples. Gy's theory identifies three major types of heterogeneity: (1) short­ 91 range (or small­ scale) heterogeneity, (2) long­ range (or large­ scale) heterogeneity, and (3) periodic heterogeneity: Short­ range heterogeneity refers to properties of the waste at the sample level or in the immediate vicinity of a sample location. Two other types of heterogeneity are found within short­ range heterogeneity: one reflected by differences in the composition between individual particles, the other having to do with the distribution of those particles in the waste. Composition heterogeneity (also known as constitution heterogeneity) is constant and cannot be altered except by particle size reduction (e. g., grinding or crushing the material). The distribution heterogeneity plays an important role in sampling because particles can separate into groups. Distribution heterogeneity can be increased (e. g., by gravitational segregation of particles or liquids) and can be reduced by homogenization (mixing) or by taking many small increments to form a sample. Large­ scale heterogeneity reflects local trends and plays an important role in deciding whether to divide the population into smaller internally homogenous decision units or to use a stratified sampling design. See Appendix C for a detailed description of largescale heterogeneity. Periodic heterogeneity, another larger­ scale phenomena, refers to cyclic phenomena found in flowing streams or discharges. Understanding periodic heterogeneity can aid in dividing a waste into separate waste streams or in establishing a stratified sampling design. Forming a conceptual model of the heterogeneity of a waste will help you to determine how to address it in sampling. 6.2.2 Types of Sampling Error Gy's theory (see also Mason 1992, Pitard 1993, and Gy 1998) identifies a number of different types of error that can occur in sampling as a result of heterogeneity in the waste and failure to correctly define the appropriate shape and volume of material for inclusion in the sample. Understanding the types and sources of the errors is an important step toward avoiding them. In qualitative terms, these errors include the following: ° Fundamental error, which is caused by differences in the composition of individual particles in the waste ° Errors due to segregation and grouping of particles and the constituent associated with the particles ° Errors due to various types of trends including small­ scale trends, large­ scale trends, or cycles ° Errors due to defining (or delimiting) the sample space and extracting the sample from the defined area ° Errors due to preparation of the sample, including shipping and handling. [Note that the term "preparation," as used here, describes all the activities that take 92 Sample A Sample B "Population" Figure 24. Effects of sample size on fundamental error. Small samples such as "A" cause the constituent of interest to be under­ represented in most samples and over­ represented in a small proportion of samples. Larger samples such as "B" more closely reflect the parent population. place after the primary sample is obtained in the field and includes sample containerization, preservation, handling, mixing, grinding, subsampling, and other preparative steps taken prior to analysis (such as the "sample preparation methods" as described in Chapters Three, Four, and Five of SW­ 846).] Errors that can occur during sampling are described below. 6.2.2.1 Fundamental Error The composition of a sample never perfectly matches the overall composition of the larger mass from which is was obtained because the mass of an individual sample is always less than the mass of the population and the population is never completely homogeneous. These conditions result in a sampling error known as fundamental error. The error is referred to as "fundamental" because it is an incompressible minimum sampling error that depends on the composition, shape, fragment size distribution, and chemical properties of the material, and it is not affected by homogenization or mixing. It arises when the constituent of interest is concentrated in constituent "nuggets" in a less concentrated matrix, especially when the constituent is present at a trace concentration level (e. g., less than 1 percent). This type of sampling error occurs even when the nuggets are mixed as well as possible in the matrix (so long as they are not dissolved). The fundamental error is the only error that remains when the sampling operation is "perfect"; that is, when all parts of the sample are obtained in a probabilistic manner and each part is independent. As a conceptual example of fundamental error, consider a container filled with many white marbles and a few black marbles that have been mixed together well (Figure 24). If a small sample comprising only a few marbles is picked at random, there is a high probability they would all be white (Sample "A" in Figure 24) and a small chance that one or more would be black. As the sample size becomes larger, the distribution in the sample will reflect more and more closely the parent population (Sample "B" in Figure 24). The situation is similar in a waste that contains rare highly concentrated "nuggets" of a constituent of concern. If a small sample is taken, it is possible, and even likely, that no nuggets of the constituent would be selected as part of the sample. This would lead to a major underestimate of the true parameter of interest. It also is possible with a small sample that a gross overestimate of the parameter of interest will occur if a nugget is included in the sample because the nugget would comprise a relatively large proportion of the analytical sample compared to the true population. To minimize fundamental error, the point is not to simply "fish" for a black marble (the contaminant), but to sample for all of the fragments and constituents such that the sample is a representation of the lot from which it is derived. 1 This approach should not be confused with composite sampling, in which individual samples from different times or locations are pooled and mixed into a single sample. 93 (A) (B) Increments Increments Grouping Segregation Figure 25. How grouping and segregation of particles can affect sampling results. Grouping and segregation error can be minimized by taking many small increments. The fundamental error is never zero (unless the population is completely homogeneous or the entire population is submitted for analysis) and it never "cancels out." It can be controlled by taking larger physical samples; however, larger samples can be difficult to handle in the field and within the laboratory, and they may pose practical constraints due to increased space needed for storage. Furthermore, small samples (e. g., less than 1 gram) generally are required for analytical purposes. To preserve the character of a large sample in the small analytical sample, subsampling and particle size reduction strategies should be employed (see also Section 7.3). 6.2.2.2 Grouping and Segregation Error Grouping and segregation results from the short­ range heterogeneity within and around the area from which a sample is collected (i. e., the sampling location) and within the sample container. This small­ scale heterogeneity is caused by the tendency for some particles to associate into groups of like particles due to gravitational separation, chemical partitioning, differing moisture content, magnetism, or electrostatic charge. Grouping and segregation of particles can lead to sampling bias. Figure 25 depicts grouping of particles (at "A") and segregation of particles (at "B") within a sample location. The grouping of particles at location "A" could result from an affinity between like particles (for example, due to electrostatic forces). Analytical samples formed from just one group of particles would yield biased results. The segregation of particles at location "B" could result from gravitation separation (e. g., during sample shipment). If the contaminant of interest was associated with only one class of particle (for example, only the black diamond shapes), then a sample collected from the top would result in a different concentration than a sample collected from the bottom, thus biasing the sample. Grouping and segregation error can be minimized by properly homogenizing and splitting the sample. As an alternative, an individual sample can be formed by taking a number of increments (small portions of media) in the immediate vicinity of the sampling location and combining them into the final collected sample. 1 Pitard (1993) suggests collecting between 10 and 25 increments as a means to control grouping and segregation error. These increments are then combined to form an individual sample to be submitted to the laboratory for analysis. 94 The approach of taking multiple increments to form a sample is not recommended when volatile constituents are of interest and may have practical limitations when sampling highly heterogeneous wastes or debris containing very large fragments. 6.2.2.3 Increment Delimitation Error Increment delimitation error occurs when the shape of the sampling device excludes or discriminates against certain portions of the material to be sampled. For example, a sampling device that only samples the top portion of a liquid effluent as it is leaves a discharge pipe (leaving a portion of the flow unsampled) causes increment delimitation error. This type of error is eliminated by choosing a sampling device capable of obtaining all of the flow for a fraction of the time (see also Sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3). 6.2.2.4 Increment Extraction Error Increment extraction error occurs when portions of the sample are lost or extraneous materials are included in the sample. For example, if the coring device is too small to accommodate a large fragment of waste, particles that should be in the sample might get pushed aside, causing sampling bias. Extraction error can be controlled through selection of devices designed to accommodate the physical characteristics of the waste. 6.2.2.5 Preparation Error This error results from the incorrect preservation, handling, mixing, grinding, and subsampling that can result in loss, contamination, or altering of the sample such that it no longer is an accurate representation of the material being sampled. Proper choice and implementation of preparation methods controls this error. 6.2.3 The Concept of "Sample Support" The weight, shape (length, width and height dimensions), and orientation of a sample describe the "sample support." The term "support" has been used in sampling and statistical literature in various ways, such as to describe the mass or volume of an "exposure unit" or "exposure area" in the Superfund program ­­ similar to the "decision unit" described in the DQO Process. Conceptually, there is a continuum of support from the decision unit level (e. g., an exposure area of a waste site or a drum of solid waste) to the sample and subsample level down to the molecular level. Because it is not possible to submit the entire decision unit for analysis, samples must be submitted instead. For heterogeneous media, the sample support will have a substantial effect on the reported measurement values. Measures can be taken to ensure adequate size, shape, and orientation of a sample: ° The appropriate size of a sample (either volume or mass) can be determined based on the relationship that exists between the particle size distribution and expected sampling error ­­ known as the fundamental error (see Section 6.2.2.1). In the DQO Process, you can define the amount of fundamental error that is acceptable (specified in terms of the standard deviation of the fundamental error) and estimate the volume required for field samples. The sampling tool should 95 have dimensions three or more times larger than that of the diameter of the largest particles. Proper sizing of the sampling tool will help ensure that the particle size distribution of the sampled material is represented in the sample (see discussion at Section 6.3.1). ° The appropriate shape and orientation of the sample are determined by the sampling mode. For a one­ dimensional waste (e. g., liquid flowing from a discharge pipe or solids on a conveyor belt), the correct or "ideal" sample is an undisturbed cross section delimited by two parallel planes (Pitard 1993, Gy 1998) (see discussion at Section 6.3.2.1). For three­ dimensional waste forms (such as solids in a roll­ off bin, piles, thick slabs, soil in drums, liquids in a tank, etc.), the sampling problem is best treated as a series of overlapping two­ dimensional problems. The correct or ideal sample is an undisturbed core (Pitard 1993) that captures the entire thickness of the waste (see discussion at Section 6.3.2.2). 6.3 Practical Guidance for Reducing Sampling Error This section describes steps that can be taken to control sampling error. While the details of sampling theory may appear complex and difficult to explain, in practice most sampling errors can be minimized by observing a few simple rules that, when used, can greatly improve the reliability of sampling results with little or no additional costs (Gy 1998): ° Determine the optimal mass of each field sample. For particulate solids, determine the appropriate sample weight based on the particle size distribution and characteristics, and consider any practical constraints (see Section 6.3.1). Also, determine additional amounts of the sampled material needed for split samples, for field and laboratory quality control purposes, or for archiving. ° Select the appropriate shape and orientation of the sample based on the sampling design model identified in DQO Step 7 (see Section 6.3.2). ° Select sampling devices and procedures that will minimize grouping and segregation errors and increment delimitation and increment extraction errors (see Sections 6.3.3 and 7.1). Implement the sampling plan by obtaining the number of samples at the sampling locations and times specified in the sampling design selected in DQO Step 7, and take measures to minimize preparation errors during sample handling, subsampling, analysis, documentation, and reporting. When collecting samples for analysis for volatile organic constituents, special considerations are warranted to minimize bias due to loss of constituents (see Section 6.3.4). Table 7 provides a summary of strategies that can be employed to minimize the various types of sampling error. 96 Table 7. Strategies for Minimizing Sampling Error Type of Sampling Error Strategy To Minimize or Reduce Error Fundamental Error ° To reduce variability caused by fundamental error, increase the volume of the sample. ° To reduce the volume of the sample and maintain low fundamental error, perform particle­ size reduction followed by subsampling. ° When volatile constituents are of interest, do not grind or mix the sample. Rather, take samples using a method that minimizes disturbances of the sample material (see also Section 6.3.4). Grouping and Segregation Error ° To minimize grouping error, take many increments. ° To minimize segregation error, homogenize the sample (but beware of techniques that promote segregation) Increment Delimitation/ Extraction Errors ° Select sampling devices that delimit and extract the sample so that all material that should be included in the sample is captured and retained by the device (Pitard 1993, Myers 1997). ° For one­ dimensional wastes (e. g., flowing streams or waste on a conveyor), the correct or "ideal" sample is an undisturbed cross section delimited by two parallel planes (Pitard 1993, Gy 1998). To obtain such a sample, use a device that can obtain "all of the flow for a fraction of the time" (Gy 1998) (see also Section 6.3.2.1). ° For three­ dimensional wastes (e. g., solids in a roll­ off bin), the waste can be considered for practical purposes a series of overlapping twodimensional wastes. The correct or "ideal" sample is an undisturbed vertical core (Pitard 1993, Gy 1998) that captures the full depth of interest. Preparation Error ° Take steps to prevent contamination of the sample during field handling and shipment. Sample contamination can be checked through preparation and analysis of field quality control samples such as field blanks, trip blanks, and equipment rinsate blanks. ° Prevent loss of volatile constituents through proper storage and handling. ° Minimize chemical transformations via proper storage and chemical/ physical preservation. ° Take care to avoid unintentional mistakes when labeling sample containers, completing other documentation, and handling and weighing samples. 6.3.1 Determining the Optimal Mass of a Sample As part of the DQO Process (Step 4 ­ Define the Boundaries), we recommend that you determine the appropriate size (i. e., the mass or volume), shape, and orientation of the primary field sample. For heterogeneous materials, the size, shape, and orientation of each field sample will affect the analytical result. To determine the optimal mass (or weight) of samples to be collected in the field, you should consider several key factors: ° The number and type of chemical and/ or physical analyses to be performed on each sample, including extra volumes required for QA/ QC. (For example, SW846 Method 1311 (TCLP) specifies the minimum sample mass to be used for the extraction.) ° Practical constraints, such as the available volume of the material and the ability to collect, transport, and store the samples 2 In this section, we use the "relative variance" ( ) and the "relative standard deviation" ( ). The s x 2 2 s x values are dimensionless and are useful for comparing results from different experiments. 97 ° The characteristics of the matrix (such as particulate solid, sludge, liquid, debris, oily waste, etc.) ° Health and safety concerns (e. g., acutely toxic, corrosive, reactive, or ignitable wastes should be transported and handled in safe quantities) ° Availability of equipment and personnel to perform particle­ size reduction (if needed) in the field rather than within a laboratory. Often, the weight (or mass) of a field sample is determined by "whatever will fit into the jar." While this criterion may be adequate for some wastes or media, it can introduce serious biases – especially in the case of sampling particulate solids. If a sample of particulate material is to be representative, then it needs to be representative of the largest particles of interest (Pitard 1993). This is relevant if the constituent of concern is not uniformly distributed across all the particle size fractions. To obtain a sample representative of the largest particles of interest, the sample must be of sufficient weight (or mass) to control the amount of fundamental error introduced during sampling. If the constituent( s) of concern is uniformly distributed throughout all the particle size fractions, then determination of the optimal sample mass using Gy's approach will not improve the representativeness of the sample. Homogeneous or uniform distribution of contaminants among all particle sizes, however, is not a realistic assumption, especially for contaminated soils. In contaminated soils, concentrations of metals tend to be higher in the clay­ and silt­ size fractions and organic contaminants tend to be associated with organic matter and fines in the soil. The following material provides a "rule of thumb" approach for determining the particle­ size sample­ weight relationship sufficient to maintain fundamental error (as measured by the standard deviation of the fundamental error) within desired limits. A detailed quantitative method is presented in Appendix D. Techniques for calculating the variance of the fundamental error also are presented in Mason (1992), Pitard (1993), Myers (1997), and Gy (1998). The variance of the fundamental error ( ) is directly proportional to the size of the largest sFE 2 particle and inversely proportional to the mass of the sample. 2 To calculate the appropriate mass of the sample, Pitard (1989) proposed a "Quick Safety Rule" for use in environmental sampling based on a standard deviation of the fundamental error of 5 percent ( ): sFE = ± 5% MS 10000 3 d Equation 18 where is the mass of the sample in grams (g) and of the diameter of the largest particle MS d in centimeters (cm). 98 Direction of Flow Taking all of the flow part of the time. Taking part of the flow all of the time. Taking part of the flow part of the time. A B C Figure 26. Three ways of obtaining a sample from a moving stream. "A" is correct. "B" and "C" will obtain biased samples unless the material is homogeneous (modified after Gy 1998). Alternatively, if we are willing to accept , we can use sFE = ± 16% MS 1000 3 d Equation 19 An important feature of the fundamental error is that it does not "cancel out." On the contrary, the variance of the fundamental error adds together at each stage of subsampling. As pointed out by Myers (1997), the fundamental error quickly can accumulate and exceed 50 percent, 100 percent, 200 percent, or greater unless it is controlled through particle­ size reduction at each stage of sampling and subsampling. The variance, , calculated at each stage of sFE 2 subsampling and particle­ size reduction, must be added together at the end to derive the total . A example of how the variances of the fundamental error can be added together is sFE 2 provided in Appendix D. 6.3.2 Obtaining the Correct Shape and Orientation of a Sample When sampling heterogeneous materials, the shape and orientation of the sampling device can affect the composition of the resulting samples and facilitate or impede achievement of DQOs. The following two subsections provide guidance on selecting the appropriate shape and orientation of samples obtained from a moving stream of material and a stationary batch or unit of material. 6.3.2.1 Sampling of a Moving Stream of Material In sampling a moving stream of material, such as solids, liquids, and multi­ phase mixtures moving through a pipe, on a conveyor, etc., the material can be treated as a one­ dimensional mass. That is, the material is assumed to be linear in time or space. The correct or "ideal" sample is an undisturbed cross section delimited by two parallel planes (Pitard 1993, Gy 1998). The approach is depicted in Figure 26 in which all of the flow is collected for part of the time. In practice, the condition can be met by using "cross­ stream" sampling devices positioned at the discharge of a conveyor, hose, duct, etc. (Pitard 1993). Alternatively, in sampling solids from a conveyor belt, a transverse cutter or flat scoop (with vertical sides) can be used to obtain a sample, preferably with the conveyor stopped (though this condition may not be practical for large industrial conveyors). For sampling of liquids, if the entire stream cannot be obtained for a fraction of the time (e. g., at the discharge point), then it may be necessary to introduce turbulence in the stream using baffles and to obtain a portion of the mixed stream part of the time (Pitard 1993). 99 Different Size Devices Different Shape and Orientation C B A Decision Unit Different Orientation of Coring Device D Figure 27. Sampling a three­ dimensional waste by treating the sampling problem as a series of overlapping two­ dimensional wastes. Only device "A" provides the correct size, shape, and orientation of the sample. 6.3.2.2 Sampling of a Stationary Batch of Material Sampling of a stationary batch of material, such as filter cake in a roll­ off bin, soil in a drum, or liquid in a tank can be approached by viewing the threeCoring dimensional space as a series of overlapping two­ dimensional (i. e., relatively flat) masses in a horizontal plane. The correct or "ideal" sample of a is a core that obtains the full thickness of the material of interest. For example, Figure 27 shows a bin of granular waste with fine grain material in the upper layer and larger fragments in the bottom layer. The entire batch of material is the "decision unit." Coring device "A" is correct: it is wide enough and long enough to include the largest fragments in the waste. Coring device "B" is too narrow. It either fails to capture the larger particles or simply pushes them out of the way (causing increment delimitation error). Device "C," a trowel or small shovel, can collect an adequate volume of sample, but it preferentially selects only the finer grained material near the top of the bin. Device "D" is the correct shape, but it is not in the correct orientation. Devices "B," "C," and "D" yield incorrect sample support. 6.3.3 Selecting Sampling Devices That Minimize Sampling Errors As part of the project planning process, you should establish performance goals for the sampling devices to be used and understand the possible limitations of any candidate sampling devices or equipment. The performance goals can then be used to select specific sampling devices or technologies with a clear understanding of the limitations of those devices in the field. Detailed guidance on the selection of specific sampling devices is provided in Section 7 and Appendix E of this document. 6.3.3.1 General Performance Goals for Sampling Tools and Devices Selection of the appropriate sampling device and sampling method will depend on the sampling objectives, the physical characteristics of the waste or media, the chemical constituents of concern, the sampling location, and practical concerns such as technology limitations and safety issues (see also Section 7). The following general performance goals apply to the selection of sampling devices for use in those situations in where it is desirable to control or otherwise minimize biases introduced by the sampling device: ° The device should not include or exclude portions of the waste that do not belong in the sample (in other words, the device should minimize delimitation and extraction errors). 100 ° If volatile constituents are of interest, the device should obtain samples in an undisturbed state to minimize loss of volatile constituents. ° The device should be constructed of materials that will not alter analyte concentrations due to loss or gain of analytes via sorption, desorption, degradation, or corrosion. ° The device should retain the appropriate size (volume or mass) and shape of sample, and obtain it in the orientation appropriate for the sampling condition preferably in one pass. Other considerations not related to performance follow: ° "Ease of use" of the sampling device under the conditions that will be encountered in the field. This includes the ease of shipping to and from the site, ease of deployment, and ease of decontamination. ° The degree of hazard associated with the deployment of one sampling device versus another (e. g., consider use of an extension pole instead of a boat to sample from a waste lagoon). ° Cost of the sampling device and of the labor (e. g., single vs. multiple operators) for its deployment (including training) and maintenance. 6.3.3.2 Use and Limitations of Common Devices Unfortunately, many sampling devices in common use today lack the properties required to minimize certain types of sampling error. In fact, there are few devices available that satisfy all the general performance goals stated above. Pitard (1993), however, has identified a number of devices that can help minimize delimitation and extraction error (depending on the physical form of the waste to be sampled). These devices include: ° COLIWASA (or "composite liquid waste sampler") ­­ for sampling free­ flowing liquids in drums or containers ° Shelby tube or similar device ­­ for obtaining core samples of solids ° Kemmerer depth sampler ­­ for obtaining discrete samples of liquids ° Flat scoop (with vertical walls) ­­ for subsampling solids on a flat surface. Some devices in common use that can cause delimitation and extraction errors include the following: auger, shovel, spoon, trowel, thief, and trier. In spite of the limitations of many conventional sampling devices, it is necessary to use them under some circumstances encountered in the field because there are few alternatives. When selecting a sampling tool, choose the one that will introduce the least sampling error. In cases in which no such tool exists, document the approach used and be aware of the types of errors likely introduced and their possible impact on the sampling results. To the extent possible and practicable, minimize sampling errors by applying the concepts presented in this chapter. 101 6.3.4 Special Considerations for Sampling Waste and Soils for Volatile Organic Compounds In most contaminated soils and other solid waste materials, volatile organic compound (VOCs), when present, coexist in gaseous, liquid, and solid (sorbed) phases. Of particular concern with regard to the collection, handling, and storage of samples for VOC characterization is the retention of the gaseous component. This phase exhibits molecular diffusion coefficients that allow for the immediate loss of gas­ phase VOCs from a freshly exposed surface and continued losses from well within a porous matrix. Furthermore, once the gaseous phase becomes depleted, nearly instantaneous volatilization from the liquid and sorbed phases occurs in an attempt to restore the temporal equilibrium that often exists, thereby allowing the impact of this loss mechanism to continue. Another mechanism that can influence VOC concentrations in samples is biological degradation. In general, this loss mechanism is not expected to be as large a source of determinate error as volatilization. This premise is based on the observation that losses of an order of magnitude can occur on a time scale of minutes to hours due solely to diffusion and advection, whereas losses of a similar magnitude due to biological processes usually require days to weeks. Furthermore, under aerobic conditions, which is typical of most samples that are transported and stored, biological mechanisms favor the degradation of aromatic hydrocarbons over halogenated compounds. Therefore, besides the slower rate of analyte loss, biodegradation is compound selective. To limit the influence of volatilization and biodegradation losses, which, if not addressed can biased results by one or more orders of magnitude, it is currently recommended that sample collection and preparation, however not necessarily preservation, follow one or the other of these two protocols: ° The immediate in­ field transfer of a sample into a weighed volatile organic analysis vial that either contains VOC­ free water so that a vapor partitioning (purge­ and­ trap or headspace) analysis can be performed without reopening or that contains methanol for analyte extraction in preparation for analysis, or ° The collection and up to 2­ day storage of intact samples in airtight containers before initiating one of the aforementioned sample preparation procedures. In both cases, samples should be held at 4± 2 o C while being transported from the sampling location to the laboratory. The Standard Guide for Sampling Waste and Solids for Volatile Organics (ASTM D 4547­ 98) is recommended reading for those unfamiliar with the many challenges associated with collecting and handling samples for VOC analysis. 102 For additional guidance on the selection and use of sampling tools and devices, see: ° 40 CFR 261, Appendix I, Representative Sampling Methods ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities (ASTM D 6232) 7 IMPLEMENTATION: SELECTING EQUIPMENT AND CONDUCTING SAMPLING This section provides guidance on selecting appropriate sampling tools and devices (Section 7.1), conducting field sampling activities (Section 7.2), and using sample homogenization, splitting, and subsampling techniques (Section 7.3). 7.1 Selecting Sampling Tools and Devices The tools, devices, and methods used for sampling waste materials will vary with the form, consistency, and location of the waste materials to be sampled. As part of the DQO Process, you identify the location (type of unit or other source description) from which the samples will be obtained and the "dimension" of the sampling problem (such as "one­ dimensional" or "two­ dimensional"). In the DQO Process, you also specify the appropriate size, shape, orientation and other characteristics for each sample (called the "sample support"). In addition to the DQOs for the sample, you will identify performance goals for the sampling device. You may need a device that meets the following qualifications: ° Minimizes delimitation and extraction errors so that it does not include material that should not be in the sample, nor exclude material that should be in the sample ° Provides a largely undisturbed sample (e. g., one that minimizes the loss of volatile constituents, if those are constituents of concern) ° Is constructed of materials that are compatible with the media and the constituents of concern (e. g., the materials of construction do not cause constituent loss or gain due to sorption, desorption, degradation, or corrosion) ° Is easy to use under the conditions of the sampling location, and the degree of health or safety risks to workers is minimal ° Is easy to decontaminate ° Is cost­ effective during use and maintenance. Unfortunately, few devices will satisfy all of the above goals for a given waste or medium and sampling design. When selecting a device, try first to choose one that will introduce the least sampling error and satisfy other performance criteria established by the planning team, within practical constraints. Figure 28 summarizes the steps you can use to select an optimal device for obtaining samples. 1 ASTM is a consensus standards development organization. Consistent with the provisions of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104­ 113, Section 12( d), which directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards to the extent possible, this guidance supports the use of and provides references to ASTM standards applicable to waste sampling. 103 Step 1 Identify the medium (e. g., liquid or sludge) in Table 8 that best describes the material to be sampled. Step 2 Select the location or point of sample collection (e. g., conveyor, drum, tank, etc.) in Table 8 for the medium selected in Step 1. Step 3 Identify candidate sampling devices in the third column of Table 8. For each, review the information in Table 9 and the device summaries in Appendix E. Step 4 Select a sampling device based on its ability to (1) obtain the correct size, shape, and orientation of the samples, and (2) meet other performance goals specified by the planning team. Step 1 Identify the medium (e. g., liquid or sludge) in Table 8 that best describes the material to be sampled. Step 2 Select the location or point of sample collection (e. g., conveyor, drum, tank, etc.) in Table 8 for the medium selected in Step 1. Step 2 Select the location or point of sample collection (e. g., conveyor, drum, tank, etc.) in Table 8 for the medium selected in Step 1. Step 3 Identify candidate sampling devices in the third column of Table 8. For each, review the information in Table 9 and the device summaries in Appendix E. Step 3 Identify candidate sampling devices in the third column of Table 8. For each, review the information in Table 9 and the device summaries in Appendix E. Step 4 Select a sampling device based on its ability to (1) obtain the correct size, shape, and orientation of the samples, and (2) meet other performance goals specified by the planning team. Step 4 Select a sampling device based on its ability to (1) obtain the correct size, shape, and orientation of the samples, and (2) meet other performance goals specified by the planning team. Figure 28. Steps for selecting a sampling device Using the outputs from the DQO Process, a description of the medium to be sampled, and knowledge of the site or location of sample collection, Tables 8 and 9 (beginning on pages 109 and 115 respectively) can be used to quickly identify an appropriate sampling device. For most situations, the information in the tables will be sufficient to make an equipment selection; however, if you need additional guidance, review the more detailed information provided in Appendix E or refer to the references cited. If desired, you can refer to the documents (such as ASTM standards) referenced by Table 8 for supplementary guidance specific to sampling a specific medium and site, or refer to those referenced by Table 9 for supplementary guidance on a device. 1 The contents of the ASTM standards are summarized in Appendix J. (For more information on ASTM or purchasing their publications, including the standards referenced in this chapter, contact ASTM at: ASTM, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428­ 2959, or by telephone at 610­ 832­ 9585, via the World Wide Web at http:// www. astm. org.) In particular, we recommend that you review the guidance found in ASTM Standard D 6232, Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities. Most of the information on sampling devices found in this chapter and in Tables 8 and 9 came from that standard. As noted by the standard, it covers criteria that should be considered when selecting sampling equipment for collecting environmental and waste samples for waste management activities. It also describes many of the typical devices used during such sampling. Because each sampling situation is unique, the guidance in this chapter may not adequately cover your specific sampling scenario. You may have to modify a part of the device or modify the device application to improve its performance or to facilitate sample collection. For 104 example, you might use a rope or an extension handle on a device to access a particular location within a waste management unit. In other cases, you may need auxiliary equipment that will increase the cost or complexity of sampling operation (such as a drill rig to drive a split barrel sampler or a power supply to run a pump). The physical state of the waste or design of the unit also may affect how the equipment is deployed. You should address such variations as part of your sampling plan and make sure that any modifications do not cause sampling bias. Finally, other sampling devices not addressed in this chapter can and should be used if appropriate (e. g., if the device meets the performance goals and is more practical). New or innovative devices not discussed in this chapter also should be considered for use if they allow you to meet the sampling objectives in a more cost­ effective manner. In other words, we encourage and recommend a performance­ based approach for selecting sampling equipment. 7.1.1 Step 1: Identify the Waste Type or Medium to be Sampled The first column of Table 8 (page 109) lists the media type or waste matrix commonly sampled under RCRA. These media may include liquids, sludges or slurries, various unconsolidated solids, consolidated solids and debris, soil, ground water, sediment, soil gas, and air. In general, the types of media describe the physical state of the material to be sampled. The physical characteristics of the waste or medium affect many aspects of sampling, including the volume of material required, selection of the appropriate sampling device, how the device is deployed, and the containers used for the samples. Table 10 provides an expanded description of the media listed in Table 8. 7.1.2 Step 2: Identify the Site or Point of Sample Collection In the second column of Table 8, identify the site or point of sample collection that best describes where you plan to obtain the samples. The "site or point of sample collection" may include (1) the point at which the waste is generated (e. g., as the waste exits a pipe, moves along a conveyor, or is poured or placed into a container, tank, impoundment or other waste management unit); (2) the unit in which the waste is stored (such as a drum, collection hopper, tank, waste pile, surface impoundment, sack or bag) or transported (such as a drum, tanker truck, or roll­ off box); or (3) the environmental medium to be sampled (such as surface soil, subsurface soil, ground water, surface water, soil gas, or air). When testing a solid waste to determine if it should be characterized as a hazardous waste or to determine if the waste is restricted from land disposal, such a determination must be made at the point of waste generation. 7.1.2.1 Drums and Sacks or Bags Drums and sacks or bags are portable containers used to store, handle, or transport waste materials and sometimes are used in waste disposal (e. g., drums in a landfill). "Drums" include metal drums and pails, plastic drums, or durable fiberboard paper drums or pails (USEPA 1994a). Drums and pails may contain nearly the full range of media ­­ liquids (single or multilayered sludges, slurries, or solids. Sacks or bags include less rigid portable containers and thus can contain only solids. The sampling approach (including number of samples, locations of samples, sampling device, depth of samples) for these containers will depend on the number of 105 containers to be sampled, waste accessibility, physical and chemical characteristics of the waste, and component distribution within the containers. Review ASTM Standards D 6063, Guide for Sampling Drums and Similar Containers by Field Personnel, and D 5679, Practice for Sampling Consolidated Solids in Drums or Similar Containers, for more information on the sampling of drums and sacks or bags. Other useful guidance on sampling drums includes "Drum Sampling" (USEPA 1994b), issued by EPA's Environmental Response Team. 7.1.2.2 Surface Impoundments Surface impoundments include natural depressions, manmade excavations, or diked areas that contain an accumulation of liquids or wastes containing free liquids and solids. Examples of surface impoundments are ponds, lagoons, and holding, storage, settling, and aeration pits (USEPA 1994a). The appropriate sampling device for sampling a surface impoundment will depend on accessibility of the waste, the type and number of phases of the waste, the depth, and chemical and physical characteristics of the waste. 7.1.2.3 Tanks A tank is defined at § 260.10 as a stationary device, designed to contain an accumulation of hazardous waste which is constructed primarily of non­ earthen materials which provide structural support. A container is defined at § 260.10 as a portable device, in which a material is stored, transported, treated, disposed of, or otherwise handled. The distinction that a tank is not a container is important because the regulations at 261.7 set forth conditions to distinguish whether hazardous waste in a container is subject to regulation. Nevertheless, for the purpose of selecting an appropriate sampling device, the term "tank" as used in Table 8 could include other units such as tank trucks and tanker cars even though they are portable devices. The selection of equipment for sampling the pipes and sampling ports of a tank system is covered separately under those categories. The equipment used to sample a pipe or spigot can be very different from that used to sample an open tank. Tanks usually contain liquids (single or multi­ layered), sludges, or slurries. In addition, suspended solids or sediments may have settled in the bottom of the tank. When sampling from a tank, one typically considers how to acquire a sufficient number of samples from different locations (including depths) to adequately represent the entire content of the tank. Waste accessibility and component distribution will affect the sampling strategy and equipment selection. In addition to discharge valves near the bottom, most tanks have hatches or other openings at the top. It is usually desirable to collect samples via a hatch or opening at the top of the tank because of the potential of waste stratification in the tank (USEPA 1996b). In an open tank, the size of the tank may restrict sampling to the perimeter of the tank. Usually, the most appropriate type of sampling equipment for tanks depends on the design of the tanks and the media contained within the tank. You can find additional guidance on sampling tanks in "Tank Sampling" (USEPA 1994c), issued by the EPA's Environmental Response Team. 106 7.1.2.4 Pipes, Point Source Discharges, or Sampling Ports For the purpose of this guidance, pipes or point source discharges include moving streams of sludge or slurry discharging from a pipe opening, sluice, or other discharge point (such as the point of waste generation). Sampling ports include controlled liquid discharge points that were installed for the purpose of sampling, such as may be found on tank systems, a tank truck, or leachate collection systems at waste piles or landfills. A dipper also is used to sample liquids from a sampling port. Typically, it is passed through the stream in one sweeping motion so that it is filled in one pass. In that instance, the size of the dipper beaker should be related to the stream flow rate. If the cross­ sectional area of the stream is too large, more than one pass may be necessary to obtain a sample (USEPA 1993b). Besides the use of a dipper or other typical sampling devices, sometimes the sample container itself is used to sample a spigot or point source discharge. This eliminates the possibility of contaminating the sample with intermediate collection equipment, such as a dipper (USEPA 1996b). See ASTM D 5013­ 89 Standard Practices for Sampling Wastes from Pipes and Other Point Discharges for more information on sampling at this location. Also see Gy (1998) and Pitard (1989, 1993). 7.1.2.5 Storage Bins, Roll­ Off Boxes, or Collection Hoppers Discharges of unconsolidated solids from a process, such as filter cakes, often fall from the process into a collection hopper or other type of open­ topped storage container. Sometimes the waste materials are combined into large a storage bin, such as a roll­ off box or collection hopper. A storage bin also may be used to collect consolidated solids, such as construction debris. The waste can be sampled either as it is placed in the container or after a certain period of accumulation, depending on the technical and regulatory objectives of the sampling program. 7.1.2.6 Waste Piles Waste piles include the non­ containerized accumulation of solid and nonflowing waste material on land. The size of waste piles can range from small heaps to large aggregates of wastes. Liners may underlie a waste pile, thereby preventing direct contact with the soil. As with other scenarios, waste accessibility and heterogeneity will be key factors in the sampling design and equipment selection. Besides the devices listed in this chapter, excavation equipment may be needed at first to properly sample large piles. Waste piles may present unique sample delimitation problems (Pitard 1993 and Myers 1997), and special considerations related to sampling design may be necessary (such as the need to flatten the pile). We recommend a review of ASTM Standard D 6009, Guide for Sampling Waste Piles for more information. Another source of information on sampling waste piles is "Waste Pile Sampling" (USEPA 1994d), issued by EPA's Environmental Response Team. 7.1.2.7 Conveyors Solid process discharges are sometimes sampled from conveyors such as conveyor belts or screw conveyors. Conveyor belts are open moving platforms used to transport material 107 between locations. Solid or semi­ solid wastes on a conveyor belt can be sampled with a flat scoop or similar device (see also Section 6.3.2.1). Screw conveyors usually are enclosed systems that require access via a sampling port, or they can be sampled at a discharge point. See also ASTM D 5013 and Gy (1998, pages 43 through 56). 7.1.2.8 Structures and Debris This guidance assumes that the sampling of structure or debris typically will include the sampling of consolidated solids such as concrete, wood, or other structure debris. Appendix C provides supplemental guidance on developing a sampling strategy for such heterogeneous wastes. See also AFCEE (1995), Koski, et al. (1991), Rupp (1990), USEPA and USDOE (1992), and ASTM Standard D 5956, Standard Guide For Sampling Strategies for Heterogeneous Wastes. 7.1.2.9 Surface or Subsurface Soil Selection of equipment for sampling soil is based on the depth of sampling, the grain­ size distribution, physical characteristics of the soil, and the chemical parameters of interest (such as the need to analyze the samples for volatiles). Your sampling strategy should specify the depth and interval (e. g., "0 to 6 inches below ground surface") of interest for the soil samples. Simple manual techniques and equipment can be used for surface or shallow depth sampling. To obtain samples of soil from greater depths, powered equipment (e. g., power augers or drill rigs) will be required; however, those are not used for actual sample collection, but are used solely to gain easier access to the required sample depth (USEPA 1996b). Once at the depth, surface sampling devices may be used. ASTM has developed many informative standards on the sampling of soil, including D 4700, Standard Guide for Soil Sampling from the Vadose Zone, and D 4220, Standard Practices for Preserving and Transporting Soil Samples. In addition, see EPA­ published guidance such as Preparation of Soil Sampling Protocols: Sampling Techniques and Strategies (Mason 1992) and Description and Sampling of Contaminated Soils ­ A Field Pocket Guide (USEPA 1991b). 7.1.3 Step 3: Consider Device­ Specific Factors After you identify the medium and site of sample collection, refer to the third column of Table 8 for the list of candidate sampling devices. We listed common devices that are appropriate for the given media and site. Next, refer to the information in Table 9 for each of the candidate devices to select the most appropriate one for your sampling effort. Table 9 provides device­ specific information to help you choose the appropriate device based on the study objective and the DQOs established for volume (size), shape, depth, and orientation of the sample, and sample type (discrete or composite, surface or at depth). For easy reference, the devices are listed alphabetically in Table 9. Appendix E contains a summary description of key features of each device and sources for other information. Under the third column in Table 9, "Other Device­ Specific Guidance," we have identified some of those sources, especially relevant ASTM standards (see summaries of ASTM standards in Appendix J). 108 7.1.3.1 Sample Type The column "Sample Type" Table 9 identifies whether the device can sample at surface only, shallow or at a deeper profile (depth), and whether the device can obtain a discrete sample or a composite sample. For example, a COLIWASA or drum thief can be used to sample a container that is 3­ feet deep, but a Kemmerer sampler may be required to sample the much deeper depth of an impoundment. We also identify in this column whether the device collects a undisturbed or disturbed solid sample. Also, the actual depth capacity may depend on the design of the device. Some devices can be modified or varied to collect at different depths or locations in a material. You should refer to the device summary in Appendix E if you need specifics regarding the sampling depth available for a given device. 7.1.3.2 Sample Volume The column for volume in Table 9 identifies the range of sample volume, in liters, that the device can obtain. It may be possible to increase or decrease this value through modification of the device. During the planning process, you should determine the correct volume of sample needed. Volume is one of the components of sample "support" (that is, the size, shape, and orientation of the sample). 7.1.3.3 Other Device­ Specific Considerations The last column of Table 9 notes other considerations for device selection. The comments focus on those factors that may cause error to be introduced or that might increase the time or cost of sampling. For some devices, the column includes comments on how easy the equipment is to use, such as whether it needs a power source or is heavy, and whether it can be decontaminated easily. The table also mentions whether the device is appropriate for samples requiring the analysis of volatile organic constituents and any other important considerations regarding analyte and device compatibility. The equipment should be constructed of materials that are compatible with the waste and not susceptible to reactions that might alter or bias the physical or chemical characteristics of the sample of the waste. 7.1.4 Step 4: Select the Sampling Device Select the sampling device based on its ability to (1) obtain the correct size, shape, and orientation of the samples (see Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2) and (2) meet any other performance criteria specified by the planning team in the DQO Process (see Section 6.3.3.1). In addition, samples to be analyzed for volatile organic constituents should be obtained using a sampling technique that will minimize the loss of constituents and obtain a sample volume required for the analytical method (see Section 6.3.4). 109 Table 8. Device Selection Guide ­­ Media and Site of Sample Collection Media (See Section 7.1.1) Site or Point of Sample Collection (See Section 7.1.2) Candidate Devices (Listed Alphabetically. For Device­ Specific Information, See Table 9) Other Related Guidance Liquids, no distinct layer of interest Examples: Containerized spent solvents, leachates or other liquids discharged from a pipe or spigot Drum COLIWASA Dipper Drum thief Liquid grab sampler Peristaltic pump Plunger type sampler Settleable solids profiler Swing jar sampler Syringe sampler Valved drum sampler ASTM D 5743 ASTM D 6063 EPA/ ERT SOP 2009 (USEPA 1994b) Surface impoundment Automatic sampler Bacon bomb Bailer Bladder pump Centrifugal sub­ pump Dipper Displacement pump Kemmerer sampler Liquid grab sampler Peristaltic pump Plunger type sampler Settleable solids profiler Swing jar sampler Syringe sampler ASTM D 6538 USEPA (1984, 1985, and 1989c) Tank Bacon bomb Bailer COLIWASA Dipper Drum thief Kemmerer sampler Liquid grab sampler Peristaltic pump Plunger type sampler Settleable solids profiler Submersible pump Swing jar sampler Syringe sampler ASTM D 6063 ASTM D 5743 EPA/ ERT SOP 2010 (USEPA 1994c) * Copies of EPA/ ERT SOPs are available on the Internet at http:// www. ert. org/ 110 Table 8. Device Selection Guide ­­ Media and Site of Sample Collection (Continued) Media (See Section 7.1.1) Site or Point of Sample Collection (See Section 7.1.2) Candidate Devices (Listed Alphabetically. For Device­ Specific Information, See Table 9) Other Related Guidance Liquids, no distinct layer of interest (continued) Pipe, point source discharge Automatic sampler Bladder pump Centrifugal submersible pump Dipper Displacement pump Liquid grab sampler Plunger type sampler Sample container Swing jar sampler ASTM D 5013 ASTM D 5743 ASTM D 6538 Gy 1998 Sampling port (e. g., spigot) Beaker, bucket, sample container Swing jar sampler Gy 1998 Liquids, multi­ layered, with one or more distinct layers of interest Examples: Non­ aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) in a tank; mixtures of antifreeze in a tank. Drum COLIWASA Discrete level sampler Drum thief Plunger type sampler Settleable solids profiler Swing jar sampler Syringe sampler Valved drum sampler ASTM D 6063 Surface impoundment Automatic sampler Bacon bomb Bailer (point source bailer) Bladder pump Centrifugal submersible pump Discrete level sampler Displacement pump Peristaltic pump Plunger type sampler Settleable solids profiler Swing jar sampler Syringe sampler ASTM D 6538 USEPA (1989c) Tank COLIWASA Centrifugal submersible pump Bacon bomb Bailer Discrete level sampler Peristaltic pump Plunger type sampler Settleable solids profiler Swing jar sampler Syringe sampler Valved drum sampler ASTM D 6063 ASTM D 5743 EPA/ ERT SOP 2010 (USEPA 1994c) Table 8. Device Selection Guide ­­ Media and Site of Sample Collection (Continued) Media (See Section 7.1.1) Site or Point of Sample Collection (See Section 7.1.2) Candidate Devices (Listed Alphabetically. For Device­ Specific Information, See Table 9) Other Related Guidance 111 Sludges, slurries, and solidliquid suspensions Examples: Paint sludge, electroplating sludge, and ash and water slurry. Drum COLIWASA Dipper Liquid grab sampler Plunger type sampler Settleable solids profiler Swing jar sampler Syringe sampler ASTM D 6063 Tank COLIWASA Dipper Lidded sludge/ water sampler Liquid grab sampler Plunger type sampler Ponar dredge Settleable solids profiler Swing jar sampler Syringe sampler ASTM D 6063 EPA/ ERT 2010 (USEPA 1994c) Surface impoundment Dipper Lidded sludge/ water sampler Liquid grab sampler Peristaltic pump Plunger type sampler Ponar dredge Settleable solids profiler Swing jar sampler USEPA (1989c) Pipe or conveyor Dipper or bucket Scoop/ trowel/ shovel Swing jar sampler ASTM D 5013 Granular solids – unconsolidated Examples: Filter press cake, powders, excavated (ex situ) soil, incinerator ash Drum Bucket auger Coring type sampler (w/ valve) Miniature core sampler Modified syringe sampler Trier Scoop/ trowel/ shovel ASTM D 5680 ASTM D 6063 EPA/ ERT SOP 2009 (USEPA 1994b) Sack or bag Concentric tube thief Miniature core sampler Modified syringe sampler Scoop/ trowel/ shovel Trier ASTM D 5680 ASTM D 6063 Table 8. Device Selection Guide ­­ Media and Site of Sample Collection (Continued) Media (See Section 7.1.1) Site or Point of Sample Collection (See Section 7.1.2) Candidate Devices (Listed Alphabetically. For Device­ Specific Information, See Table 9) Other Related Guidance 112 Granular solids – unconsolidated (continued) Storage bin, rolloff box, or collection hopper Bucket auger Concentric tube thief Coring type sampler (w/ valve) Miniature core sampler Modified syringe sampler Scoop/ trowel Trier ASTM D 5680 ASTM D 6063 Waste pile Bucket auger Concentric tube thief Coring type sampler (w/ valve) Miniature core sampler Modified syringe sampler Scoop/ trowel/ shovel Thin­ walled tube Trier ASTM D 6009 EPA/ ERT SOP 2017 (USEPA 1994d) Pipe (e. g., vertical discharge from cyclone centrifuge or baghouse) or conveyor Bucket, dipper, pan, or sample container Miniature core sampler Scoop/ trowel/ shovel Trier ASTM D 5013 Gy (1998) Pitard (1993) Other solids – unconsolidated Examples: Waste pellets, catalysts, or large­ grained solids. Drum Bucket auger Scoop/ trowel/ shovel ASTM D 5680 ASTM D 6063 EPA/ ERT SOP 2009 (USEPA 1994b) Sack or bag Bucket auger Scoop/ trowel/ shovel ASTM D 5680 ASTM D 6063 Storage bin, rolloff box, or collection hopper Bucket auger Scoop/ trowel/ shovel ASTM D 5680 ASTM D 6063 Waste pile Bucket auger Scoop/ trowel/ shovel Split barrel Thin­ walled tube ASTM D 6009 EPA/ ERT SOP 2017 (USEPA 1994d) Conveyor Scoop/ trowel/ shovel ASTM D 5013 Gy (1998) Pitard (1993) Table 8. Device Selection Guide ­­ Media and Site of Sample Collection (Continued) Media (See Section 7.1.1) Site or Point of Sample Collection (See Section 7.1.2) Candidate Devices (Listed Alphabetically. For Device­ Specific Information, See Table 9) Other Related Guidance 113 Soil and other unconsolidated geologic material Examples: In situ soil at a land treatment unit or in situ soil at a SWMU Surface Bucket auger Concentric tube thief Coring type sampler Miniature core sampler Modified syringe sampler Penetrating probe sampler Scoop/ trowel/ shovel Thin­ Walled Tube Trier ASTM D 5730 ASTM E 1727 ASTM D 4700 EISOPQA Manual (USEPA 1996b) Subsurface Bucket auger Coring type sampler Miniature core sampler Mod. syringe sampler Penetrating probe sampler Shovel/ scoop/ shovel Split barrel Thin­ walled tube ASTM D 4700 ASTM D 5730 ASTM D 6169 ASTM D 6282 USEPA (1996b) USEPA (1993c) Solids – consolidated Examples: Concrete, wood, architectural debris* Storage bin (e. g., roll­ off box) Penetrating probe sampler Rotating coring device ASTM D 5679 ASTM D 5956 ASTM D 6063 USEPA and USDOE (1992) Waste pile Penetrating probe sampler Rotating coring device Split barrel ASTM D 6009 USEPA and USDOE (1992) Structure Rotating coring device (See also Appendix C, Section C. 5) AFCEE (1995) Koski, et al (1991) USEPA and USDOE (1992) * The term "debris" has a specific definition under 40 CFR 268.2( g) (Land Disposal Restrictions regulations) and includes "solid material exceeding a 60 mm particle size that is intended for disposal and that is a manufactured object; or plant or animal matter; or natural geologic material." § 268.2( g) also identifies materials that are not debris. In general, debris includes materials of either a large particle size or variation in the items present. 114 Table 8. Device Selection Guide ­­ Media and Site of Sample Collection (Continued) Selected References for Sampling of Other Media Air Example: BIF emissions Chapter Ten SW­ 846 EISOPQA Manual (USEPA 1996b) Sediment Example: Surface impoundment sediment QA/ QC Guidance for Sampling and Analysis of Sediments, Water, and Tissues for Dredged Material Evaluations (USEPA 1995d) Superfund Program Representative Sampling Guidance Volume 5; Water and Sediment, Part I – Surface Water and Sediment, Interim Final Guidance (USEPA 1995e) Region 4 EISOPQA Manual (USEPA 1996b) Sediment Sampling (USEPA 1994e) ASTM D 4823; ASTM D 5387 Soil Gas or Vapor Examples: Soil, soil water, or gas in the vadose zone at a waste disposal site Subsurface Characterization and Monitoring Techniques ­ A Desk Reference Guide (USEPA 1993c) ASTM Standard Guide for Soil Gas Monitoring in the Vadose Zone (ASTM D 5314) Soil Gas Sampling (USEPA 1996c) Ground Water Example: Ground­ water monitoring wells at a landfill RCRA Ground­ Water Monitoring Draft Technical Guidance (USEPA 1992c) Low­ Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground­ Water Sampling Procedures (Puls and Barcelona 1996) ASTM D4448­ 01 Standard Guide for Sampling Ground­ Water Monitoring Wells ASTM D 5092­ 90 Standard Practice for Design and Installation of Ground Water Monitoring Wells in Aquifers ASTM D 6286­ 98 Standard Guide for Selection of Drilling Methods for Environmental Site Characterization ASTM D 6282 Standard Guide for Direct Push Soil Sampling for Environmental Site Characterizations ASTM D 6771­ 02 Standard Practice for Low­ Flow Purging and Sampling for Wells and Devices Used for Ground­ Water Quality Investigations 115 Table 9. Device Selection Guide – Device­ Specific Factors Sampling Device (Listed in Alphabetical Order) Description, Appendix E, Section No. Other Device Specific Guidance (in Addition to ASTM D 6232) Sample Type Volume (Liters per Pass) Comments (For Example: Effects on Matrix, Operational Considerations, Typical Uses) Automatic sampler E. 1.1 ASTM D 6538 EISOPQA Manual (USEPA 1996b) Shallow (25 in.), discrete or composite Unlimited Auto samplers are available to collect samples for volatile organics analysis, provide a grab or composite sample, and may be unattended. Need power source/ battery. Commonly used at waste water treatment plants. Must be knowledgeable of compatibility of waste and sampler components. Bacon bomb E. 3.1 USEPA 1984 USEPA 1994c Depth, discrete 0.1 to 0.5 For parameters that do not require a polytetrafluroethylene (PTFE) sampler. Recommended for sampling of lakes, ponds, large tanks, or lagoons. May be difficult to decontaminate and materials of construction may not be compatible with sample matrix. Bailer E. 7.1 ASTM D 4448 USEPA 1992c USEPA 1994c Depth, discrete 0.5 to 2.0 Bailers are not recommended for sampling ground water for trace constituent analysis due to sampling induced turbidity (USEPA 1992c and Puls and Barcelona 1996). Unable to collect samples from specific depths (unless a point­ source bailer is used). Available in a variety of sizes as either reusable or single use devices. May be chemically incompatible with certain matrices unless constructed of resistant material. Bladder pump E. 1.2 ASTM D 4448 USEPA 1992c USEPA 1996b Depth, discrete Unlimited For purging or sampling of wells, surface impoundments, or point discharges. Contact parts are made of PTFE, PVC and stainless steel. Requires a power source, compressed gas, and a controller. Difficult to decontaminate (based on design). Suitable for samples requiring VOAs. May require a winch or reel. Bucket auger E. 5.1 ASTM D 1452 ASTM D 4700 ASTM D 6063 Mason 1992 USEPA 1993c Surface or depth, disturbed 0.2 to 1.0 Easy and quick for shallow subsurface samples but not recommended for VOAs. Requires considerable strength and labor and destroys soil horizons. 116 Table 9. Device Selection Guide – Device­ Specific Factors (Continued) Sampling Device (listed in alphabetical order) Description, Appendix E, Section Other Device Specific Guidance (in addition to ASTM D 6232) Sample Type Volume (Liters Per Pass) Comments (For Example: Effects on Matrix, Operational Considerations, Typical Uses) Centrifugal submersible pump E. 1.4 ASTM D 4448 ASTM D 4700 USEPA 1992c Depth, discrete Unlimited For purging or sampling wells, surface impoundments, or point discharges. Contact parts are made of PTFE and stainless steel. Requires a power source. Adjustable flow rate and easy to decontaminate. Not compatible with liquids containing high percent solids. May require a winch or reel. COLIWASA E. 6.1 ASTM D 5495 ASTM D 5743 ASTM D 6063 USEPA 1980 Shallow, composite 0.5 to 3.0 Reusable and single use models available. Inexpensive. Glass type devices may be difficult to decontaminate. Collects undisturbed sample. For mixed solid/ liquid media will collect semi­ liquid only. Not for high viscosity liquids. Concentric tube thief E. 4.3 ASTM D 6063 USEPA 1994d Surface, relatively undisturbed, selective 0.5 to 1.0 Recommended for powdered or granular materials or wastes in piles or in bags, drums or similar containers. Best used in dry, unconsolidated materials. Not suitable for sampling large particles due to narrow width of slot. Coring type sampler (with or without valve) E. 4.6 ASTM D 4823 USEPA 1989c Surface or depth, disturbed 0.2 to 1.5 Designed for wet soils and sludge. May be equipped with a plastic liner and caps. May be used for VOAs. Reusable and easy to decontaminate. Dipper (or "pond sampler") E. 7.2 ASTM D 5358 ASTM D 5013 USEPA 1980 Shallow, composite 0.5 to 1.0 For sampling liquids in surface impoundments. Inexpensive. Not appropriate for sampling stratified waste if discrete characterization needed. Discrete level sampler E. 3.5 Depth, discrete 0.2 to 0.5 Easy to decontaminate. Obtains samples from a discrete interval. Limited by sample volume and liquids containing high solids. Can be used to store and transport sample. Displacement pumps E. 1.5 ASTM D 4448 Depth, discrete Unlimited Can be used for purging or sampling of wells, impoundments, or point discharges. Contact parts are made of PVC, stainless steel, or PTFE to reduce risk of contamination when trace levels or organics are of interest. Requires a power source and a large gas source. May be difficult to decontaminate (piston displacement type). May require a winch or reel to deploy. Table 9. Device Selection Guide – Device­ Specific Factors (Continued) Sampling Device (listed in alphabetical order) Description, Appendix E, Section Other Device Specific Guidance (in addition to ASTM D 6232) Sample Type Volume (Liters Per Pass) Comments (For Example: Effects on Matrix, Operational Considerations, Typical Uses) 117 Drum thief E. 6.2 ASTM D 6063 ASTM D 5743 USEPA 1994b Shallow, composite 0.1 to 0.5 Usually single use. If made of glass and reused, decontamination may be difficult. Limited by length of sampler, small volume of sample collected, and viscosity of fluids. Kemmerer sampler E. 3.2 Depth, discrete 1.0 to 2.0 Recommended for lakes, ponds, large tanks or lagoons. May be difficult to decontaminate. Materials may not be compatible with sample matrix but all PTFE construction is available. Sample container exposed to media at other depths while being lowered to sample point. Lidded sludge/ water sampler E. 3.4 Discrete, composite 1.0 1­ L sample jar placed into device (low risk of contamination). May sample at different depths and samples up to 40­ percent solids. Equipment is heavy and limited to one bottle size. Liquid grab sampler E. 7.3 Shallow, discrete, composite suspended solids only 0.5 to 1.0 For sampling liquids or slurries. Can be capped and used to transport sample. Easy to use. May be lowered to specific depths. Compatibility with sample parameters is a concern. Miniature core sampler E. 4.7 ASTM D 4547 ASTM D 6418 Discrete 0. 01 to 0.05 Used to retrieve samples from surface soil, trench walls, or sub samples from soil cores. O­ rings on plunger and cap minimize loss of volatiles and allow device to be used to transport sample. Designed for single use. Cannot be used on gravel or rocky soils must avoid trapping air with samples. Modified syringe sampler E. 4.8 ASTM D 4547 Discrete 0. 01 to 0.05 Made by modifying a plastic, medical, single­ use syringe. Used to collect a sample from a material surface or to sub­ sample a core. The sample is transferred to a vial for transportation. Inexpensive. Must ensure device is clean and compatible with media to be sampled. Table 9. Device Selection Guide – Device­ Specific Factors (Continued) Sampling Device (listed in alphabetical order) Description, Appendix E, Section Other Device Specific Guidance (in addition to ASTM D 6232) Sample Type Volume (Liters Per Pass) Comments (For Example: Effects on Matrix, Operational Considerations, Typical Uses) 118 Penetrating probe sampler E. 4.1 USEPA 1993c Discrete, undisturbed 0.2 to 2.0 Used to sample soil vapor, soil, and ground water (pushed or hydraulically driven). Versatile, make samples available for onsite analysis and reduces investigation derived waste. Limited by sample volume and composition of subsurface material. Peristaltic pump E. 1.3 ASTM D 4448 ASTM D 6063 USEPA 1996b Shallow, discrete or composite suspended solids only Unlimited Possible to collect samples from multiple depths up to 25 feet. Decontamination of pump is not required and tubing is easy to replace. Can collect samples for purgeable organics with modified equipment, but may cause loss of VOAs. Plunger type sampler E. 6.4 ASTM D 5743 Surface or depth, discrete 0.2 to Unlimited Made of high­ density polyethylene (HDPE) or PTFE with optional glass sampling tubes. Used to collect a vertical column of liquid. Either a reusable or single use device. Decontamination may be difficult (with glass tubes). Ponar dredge E. 2.1 ASTM D 4387 ASTM D 4342 USEPA 1994e Bottom surface, rocky or soft, disturbed 0.5 to 3.0 One of the most effective samplers for general use on all types of substrates (silt to granular material). May be difficult to repeatedly collect representative samples. May be heavy. Rotating coring device E. 5.2 ASTM D 5679 Surface or depth, undisturbed 0.5 to 1.0 May obtain a core of consolidated solid. Requires power and water source and is difficult to operate. Sample integrity may be affected. Scoop E. 7.5 ASTM D 5633 ASTM D 4700 ASTM D 6063 Surface, disturbed, selective <0. 1 to 0.6 Usually for surface soil and solid waste samples. Available in different materials and simple to obtain. May bias sample because of particle size. May exacerbate loss of VOCs. Settleable solids profiler E. 6.5 Depth, composite suspended solids only 1.3 to 4.0 Typically used at waste water treatment plants, waste settling ponds, and impoundments to measure and sample settleable solids. Easy to assemble, reusable and unbreakable under normal use. Not recommended for caustics or high viscosity materials. Table 9. Device Selection Guide – Device­ Specific Factors (Continued) Sampling Device (listed in alphabetical order) Description, Appendix E, Section Other Device Specific Guidance (in addition to ASTM D 6232) Sample Type Volume (Liters Per Pass) Comments (For Example: Effects on Matrix, Operational Considerations, Typical Uses) 119 Shovel E. 7.5 ASTM D 4700 Surface, disturbed 1.0 to 5.0 Used to collect surface material or large samples from waste piles. Easy to decontaminate and rugged. Limited to surface use and may exacerbate the loss of samples for VOAs. Split barrel sampler E. 4.2 ASTM D 1586 ASTM D 4700 ASTM D 6063 Discrete, undisturbed 0.5 to 30.0 May be driven manually, or mechanically by a drill rig with trained personnel. May collect a sample at depth. A liner may be used in the device to minimize disturbance or for samples requiring VOAs. Swing jar sampler E. 7.4 Shallow, composite 0.5 to 1.0 Used to sample liquids, powders, or small solids at a distance up to 12 feet. Adaptable to different container sizes. Not suitable for discrete samples. Can sample a wide variety of locations. Syringe sampler E. 3.3 ASTM D 5743 ASTM D 6063 Shallow, discrete, disturbed 0.2 to 0.5 Recommended for highly viscous liquids, sludges and tar­ like substances. Easy to decontaminate. Obtains samples at discrete depths but limited to length of device. Waste must be viscous enough to stay in sampler. Thin­ walled tube E. 4.5 ASTM D 1587 ASTM D 4823 ASTM D 4700 Surface or depth, undisturbed 0.5 to 5.0 Useful for collecting an undisturbed sample (depends on extension). May require a catcher to retain soil samples. Inexpensive, easy to decontaminate. Samples for VOAs may be biased when sample is extruded. Trier E. 4.4 ASTM D 5451 ASTM D 6063 Surface, relatively undisturbed, selective 0.1 to 0.5 Recommended for powdered or granular materials or wastes in piles or in bags, drums, or similar containers. Best for moist or sticky materials. Will introduce sampling bias when used to sample coarse­ grained materials. Trowel E. 7.5 ASTM D 5633 ASTM D 4700 ASTM D 6063 Surface, disturbed, selective 0.1 to 0.6 Usually for surface soil and solid waste samples. Available in different materials and simple to obtain. May bias sample because of particle size, and may exacerbate loss of VOAs. Valved drum sampler E. 6.3 Shallow, composite 0.3 to 1.6 Used to collect a vertical column of liquid. Available in various materials for repeat or single use. High viscosity liquids may be difficult to sample. 120 Table 10. Descriptions of Media Listed in Table 8. Media Description Examples Liquids ­­ no distinct layer of interest Liquids (aqueous or nonaqueous) that are or are not stratified and samples from discrete intervals are not of interest. Sampling devices for this medium do not need to be designed to collect liquids at discrete depths. Containerized leachates or spent solvents; leachates or other liquids released from a spigot or discharged from a pipe. Liquids ­­ one or more distinct layers of interest Liquids (aqueous or nonaqueous) that are stratified with distinct layers and collection of samples from discrete intervals is of interest. Sampling devices for this media do need to be designed to collect liquids at discrete depths. Mixtures of antifreeze and used oil; light or dense non aqueous phase liquids and water in a container, such as a tank. Sludges or slurries Materials that are a mixture of liquids and solids and that may be viscous or oily. Includes materials with suspended solids. Waste water treatment sludges from electroplating; slurry created by combining solid waste incinerator ash and water. Granular solids, unconsolidated Solids which are not cemented, or do not require significant pressure to separate into particles, and are comprised of relatively small particles or components. Excavated (ex situ) soil in a staging pile; filter press cake; fresh cement kiln dust; incinerator ash.* Other solids, unconsolidated Solids with larger particles than those covered by granular solids. The sampling device needs to collect a larger diameter or volume of sample to accommodate the larger particles. Waste pellets or catalysts. * For EPA­ published guidance on the sampling of incinerator ash, see Guidance for the Sampling and Analysis of Municipal Waste Combustion Ash for the Toxicity Characteristic (USEPA 1995f). 121 Table 10. Descriptions of Media Listed in Table 8 (Continued). Media Description Examples Soil (in­ situ) and other unconsolidated geologic material Soil in its original undisturbed location or other geologic material that does not require significant pressure to separate into particles. In situ soil sampling may be conducted at subsurface or surface depths. Surface soils generally are defined as soils between the ground surface and 6 to 12 inches below the ground surface (USEPA 1996b); however, the definition of surface soils in State programs may vary considerably from EPA's. Subsurface soil at a land treatment unit; surface soil contaminated by a chemical spill on top of the ground or soil near a leak from an excavated underground storage tank.* Solids, consolidated Cemented or otherwise dense solids that require significant physical pressure to break apart into smaller parts. Concrete, wood, and architectural debris. Air For the purpose of RCRA sampling, air includes emissions from stationary sources or indoor air. Emissions from boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs).** Sediment Settled, unconsolidated solids beneath a flowing or standing liquid layer. Sediment in a surface water body. Soil gas or vapor Gas or vapor phase in the vadose zone. The vadose zone is the hydrogeological region extending from the soil surface to the top of the principal water table. Soil gas overlying a waste disposal site. Ground water "Water below the land surface in a zone of saturation" (40 CFR 260.10). Water can also be present below the land surface in the unsaturated (vadose) zone. Ground water in monitoring wells surrounding a hazardous waste landfill.*** * Detailed guidance on soil sampling can be found in Preparation of Soil Sampling Protocols: Sampling Techniques and Strategies (Mason 1992), which provides a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of various sample collection methods for soil. ** See Chapter Ten of SW­ 846 for EPA­ approved methods for sampling air under RCRA. *** Detailed guidance on ground­ water sampling can be found in RCRA Ground­ Water Monitoring ­­ Draft Technical Guidance (USEPA 1992c), which updates technical information in Chapter Eleven of SW­ 846 (Rev. 0, Sept. 1986) and the Technical Enforcement Guidance Document (TEGD). 122 7.2 Conducting Field Sampling Activities This section provides guidance on performing field sampling activities that typically are performed during implementation of the sampling plan. Additional guidance can be found in Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Wastes, a Guidance Manual (USEPA 1994a), Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual, U. S. EPA Region 4, May 1996 (USEPA 1996b), other USEPA guidance cited in the reference section of this chapter, and various ASTM standards summarized in Appendix J of this guidance. See also Appendix C of EPA's Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (USEPA 1998a). The latter document includes extensive checklists, including the following: ° Sample handling, preparation, and analysis checklist ° QAPP review checklist ° Chain­ of­ custody checklist. In this section, we provide guidance on the following topics: ° Sample containers (Section 7.2.1) ° Sample preservation and holding times (Section 7.2.2) ° Documentation of field activities (Section 7.2.3) ° Field quality control samples (Section 7.2.4) ° Sample identification and chain­ of­ custody procedures (Section 7.2.5) ° Decontamination of equipment and personnel (Section 7.2.6) ° Health and safety (Section 7.2.7) ° Sample packaging and shipping (Section 7.2.8). 7.2.1 Selecting Sample Containers All samples should be placed in containers of a size and construction appropriate for the volume of material specified in the sampling plan and as appropriate for the requested analyses. If sufficient sample volume is not collected, the analysis of all requested parameters and complete quality control determinations may not be possible. In addition, minimum sample volumes may be required to control sampling errors (see Section 6). Chapters Two, Three, and Four of SW­ 846 identify the appropriate containers for RCRA­ related analyses by SW­ 846 methods. It is important to understand that a single "sample" may need to be apportioned to more than one container to satisfy the volume and preservation requirements specified by different categories of analytical methods. Furthermore, the analytical plan may require transport of portions of a sample to more than one laboratory. Factors to consider when choosing containers are compatibility with the waste components, cost, resistance to breakage, and volume. Containers must not distort, rupture, or leak as a result of chemical reactions with constituents of waste samples. The containers must have adequate wall thickness to withstand handling during sample collection and transport. For analysis of non­ volatile constituents, containers with wide mouths are often desirable to facilitate Chapters Two, Three, and Four of SW­ 846 identify some of the appropriate containers for RCRA­ related analyses by SW­ 846 methods. 2 For example, when inspections are conducted under Section 3007 of RCRA (42 U. S. C. § 6927), and samples are obtained, EPA must provide a split sample to the facility, upon request. 123 transfer of samples from the equipment. The containers must be large enough to contain the optimum sample volume specified in the DQO Process. You should store samples containing light­ sensitive organic constituents in amber glass bottles with Teflon®­ lined lids. Polyethylene containers are not appropriate for use when the samples are to be analyzed for organic constituents because the plastics could contribute organic contaminants and potentially introduce bias. If liquid samples are to be submitted for analysis of volatile compounds, you must store the samples in air­ tight containers with zero head space. You can store samples intended for metals and other inorganic constituent analyses in polyethylene containers with polyethylene­ lined lids. We recommend that you consult with a chemist for further direction regarding chemical compatibility of available containers and the media to be sampled. We recommend that an extra supply of containers be available at the sampling location in case you want to collect more sample material than originally planned or you need to retain splits of each sample. 2 Always use clean sample containers of an assured quality. For container cleaning procedures and additional container information, refer to the current iteration of Specifications and Guidance for Contaminant­ Free Sample Containers (USEPA 1992d). You may wish to purchase pre­ cleaned/ quality assured bottles in lieu of cleaning your own bottles (USEPA 2001g). 7.2.2 Sample Preservation and Holding Times Samples are preserved to minimize any chemical or physical changes that might occur between the time of sample collection and analysis. Preservation can be by physical means (e. g., kept at a certain temperature) or chemical means (e. g., with the addition of chemical preservatives). If a sample is not preserved properly, the levels of constituents of concern in the sample may be altered through chemical, biological, or photo­ degradation, or by leaching, sorption, or other chemical or physical reactions within the sample container. The appropriate method for preserving a sample will depend on the physical characteristics of the sample (such as soil, waste, water, etc.), the concentration of constituents in the sample, and the analysis to be performed on the sample. Addition of chemical preservatives may be required for samples to be analyzed for certain parameters. You should not chemically preserve highly concentrated samples. Samples with low concentrations, however, should be preserved. You should consult with a chemist at the laboratory regarding the addition of chemical preservatives and the possible impact on the concentration of constituents in the sample. Also, be aware that addition of some chemical preservatives to highly concentrated waste samples may result in a dangerous reaction. Regardless of preservation measures, the concentrations of constituents within a sample can degrade over time. Therefore, you also should adhere to sample holding times (time from sample collection to analysis), particularly if the constituents of concern are volatiles in low concentrations. Analytical data generated outside of the specified holding times are considered to be minimum values only. You may use such data to demonstrate that a waste is hazardous 124 where the value of a constituent­ of­ concern is above the regulatory threshold, but you cannot use the data to demonstrate that a waste is not hazardous. Exceeding a holding time when the results are above a decision level does not invalidate the data. Appropriate sample preservation techniques and sample holding times for aqueous matrices are listed in Chapters Two, Three, and Four of SW­ 846. You should also consult the methods to be used during analysis of the sampled waste. In addition, Standard Guide for Sampling Waste and Soil for Volatile Organic Compounds (ASTM D 4547­ 98) provides information regarding the preservation of volatile organic levels in waste and soil samples. 7.2.3 Documentation of Field Activities This section provides guidance on documenting field activities. Records of field activities should be legible, identifiable, retrievable and protected against damage, deterioration, and loss. You should record all documentation in waterproof, non­ erasable ink. If you make an error in any of these documents, make corrections by crossing a single line through the error and entering the correct information adjacent to it. The corrections should then be initialed and dated. Stick­ on labels of information should not be removable without evidence of the tampering. Do not put labels over previously recorded information. Keep a dedicated logbook for each sampling project with the name of the project leader, team members, and project name written inside the front cover. Document all aspects of sample collection and handling in the logbook. Entries should be legible, accurate, and complete. The language should be factual and objective. You also should include information regarding sample collection equipment (use and decontamination), field analytical equipment and the measurements, calculations and calibration data, the name of the person who collected the sample, sample numbers, sample location description and diagram or map, sample description, time of collection, climatic conditions, and observations of any unusual events. Document the collection of QC samples and any deviations from procedural documents, such as the QAPP and SOPs. When videos, slides, or photographs are taken, you should number them to correspond to logbook entries. The name of the photographer, date, time, site location, and site description should be entered sequentially into the logbook as photos are taken. A series entry may be used for rapid aperture settings and shutter speeds for photographs taken within the normal automatic exposure range. Special lenses, films, filters, or other image enhancement techniques must be noted in the logbook. Chain­ of­ custody procedures for photoimages depend on the subject matter, type of film, and the processing it requires. Adequate logbook notations and receipts may be used to account for routine film processing. Once developed, the slides or photographic prints should be serially numbered corresponding to the logbook descriptions and labeled (USEPA 1992e). 7.2.4 Field Quality Control Samples Quality control samples are collected during field studies to monitor the performance of sample collection and the risk of sampling bias or errors. Field QC samples could include the following: 125 [Name of Sampling Organization] Sample Description Plant: Date: Time: Media: Sample Type: Sampled By: Sample ID No.: Location: Station: Preservative: Figure 29. Sample label Equipment blank: A rinse sample of the decontaminated sampling equipment using organic/ analyte free water under field conditions to evaluate the effectiveness of equipment decontamination or to detect sample cross contamination. Trip blank: A sample prepared prior to the sampling event and stored with the samples throughout the event. It is packaged for shipment with the samples and not opened until the shipment reaches the laboratory. The sample is used to identify any contamination that may be attributed to sample handling and shipment. Field blank: A sample prepared in the field using organic/ analyte free water to evaluate the potential for contamination by site contaminants not associated with the sample collected (e. g., airborne organic vapors) Field split sample: Two or more representative portions taken from the same sample and submitted for analysis to different laboratories. Field split samples are used to estimate interlaboratory precision. In addition to collecting field QC samples, other QC procedures include sample storage, handling, and documentation protocols. These procedures are covered separately in the following sections. In addition, Chapter One of SW­ 846, entitled "Quality Control", contains guidance regarding both field and laboratory QA/ QC. We also recommend reviewing the following for information on field QA/ QC: ° EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (USEPA 1998a) ° Standard Practice for Generation of Environmental Data Related to Waste Management Activities: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Planning and Implementation (ASTM D 5283­ 92). 7.2.5 Sample Identification and Chain­ of­ Custody Procedures You should identify samples for laboratory analysis with sample tags or labels. An example of a sample label is given in Figure 29. Typically, information on the sample label should include the sample identification code or number, date, time of collection, preservative used, media, location, initials of the sampler, and analysis requested. While not required, you may elect to seal each sample container with a custody seal (Figure 30). You should use chain­ of­ custody procedures to record the custody of the samples. Chain­ of­ custody is the custody of samples from time of collection through shipment to analysis. A sample is in one's custody if: 126 Figure 30. Custody seal ° It is in the actual possession of an investigator ° It is in the view of an investigator, after being in their physical possession ° It is in the physical possession of an investigator, who secures it to prevent tampering ° It is placed in a designated secure area. All sample sets should be accompanied by a chain­ of­ custody form. This record also serves as the sample logging mechanism for the laboratory sample custodian. Figure 31 illustrates the content of a chain­ of­ custody form. When the possession of samples is transferred, both the individual relinquishing the samples and the individual receiving the samples should sign, date, and note the time on the chain­ of­ custody document. If you use overnight shipping service to transport the samples, record the air bill number on the chain­ of­ custody form. This chain­ ofcustody record represents the official documentation for all transfers of the sample custody until the samples have arrived at the laboratory. The original form of the chain­ of­ custody record should accompany each shipment. A copy should be retained by a representative of the sampling team. When sample custody is transferred between individuals, the samples or coolers containing the samples are sealed with a custody seal. This seal cannot be removed or broken without destruction of the seal, providing an indicator that custody has been terminated. EPA's Superfund Program has developed software called Field Operations and Records Management System (FORMS) II Lite™ that automates the printing of sample documentation in the field, reduces time spent completing sample collection and transfer documentation, and facilitates electronic capture of data prior to and during field sampling activities. For information on FORMS II Lite™, see http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund/ programs/ clp/ f2lite. htm. For additional information on chain­ of­ custody procedures, we recommend ASTM D 4840, Standard Guide for Sampling Chain­ of­ Custody Procedures. 127 Figure 31. Chain­ of­ custody form 128 7.2.6 Decontamination of Equipment and Personnel Decontamination of sampling equipment refers to the physical and chemical steps taken to remove any chemical or material contamination. Equipment decontamination helps prevent sampling bias. All equipment that comes in contact with the sampled material should be free of components that could influence (contaminate) the true physical or chemical composition of the material. Besides the equipment used to collect the samples, any containers or equipment used for sample compositing or for field subsampling should be free of contamination. Equipment decontamination also prevents cross­ contamination of samples when the equipment is used to collect more than one sample. Disposable equipment or the use of dedicated equipment provides the most effective means of avoiding cross­ contamination; however, the use of such equipment is not always practical. You should decontaminate equipment to a level that meets the minimum requirements for your data collection effort. Your decontamination steps (e. g., use of solvents versus use of only soap and water), therefore, should be selected based on the constituents present, their concentration levels in the waste or materials sampled, and their potential to introduce bias in the sample analysis results if not removed from the sampling equipment. You should describe the projectspecific decontamination procedures in your planning document for the sampling effort. In addition, items used to clean the equipment, such as bottle brushes, should be free of contamination. The following procedure is an example of one you could use to decontaminate a sampling device to be used for collecting samples for trace organic or inorganic constituent analyses (from USEPA 1996b): 1. Clean the device with tap water and soap, using a brush if necessary to remove particulate matter and surface films. 2. Rinse thoroughly with tap water. 3. Rinse thoroughly with analyte­ or organic­ free water. 4. Rinse thoroughly with solvent. Do not solvent­ rinse PVC or plastic items. 5. Rinse thoroughly with organic/ analyte free water, or allow equipment to dry completely. 6. Remove the equipment from the decontamination area. Equipment stored overnight should be wrapped in aluminum foil and covered with clean, unused plastic. The specifications for the cleaning materials are as follows (you should justify and document the use of substitutes): ° "Soap" should be a phosphate­ free laboratory detergent such as Liquinox®. It must be kept in clean plastic, metal, or glass containers until used and poured directly from the container when in use. 129 ° "Solvent" should be pesticide­ grade isopropanol. It must be stored in the unopened original containers until used. It may be applied using the low pressure nitrogen system fitted with a Teflon® nozzle, or using Teflon® squeeze bottles. For equipment highly contaminated with organics (such as oily waste), a laboratory­ grade hexane may be a more suitable alternative to isopropanol. ° "Tap water" may be used from any municipal water treatment system. Use of an untreated potable water supply is not an acceptable substitute. Tap water may be kept in clean tanks, hand pressure sprayers, squeeze bottles, or applied directly from a hose or tap. ° "Analyte free water" (deionized water) is tap water treated by passing it through a standard deionizing resin column. At a minimum, it must contain no detectable heavy metals or other inorganic compounds as defined by a standard ICP (or equivalent) scan. It may be obtained by other methods as long as it meets the analytical criteria. Analyte free water must be stored in clean glass, stainless steel, or plastic containers that can be closed prior to use. It can be applied from plastic squeeze bottles. ° "Organic/ analyte free water" is tap water that has been treated with activated carbon and deionizing units. A portable system to produce such water under field conditions is available. At a minimum, the water must meet the criteria of analyte free water and not contain detectable pesticides, herbicides, or extractable organic compounds, and no volatile organic compounds above minimum detectable levels as determined for a given set of analyses. Organic/ analyte free water obtained by other methods is acceptable, as long as it meets the analytical criteria. It must be stored in clean glass, Teflon®, or stainless steel containers. It may be applied using Teflon® squeeze bottles or with the portable system. Clean the field equipment prior to field use. Designate a decontamination zone at the site and, if necessary, construct a decontamination pad at a location free of surface contamination. You should collect wastewater from decontamination (e. g., via a sump or pit) and remove it frequently for appropriate treatment or disposal. The pad or area should not leak contaminated water into the surrounding environment. You also should collect solvent rinses for proper disposal. You should always handle field­ cleaned equipment in a manner that prevents recontamination. For example, after decontamination but prior to use, store the equipment in a location away from the cleaning area and in an area free of contaminants. If it is not immediately reused, you should cover it with plastic or aluminum foil to prevent recontamination. Decontamination will generate a quantity of wastes called investigation derived waste (IDW). You should address the handling and disposal of IDW in your sampling plan. You must handle this material in accordance with whether it is nonhazardous or suspected of, or known to be, hazardous. You should minimize the generation of hazardous IDW and keep it separated from nonhazardous IDW. For example, you should control the volume of spent solvents during equipment decontamination by applying the minimum amount of liquid necessary and capturing 130 it separately from the nonhazardous washwater. For additional guidance on handling IDW, see Management of Investigation­ Derived Wastes (USEPA 1992f). Decontamination of personnel and their protective gear also is often necessary during hazardous waste sampling. This important type of decontamination protects personnel from chemical exposure and prevents cross­ contamination when personnel change locations. The level or degree of such decontamination will depend on site­ specific considerations, such as the health hazards posed by exposure to the sampled waste. You should address these decontamination procedures in your health and safety plan. For additional information regarding decontamination, see ASTM D 5088, Standard Practice for Decontamination of Field Equipment Used at Nonradioactive Waste Sites. Another source of additional information is "Sampling Equipment Decontamination" (USEPA 1994f), issued by EPA's Environmental Response Team. 7.2.7 Health and Safety Considerations Regulations published by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) at 29 CFR Part 1910.120 govern workers at hazardous waste sites and include requirements for training, equipment, medical monitoring, and other practices. Many sampling activities covered by this guidance may require compliance with OSHA's health and safety regulations. Specific guidance on worker health and safety is beyond the scope of this chapter; however, development and use of a project­ specific health and safety plan may be required. It is the responsibility of the sampling team leader and others in charge to ensure worker safety. Some important health and safety considerations follow: ° Field personnel should be up­ to­ date in their health and safety training. ° Field personnel should have a medical examination at the initiation of sampling activities and routinely thereafter, as appropriate and as required by the OSHA regulations. Unscheduled examinations should be performed in the event of an accident or suspected exposure to hazardous materials. ° Staff also should be aware of the common routes of exposure at a site and be instructed in the proper use of safety equipment and protective clothing and equipment. Safe areas should be designated for washing, drinking, and eating. ° To minimize the impact of an emergency situation, field personnel should be aware of basic first aid and have immediate access to a first aid kit. The guidance manual Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities (OSHA 1985, revised 1998) was jointly developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), OSHA, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and EPA. Its intended audience is those who are responsible for occupational safety and health programs at hazardous waste sites. 131 7.2.8 Sample Packaging and Shipping During transport of waste samples, you should follow all State and Federal regulations governing environmental sample packaging and shipment and ship according to U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and International Air Transportation Association (IATA) regulations. Minimum guidelines for sample packaging and shipping procedures follow in the next subsections; however, the rules and regulations for sample packaging and shipping are complex, and for some samples and shipping situations the procedures outlined below may need to be exceeded. 7.2.8.1 Sample Packaging You should package and label samples in an area free of contamination. You also should ship or transport samples to a laboratory within a time frame that meets recommended sample holding times for the respective analyses. Additional guidelines follow: ° Aqueous samples for inorganic analysis and volatile organic analysis may require chemical preservation. The specific preservation requirements will depend on the analytical method to be used. ° Make sure all lids/ caps are tight and will not leak. ° Make sure sample labels are intact and covered with a piece of clear tape for protection. ° Enclose the sample container in a clear plastic bag and seal the bag. Make sure the sample labels are visible. If bubble wrap or other wrapping material will be placed around the labeled containers, write the sample number and fraction (e. g., "BLH01­ VOCs") so that it is visible on the outside of the wrap, then place the wrapped container in a clear plastic bag and seal the bag. ° Make sure that all samples that need to be kept cold (4 ± 2 o C) have been thoroughly cooled before placing in packing material so that the packing material serves to insulate the cold. Change the ice prior to shipment as needed. Ideally, pack the cooled samples into shipping containers that have already been chilled. (Of course, these precautions are not necessary if none of the samples in the shipping container need to be kept cold.) ° Any soil/ sediment samples suspected to be of medium/ high concentration or containing dioxin must be enclosed in a metal can with a clipped or sealable lid (e. g., paint cans) to achieve double containment of those samples. Place suitable absorbent packing material around the sample container in the can. Make sure the sample is securely stored in a can and the lid is sealed. Label the outer metal container with the sample number and fraction of the sample inside. °Use clean waterproof metal or hard plastic ice chests or coolers that are in good repair for shipping samples. ° Remove the inapplicable previous shipping labels. Make sure any drain plugs 132 are shut. Seal plugs shut on the inside and outside with a suitable tape such as duct tape. Line the cooler with plastic (e. g., large heavy­ duty garbage bag) before inserting samples. ° Ship samples at 4 ± 2 o C, place double­ bagged ice on top of samples. Ice must be sealed in double plastic bags to prevent melting ice from soaking the packing material. Loose ice should not be poured into the cooler. ° Conduct an inventory of sample numbers, fractions, and containers when placing samples into the coolers. Check the inventory against the corresponding chainof custody form before sealing the cooler to make sure that all samples and containers are present. ° Pack the lined shipping containers with noncombustible absorbent packing material, such as vermiculite or rock wool. Place the packing material on the bottom of the shipping container (inside the plastic liner) and around sample bottles or metal cans to avoid breakage during shipment. Never use earth, ice, paper, or styrofoam to pack samples. Earth is a contaminant, melted ice may cause complications and allow the sample containers to bang together when the shipping container is moved, and styrofoam presents a disposal problem (it also may easily blow out of the shipping container at the site). ° For samples that need to be shipped at 4 ± 2º C, place double­ bagged ice on top of samples and fill remaining space with packing material. If sample bottles have been protected with packaging material such as bubble wrap, then some doublebagged ice or ice packs also may be placed between samples. ° Use tape to securely fasten the top of the plastic used to line the shipping container. It is a good idea to then place a completed custody seal around the top of the bag that contains the sample in case the outer seals placed across the cooler lid are inadvertently damaged during shipment. ° Enclose all sample documentation (i. e., chain­ of­ custody forms and cooler return shipping documents) in a waterproof plastic bag, and tape the bag to the underside of the cooler lid. This documentation should address all samples in the cooler, but not address samples in any other cooler. ° If more than one cooler is being used, place separate sample documentation in each cooler. Instructions for returning the cooler should be documented inside the cooler lid. Write a return name and address for the sample cooler on the inside of the cooler lid in permanent ink to ensure return of the cooler. ° Tape the cooler shut using strapping tape over the hinges. Place completed custody seals across the top and sides of the cooler lid so that lid cannot be opened without breaking the seal. ° Place clear tape over the seal to prevent inadvertent damage to the seal during shipment. Do not place clear tape over the seals in a manner that would allow the seals to be lifted off with the tape and then reaffixed without breaking the 133 seal. For additional detailed guidance on sample documentation, packaging, and shipping, we recommend the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Guidance for Field Samplers ­ Draft Final (USEPA 2001g). 7.2.8.2 Sample Shipping In general, samples of drinking water, most ground waters and ambient surface waters, soil, sediment, treated waste waters, and other low concentration samples can be shipped as environmental samples; however, shipment of high concentration waste samples may require shipment as dangerous goods (not as "hazardous waste"). Note that RCRA regulations specifically exempt samples of hazardous waste from RCRA waste identification, manifest, permitting, and notification requirements (see 40 CFR §261.4( d)). The shipment of samples to and from a laboratory, however, must comply with U. S. DOT, U. S. Postal Service, or any other applicable shipping requirements. If a sample is a hazardous waste, once received at the laboratory, it must be managed as a hazardous waste. In recent years, commercial overnight shipping services have adopted the regulations of the IATA for shipment of dangerous goods by air. The IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations contain all provisions mandated by the International Civil Aviation Organization and all rules universally agreed to by airlines to correctly package and safely transport dangerous goods by air. Contact IATA for a copy of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations and for assistance in locating suppliers of specialized packaging for dangerous goods. When shipping samples, perform the following activities: ° Clearly label the cooler and fill out appropriate shipping papers. ° Place return address labels clearly on the outside of the cooler. ° If more than one cooler is being shipped, mark each cooler as "1 of 2," "2 of 2," etc. ° Ship samples through a commercial carrier. Use appropriate packaging, mark and label packages, and fill out all required government and commercial carrier shipping papers according to DOT and IATA commercial carrier regulations. ° Ship all samples by overnight delivery in accordance with DOT and IATA regulations. For information on shipping dangerous goods visit the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Dangerous Goods Information Online at http:// www. iata. org/ cargo/ dg/ index. htm or call 1­ 800­ 716­ 6326. 134 7.3 Using Sample Homogenization, Splitting, and Subsampling Techniques 7.3.1 Homogenization Techniques The objective of homogenization (mixing) is to minimize grouping and segregation of particles so they are randomly distributed within the sample. While homogenization can reduce grouping and segregation of particles, it will not eliminate it and will not make the material "homogeneous." If homogenization is successful, subsamples of the homogenized material will show less variability than if the material was not homogenized. Homogenization, combined with a composite sampling strategy, can be an efficient method for improving the accuracy and precision in sampling of particulate material (Jenkins, et al. 1996). Homogenization can be applied to solids, liquids, slurries, and sludges. Pitard (1993) recognizes two processes for homogenization: Stationary processes ­ in which the material is not mixed but is redistributed so that any correlation between the characteristics of individual fragments or particles is lost or minimized. An example of this process is the collection of many small increments to form an individual sample (ideally we would pick many individual particles at random to form the sample, but this is not possible). Dynamic processes ­ in which the material is mechanically mixed to remove or minimize correlation between the characteristics of the fragment or particle and its position within the sample. Examples of this process include mechanical mixing within a container and use of magnetic stirrers in a beaker. Note that the benefits of homogenization may be temporary because gravity­ induced segregation can occur during shipment, storage, and handling of samples. For this reason, consider carrying out homogenization (mixing) immediately prior to analysis. Some homogenization techniques work better than others. The strengths and limitations of homogenization equipment and procedures (cone and quartering, riffle splitters, rotary splitters, multiple cone splitters, and V­ blenders) have been reviewed in the literature by Pitard (1993), Schumacher, et al. (1991), ASTM (Standard D 6051­ 96), and others. The preferred techniques for use within the laboratory follow: ° Riffling (see also Section 7.3.2) ° Fractional shoveling (see also Section 7.3.2) ° Mechanical mixing ° Cone and quartering ° Magnetic stirrers (e. g., to homogenize the contents of an open beaker) ° V­ blenders. Fractional shoveling and mechanical mixing also can be used in the field. Note that some techniques for homogenization, such as riffling and fractional shoveling, also are used for splitting and subsampling. Note that Pitard (1993) discourages the use of "sheet mixing" (also called "mixing square") and vibratory spatulas because they tend to segregate particles of different density and size. 135 Sample One Sample Two Sample Three Sample Five Sample Four Lot Figure 32. Fractional shoveling as a sample splitting method (after Pitard 1993) 7.3.2 Sample Splitting Splitting is employed when a field sample is significantly larger than the required analytical sample. The goal of splitting is to reduce the mass of the retained sample and obtain an aliquot of the field sample that reflects the average properties of the entire field sample. It is often necessary to repeat the splitting process a number of times to achieve a sufficient reduction in mass for analytical purposes. Splitting can be used to generate a reduced mass aliquot that can be analyzed in its entirety or a much reduced and homogenized mass from which an analytical or subsample can be collected. ASTM's Standard Guide for Laboratory Subsampling of Media Related to Waste Management Activities (ASTM D 6323­ 98), lists and discusses a variety of splitting equipment (such as sectorial splitters and riffle splitters) and splitting procedures (such as cone and quartering and the alternate scoop method). Gerlach, et al. (2002) also evaluated sample splitting methods (riffle splitting, paper cone riffle splitting, fractional shoveling, coning and quartering, and grab sampling) and found that riffle splitting methods performed the best. A simple alternative to riffle splitting a sample of solid media is a technique called "fractional shoveling." To perform fractional shoveling, deal out small increments from the larger sample in sequence into separate piles, randomly select one of the piles and retain it as the subsample (or retain more than one if a portion of the sample is to be "split" with another party and/ or retained for archive purposes), and reject the others (see Figure 32). 7.3.3 Subsampling The size of the sample submitted to the laboratory (either an individual sample or a composite) by field personnel typically far exceeds that required for analysis. Consequently, subsampling is needed. A subsample is defined as "a portion of material taken from a larger quantity for the purpose of estimating properties or the composition of the whole sample" (ASTM D 4547­ 98). Taking a subsample may be as simple as collecting the required mass from a larger mass, or it may involve one or more preparatory steps such as grinding, homogenization, and/ or splitting of the larger mass prior to removal of the subsample. Specific procedures for maintaining sample integrity (e. g., minimizing fundamental error) during splitting and subsampling operations typically are not addressed in quality assurance, sampling, or analytical plans, and error may be introduced unknowingly in subsampling and sample preparation. Many environmental laboratories do not have adequate SOPs for subsampling; therefore, it is important for the data users to provide the laboratory personnel clear instruction if any special subsampling or sample handling procedures are needed (such as instructions on mixing of the sample prior to analysis, removing particles greater than a certain size, analyzing 136 phases separately, etc.). If proper subsampling procedures are not specified in planning documents, SOPs, or documents shipped with the samples, it may be difficult to assess the usability of the results. The following sections provide general guidance on obtaining subsamples of liquids, mixtures of liquids and solids, and soils and solid media. For additional guidance and detailed procedures, see Standard Guide for Composite Sampling and Field Subsampling for Environmental Waste Management Activities (ASTM D 6051­ 96) and Standard Guide for Laboratory Subsampling of Media Related to Waste Management Activities (ASTM D 6323­ 98). 7.3.3.1 Subsampling Liquids In the case of subsampling a liquid, special precautions may be warranted if the liquid contains suspended solids and/ or the liquid comprises multiple liquid phases. In practice, samples may contain solids and/ or separate phases that are subject to gravitational action (Gy 1998). Even a liquid that appears clear (absent of solids and without iridescence) may not be "homogeneous." Subsampling of liquids (containing solids and/ or in multiple phases) can be addressed by using one or the other of two possible approaches: ° Mixing the sample such that all phases are homogenized, and then taking a subsample (using a pipette, for example) ° Allowing all of the phases to separate followed by subsampling and analysis of each phase separately. Of course, the characteristics of the waste and the type of test must be considered. For example, mixing of multi­ phasic wastes to be analyzed for volatiles should be avoided due to the potential loss of constituents. Some multi­ phasic liquid wastes can form an emulsion when mixed. Others, in spite of mixing, will quickly separate back into distinct phases. 7.3.3.2 Subsampling Mixtures of Liquids and Solids If the sample is a mixture of liquids and solids, subsampling usually requires that the phases be separated. The separate phases are then separately subsampled. Subsampling of the liquid phase can be accomplished as described above, while subsampling of the solid phase should be done according to sampling theory, as summarized below. 7.3.3.3 Subsampling Soils and Solid Media To correctly subsample soil or solid media, use sampling tools and techniques that minimize delimitation and extraction error. If the particles in the sample are too coarse to maintain fundamental error within desired limits, it may be necessary to perform a series of steps of particle size reduction followed by subsampling (see Appendix D). If the field sample mass is equal to or less than the specified analytical size, the field sample can be analyzed in its entirety. If the mass of the field sample is greater than the specified analytical sample size, subsampling will be required. One possible alternative to particle­ size reduction prior to subsampling is to simply remove the 137 Flat­ bottom Spatula Figure 33. Example of correctly designed device for subsampling. Flat bottom and vertical side walls minimize increment delimitation error. coarse particles (e. g., via a sieve or visually) from the sample. This selective removal technique is not recommended in situations in which the larger particles contribute to the overall concentration of the constituent of concern in the waste. In other words, do not remove the large particles if the constituents of concern tend to be concentrated in the large particles relative to the smaller particles. If the largest particle size of the field sample exceeds the allowable size for maintaining the fundamental error specified by the DQO and the analyte of interest is volatile, it may be necessary to analyze the sample as is and accept a large fundamental error. Guidance on handling VOCs in samples can be found in Section 6.3.4 and in ASTM Standard D 4547­ 98. The Standard Guide for Laboratory Subsampling of Media Related to Waste Management Activities (ASTM D 6323­ 98) lists a variety of equipment for performing particle­ size reduction (e. g., cutting mills, jar mills, disc mills, dish and puck mills, mortar grinders and jaw crushers) and tabulates their uses and limitations. The techniques discussed below are most relevant to subsampling of solid particulate matter for analysis of nonvolatile constituents. Mason (1992, page 5­ 7) provides a field procedure that can be used to reduce the volume of a field soil sample for submission to the laboratory. The issues regarding the subsampling of particulate­ containing materials are identical to those considered when collecting the original field samples and are as follows: ° The tool used to collect the analytical sample must be correct and not discriminate against any portion of the sample (in other words, the tool should not introduce increment delimitation and increment extraction errors). ° The mass of the subsample must be enough to accommodate the largest of the particles contained within the parent sample (to reduce fundamental error). ° The sample mass and the manner in which it is collected must accommodate the short­ term heterogeneity within the field sample (to reduce grouping and segregation error). The sampling tool must be constructed such that its smallest dimension is at least three times greater than the largest particle size contained within the material being subsampled. The construction of the sampling tool must be such that it does not discriminate against certain areas of the material being sampled. For example, Pitard (1993) argues that all scoops for subsampling should be rectangular or square in design with flat bottoms as opposed to having curved surfaces (Figure 33). Pitard (1993) and ASTM D 6323­ 98 suggest 138 INCORRECT CORRECT (b) Spatula Trajectory (a) Figure 34. Correct (a) and incorrect (b) laboratory techniques for obtaining subsamples of granular solid media (( a) modified after Pitard 1993). subsampling from relatively flat elongated piles using a transversal subsampling technique that employs a sampling scoop or spatula and a flat working surface (Figure 34( a)). The objective is to convert the sampling problem to a one­ dimensional approach. Specifically, Pitard (1993) recommends the following procedure: ° Empty the sample from the sample container onto a smooth and clean surface or appropriate material. ° Do not try to homogenize the sample, as this may promote segregation of particles. ° Reduce the sample by using the fractional shoveling technique (Figure 32) until a sample 5 to 10 times larger than the analytical sample is obtained. ° Shape the remaining material into an elongated pile with uniform width and thickness (Figure 34( a)). ° Take increments all across the pile through the entire thickness. ° Reshape the pile perpendicular to its long axis, and continue to take increments across the pile until the appropriate sample weight is reached. Fractional shoveling and alternate scoop techniques alone (Figure 32) also can be used to generate subsamples. When using these techniques, several stages or iterations of subsampling followed by particle size reduction may be needed to minimize fundamental error (also see Appendix D). At each stage, the number of increments should be at least 10 and preferably 25 to control grouping and segregation (short­ term heterogeneity) within the sample. In the final stage, however, where very small analytical samples are required, the number of increments required will be much less. The subsampling procedures described above offer a more correct and defensible alternative to an approach to subsampling in which the analyst simply opens the sample jar or vial and removes a small increment from the top for preparation and analysis (Figure 34( b)). 139 DATA VERIFICATION/ VALIDATION ° Sampling Assessment ° Analytical Assessment DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT ° Review DQOs and design ° Prepare data for statistical analysis ° Conduct preliminary data review and check assumptions ° Select and perform statistical tests ° Draw conclusions and report results Conclusions Drawn from Data Verified and Validated Data ASSESSMENT Figure 35. Elements of the quality assurance assessment process (modified after USEPA 1998a) 8 ASSESSMENT: ANALYZING AND INTERPRETING DATA This section presents guidance for the assessment of sampling and analytical results. In performing data assessment, evaluate the data set to determine whether the data are sufficient to make the decisions identified in the DQO Process. The data assessment process includes (1) sampling assessment and analytical assessment, and (2) data quality assessment (DQA) (Figure 35) and follows a series of logical steps to determine if the data were collected as planned and to reach conclusions about a waste relative to RCRA requirements. At the end of the process, EPA recommends reconciliation with the DQOs to ensure that they were achieved and to decide whether additional data collection activities are needed. 8.1 Data Verification and Validation Data verification and validation are performed to ensure that the sampling and analysis protocols specified in the QAPP or WAP were followed and that the measurement systems performed in accordance with the criteria specified in the QAPP or WAP. The process is divided into two parts: ° sampling assessment (Section 8.1.1), and ° analytical assessment (Section 8.1.2). Guidance on analytical assessment is provided in Chapter One of SW­ 846 and in the individual analytical methods. Additional guidance can be found in Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation EPA QA/ G­ 8, published by EPA's Office of Environmental Information (USEPA 2001c). For projects generating data for input into risk assessments, see EPA's Guidance for Data Usability in Risk Assessment, Final (USEPA 1992g). 8.1.1 Sampling Assessment Sampling assessment is the process of reviewing field sampling and sample handling methods to check conformance with the requirements specified in the QAPP. Sampling assessment activities include a review of the sampling design, sampling methods, documentation, sampling handling and custody procedures, and preparation and use of quality control samples. 140 The following types of information are useful in assessing the sampling activity: ° Copies of the sampling plan, QAPP, and SOPs. ° Copies of logbooks, chain­ of­ custody records, bench sheets, well logs, sampling sequence logs, field instrument calibration records and performance records, and/ or other records (including electronic records such as calculations) that describe and/ or record all sampling operations, observations, and results associated with samples (including all QC samples) while in the custody of the sampling team. Records/ results from the original sampling and any resampling, regardless of reason, should be retained. Also, retain copies of the shipping manifest and excess sample disposition (disposal) records describing the ultimate fate of any sample material remaining after submission to the laboratory. ° Copies of all records/ comments associated with the sample team review of the original data, senior staff review, and QA/ QC review of the sampling activity. Copies of any communication (telephone logs, faxes, E­ mail, other records) between the sampling team and the customer dealing with the samples and any required resampling or reporting should be provided. The following subsections outline the types of sampling information that should be assessed. 8.1.1.1 Sampling Design Review the documentation of field activities to check if the number and type of samples called for in the sampling plan were, in fact, obtained and collected from the correct locations. Perform activities such as those described below: ° Sampling Design: Document any deviations from the sampling plan made during the field sampling effort and state what impact those modifications might have on the sampling results. ° Sample Locations/ Times: Confirm that the locations of the samples in time or space match those specified in the plan. ° Number of Samples: Check for completeness in the sampling in terms of the number of samples obtained compared to the number targeted. Note the cause of the deficiencies such as structures covering planned locations, limited access due to unanticipated events, samples lost in shipment or in the laboratory, etc. ° Discrete versus Composite Samples: If composite sampling was employed, confirm that each component sample was of equal mass or volume. If not, determine if sufficient information is presented to allow adjustments to any calculations made on the data. Both field and laboratory records should be reviewed because compositing can occur at either location. 141 8.1.1.2 Sampling Methods Details of how a sample was obtained from its original time/ space location are important for properly interpreting the measurement results. Review the selection of sampling and ancillary equipment and procedures (including equipment decontamination) for compliance with the QAPP and sampling theory. Acceptable departures (for example, alternate equipment) from the QAPP and the action to be taken if the requirements cannot be satisfied should be specified for each critical aspect. Note potentially unacceptable departures from the QAPP and assess their potential impact on the quality and usefulness of the data. Comments from field surveillance on deviations from written sampling plans also should be noted. Sampling records should be reviewed to determine if the sample collection and field processing were appropriate for the analytes being measured. For example, sampling for volatiles analysis poses special problems due to the likely loss of volatiles during sample collection. Also, determination of the appropriate "sample support" should be reviewed, whether it was obtained correctly in the field, whether any large particles or fragments were excluded from the sample, and whether any potential biases were introduced. Laboratory subsampling and sample preparation protocols should be examined for the same types of potential bias as the field procedures. When found, they should be discussed in the assessment report. 8.1.1.3 Sample Handling and Custody Procedures Details of how a sample is physically treated and handled between its original site or location and the actual measurement site are extremely important. Sample handling activities should be reviewed to confirm compliance with the QAPP or WAP for the following areas: ° Sample containers ° Preservation (physical and chemical) ° Chain­ of­ custody procedures and documentation ° Sample shipping and transport ° Conditions for storage (before analysis) ° Holding times. 8.1.1.4 Documentation Field records generally consist of bound field notebooks with prenumbered pages, sample collection forms, sample labels or tags, sample location maps, equipment maintenance and calibration forms, chain­ of­ custody forms, sample analysis request forms, and field change request forms. Documentation also may include maps used to document the location of sample collection points or photographs or video to record sampling activities. Review field records to verify they include the appropriate information to support technical 142 interpretations, judgments, and discussions concerning project activities. Records should be legible, identifiable, and retrievable and protected against damage, deterioration, or loss. Especially note any documentation of deviations from SOPs and the QAPP. 8.1.1.5 Control Samples Assess whether the control samples were collected or prepared as specified in the QAPP or WAP. Control samples include blanks (e. g., trip, equipment, and laboratory), duplicates, spikes, analytical standards, and reference materials that are used in different phases of the data collection process from sampling through transportation, storage, and analysis. There are many types of control samples, and the appropriate type and number of control samples to be used will depend on the data quality specifications. See Section 7.2.4 for guidance on the type of control samples for RCRA waste­ testing programs. Additional guidance on the preparation and use of QC samples can be found in the following publications: ° Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW­ 846 (USEPA 1986a), Chapter One ° EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/ G­ 5 (USEPA 1998a), Appendix D ° Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Guidance for Field Samplers ­ Draft Final (USEPA 2001g), Section 3.1.1. 8.1.2 Analytical Assessment Analytical assessment includes an evaluation of analytical and method performance and supporting documentation relative to the DQOs. Proper data review is necessary to minimize decision errors caused by out­ of­ control laboratory processes or calculation or transcription errors. The level and depth of analytical assessment is determined during the planning process and is dependent on the types of analyses performed and the intended use of the data. Analytical records needed to perform the assessment of laboratory activities may include the following: ° Contract Statement of Work requirements °SOPs ° QAPP or WAP ° Equipment maintenance documentation ° Quality assurance information on precision, bias, method quantitation limits, spike recovery, surrogate and internal standard recovery, laboratory control standard recovery, checks on reagent purity, and checks on glassware cleanliness 143 ° Calibration records ° Traceability of standards/ reagents (which provide checks on equipment cleanliness and laboratory handling procedures) ° Sample management records ° Raw data ° Correspondence ° Logbooks and documentation of deviation from procedures. If data gaps are identified, then the assessor should prepare a list of missing information for correspondence and discussion with the appropriate laboratory representative. At that time, the laboratory should be requested to supply the information or to attest that it does not exist in any form. 8.1.2.1 Analytical Data Verification The term data verification is confirmation by examination and provision of objective evidence that specified requirements have been fulfilled. Data verification is the process of evaluating the completeness, correctness, and conformance/ compliance of a specific data set against the method, procedural, or contractual requirements. The goal of data verification is to ensure that the data are what they purport to be, that is, that the reported results reflect what was actually done, and to document that the data fulfill specific requirements. When deficiencies in the data are identified, then those deficiencies should be documented for the data user's review and, where possible, resolved by corrective action (USEPA 2001c). Data verification may be performed by personnel involved with the collection of samples or data, generation of analytical data, and/ or by an external data verifier. The verification process normally starts with a list of requirements that apply to an analytical data package. It compares the laboratory data package to the requirements and produces a report that identifies those requirements that were met and not met. Requirements that were not met can be referred to as exceptions and may result in flagged data. Examples of the types of exceptions that are found and reported are listed below: ° Failure to analyze samples within the required holding times ° Required steps not carried out by the laboratory (i. e., failure to maintain sample custody, lack of proper signatures, etc.) ° Procedures not conducted at the required frequency (i. e., too few blanks, duplicates, etc.) ° Contamination found in storage, extraction, or analysis of blanks ° Procedures that did not meet pre­ set acceptance criteria (poor laboratory control, poor sample matrix spike recovery, unacceptable duplicate precision, etc). 144 The verification report should detail all exceptions found with the data packages. If the laboratory was able to provide the missing information or a suitable narrative explanation of the exceptions, they should be made part of the report and included in the data package for use by the people who determine the technical defensibility of the data. 8.1.2.2 Analytical Data Validation (Evaluation) The term data validation (also known as "evaluation") is the confirmation by examination and provision of objective evidence that the particular requirements for a specific intended use are fulfilled. Data validation is an analyte­ and sample­ specific process that extends the evaluation of data beyond method, procedural, or contractual compliance (i. e., data verification) to determine the analytical quality of a specific data set. Data validation criteria are based upon the measurement quality objectives developed in the QAPP or similar planning document, or presented in the sampling or analytical method. Data validation includes a determination, where possible, of the reasons for any failure to meet method, procedural, or contractual requirements, and an evaluation of the impact of such failure on the overall data set (USEPA 2001c) Data validation includes inspection of the verified data and both field and analytical laboratory data verification documentation; a review of the verified data to determine the analytical quality of the data set; and the production of a data validation report and, where applicable, qualified data. A focused data validation may also be required as a later step. The goals of data validation are to evaluate the quality of the data, to ensure that all project requirements are met, to determine the impact on data quality of those requirements that were not met, and to document the results of the data validation and, if performed, the focused data validation. The main focus of data validation is determining data quality in terms of accomplishment of measurement quality objectives. As in the data verification process, all planning documents and procedures not only must exist, but they should also be readily available to the data validators. A data validator's job cannot be completed properly without the knowledge of the specific project requirements. In many cases, the field and analytical laboratory documents and records are validated by different personnel. Because the data validation process requires knowledge of the type of information to be validated, a person familiar with field activities usually is assigned to the validation of the field documents and records. Similarly, a person with knowledge of analytical laboratory analysis, such as a chemist (depending on the nature of the project), usually is assigned to the validation of the analytical laboratory documents and records. The project requirements should assist in defining the appropriate personnel to perform the data validation (USEPA 2001c). The personnel performing data validation should also be familiar with the project­ specific data quality indicators (DQIs) and associated measurement quality objectives. One of the goals of the data validation process is to evaluate the quality of the data. In order to do so, certain data quality attributes are defined and measured. DQIs (such as precision, bias, comparability, sensitivity, representativeness, and completeness) are typically used as expressions of the quality of the data (USEPA 2001c). The outputs that may result from data validation include validated data, a data validation report, and a focused validation report. For detailed guidance on data validation, see Chapter One of SW­ 846 and Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation EPA QA/ G­ 8 145 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT Review DQOs and Sampling Design Prepare Data for Statistical Analysis Conduct Preliminary Review of Data and Check Statistical Assumptions ° Compute statistical quantities (mean, standard deviation, etc.) ° Determine proportion of data reported as "non­ detect" ° Check distributional assumptions ° Check for outliers Select and Perform the Statistical Test Draw Conclusion from the Data Figure 36. The DQA Process (modified from USEPA 2000d) (USEPA 2001c). 8.2 Data Quality Assessment Data quality assessment (DQA) is the scientific and statistical evaluation of data to determine if the data are of the right type, quality, and quantity to support their intended purpose (USEPA 2000d). The focus of the DQA process is on the use of statistical methods for environmental decision making – though not every environmental decisions necessarily must be made based on the outcome of a statistical test (see also Section 3). If the sampling design established in the planning process requires estimation of a parameter or testing of a hypothesis, then the DQA process can be used to evaluate the sample analysis results. The DQA process described in this section includes five steps: (1) reviewing the DQOs and study design, (2) preparing the data for statistical analysis, (3) conducting a preliminary review of the data and checking statistical assumptions, (4) selecting and performing statistical test, and (5) drawing conclusions from the data (Figure 36). Detailed guidance on the statistical analysis of data can be found in Appendix F. Additional guidance can be found in Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, EPA QA/ G­ 9 (USEPA 2000d). A list of software tools to help you implement the DQA is provided in Appendix H. 8.2.1 Review the DQOs and the Sampling Design Review the DQO outputs to ensure that they are still applicable. Refer back to Sections 4 and 5 of this document for more information on the DQO Process or see USEPA 2000a or 2000b. A clear understanding of the original project objectives, as determined during the systematic planning process, is critical to selecting the appropriate statistical tests (if needed) and interpreting the results relative to the applicable RCRA regulatory requirements. 8.2.2 Prepare Data for Statistical Analysis After data validation and verification and before the data are available in a form for further analysis, several intermediate steps usually are required. For most situations, EPA 146 recommends you prepare the data in computer­ readable format. Steps in preparing data for statistical analysis are outlined below (modified from Ott 1988): 1. Receive the verified and validated source from the QA reports. Data are supplied to the user in a variety of formats and readiness for use, depending on the size and complexity of the study and the types of analyses requested. Most laboratories supply a QA evaluation package that includes the verification/ validation review, a narrative, tabulated summary forms (including the results of analyses of field samples, laboratory standards, and QC samples), copies of logbook pages, and copies of chain­ of­ custody records. From this information, you can create a data base for statistical analysis. 2. Create a data base from the verified and validated data source. For most studies in which statistical analyses are scheduled, a computer­ readable data base is the most efficient method for managing the data. The steps required to create the data base and the format used will depend on the software systems used to perform the analysis. For example, the data base may be as simple as a string of concentration values for a single constituent input into a spreadsheet or word processor (such as required for use of EPA's DataQUEST software (USEPA 1997b)), or it may be more complex, requiring multiple and related data inputs, such as sample number, location coordinates, depth, date and time of collection, constituent name and concentration, units of measurements, test method, quantitation limit achieved, QC information, etc. If the data base is created via manual data entry, the verified and validated data should be checked for legibility. Any questions pertaining to illegible information should be resolved before the data are entered. Any special coding considerations, such as indicating values reported as "nondetect" should be specified in a coding guide or in the QAPP. For very large projects, it may be appropriate to prepare a separate detailed data management plan in advance. 3. Check and edit the data base. After creation of the data set, the data base should be checked against the data source to verify accurate data entry and to correct any errors discovered. Even if the data base is received from the laboratory in electronic format, it should be checked for obvious errors, such as unit errors, decimal errors, missing values, and quantitation limits. 4. Create data files from the data base. From the original data files, work files are created for use within the statistical software package. This step could entail separating data by constituent and by DQO decision unit and separating any QA/ QC data from the record data. When creating the final data files for use in the statistical software, be sure to use a file naming and storage convention that facilitates easy retrieval for future use, reference, or reporting. Steps in Preparing Data for Statistical Analysis 1. Receive the verified and validated data source. 2. Create a data base from the verified and validated data source. 3. Check and edit the data base. 4. Create data files from the data base. 147 8.2.3 Conduct Preliminary Review of the Data and Check Statistical Assumptions Many statistical tests and procedures require that certain assumptions be met for their use. Failure to satisfy these assumptions can result in biased estimates of the parameter of interest; therefore, it is important to conduct preliminary analyses of the data to learn about the characteristics. EPA recommends that you compute statistical quantities, determine the proportion of the data reported as "nondetect" for each constituent of concern, check whether the data exhibit a normal distribution, then determine if there are any "outliers" that deserve a closer look. The outputs of these activities are used to help select and perform the appropriate statistical tests. 8.2.3.1 Statistical Quantities To help "visualize" and summarize the data, calculate basic statistical quantities such as the: ° Mean ° Maximum ° Percentiles ° Variance ° Standard deviation ° Coefficient of variation. Calculate the quantities for each constituent of concern. Example calculations of the mean, variance, standard deviation, and standard error of the mean are given in Section 3. Detailed guidance on the calculation of statistical quantities is provided in Chapter Two of EPA's QA/ G­ 9 guidance document (USEPA 2000d). The useful quantities easily can be computed using EPA's DataQUEST software (USEPA 1997b, see also Appendix H) or any similar statistical software package. When calculating statistical quantities, determine which data points were reported as below a limit of detection or quantitation ­ known as "nondetects" (NDs). See also Section 8.2.4.2 (" Treatment of Nondetects"). 8.2.3.2 Checking Data for Normality Check the data sets for normality by using graphical methods, such as histograms, box and whisker plots, and normal probability plots (see also Section 3.1.3), or by using numerical tests, such as the Shapiro­ Wilk test for normality (see Appendix F). Table 11 provides a summary of recommended methods. Detailed guidance on the use of graphical and statistical methods can be found in USEPA 1989b, 1992b, 1997b, and 2000d. 148 Table 11. Recommended Graphical and Statistical Methods for Checking Distributional Assumptions Test Use Reference Graphical Methods Histograms and frequency plots Provides visual display of probability or frequency distribution See USEPA 2000d. Construct via EPA's DataQUEST software (USEPA 1997b) or use a commercial software package. Normal probability plot Provides visual display of deviation from expected normality See USEPA 2000d. Construct via EPA's DataQUEST software (USEPA 1997b) or use a commercial software package. Box and Whisker Plot Provides visual display of potential "outliers" or extreme values See USEPA 2000d. Construct via EPA's DataQUEST software (USEPA 1997b) or use a commercial software package. Numerical Tests for Normality Shapiro­ Wilk Test Use for sample sizes of 50 See procedure in Appendix F, Section F. 1.2. This test also can be performed using EPA's DataQUEST software (USEPA 1997b). Filliben's Statistic Use for sample sizes of > 50 See USEPA 2000d. This test can be performed using EPA's DataQUEST software (USEPA 1997b). Graphical methods allow you to visualize the central tendency of the data, the variability in the data, the location of extreme data values, and any obvious trends in the data. For example, a symmetrical "mound" shape of a histogram is an indicator of an approximately normal distribution. If a normal probability plot is constructed on the data (see Figure 5 in Section 3.1.3), a straight line plot usually is an indicator of normality. (Note that interpretation of a probability plot depends on the method used to construct it. For example, in EPA's DataQUEST software, normally distributed data will form an "S"­ shaped curve rather than a straight line on a normal probability plot.) The Shapiro­ Wilk test is recommended as a superior method for testing normality of the data. The specific method for implementing the Shapiro­ Wilk Test is provided in Appendix F. The method also is described in Gilbert (1987), EPA's guidance on the statistical analysis of groundwater monitoring data (USEPA 1992b), and can be performed with EPA's DataQUEST software or other commercially available statistical software. 8.2.3.3 How To Assess "Outliers" A measurement that is very different from other values in the data set is sometimes referred to as an "outlier." EPA cautions that the term "outlier" be used advisedly, since a common reaction to the presence of "outlying" values has been to "cleanse the data," thereby removing any "outliers" prior to further analysis. In fact, such discrepant values can occur for many reasons, 149 including (1) a catastrophic event such as a spill or process upset that impacts measurements at the sampling point, (2) inconsistent sampling or analytical chemistry methodology that may result in laboratory contamination or other anomalies, (3) errors in the transcription of data values or decimal points, and (4) true but extreme hazardous constituent measurements. While any one of these events can cause an apparent "outlier," it should be clear that the appropriate response to an outlier will be very different depending on the origin. Because high values due to contaminated media or waste are precisely what one may be trying to identify, it would not be appropriate to eliminate such data in the guise of "screening for outliers." Furthermore, depending on the form of the underlying population, unusually high concentrations may be real but infrequent such as might be found in lognormally distributed data. Again, it would not be appropriate to remove such data without adequate justification. A statistical outlier is defined as a value originating from a different underlying population than the rest of the data set. If the value is not consistent with the distributional behavior of the remaining data and is "too far out in one of the tails" of the assumed underlying population, it may test out as a statistical outlier. Defined as it is strictly in statistical terms, however, an outlier test may identify values as discrepant when no physical reason can be given for the aberrant behavior. One should be especially cautious about indiscriminate testing for statistical outliers for this reason. If an outlier is suspected, an initial and helpful step is to construct a probability plot of the data set (see also Section 3.1.3 and USEPA 2000d). A probability plot is designed to judge whether the sample data are consistent with an underlying normal population model. If the rest of the data follow normality, but the outlier comes from a distinctly different population with higher (or lower) concentrations, this behavior will tend to show up on a probability plot as a lone value "out of line" with the remaining observations. If the data are lognormal instead, but the outlier is again from a distinct population, a probability plot on the logged observations should be constructed. Neither of these plots is a formal test; still, they provide invaluable visual evidence as to whether the suspected outlier should really be considered as such. Methods for conducting outlier tests are described in Chapter 4 of EPA's QA/ G­ 9 guidance document (USEPA 2000d), and statistical tests are available in the DataQUEST software (for example, Rosner's Test and Walsh's Test) (USEPA 1997b). 8.2.4 Select and Perform Statistical Tests This section provides guidance on how you can select the appropriate statistical test to make a decision about the waste or media that is the subject of the study. It is important to select the appropriate statistical test because decisions and conclusions derived from incorrectly used statistics can be expensive (Singh, et al. 1997). Prior to selecting the statistical test, consider the following factors: ° The objectives of the study (identified in DQO Step 2) ° Whether assumptions of the test are fulfilled ° The nature of the underlying distribution 150 ° The decision rule and null hypothesis (identified in DQO Step 5) ° The relative performance of the candidate tests (for example, parametric tests generally are more efficient than their nonparametric counterparts) ° The proportion of the data that are reported as nondetects (NDs). The decision­ tree presented in Figure 37 provides a starting point for selecting the appropriate statistical test. The statistical methods are offered as guidance and should not be used as a "cook book" approach to data analysis. The methods presented here usually will be adequate for the tests conducted under the specified conditions (see also Appendix F). An experienced statistician should be consulted whenever there are questions. Based on the study objective (DQO Step 2), determine which category of statistical tests to use. Note the statistical methods recommended in the flow charts in Figure 38 and Figure 39 are for use when the objective is to compare the parameter of interest to a fixed standard. Other methods will be required if the objective is different (e. g., when comparing two populations, detecting trends, and evaluating spatial patterns or relationships of sampling points). 8.2.4.1 Data Transformations in Statistical Tests Users of this guidance may encounter data sets that show significant evidence of non­ normality. Due to the assumption of underlying normality in most parametric tests, a common statistical strategy when encountering this predicament is to search for a mathematical transformation that will lead to normally­ distributed data on the transformed scale. Unfortunately, because of the complexities associated with interpreting statistical results from data that have been transformed to another scale and the common occurrence of lognormal patterns in environmental data, EPA generally recommends that the choice of scale be limited to either the original measurements (for normal data) or a log­ transformed scale (for lognormal data). If neither of these scales results in approximate normality, it is typically easiest and wisest to switch to a nonparametric (or "distribution­ free") version of the same test. If a transformation to the log scale is needed, and a confidence limit on the mean is desired, special techniques are required. If a data set exhibits a normal distribution on the logtransformed scale, it is a common mistake to assume that a standard normal­ based confidence interval formula can be applied to the transformed data with the confidence interval endpoints retransformed to the original scale to obtain the confidence interval on the mean. Invariably, such an interval will be biased to the low side. In fact, the procedure just described actually produces a confidence interval around the median of a lognormal population, rather than the higher mean. To correctly account for this "transformation bias", special procedures are required (Land 1971 and 1975, Gilbert 1987). See Section F. 2.3 in Appendix F for detailed guidance on calculating confidence limits for the mean of a lognormal population. 151 Start Conduct Spatial Analysis, such as a Geostatistical Study. Percentile or a "Not­ to Exceed" Standard? Mean Perform a "Two­ Sample" Test. Identify the Parameter of Interest (DQO Step 5). Identify the Decision (DQO Step 2) Test Compliance With a Fixed Standard (e. g., TC or UTS)? Evaluate Spatial Patterns? Compare Two Populations? Yes Yes Yes Go to Flow Chart in Figure 38. Go to Flow Chart in Figure 39. See Section 3.4. 3. See Section 3.4. 4 Seek Other Guidance for Objectives Not Discussed in This Document. No No No See EPA QA/ G­ 9 (USEPA 2000d) Figure 37. Flow chart for selecting a statistical method 152 Start (from Fig. 37) >50% Non Detects? >15% Non Detects? Set Non­ Detects Equal to 1/ 2 Detection Limit. Are the Data Normally Distributed? Calculate Parametric UCL on the Mean (See Appendix F, Section F. 2.1). Are the Logged Data Normally Distributed? Transform the Data Using a Natural Log Calculate UCL on the Mean Using Land's H Statistic or Other Appropriate Method (See Appendix F, Section F. 2.3). Use Regression on Order Statistics, Helsel's Robust Method, or Test for Proportions (See Appendix F, Sec. F. 4.1). Calculate Cohen's Adjusted UCL on the Mean (See Appendix F, Section F. 4. 2). Calculate Cohen's Adjusted Mean and Standard Deviation. No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Cohen's Model OK? (See Appendix F, Section F. 4.2). Yes No See Cautionary Note in Appendix F, Section F. 2.3. Methods for Comparing the Mean to a Fixed Standard (null hypothesis: concentration exceeds the standard) Calculate UCL on the Mean Using the Bootstrap or Jackknife Method (See Appendix F, Section F. 2. 4). Figure 38. Flowchart of statistical methods for comparing the mean to a fixed standard (null hypothesis is "concentration exceeds the standard") 153 Start (from Fig. 37) >50% Non Detects? >15% Non Detects? Set Non­Detects Equal to 1/ 2 Detection Limit Use a Nonparametric Test Are the Data Normally Distributed? Calculate Parametric UCL on Upper Percentile (See Appendix F, Section F. 3.1). Are the Logged Data Normally Distributed? Transform the Data Using a Natural Log Apply an "Exceedance Rule" (see Appendix F, Section F. 3.2) or a One­ Sample Proportion Test (see Appendix F, Section F. 3). Calculate Cohen's Adjusted UCL on the Upper Percentile (see Appendix F, Section F. 4.2). Calculate Cohen's Adjusted Mean and Standard Deviation No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Cohen's Model OK? (See Appendix F, Section F. 4.2). Yes No Calculate UCL on the Logged Data. Exponentiate the Limit. Methods for Comparing an Upper Proportion or Percentile To a Fixed Standard (null hypothesis: concentration exceeds the standard) Results expressed as pass/ fail? Yes Yes Figure 39. Flowchart of statistical methods for comparing an upper proportion or percentile to a fixed standard (null hypothesis is "concentration exceeds the standard") 154 If the number of samples is small, it may not be possible to tell whether the distribution is normal, lognormal, or any other specific function. You are urged not to read too much into small data sets and not to attempt overly sophisticated evaluations of data distributions based on limited information. If the distribution of data appears to be highly skewed, it is best to take operational measures (such as more samples or samples of a larger physical size) to better characterize the waste. 8.2.4.2 Treatment of Nondetects If no more than approximately 15 percent of the samples for a given constituent are nondetect (i. e., reported as below a detection or quantitation limit), the results of parametric statistical tests will not be substantially affected if nondetects are replaced by half their detection limits (known as a substitution method) (USEPA 1992b). When a larger percentage of the sample analysis results are nondetect, however, the treatment of nondetects is more crucial to the outcome of statistical procedures. Indeed, simple substitution methods (such as replacing the detection limit with one­ half the detection limit) tend to perform poorly in statistical tests when the nondetect percentage is substantial (Gilliom and Helsel 1986, Helsel 1990). Guidance on selecting an approach for handling nondetects in statistical intervals is given in Appendix F, Section F. 4. Guidance also is given in Section 4.7 of EPA's Guidance for Data Quality Assessment Practical Methods for Data Analysis EPA QA/ G­ 9 (USEPA 2000d). 8.2.5 Draw Conclusions and Report Results The final step in the DQA Process is to draw conclusions from the data, determine if further sampling is required, and report the results. This step brings the planning, implementation, and assessment process "full circle" in that you attempt to resolve the problem and make the decision identified in Steps 1 and 2 of the DQO Process. In the DQO Process, you establish a "null hypothesis" and attempt to gather evidence via sampling that will allow you to reject that hypothesis; otherwise, the null hypothesis must be accepted. If the decision making process involves use of a statistical method (such as the calculation of a statistical confidence limit or use of a statistical hypothesis test), then the outcome of the statistical test should be reported along with the uncertainty associated with the result. If other decision making criteria are used (such as use of a simple exceedance rule or a "weight of evidence" approach), then the outcome of that decision making process should be reported. Detailed guidance on the use and interpretation of statistical methods for decision making can be found in Appendix F. Additional guidance can found in EPA's Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, EPA QA/ G­ 9 (USEPA 2000d). 155 Standard Concentration 0 LCL UCL x LCL UCL x LCL UCL x Null Hypothesis: "Mean concentration exceeds the standard." Conclusion: Mean is less than the standard. Conclusion: Need to take more samples, otherwise conclude mean exceeds the standard. Conclusion: Mean exceeds the standard. A B C Figure 40. Using confidence limits on the mean to compare waste concentrations to a fixed standard. Most of the statistical methods suggested in this document involve the construction of one­ sided confidence limits (or bounds). The upper confidence limit, whether calculated on a mean, median, or percentile, provides a value below which one can claim with specified confidence that the true value of the parameter lies. Figure 40 demonstrates how you can use a confidence limit to test a hypothesis: In the situation depicted at "A," the upper confidence limit calculated from the sample data is less than the applicable standard and provides the evidence needed to reject the null hypothesis. The decision can be made that the waste concentration is below the standard with sufficient confidence and without further analysis. In situation "B," we cannot reject the null hypothesis; however, because the interval "straddles" the standard, it is possible that the true mean lies below the standard and a Type II (false acceptance) error has been made (i. e., to conclude the concentration is above the standard, when in fact it is not). One possible remedy to this situation is to obtain more data to "tighten" the confidence interval. In situation "C," the Type II (false acceptance) decision error rate is satisfied and we must conclude that the mean concentration exceeds the standard. One simple method for checking the performance of the statistical test is use the information obtained from the samples to retrospectively estimate the number of samples required. For example, the sample variance can be input into the sample size equation used (see Section 5.4 and 5.5, DQO Process Step 7). (An example of this approach is presented in Appendix I.) If this theoretical sample size is less than or equal to the number of samples actually taken, then the test is sufficiently powerful. If the required number of samples is greater than the number actually collected, then additional samples would be required to satisfy the data user's performance criteria for the statistical test. See EPA's Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, EPA QA/ G­ 9 (USEPA 2000d) for additional guidance on this topic. Finally, if a simple exceedance rule is used to measure compliance with a standard, then interpretation of the results is more straightforward. For example, if zero exceedances are allowed, and one or more samples exceeds the standard, then there is evidence of noncompliance with that standard (see Appendix F, Section F. 3.2). 156 This page intentionally left blank 157 APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF TERMS* Accuracy ­ A measure of the closeness of an individual measurement or the average of a number of measurements to the true value. Accuracy includes a combination of random error (precision) and systematic error (bias) components that are due to sampling and analytical operations. EPA recommends using the terms "precision" and "bias," rather than the term "accuracy," to convey the information usually associated with accuracy. Pitard (1993) indicates that a sample is accurate when the absolute value of the bias is smaller than an acceptable standard of accuracy. Action Level ­ The numerical value that causes the decision maker to choose one of the alternative actions (for example, compliance or noncompliance). It may be a regulatory threshold standard, such as the maximum contaminant level for drinking water, a risk­ based concentration level, a technological limitation, or a reference­ based standard (ASTM D 5792­ 95). Alternative Hypothesis ­ See Hypothesis. Assessment ­ The evaluation process used to measure the performance or effectiveness of a system and its elements. As used here, assessment is an all­ inclusive term used to denote any of the following: audit, performance evaluation (PE), management systems review (MSR), peer review, inspection, or surveillance. Audit (quality) ­ A systematic and independent examination to determine whether quality activities and related results comply with planned arrangements and whether these arrangements are implemented effectively and are suitable to achieve objectives. Audit of Data Quality ­ A qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the documentation and procedures associated with environmental measurements to verify that the resulting data are of acceptable quality. Baseline Condition ­ A tentative assumption to be proven either true or false. When hypothesis testing is applied to a site assessment decision, the data are used to choose between a presumed baseline condition of the environment and an alternative condition. The baseline condition is retained until overwhelming evidence indicates that the baseline condition is false. This is often called the null hypothesis in statistical tests. Bias ­ The systematic or persistent distortion of a measured value from its true value (this can occur during sampling design, the sampling process, or laboratory analysis). * The definitions in this appendix are from USEPA 1998a, 2000b, 2000e, and 2001b, unless otherwise noted. Some definitions were modified based on comments received from technical reviewers during development of this document. These definitions do not constitute the Agency's official use of the terms for regulatory purposes and should not be construed to alter or supplant other terms in use. Note: Terms in italics also are defined in this glossary. Appendix A 158 Blank ­ A sample that is intended to contain none of the analytes of interest and is subjected to the usual analytical or measurement process to establish a zero baseline or background value. Sometimes used to adjust or correct routine analytical results. A blank is used to detect contamination during sample handling preparation and/ or analysis (see also Rinsate, Method Blank, Trip Blank, and Field Blank). Boundaries ­ The spatial and temporal limits and practical constraints under which environmental data are collected. Boundaries specify the area or volume (spatial boundary) and the time period (temporal boundary) to which the decision will apply. Samples are then collected within these boundaries. Calibration ­ Comparison of a measurement standard, instrument, or item with a standard or instrument of higher accuracy to detect and quantify inaccuracies and to report or eliminate those inaccuracies by adjustments. Calibration also is used to quantify instrument measurements of a given concentration in a given sample. Calibration Drift ­ The deviation in instrument response from a reference value over a period of time before recalibration. Chain of Custody ­ An unbroken trail of accountability that ensures the physical security of samples, data, and records. Characteristic ­ Any property or attribute of a datum, item, process, or service that is distinct, describable, and/ or measurable. Coefficient of Variation (CV) ­ A dimensionless quantity used to measure the spread of data relative to the size of the numbers. For a normal distribution, the coefficient of variation is given by . Also known as the relative standard deviation (RSD). s x / Colocated Samples ­ Two or more portions collected as close as possible at the same point in time and space so as to be considered identical. If obtained in the field, these samples also are known as "field replicates." Comparability ­ A measure of the confidence with which one data set or method can be compared to another. Completeness ­ A measure of the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system compared to the amount that was expected to be obtained under correct, normal conditions. Component ­ An easily identified item such as a large crystal, an agglomerate, rod, container, block, glove, piece of wood, or concrete (ASTM D 5956­ 96). An elementary part or a constituent that can be separated and quantified by analysis (Pitard 1993). Composite Sample ­ A physical combination of two or more samples (ASTM D 6233­ 98). A sample collected across a temporal or spatial range that typically consists of a set of discrete samples (or "individual" samples) that are combined or "composited." Area­ wide or long­ term compositing should not be confused with localized compositing in which a sample of the desired support is created from many small increments taken at a single location. Four types of composite samples are listed below: Appendix A 159 1. Time Composite ­ a sample comprising a varying number of discrete samples collected at equal time intervals during the compositing period. The time composite sample is typically used to sample waste water or streams. 2. Flow Proportioned Composite (FPC) ­ a sample collected proportional to the flow during the compositing period by either a time­ varying/ constant volume (TVCV) or a time­ constant/ varying volume method (TCVV). The TVCV method typically is used with automatic samplers that are paced by a flow meter. The TCVV method is a manual method that individually proportions a series of discretely collected samples. The FPC is typically used when sampling waste water. 3. Areal Composite ­ sample composited from individual equal­ size samles collected on an areal or horizontal cross­ sectional basis. Each discrete sample is collected in an identical manner. Examples include sediment composites from quarter­ point sampling of streams and soil samples from within grids. 4. Vertical Composite ­ a sample composited from individual equal samples collected from a vertical cross section. Each discrete sample is collected in an identical manner. Examples include vertical profiles of soil/ sediment columns, lakes, and estuaries (USEPA 1996c). Confidence Level ­ The probability, usually expressed as a percent, that a confidence interval will contain the parameter of interest (ASTM D 5792­ 95). Also known as the confidence coefficient. Confidence Limits ­ Upper and/ or lower limit( s) within which the true value of a parameter is likely to be contained with a stated probability or confidence (ASTM D 6233­ 98). Conformance ­ An affirmative indication or judgment that a product or service has met the requirements of the relevant specifications, contract, or regulation. Also the state of meeting the requirements. Consensus Standard ­ A standard established by a group representing a cross section of a particular industry or trade, or a part thereof. Control Sample ­ A quality control sample introduced into a process to monitor the performance of the system (from Chapter One, SW­ 846). Data Collection Design ­ A design that specifies the configuration of the environmental monitoring effort to satisfy the data quality objectives. It includes: the types of samples or monitoring information to be collected; where, when, and under what conditions they should be collected; what variables are to be measured; and the quality assurance/ quality control (QA/ QC) components that ensure acceptable sampling design error and measurement error to meet the decision error rates specified in the DQOs. The data collection design is the principal part of the quality assurance project plan (QAPP). Appendix A 160 Data of Known Quality ­ Data that have the qualitative and quantitative components associated with their derivation documented appropriately for their intended use, and when such documentation is verifiable and defensible. Data Quality Assessment (DQA) Process ­ A statistical and scientific evaluation of the data set to assess the validity and performance of the data collection design and statistical test and to establish whether a data set is adequate for its intended use. Data Quality Indicators (DQIs) ­ The quantitative statistics and qualitative descriptors that are used to interpret the degree of acceptability or utility of data to the user. The principal data quality indicators are bias, precision, accuracy (precision and bias are preferred terms), comparability, completeness, and representativeness. Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) ­ Qualitative and quantitative statements derived from the DQO Process that clarify study technical and quality objectives, define the appropriate type of data, and specify tolerable levels of potential decision errors that will be used as the basis for establishing the quality and quantity of data needed to support decisions. Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Process ­ A systematic strategic planning tool based on the scientific method that identifies and defines the type, quality, and quantity of data needed to satisfy a specified use. The key elements of the process include: ° concisely defining the problem ° identifying the decision to be made ° identifying the key inputs to that decision ° defining the boundaries of the study ° developing the decision rule ° specifying tolerable limits on potential decision errors ° selecting the most resource efficient data collection design. Data Reduction ­ The process of transforming the number of data items by arithmetic or statistical calculations, standard curves, and concentration factors, and collating them into a more useful and understandable form. Data reduction generally results in a reduced data set and an associated loss of detail. Data Usability ­ The process of ensuring or determining whether the quality of the data produced meets the intended use of the data. Data Validation ­ See Validation. Debris ­ Under 40 CFR 268.2( g) (Land Disposal Restrictions regulations) debris includes "solid material exceeding a 60 mm particle size that is intended for disposal and that is a manufactured object; or plant or animal matter; or natural geologic material." 268.2( g) also identifies materials that are not debris. In general, debris includes materials of either a large particle size or variation in the items present. When the constituent items are more than 2 or 3 inches in size or are of different compositions, representative sampling becomes more difficult. Decision Error ­ An error made when drawing an inference from data in the context of hypothesis testing such that variability or bias in the data mislead the decision maker to draw a Appendix A 161 conclusion that is inconsistent with the true or actual state of the population under study. See also False Negative Decision Error, and False Positive Decision Error. Decision Performance Curve ­ A graphical representation of the quality of a decision process. In statistical terms it is known as a power curve or function (or a reverse power curve depending on the hypotheses being tested). Decision Performance Goal Diagram (DPGD) ­ A graphical representation of the tolerable risks of decision errors. It is used in conjunction with the decision performance curve. Decision Unit ­ A volume or mass of material (such as waste or soil) about which a decision will be made. Defensible ­ The ability to withstand any reasonable challenge related to the veracity, integrity, or quality of the logical, technical, or scientific approach taken in a decision­ making process. Design ­ Specifications, drawings, design criteria, and performance requirements. Also, the result of deliberate planning, analysis, mathematical manipulations, and design processes (such as experimental design and sampling design). Detection Limit ­ A measure of the capability of an analytical method to distinguish samples that do not contain a specific analyte from samples that contain low concentrations of the analyte. The lowest concentration or amount of the target analyte that can be determined to be different from zero by a single measurement at a stated level of probability. Detection limits are analyte­ and matrix­ specific and may be laboratory­ dependent. Discrete Sample ­ A sample that represents a single location or short time interval. A discrete sample can be composed of more than one increment. The term has the same meaning as "individual sample." Distribution ­ A probability function (density function, mass function, or distribution function) used to describe a set of observations (statistical sample) or a population from which the observations are generated. Duplicate Samples ­ Two samples taken from and representative of the same population and carried through all steps of the sampling and analytical procedures in an identical manner. Duplicate samples are used to assess the variance of the total method, including sampling and analysis. See also Colocated Sample and Field Duplicate Samples. Dynamic Work Plan ­ A work plan that allows the project team to make decisions in the field about how subsequent site activities will progress (for example, by use field analytical methods that provide near real­ time sample analysis results). Dynamic work plans provide the strategy for how dynamic field activities will take place. As such, they document a flexible, adaptive sampling and analytical strategy. (Adopted from EPA Superfund web site at http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund/ programs/ dfa/ dynwork. htm). Environmental Conditions ­ The description of a physical medium (e. g., air, water, soil, sediment) or a biological system expressed in terms of its physical, chemical, radiological, or biological characteristics. Appendix A 162 Environmental Data ­ Any measurements or information that describe environmental processes, location, or conditions; ecological or health effects and consequences; or the performance of environmental technology. For EPA, environmental data include information collected directly from measurements, produced from models, and compiled from other sources, such as data bases or the scientific literature. Environmental Monitoring ­ The process of measuring or collecting environmental data for evaluating a change in the environment (e. g., ground­ water monitoring). Environmental Processes ­ Manufactured or natural processes that produce discharges to or that impact the ambient environment. Equipment Blank ­ See Rinsate. Estimate ­ A characteristic from the sample from which inferences about population parameters can be made. Evaluation ­ See validation. Evidentiary Records ­ Records identified as part of litigation and subject to restricted access, custody, use, and disposal. False Negative (False Acceptance) Decision Error ( ) ­ A false negative decision error occurs when the decision maker does not reject the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis actually is false. In statistical terminology, a false negative decision error also is called a Type II error. The measure of the size of the error is expressed as a probability, usually referred to as "beta" ( ). This probability also is called the complement of power (where "power" is expressed as ). () 1 False Positive (False Rejection) Decision Error ( ) ­ A false positive decision error occurs when a decision maker rejects the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is true. In statistical terminology, a false positive decision error also is called a Type I error. The measure of the size of the error is expressed as a probability, usually referred to as "alpha" ( ), the "level of significance," or "size of the critical region." Field Blank ­ A blank used to provide information about contaminants that may be introduced during sample collection, storage, and transport. The clean sample is carried to the sampling site, exposed to sampling conditions, returned to the laboratory, and treated as an environmental sample. Field Duplicates ­ Independent samples that are collected as close as possible to the same point in space and time. Two separate samples are taken from the same source, stored in separate containers, and analyzed independently. These duplicates are useful in documenting the precision of the sampling process (from Chapter One, SW­ 846, July 1992). Field (matrix) Spike ­ A sample prepared at the sampling point (i. e., in the field) by adding a known mass of the target analyte to a specified amount of the sample. Field matrix spikes are Appendix A 163 used, for example, to determine the effect of the sample preservation, shipment, storage, matrix, and preparation on analyte recovery efficiency (the analytical bias). Field Split Samples ­ Two or more representative portions taken from the same sample and usually submitted for analysis to different laboratories to estimate interlaboratory precision. Fundamental Error ­ The fundamental error results when discrete units of the material to be sampled have different compositions with respect to the property of interest. The error is referred to as "fundamental" because it is an incompressible minimum sampling error that depends on the mass, composition, shape, fragment size distribution, and liberation factor of the material and is not affected by homogenization or mixing. The fundamental error is the only error that remains when the sampling operation is "perfect," i. e., when all parts of the sample are obtained in a probabilistic manner and each part is independent. The fundamental error is never zero (unless the population is completely homogeneous or the entire population is submitted for exhaustive analysis) and it never "cancels out." It can be reduced by taking larger physical samples and by using particle­ size reduction steps in preparing the analytical sample. Geostatistics ­ A branch of statistics, originating in the mining industry and greatly developed in the 1950s, that assesses the spatial correlation among samples and incorporates this information into the estimates of population parameters. Goodness­ of­ Fit Test ­ In general, the level of agreement between an observed set of values and a set wholly or partly derived from a model of the data. Grab Sample ­ A one­ time sample taken from any part of the waste (62 FR 91, page 26047, May 12, 1997). Graded Approach ­ The process of basing the level of application of managerial controls applied to an item or work according to the intended use of the results and the degree of confidence needed in the quality of the results. (See also Data Quality Objectives Process.) Gray Region ­ A range of values of the population parameter of interest (such as mean contaminant concentration) within which the consequences of making a decision error are relatively minor. The gray region is bounded on one side by the action level. The width of the gray region is denoted by in this guidance. Guidance ­ A suggested practice that is not mandatory, but rather intended as an aid or example in complying with a standard or requirement. Guideline ­ A suggested practice that is nonmandatory in programs intended to comply with a standard. Hazardous Waste ­ Any waste material that satisfies the definition of "hazardous waste" as given in 40 CFR Part 261, "Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste." Heterogeneity ­ The condition of the population under which items of the population are not identical with respect to the parameter of interest (ASTM D 6233­ 98). (See Section 6.2.1). Holding Time ­ The period of time a sample may be stored prior to its required analysis. While Appendix A 164 exceeding the holding time does not necessarily negate the veracity of analytical results, it causes the qualifying or "flagging" of any data not meeting all of the specified acceptance criteria. Homogeneity ­ The condition of the population under which all items of the population are identical with respect to the parameter of interest (ASTM D 6233­ 98). The condition of a population or lot in which the elements of that population or lot are identical; it is an inaccessible limit and depends on the "scale" of the elements. Hot Spots ­ Strata that contain high concentrations of the characteristic of interest and are relatively small in size when compared with the total size of the materials being sampled (ASTM D 6009­ 96). Hypothesis ­ A tentative assumption made to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. In hypothesis testing, the hypothesis is labeled "null" (for the baseline condition) or "alternative," depending on the decision maker's concerns for making a decision error. The baseline condition is retained until overwhelming evidence indicates that the baseline condition is false. See also baseline condition. Identification Error ­ The misidentification of an analyte. In this error type, the contaminant of concern is unidentified and the measured concentration is incorrectly assigned to another contaminant. Increment ­ A group of particles extracted from a batch of material in a single operation of the sampling device. It is important to make a distinction between an increment and a sample that is obtained by the reunion of several increments (from Pitard 1989). Individual Sample ­ See Discrete Sample. Inspection ­ The examination or measurement of an item or activity to verify conformance to specific requirements. Internal Standard ­ A standard added to a test portion of a sample in a known amount and carried through the entire determination procedure as a reference for calibrating and assessing the precision and bias of the applied analytical method. Item ­ An all­ inclusive term used in place of the following: appurtenance, facility, sample, assembly, component, equipment, material, module, part, product, structure, subassembly, subsystem, system, unit, documented concepts, or data. Laboratory Split Samples ­ Two or more representative portions taken from the same sample for laboratory analysis. Often analyzed by different laboratories to estimate the interlaboratory precision or variability and the data comparability. Limit of Quantitation ­ The minimum concentration of an analyte or category of analytes in a specific matrix that can be identified and quantified above the method detection limit and within specified limits of precision and bias during routine analytical operating conditions. Limits on Decision Errors ­ The tolerable maximum decision error probabilities established by Appendix A 165 the decision maker. Potential economic, health, ecological, political, and social consequences of decision errors should be considered when setting the limits. Matrix Spike ­ A sample prepared by adding a known mass of a target analyte to a specified amount of sample matrix for which an independent estimate of the target analyte concentration is available. Spiked samples are used, for example, to determine the effect of the matrix on a method's recovery efficiency. Mean (arithmetic) ( ) ­ The sum of all the values of a set of measurements divided by the x number of values in the set; a measure of central tendency. Mean Square Error ( ) ­ A statistical term equivalent to the variance added to the square MSE of the bias. An overall measure of the representativeness of a sample. Measurement Error ­ The difference between the true or actual state and that which is reported from measurements. Median ­ The middle value for an ordered set of values. Represented by the central value n when is odd or by the average of the two most central values when is even. The median n n is the 50th percentile. Medium ­ A substance (e. g., air, water, soil) that serves as a carrier of the analytes of interest. Method ­ A body of procedures and techniques for performing an activity (e. g., sampling, chemical analysis, quantification) systematically presented in the order in which they are to be executed. Method Blank ­ A blank prepared to represent the sample matrix as closely as possible and analyzed exactly like the calibration standards, samples, and QC samples. Results of method blanks provide an estimate of the within­ batch variability of the blank response and an indication of bias introduced by the analytical procedure. Natural Variability ­ The variability that is inherent or natural to the media, objects, or subjects being studied. Nonparametric ­ A term describing statistical methods that do not assume a particular population probability distribution, and are therefore valid for data from any population with any probability distribution, which can remain unknown (Conover 1999). Null Hypothesis ­ See Hypothesis. Observation ­ (1) An assessment conclusion that identifies a condition (either positive or negative) that does not represent a significant impact on an item or activity. An observation may identify a condition that has not yet caused a degradation of quality. (2) A datum. Outlier ­ An observation that is shown to have a low probability of belonging to a specified data population. Appendix A 166 Parameter ­ A quantity, usually unknown, such as a mean or a standard deviation characterizing a population. Commonly misused for "variable," "characteristic," or "property." Participant ­ When used in the context of environmental programs, an organization, group, or individual that takes part in the planning and design process and provides special knowledge or skills to enable the planning and design process to meet its objective. Percent Relative Standard Deviation (% RSD) ­ The quantity, 100( RSD)%. Percentile ­ The specific value of a distribution that divides the distribution such that p percent of the distribution is equal to or below that value. For example, if we say "the 95th percentile is X," then it means that 95 percent of the values in the statistical sample are less than or equal to X. Planning Team ­ The group of people that will carry out the DQO Process. Members include the decision maker (senior manager), representatives of other data users, senior program and technical staff, someone with statistical expertise, and a QA/ QC advisor (such as a QA Manager). Population ­The total collection of objects, media, or people to be studied and from which a sample is to be drawn. The totality of items or units under consideration (ASTM D 5956­ 96). Precision ­ A measure of mutual agreement among individual measurements of the same property, usually under prescribed similar conditions, expressed generally in terms of the sample standard deviation. See also the definition for precision in Chapter One, SW­ 846. Probabilistic Sample ­ See statistical sample. Process ­ A set of interrelated resources and activities that transforms inputs into outputs. Examples of processes include analysis, design, data collection, operation, fabrication, and calculation. Qualified Data ­ Any data that have been modified or adjusted as part of statistical or mathematical evaluation, data validation, or data verification operations. Quality ­ The totality of features and characteristics of a product (including data) or service that bears on its ability to meet the stated or implied needs and expectations of the user (i. e., fitness for use). Quality Assurance (QA) ­ An integrated system of management activities involving planning, implementation, assessment, reporting, and quality improvement to ensure that a process, item, or service is of the type and quality needed and expected by the client. Quality Assurance Manager ­ The individual designated as the principal manager within the organization having management oversight and responsibilities for planning, coordinating, and assessing the effectiveness of the quality system for the organization. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) ­ A formal document describing, in comprehensive detail, the necessary QA, QC, and other technical activities that must be implemented to ensure Appendix A 167 that the results of the work performed will satisfy the stated performance criteria. Quality Control (QC) ­ The overall system of technical activities that measures the attributes and performance (quality characteristics) of a process, item, or service against defined standards to verify that they meet the stated requirements established by the customer. Operational techniques and activities that are used to fulfill requirements for quality. The system of activities and checks used to ensure that measurement systems are maintained within prescribed limits, providing protection against "out­ of­ control" conditions and ensuring the results are of acceptable quality. Quality Control (QC) Sample ­ An uncontaminated sample matrix spiked with known amounts of analytes from a source independent of the calibration standards. Generally used to establish intralaboratory or analyst­ specific precision and bias or to assess the performance of all or a portion of the measurement system. Quality Management ­ That aspect of the overall management system of the organization that determines and implements the quality policy. Quality management includes strategic planning, allocation of resources, and other systematic activities (e. g., planning, implementation, and assessment) pertaining to the quality system. Quality Management Plan ­ A formal document that describes the quality system in terms of the organization's structure, the functional responsibilities of management and staff, the lines of authority, and the required interfaces for those planning, implementing, and assessing all activities conducted. Quality System ­ A structured and documented management system describing the policies, objectives, principles, organizational authority, responsibilities, accountability, and implementation plan of an organization for ensuring quality in its work processes, products (items), and services. The quality system provides the framework for planning, implementing, and assessing work performed by the organization and for carrying out required QA and QC. Random Error ­ The chance variation encountered in all measurement work, characterized by the random occurrence of deviations from the mean value. Range ­ The numerical difference between the minimum and maximum of a set of values. Relative Standard Deviation ­ See Coefficient of Variation. Remediation ­ The process of reducing the concentration of a contaminant (or contaminants) in air, water, or soil media to a level that poses an acceptable risk to human health. Repeatability ­ The degree of agreement between independent test results produced by the same analyst using the same test method and equipment on random aliquots of the same sample within a short time period; that is, within­ rum precision of a method or set of measurements. Reporting Limit ­ The lowest concentration or amount of the target analyte required to be reported from a data collection project. Reporting limits are generally greater than detection limits and usually are not associated with a probability level. Appendix A 168 Representative Sample ­ RCRA regulations define a representative sample as "a sample of a universe or whole (e. g., waste pile, lagoon, ground water) which can be expected to exhibit the average properties of the universe or whole" (40 CFR § 260.10). Representativeness ­ A measure of the degree to which data accurately and precisely represent a characteristic of a population, parameter variations at a sampling point, a process condition, or an environmental condition. Reproducible ­ The condition under which there is no statistically significant difference in the results of measurements of the same sample made at different laboratories. Reproducibility ­ The degree of agreement between independent test results produced by the same method or set of measurements for very similar, but not identical, conditions (e. g., at different times, by different technicians, using different glassware, laboratories, or samples); that is, the between­ run precision of a method or set of measurements. Requirement ­ A formal statement of a need and the expected manner in which it is to be met. Rinsate (Equipment Rinsate) ­ A sample of analyte­ free medium (such as HPLC­ grade water for organics or reagent­ grade deionized or distilled water for inorganics) which has been used to rinse the sampling equipment. It is collected after completion of decontamination and prior to sampling. This blank is useful in documenting the adequate decontamination of sampling equipment (modified from Chapter One, SW­ 846). Sample ­ A portion of material that is taken from a larger quantity for the purpose of estimating the properties or the composition of the larger quantity (ASTM D 6233­ 98). Sample Support ­ See Support. Sampling ­ The process of obtaining representative samples and/ or measurements of a population or subset of a population. Sampling Design Error ­ The error due to observing only a limited number of the total possible values that make up the population being studied. It should be distinguished from: errors due to imperfect selection; bias in response; and errors of observation, measurement, or recording, etc. Scientific Method ­ The principles and processes regarded as necessary for scientific investigation, including rules for concept or hypothesis formulation, conduct of experiments, and validation of hypotheses by analysis of observations. Sensitivity ­ The capability of a method or instrument to discriminate between measurement responses representing different levels of a variable of interest (i. e., the slope of the calibration). Set of Samples ­ More than one individual sample. Split Samples ­ Two or more representative portions taken from one sample and often analyzed by different analysts or laboratories as a type of QC sample used to assess analytical variability and comparability. Appendix A 169 Standard Deviation ­ A measure of the dispersion or imprecision of a sample or population distribution expressed as the positive square root of the variance and that has the same unit of measurement as the mean. See variance. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) ­ A written document that details the method for an operation, analysis, or action with thoroughly prescribed techniques and steps and that is officially approved (usually by the quality assurance officer) as the method for performing certain routine or repetitive tasks. Statistic ­ A function of the sample measurements; e. g., the sample mean or standard deviation. A statistic usually, but not necessarily, serves as an estimate of a population parameter. A summary value calculated from a sample of observations. Statistical Sample ­ A set of samples or measurements selected by probabilistic means (i. e., by using some form of randomness). Also known as a probabilistic sample. Statistical Test ­ Any statistical method that is used to determine the acceptance or rejection of a hyothesis. Stratum ­ A subgroup of a population separated in space or time, or both, from the remainder of the population and being internally consistent with respect to a target constituent or property of interest and different from adjacent portions of the population (ASTM D 5956­ 96). Subsample ­ A portion of material taken from a larger quantity for the purpose of estimating properties or the composition of the whole sample (ASTM D 4547­ 98). Support ­ The physical volume or mass, orientation, and shape of a sample, subsample, or decision unit. Surrogate Spike or Analyte ­ A pure substance with properties that mimic the analyte of interest. It is unlikely to be found in environmental samples and is added to them to establish that the analytical method has been performed properly. Technical Review ­ A documented critical review of work that has been performed within the state of the art. The review is accomplished by one or more qualified reviewers who are independent of those who performed the work, but are collectively equivalent in technical expertise to those who performed the original work. The review is an indepth analysis and evaluation of documents, activities, material, data, or items that require technical verification or validation for applicability, correctness, adequacy, completeness, and assurance that established requirements are satisfied. Total Study Error ­ The combination of sampling design error and measurement error. Traceability ­ The ability to trace the history, application, or location of an entity by means of recorded identifications. In a calibration sense, traceability relates measuring equipment to national or international standards, primary standards, basic physical constants or properties, or reference materials. In a data collection sense, it relates calculations and data generated throughout the project back to the requirements for the project's quality. Appendix A 170 Trip Blank ­ A clean sample of a matrix that is taken to the sampling site and transported to the laboratory for analysis without having been exposed to sampling procedures. A trip blank is used to document contamination attributable to shipping and field handling procedures. This type of blank is useful in documenting contamination of volatile organics samples. True ­ Being in accord with the actual state of affairs. Type I Error ( ) ­ A Type I error occurs when a decision maker rejects the null hypothesis when it is actually true. See also False Positive Decision Error. Type II Error ( ) ­ A Type II error occurs when the decision maker fails to reject the null hypothesis when it is actually false. See also False Negative Decision Error. User ­ When used in the context of environmental programs, an organization, group, or individual that utilizes the results or products from environmental programs. A user also may be the client for whom the results or products were collected or created. Vadose Zone ­ In soil, the unsaturated zone, limited above by the ground surface and below by the saturated zone. Validation ­ Confirmation by examination and provision of objective evidence that the particular requirements for a specific intended use are fulfilled. In design and development, validation concerns the process of examining a product or result to determine conformance to user needs. Variable ­ The attribute of the environment that is indeterminant. A quantity which may take any one of a specified set of values. Variance ­ A measure of the variability or dispersion in (1) a population (population variance, ), or (2) a sample or set of subsamples (sample variance, ). The variance is the second 2 s 2 moment of a frequency distribution taken about the arithmetic mean as the origin. For a normal distribution, it is the sum of the squared deviations of the (population or sample) member observation about the (population or sample) mean divided by the degrees of freedom ( for N , or for ). 2 n 1 s 2 Verification ­ Confirmation by examination and provision of objective evidence that specified requirements have been fulfilled. In design and development, verification concerns the process of examining a result of a given activity to determine conformance to the stated requirements for that activity. 171 APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF RCRA REGULATORY DRIVERS FOR CONDUCTING WASTE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS Through RCRA, Congress provided EPA with the framework to develop regulatory programs for the management of solid and hazardous waste. The provisions of RCRA Subtitle C establish the criteria for identifying hazardous waste and managing it from its point of generation to ultimate disposal. EPA's regulations set out in 40 CFR Parts 260 to 279 are the primary reference for information on the hazardous waste program. These regulations include provisions for waste sampling and testing and environmental monitoring. Some of these RCRA regulations require sampling and analysis, while others do not specify requirements and allow sampling and analysis to be performed at the discretion of the waste handler or as specified in individual facility permits. Table B­ 1 provides a comprehensive listing of the regulatory citations, the applicable RCRA standards, requirements for demonstrating attainment or compliance with the standards, and relevant USEPA guidance documents. The table is divided into three major sections addressing regulations for (1) hazardous waste identification, (2) land disposal restrictions, and (3) other programs. The table is meant to be used as a general reference guide. Consult the latest 40 CFR, related Federal Register notices, and EPA's World Wide Web site (www. epa. gov) for new or revised regulations and further clarification and definitive articulation of requirements. In addition, because some states have requirements that differ from EPA regulations and guidance, we recommend that you consult with a representative from your State if your State is authorized to implement the regulation. Appendix B 172 Table B­ 1. Summary of Waste Analysis Drivers for Major RCRA Regulatory Program Areas 40 CFR Citation and Description Applicable Standards Requirements for Demonstrating Attainment of or Compliance With the Standards Relevant USEPA Guidance Waste Analysis Drivers for the Hazardous Waste Identification Program §261.3( a)( 2)( v) ­ Used oil rebuttable presumption (see also Part 279, Subpart B and the Part 279 standards for generators, transporters, processors, re refiners, and burners.) Used oil that contains more than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of total halogens is presumed to have been mixed with a regulated halogenated hazardous waste (e. g., spent halogenated solvents), and is therefore subject to applicable hazardous waste regulations. The rebuttable presumption does not apply to metalworking oils and oils from refrigeration units, under some circumstances. A person may rebut this presumption by demonstrating, through analysis or other documentation, that the used oil has not been mixed with halogenated hazardous waste. One way of doing this is to show that the used oil does not contain significant concentrations of halogenated hazardous constituents (50 FR 49176; November 29, 1985). If the presumption is successfully rebutted, then the used oil will be subject to the used oil management standards instead of the hazardous waste regulations. Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Recycled Used Oil Management Standards, 57 FR 41566; September 10, 1992 Part 279 Requirements: Used Oil Management Standards, EPA530­ H­ 98­ 001 §261.3( c)( 2)( ii)( C) ­ Generic exclusion levels for K061, K062, and F006 nonwastewater HTMR residues To be excluded from the definition of hazardous waste, residues must meet the generic exclusion levels specified at §261.3( c)( 2)( ii)( C)( 1) and exhibit no characteristics of hazardous waste. Testing requirements must be incorporated in a facility's waste analysis plan or a generator's self implementing waste analysis plan. At a minimum, composite samples of residues must be collected and analyzed quarterly and/ or when the process or operation generating the waste changes. Claimant has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the material meets all of the exclusion requirements. Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Wastes, a Guidance Manual, EPA530­ R­ 94­ 024 (USEPA 1994a) Appendix B 173 Table B­ 1. Summary of Waste Analysis Drivers for Major RCRA Regulatory Program Areas 40 CFR Citation and Description Applicable Standards Requirements for Demonstrating Attainment of or Compliance With the Standards Relevant USEPA Guidance Waste Analysis Drivers for the Hazardous Waste Identification Program (continued) §261.21­ Characteristic of Ignitability A solid waste exhibits the characteristic of ignitability if a representative sample of the waste is: (1) A liquid having a flashpoint of less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Centigrade); (2) A non­ liquid which causes fire through friction, absorption of moisture, or spontaneous chemical changes and, when ignited, burns so vigorously and persistently it creates a hazard; (3) An ignitable compressed gas; or (4) An oxidizer. (Aqueous solutions with alcohol content less than 24% are not regulated.) If a representative sample of the waste exhibits the characteristic, then the waste exhibits the characteristic. Appendix I of 40 CFR Part 261 contains references to representative sampling methods; however a person may employ an alternative method without formally demonstrating equivalency. Also, for those methods specifically prescribed by regulation, the generator can petition the Agency for the use of an alternative method (see 40 CFR 260.21). See Chapters Seven and Eight in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIA. SW­ 846. (USEPA 1986a) §261.22 ­ Characteristic of Corrosivity A solid waste exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity if a representative sample of the waste is: (1) Aqueous, with a pH less than or equal to 2, or greater than or equal to 12.5; or (2) Liquid and corrodes steel at a rate greater than 6.35 mm per year when applying a National Association of Corrosion Engineers Standard Test Method. If a representative sample of the waste exhibits the characteristic, then the waste exhibits the characteristic. Appendix I of 40 CFR Part 261 contains references to representative sampling methods; however a person may employ an alternative method without formally demonstrating equivalency. Also, for those methods specifically prescribed by regulation, the generator can petition the Agency for the use of an alternative method (see 40 CFR 260.21). See Chapters Seven and Eight in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIA. SW­ 846. (USEPA 1986a) Appendix B 174 Table B­ 1. Summary of Waste Analysis Drivers for Major RCRA Regulatory Program Areas 40 CFR Citation and Description Applicable Standards Requirements for Demonstrating Attainment of or Compliance With the Standards Relevant USEPA Guidance Waste Analysis Drivers for the Hazardous Waste Identification Program (continued) §261.23 ­ Characteristic of Reactivity A solid waste exhibits the characteristic of reactivity if a representative sample of the waste: (1) Is normally unstable and readily undergoes violent change; (2) Reacts violently with water; (3) Forms potentially explosive mixtures with water; (4) Generates toxic gases, vapors, or fumes when mixed with water; (5) Is a cyanide or sulfide­ bearing waste which, when exposed to pH conditions between 2 and 12.5, can generate toxic gases, vapors, or fumes; (6) Is capable of detonation or explosion if subjected to a strong initiating source or if heated under confinement; (7) Is readily capable of detonation or explosive decomposition or reaction at standard temperature and pressure; or (8) Is a forbidden explosive as defined by DOT. EPA relies on these narrative criterion to define reactive wastes. Waste handlers should use their knowledge to determine if a waste is sufficiently reactive to be regulated. Also, for those methods specifically prescribed by regulation, the generator can petition the Agency for the use of an alternative method (see 40 CFR 260.21). EPA currently relies on narrative standards to define reactive wastes, and withdrew interim guidance related to sulfide and cyanide levels (see a Memorandum entitled, Withdrawal of Cyanide and Sulfide Reactivity Guidance" from David Bussard and Barnes Johnson to Diana Love, dated April 21, 1998). § 261.24 ­ Toxicity Characteristic A solid waste exhibits the characteristic of toxicity if the extract of a representative sample of the waste contains any of the contaminants listed in Table 1 in 261.24, at or above the specified regulatory levels. The extract should be obtained through use of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). If the waste contains less than .5 percent filterable solids, the waste itself, after filtering, is considered to be the extract. Appendix I of 40 CFR Part 261 contains references to representative sampling methods; however, a person may employ an alternative method without formally demonstrating equivalency. See Chapters Seven and Eight in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIA. SW­ 846. (USEPA 1986a) Appendix B 175 Table B­ 1. Summary of Waste Analysis Drivers for Major RCRA Regulatory Program Areas 40 CFR Citation and Description Applicable Standards Requirements for Demonstrating Attainment of or Compliance With the Standards Relevant USEPA Guidance Waste Analysis Drivers for the Hazardous Waste Identification Program (continued) §261.38( c)( 8)( iii)( A) ­ Exclusion of Comparable Fuels from the Definition of Solid and Hazardous Waste For each waste for which an exclusion is claimed, the generator of the hazardous waste must test for all of the constituents on Appendix VIII to part 261, except those that the generator determines, based on testing or knowledge, should not be present in the waste. The generator is required to document the basis for each determination that a constituent should not be present. For waste to be eligible for exclusion, a generator must demonstrate that "each constituent of concern is not present in the waste above the specification level at the 95% upper confidence limit around the mean." See the final rule from June 19,1998 (63 FR 33781) For further information on the comparable fuels exclusion, see the following web site: http:// www. epa. gov/ combustion/ fast rack/ Part 261­ Appendix I Representative Sampling Methods Provides sampling protocols for obtaining a representative sample. For the purposes of Subpart C, a sample obtained using Appendix I sampling methods will be considered representative. The Appendix I methods, however, are not formally adopted (see comment at §261.20( c)). Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIA. SW­ 846. (USEPA 1986a) ASTM Standards Appendix B 176 Table B­ 1. Summary of Waste Analysis Drivers for Major RCRA Regulatory Program Areas 40 CFR Citation and Description Applicable Standards Requirements for Demonstrating Attainment of or Compliance With the Standards Relevant USEPA Guidance Waste Analysis Drivers for the Land Disposal Restriction Program §268.6( b)( 1) ­ Petitions to Allow Land Disposal of a Waste Prohibited Under Subpart C of Part 268 (No­ Migration Petition) The demonstration must meet the following criteria: (1) All waste and environmental sampling, test, and analysis data must be accurate and reproducible to the extent that state­ of­ the­ art techniques allow; (2) All sampling, testing, and estimation techniques for chemical and physical properties of the waste and all environmental parameters must have been approved by the EPA Administrator. ° Waste analysis requirements will be specific to the petition. ° Sampling methods are specified in the facility's Waste Analysis Plan. Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Wastes, a Guidance Manual, EPA530­ R­ 94­ 024 (USEPA 1994a) Land Disposal Restrictions No Migration Variances; Proposed Rule. Federal Register, August 11, 1992 (USEPA 1992) §268.40 ­ Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) concentration­ level standards For total waste standards, all hazardous constituents in the waste or in the treatment residue must be at or below the values in the table at 268.40. For waste extract standards, the hazardous constituents in the extract of the waste or in the extract of the treatment residue must be at or below the values in the table at 268.40. ° Sampling methods are specified in the facility's Waste Analysis Plan. ° Compliance with the standards for nonwastewater is measured by an analysis of grab samples. Compliance with wastewater standards is based on composite samples. No single sample may exceed the applicable standard. Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Wastes, a Guidance Manual, EPA530­ R­ 94­ 024 (USEPA 1994a) Appendix B 177 Table B­ 1. Summary of Waste Analysis Drivers for Major RCRA Regulatory Program Areas 40 CFR Citation and Description Applicable Standards Requirements for Demonstrating Attainment of or Compliance With the Standards Relevant USEPA Guidance Waste Analysis Drivers for the Land Disposal Restriction Program (continued) §268.44 ­ Land Disposal Restriction Treatability Variance If you are a generator or treatment facility whose wastes cannot be treated to achieve the established treatment standards, or for which treatment standards are not appropriate, you may petition EPA for a variance from the treatment standard. A treatment variance does not exempt your wastes from treatment, but rather establishes an alternative LDR treatment standard. The application must demonstrate that the treatment standard for the waste in question is either "unachievable" or "inappropriate." Memorandum entitled "Use of Site Specific Land Disposal Restriction Treatability Variances Under 40 CFR 268.44( h) During Cleanups" (Available from the RCRA Call Center or on EPA's web site at http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazw aste/ ldr/ tv­ rule/ guidmem. txt Variance Assistance Document: Land Disposal Restrictions Treatability Variances & Determinations of Equivalent Treatment (available from the RCRA Call Center or on EPA's web site at http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazw aste/ ldr/ guidance2. pdf §268.49( c)( 1) ­ Alternative LDR Treatment Standards for Contaminated Soil All constituents subject to treatment must be treated as follows: (A) For non­ metals, treatment must achieve 90 percent reduction in total constituent concentrations except where treatment results in concentrations less that 10 times the Universal Treatment Standard (UTS) at 268.48. (B) For metals, treatment must achieve 90 percent reduction in constituent concentrations as measured in TCLP leachate from the treated media or 90 percent reduction in total concentrations when a metal removal technology is used, except where treatment results in concentrations less that 10 times the UTS at 268.48. Sampling methods are specified in the facility's Waste Analysis Plan. Guidance on Demonstrating Compliance With the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Alternative Soil Treatment Standards (USEPA 2002) Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Wastes, a Guidance Manual, EPA530­ R­ 94­ 024 (USEPA 1994a) Appendix B 178 Table B­ 1. Summary of Waste Analysis Drivers for Major RCRA Regulatory Program Areas 40 CFR Citation and Description Applicable Standards Requirements for Demonstrating Attainment of or Compliance With the Standards Relevant USEPA Guidance Waste Analysis Drivers in Other RCRA Regulations §260.10 ­ Definitions "Representative sample" means a sample of a universe or whole (e. g. waste pile, lagoon, ground water) which can be expected to exhibit the average properties of the universe or whole. Representative samples may be required to measure compliance with various provisions within the RCRA regulations. See requirements specified in the applicable regulation or implementation guidance. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIA. SW­ 846. (USEPA 1986a) Part 260 ­ Subpart C ­ Rulemaking Petitions In the section for petitions to amend Part 261 to "delist" a hazardous waste, the petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does not meet any of the criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste (§ 260.22). Demonstration samples must consist of enough representative samples, but in no case less than four samples, taken over a period of time sufficient to represent the variability or the uniformity of the waste. Petitions to Delist Hazardous Waste– A Guidance Manual. 2 nd ed. (USEPA 1993d) Region 6 RCRA Delisting Program Guidance Manual for the Petitioner (USEPA 1996d) Part 262 ­ Subpart A ­ Purpose, Scope, and Applicability (including §262.11 ­ Hazardous Waste Determination) Generators must make the following determinations if a secondary material is a solid waste: 1) whether the solid waste is excluded from regulation; 2) whether the waste is a listed waste; and 3) whether the waste is characteristic waste (§ 262.11) Generators must document their waste determination and land disposal restriction determination. Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Wastes, a Guidance Manual, EPA530­ R­ 94­ 024 (USEPA 1994a) Part 262 ­ Subpart C ­ Pre Transport Requirements Under §262.34( a)( 4), if generators are performing treatment within their accumulation units, they must comply with the waste analysis plan requirements of §268.7( a)( 5). Generators must develop a waste analysis plan (kept on­ site for three years) which details the treatment they are performing to meet LDR treatment standards and the type of analysis they are performing to show completion of treatment. Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Wastes, a Guidance Manual, EPA530­ R­ 94­ 024 (USEPA 1994a) Appendix B 179 Table B­ 1. Summary of Waste Analysis Drivers for Major RCRA Regulatory Program Areas 40 CFR Citation and Description Applicable Standards Requirements for Demonstrating Attainment of or Compliance With the Standards Relevant USEPA Guidance Waste Analysis Drivers in Other RCRA Regulations (continued) Part 264 ­ Subpart A ­ Purpose, Scope, and Applicability §264.1( j)( 2) ­ In an exemption established by the HWIR­ media rulemaking, remediation waste can be exempt under circumstances that require chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample of the hazardous remediation waste to be managed at the site. The analysis, at a minimum, must contain all the information needed to treat, store, or dispose of the waste according to Part 264 and Part 268. The waste analysis must be accurate and up­ to­ date. See the final Federal Register notice from November 30, 1998 (63 FR 65873) For further documentation, see the following web site: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazw aste/ id/ hwirmdia. htm Parts 264/ 265 ­ Subpart B General Facility Standards §264/ 265.13 ­ General waste analysis requirements specify: (a) Detailed chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample is required before an owner treats, stores, or disposes of any hazardous waste. Sampling method may be those under Part 261; and (b) Owner/ operator must develop and follow a written waste analysis plan. All requirements are case­ by­ case and are determined in the facility permit. Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Wastes, a Guidance Manual, EPA530­ R­ 94­ 024 (USEPA 1994a) Appendix B 180 Table B­ 1. Summary of Waste Analysis Drivers for Major RCRA Regulatory Program Areas 40 CFR Citation and Description Applicable Standards Requirements for Demonstrating Attainment of or Compliance With the Standards Relevant USEPA Guidance Waste Analysis Drivers in Other RCRA Regulations (continued) Part 264 ­ Subpart F ­ Groundwater Monitoring Groundwater monitoring wells must be properly installed so that samples will yield representative results. All monitoring wells must be lined, or cased, in a manner that maintains the integrity of the monitoring well bore hole (§ 264.97( c)). Poorly installed wells may give false results. There are specific monitoring standards for all three sub programs: ° Detection Monitoring (§ 264.98); ° Compliance Monitoring (§ 264.99); and ° Corrective Action Program (§ 264.100). The Corrective Action Program is specific to the Groundwater Monitoring Program. At a minimum, there must be procedures and techniques for sample collection, sample preservation and shipment, analytical procedures, and chain­ of custody control (§ 264.97( d)). Sampling and analytical methods must be appropriate for groundwater sampling and accurately measure the hazardous constituents being analyzed. The owner and operator must develop an appropriate sampling procedure and interval for each hazardous constituent identified in the facility's permit. The owner and operator may use an alternate procedure if approved by the RA. Requirements and procedures for obtaining and analyzing samples are detailed in the facility permit, usually in a Sampling and Analysis Plan. Statistical Analysis of Ground­ Water Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities (Interim Final Guidance). Office of Solid Waste (USEPA 1989b) RCRA Ground­ Water Monitoring: Draft Technical Guidance. (USEPA 1992c) Statistical Analysis of Ground­ Water Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities Addendum to Interim Final Guidance (USEPA 1992b) Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of Cleanup Standards. Volume 2: Ground Water (USEPA. 1992i) Appendix B 181 Table B­ 1. Summary of Waste Analysis Drivers for Major RCRA Regulatory Program Areas 40 CFR Citation and Description Applicable Standards Requirements for Demonstrating Attainment of or Compliance With the Standards Relevant USEPA Guidance Waste Analysis Drivers in Other RCRA Regulations (continued) Part 265 ­ Subpart F ­ Ground water Monitoring To comply with Part 265, Subpart F, the owner/ operator must install, operate, and maintain a ground water monitoring system capable of representing the background groundwater quality and detecting any hazardous constituents that have migrated from the waste management area to the uppermost aquifer. Under Part 265, Subpart F, there are two types of groundwater monitoring programs: an indicator evaluation program designed to detect the presence of a release, and a ground­ water quality assessment program that evaluates the nature and extent of contamination. To determine existing ground­ water conditions at an interim status facility, the owner and operator must install at least one well hydraulically upgradient from the waste management area. The well( s) must be able to accurately represent the background quality of ground water in the uppermost aquifer. The owner and operator must install at least three wells hydraulically downgradient at the limit of the waste management area, which are able to immediately detect any statistically significant evidence of a release. A separate monitoring system for each management unit is not required as long as the criteria in §265.91( a) are met and the system is able to detect any release at the edge of the waste management area. Statistical Analysis of Ground­ Water Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities (Interim Final Guidance). Office of Solid Waste (USEPA 1989b) RCRA Ground­ Water Monitoring: Draft Technical Guidance. (USEPA 1992c) Statistical Analysis of Ground­ Water Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities Addendum to Interim Final Guidance (USEPA 1992b) Part 264/ 265 ­ Subpart G ­ Closure and Post­ Closure The closure plan must include a detailed description of the steps for sampling and testing surrounding soils and criteria for determining the extent of decontamination required to satisfy the closure performance standards. (§ 264/ 265.112( b)( 4)) All requirements are facility­ specific and are set forth in the facility permit. Closure/ Postclosure Interim Status Standards (40 CFR 265, Subpart G): Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities Under RCRA, Subtitle C, Section 3004 RCRA Guidance Manual for Subpart G Closure and Postclosure Care Standards and Subpart H Cost Estimating Requirements (USEPA 1987) Appendix B 182 Table B­ 1. Summary of Waste Analysis Drivers for Major RCRA Regulatory Program Areas 40 CFR Citation and Description Applicable Standards Requirements for Demonstrating Attainment of or Compliance With the Standards Relevant USEPA Guidance Waste Analysis Drivers in Other RCRA Regulations (continued) Part 264 ­ Subpart I ­ Use and Management of Containers Spilled or leaked waste and accumulated precipitation must be removed from the sump or collection area in as timely a manner as is necessary to prevent overflow of the collection system (§ 264.175). If the collected material is a hazardous waste under part 261 of this Chapter, it must be managed as a hazardous waste in accordance with all applicable requirements of parts 262 through 266 of the chapter. If the collected material is discharged through a point source to waters of the United States, it is subject to the requirements of section 402 of the Clean Water Act, as amended. Testing scope and requirements are site­ specific and are set forth in the facility waste analysis plan. Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Wastes, a Guidance Manual, EPA530­ R­ 94­ 024 (USEPA 1994a) Guidance for Permit Writers: Facilities Storing Hazardous Waste in Containers, 11/ 2/ 82, PB88­ 105 689 Model RCRA Permit for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities, 9/ 15/ 88, EPA530­ SW­ 90­ 049 Parts 264/ 265 ­ Subpart J ­ Tank Systems Demonstrate the absence or presence of free liquids in the stored/ treated waste using EPA Method 9095 (Paint Filter Liquid Tests) of SW­ 846 (§§ 264/ 265.196). The Paint Filter Liquid Test is a positive or negative test. Method 9095 of Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIA. SW­ 846. (USEPA 1986a) Appendix B 183 Table B­ 1. Summary of Waste Analysis Drivers for Major RCRA Regulatory Program Areas 40 CFR Citation and Description Applicable Standards Requirements for Demonstrating Attainment of or Compliance With the Standards Relevant USEPA Guidance Waste Analysis Drivers in Other RCRA Regulations (continued) Part 264/ 265 ­ Subpart M ­ Land Treatment To demonstrate adequate treatment (treatment demonstration), the permittee must perform testing, analytical, design, and operating requirements. (§ 264.272) Demonstration that food­ chain crops can be grown on a treatment unit can include sample collection with criteria for sample selection, sample size, analytical methods, and statistical procedures. (§ 264/ 265.276) Owner/ operator must collect pore water samples and determine if there has been a statistically significant change over background using procedures specified in the permit. (§ 264/ 265.278) During post­ closure period, owner may conduct pore­ water and soil sampling to determine if there has been a statistically significant change in the concentration of hazardous constituents. (§ 264/ 265.280) All requirements are facility­ specific and are set forth in the facility permit. See Chapters Twelve in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIA. SW­ 846. (USEPA 1986a) Guidance Manual on Hazardous Waste Land Treatment Closure/ Postclosure (40 CFR Part 265), 4/ 14/ 87, PB87­ 183 695 Hazardous Waste Land Treatment, 4/ 15/ 83, SW­ 874 Permit Applicants' Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Land Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities; Final Draft, 5/ 15/ 84, EPA530­ SW­ 84­ 004 Permit Guidance Manual on Hazardous Waste Land Treatment Demonstrations, 7/ 15/ 86, EPA530­ SW­ 86­ 032 Permit Guidance Manual on Unsaturated Zone Monitoring for Hazardous Waste Land Treatment Units, 10/ 15/ 86, EPA530­ SW­ 86­ 040 Appendix B 184 Table B­ 1. Summary of Waste Analysis Drivers for Major RCRA Regulatory Program Areas 40 CFR Citation and Description Applicable Standards Requirements for Demonstrating Attainment of or Compliance With the Standards Relevant USEPA Guidance Waste Analysis Drivers in Other RCRA Regulations (continued) Part 264 ­ Subpart O ­ Incinerators There are waste analysis requirements to verify that waste fed to the incinerator is within physical and chemical composition limits specified in the permit. (§§ 264/ 265.341) The owner/ operator must conduct sampling and analysis of the waste and exhaust emissions to verify that the operating requirements established in the permit achieve the performance standards of §264.343 (§§ 264/ 265.347) All requirements are facility­ specific and are set forth in the facility permit. See Chapter Thirteen in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIA. SW­ 846. (USEPA 1986a) Appendix B 185 Table B­ 1. Summary of Waste Analysis Drivers for Major RCRA Regulatory Program Areas 40 CFR Citation and Description Applicable Standards Requirements for Demonstrating Attainment of or Compliance With the Standards Relevant USEPA Guidance Waste Analysis Drivers in Other RCRA Regulations (continued) Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units EPA includes corrective action in permits through the following statutory citations: Section 3008( h) ­ provides authority to require corrective action at interim status facilities Section 3004( u) ­ requires corrective action be addressed as a condition of a facility's Part B permit Section 3004( v) ­ provides authority to require corrective action for releases migrating beyond the facility boundary Section 3005( c)( 3) ­ provides authority to include additional requirements in a facility's permit, including corrective action requirements Section 7003 ­ gives EPA authority to take action when contamination presents an imminent hazard to human health or the environment Often the first activity in the corrective action process is the RCRA facility Assessment (RFA), which identifies potential and actual releases from solid waste management units (SWMUs) and make preliminary determinations about releases, the need for corrective action, and interim measures. Another activity in the corrective action process is the RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI), which takes place when a release has been identified and further investigation is necessary. The purpose of the RFI is to gather enough data to fully characterize the nature, extent, and rate of migration of contaminants to determine the appropriate response action. Once the implementing agency has selected a remedy, the facility enters the Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI) phase, in which the owner and operator of the facility implements the chosen remedy. Corrective action may include various sampling and monitoring requirements. There is a substantial body of guidance and publications related to RCRA corrective action. See the following link for further information: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazw aste/ ca/ resource. htm §264.552 ­ Corrective Action Management Units There are ground­ water monitoring, closure, and post­ closure requirements for CAMUs. All requirements are case­ by­ case and are determined in the facility permit. There are numerous guidance documents available. See the following link for further information: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazw aste/ ca/ resource. htm Appendix B 186 Table B­ 1. Summary of Waste Analysis Drivers for Major RCRA Regulatory Program Areas 40 CFR Citation and Description Applicable Standards Requirements for Demonstrating Attainment of or Compliance With the Standards Relevant USEPA Guidance Waste Analysis Drivers in Other RCRA Regulations (continued) Parts 264/ 265 ­ Subpart AA ­ Air Emission Standards The following types of units are subject to the Subpart AA process vent standards: ° Units subject to the permitting standards of Part 270 (i. e., permitted or interim status) ° Recycling units located at hazardous waste management facilities otherwise subject to the permitting standards of Part 270 (i. e., independent of the recycling unit, the facility has a RCRA permit or is in interim status) ° Less than 90­ day large quantity generator units. Testing and statistical methods are specified in the regulations at §264.1034( b). The primary source of guidance is the regulations. See also the final rulemakings that promulgated the regulations: June 21, 1990 (55 FR 25494) November 25, 1996 (62 FR 52641) June 13, 1997 (62 FR 32462) Parts 264/ 265 ­ Subpart BB ­ Air Emission Standards The following types of units are subject to the Subpart BB equipment leak standards: ° Units subject to the permitting standards of Part 270 (i. e., permitted or interim status) ° Recycling units located at hazardous waste management facilities otherwise subject to the permitting standards of Part 270 (i. e., independent of the recycling unit, the facility already has a RCRA permit or is in interim status) ° Less than 90­ day large quantity generator units The standards specify the type and frequency of all inspection and monitoring activities required. These requirements vary depending on the piece of equipment at the facility. Testing and statistical methods are specified in the regulations at §264.1063( c). The primary source of guidance is the regulations. See also the final rulemakings that promulgated the regulations: June 21, 1990 (55 FR 25494) June 13, 1997 (62 FR 32462) Appendix B 187 Table B­ 1. Summary of Waste Analysis Drivers for Major RCRA Regulatory Program Areas 40 CFR Citation and Description Applicable Standards Requirements for Demonstrating Attainment of or Compliance With the Standards Relevant USEPA Guidance Waste Analysis Drivers in Other RCRA Regulations (continued) §266.112 ­ Regulation of Residues A residue from the burning or processing of hazardous waste may be exempt from hazardous waste determination if the waste derived residue is either: substantially similar to normal residue or below specific health based levels for both metal and nonmetal constituents. Concentrations must be determined based on analysis of one or more samples obtained over a 24­ hour period. Multiple samples may be analyzed and composite samples may be used provided the sampling period does not exceed 24 hours. If more than one sample is analyzed to represent the 24­ hour period, the concentration shall be the arithmetic mean of the concentrations in the samples. The regulations under §266.112 have specific sampling and analysis requirements Part 266, Appendix IX Part 270 ­ Subpart B ­ Permit Application, Hazardous Waste Permitting Provides the corresponding permit requirement to the general requirements (including the requirement for a waste analysis plan) under §270.14. There are also unit­ specific waste analysis, monitoring, and sampling requirements incinerators (§ 270.19) and boilers and industrial furnaces (§ 270.22). There are also specific requirements for dioxin listings handled in waste piles (§ 270.18) and landfills (§ 270.21). The permittee must conduct appropriate sampling procedures, and retain results of all monitoring. All requirements are facility specific and are set forth in the permit and waste analysis plan. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIA. SW­ 846. (USEPA 1986a) Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Wastes, a Guidance Manual, EPA530­ R­ 94­ 024 (USEPA 1994a) Part 270 ­ Subpart C ­ Conditions Applicable to All Permits Under §270.30, there are specific requirements for monitoring and recordkeeping. Section270.31 requires monitoring to be detailed in the permit. The permittee must conduct appropriate sampling procedures, and retain results of all monitoring. All requirements are facility specific and are set forth in the permit and waste analysis plan. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIA. SW­ 846. (USEPA 1986a) Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Wastes, a Guidance Manual, EPA530­ R­ 94­ 024 (USEPA 1994a) Appendix B 188 Table B­ 1. Summary of Waste Analysis Drivers for Major RCRA Regulatory Program Areas 40 CFR Citation and Description Applicable Standards Requirements for Demonstrating Attainment of or Compliance With the Standards Relevant USEPA Guidance Waste Analysis Drivers in Other RCRA Regulations (continued) Part 270 ­ Subpart F ­ Special Forms of Permits Specifies sampling and monitoring requirements based on trial burns for incinerators (§ 270.62) and Boiler and Industrial Furnaces (§ 270.66). Waste analysis and sampling requirements are site specific and set forth in each facility's waste analysis plan required under 264.13. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIA. SW­ 846. (USEPA 1986a) Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Wastes, a Guidance Manual, EPA530­ R­ 94­ 024 (USEPA 1994a) Part 273 ­ Universal Wastes Handlers and transporters of universal wastes must determine if any material resulting from a release is a hazardous waste. (§ 273.17( b) for small quantity handlers, §273.37( b) for large quantity handlers, and §273.54 for transporters of universal wastes) Also, if certain universal wastes are dismantled, such as batteries or thermostats, in certain cases the resulting materials must be characterized for hazardous waste purposes. (§§ 273.13( a)( 3) and (c)( 3)( i)) Sampling and analysis requirements are identical to hazardous waste identification requirements. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIA. SW­ 846. (USEPA 1986a) Universal Waste Final Rule, 60 FR 25492; May 11, 1995 Final rule adding Flourescent Lamps, 64 FR 36465; July 6, 1999 Appendix B 189 Table B­ 1. Summary of Waste Analysis Drivers for Major RCRA Regulatory Program Areas 40 CFR Citation and Description Applicable Standards Requirements for Demonstrating Attainment of or Compliance With the Standards Relevant USEPA Guidance Waste Analysis Drivers in Other RCRA Regulations (continued) Part 279 ­ Standards for the Management of Used Oil Specifies sampling and analysis procedures for owners or operators of used­ oil processing and re refining facilities. Under §279.55, owners or operators of used oil processing and re­ refining facilities must develop and follow a written analysis plan describing the procedures that will be used to comply with the analysis requirements of §279.53 and/ or §279.72. The plan must be kept at the facility. Sampling: Part 261, Appendix I Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Recycled Used Oil Management Standards, 57 FR 41566, September 10, 1992 Part 279 Requirements: Used Oil Management Standards, EPA530­ H­ 98­ 001 190 This page intentionally left blank 191 APPENDIX C STRATEGIES FOR SAMPLING HETEROGENEOUS WASTES C. 1 Introduction "Heterogeneous wastes" include structures, demolition debris, waste­ construction materials, containers (e. g., drums, tanks, and paint cans), solid waste from laboratories and manufacturing processes, and post­ consumer wastes (e. g., electronics components, battery casings, and shredded automobiles) (USEPA and USDOE 1992). Heterogeneous wastes can pose challenges in the development and implementation of a sampling program due to the physical variety in size, shape, and composition of the material and the lack of tools and approaches for sampling heterogeneous waste. The application of conventional sampling approaches to heterogeneous waste is difficult and may not provide a representative sample. To develop a sampling strategy for heterogeneous waste, it is first important to understand the scale, type, and magnitude of the heterogeneity. This appendix provides an overview of largescale heterogeneity and provides some strategies that can be used to obtain samples of heterogeneous wastes. See also Section 6.2.1 for a description of other types of heterogeneity including short range (small­ scale) heterogeneity (which includes distribution and constitution heterogeneity). Additional guidance on sampling heterogeneous waste can be found in the following documents: ° Characterizing Heterogeneous Wastes: Methods and Recommendations (USEPA and USDOE 1992) ° Standard Guide for Sampling Strategies for Heterogeneous Waste (ASTM D 5956­ 96) ° Pierre Gy's Sampling Theory and Sampling Practice: Heterogeneity, Sampling Correctness, and Statistical Process Control. 2 nd ed. (Chapter 21) (Pitard 1993), and ° Geostatistical Error Management: Quantifying Uncertainty for Environmental Sampling and Mapping (Myers 1997). C. 2 Types of Large­ Scale Heterogeneity The notion of heterogeneity is related to the scale of observation. An example given by Pitard (1993) and Myers (1997) is that of a pile of sand. From a distance of a few feet, a pile of sand appears to be uniform and homogeneous; however, at close range under magnification a pile of sand is heterogeneous. Substantial differences are found between the individual grains in their sizes, shapes, colors, densities, hardness, mineral composition, etc. For some materials, the differences between individual grains or items are not measurable or are not significant relative to the project objectives. In such a case, the degree of heterogeneity is so minor that for practical purposes the material can be considered homogeneous. The Standard Guide for Sampling Strategies for Heterogeneous Waste (ASTM D 5956­ 96) refers to this condition as Appendix C 192 "practical homogeneity," but recognizes that true homogeneity does not exist. At a larger scale, such as an entire waste site, long­ range (or large­ scale) nonrandom heterogeneity is of interest. Large­ scale heterogeneity reflects local trends and plays an important role in deciding whether to use a geostatistical appraisal to identify spatial patterns at the site, to use stratified sampling design to estimate a parameter (such as the overall mean), or to define the boundaries of the sampling problem so that it comprises two or more decision units that are each internally relatively homogeneous. Items, particles, or phases within a waste or site can be distributed in various ways to create distinctly different types of heterogeneity. These types of heterogeneity include: ° Random heterogeneity – occurs when dissimilar items are randomly distributed throughout the population. ° Non­ random heterogeneity – occurs when dissimilar items are nonrandomly distributed, resulting in the generation of strata. The term strata refers to subgroups of a population separated in space, in time, or by component from the remainder of the population. Strata are internally consistent with respect to a target constituent or a property of interest and are different from adjacent portions of the population. The differences between items or particles that result in heterogeneity are due to differences in their composition or properties. One of these properties – particle size – deserves special consideration because significant differences in particle size are common and can complicate sampling due to the fundamental error. Fundamental error can be reduced only through particle­ size reduction or the collection of sufficiently large samples. (Section 6 describes the impacts that fundamental error and particle size can have on sampling error.) Figure C­ 1 depicts populations exhibiting the three types of heterogeneity described in ASTM D 5956­ 96 Standard Guide for Sampling Strategies for Heterogeneous Waste: (1) homogeneous, (2) randomly heterogeneous, (3) and nonrandomly heterogeneous populations. The drum­ like populations portray different types of spatial distributions while the populations being discharged through the pipes represent different types of temporal distributions. In the first scenario, very little spatial or temporal variation is found between the identical particles of the "homogeneous" population; however, in the second scenario, spatial and temporal variations are present due to the difference between the composition of the particles or items that make up the waste. ASTM D 5956­ 96 refers to this as a "randomly heterogeneous" population. In the third scenario, the overall composition of the particles or items remain the same as in the second scenario, but the two different components have segregated into distinct strata (e. g., due to gravity), with each strata being internally homogeneous. ASTM D 5956­ 96 refers to waste with this characteristic as "non­ randomly heterogeneous." C. 3 Magnitude of Heterogeneity The magnitude of heterogeneity is the degree to which there are differences in the characteristic of interest between fragments, particles, or volumes within the population. The magnitude of heterogeneity can range from that of a population whose items are so similar that it is practically Appendix C 193 Figure C­ 1. Different types of spatial and temporal heterogeneity. homogeneous to a population whose items are all dissimilar. Statistical measures of dispersion, the variance and standard deviation, are useful indicators of the degree of heterogeneity within a waste or waste site (assuming sampling error is not a significant contributor to the variance an optimistic assumption). If the waste exhibits nonrandom heterogeneity and a high magnitude of heterogeneity, then consider segregating (e. g., at the point of generation) and managing the waste as two or more separate decision units (if physically possible and allowed by regulations). This approach will require prior knowledge (for example, from a pilot study) of the portions of the waste that fall into each specified category (such as hazardous debris and nonhazardous debris). C. 4 Sampling Designs for Heterogeneous Wastes The choice of a sampling design to characterize heterogeneous waste will depend upon the regulatory objective of the study (e. g., waste identification or classification, site characterization, etc.), the data quality objectives, the type and magnitude of the heterogeneity, and practical considerations such as access to all portions of the waste, safety, and the availability of equipment suitable for obtaining and preparing samples. As described in Section 5 of this document, there are two general categories of sampling designs: probability sampling design and authoritative (nonprobability) sampling designs. Probability sampling refers to sampling designs in which all parts of the waste or media under study have a known probability of being included in the sample. This assumption may be difficult to support when sampling highly heterogeneous materials such as construction debris. Appendix C 194 All parts of a highly heterogeneous waste may not be accessible by conventional sampling tools, limiting the ability to introduce some form of randomness into the sampling design. Random Heterogeneous Waste: For random heterogeneous waste, a probability sampling design such as simple random or systematic sampling can be used. At least one of two sample collection strategies, however, also should be used to improve the precision (reproducibility) of the sampling design: (1) take very large individual samples (to increase the sample support), or (2) take many increments to form each individual sample (i. e., use composite sampling). The concept of sample support is described in Section 6.2.3. Composite sampling is discussed in Section 5.3. Non­ Random Heterogeneous Waste: For non­ random heterogeneous wastes, one of two strategies can be used to improve sampling: (1) If the objective is to estimate an overall population parameter (such as the mean), then stratified random sampling could be used. Stratified random sampling is discussed in detail in Section 5.2.2. (2) If the objective is to characterize each stratum separately (e. g., to classify the stratum as either a hazardous waste or a nonhazardous waste), then an appropriate approach is to separate or divert each stratum at its point of generation into discrete, nonoverlapping decision units and characterize and manage each decision unit separately (i. e., to avoid mixing or managing hazardous waste with nonhazardous waste). If some form of stratified sampling is used, then one of three types of stratification must be considered. There are three types of stratification that can be used in sampling: ° stratification by space ° stratification by time ° stratification by component. The choice of the type of stratification will depend on the type and magnitude of heterogeneity present in the population under consideration. Figure C­ 2 depicts these different types of strata which are often generated by different processes or a significant variant of the same process. The different origins of the strata usually result in a different concentration or property distribution and different mean concentrations or average properties. While stratification over time or space is widely understood, stratification by component is less commonly employed. Some populations lack obvious spatial or temporal stratification yet display high levels of heterogeneity. If these populations contain easily identifiable components, such as bricks, gloves, pieces of wood or concrete, then it may be advantageous to consider the population as consisting of a number of component strata. An advantage of component stratification is that it can simplify the sampling and analytical process and allow a mechanism for making inferences to a highly stratified population. Component stratification shares many similarities with the gender or age stratification applied to demographic data by pollsters (i. e., the members of a given age bracket belonging to the same stratum regardless of where they reside). Component stratification is used by the mining industry to assay gold ore and other commodities where the analyte of interest is found in Appendix C 195 Figure C­ 2. Three different types of strata (from ASTM 5956­ 96) discrete particles relative to a much greater mass of other materials. Component stratification, although not commonly employed, is applicable to many waste streams, including the more difficult­ to­ characterize waste streams such as building debris. Additional guidance on stratification by component can be found in ASTM D 5956­ 96. Table C­ 1 offers practical examples when wastes considered "non­ randomly heterogeneous" might be good candidates for stratification across space, time, or by component. The stratification approach can result in a more precise estimate of the mean compared to simple random sampling. However, keep in mind that greater precision is likely to be realized only if a waste exhibits substantial nonrandom chemical heterogeneity and stratification efficiently "divides" the waste into strata that exhibit maximum between­ strata variability and minimum within­ strata variability. If that does not occur, stratified random sampling can produce results that are less precise than in the case of simple random sampling; therefore, it is reasonable to employ stratified sampling only if the distribution of chemical contaminants in a waste is sufficiently known to allow an intelligent identification of the strata and at least two or three samples can be collected in each stratum. Note that failure to recognize separate strata might lead one to conclude incorrectly, via a statistical test, that the underlying population is lognormal or some other right­ skewed distribution. Appendix C 196 Table C­ 1. Examples of Three Types of Stratification Type of Stratification Example Scenario Stratification Across Space A risk­ based cleanup action requires a site owner to remove the top two feet of soil from a site. Prior to excavation, the waste hauler wants to know the average concentration of the constituent of concern in the soil to be removed. The top six inches of soil are known to be more highly contaminated than the remaining 18­ inches of soil. Sampling of the soil might be carried out more efficiently by stratifying the soil into two subpopulations ­ the upper six­ inch portion and the lower 18­ inch portion. Stratification Across Time A waste discharge from a pipe varies across time. If the objective is to estimate the overall mean, then an appropriate sampling design might include stratification across time. Stratification by Component Construction debris covered with lead­ based paint in the same structure with materials such as glass and unpainted wood could be sampled by components (lead­ based paint debris, glass, and unpainted wood). This strategy is known as "stratification by component" (from ASTM D 5956­ 96). C. 5 Sampling Techniques for Heterogeneous Waste Due to practical constraints, conventional sampling approaches may not be suitable for use in sampling of heterogeneous wastes. For example, sampling of contaminated debris can pose significant challenges due to the high degree of heterogeneity encountered. Methods used to sample contaminated structures and debris have included the following: ° Coring and cutting pieces of debris followed by crushing and grinding of the matrix (either in the field or within the laboratory) so the laboratory can handle the sample in a manner similar to a soil sample (Koski, et al 1991) ° Drilling of the matrix (e. g., with a hand held drill) followed by collection of the cuttings for analysis. This technique may require 20 to 50 drill sites in a local area to obtain a sufficient volume for an individual field sample (Koski, et al 1991) ° Grinding an entire structure via a tub grinder followed by conventional sampling approaches (AFCEE 1995). ASTM has published a guide for sampling debris for lead­ based paint (LBP) in ASTM E1908­ 97 Standard Guide for Sample Selection of Debris Waste from a Building Renovation or Lead Abatement Project for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) testing for Leachable Lead (Pb) . Additional methods are described in Chapter Five, "Sample Acquisition," of Characterizing Heterogeneous Wastes: Methods and Recommendations (USEPA and USDOE 1992) and in Rupp (1990). 1 It is important to note that discussion of the "variance of the fundamental error" refers to the relative variance, which is the ratio of the sample variance over square of the sample mean ( ). The relative variance s x 2 2 is useful for comparing results from different experiments. 197 APPENDIX D A QUANTITATIVE APPROACH FOR CONTROLLING FUNDAMENTAL ERROR This appendix provides a basic approach for determining the particle­ size sample­ weight relationship sufficient to achieve the fundamental error level specified in the DQOs. The procedure is based on that described by Pitard (1989, 1993), Gy (1998), and others; however, a number of simplifying assumptions have been made for ease of use. The procedure described in this appendix is applicable to sampling of granular solid media (including soil) to be analyzed for nonvolatile constituents. It is not applicable to liquids, oily wastes, or debris. The mathematical derivation of the equation for the fundamental error is complex and beyond the scope of this guidance. Readers interested in the full documentation of the theory and underlying mathematics are encouraged to review Gy (1982) and Pitard (1993). Several authors have developed example calculations for the variance of the fundamental sampling error for a "typical" contaminated soil to demonstrate its practical application. 1 Examples found in Mason (1992), and Myers (1997) may be particularly useful. The equation for the variance of the fundamental error is extremely practical for optimization of sampling protocols (Pitard 1993). In a relatively simple "rule of thumb" form, the equation for the variance of the fundamental error ( ) is estimated by sFE 2 S d FE 2 3 1 2 = f M a s LC Equation D. 1 where = a dimensionless "shape" factor for the shape of particles in the material to be f sampled where cubic = 1.0, sphere = 0.523, flakes = 0.1, and needles = 1 to 10 = average density (gm/ cm 3 ) of the material = the sample weight (or mass of sample) in grams Ms = proportion of the sample with a particle size less than or equal to the particle aLC size of interest = diameter of the largest fragment (or particle) in the waste, in centimeters. d Pitard's methodology suggests the particle size of interest should be set at 95 percent of the largest particle in the population (or "lot"), such that = 0.05. Equation D. 1 then reduces to aLC s d FE 2 3 18 = f Ma Equation D. 2 Appendix D 198 The equation demonstrates that the variance of the fundamental error is directly proportional to the size of the largest particle and inversely proportional to the mass of the sample. To calculate the appropriate mass of the sample, Equation D. 2 easily can be rearranged as M f a = () s d FE 2 3 18 Equation D. 3 Pitard (1989, 1993) proposed a "Quick Safety Rule" for use in environmental sampling using the following input assumptions for Equation D. 3: = 0. 5 (dimensionless shape factor for a sphere) f = 2. 7 (density of a waste in gm/ cm 3 ) = (standard deviation of the fundamental error). sFE ± 5% By putting these assumed factors into Equation D. 3, we get: Ms = × 05 27 005 18 2 3 .. (. ) d Equation D. 4 Pitard (1993) rounds up, to yield the relationship Ms 10000 3 d Equation D. 5 Alternatively, if we are willing to accept , Equation D. 4 yields sFE = ± 16% Ms 1000 3 d Equation D. 6 Equation D. 4 was used to develop Table D­ 1 showing the maximum particle size that is allowed for a given sample mass with the standard deviation of the fundamental error ( ) sFE prespecified at various levels (e. g., 5%, 10%, 16%, 20%, and 50%). A table such as this one can be used to estimate the optimal weight of field samples and the optimal weight of subsamples prepared within the laboratory. An alternative graphical method is presented by Pitard (1993) and Myers (1997). An important feature of the fundamental error is that it does not "cancel out." On the contrary, the variance of the fundamental error adds together at each stage of subsampling. As pointed out by Myers (1997), the fundamental error can quickly accumulate and exceed 50%, 100%, 200%, or greater unless it is controlled through particle­ size reduction. The variance of the fundamental error, , calculated at each stage of subsampling and particle­ size reduction sFE 2 must be added together at the end to derive the total . sFE 2 Appendix D 199 Table D­ 1. Maximum Allowable Particle Size (cm) for a Given Sample Mass for Selected Standard Deviations of the Fundamental Error Sample Mass (g) Maximum Allowable Particle Size d (cm) SFE = 5% SFE = 10% SFE = 16%* SFE = 20% SFE = 50% 0.1 0. 02 0. 03 0. 05 0. 05 0. 10 1 0. 05 0. 07 0. 10 0. 12 0. 22 2 0. 06 0. 09 0. 13 0. 15 0. 27 3 0. 07 0. 11 0. 15 0. 17 0. 31 4 0. 07 0. 12 0. 16 0. 19 0. 35 5 0. 08 0. 13 0. 17 0. 20 0. 37 10 0.10 0.16 0.22 0.25 0.47 20 0.13 0.20 0.28 0.32 0.59 30 0.15 0.23 0.32 0.37 0.68 40 0.16 0.25 0.35 0.40 0.74 50 0.17 0.27 0.37 0.43 0.80 75 0.20 0.31 0.43 0.50 0.92 100 0.22 0.35 0.47 0.55 1.01 500 0.37 0.59 0.81 0.94 1.73 1000 0.47 0.74 1.02 1.18 2.17 5000 0.80 1.27 1.74 2.02 3.72 *A maximum standard deviation of the fundamental error of 16% has been recommended by Pitard (1993) and is included in this table as a point of reference only. Project­ specific fundamental error rates should be set in the DQO Process. Two important assumptions underlie the use of Table D­ 1: 1. The table is valid only if each and all steps of the sampling and subsampling minimize other sampling error through use of careful and correct sampling procedures 2. The table is valid only for wastes or soils with a shape factor (f) and density ( ) similar to that used to derive the table; otherwise, waste­ specific tables or graphical methods (see Pitard 1993, Mason 1992, or Myers 1997) should be used. Hypothetical Example Suppose we have a waste that is a particulate solid to be analyzed for total metals. The laboratory requires an analytical sample of only 1 gram. The DQO planning team wants to maintain the total standard deviation of the fundamental error ( ) within . The sample sFE ± 16% masses are determined at each stage of sampling and subsampling as follows: Primary Stage: Based on prior inspection of the waste, it is known that 95 percent of the particles are 0.47 cm in diameter or less. Using Table D­ 1, we determine that a field sample of 1,000 grams (or 1 Kg) will generate a fundamental error not greater than . sFE ± 5% Appendix D 200 Secondary Stage: After shipment of the 1,000­ gram sample to the laboratory, particle­ size reduction to about 0.23 cm (2.36 mm or a No. 8 sieve) is performed, and a 30­ gram subsample is taken. This step generates a fundamental error of . sFE ± 10% Final Stage: A 1­ gram subsample is required for the analysis. Particle­ size reduction to 0.07 cm or less (e. g., a No. 30 sieve) is performed, and a 1­ g subsample is taken. This step generates a fundamental error of . sFE ± 10% The variance ( ) from each stage is then summed to determine the total variance of the sFE 2 fundamental error. As shown in Table D­ 2, the total standard deviation of the fundamental error is less than ±16 percent and the DQO is achieved. Table D­ 2. Example Calculation of the Total Variance of the Fundamental Error Sampling and Subsampling Stage Mass (grams) d (cm) sFE sFE 2 Primary Stage 1000 0.47 .05 .0025 Secondary Stage 30 0.23 .10 .01 Final Stage 1 0. 07 .10 .01 Sum of the variances of the fundamental errors ( ) = 0.0225 sFE 2 sFE 2 Total standard deviation of the fundamental error ( ) (DQO = 16%) = 0.15 or 15% sFE sFE One final word of caution is provided regarding the use of the particle­ size reduction and subsampling routine outlined above. The approach can reduce bias and improve precision of analyses for total constituent analyses, but the particle­ size reduction steps may actually introduce bias when used in conjunction with some leaching tests. For example, the TCLP specifies a minimum sample mass of 100 grams (for nonvolatile extractions) and maximum particle size of 9.5 mm. While this combination would generate a of almost ±50 percent, sFE excessive particle­ size reduction below 9.5 mm to lower would increase the leachability of sFE the material during the test due to the increased surface area­ to­ volume ratio of smaller particles. Therefore, it is important to remember that particle­ size reduction to control fundamental error is beneficial when total constituent analyses are performed, but may introduce bias for some leaching tests. Furthermore, particle­ size reduction below 9.5 mm is not required by Method 1311 (TCLP) (except during Step 7.1.4, "Determination of Appropriate Extraction Fluid"). 201 APPENDIX E SAMPLING DEVICES The key features of recommended sampling devices are summarized in this appendix. For each sampling device, information is provided in a uniform format that includes a brief description of the device and its use, advantages and limitations of the device, and a figure to indicate the general design of the device. Each summary also identifies sources of other guidance on each device, particularly any relevant ASTM standards. Much of the information in this appendix was drawn from ASTM standards (see also Appendix J for summaries of ASTM standards). In particular, much of the information came from ASTM D 6232, Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities. Devices not listed in this appendix or described elsewhere in this chapter also may be appropriate for use in RCRArelated sampling. For example, other more innovative or less common technologies may allow you to meet your performance goals and may be appropriate for your sampling effort. Therefore, we encourage and recommend the selection and use of sampling equipment based on a performance­ based approach. In future revisions to this chapter, we will include new technologies, as appropriate. This appendix is divided into subsections based on various categories of sampling technologies. The categories are based on those listed in ASTM D 6232. The equipment categories covered within this appendix are as follows: E. 1 Pumps and Siphons E. 2 Dredges E. 3 Discrete Depth Samplers E. 4 Push Coring Devices E. 5 Rotating Coring Devices E. 6 Liquid Profile Devices E. 7 Surface Sampling Devices E. 1 Pumps and Siphons Pumps and siphons can be used to obtain samples of liquid wastes and ground water. For detailed guidance on the selection and use of pumps for sampling of ground water, see RCRA Ground­ Water Monitoring: Draft Technical Guidance (USEPA 1992c). In this section, you will find summaries for the following pumps or siphons: Internet Resource Information on sampling devices can be found on the Internet at the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable site at http:// www. frtr. gov/. The Field Sampling and Analysis Technologies Matrix and accompanying Reference Guide are intended as an initial screening tool to provide users with an introduction to innovative site characterization technologies and to promote the use of potentially cost­ effective methods for onsite monitoring and measurement. Appendix E 202 Figure E­ 1. Automatic sampler E. 1.1 Automatic Sampler E. 1.2 Bladder Pump E. 1. 3 Peristaltic Pump E. 1.4 Centrifugal Submersible Pump E. 1.5 Displacement Pumps E. 1. 1 Automatic Sampler An automatic sampler (see Figure E­ 1) is a type of pumping device used to periodically collect samples. It is recommended for sampling surface water and point discharges. It can be used in waste­ water collection systems and treatment plants and in stream sampling investigations. An automatic sampler designed for collection of samples for volatile organic analyses is available. An automatic sampler typically uses peristaltic pumps as the sampling mechanism. It can be programmed to obtain samples at specified intervals or to obtain a continuous sample. It also can be programmed to collect time composite or flow proportional samples. Advantages ° Can provide either grab sample or composite samples over time. ° Operates unattended, and it can be programmed to sample variable volumes at variable times. Limitations ° Requires power to operate (either AC or battery power). ° May be difficult to decontaminate. ° May not operate correctly when sampling liquid streams containing a high percentage of solids. ° Highly contaminated water or waste can degrade sampler components. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232. Appendix E 203 Figure E­ 2. Bladder pump E. 1.2 Bladder Pump The bladder pump is recommended for the sampling of surface water, ground water, and point discharges. It also can be used to sample other liquids in surface impoundments. A bladder pump consists of a flexible membrane (bladder) enclosed by a rigid sample container and can be constructed of a variety of materials, such as neoprene, rubber, stainless steel, nitrile, etc. There are two types of bladder pumps ­ the squeeze type and the expanding type (see Figure E­ 2). The squeeze type has the bladder connected to the sample discharge line. The chamber between the bladder and the sampler body is connected to the gas line. The expanding type has the bladder connected to the gas line. In this type of bladder pump, the chamber between the bladder and the sampler body is connected to the sample discharge line. During sampling, water enters the sampler through a check valve at the bottom of the device. Compressed air or gas is then injected into the sampler. This causes the bladder to expand or compress depending on the type of bladder pump. The inlet valve closes and the contents of the sampler are forced through the top check valve into the discharge line. The top check valve prevents water from re­ entering the sampler. By removing the pressure, the process is repeated to collect more sample. Automated sampling systems have been developed to control the time between pressurization cycles. Advantages ° Is suitable for sampling liquids containing volatile compounds. ° Can collect samples up to a depth of 60 m (200 ft.) (ASTM D 6232). Limitations ° Operation requires large volumes of compressed air or gas and a controller. ° Requires a power source. ° Can be heavy and difficult to operate. ° Decontamination can be difficult. Appendix E 204 Figure E­ 3. Peristaltic pump Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° Standard Guide for Sampling Groundwater Monitoring Wells, ASTM D 4448 E. 1. 3 Peristaltic Pump A peristaltic pump (Figure E­ 3) is a suction lift pump used at the surface to collect liquid from ground­ water monitoring wells or surface impoundments. It can be used for sampling surface water, ground water, point discharges, impounded liquids, and multi­ layer liquid wastes. A peristaltic pump consists of a rotor with ball bearing rollers and it has a piece of flexible tubing threaded around the pump rotor and connected to two pieces of polytetrafluroethylene (PTFE) or other suitable tubing. One end of the tubing is placed in the sample. The other end is connected to a sample container. Silicone tubing is commonly used within the pumphead; however, for organic sampling purposes, medical grade silicone is recommended to avoid contamination of the sample (ASTM D 4448). Fluorocarbon resin tubing is also sometimes used for high hazard materials and for samples to be analyzed for organics (ASTM D 6063). The device can be modified to avoid contact of the sample with the flexible tubing. In such a case, the pump is connected to a clean glass container using a PTFE insert. A second PTFE tubing is used to connect the glass container to the sample source. During operation, the rotor squeezes the flexible tubing, causing a vacuum to be applied to the inlet tubing. The sample material is drawn up the inlet tubing and discharged through the outlet end of the flexible tubing. In the modified peristaltic pump, the sample is emptied into the glass container without coming in contact with the flexible tubing. To sample liquids from drums, the peristaltic pump is first used to mix the sample. Both ends of the tubing are placed in the sample and the pump is turned on. Once the drum contents are mixed, the sample is collected as described above. To collect samples for organic volatile analyses, the PTFE tubing attached to the intake end of the pump is filled with the sample and then disconnected from the pump. The tube is then drained into the sample vials. Advantages ° Can collect samples from multiple depths and small diameter wells. ° Easy to use and readily available. Appendix E 205 Figure E­ 4. Centrifugal submersible pump ° The pump itself does not need to be decontaminated. The tubing can be either decontaminated or replaced. Limitations ° The drawing of a vacuum to lift the sample may cause the loss of volatile contaminants. ° Sampling depth cannot exceed about 7.6 m (25 ft.) (ASTM D 6232). ° Requires a power source. ° Flexible tubing may be incompatible with certain matrices. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° Standard Guide for Sampling of Drums and Similar Containers by Field Personnel, ASTM D 6063 ° Standard Guide for Sampling Groundwater Monitoring Wells, ASTM D 4448 E. 1.4 Centrifugal Submersible Pump The centrifugal submersible pump (Figure E­ 4) is a type of pump used for purging and sampling monitoring wells, sampling of waste water from impoundments, and sampling point discharges. A centrifugal submersible pump uses a set of impellers, powered by an electric motor, to draw water up and through a discharge hose. Parts in contact with liquid may be made of PTFE and stainless steel. The pump discharge hose can be made of PTFE or other suitable material. The motor cavity is filled with either air or deionized or distilled water that may be replaced when necessary. Flow rates for centrifugal submersible pumps range from 100 mL per minute to 9 gallons per minute (ASTM D 6232). During operation, water is drawn into the pump by a slight suction created by the rotation of the impellers. The impellers work against fixed stator plates and pressurize the water which is driven to the surface through the discharge hose. The speed at which the impellers are driven controls the pressure and, thus, the flow rate. Appendix E 206 Figure E­ 5. Displacement pump Advantages ° Can be constructed of materials (PTFE and stainless steel) that are chemically resistant. ° Can be used to pump liquids up to a 76 m (250 ft) head (ASTM D 6232). ° Flow rate is adjustable. Limitations ° May be incompatible with liquids containing a high percentage of solids. ° May not be appropriate for collection of samples for volatile organics analysis. Loss of volatiles can occur as a result of motor heating and sample pressurization. ° Requires an electric power source; e. g., either a 12 v (DC) or a 110/ 220 v (AC) converter (ASTM D 6232). ° May require a winch or reel system for portable use. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 E. 1.5 Displacement Pumps The displacement pump (Figure E­ 5) is a type of pump used for the sampling of surface water, ground water, point discharges and other liquids (e. g., in impoundments). A displacement pump forces a discrete column of water to the surface via a mechanical lift. During sampling, water enters the sampler through the check valve at the bottom of the device. It is commonly constructed of PVC, stainless steel, or both. It also can be made of PTFE to reduce the risk of contamination when collecting samples with trace levels of organic compounds. Two common types of displacement pumps include the air/ gas and piston displacement pumps. The air/ gas displacement pump uses compressed gas and it operates by applying positive Appendix E 207 pressure to the gas line. This causes the inlet check valve to close and the discharge line check valve to open, forcing water up the discharge line to the surface. Removal of the gas pressure causes the top valve to close and the bottom valve to open. Water enters the sampler and the process is repeated. The piston displacement pump uses an actuating rod powered from the surface or from an air or electric actuator. The mechanically operated plunger delivers the sample to the surface at the same time the chamber fills. It has a flap valve on the piston and an inlet check valve at the bottom of the sampler. Advantages ° Can be constructed of PTFE to reduce the risk of contamination caused by materials of construction when collecting samples for trace levels of organics. Limitations ° May be difficult to decontaminate. ° Displacement pumps require large volumes of air or gas and a power source. ° Loss of dissolved gases or sample contamination from the driving gas may occur during sampling. ° Displacement pumps may be heavy. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° Standard Guide for Sampling Groundwater Monitoring Wells, ASTM D 4448 E. 2 Dredges Dredges include equipment that is often used to collect bottom material (e. g., sediments) from beneath a layer of stationary or moving liquid. A variety of dredges are available including the Ekman bottom grab sampler and the Ponar dredge. The Ponar dredge is described below. E. 2.1 Ponar Dredge The ponar dredge is recommended for sampling sediment. It has paired jaws that penetrate the substrate and close to retain the sample. The sample volume range is 0.5 to 3.0 liters (ASTM D 6232). Appendix E 208 Figure E­ 6. Ponar dredge The Ponar dredge is lowered slowly with controlled speed so that the dredge will properly land and avoid blowout of the surface layer to be sampled. The weight of the dredge causes it to penetrate the substrate surface. The slack in tension unlocks the open jaws and allows the dredge to close as it is raised. The dredge is raised slowly to minimize disturbance and sample washout as the dredge is retrieved through the liquid column. The collected sample is emptied into a suitable container. Auxiliary weight may be added to the dredge to increase penetration. Advantages ° Reusable ° Can obtain samples of most types of stationary sediments ranging from silt to granular material ° Available in a range of sizes and weights ° Some models may be available in either stainless steel or brass. Limitations ° Not capable of collecting undisturbed samples ° May be difficult to decontaminate (depending upon the dredge's design and characteristics of the sampled material) ° Cannot collect a representative lift or repeatedly sample to the same depth and position ° Can be heavy and require a winch or portable crane to lift; however, a smaller version, the petit Ponar, is available and can be operated by a hand­ line (ASTM D 4342). Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° Standard Practice for Collecting of Benthic Macroinvertebrates with Ponar Grab Sampler, ASTM D 4342 ° Standard Guide for Selecting Grab Sampling Devices for Collecting Benthic Macroinvertebrates, ASTM D 4387 Appendix E 209 Figure E­ 7. Bacon bomb ° "Sediment Sampling" (USEPA 1994e) E. 3 Discrete Depth Samplers Discrete depth samplers include equipment that can collect samples at a specific depth. Such samplers are sometimes used to collect samples from layered liquids in tanks or surface impoundments. You will find summaries for the following discrete depth samplers in this section: E. 3.1 Bacon Bomb E. 3.2 Kemmerer Sampler E. 3.3 Syringe Sampler E. 3.4 Lidded Sludge/ Water Sampler E. 3.5 Discrete Level Sampler Besides the samplers listed below, a self­ purging, discrete depth sampler is available for sampling ground­ water monitoring wells. It fills when stopped at the desired depth and eliminates the need for well purging. It samples directly into a 40­ mL glass VOA sample vial contained within the sampler; therefore, the loss of volatile organic compounds is minimized. E. 3.1 Bacon Bomb A bacon bomb (Figure E­ 7) is a type of discrete level sampler that provides a sample from a specific depth in a stationary body of water or waste. A bacon bomb is recommended for sampling surface water and is usually used to collect samples from a lake or pond. It can also be used to collect liquid waste samples from large tanks or lagoons. It originally was designed to collect oil samples. The sample volume range is from 0.1 to 0.5 liters (100 to 500 mL) (ASTM D 6232). A bacon bomb has a cylindrical body sometimes constructed of stainless steel, but it is sometimes made of chrome­ plated brass and bronze. It is lowered into material by a primary support line and has an internal tapered plunger that acts as a valve to admit the sample. A secondary line attached to the top of the plunger opens and closes the plunger valve. The top cover has a locking mechanism to keep the plunger closed after sampling. The bacon bomb remains closed until triggered to collect the sample. Sample collection is triggered by raising the plunger line and allowing the sampler to fill. The device is then closed by releasing the plunger line. It is returned to the surface by raising the primary support line, and the sample is transferred directly to a container. Appendix E 210 Figure E­ 8. Kemmerer sampler Advantages ° Collects a discrete depth sample; it is not opened until the desired depth. ° Easy to use, without physical requirement limitations. Limitations ° May be difficult to decontaminate due to design or construction materials. ° Maximum sample capacity is only 500 mL. ° Materials of construction may not be compatible with parameters of concern. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° "Tank Sampling" (USEPA 1994c) E. 3.2 Kemmerer Sampler A kemmerer sampler (Figure E­ 8) is a type of discrete level sampler that provides a sample from a specific depth. Recommended for sampling surface water, it is usually used to collect samples from a lake or pond. It can also be used to collect liquid waste samples from large tanks or lagoons. The sample volume range is from 1 to 2 liters (ASTM D 6232). The sampler comprises a stainless steel or brass cylinder with rubber stoppers for the ends, but all PFTE construction also is available. The ends are left open while being lowered in a vertical position, allowing free passage of water or liquid through the cylinder. When the device is at the designated depth, a messenger is sent down a rope to close the stoppers at each end. The cylinder is then raised and the sample is removed through a valve to fill sample containers. Advantages ° Can collect a discrete depth sample. Appendix E 211 Figure E­ 9. Syringe sampler ° Provides correct delimitation and extraction of sample (Pitard 1989) ° Easy to use ° All PTFE construction is available. Limitations ° May be difficult to decontaminate due to construction or materials. ° The sampler is exposed to the medium at other depths while being lowered to a sampling point at the desired depth. ° Materials of construction may not be compatible with parameters of concern. Other Guidance: ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 E. 3.3 Syringe Sampler A syringe sampler (Figure E­ 9) is a discrete depth sampler used to sample liquids. With the optional coring tip, it can be used as a coring device to sample highly viscous liquids, sludges, and tarlike substances. It is used to collect samples from drums, tanks, and surface impoundments, and it can also draw samples when only a small amount remains at the bottom of a tank or drum. The sample volume range is 0.2 to 0.5 liters (ASTM D 6232). A syringe sampler generally is constructed of a piston assembly that comprises a T­ handle, safety locking nut, control rod, piston body assembly, sampling tube assembly, and two tips for the lower end (a closeable valve and a coring tip). When used as a syringe, the sampler is slowly lowered to the sampling point and the Thandle is gradually raised to collect the sample. Once the desired sample is obtained, the lock nut is tightened to secure the piston rod and the bottom valve is closed by pressing down on the sampler against the side or bottom of the container. When used as a coring device, the sampler is slowly pushed down into the material. Once the desired sample is obtained, the lock nut is tightened to secure the piston rod and the sampler is removed from the media. The sample material is extruded into the sample container by opening the bottom valve (if fitted), loosening the lock nut, and pushing the piston down. Appendix E 212 Figure E­ 10. Lidded sludge/ water sampler Advantages ° The syringe sampler is easy to use and decontaminate. ° The syringe sampler can sample at discrete depths, including the bottom of a container. Limitations ° The syringe sampler can be used to depths of about 1.8 meters only (ASTM D 6232). ° Material to be sampled must be viscous enough to remain in the device when the coring tip is used; the valve tip is not recommended for viscous materials (ASTM D 6063). Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Sampling Single or Multilayered Liquids, ASTM D 5743 ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° Standard Guide for Sampling of Drums and Similar Containers by Field Personnel, ASTM D 6063 E. 3.4 Lidded Sludge/ Water Sampler A lidded sludge/ water sampler (Figure E­ 10) is a type of discrete depth device that provides a sample from a specific depth. It is used to collect sludges or waste fluids from tanks, tank trucks, and ponds. It can sample liquids, multi­ layer liquid wastes, and mixed­ phase solid/ liquid wastes. The typical sample volume is 1.0­ liter (ASTM D 6232). A lidded sludge/ water sampler comprises a removable glass jar, sometimes fitted with a cutter for sampling materials containing more than 40­ percent solids (ASTM D 6232), that is mounted on a stainless steel device. The sampler is lowered into the material to be sampled and opened at the desired depth. The top handle is rotated to upright the jar and open and close the lid. Then, the device is carefully retrieved from the material. The jar is removed from the sampler by lifting it from the holder, and Appendix E 213 Figure E­ 11. Discrete level sampler the jar serves as a sample container so there is no need to transfer the sample. Advantages ° The jar in the sampling device also serves as a sample container reducing the risk of cross­ contamination. ° Bottles and lids are unique to each sample, therefore, decontamination of an intermediate transfer container is not required. Limitations ° Heavy and limited to one bottle size ° Thick sludge is difficult to sample (ASTM D 6232). Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 E. 3.5 Discrete Level Sampler A discrete level sampler (Figure E­ 11) is a dismountable cylindrical sampler fitted with a manually­ operated valve( s). It is recommended for sampling surface water, ground water, point discharges, liquids, and multi­ layer liquids and is used for sampling drums, tanks, containers, wells, and surface impoundments. The typical sample volume range is 0.2 to 0.5 liters (ASTM D 6232). A discrete level sampler is made from PTFE and stainless steel and is designed to be reusable. It comprises a tube fitted with manually­ operated valve or valves, which are operated by a control assembly attached to the upper end of the sampler. This assembly consists of a rigid tube and rod or a flexible tube and inner cable. The standard level sampler has a manually operated upper valve and a lower spring­ retained bottom dump valve. The dual valve model may be emptied by opening the valves manually or with a metering device attached to the lower end of the sampler (not shown). Appendix E 214 To collect a sample, the discrete level sampler is lowered into the sample material to the desired sampling depth. The valve or valves are opened manually to collect the sample and closed before retrieving the sampler. The standard model is emptied by pressing the dump valve against the side of the sample container. The dual valve sampler is emptied by opening the valves manually. Alternatively, the collected sample may be taken to the laboratory in the sampler body by replacing the valves with solid PTFE end caps. Advantages ° Relatively easy to decontaminate and reuse ° May be used to sample liquids in most environmental situations. ° Can be remotely operated in hazardous environments. ° Sample representativeness is not affected by liquids above the sampling point. ° The sampling body can be used for sample storage and transport. Limitations ° Limited to sample chamber capacities of 240­ 475 mL (ASTM D 6232). ° May be incompatible with liquids containing a high percentage of solids. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 E. 4 Push Coring Devices Push coring devices include equipment that use a pushing action to collect a vertical column of a solid sample. You will find summaries for the following push coring devices in this section: E. 4.1 Penetrating Probe Sampler E. 4.2 Split Barrel Sampler E. 4.3 Concentric Tube Thief E. 4.4 Trier E. 4.5 Thin­ Walled Tube E. 4.6 Coring Type Sampler (with Valve) E. 4.7 Miniature Core Sampler E. 4.8 Modified Syringe Sampler Appendix E 215 Figure E­ 12. Probe sampler E. 4.1 Penetrating Probe Sampler The penetrating probe sampler (Figure E­ 12) is a push coring device and, therefore, provides a core sample. The probe sampler is recommended for sampling soil and other solids. The sample volume range is 0.2 to 2.0 liters (ASTM D 6232). The probe sampler typically consists of single or multiple threaded steel tubes, a threaded top cap, and a detachable steel tip. The steel tubes are approximately 1 inch or less in diameter. Specialized attachments may be used for various matrices. Some probes are equipped with adjustable screens or retractable inner rods to sample soil vapor or ground water. Advantages ° Easy to decontaminate and is reusable. ° Can provide samples for onsite analysis (ASTM D 6232). ° Versatile and may sample 15 to 20 locations a day for any combination of matrices (ASTM D 6232). ° Can reduce quantity of investigative derived wastes. Limitations ° May be heavy and bulky depending on the size used. ° Limited by composition of subsurface materials and accessibility to deeper depth materials. ° May be inappropriate for sampling materials that require mechanical strength to penetrate. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 Appendix E 216 Figure E­ 13. Split barrel sampler E. 4.2 Split Barrel Sampler A split barrel sampler (Figure E­ 13) is a push coring device often used with a drill rig to collect deep subsurface samples. The device is recommended for soil sampling, but can be used to sample other solids. The materials to be sampled should be moist enough to remain in the sampler. The sample volume range is 0.5 to 30.0 liters (ASTM D 6232). The sampler consists of a length of steel tubing split longitudinally and equipped with a drive shoe, made of steel, and a drive head. The drive shoe is detachable and should be replaced when dented or distorted. The samplers are available in a variety of diameters and lengths. The split barrel is typically 18 to 30 inches in length with an inside diameter of 1.5 to 2.5 inches (ASTM D 4700, ASTM D 1586). The split barrel sampler can be used to collect relatively undisturbed soil samples at considerable depths. The split barrel sampler may be driven manually, but is usually driven with a drill rig drive weight assembly or hydraulically pushed using rig hydraulics. The sampler is placed on the surface of the material to be sampled, then pushed downward while being twisted slightly. Because pushing by hand may be difficult, a drop hammer typically is attached to a drill rig used to finish inserting the sampler. When the desired depth is reached the sampler is twisted again to break the core; then, the sampler is pulled straight up and out of the material. The sample may be removed from the barrel or the liner may be capped off for analysis. Barrels may be extended to 5 inches in diameter (ASTM D 6232). Liners often are used when sampling for volatile organic compounds or other trace constituents of interest. With a liner, the sample can be removed with a minimum amount of disturbance. Liners must be compatible with the matrix and compounds of interest; plastic liners may be inappropriate if analyzing for organics. Advantages ° Reusable, easily decontaminated, and easy to use. ° Provides a relatively undisturbed sample, therefore, can minimize the loss of volatile organic compounds. Limitations ° Requires a drill or direct push rig for deep samples. ° Made of steel and may penetrate underground objects such as a pipe or drum. Appendix E 217 Figure E­ 14. Concentric tube thief ° Only accommodates samples that contain particles smaller than the opening of the drive shoe (ASTM D 4700). Other Guidance: ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° Standard Guide for Soil Sampling from the Vadose Zone, ASTM D 4700 ° Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split­ Barrel Sampling of Soils, ASTM D 1586 E. 4.3 Concentric Tube Thief The concentric tube thief (also known as a grain sampler) (Figure E­ 14) is a push coring device that the user directly pushes into the material to be sampled. It can be used to sample powdered or granular solids and wastes in piles or in bags, drums, or similar containers. The concentric tube thieves are generally 61 to 100 cm (24 to 40 inches) long by 1.27 to 2.54 cm (½ to 1 inch) in diameter (USEPA 1994i). The sample volume range is 0.5 to 1.0 liters (ASTM D 6232). The concentric tube thief consists of two slotted telescoping tubes, which are constructed of stainless steel, brass, or other material. The outer tube has a conical pointed tip on one end which allows the thief to penetrate the material being sampled. The thief is opened and closed by rotating the inner tube, and it is inserted into the material while in the closed position. Once inserted, the inner tube is rotated into the open position and the device is wiggled to allow the material to enter the open slots. The thief then is closed and withdrawn. Advantages ° Is a good direct push sampler for dry unconsolidated materials. ° Easy to use. Appendix E 218 Figure E­ 15. Trier Limitations ° May be difficult to decontaminate, depending on the matrix ° Not recommended for sampling of moist or sticky materials. ° Does not collect samples containing all particle sizes if the diameter of the largest solid particle is greater than one­ third of the slot width (ASTM D 6232). Most useful when the solids are no greater than 0.6 cm (1/ 4­ inch) in diameter (USEPA 1994i). ° Depth of sample is limited by the length of the thief. ° Not recommended for use when volatiles are of interest. Collects a somewhat disturbed sample, which may cause loss of some volatiles. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° "Waste Pile Sampling" (USEPA 1994d) E. 4.4 Trier A trier (Figure E­ 15) is a push coring device that resembles an elongated scoop and is used to sample moist or sticky solids with a particle diameter less than one­ half the diameter of the tube portion. The trier can be used to sample soils and similar fine­ grained cohesive materials. The typical sample volume range is 0.1 to 0.5 liters (ASTM D 6232). A trier comprises a handle connected to a tube cut in half lengthwise, with a sharpened tip that allows it to cut into the material. Triers are made of stainless steel, PTFE­ coated metal, or plastic. One should be selected who materials of construction are compatible with the sampled material. A trier, typically 61 to 100 cm long and 1.27 to 2.54 cm in diameter, is used as a vertical coring device when a relatively complete and cylindrical sample can be extracted. The trier is pushed into the material to be sampled and turned one or two times to cut a Appendix E 219 core. The rotation is stopped with the open face pointing upward. The core is then carefully removed from the hole, preventing overburden material from becoming a part of the sample. The sample is inspected for irregularities (e. g., pebbles) or breakage. If breakage occurred and if the core does not satisfy minimum length requirements, discard it and extract another from an immediately adjacent location (ASTM D 5451). The sample is emptied into the appropriate container for analysis. Advantages ° A good direct push sampler for moist or sticky materials. ° Lightweight, easy to use, and easy to decontaminate for reuse. Limitations ° Limited to sample particle sizes within the diameter of the inserted tube and will not collect particles greater than the slot width. ° Not recommended for sampling of dry unconsolidated materials. (A concentric tube thief is good for such materials.) ° Only for surface sampling, and the depth of sample is limited by the length of the trier. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° Standard Practice for Sampling Using a Trier Sampler, ASTM D 5451 ° Sampling of Drums and Similar Containers by Field Personnel, ASTM D 6063 ° Standard Practice for Sampling Unconsolidated Solids in Drums or Similar Containers, ASTM D 5680 E. 4.5 Thin­ Walled Tube A thin­ walled tube (Figure E­ 16) is a type of push coring device recommended for sampling cohesive, unconsolidated solids – particularly soil. It is not recommended for gravel or rocky soil. The sample volume range is 0.5 to 5.0 liters (ASTM D 6232). The tube generally is constructed of carbon stainless steel, but can be manufactured from other metals (ASTM D 4700). It is commonly 30­ inches long and is readily available in 2­, 3­, and 5­ inch outside diameters (ASTM D 4700). The tube is attached with set screws to a length of a solid or tubular rod, and the upper end of the rod, or sampler head, is threaded to accept a handle or extension rod. Typically, the length of the tube depends on the desired sampling depth. Its advancing end is beveled and has a cutting edge with a smaller diameter than the Appendix E 220 Figure E­ 16. Thin­ walled tube tube inside diameter. The tube can be used in conjunction with drills – from hand­ held to full­ sized rigs. The end of the sampler is pushed directly into the media using a downward force on the handle. It can be pushed downward by hand, with a jack­ like system, or with a hydraulic piston. Once the desired depth is reached, the tube is twisted to break the continuity of the tip and is pulled from the media. The sample material is extruded into the sample container by forcing a rod through the tube. A paring device has been developed to remove the outer layer during extrusion (ASTM D 4700). Plastic and PFTE sealing caps for use after sampling are available for the 2­, 3­, and 5­ inch tubes. Advantages ° Readily available, inexpensive, and easy to use. ° Reusable and can be decontaminated. ° Obtains a relatively undisturbed sample. Limitations ° Some thin­ walled tubes are large and heavy. ° The material to be sampled must be of a physical consistency (cohesive sold material) to be cored and retrieved within the tube. It cannot be used to sample gravel or rocky soils. ° Some volatile loss is possible when the sample is removed from the tube. ° The most disturbed portion in contact with the tube may be considered unrepresentative. Shorter tubes provide less­ disturbed samples than longer tubes. ° Materials with particles larger than one­ third of the inner diameter of the tube should not be sampled with a thin­ walled tube. Appendix E 221 Figure E­ 17. Coring type sampler (with valve) Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° Standard Guide for Core Sampling of Submerged, Unconsolidated Sediments, ASTM D 4823 ° Standard Practice for Thin­ Walled Type Geotechnical Sampling of Soils, ASTM D 1587 ° Standard Guide for Soil Sampling from the Vadose Zone, ASTM D 4700 E. 4.6 Coring Type Sampler (with Valve) A coring type sampler with valve (Figure E­ 17) is a type of push coring device recommended for wet soil, and can also be used to sample unconsolidated solid waste, mixed­ phase solid/ liquid waste, and free­ flowing powders. The coring device may be used in drums and small containers as well as tanks, lagoons, and waste impoundments. The sample volume range is 0.2 to 1.5 liters (ASTM D 6232). The coring type sampler with valve is a stainless steel cylindrical sampler with a coring tip, top cap, an extension with a cross handle, and a non­ return valve at the lower end behind a coring or augering tip. The valve is a retaining device to hold the sample in place as the coring device is removed. Samples are normally collected in an optional liner. It is operated by attaching a handle or an extension with a handle to the top of the coring device. The corer is lowered to the surface, pushed into the material being sampled and removed. The top cap is removed and the contents emptied into a sample container. Alternatively, the liner can be removed (with the sampled material retained inside) and capped on both ends for shipment to a laboratory. Advantages ° Reusable and is easily decontaminated. ° Provides a relatively undisturbed sample if not extruded. ° Can be hand operated and does not require significant physical strength. Appendix E 222 Figure E­ 18. Miniature core sample (Encore™ sampler) Limitations ° Can not be used in gravel, large particle sediments, or sludges. ° When sampling for volatile organic compounds, it must be used with a liner and capped to minimize the loss of volatiles. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° Guide for Core Sampling Submerged, Unconsolidated Sediments, ASTM D 4823 E. 4.7 Miniature Core Sampler The miniature core sampler (Figure E­ 18) can be used to collect soil and waste samples for volatile organics analysis. These include devices such as the Purge­ and­ Trap Soil Sampler™, the EnCore™ sampler, or a cut plastic syringe (see Section 6.0 of SW­ 846 Method 5035). A miniature core sampler is a single­ use push coring sampling device that also can be used as an air­ tight sample storage and shipping container. It collects a small contained subsample and is particularly useful for the sampling and analysis of volatile organic compounds. It is recommended for sampling soil, from the ground or the side of a trench, and may be used for sampling sediment and unconsolidated solid wastes. It cannot be used for sampling cemented material, consolidated material, or material having fragments coarse enough to interfere with proper coring. The EnCore™ sampler can be used to collect subsamples from soil cores and has a sample volume range of 0.01 to 0.05 liters (ASTM D 6232). The device is available from the manufacturer in two sizes for collection of 5­ and 25­ gram samples (assuming a soil density of 1.7 g/ cm 3 ). The size is chosen based on the sample size required by the analytical procedure. SW­ 846 Method 5035, "Closed­ System Purge­ and­ Trap and Extraction for Volatile Organics in Soil and Waste Samples," recommends that samples not be stored in the device longer than 48 hours prior to sample preparation for analysis. The manufacturer's instructions for sample extrusion should be followed carefully. Appendix E 223 Advantages ° Maintains sample structure in a device that also can be used to store and transport the sample directly to the laboratory. ° Recommended for collecting samples for the analysis of volatile compounds. It collects a relatively undisturbed sample that is contained prior to analysis to minimize the loss of volatile compounds. ° Usually is compatible with the chemicals and physical characteristics of the sampled media. ° No significant physical limitations for its use. ° Cross­ contamination should not be a concern if the miniature core sampler is certified clean by the manufacturer and employed as a single­ use device. Limitations ° Cannot be used to sample gravel or rocky soils. ° Instructions must be followed carefully for proper use to avoid trapping air with the sample and to ensure that the sample does not compromise the seals. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° Standard Practice for Using the Disposable EnCore™ Sampler for Sampling and Storing Soil for Volatile Organic Analysis, ASTM D 6418 ° Standard Guide for Sampling Waste and Soils for Volatile Organic Compounds, ASTM D 4547 Appendix E 224 Figure E­ 19. Modified syringe sampler E. 4.8 Modified Syringe Sampler A modified syringe sampler (Figure E­ 19) is a push coring sampling device constructed by the user by modifying a plastic, single­ use, medical syringe. It can be used to provide a small, subsample of soil, sediments, and unconsolidated solid wastes. It is sometimes used to sub­ sample a larger core of soil. It is not recommended for sampling cemented material, consolidated material, or material having fragments coarse enough to interfere with proper coring. Unlike the EnCore™ sampler, it should not be used to store and ship a sample to the laboratory. Instead, the sample should be extruded into another container. Although the modified syringe sampler does not provide as contained a sample as the EnCore™ sampler, it can be used for sampling volatile compounds, as long as sample extrusion into another container is quickly and carefully executed. The modified syringe sample has a volume range of 0.01 to 0.05 liters (ASTM D 6232). A modified syringe sampler is constructed by cutting off the lower end of the syringe attachment for the needle. The rubber cap is removed from the plunger, and the plunger is pushed in until it is flush with the cut end. For greater ease in pushing into the solid matrix, the front edge sometimes can be sharpened (ASTM D 4547). The syringe sampler is then pushed into the media to collect the sample, which then may be placed in a glass VOA vial for storage and transport to the laboratory. The sample is immediately extruded into the vial by gently pushing the plunger. The volume of material collected should not cause excessive stress on the device during intrusion into the material, or be so large that the sample falls apart easily during extrusion. Advantages ° Obtains a relatively undisturbed profile sample. ° Can be used for the collection of samples for the analysis of volatile compounds as long as sample extrusion is quickly and carefully executed. ° No significant physical limitations for its use. ° Low­ cost, single­ use device. Appendix E 225 Figure E­ 20. Bucket auger Limitations ° Cannot be used to sample gravel or rocky soils. ° Material of construction may be incompatible with highly contaminated media. ° Care is required to ensure that the device is clean before use. ° The device cannot be used to store and transport a sample. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° Standard Guide for Sampling Waste and Soils for Volatile Organic Compounds, ASTM D 4547 E. 5 Rotating Coring Devices Rotating coring devices include equipment that obtains vertical columns of a solid sample through a rotating action. Some of these devices (such as augers) also can be used for just boring a hole for sample collection at a certain depth using another piece of equipment. You will find summaries for the following rotating coring devices in this section: E. 5.1 Bucket Auger E. 5.2 Rotating Coring Device E. 5.1 Bucket Auger The bucket auger (Figure E­ 20) is a handoperated rotating coring device generally used to sample soil, sediment, or unconsolidated solid waste. It can be used to obtain samples from drums, storage containers, and waste piles. The sample volume range is 0.2 to 1.0 liters (ASTM D 6232). The cutting head of the auger bucket is pushed and twisted by hand with a downward force into the ground and removed as the bucket is filled. The empty auger is returned to the hole and the procedure is repeated. The sequence is continued until the required depth is reached. The same bucket may be used to advance the hole if the vertical sample is a composite of all intervals; however, discrete grab Appendix E 226 samples should be collected in separate clean auger buckets. The top several inches of material should be removed from the bucket to minimize chances of cross­ contamination of the sample from fall­ in material from the upper portions of the hole. Note that hand augering may be difficult in tight clays or cemented sands. At depths approaching 20 feet (6 m), the tension of hand auger extension rods may make operation of the auger too difficult. Powered methods are recommended if deeper samples are required (ASTM D 6232). Advantages ° Reusable and easy to decontaminate. ° Easy to use and relatively quick for shallow subsurface samples. ° Allows the use of various auger heads to sample a wide variety of soil conditions (USEPA 1993c). ° Provides a large volume of sample in a short time. Limitations ° Depth of sampling is limited to about 20 feet (6 m) below the surface. ° Not suitable for obtaining undisturbed samples. ° Requires considerable strength to operate and is labor intensive. ° Not ideal for sampling soils for volatile organic compounds. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° Standard Practice for Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings, ASTM D 1452 ° Standard Guide for Soil Sampling from the Vadose Zone, ASTM D 4700 ° Standard Practice for Sampling Unconsolidated Waste From Trucks, ASTM D 5658 ° Standard Guide for Sampling of Drums and Similar Containers by Field Personnel, ASTM D 6063 ° "Waste Pile Sampling" (USEPA 1994d) Appendix E 227 Figure E­ 21. Rotating coring device ° "Sediment Sampling" (USEPA 1994e) E. 5.2 Rotating Coring Device The rotating coring device (Figure E­ 21) collects vertical columns of a solid sample through a rotating action and can be used in sampling consolidated solid waste, soil, and sediment. The sample volume range is 0.5 to 1.0 liters (ASTM D 6232). The rotating coring device consists of a diamond­ or carbide­ tipped open steel cylinder attached to an electric drill. The coring device may be operated with the drill hand­ held or with the drill mounted on a stand. When on a portable stand, fulldepth core samples can be obtained. The barrel length is usually 1­ to 1.5­ feet long and the barrel diameter ranges from 2 to 6 inches (ASTM D 6232 and ASTM D 5679). The rotating coring device may be used for surface or depth samples. The rotating coring device is placed vertical to the surface of the media to be sampled, then turned on before contact with the surface. Uniform and continuous pressure is supplied to the device until the specified depth is reached. The coring device is then withdrawn and the sample is placed into a container for analysis, or the tube itself may be capped and sent to the laboratory. Capping the tube is preferred when sampling for volatile organic compounds. The rotating tube must be cooled and lubricated with water between samples. Advantages ° Easy to decontaminate. ° Reusable. ° Can obtain a solid core sample. Limitations ° Requires a battery or other source of power. ° Requires a supply of water, used for cooling the rotating tube. ° Not easy to operate. Appendix E 228 Figure E­ 22. COLIWASA Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° Standard Practice for Sampling Consolidated Solids in Drums or Similar Containers, ASTM D 5679 ° "Drum Sampling" (USEPA 1994b) ° "Sediment Sampling" (USEPA 1994e) E. 6 Liquid Profile Devices Liquid profile devices include equipment that can collect a vertical column of a liquid, sludge, or slurry sample. You will find summaries for the following liquid profile devices in this section: E. 6.1 Composite Liquid Waste Sampler (COLIWASA) E. 6. 2 Drum Thief E. 6.3 Valved Drum Sampler E. 6.4 Plunger Type Sampler E. 6.5 Settleable Solids Profiler (Sludge Judge) E. 6.1 COLIWASA (Composite Liquid Waste Sampler) The COLIWASA (Figure E­ 22) is a type of liquid profile sampling device used to obtain a vertical column of sampled material. A COLIWASA is recommended for sampling liquids, multi­ layer liquid wastes, and mixed­ phase solid/ liquid wastes and is commonly used to sample containerized liquids, such as tanks and drums. It also may be used for sampling open bodies of stagnant liquids. The sample volume range is 0.5 to 3 liters (ASTM D 6232). A COLIWASA can be constructed of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), glass, metal, PTFE or any other material compatible with the sample being collected. In general, a COLIWASA comprises a tube with a tapered end and an inner rod that has some type of stopper on the end. The design can be modified or adapted to meet the needs of the sampler. One configuration comprises a piston valve attached by an inner rod to a locking Appendix E 229 mechanism at the other end. Designs are available for specific sampling situations (i. e., drums, tanks). COLIWASAs specifically designed for sampling liquids, viscous materials, and heavy sludges are also available. COLIWASAs come in a variety of diameters (0. 5 to 2 inches) and lengths (4 to 20 feet) (ASTM D 6232). COLIWASAs are available commercially with different types of stoppers and locking mechanisms, but all have the same operating principle. To draw a sample, the COLIWASA is slowly lowered into the sample at a right angle with the surface of the material. (If the COLIWASA sampler is lowered too fast, the level of material inside and outside the sampler may not be the same, causing incorrect proportions in the sample. In addition, the layers of multi­ layered materials may be disturbed.) The sampler is opened at both ends as it is lowered to allow the material to flow through it. When the device reaches the desired sampling depth, the sampler is closed by the stopper mechanism and both tubes are removed from the material. The sampled material is then transferred to a sample container by opening the COLIWASA. A COLIWASA can be reused following proper decontamination (reusable point sampler) or disposed after use (single­ use COLIWASA). The reusable point sampler is used in the same way as the single use COLIWASA; however, it can also sample at a specific point in the liquid column. Advantages ° Provides correct delimitation and extraction of waste (Pitard 1989). ° Easy to use. ° Inexpensive. ° Reusable. ° Single­ use models are available. Limitations ° May break if made of glass and used in consolidated matrices. ° Decontamination may be difficult. ° The stopper may not allow collection of material in the bottom of a drum. ° High viscosity fluids are difficult to sample. Other Guidance ° Standard Practice for Sampling with a Composite Liquid Waste Sampler (COLIWASA), ASTM D 5495 ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 Appendix E 230 Figure E­ 23. Drum thief ° Standard Guide for Sampling Drums and Similar Containers by Field Personnel, ASTM D 6063 ° Standard Practice for Sampling Single or Multilayered Liquids, With or Without Solids, in Drums or Similar Containers, ASTM D 5743 ° "Drum Sampling" (USEPA 1994b) ° "Tank Sampling" (USEPA 1994c) E. 6.2 Drum Thief A drum thief (Figure E­ 23) is an open­ ended tube and liquid profile sampling device that provides a vertical column of the sampled material. It is recommended for sampling liquids, multi­ layer liquid wastes, and mixed­ phase solid/ liquid wastes and can be used to sample liquids in drums or similar containers. The typical sample volume range is 0.1 to 0.5 liters (ASTM D 6232). Drum thieves can be made of glass, stainless steel, or any other suitable material. Drum thieves are typically 6 mm to 16 mm inside diameter and 48­ inches long (USEPA 1994c). To sample liquids with low surface tension, a narrow bailer works best. In most cases, tubes with a 1­ centimeter inside diameter work best. Wider tubes can be used to sample sludges. The drum thief is lowered vertically into the material to be sampled, inserted slowly to allow the level of material inside and outside the tube to be approximately the same. This avoids incorrect proportions in the sample. The upper end is then sealed with the thumb or a rubber stopper to hold the sample in the tube as it is removed from the container. The thief is emptied by removing the thumb or stopper. Advantages ° Easy to use and inexpensive. ° Available in reusable and single­ use models. Limitations ° Sampling depth is limited to the length of the sampler. ° May not collect material in the bottom of a drum. The depth of unsampled material depends on the density, surface tension, and viscosity of the material being sampled. Appendix E 231 Figure E­ 24. Valved drum sampler ° Highly viscous materials are difficult to sample. ° May be difficult to retain sample in the tube when sampling liquids of high specific gravity. ° If made of glass, may break if used in consolidated matrices. In addition, chips and cracks in a glass drum thief may cause an imperfect seal. ° Decontamination is difficult. ° When sampling a drum, repeated use of the drum thief to obtain an adequate volume of sample may disturb the drum contents. ° Drum­ size tubes have a small volume and sometimes require repeated use to obtain a sample. Two or more people may be required to use larger sizes. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° Standard Guide for Sampling of Drums and Similar Containers by Field Personnel, ASTM D 6063 ° Standard Practice for Sampling Single or Multilayered Liquids, With or Without Solids, in Drums or Similar Containers, ASTM D 5743 ° "Drum Sampling" (USEPA 1994b) ° "Tank Sampling" (USEPA 1994c) E. 6.3 Valved Drum Sampler A valved drum sampler (Figure E­ 24) is a liquid profile device often used to sample liquids in drums or tanks and provides a vertical column of the sampled material. A valved drum sampler is recommended for sampling liquids, multi­ layered liquid wastes, and mixed­ phase solid/ liquid wastes. The typical sample volume range is 0.3 to 1.6 liters (ASTM D 6232). The sampler can be constructed from PTFE for reuse or polypropylene for single use and comprises a tube fitted with a top plug and a bottom valve. A sliding indicator ring allows specific levels or fluids interfaces to be identified. The valved drum sampler is open at both ends during Appendix E 232 Figure E­ 25. Plunger type sampler sample collection and lowered vertically into the material to be sampled. The sampler is inserted slowly to allow the level of material inside and outside the tube to equalize. Once the desired amount of sample is collected, the top plug and the bottom valve are closed. The top plug is closed manually and the bottom valve is closed by pressing against the side or bottom of the container. The sample is poured from the top of the sampler into a suitable container. Advantages ° Easy to use, inexpensive, and unbreakable. ° Obtains samples to depths of about 8 feet (2. 4 m) (ASTM D 6232). ° Reusable if made from PTFE (single­ use if made from polypropylene) (ASTM D 6232). Limitations ° Somewhat difficult to decontaminate ° The bottom valve may prevent collection of the bottom 1.25 cm of material (ASTM D 6232). ° High viscosity fluids are difficult to sample. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 E. 6.4 Plunger Type Sampler The plunger type sampler (Figure E­ 25) is a liquid profile sampling device used to collect a vertical column of liquid and is recommended for the sampling of single and multilayered liquids or mixtures of liquids and solids. The plunger type sampler can be used to collect samples from drums, surface impoundments, and tanks. Sample volume is at least 0.2 liters and ultimately depends on the size of the sample container (ASTM D 6232). A plunger type sampler comprises a sample tube, sample line or rod, head section, and plunger and is made of HDPE, PTFE, or glass. A sample jar is connected to the head section. The sample tube is lowered into the liquid to the desired depth. The plunger is engaged into the tube to secure the sample within the tube and the cord or rod is raised to transfer the sample directly into the Appendix E 233 Figure E­ 26. Settleable solids profiler sampling bottle or jar. The plunger can be pushed back down the sampling tube to reset the sampler. Advantages ° Easy to use. ° Provides a sealed collection system. ° Relatively inexpensive and available in various lengths. Limitations ° Care is needed when using a glass sampling tube. ° Decontamination may be difficult, particularly when a glass sampling tube is used. Other Guidance: ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° Standard Practice for Sampling Single or Multilayered Liquids, With or Without Solids, in Drums or Similar Containers, ASTM D 5743 E. 6.5 Settleable Solids Profiler (Sludge Judge) The settleable solids profiler (Figure E­ 26), also known as the sludge judge, primarily is used to measure or sample settleable (suspended) solids found in sewage treatment plants, waste settling ponds and impoundments containing waste. It also can be used to sample drums and tanks. It has a sample volume range of 1.3 to 4.0 liters (ASTM D 6232). The sludge judge is made from clear PVC and has 1­ foot­ depth markings on its 5­ foot­ long body sections. It has a check valve on the lower section and a cord on the upper section and is assembled using the threaded connections of the sections to the length needed for the sampling event. The sampler is lowered into the media to allow it to fill. A tug on the cord sets the check valve and it is removed from the sampled material. The level of settleable solids can be measured using the markings. It is emptied by pressing in the protruding pin on the lower end. Appendix E 234 Figure E­ 27. Bailer Advantages ° Allows measurement of the liquid/ settleable solids columns of any length. ° Easy to assemble and use. ° Unbreakable in normal use and reusable. Limitations ° Suitable for sampling noncaustic liquids only. ° May be difficult to sample high viscosity materials. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 E. 7 Surface Sampling Devices Surface sampling devices include equipment that by design are limited to sample collection at the surface of material or can sample material of limited depth or width only. You will find summaries for the following surface sampling devices in this section: E. 7.1 Bailer E. 7.2 Dipper E. 7.3 Liquid Grab Sampler E. 7.4 Swing Jar Sampler E. 7.5 Spoons, Scoops, Trowels, and Shovels E. 7.1 Bailer Bailers (Figure E­ 27) are designed for obtaining samples of ground water; however, they also can be used to obtain samples of liquids and multi­ layered liquid wastes from tanks and surface impoundments. Bailers are not suitable for sampling sludges. The sample volume range is 0.5 to 2 liters (ASTM D 6232). A bailer is a hollow tube with a check valve at the base (open bailer) or valves at both ends (point­ source bailer). A bailer can be threaded in the middle so that extension tubes can be added to increase the sampling volume. It can be constructed of stainless steel, PVC, PTFE, or any other Appendix E 235 suitable material and is available in numerous sizes for use in a variety of well sizes. The bailer is attached to a line and gradually lowered into the sample. As the bailer is lowered, the bottom check valve allows water to flow through the tube. The bailer is then slowly raised to the surface. The weight of the water closes the bottom check valve. A point­ source bailer allows sampling at a specific depth. The check valve at the top of the tube limits water or particles from entering the bailer as it is retrieved. The bailer is emptied either by pouring from the top or by a bottom emptying device. When using a top­ emptying bailer, the bailer should be tipped slightly to allow a slow discharge into the sample container to minimize aeration. A bottom­ emptying model has controlled flow valves, which is good for collecting samples for volatile organic analysis since agitation of the sample is minimal. Advantages ° Easy to use, inexpensive, and does not require an external power source. ° Can be constructed of almost any material that is compatible with the parameters of interest. ° Relatively easy to decontaminate between samples. Single­ use models are available. ° Bottom­ emptying bailers with control valves can be used to obtain samples for volatile compound analysis. Limitations ° Not designed to obtain samples from specific depths below liquid surface (unless it is a point­ source bailer). ° If using a top­ emptying bailer, the sample may become aerated if care is not taken during transfer to the sample container. ° May disturb the sample in a water column if it is lowered too rapidly. ° High suspended solids' content or freezing temperatures can impact operation of check valves. ° One of the least preferred devices for obtaining samples of ground water for low concentration analyses due to their imprecision and agitation of the sample (see USEPA 1992a and Puls and Barcelona 1996). Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° Standard Guide for Sampling Groundwater Monitoring Wells, ASTM D 4448 Appendix E 236 Figure E­ 28. Dipper ° "Tank Sampling" (USEPA 1994c) E. 7.2 Dipper A dipper (Figure E­ 28) is a type of surface sampling device used to sample surface samples from drums, surface impoundments, tanks, pipes, and point source discharges. Sampling points are shallow (10 inches) and taken at, or just below, the surface. The typical sample volume range is 0.5 to 1.0 liters (ASTM D 6232). A dipper comprises a glass, metal, or plastic beaker clamped to the end of a two­ or three­ piece telescoping aluminum or fiberglass pole, which serves as a handle. A dipper may vary in the number of assembled pieces. Some dippers have an adjustable clamp attached to the end of a piece of metal tubing. The tubing forms the handle; the clamp secures the beaker. Another type of dipper is a stainless steel scoop clamped to a movable bracket that is attached to a piece of rigid tube. The scoop may face either toward or away from the person collecting the sample, and the angle of the scoop to the pipe is adjustable. The dipper, when attached to a rigid tube, can reach easily 10 to 13 feet (3 to 4 m) away from the person collecting the samples (ASTM D 6232). The dipper is used by submerging the beaker end into the material slowly (to minimize surface disturbance). It should be on its side so that the liquid runs into the container without swirling or bubbling. The beaker is filled and rotated up, then brought slowly to the surface. Dippers and their beakers should be compatible with the sampled material. Advantages ° Inexpensive. ° Easy to construct and adapt to the sampling scenario by modifying the length of the tubing or the type of container. Limitations ° Not appropriate for sampling subsurface layers or to characterize discrete layers of stratified liquids. ° Can only be used to collect surface samples. Appendix E 237 Figure E­ 29. Liquid grab sampler Other Guidance ° Standard Practice for Sampling with a Dipper or Pond Sampler, ASTM D 5358 ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° Standard Practice for Sampling Wastes from Pipes and Other Point Discharges, ASTM D 5013 E. 7. 3 Liquid Grab Sampler A liquid grab sampler (Figure E­ 29) is a surface sampling device designed to collect samplers at a specific shallow depth beneath the liquid surface. It can be used to collect samples of liquids or slurries from surface impoundments, tanks, and drums. Its sample volume range is from 0.5 to 1.0 liters (ASTM D 6232). The liquid grab sampler is usually made from polypropylene or PTFE with an aluminum or stainless steel handle and stainless steel fittings. The sampling jar is usually made of glass, although plastic jars are available. The jar is threaded into the sampler head assembly, then lowered by the sampler to the desired sampling position beneath the liquid surface. The valve is then opened by pulling up on a finger ring to fill the jar. The valve is closed before retrieving the sample. Advantages ° Easy to use. ° The sample jar can be capped and used for transport to the laboratory, thus minimizing the loss of volatile organic compounds. ° The closed sampler prevents contaminants in upper layers from compromising the sample. Limitations ° Care is required to prevent breakage of glass sample jar. ° Materials of construction need to be compatible with the sampled media. Appendix E 238 Figure E­ 30. Swing jar sampler ° Cannot be used to collect deep samples. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 E. 7.4 Swing Sampler (Swing Jar Sampler) The swing jar sampler (Figure E­ 30) is a surface sampler that may be used to sample liquids, powders, or small solids at distances of up to 12 feet (3. 5 m). It can be used to sample many different types of units, including drums, surface impoundments, tanks, pipe/ point source discharges, sampling ports, and storage bins. It has a sample volume range of 0.5 to 1.0 liters. The swing jar sampler is normally used with high density polyethylene sample jars and has an extendable aluminum handle with a pivot at the juncture of the handle and the jar holder. The jar is held in the holder with an adjustable clamp. The pivot allows samples to be collected at different angles. Advantages ° Easy to use. ° Easily adaptable to samples with jars of different sizes and materials, which can be used to facilitate compatibility with the material to be sampled. ° Can be pivoted to collect samples at different angles. ° Can sample from a wide variety of locations and units. Limitations ° Cannot collect discrete depth samples. ° Care is required to prevent breakage when using a glass sample jar. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 Appendix E 239 Figure E­ 31. Scoops E. 7.5 Spoons, Scoops, Trowels, and Shovels Spoons, scoops, trowels, or shovels are types of surface sampling devices used to sample sludge, soil, powder, or solid wastes. The typical sample volume range is 0.1 to 0.6 liters for scoops or trowels and 1.0 to 5.0 Liters for shovels (ASTM D 6232). The typical sample volume for a spoon is 10 to 100 grams (USEPA 1993c). Spoons, available in stainless steel or PTFE (reusable) or in plastic (disposable), easily sample small volumes of liquid or other waste from the ground or a container. Scoop samplers provide best results when the material is uniform and may be the only sampler possible for materials containing fragments or chunks. The scoop size should be suitable for the size and quantity of the collected material. Scoops and trowels come in a variety of sizes and materials, although unpainted stainless steel is preferred (ASTM D 6232). Scoops may be attached to an extension, similar to the dipper, in order to reach a particular area. Scoops and trowels are used by digging and rotating the sampler. The scoop is used to remove a sample and transfer it into a sample container. Shovels, usually made from stainless steel or suitable plastic materials, are typically used to collect surface samples or to remove overburden material so that a scoop may remove a sample. Advantages ° A correctly designed scoop or spatula (i. e., with a flat bottom and vertical sides) is one of the preferred devices for sampling a one­ dimensional mass of granular solids (see also Sections 6.3.2.1 and 7.3.3.3). ° Spoons, scoops, trowels, and shovels are reusable, easy to decontaminate, and do not require significant physical strength to use. ° Spoons and scoops are inexpensive and readily available. ° Spoons and scoops are easily transportable and often disposable ­­ hence, their use can reduce sampling time. ° Shovels are rugged and can be used to sample hard materials. Appendix E 240 Limitations ° Spoons, scoops, trowels, and shovels are limited to shallow and surface sampling. ° Shovels may be awkward to handle and cannot be used to easily fill small sample containers. ° Sampling with a spoon, scoop, trowel, or shovel may cause loss of volatile organic compounds through disturbance of the media. ° Spoons, scoops, trowels, and shovels of incorrect design (e. g., with rounded bottoms) can introduce bias by preferentially selecting certain particle sizes. Other Guidance ° Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities, ASTM D 6232 ° Standard Practice for Sampling with a Scoop, ASTM D 5633 ° "Waste Pile Sampling" (USEPA 1994d) ° "Sediment Sampling" (USEPA 1994e). 241 APPENDIX F STATISTICAL METHODS This appendix provides guidance on the statistical analysis of waste testing and environmental monitoring data. You should select the statistical test during the Data Quality Assessment (DQA) phase after you review the data quality objectives, the sampling design, and the characteristics of the data set. See guidance provided in Section 8. The statistical methods in this appendix are appropriate for use in evaluating sample analysis results when comparing constituent concentrations in a waste or environmental medium to a fixed standard. Users of this guidance may have other objectives such as comparing two populations, detecting trends, or characterizing the spatial pattern of contamination. If so, review other guidance or seek assistance from a professional environmental statistician. Note that not all RCRA standards require the waste handler to use sampling, analysis, and statistical tests to measure compliance. However, if sampling and analysis is used by the waste handler to measure compliance with a RCRA standard, then statistical methods may be used to help quantify uncertainty associated with the decisions made using the data – even where there is no regulatory obligation to do so (see also Sections 2 and 3). This appendix is divided into subsections that describe the following statistical methods: F. 1 Testing Distributional Assumptions F. 1.1 Overview and Recommendations F. 1.2 Shapiro­ Wilk Test for Normality ( ) n 50 F. 2 Confidence Limits for the Mean F. 2.1 Confidence Limits for the Mean of a Normal Distribution F. 2.2 Confidence Limits for a Normal Mean When Composite Sampling Is Used F. 2.3 Confidence Limits for a Lognormal Mean F. 2.4 Confidence Limits for the Mean of a Non­ normal or Unknown Distribution F. 3 Tests for a Proportion or a Percentile F. 3.1 Parametric Upper Confidence Limits for an Upper Percentile F. 3.2 Using a Simple Exceedance Rule Method for Determining Compliance With A Fixed Standard F. 4 Treatment of Nondetects F. 4.1 Recommendations F. 4.2 Cohen's Adjustment Table F­ 1 provides a summary of frequently used statistical equations. See Appendix G for statistical tables used with these methods. Additional Guidance on the Statistical Analysis of Waste Testing and Environmental Monitoring Data USEPA. 2000d. Guidance For Data Quality Assessment, EPA QA/ G­ 9, (QA00 version). EPA/ 600/ R­ 96/ 084. Office of Research and Development, Washington, D. C. Appendix F 242 Table F­ 1. Summary of Basic Statistical Terminology Applicable to Sampling Plans for Solid Waste Terminology Symbol Mathematical Equation Equation No. Variable (e. g., barium or endrin) ­­ ­­ x Individual measurement of xi ­­ variable Simple Random Sampling and Systematic Random Sampling Mean of measurements generated from the samples (sample mean) x x n xi i n = = 1 1 where n = number of sample measurements. 1 Variance of sample s 2 s n x x i i n 2 2 1 1 1 = = () 2 Standard deviation of sample s s s = 2 3 Standard error (also standard deviation of the mean) sx s s n x = 4 Approximate number of samples to estimate the mean (financial constraints not considered) (See Section 5.4.1) n n z zsz = + + () 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 where the " " values are obtained from the last z row of Table G­ 1 in Appendix G. 8 Approximate number of samples to test a proportion against a fixed standard (See Section 5.5.1). n n z GR GR z AL AL = + 1 1 2 2 1 1 () () 15 Number of samples to test a proportion when the decision rule specifies zero nonconforming samples (See Section 5.5.2). n n p = log( ) log( ) where equals the proportion of the waste or p media exceeded by the largest sample 16 Appendix F 243 Table F­ 1. (Continued) Terminology Symbol Mathematical Equation Equation No. Stratified Random Sampling (Proportional Allocation) Arithmetic mean of the measurements generated from the samples obtained from each stratum hth xh x n x h h hi i nh = = 1 1 where = number of sample measurements nh obtained from each stratum. hth Variance of measurements generated from the samples obtained from each stratum hth sh 2 s n x x h h hi h i nh 2 2 1 1 1 = = () The weighting factor assigned to each hth stratum when stratified random sampling is used Wh ­­ Overall sample mean using stratified random sampling x st x Wx st h h h L = = 1 9 Standard error of the mean for a stratified random sample sxst s W s n x h h L h h st = = 2 1 2 10 Total number of samples to collect from a solid waste to estimate the mean using stratified random sampling (proportional allocation) n [ ] n t t W s df df h h h L = + = 1 1 2 2 2 1 ,, 11 Degrees of freedom associated with the t­ quantile in Table G­ 1, Appendix G, when stratified random sampling is used df df W s W s nW h h h L h h h h L = = = 2 1 2 2 4 1 1 12 Appendix F 244 F. 1 Testing Distributional Assumptions F. 1.1 Overview and Recommendations The assumption of normality is very important as it is the basis for many statistical tests. A normal distribution is a reasonable model of the behavior of certain random phenomena and often can be used to approximate other probability distributions. In addition, the Central Limit Theorem and other limit theorems state that as the sample size gets large, some of the sample summary statistics (such as the sample mean) behave as if they are normally distributed variables. As a result, a common assumption associated with parametric tests or statistical models is that the errors associated with data or a model follow a normal distribution. While assumption of a normal distribution is convenient for statistical testing purposes, it is not always appropriate. Sometimes data are highly skewed. In environmental applications, it is not unusual to encounter data that exhibit a lognormal distribution in which the natural logarithms of the data exhibit a normal distribution. Statistical tests can be used to verify the assumption of normality or lognormality, but the conclusion of lognormality should not be based on the outcome of a statistical test alone. There are several physical phenomena that can cause the underlying distribution to appear lognormal when in fact it is not. For example, Singh, et al. (1997) note that the presence of a relatively small highly contaminated area in an otherwise uncontaminated area can cause sampling results to indicate a lognormal distribution. In such a situation, it may be more appropriate to treat the areas as two separate decision units or use a stratified sampling design. In other cases, sampling bias may cause a population to appear lognormal. For example, analytical results could be skewed if highly concentrated portions of the waste are over­ or under­ represented by the sampling procedure. There are many methods available for verifying the assumption of normality ranging from simple to complex. This guidance recommends use of the Shapiro­ Wilk test for normality. Use of the test is appropriate when the number of samples (n) is 50 or less. For n greater than 50, an alternative test for normality should be used. One alternative presented in EPA's QA/ G­ 9 guidance (USEPA 2000d) and the DataQUEST software (USEPA 1997b) is Filliben's Statistic (Filliben 1975). Refer to EPA's QA/ G­ 9 (USEPA 2000d) guidance or EPA's statistical guidance for ground­ water monitoring data (USEPA 1989b and 1992b) for other graphical and statistical goodness­ of­ fit tests. F. 1.2 Shapiro­ Wilk Test for Normality ( ) n 50 Purpose and Background This section provides the method for performing the Shapiro­ Wilk test for normality. The test is easily performed using statistical software such as EPA's DataQUEST freeware (USEPA 1997b); however, the test also can be performed manually, as described here. The Shapiro­ Wilk test is recommended as a superior method for testing normality of the data. It is based on the premise that if the data are normally distributed, the ordered values should be highly correlated with corresponding quantiles (z­ scores) taken from a normal distribution (Shapiro and Wilk 1965). In particular, the Shapiro­ Wilk test gives substantial weight to evidence of non­ normality in the tails of a distribution, where the robustness of statistical tests based on the normality assumption is most severely affected. Appendix F 245 The Shapiro­ Wilk test statistic (W) will tend to be large when a probability plot of the data indicates a nearly straight line. Only when the plotted data show significant bends or curves will the test statistic be small. The Shapiro­ Wilk test is considered to be one of the very best tests of normality available (Miller 1986, Madansky 1988). Procedure Step 1. Order the data from least to greatest, labeling the observations as for xi . Using the notation , let the order statistic from any data set i n = 1... x j () jth represent the smallest value. jth Step 2. Compute the differences for each . Then determine x x n i i ()() + 1 i n = 1... as the greatest integer less than or equal to . k (/) n 2 Step 3. Use Table G­ 4 in Appendix G to determine the Shapiro­ Wilk coefficients, , an i + 1 for . Note that while these coefficients depend only on the sample size i n = 1... ( ), the order of the coefficients must be preserved when used in step 4 below. n The coefficients can be determined for any sample size from n = 3 up to n = 50. Step 4. Compute the quantity given by the following formula: b b bax x i ninii i k i k = = + + = = 1 1 1 1 () ()() Equation F. 1 Note that the values are simply intermediate quantities represented by the bi terms in the sum of the right­ hand expression in the above equation. Step 5. Calculate the standard deviation (s) of the data set. Then compute the Shapiro Wilk test statistic using the following formula: W b s n = 1 2 Equation F. 2 Step 6. Given the significance level ( ) of the test (for example, 0.01 or 0.05), determine the critical point of the Shapiro­ Wilk test with n observations using Table G­ 5 in Appendix G. Compare the Shapiro­ Wilk statistic (W) against the critical point ( ). If the test statistic exceeds the critical point, accept normality wc as a reasonable model for the underlying population; however, if , reject W wc < the null hypothesis of normality at the ­level and decide that another distributional model would provide a better fit. An example calculation of the Shapiro­ Wilk test for normality is presented in Box F. 1. Appendix F 246 Box F. 1. Example Calculation of the Shapiro­ Wilk Test for Normality Use the Shapiro­ Wilk test for normality to determine whether the following data set, representing the total concentration of nickel in a solid waste, follows a normal distribution: 58.8, 19, 39, 3.1, 1, 81.5, 151, 942, 262, 331, 27, 85.6, 56, 14, 21.4, 10, 8.7, 64.4, 578, and 637. Solution Step 1. Order the data from smallest to largest and list, as in Table F­ 2. Also list the data in reverse order alongside the first column. Step 2. Compute the differences in column 4 of the table by subtracting column 2 x x n i i ()() + 1 from column 3. Because the total number of samples is , the largest integer less than n = 20 or equal to is . (/) n 2 k = 10 Step 3. Look up the coefficients from Table G­ 4 in Appendix G and list in column 4. an i + 1 Step 4. Multiply the differences in column 4 by the coefficients in column 5 and add the first k products ( ) to get quantity , using Equation F. 1. bi bi b = .4734( 941.0)+. 3211( 633.9) + .0140( 2. 8) = 932 88 . Step 5. Compute the standard deviation of the sample, = 259.72, then use Equation F. 2 to calculate s the Shapiro­ Wilk test statistic: W = = 932 88 259 72 19 0 679 2 . . . Step 6. Use Table G­ 5 in Appendix G to determine the .01­ level critical point for the Shapiro­ Wilk test when = 20. This gives = 0.868. Then, compare the observed value of = 0.679 to n wc W the 1­ percent critical point. Since < 0.868, the sample shows significant evidence of non­ W normality by the Shapiro­ Wilk test. The data should be transformed using natural logs and rechecked using the Shapiro­ Wilk test before proceeding with further statistical analysis. Appendix F 247 Table F­ 2. Example Calculation of the Shapiro­ Wilk Test (see example in Box F. 1) i x i () x n i () + 1 x x n i i ()() + 1 an i + 1 bi 1 1 942 941 0.4734 445.47 2 3. 1 637 634 0.3211 203.55 3 8. 7 578 569 0.2565 146.03 4 10 331 321 0.2085 66.93 5 14 262 248 0.1686 41.81 6 19 151 132 0.1334 17.61 7 21.4 85.6 64.2 0. 1013 6.5 8 27 81.5 54.5 0. 0711 3.87 9 39 64.4 25.4 0. 0422 1.07 10 56 58.8 2. 8 0.0140 0.04 11 58.8 56 –2.8 b = 932.88 12 64.4 39 –25.4 13 81.5 27 –54.5 14 85.6 21.4 –64.2 15 151 19 –132.0 16 262 14 –248.0 17 331 10 –321.0 18 578 8.7 –569.3 19 637 3.1 –633.9 20 942 1 –941.0 F. 2 Confidence Limits for the Mean When a fixed standard or limit is meant to represent an average or mean concentration level, attainment of the standard can be measured using a confidence limit on the mean. A confidence limit is then compared with the fixed compliance limit. Under the null hypothesis that the mean concentration in the waste exceeds the standard unless proven otherwise, statistically significant evidence of compliance with the standard is shown if and only if the entire confidence interval lies below the standard. By implication, the key test then involves comparing the upper confidence limit (UCL) to the standard. In other words, the entire confidence interval must lie below the standard for the waste to be compliant with the standard. If the UCL exceeds the regulatory limit, on the other hand, we cannot conclude the mean concentration is below the standard. F. 2.1 Confidence Limits for the Mean of a Normal Distribution Requirements and Assumptions Confidence intervals for the mean of a normal distribution should be constructed only if the data pass a test of approximate normality or at least are reasonably symmetric. It is strongly recommended that a confidence interval not be constructed with less than four measurements, though the actual number of samples should be determined as part of the planning process. The reason for this is two­ fold: (1) the formula for a normal­ based confidence interval on the Appendix F 248 mean involves calculation of the sample standard deviation (s), which is used as an estimate of the underlying population standard deviation (this estimate may not be particularly accurate when the sample size is smaller than four), and (2) the confidence interval formula also involves a Student's t­ quantile based on n ­ 1 degrees of freedom, where n equals the number of samples used in the calculation (see Table G­ 1 in Appendix G). When n is quite small, the tquantile will be relatively large, leading to a much wider confidence interval than would be expected with a larger n. For example, at a 90­ percent confidence level, the appropriate tquantile would be t = 3.078 for n = 2, t = 1.638 for n = 4, and t = 1.415 for n = 8. Procedure Step 1. Check the n sample concentrations for normality. If the normal model is acceptable, calculate the mean ( ) and standard deviation (s) of the data set. If x the lognormal model provides a better fit, see Section F. 2.3. Step 2. Given the desired level of confidence, ( ), calculate the upper confidence 1 limit as follows: UCL x t s n df = + 1 , Equation F. 3 where is obtained from a Student's t­ table (Table G­ 1) with the t df 1 , appropriate degrees of freedom. If simple random or systematic sampling is used, then . df n = 1 If stratified random sampling is used, calculate the UCL as follows: UCL x t s st st df xst = + 1 , Equation F. 4 where is the overall mean from Equation 8, the is obtained from Equation xst df 11, and the standard error ( ) is obtained from Equation 9 (see also Table F­ sxst 1 for these equations). Step 3. Compare the UCL calculated in Step 2 to the fixed standard. If the UCL is less than the standard, then you can conclude, with 100( )% confidence, that 1 the mean concentration of the constituent of concern is less than the standard. If, however, the upper confidence bound is greater than the standard, then there is not sufficient evidence that the mean is less than the standard. An example calculation of the UCL on the mean is provided in Box F. 2. Appendix F 249 F. 2.2 Confidence Limits for a Normal Mean When Composite Sampling Is Used If a composite sampling strategy has been employed to obtain a more precise estimate of the mean, confidence limits can be calculated from the analytical results using the same procedure outlined above in Section F. 2.1, except that n represents the number of composite samples and s represents the standard deviation of the n composite samples. F. 2.3 Confidence Limits for a Lognormal Mean If the results of a test for normality indicate the data set may have a lognormal distribution, and a confidence limit on the mean is desired, then a special approach is required. It is not correct to simply transform the data to the log scale, calculate a normal­ based mean and confidence interval on the logged data, and transform the results back to the original scale. It is a common mistake to do so. Invariably, a transformation bias will be introduced and the approach will underestimate the mean and UCL. In fact, the procedure just described actually produces a confidence interval around the median of a lognormal population rather than the higher­ valued mean. To calculate a UCL on the mean for data that exhibit a lognormal distribution, this guidance recommends use of a procedure developed by Land (1971, 1975); however, as noted below, Land's procedure should be used with caution because it relies heavily on the lognormal assumption, and if that assumption is not true, the results may be substantially biased. Requirements and Assumptions Confidence intervals for the mean of a lognormal distribution should be constructed only if the data pass a test of approximate normality on the log­ scale. While many environmental Box F. 2. Example Calculation of the UCL for a Normal Mean A generator obtains ten samples of waste to demonstrate that the waste qualifies for the comparable fuels exclusion under 40 CFR 261.38. The samples are obtained using a simple random sampling design. Analysis of the samples for lead generated the following results: 16, 17.5, 21, 22, 23, 24, 24.5, 27, 31, and 38 ppm. The regulation requires comparison of a 95% UCL on the mean to the specification level. The specification level is 31 ppm. Solution Step 1. Using the Shapiro­ Wilk test, we confirmed that the normal model is acceptable. The mean is calculated as 24.4 ppm and the standard deviation as 6.44 ppm. Step 2. The RCRA regulations at 40 CFR 261.38( c)( 8)( iii)( A) require that the determination be made with a level of confidence, 100( )%, of 95 percent. We turn to Table G­ 1 (Appendix G) and find the Student's t 1 value is 1.833 for degrees of freedom. The UCL is calculated as follows: n = 1 9 UCL = + = 24 4 1833 644 10 281 28 .. . . Step 3. We compare the limit calculated in step 2 to the fixed standard. Because the UCL (28 ppm) is less than the regulatory level (31 ppm), we can conclude with at least 95­ percent confidence that the mean concentration of the constituent in the waste is less than 31 ppm. Appendix F 250 populations tend to follow the lognormal distribution, it is usually wisest to first test the data for normality on the original scale. If such a test fails, the data can then be transformed to the logscale and retested. Cautionary Note: Even if a data set passes a test for normality on the log scale, do not proceed with calculation of the confidence limits using Land's procedure until you have considered the following: ° The skewness of the data set may be due to biased sampling, mixed distributions of multiple populations, or outliers, and not necessarily due to lognormally distributed data (see Singh, et al. 1997). Review the sampling approach, the physical characteristics of the waste or media, and recheck any unusually high values before computing the confidence limits. Where there is spatial clustering of sample data, declustering and distribution weighting techniques (Myers 1997) may also be appropriate. ° If the number of samples (n) is small, the confidence interval obtained by Land's procedure could be remarkably wide. Singh, et al. (1997) have recommended that Land's procedure not be used for cases in which the number of samples is less than 30. They argue that in many cases the resulting UCL will be an order of magnitude larger than the maximum observed data value. Even higher values for the UCL could be generated if the coefficient of variation (CV or the standard deviation divided by the mean) is greater than 1. If the lognormal distribution is the best fit, and the number of samples (n) is small, then Land's method (provided below) can still be used, though a "penalty" will be paid for the small sample size. If the number of samples is small and the distribution is skewed to the right, one of the following alternative approaches should be considered: (1) Simply treat the data set as if the parent distribution were normal and use the parametric Student­ t method to calculate confidence limits using the untransformed (original scale) data (as described in Section F. 2.1). If, however, this normal theory approach is used with highly skewed data, the actual confidence level achieved by the test will be less than that desired (Porter, et al. 1997); (2) UCLs on the mean could be constructed using procedures such as the "bootstrap" or the "jackknife," as recommended by Singh, et al. (1997) (see Section F. 2.4). The approach for Land's "H­ statistic" method is given below: Procedure Step 1. Test the data for normality on the log­ scale. After determining that the lognormal distribution is a good fit, transform the data via logarithms (the natural log is used) and denote the transformed measurements by . yi Step 2. Compute the sample mean and the standard deviation ( ) from the log­ scale sy measurements. Step 3. Obtain Land's bias­ correction factor( s) ( ) from Table G­ 6 in Appendix G, H1 where the correct factor depends on the sample size (n), the log­ scale sample Appendix F 1 For a more extensive tabulation of Land's factors, see Land (1975) or Tables A10 through A13 in Gilbert (1987). 251 standard deviation ( ), and the desired confidence level ( ). 1 sy 1 Step 4. Plug all these factors into the equations given below for the UCL. UCL y s s H n y y 1 2 1 5 1 = + + exp . Equation F. 5 Step 5. Compare the UCL against the fixed standard. If the UCL is less than the standard, then you can conclude with 100( )% confidence that the mean 1 concentration of the constituent of concern is less than the standard. If, however, the upper confidence bound is greater than the standard, then there is not sufficient evidence that the mean is less than the standard. An example calculation of the UCL on a lognormal mean is given in Box F. 3. Box F. 3: Example Calculation of the UCL on a Lognormal Mean This example is modified after an example provided in Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term (USEPA 1992a). The concentration of lead (total in mg/ Kg) in 31 soil samples obtained using a simple random sampling design are: 1, 3, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, 36, 37, 41, 42, 45, 48, 59, 60, 110, 110, 111, 111, 136, 137, 140, 141, 160, 161, 200, 201, 230, 400, 1300, and 1400. Using these data, calculate a 90% UCL on the mean. Solution Step 1. Using the Shapiro­ Wilk test, the natural logarithms of the data set are shown to exhibit a normal distribution. The data are then transformed to natural logs. Step 2. The mean of logged data is . The standard deviation is . y = 4 397 . sy = 1509 . Step 3. The bias­ correction factor ( ) is obtained from Table G­ 6 for and a confidence H1 2 282 = . n = 31 level of 90 percent . Step 4. Plug the factors into the equation for the upper (UCL) confidence limit. UCL1 2 4 222 05 1509 1509 2 282 31 1 5989 399 = + + = = exp . . ( . ) .(.) exp( . ) mg / kg Step 5. The 90­ percent UCL on the mean is 399 mg/ kg. Appendix F 252 F. 2.4 Confidence Limits for the Mean of a Non­ normal or Unknown Distribution If the assumption of a normal or lognormal distribution cannot be justified, then you may construct a UCL on the mean using one of several alternative methods described in this section. Bootstrap or Jackknife Methods: Bootstrap and jackknife procedures, as discussed by Efron (1981) and Miller (1974), typically are nonparametric statistical techniques which can be used to reduce the bias of point estimates and construct approximate confidence intervals for parameters such as the population mean. These procedures require no assumptions regarding the statistical distribution (e. g., normal or lognormal) for the underlying population. Using a computer, the bootstrap method randomly samples n values with replacement from the original set of n random observations. For each bootstrap sample, the mean (or some other statistic) is calculated. This process of "resampling" is repeated hundreds or perhaps thousands of times and the multiple estimates of the mean are used to define the confidence limits on the mean. The jackknife approximates the bootstrap. Rather than resampling randomly from the entire sample like the bootstrap does, the jackknife takes the entire sample except for one value, and then calculates the statistic of interest. It repeats the process, each time leaving out a different value, and each time recalculating the test statistic. Both the bootstrap and the jackknife methods require a great deal of computer power, and, historically have not been widely adopted by environmental statisticians (Singh, et al. 1997). However, with advances in computer power and availability of software, computationally intensive statistical procedures have become more practical and accessible. Users of this guidance interested in applying a "resampling" method such as the bootstrap or jackknife should check the capabilities of available software packages and consult with a professional statistician on the correct use and application of the procedures. Nonparametric Confidence Limits: If the data are not assumed to follow a particular distribution, then it may not be possible to calculate a UCL on the mean using normal theory techniques. If, however, the data are non­ normal but approximately symmetric, a nonparametric UCL on the median (or the 50 th percentile) may serve as a reasonable alternative to calculation of a parametric UCL on the mean. One severe limitation of this approach is that it involves changing the parameter of interest (as determined in the DQO Process) from the mean to the median, potentially biasing the result if the distribution of the data is not symmetric. Accordingly, the procedure should be used with caution. Lookup tables can be used to determine the confidence limits on the median (50 th percentile). For example, see Conover (1999, Table A3) or Gilbert (1987, Table A14). In general, when the sample size is very small (e. g., less than about nine or ten samples) and the required level of confidence is high (e. g., 95 to 99 percent), the tables will designate the maximum value in the data set as the upper confidence limit. Conover (1999, page 143) gives a large sample approximation for a confidence interval on a proportion (quantile). Methods also are given in Gilbert (1987, page 173), Hahn and Meeker (1991, page 83), and USEPA (1992i, page 5­ 30). Appendix F 253 F. 3 Tests for a Proportion or Percentile Some RCRA standards represent concentrations that should rarely or never be exceeded for the waste or media to comply with the standard. To measure compliance with such a standard, a waste handler may want to know with some specified level of confidence that a high proportion of the waste complies with the standard (or conversely, that at most only a small proportion of all possible samples could exceed the standard). Two approaches are given for measuring compliance with such a standard: 1. Under the assumption of a normal distribution, use a parametric UCL on a percentile to demonstrate that the true pth percentile (xp) concentration in the set of all possible samples is less than the concentration standard. The method is given below in Section F. 3.1. 2. By far, the simplest method for testing proportions is to use an "exceedance rule" in which the proportion of the population with concentrations less than the standard can be estimated based on the total number of sample values and the number of those (if any) that exceed the standard. The exceedance rule method is given below in Section F. 3.2. If the number of samples is relatively large, then a "one­ sample proportion test" also can be used to test a proportion against a fixed standard. The one­ sample proportion test is described in Section 3.2.2.1 in Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, EPA QA/ G­ 9 (QA00 Update) (USEPA 2000d). F. 3.1 Parametric Upper Confidence Limits for an Upper Percentile If the study objective is to demonstrate that the true pth percentile (xp) concentration in the set of all possible samples (of a given sample support) is less than the applicable standard or Action Level, then a UCL on the upper percentile can be used to determine attainment of the standard. Requirements and Assumptions The formulas for constructing parametric UCL on an upper percentile assume that the data are at least approximately normally distributed. Therefore, such a limit should be constructed only if the data pass a test of normality. If the data are best fit by a lognormal distribution instead, the observations should first be transformed to the log­ scale. Unlike confidence limits for a lognormal mean, no special equations are required to construct similar limits on an upper percentile. The same formula used when the data are normally distributed can be applied to the log­ scale data. The only additional step is that the confidence interval limits must be reexponentiated before comparing them against the regulatory standard. It is strongly recommended that a confidence limit not be constructed with less than four measurements, and preferably more (the actual number, however, should be determined during Step Seven of the DQO Process). There are three reasons for this: (1) the formula for a normal­ based confidence interval on an upper percentile involves calculation of the sample standard deviation, s, which is used as an estimate of the underlying population standard deviation. This estimate may not be accurate when fewer than four samples are used. (2) The confidence interval formula also involves a special factor (" kappa"), which depends on both Appendix F 254 the desired confidence level ( ) and the number of samples, n, used in the calculation. 1 When n is quite small, the factor is more extreme, leading to a much wider confidence interval than would be expected with a larger n. For example, at a confidence level of 90 percent, the appropriate factor for an upper one­ sided limit on the 99th percentile is = 18.50 when n = 2, = 5.438 when n = 4, and = 3.783 when n = 8. (3) The third reason is that the power of the test for normality or lognormality is very low with a small number of samples. Procedure Step 1. First test the data for normality on the original scale. If a test of normality is passed, calculate the limit on the raw measurements. If the data violate the assumption of normality, but pass a test of lognormality, calculate the limit using the log­ scale data. Step 2. If the data are normal, compute the mean and standard deviation of the raw data. If the data are consistent with lognormality instead, compute the mean and standard deviation after first transforming the data to the log­ scale. Step 3. Given the percentile (p) being estimated, the sample size (n), and the desired confidence level ( ), use Table G­ 2 (in Appendix G) to determine the 1 factor( s) needed to construct the appropriate UCL. A one­ sided upper confidence bound is then computed with the formula UL x x s p p 1 1 = + () , Equation F. 6 where is the upper factor for the pth percentile with n sample 1 , p 1 measurements. Again, if the data are lognormal instead of normal, the same formula would be used but with the log­ scale mean and standard deviation substituted for the rawscale values. Then the limit must be exponentiated to get the final upper confidence bound, as in the following formula for an upper bound with confidence: () 1 100% [ ] UL x y s p yp 1 1 = + () exp , Equation F. 7 Step 4. Compare the upper confidence bound against the fixed standard. () 1 100% If the upper limit exceeds the standard, then the standard is not met. An example calculation of the UCL on a percentile is given in Box F. 4. Appendix F 255 F. 3.2 Using a Simple Exceedance Rule Method for Determining Compliance With A Fixed Standard Some RCRA standards represent concentration limits that should never or rarely be exceeded or waste properties that should never or rarely be exhibited for the waste to comply with the standard. One of the simplest nonparametric methods for determining compliance with such a standard is to use an "exceedance rule" (USEPA 1989a). To apply this method, simply require that a number of samples be acquired and that zero or a small number (e. g., one) of the concentration measurements be allowed to exceed the standard. This kind of rule is easy to implement and evaluate once the data are collected. It only requires specification of a number of samples and the number of exceedances allowed (usually zero, for example, for compliance with the LDR concentration level treatment standards). Alternately, one can specify the statistical performance criteria in advance and then determine the number of samples required. Box F. 4. Example Calculation of a UCL on an Upper Percentile To Classify a Solid Waste A secondary lead smelter produces a slag that under some operating conditions exhibits the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) for lead. The facility owner needs to classify a batch of waste as either hazardous or nonhazardous at the point of waste generation. During the planning process, the owner determined based on previous sampling studies that the constituent of interest is lead, TCLP results for lead tend to exhibit a normal distribution, and a sample size of ten 200­ gram samples (not including QC samples) should satisfy the study objectives. The TC regulatory level for lead is 5 mg/ L. The owner wants to determine, with 90­ percent confidence, whether a large proportion (e. g., at least 95 percent) of all possible samples of the waste will be below the regulatory limit. At the point of waste generation, the facility representative takes a series of systematic samples of the waste. The following sample analysis results were generated for ten samples analyzed for lead via the TCLP and SW846 Method 6010B: <0. 5, 0.55, 0.60, 0.80, 0.90, 1.00, 1.50, 1.80, 2.00, and 3.00 mg/ L. Calculate a 90­ percent upper confidence limit on the 95 th percentile. Solution Step 1. Based on the shape of the histogram and normal probability plot, the data were judged to exhibit a normal distribution. Therefore, we proceed with the calculation on the original (untransformed) scale. Step 2. One value (10% of the measurements) is reported below the quantitation limit of 0.5 mg/ L so we replace that value with half the quantitation limit (0.25 mg/ L) (see also Section F. 4). The mean and standard deviation of the data set are then calculated as mg/ L and . x = 124 . s = 0836 . Step 3. Use Table G­ 2 (in Appendix G) to determine the factor for n = 10 needed to construct a 90­ percent UCL on the 95 th percentile. The table indicates . Plug , , and into Equation F. 6, = 2568 . x s as follows: UL x 0 90 095 124 0 836 2 568 3 39 3 4 .. ().(.)(.).. = + = mg / L Step 4. All of the sample analysis results are less than the TC regulatory limit of 5 mg/ L TCLP for lead, and the owner concludes that the waste is a nonhazardous waste under RCRA. The owner also can conclude with at least 90­ percent confidence that at least 95 percent of all possible sample analysis results representing the batch of waste in the roll­ off bin are nonhazardous. Appendix F 256 Requirements and Assumptions for Use of an Exceedance Rule The method given here is a simple nonparametric method and requires only the ability to identify the number of samples in the data set and whether each sample analysis result complies with the applicable standard or does not comply with the standard. Unfortunately, this ease of use comes with a price. Compared to parametric methods that assume underlying normality or lognormality of the data, the nonparametric method given here requires significantly more samples to achieve the same level of confidence. Procedure Step 1: Specify the degree of confidence desired, , and the proportion (p) ( ) 100 1 % of the population that must comply with the standard. Step 2: If the decision rule permits no exceedance of the standard for any single sample in a set of samples, then obtain and analyze the number of samples (n) indicated in Table G­ 3a in Appendix G. If the decision rule permits a single exceedance of the standard in a set of samples, then obtain and analyze the number of samples (n) indicated in Table G­ 3b in Appendix G. Step 3: Based on the number of samples obtained and the statistical performance required, determine whether the applicable standard has been attained. An example application of the exceedance rule is Box F. 5. Box F. 5: Example Application of a Simple Exceedance Rule A facility has treated nonwastewater F003 solvent waste containing carbon disulfide to attain the LDR UTS. Samples of the treatment residue are obtained systematically as the waste treatment is completed. The treater wants to have at least 90% confidence that at least 90% of the batch of treated waste attains the standard. To comply with the LDR regulations, no samples can exceed the UTS. TCLP analyses for carbon disulfide in the treated waste are required to measure compliance with the treatment standard of 4.8 mg/ L TCLP. From Table G­ 3a we find that for a confidence level ( ) of .90 (or 90%) and a proportion of .90, at least 22 1 samples are required. All sample analysis results must be less than or equal to the UTS of 4.8 mg/ L TCLP for the statistical performance criteria to be achieved. If only 9 samples are obtained (with all sample analysis results less than or equal to the standard), what level of confidence can the treater have that at least 90­ percent (or p = 0.90) of all possible samples drawn from the waste meet the treatment standard? From Table G­ 3a we find for p = 0.90 and n = 9, = 0.60. Therefore, the confidence level 1 100 1 ()% equals only 60 percent. Appendix F 2 Additional experience and research for EPA supporting development of guidance on the statistical analysis of ground­ water monitoring data indicates that if the percentage of nondetects is as high as 20 to 25 percent, the results of parametric statistical tests may not be substantially affected if the nondetects are replaced with half their detection limits (Cameron 1999). 257 F. 4 Treatment of Nondetects in Statistical Tests Data generated from chemical analysis may fall below a limit of detection of the analytical procedure. These measurement data generally are described as "nondetects", (rather than as zero or not present) and the appropriate limit of detection ­ such as a quantitation limit ­ usually is reported. Data sets that include both detected and nondetected results are called "censored" data in the statistical literature. If a relatively small proportion of the data are reported below detection limit values, replacing the nondetects with a small number (between zero and the detection limit) and proceeding with the usual analysis may be satisfactory. For moderate amounts of data below the detection limit, a more detailed adjustment is appropriate. In situations in which relatively large amounts of data below the detection limit exist, one may need only to consider whether the chemical was detected as above some level or not. F. 4.1 Recommendations If no more than approximately 15 percent of the sample analysis results are nondetect for a given constituent, then the results of parametric statistical tests will not be substantially affected if nondetects are replaced by half their detection limits (USEPA 1992b). 2 When more than approximately 15 percent of the samples are nondetect, however, the handling of nondetects is more crucial to the outcome of statistical procedures. Indeed, simple substitution methods tend to perform poorly in statistical tests when the nondetect percentage is substantial (Gilliom and Helsel 1986). If the percentage of nondetects is between approximately 15 percent and 50 percent, we recommend use of Cohen's Adjustment (see method below). The conditions for use of Cohen's method, however, are limited (see method given below) and numerous alternative techniques for imputing left­ censored data should be considered if the conditions for use of Cohen's method do not apply. Other methods available include iterative techniques, regression on order statistics (ROS) methods, bias­ corrected maximum likelihood estimator (MLE), restricted MLE, modified probability plotting, Winsorization, and lognormalized statistics (EPA Delta log). A modified probability plotting method called Helsel's Robust Method (Helsel 1990) is a popular method that should be considered. Most of the above methods can be performed using publicly available software entitled UnCensor© v. 4.0 (Newman et al. 1995). Although EPA's Office of Solid Waste has not reviewed or tested this software, users of this guidance may be interested in investigating its use. If the percentage of nondetects is greater than 50 percent, then the regression on order statistics method or Helsel's Robust Method should be considered. As an alternative, EPA's Guidance for Data Quality Assessment EPA QA/ G­ 9 (USEPA 2000d) suggests the use of a test for proportions when the percentage of nondetects is in the range of greater than 50 percent to 90 percent. This guidance does not advocate a specific method for imputing or replacing values that lie Appendix F 258 below the limit of detection, however, whichever method is selected should be adequately supported. Table F­ 3 provides a summary of approaches for handling nondetects in statistical intervals. Table F­ 3. Guidance for Handling Nondetects In Statistical Intervals Percentage of Data Reported as "Nondetect" Recommended Treatment of Data Set < 15% Replace nondetects with DL/ 2 15% to 50% Cohen's adjustment, regression order statistics, or Helsel's Robust Method > 50% Regression on order statistics, Helsel's Robust Method, or a test for proportions Even with a small proportion of nondetects, care should be taken when choosing which value should be used as the "detection limit". There are important differences between the method detection limit and the quantitation limit (QL) in characterizing "nondetect" concentrations. Many nondetects are characterized by analytical laboratories with one of three data qualifier flags: "U," "J," or "E." Samples with a "U" data qualifier represent "undetected" measurements, meaning that the signal characteristic of that analyte could not be observed or distinguished from "background noise" during lab analysis. Inorganic samples with an "E" flag and organic samples with a "J" flag may or may not be reported with an estimated concentration. If no concentration estimate is reported, these samples represent "detected but not quantified" measurements. In this case, the actual concentration is assumed to be positive, falling somewhere between zero and the QL. Because the actual concentration is unknown, the suggested substitution for parametric statistical procedures is to replace each nondetect qualified with an "E" or "J" with one­ half the QL. Note, however, that "E" and "J" samples reported with estimated concentrations should be treated, for statistical purposes, as valid measurements. In other words, substitution of one­ half the QL is not recommended for samples for which an estimated concentration is provided. As a general rule, nondetect concentrations should not be assumed to be bounded above by the MDL. The MDL is usually estimated on the basis of ideal laboratory conditions with analyte samples that may or may not account for matrix or other interferences encountered when analyzing specific, actual field samples. For this reason, the QL typically should be taken as the most reasonable upper bound for nondetects when imputing specific concentration values to these measurements. If a constituent is reported only as "not detected" and a detection limit is not provided, then review the raw data package to determine if a detection limit was provided. If not, identify the analytical method used and consult a qualified chemist for guidance on an appropriate QL. F. 4.2 Cohen's Adjustment If a confidence limit is used to compare waste concentrations to a fixed standard, and a significant fraction of the observed measurements in the data set are reported as nondetects, simple substitution techniques (such as putting in half the detection limit for each nondetect) can lead to biased estimates of the mean or standard deviation and inaccurate confidence limits. Appendix F 259 By using the detection limit and the pattern seen in the detected values, Cohen's method (Cohen 1959) attempts to reconstruct the key features of the original population, providing explicit estimates of the population mean and standard deviation. These, in turn, can be used to calculate confidence intervals, where Cohen's adjusted estimates are used as replacements for the sample mean and sample standard deviation. Requirements and Assumptions Cohen's Adjustment assumes that the common underlying population is normal. As such, the technique should only be used when the observed sample data approximately fit a normal model. Because the presence of a large fraction of nondetects will make explicit normality testing difficult, if not impossible, the most helpful diagnostic aid may be to construct a censored probability plot on the detected measurements. If the censored probability plot is clearly linear on the original measurement scale but not on the log­ scale, assume normality for purposes of computing Cohen's Adjustment. If, however, the censored probability plot is clearly linear on the log­ scale, but not on the original scale, assume the common underlying population is lognormal instead; then compute Cohen's Adjustment to the estimated mean and standard deviation on the log­ scale measurements and construct the desired statistical interval using the algorithm for lognormally­ distributed observations (see also Gilbert 1987, page 182). When more than 50 percent of the observations are nondetect, the accuracy of Cohen's method breaks down substantially, getting worse as the percentage of nondetects increases. Because of this drawback, EPA does not recommend the use of Cohen's adjustment when more than half the data are nondetect. In such circumstances, one should consider an alternate statistical method (see Section F. 4.1). One other requirement of Cohen's method is that there be just a single censoring point. As discussed previously, data sets with multiple detection or quantitation limits may require a more sophisticated treatment. Procedure Step 1. Divide the data set into two groups: detects and nondetects. If the total sample size equals n, let m represent the number of detects and (n ­ m) represent the number of nondetects. Denote the ith detected measurement by , then xi compute the mean and sample variance of the group of detects (i. e., above the quantitation limit data) using the following formulas: x m x d i i m = = 1 1 Equation F. 8 and s m x mx d id i m 2 22 1 1 1 = = Equation F. 9 Appendix F 260 Step 2. Denote the single censoring point (e. g., the quantitation limit) by QL. Then compute the two intermediate quantities, h and , necessary to derive Cohen's adjustment via the following equations: h nmn = () Equation F. 10 and = s xQL d d 2 2 () Equation F. 11 Step 3. Use the intermediate quantities, h and to determine Cohen's adjustment parameter from Table G­ 7 in Appendix G. For example, if h = 0.4 and = $ 0.30, then = 0.6713. $ Step 4. Using the adjustment parameter found in step 3, compute adjusted estimates $ of the mean and standard deviation with the following formulas: x x xQL d d = $ () Equation F. 12 and s s xQL d d = + 2 2 $ () Equation F. 13 Step 5. Once the adjusted estimates for the population mean and standard deviation are derived, these values can be substituted for the sample mean and standard deviation in formulas for the desired confidence limit. An example calculation using Cohen's method is given in Box F. 6. Appendix F 261 Box F. 6. An Example of Cohen's Method To determine attainment of a cleanup standard at SWMU, 24 random soil samples were obtained and analyzed for pentachlorophenol. Eight of the 24 values (33%) were below the matrix/ laboratory­ specific quantitation limit of 1 mg/ L. The 24 values are <1. 0, <1. 0, <1.0, <1.0, <1.0, <1.0, <1.0, <1.0, 1.1, 1.5, 1.9, 2.0, 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 3.3, 3.2, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.8, 4.5, 5.8 mg/ L. Cohen's Method will be used to adjust the sample mean and standard deviation for use in constructing a UCL on the mean to determine if the cleanup has attained the site­ specific risk­ based cleanup standard of 5.0 mg/ kg. Solution Step 1: The sample mean of the m = 16 values greater than the quantitation limit is = 3.044 xd Step 2: The sample variance of the 16 quantified values is = 1.325. sd 2 Step 3: h = (24 ­ 16) / 24 = 0.333 and = 1.325 / (3.044 ­ 1.0) 2 = 0.317 Step 4: Table G­ 7 of Appendix G was used for h = 0.333 and = 0.317 to find the value of . Since the $ table does not contain these entries exactly, double linear interpolation was used to estimate = $ 0.5223. Step 5: The adjusted sample mean and standard deviation are then estimated as follows: = 3.044 ­ 0.5223 (3.044 ­ 1.0) = 1.976 2.0 and x s = + = 1325 0 5223 3 044 10 1873 19 2 ..(..).. 262 This page intentionally left blank 263 APPENDIX G STATISTICAL TABLES Table G­ 1. Critical Values of Student's t Distribution (One­ Tailed) 1 t() 1 Degrees of Freedom (see note) values for ( ) or ( ) t 1 1 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 0.975 0.99 0.995 1 0. 727 1.000 1.376 1.963 3.078 6.314 12.706 31.821 63.657 2 0. 617 0.816 1.061 1.386 1.886 2.920 4.303 6.965 9.925 3 0. 584 0.765 0.978 1.250 1.638 2.353 3.182 4.541 5.841 4 0. 569 0.741 0.941 1.190 1.533 2.132 2.776 3.747 4.604 5 0. 559 0.727 0.920 1.156 1.476 2.015 2.571 3.365 4.032 6 0. 553 0.718 0.906 1.134 1.440 1.943 2.447 3.143 3.707 7 0. 549 0.711 0.896 1.119 1.415 1.895 2.365 2.998 3.499 8 0. 546 0.706 0.889 1.108 1.397 1.860 2.306 2.896 3.355 9 0. 543 0.703 0.883 1.100 1.383 1.833 2.262 2.821 3.250 10 0.542 0.700 0.879 1.093 1.372 1.812 2.228 2.764 3.169 11 0.540 0.697 0.876 1.088 1.363 1.796 2.201 2.718 3.106 12 0.539 0.695 0.873 1.083 1.356 1.782 2.179 2.681 3.055 13 0.538 0.694 0.870 1.079 1.350 1.771 2.160 2.650 3.012 14 0.537 0.692 0.868 1.076 1.345 1.761 2.145 2.624 2.977 15 0.536 0.691 0.866 1.074 1.340 1.753 2.131 2.602 2.947 16 0.535 0.690 0.865 1.071 1.337 1.746 2.120 2.583 2.921 17 0.534 0.689 0.863 1.069 1.333 1.740 2.110 2.567 2.898 18 0.534 0.688 0.862 1.067 1.330 1.734 2.101 2.552 2.878 19 0.533 0.688 0.861 1.066 1.328 1.729 2.093 2.539 2.861 20 0.533 0.687 0.860 1.064 1.325 1.725 2.086 2.528 2.845 21 0.532 0.686 0.859 1.063 1.323 1.721 2.080 2.518 2.831 22 0.532 0.686 0.858 1.061 1.321 1.717 2.074 2.508 2.819 23 0.532 0.685 0.858 1.060 1.319 1.714 2.069 2.500 2.807 24 0.531 0.685 0.857 1.059 1.318 1.711 2.064 2.492 2.797 25 0.531 0.684 0.856 1.058 1.316 1.708 2.060 2.485 2.787 26 0.531 0.684 0.856 1.058 1.315 1.706 2.056 2.479 2.779 27 0.531 0.684 0.855 1.057 1.314 1.703 2.052 2.473 2.771 28 0.530 0.683 0.855 1.056 1.313 1.701 2.048 2.467 2.763 29 0.530 0.683 0.854 1.055 1.311 1.699 2.045 2.462 2.756 30 0.530 0.683 0.854 1.055 1.310 1.697 2.042 2.457 2.750 40 0.529 0.681 0.851 1.050 1.303 1.684 2.021 2.423 2.704 60 0.527 0.679 0.848 1.046 1.296 1.671 2.000 2.390 2.660 120 0.526 0.677 0.845 1.041 1.289 1.658 1.980 2.358 2.617 0.524 0.674 0.842 1.036 1.282 1.645 1.960 2.326 2.576 Note: For simple random or systematic sampling, degrees of freedom ( ) are equal to the number of samples ( ) df n collected from a solid waste and analyzed, less one (in other words, ). If stratified random sampling is df n = 1 used, calculate using Equation 12 or 14 in Section 5.4.2.2. df The last row of the table ( degrees of freedom) gives the critical values for a standard normal distribution ( ). z For example, the value for where is found in the last row as 1.282. z 1 = 010 . Appendix G 264 Table G­ 2. Factors ( ) for Parametric Upper Confidence Bounds on Upper Percentiles ( ) p n p = 0.80 p = 0.90 1 0.800 0.900 0.950 0.975 0.990 0.800 0.900 0.950 0.975 0.990 2 3.417 6.987 14.051 28.140 70.376 5.049 10.253 20.581 41.201 103.029 3 2.016 3.039 4.424 6.343 10.111 2.871 4.258 6.155 8.797 13.995 4 1.675 2.295 3.026 3.915 5.417 2.372 3.188 4.162 5.354 7.380 5 1.514 1.976 2.483 3.058 3.958 2.145 2.742 3.407 4.166 5.362 6 1.417 1.795 2.191 2.621 3.262 2.012 2.494 3.006 3.568 4.411 7 1.352 1.676 2.005 2.353 2.854 1.923 2.333 2.755 3.206 3.859 8 1.304 1.590 1.875 2.170 2.584 1.859 2.219 2.582 2.960 3.497 9 1.266 1.525 1.779 2.036 2.391 1.809 2.133 2.454 2.783 3.240 10 1.237 1.474 1.703 1.933 2.246 1.770 2.066 2.355 2.647 3.048 11 1.212 1.433 1.643 1.851 2.131 1.738 2.011 2.275 2.540 2.898 12 1.192 1.398 1.593 1.784 2.039 1.711 1.966 2.210 2.452 2.777 13 1.174 1.368 1.551 1.728 1.963 1.689 1.928 2.155 2.379 2.677 14 1.159 1.343 1.514 1.681 1.898 1.669 1.895 2.109 2.317 2.593 15 1.145 1.321 1.483 1.639 1.843 1.652 1.867 2.068 2.264 2.521 16 1.133 1.301 1.455 1.603 1.795 1.637 1.842 2.033 2.218 2.459 17 1.123 1.284 1.431 1.572 1.753 1.623 1.819 2.002 2.177 2.405 18 1.113 1.268 1.409 1.543 1.716 1.611 1.800 1.974 2.141 2.357 19 1.104 1.254 1.389 1.518 1.682 1.600 1.782 1.949 2.108 2.314 20 1.096 1.241 1.371 1.495 1.652 1.590 1.765 1.926 2.079 2.276 21 1.089 1.229 1.355 1.474 1.625 1.581 1.750 1.905 2.053 2.241 22 1.082 1.218 1.340 1.455 1.600 1.572 1.737 1.886 2.028 2.209 23 1.076 1.208 1.326 1.437 1.577 1.564 1.724 1.869 2.006 2.180 24 1.070 1.199 1.313 1.421 1.556 1.557 1.712 1.853 1.985 2.154 25 1.065 1.190 1.302 1.406 1.537 1.550 1.702 1.838 1.966 2.129 26 1.060 1.182 1.291 1.392 1.519 1.544 1.691 1.824 1.949 2.106 27 1.055 1.174 1.280 1.379 1.502 1.538 1.682 1.811 1.932 2.085 28 1.051 1.167 1.271 1.367 1.486 1.533 1.673 1.799 1.917 2.065 29 1.047 1.160 1.262 1.355 1.472 1.528 1.665 1.788 1.903 2.047 30 1.043 1.154 1.253 1.344 1.458 1.523 1.657 1.777 1.889 2.030 31 1.039 1.148 1.245 1.334 1.445 1.518 1.650 1.767 1.877 2.014 32 1.035 1.143 1.237 1.325 1.433 1.514 1.643 1.758 1.865 1.998 33 1.032 1.137 1.230 1.316 1.422 1.510 1.636 1.749 1.853 1.984 34 1.029 1.132 1.223 1.307 1.411 1.506 1.630 1.740 1.843 1.970 35 1.026 1.127 1.217 1.299 1.400 1.502 1.624 1.732 1.833 1.957 36 1.023 1.123 1.211 1.291 1.391 1.498 1.618 1.725 1.823 1.945 37 1.020 1.118 1.205 1.284 1.381 1.495 1.613 1.717 1.814 1.934 38 1.017 1.114 1.199 1.277 1.372 1.492 1.608 1.710 1.805 1.922 39 1.015 1.110 1.194 1.270 1.364 1.489 1.603 1.704 1.797 1.912 40 1.013 1.106 1.188 1.263 1.356 1.486 1.598 1.697 1.789 1.902 41 1.010 1.103 1.183 1.257 1.348 1.483 1.593 1.691 1.781 1.892 42 1.008 1.099 1.179 1.251 1.341 1.480 1.589 1.685 1.774 1.883 43 1.006 1.096 1.174 1.246 1.333 1.477 1.585 1.680 1.767 1.874 44 1.004 1.092 1.170 1.240 1.327 1.475 1.581 1.674 1.760 1.865 45 1.002 1.089 1.165 1.235 1.320 1.472 1.577 1.669 1.753 1.857 46 1.000 1.086 1.161 1.230 1.314 1.470 1.573 1.664 1.747 1.849 47 0.998 1.083 1.157 1.225 1.308 1.468 1.570 1.659 1.741 1.842 48 0.996 1.080 1.154 1.220 1.302 1.465 1.566 1.654 1.735 1.835 49 0.994 1.078 1.150 1.216 1.296 1.463 1.563 1.650 1.730 1.828 50 0.993 1.075 1.146 1.211 1.291 1.461 1.559 1.646 1.724 1.821 55 0.985 1.063 1.130 1.191 1.266 1.452 1.545 1.626 1.700 1.790 60 0.978 1.052 1.116 1.174 1.245 1.444 1.532 1.609 1.679 1.764 65 0.972 1.043 1.104 1.159 1.226 1.437 1.521 1.594 1.661 1.741 70 0.967 1.035 1.094 1.146 1.210 1.430 1.511 1.581 1.645 1.722 75 0.963 1.028 1.084 1.135 1.196 1.425 1.503 1.570 1.630 1.704 80 0.959 1.022 1.076 1.124 1.183 1.420 1.495 1.559 1.618 1.688 85 0.955 1.016 1.068 1.115 1.171 1.415 1.488 1.550 1.606 1.674 90 0.951 1.011 1.061 1.106 1.161 1.411 1.481 1.542 1.596 1.661 95 0.948 1.006 1.055 1.098 1.151 1.408 1.475 1.534 1.586 1.650 100 0.945 1.001 1.049 1.091 1.142 1.404 1.470 1.527 1.578 1.639 Appendix G 265 Table G­ 2. Factors ( ) for Parametric Upper Confidence Bounds on Upper Percentiles ( ) (continued) p n p = 0.95 p = 0.99 1 0.800 0.900 0.950 0.975 0.990 0.800 0.900 0.950 0.975 0.990 2 6.464 13.090 26.260 52.559 131.426 9.156 18.500 37.094 74.234 185.617 3 3.604 5.311 7.656 10.927 17.370 5.010 7.340 10.553 15.043 23.896 4 2.968 3.957 5.144 6.602 9.083 4.110 5.438 7.042 9.018 12.387 5 2.683 3.400 4.203 5.124 6.578 3.711 4.666 5.741 6.980 8.939 6 2.517 3.092 3.708 4.385 5.406 3.482 4.243 5.062 5.967 7.335 7 2.407 2.894 3.399 3.940 4.728 3.331 3.972 4.642 5.361 6.412 8 2.328 2.754 3.187 3.640 4.285 3.224 3.783 4.354 4.954 5.812 9 2.268 2.650 3.031 3.424 3.972 3.142 3.641 4.143 4.662 5.389 10 2.220 2.568 2.911 3.259 3.738 3.078 3.532 3.981 4.440 5.074 11 2.182 2.503 2.815 3.129 3.556 3.026 3.443 3.852 4.265 4.829 12 2.149 2.448 2.736 3.023 3.410 2.982 3.371 3.747 4.124 4.633 13 2.122 2.402 2.671 2.936 3.290 2.946 3.309 3.659 4.006 4.472 14 2.098 2.363 2.614 2.861 3.189 2.914 3.257 3.585 3.907 4.337 15 2.078 2.329 2.566 2.797 3.102 2.887 3.212 3.520 3.822 4.222 16 2.059 2.299 2.524 2.742 3.028 2.863 3.172 3.464 3.749 4.123 17 2.043 2.272 2.486 2.693 2.963 2.841 3.137 3.414 3.684 4.037 18 2.029 2.249 2.453 2.650 2.905 2.822 3.105 3.370 3.627 3.960 19 2.016 2.227 2.423 2.611 2.854 2.804 3.077 3.331 3.575 3.892 20 2.004 2.208 2.396 2.576 2.808 2.789 3.052 3.295 3.529 3.832 21 1.993 2.190 2.371 2.544 2.766 2.774 3.028 3.263 3.487 3.777 22 1.983 2.174 2.349 2.515 2.729 2.761 3.007 3.233 3.449 3.727 23 1.973 2.159 2.328 2.489 2.694 2.749 2.987 3.206 3.414 3.681 24 1.965 2.145 2.309 2.465 2.662 2.738 2.969 3.181 3.382 3.640 25 1.957 2.132 2.292 2.442 2.633 2.727 2.952 3.158 3.353 3.601 26 1.949 2.120 2.275 2.421 2.606 2.718 2.937 3.136 3.325 3.566 27 1.943 2.109 2.260 2.402 2.581 2.708 2.922 3.116 3.300 3.533 28 1.936 2.099 2.246 2.384 2.558 2.700 2.909 3.098 3.276 3.502 29 1.930 2.089 2.232 2.367 2.536 2.692 2.896 3.080 3.254 3.473 30 1.924 2.080 2.220 2.351 2.515 2.684 2.884 3.064 3.233 3.447 31 1.919 2.071 2.208 2.336 2.496 2.677 2.872 3.048 3.213 3.421 32 1.914 2.063 2.197 2.322 2.478 2.671 2.862 3.034 3.195 3.398 33 1.909 2.055 2.186 2.308 2.461 2.664 2.852 3.020 3.178 3.375 34 1.904 2.048 2.176 2.296 2.445 2.658 2.842 3.007 3.161 3.354 35 1.900 2.041 2.167 2.284 2.430 2.652 2.833 2.995 3.145 3.334 36 1.895 2.034 2.158 2.272 2.415 2.647 2.824 2.983 3.131 3.315 37 1.891 2.028 2.149 2.262 2.402 2.642 2.816 2.972 3.116 3.297 38 1.888 2.022 2.141 2.251 2.389 2.637 2.808 2.961 3.103 3.280 39 1.884 2.016 2.133 2.241 2.376 2.632 2.800 2.951 3.090 3.264 40 1.880 2.010 2.125 2.232 2.364 2.627 2.793 2.941 3.078 3.249 41 1.877 2.005 2.118 2.223 2.353 2.623 2.786 2.932 3.066 3.234 42 1.874 2.000 2.111 2.214 2.342 2.619 2.780 2.923 3.055 3.220 43 1.871 1.995 2.105 2.206 2.331 2.615 2.773 2.914 3.044 3.206 44 1.868 1.990 2.098 2.198 2.321 2.611 2.767 2.906 3.034 3.193 45 1.865 1.986 2.092 2.190 2.312 2.607 2.761 2.898 3.024 3.180 46 1.862 1.981 2.086 2.183 2.303 2.604 2.756 2.890 3.014 3.168 47 1.859 1.977 2.081 2.176 2.294 2.600 2.750 2.883 3.005 3.157 48 1.857 1.973 2.075 2.169 2.285 2.597 2.745 2.876 2.996 3.146 49 1.854 1.969 2.070 2.163 2.277 2.594 2.740 2.869 2.988 3.135 50 1.852 1.965 2.065 2.156 2.269 2.590 2.735 2.862 2.980 3.125 55 1.841 1.948 2.042 2.128 2.233 2.576 2.713 2.833 2.943 3.078 60 1.832 1.933 2.022 2.103 2.202 2.564 2.694 2.807 2.911 3.038 65 1.823 1.920 2.005 2.082 2.176 2.554 2.677 2.785 2.883 3.004 70 1.816 1.909 1.990 2.063 2.153 2.544 2.662 2.765 2.859 2.974 75 1.810 1.899 1.976 2.047 2.132 2.536 2.649 2.748 2.838 2.947 80 1.804 1.890 1.964 2.032 2.114 2.528 2.638 2.733 2.819 2.924 85 1.799 1.882 1.954 2.019 2.097 2.522 2.627 2.719 2.802 2.902 90 1.794 1.874 1.944 2.006 2.082 2.516 2.618 2.706 2.786 2.883 95 1.790 1.867 1.935 1.995 2.069 2.510 2.609 2.695 2.772 2.866 100 1.786 1.861 1.927 1.985 2.056 2.505 2.601 2.684 2.759 2.850 Appendix G 266 Table G­ 3a. Sample Size Required to Demonstrate With At Least Confidence That At Least 100 1 ()% of a Lot or Batch of Waste Complies With the Applicable Standard (No Samples Exceeding the Standard) 100p% p 1 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 0.99 0.50 1 2 222233 4 57 0.55 2 2 223334 4 68 0.60 2 2 233344 5 610 0.65 2 2 333445 6 711 0.70 2 3 334456 7 913 0.75 3 3 44556791117 0.80 4 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 11 14 21 0.85 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 15 19 29 0.90 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 19 22 29 44 0.95 14 16 18 21 24 28 32 37 45 59 90 0.99 69 80 92 105 120 138 161 189 230 299 459 Table G­ 3b. Sample Size Required to Demonstrate With At Least Confidence That At Least 100 1 ()% of a Lot or Batch of Waste Complies With the Applicable Standard (One Sample Exceeding the Standard) 100p% p 1 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 0.99 0.50 3 4 445556 7 811 0.55 4 4 455667 8 912 0.60 4 5 55667891014 0.65 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 12 16 0.70 6677 8 9910 12 1420 0.75 7 7 8 9 9 10 11 13 15 18 24 0.80 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 18 22 31 0.85 11 12 13 15 16 18 19 22 25 30 42 0.90 17 19 20 22 24 27 29 33 38 46 64 0.95 34 37 40 44 49 53 59 67 77 93 130 0.99 168 184 202 222 244 269 299 337 388 473 662 Appendix G 267 Table G­ 4. Coefficients for the Shapiro­ Wilk Test for Normality [] an i + 1 i \ n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 1 .7071 .7071 .6872 .6646 .6431 .6233 .6052 .5888 .5739 2 .0000 .1677 .2413 .2806 .3031 .3164 .3244 .3291 3 .0000 .0875 .1401 .1743 .1976 .2141 4 .0000 .0561 .0947 .1224 5 .0000 .0399 i \ n 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 .5601 .5475 .5359 .5251 .5150 .5056 .4968 .4886 .4808 .4734 2 .3315 .3325 .3325 .3318 .3306 .3290 .3273 .3253 .3232 .3211 3 .2260 .2347 .2412 .2460 .2495 .2521 .2540 .2553 .2561 .2565 4 .1429 .1586 .1707 .1802 .1878 .1939 .1988 .2027 .2059 .2085 5 .0695 .0922 .1099 .1240 .1353 .1447 .1524 .1587 .1641 .1686 6 .0000 .0303 .0539 .0727 .0880 .1005 .1109 .1197 .1271 .1334 7 .0000 .0240 .0433 .0593 .0725 .0837 .0932 .1013 8 .0000 .0196 .0359 .0496 .0612 .0711 9 .0000 .0163 .0303 .0422 10 .0000 .0140 i \ n 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 .4643 .4590 .4542 .4493 .4450 .4407 .4366 .4328 .4291 .4254 2 .3185 .3156 .3126 .3098 .3069 .3043 .3018 .2992 .2968 .2944 3 .2578 .2571 .2563 .2554 .2543 .2533 .2522 .2510 .2499 .2487 4 .2119 .2131 .2139 .2145 .2148 .2151 .2152 .2151 .2150 .2148 5 .1736 .1764 .1787 .1807 .1822 .1836 .1848 .1857 .1864 .1870 6 .1399 .1443 .1480 .1512 .1539 .1563 .1584 .1601 .1616 .1630 7 .1092 .1150 .1201 .1245 .1283 .1316 .1346 .1372 .1395 .1415 8 .0804 .0878 .0941 .0997 .1046 .1089 .1128 .1162 .1192 .1219 9 .0530 .0618 .0696 .0764 .0823 .0876 .0923 .0965 .1002 .1036 10 .0263 .0368 .0459 .0539 .0610 .0672 .0728 .0778 .0822 .0862 11 .0000 .0122 .0228 .0321 .0403 .0476 .0540 .0598 .0650 .0697 12 .0000 .0107 .0200 .0284 .0358 .0424 .0483 .0537 13 .0000 .0094 .0178 .0253 .0320 .0381 14 .0000 .0084 .0159 .0227 15 .0000 .0076 Source: After Shapiro and Wilk (1965) Appendix G 268 Table G­ 4. Coefficients for the Shapiro­ Wilk Test for Normality (Continued) [] an i + 1 i \ n 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 1 .4220 .4188 .4156 .4127 .4096 .4068 .4040 .4015 .3989 .3964 2 .2921 .2898 .2876 .2854 .2834 .2813 .2794 .2774 .2755 .2737 3 .2475 .2463 .2451 .2439 .2427 .2415 .2403 .2391 .2380 .2368 4 .2145 .2141 .2137 .2132 .2127 .2121 .2116 .2110 .2104 .2098 5 .1874 .1878 .1880 .1882 .1883 .1883 .1883 .1881 .1880 .1878 6 .1641 .1651 .1660 .1667 .1673 .1678 .1683 .1686 .1689 .1691 7 .1433 .1449 .1463 .1475 .1487 .1496 .1505 .1513 .1520 .1526 8 .1243 .1265 .1284 .1301 .1317 .1331 .1344 .1356 .1366 .1376 9 .1066 .1093 .1118 .1140 .1160 .1179 .1196 .1211 .1225 .1237 10 .0899 .0931 .0961 .0988 .1013 .1036 .1056 .1075 .1092 .1108 11 .0739 .0777 .0812 .0844 .0873 .0900 .0924 .0947 .0967 .0986 12 .0585 .0629 .0669 .0706 .0739 .0770 .0798 .0824 .0848 .0870 13 .0435 .0485 .0530 .0572 .0610 .0645 .0677 .0706 .0733 .0759 14 .0289 .0344 .0395 .0441 .0484 .0523 .0559 .0592 .0622 .0651 15 .0144 .0206 .0262 .0314 .0361 .0404 .0444 .0481 .0515 .0546 16 .0000 .0068 .0131 .0187 .0239 .0287 .0331 .0372 .0409 .0444 17 .0000 .0062 .0119 .0172 .0220 .0264 .0305 .0343 18 .0000 .0057 .0110 .0158 .0203 .0244 19 .0000 .0053 .0101 .0146 20 .0000 .0049 i \ n 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 1 .3940 .3917 .3894 .3872 .3850 .3830 .3808 .3789 .3770 .3751 2 .2719 .2701 .2628 .2667 .2651 .2635 .2620 .2604 .2589 .2574 3 .2357 .2345 .2334 .2323 .2313 .2302 .2291 .2281 .2271 .2260 4 .2091 .2085 .2078 .2072 .2065 .2058 .2052 .2045 .2038 .2032 5 .1876 .1874 .1871 .1868 .1865 .1862 .1859 .1855 .1851 .1847 6 .1693 .1694 .1695 .1695 .1695 .1695 .1695 .1693 .1692 .1691 7 .1531 .1535 .1539 .1542 .1545 .1548 .1550 .1551 .1553 .1554 8 .1384 .1392 .1398 .1405 .1410 .1415 .1420 .1423 .1427 .1430 9 .1249 .1259 .1269 .1278 .1286 .1293 .1300 .1306 .1312 .1317 10 .1123 .1136 .1149 .1160 .1170 .1180 .1189 .1197 .1205 .1212 11 .1004 .1020 .1035 .1049 .1062 .1073 .1085 .1095 .1105 .1113 12 .0891 .0909 .0927 .0943 .0959 .0972 .0986 .0998 .1010 .1020 13 .0782 .0804 .0824 .0842 .0860 .0876 .0892 .0906 .0919 .0932 14 .0677 .0701 .0724 .0745 .0775 .0785 .0801 .0817 .0832 .0846 15 .0575 .0602 .0628 .0651 .0673 .0694 .0713 .0731 .0748 .0764 16 .0476 .0506 .0534 .0560 .0584 .0607 .0628 .0648 .0667 .0685 17 .0379 .0411 .0442 .0471 .0497 .0522 .0546 .0568 .0588 .0608 18 .0283 .0318 .0352 .0383 .0412 .0439 .0465 .0489 .0511 .0532 19 .0188 .0227 .0263 .0296 .0328 .0357 .0385 .0411 .0436 .0459 20 .0094 .0136 .0175 .0211 .0245 .0277 .0307 .0335 .0361 .0386 21 .0000 .0045 .0087 .0126 .0163 .0197 .0229 .0259 .0288 .0314 22 .0000 .0042 .0081 .0118 .0153 .0185 .0215 .0244 23 .0000 .0039 .0076 .0111 .0143 .0174 24 .0000 .0037 .0071 .0104 25 .0000 .0035 Appendix G 269 Table G­ 5. ­Level Critical Points for the Shapiro­ Wilk Test n 0.01 0.05 3 0. 753 0.767 4 0. 687 0.748 5 0. 686 0.762 6 0. 713 0.788 7 0. 730 0.803 8 0. 749 0.818 9 0. 764 0.829 10 0.781 0.842 11 0.792 0.850 12 0.805 0.859 13 0.814 0.866 14 0.825 0.874 15 0.835 0.881 16 0.844 0.887 17 0.851 0.892 18 0.858 0.897 19 0.863 0.901 20 0.868 0.905 21 0.873 0.908 22 0.878 0.911 23 0.881 0.914 24 0.884 0.916 25 0.888 0.918 26 0.891 0.920 27 0.894 0.923 28 0.896 0.924 29 0.898 0.926 30 0.900 0.927 31 0.902 0.929 32 0.904 0.930 33 0.906 0.931 34 0.908 0.933 35 0.910 0.934 36 0.912 0.935 37 0.914 0.936 38 0.916 0.938 39 0.917 0.939 40 0.919 0.940 41 0.920 0.941 42 0.922 0.942 43 0.923 0.943 44 0.924 0.944 45 0.926 0.945 46 0.927 0.945 47 0.928 0.946 48 0.929 0.947 49 0.929 0.947 50 0.930 0.947 Source: After Shapiro and Wilk (1965) Appendix G 270 Table G­ 6. Values of for Calculating a One­ Sided 90­ Percent UCL on a Lognormal Mean H H 1 090 = . sy n 3 5 7 10 12 15 21 31 51 101 0.10 1.686 1.438 1.381 1.349 1.338 1.328 1.317 1.308 1.301 1.295 0.20 1.885 1.522 1.442 1.396 1.380 1.365 1.348 1.335 1.324 1.314 0.30 2.156 1.627 1.517 1.453 1.432 1.411 1.388 1.370 1.354 1.339 0.40 2.521 1.755 1.607 1.523 1.494 1.467 1.437 1.412 1.390 1.371 0.50 2.990 1.907 1.712 1.604 1.567 1.532 1.494 1.462 1.434 1.409 0.60 3.542 2.084 1.834 1.696 1.650 1.606 1.558 1.519 1.485 1.454 0.70 4.136 2.284 1.970 1.800 1.743 1.690 1.631 1.583 1.541 1.504 0.80 4.742 2.503 2.119 1.914 1.845 1.781 1.710 1.654 1.604 1.560 0.90 5.349 2.736 2.280 2.036 1.955 1.880 1.797 1.731 1.672 1.621 1.00 5.955 2.980 2.450 2.167 2.073 1.985 1.889 1.812 1.745 1.686 1.25 7.466 3.617 2.904 2.518 2.391 2.271 2.141 2.036 1.946 1.866 1.50 8.973 4.276 3.383 2.896 2.733 2.581 2.415 2.282 2.166 2.066 1.75 10.48 4.944 3.877 3.289 3.092 2.907 2.705 2.543 2.402 2.279 2.00 11.98 5.619 4.380 3.693 3.461 3.244 3.005 2.814 2.648 2.503 2.50 14.99 6.979 5.401 4.518 4.220 3.938 3.629 3.380 3.163 2.974 3.00 18.00 8.346 6.434 5.359 4.994 4.650 4.270 3.964 3.697 3.463 3.50 21.00 9.717 7.473 6.208 5.778 5.370 4.921 4.559 4.242 3.965 4.00 24.00 11.09 8.516 7.062 6.566 6.097 5.580 5.161 4.796 4.474 4.50 27.01 12.47 9.562 7.919 7.360 6.829 6.243 5.763 5.354 4.989 5.00 30.01 13.84 10.61 8.779 8.155 7.563 6.909 6.379 5.916 5.508 6.00 36.02 16.60 12.71 10.50 9.751 9.037 8.248 7.607 7.048 6.555 7.00 42.02 19.35 14.81 12.23 11.35 10.52 9.592 8.842 8.186 7.607 8.00 48.03 22.11 16.91 13.96 12.96 12.00 10.94 10.08 9.329 8.665 9.00 54.03 24.87 19.02 15.70 14.56 13.48 12.29 11.32 10.48 9.725 10.0 60.04 27.63 21.12 17.43 16.17 14.97 13.64 12.56 11.62 10.79 Source: Land (1975) Appendix G 271 Table G­ 7. Values of the Parameter for Cohen's Adjustment for Nondetected Values $ h .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .10 .15 .20 .00 .010100 .020400 .030902 .041583 .052507 .063625 .074953 .08649 .09824 .11020 .17342 .24268 .05 .010551 .021294 .032225 .043350 .054670 .066159 .077909 .08983 .10197 .11431 .17925 .25033 .10 .010950 .022082 .033398 .044902 .056596 .068483 .080563 .09285 .10534 .11804 .18479 .25741 .15 .011310 .022798 .034466 .046318 .058356 .070586 .083009 .09563 .10845 .12148 .18985 .26405 .20 .011642 .023459 .035453 .047829 .059990 .072539 .085280 .09822 .11135 .12469 .19460 .27031 .25 .011952 .024076 .036377 .048858 .061522 .074372 .087413 .10065 .11408 .12772 .19910 .27626 .30 .012243 .024658 .037249 .050018 .062969 .076106 .089433 .10295 .11667 .13059 .20338 .28193 .35 .012520 .025211 .038077 .051120 .064345 .077736 .091355 .10515 .11914 .13333 .20747 .28737 .40 .012784 .025738 .038866 .052173 .065660 .079332 .093193 .10725 .12150 .13595 .21129 .29250 .45 .013036 .026243 .039624 .053182 .066921 .080845 .094958 .10926 .12377 .13847 .21517 .29765 .50 .013279 .026728 .040352 .054153 .068135 .082301 .096657 .11121 .12595 .14090 .21882 .30253 .55 .013513 .027196 .041054 .055089 .069306 .083708 .098298 .11208 .12806 .14325 .22225 .30725 .60 .013739 .027849 .041733 .055995 .070439 .085068 .099887 .11490 .13011 .14552 .22578 .31184 .65 .013958 .028087 .042391 .056874 .071538 .086388 .10143 .11666 .13209 .14773 .22910 .31630 .70 .014171 .028513 .043030 .057726 .072505 .087670 .10292 .11837 .13402 .14987 .23234 .32065 .75 .014378 .029927 .043652 .058556 .073643 .088917 .10438 .12004 .13590 .15196 .23550 .32489 .80 .014579 .029330 .044258 .059364 .074655 .090133 .10580 .12167 .13775 .15400 .23858 .32903 .85 .014773 .029723 .044848 .060153 .075642 .091319 .10719 .12225 .13952 .15599 .24158 .33307 .90 .014967 .030107 .045425 .060923 .075606 .092477 .10854 .12480 .14126 .15793 .24452 .33703 .95 .015154 .030483 .045989 .061676 .077549 .093611 .10987 .12632 .14297 .15983 .24740 .34091 1.00 .015338 .030850 .046540 .062413 .078471 .094720 .11116 .12780 .14465 .16170 .25022 .34471 Appendix G 272 Table G­ 7. Values of the Parameter for Cohen's Adjustment for Nondetected Values (Continued) $ h .25 .30 .35 .40 .45 .50 .55 .60 .65 .70 .80 .90 .05 .32793 .4130 .5066 .6101 .7252 .8540 .9994 1.166 1.358 1.585 2.203 3.314 .10 .33662 .4233 .5184 .6234 .7400 .8703 1.017 1.185 1.379 1.608 2.229 3.345 .15 .34480 .4330 .5296 .6361 .7542 .8860 1.035 1.204 1.400 1.630 2.255 3.376 .20 .35255 .4422 .5403 .6483 .7673 .9012 1.051 1.222 1.419 1.651 2.280 3.405 .25 .35993 .4510 .5506 .6600 .7810 .9158 1.067 1.240 1.439 1.672 2.305 3.435 .30 .36700 .4595 .5604 .6713 .7937 .9300 1.083 1.257 1.457 1.693 2.329 3.464 .35 .37379 .4676 .5699 .6821 .8060 .9437 1.098 1.274 1.475 1.713 2.353 3.492 .40 .38033 .4735 .5791 .6927 .8179 .9570 1.113 1.290 1.494 1.732 2.376 3.520 .45 .38665 .4831 .5880 .7029 .8295 .9700 1.127 1.306 1.511 1.751 2.399 3.547 .50 .39276 .4904 .5967 .7129 .8408 .9826 1.141 1.321 1.528 1.770 2.421 3.575 .55 .39679 .4976 .6061 .7225 .8517 .9950 1.155 1.337 1.545 1.788 2.443 3.601 .60 .40447 .5045 .6133 .7320 .8625 1.007 1.169 1.351 1.561 1.806 2.465 3.628 .65 .41008 .5114 .6213 .7412 .8729 1.019 1.182 1.368 1.577 1.824 2.486 3.654 .70 .41555 .5180 .6291 .7502 .8832 1.030 1.195 1.380 1.593 1.841 2.507 3.679 .75 .42090 .5245 .6367 .7590 .8932 1.042 1.207 1.394 1.608 1.851 2.528 3.705 .80 .42612 .5308 .6441 .7676 .9031 1.053 1.220 1.408 1.624 1.875 2.548 3.730 .85 .43122 .5370 .6515 .7781 .9127 1.064 1.232 1.422 1.639 1.892 2.568 3.754 .90 .43622 .5430 .6586 .7844 .9222 1.074 1.244 1.435 1.653 1.908 2.588 3.779 .95 .44112 .5490 .6656 .7925 .9314 1.085 1.255 1.448 1.668 1.924 2.607 3.803 1.00 .44592 .5548 .6724 .8005 .9406 1.095 1.287 1.461 1.882 1.940 2.626 3.827 273 APPENDIX H STATISTICAL SOFTWARE Since publication of Chapter Nine (" Sampling Plan") of SW­ 846 in 1986, great advances have been made in desktop computer hardware and software. In implementing the procedures recommended in this chapter, you should take advantage of the powerful statistical software now available for low cost or no cost. A number of useful "freeware" packages are available from EPA and other organizations, and many are downloadable from the Internet. Commercially available software also may be used. This appendix provides a list of software that you might find useful. EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/ G­ 5 (USEPA 1998a) also provides an extensive list of software that can assist you in developing and preparing a quality assurance project plan. Sampling Design Software Title Description Decision Error Feasibility Trials (DEFT)* This software package allows quick generation of cost information about several simple sampling designs based on DQO constraints, which can be evaluated to determine their appropriateness and feasibility before the sampling and analysis design is finalized. This software supports the Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process EPA QA/ G­ 4 (USEPA 2000b), which provides general guidance to organizations developing data quality criteria and performance specifications for decision making. The Data Quality Objectives Decision Error Feasibility Trials Software (DEFT) ­ User's Guide (EPA/ 240/ B­ 01/ 007) contains detailed instructions on how to use DEFT software and provides background information on the sampling designs that the software uses. Download from EPA's World Wide Web site at: http:// www. epa. gov/ quality/ qa_ docs. html. GeoEAS* Geostatistical Environmental Assessment Software (GeoEAS) (USEPA 1991b) is a collection of interactive software tools for performing twodimensional geostatistical analyses of spatially distributed data. Programs are provided for data file management, data transformations, univariate statistics, variogram analysis, cross­ validation, kriging, contour mapping, post plots, and line/ scatter plots. Users may alter parameters and re­ calculate results or reproduce graphs, providing a "what­ if" analysis capability. GeoEAS Version 1.2.1 (April 1989) software and documentation is available from EPA's Web site at http:// www. epa. gov/ ada/ csmos/ models/ geoeas. html * Also available on EPA's CD­ ROM Site Characterization Library Volume 1 (Release 2) (USEPA 1998c) Appendix H 274 Sampling Design Software (Continued) Title Description ELIPGRID­ PC ELIPGRID­ PC is a program for the design and analysis of sampling grids for locating elliptical targets (e. g., contamination "hot spots"). It computes the probability of success in locating targets based on the assumed size, shape, and orientation of the targets, as well as the specified grid spacing. It also can be used to compute a grid spacing from a specified success probability, compute cost information associated with specified sampling grids, determine the size of the smallest "hot spot" detected given a particular grid, and create graphs of the results. Information, software, and user's guide are available on the World Wide Web at: http:// dqo. pnl. gov/ software/ elipgrid. htm The site is operated for the U. S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. DQO­ PRO This software comprises a series of programs with a user interface such as a common calculator and it is accessed using Microsoft Windows. DQO­ PRO provides answers for three objectives: 1. Determining the rate at which an event occurs 2. Determining an estimate of an average within a tolerable error 3. Determining the sampling grid necessary to detect "hot spots." DQO­ PRO facilitates understanding the significance of DQOs by showing the relationships between numbers of samples and DQO parameters, such as (1) confidence levels versus numbers of false positive or negative conclusions; (2) tolerable error versus analyte concentration, standard deviation, etc., and (3) confidence levels versus sampling area grid size. The user has only to type in his or her requirements and the calculator instantly provides the answers. Contact: Information and software are available on the Internet at the American Chemical Society, Division of Environmental Chemistry Web site at http:// www. acs­ envchem. duq. edu/ dqopro. htm Visual Sample Plan (VSP) VSP provides statistical solutions for optimizing the sampling design. The software can answer two important questions in sample planning: (1) How many samples are needed? VSP can quickly calculate the number of samples needed for various scenarios at different costs. (2) Where should the samples be taken? Sample placement based on personal judgment is prone to bias. VSP provides random or grided sampling locations overlaid on the site map. Information and software available at http:// dqo. pnl. gov/ VSP/ Index. htm VSP was developed in part by Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Analytical Management Program (NAMP) and through a joint effort between Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and Advanced Infrastructure Management Technologies (AIMTech). Appendix H 275 Data Quality Assessment Software Title Description DataQUEST This software tool is designed to provide a quick­ and­ easy way for managers and analysts to perform baseline Data Quality Assessment. The goal of the system is to allow those not familiar with standard statistical packages to review data and verify assumptions that are important in implementing the DQA Process. This software supports the Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, EPA QA/ G­ 9 (USEPA 2000d) which demonstrates the use of the DQA Process in evaluating environmental data sets. Download from EPA's World Wide Web site at http:// www. epa. gov/ quality/ qa_ docs. html ASSESS 1.01a* This software tool was designed to calculate variances for quality assessment samples in a measurement process. The software performs the following functions: (1) transforming the entire data set, (2) producing scatter plots of the data, (3) displaying error bar graphs that demonstrate the variance, and (4) generating reports of the results and header information. Available on EPA's CD­ ROM Site Characterization Library Volume 1 (Release 2) (USEPA 1998c) MTCAStat This software package is published by the Washington Department of Ecology and can be used to calculate sample sizes (for both normal and lognormal distributions), basic statistical quantities, and confidence intervals. Requires MS Excel 97. The USEPA Office of Solid Waste has not evaluated this software for use in connection with RCRA programs, however, users of this guidance may wish to review the software for possible application to some of the concepts described in this document. Available from Washington Department of Ecology's "Site Cleanup, Sediments, and Underground Storage Tanks" World Wide Web site at http:// www. ecy. wa. gov/ programs/ tcp/ tools/ toolmain. html * Also available on EPA's CD­ ROM Site Characterization Library Volume 1 (Release 2) (USEPA 1998c) 276 This page intentionally left blank 277 APPENDIX I EXAMPLES OF PLANNING, IMPLEMENTATION, AND ASSESSMENT FOR RCRA WASTE SAMPLING This appendix presents the following two hypothetical examples of planning, implementation, and assessment for RCRA waste sampling: Example 1: Sampling soil in a RCRA Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) to confirm attainment of the cleanup standard (using the mean to measure compliance with a standard) Example 2: Sampling of a process waste to make a hazardous waste determination (using a maximum or upper percentile to measure compliance with a standard). Example 1: Sampling Soil at a RCRA SWMU to Confirm Attainment of a Cleanup Standard Introduction In this example, the owner of a permitted TSDF completed removal of contaminated soil at a SWMU as required under the facility's RCRA permit under EPA's RCRA Corrective Action Program. The permit required the facility owner to conduct sampling and analysis to determine if the remaining soil attains the facility­ specific risk­ based standard specified in the permit. This hypothetical example describes how the planning, implementation, and assessment activities were conducted. Planning Phase The planning phase included implementation of EPA's systematic planning process known as the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Process and preparation of a quality assurance project plan (QAPP). A DQO planning team was assembled, and the DQO Process was implemented following EPA's guidance in Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process for Hazardous Waste Site Operations EPA QA/ G­ 4HW (USEPA 2000a), Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process EPA QA/ G­ 4 (USEPA 2000b), and Chapter Nine of SW­ 846. The outputs of the seven steps of the DQO Process are outlined below. DQO Step 1: Stating the Problem ° The DQO planning team included the facility owner, a technical project manager, a chemist, environmental technician (sampler), and a facility engineer familiar with statistical methods. As part of the DQO Process, the team consulted with their state regulator to determine if the State has any additional regulations or guidance that applies. A state guidance document provided recommendations for the parameter of interest and the acceptable Type I decision error rate. Appendix I Example 1 278 ° A concise description of the problem was developed as follows: The facility conducted a soil removal action at the SWMU. Soil with concentrations greater than the risk­ based cleanup standard of 10 mg/ kg of pentachlorophenol (PCP) was excavated for off­ site disposal. Removal was guided by the results of grab samples analyzed for PCP using a semi­ quantitative field analytical method. ° The conceptual site model (CSM) assumed that the PCP migrated downward into the soil, and that if a soil layer were found to be "clean," then the underlying soil layer also would be assumed "clean." ° The technical staff were given six weeks to complete the study and submit a draft report to the regulatory agency. DQO Step 2: Identifying Possible Decisions ° Decision statement: The study objective was to determine if the soil remaining in the SWMU after removal of the contaminated soil attained the cleanup standard. If the standard is attained, then the area will be backfilled with clean fill and reserved for future industrial development. If the standard is not attained, then the next layer of soil within the SWMU will be removed. DQO Step 3: Identifying Inputs to the Decision ° The sample analysis results for total PCP (in mg/ kg) in soil were used to decide whether or not the soil attained the cleanup. PCP was designated as the only constituent of concern, and its distribution within the SWMU was assumed to be random. The risk­ based cleanup level for PCP in soil was set at 10 mg/ kg. ° The decision was based on the concentrations in the top six­ inch layer of soil across the entire SWMU. The study was designed to determine whether the entire unit attains the standards, or does not. ° The chemist identified two candidate analytical methods for measuring PCP concentrations in soil: (1) SW­ 846 Method 4010A "Screening For Pentachlorophenol By Immunoassay" ($ 20/ analysis), and (2) SW­ 846 Method 8270 (and prep method 3550) ($ 110/ analysis). The project chemist confirmed that both methods were capable of achieving a quantitation limit well below the action level of 10 mg/ kg. During Step 7 of the DQO Process, the chemist revisited this step to select a final method and prepare method performance criteria as part of the overall specification of decision performance criteria. ° The planning team identified the need to specify the size, shape, and orientation of each sample to satisfy the acceptable sampling error (specified in DQO Process Step 7) and to enable selection of the appropriate sampling device (during development of the QAPP). Because the soil exists in a relatively flat stationary three­ dimensional unit, it was considered a series of overlapping twodimensional surfaces for the purposes of sampling. The correct orientation, size, Example 1 Appendix I 279 and shape of each sample was a vertical core capturing the full six­ inch thickness of the soil unit. The minimum mass of each primary field sample was determined during DQO Process Step 7 using the particle size­ weight relationship required to control fundamental error at an acceptable level. DQO Step 4: Defining Boundaries ° The dimensions of the SWMU were approximately 125 feet by 80 feet (10,000 square feet). The SWMU was relatively flat. The depth of interest was limited to the top six inches of soil in the unit after removal of the contaminated soil. The spatial boundary of the SWMU was defined by the obvious excavation and by wooden stakes at the corners of the excavation. ° The soil within the study boundary was loamy sand with a maximum particle size of about 1.5 mm (0.15 cm). ° The project team planned to collect samples within a reasonable time frame, and degradation or transformation of the PCP over the investigation period was not a concern. DQO Step 5: Developing Decision Rules ° The population parameter of interest was the mean. The mean was selected as the parameter of interest because the risk­ based cleanup standard (Action Level) was derived based upon long­ term average health effects predicted from exposures to the contaminated soil. ° The risk­ based action level was 10 mg/ kg total pentachlorophenol (PCP) in soil. ° The decision rule was then established as follows: "If the mean concentration for PCP in the soil is less than 10 mg/ kg, then the cleanup standard is attained. Otherwise, the SWMU will be considered contaminated and additional remedial action will be required." DQO Step 6: Specifying Limits on Decision Errors ° The major sources of variability (measured as the relative variance) were identified as within­ sample unit variability ( ) (including analytical imprecision sw 2 and Gy's fundamental error) and between­ sample unit variability ( ) (or sb 2 population variability). The total study variance ( ) , expressed as the relative sT 2 variance, was estimated using the following relationship: s ss s s s T bw b sa 2 22 2 22 = + = + + Appendix I Example 1 280 where = between­ unit variance (population variance), = sample collection sb 2 ss 2 imprecision (estimated by Gy's fundamental error, ), and = analytical sFE 2 sa 2 imprecision (determined from the measurement of laboratory control samples with concentrations near the Action Level). ° Sample analysis results for eight samples of soil excavated from the previous lift gave a standard deviation and mean of = 7.1 and = 10.9 respectively. The s x total study relative standard deviation ( ) was then estimated as 0.65. sT ° The relative standard deviation (RSD) of the sampling error ( ) was estimated ss as 0.10 (as estimated by Gy's fundamental error), based a maximum observed particle size of approximately 1.5 mm (0.15 cm) and a sample mass of 10 grams. ° The RSD for the analytical imprecision ( ) associated with the field screening sa method (SW­ 846 Method 4010A ­ "Screening For Pentachlorophenol By Immunoassay") was estimated from replicate measurements as 0.40. ° The between­ unit (population) relative standard deviation ( ) was then sb estimated as: s sss b Tsa = + = + = 2 22 2 22 65 10 40 050 () (. ) (. . ) . ° Two potential decision errors could be made based on interpreting sampling and analytical data: Decision Error A: Concluding that the mean PCP concentration within the SWMU was less than 10 mg/ kg when it was truly greater than 10 mg/ kg, or Decision Error B: Concluding that the mean PCP concentration within the SWMU was greater than 10 mg/ kg when it was truly less than 10 mg/ kg. The consequences of Decision Error A, incorrectly deciding the SWMU was "clean" (mean PCP concentration less than 10 mg/ kg), would leave contaminated soil undetected and would likely increase health risks for onsite workers and pose potential future legal problems for the owner. The consequences of Decision Error B, incorrectly deciding the SWMU was "not clean" (mean PCP concentration greater than or equal to 10 mg/ kg), would cause the needless expenditure of resources (e. g., funding, time, backhoe and operator, soil disposal, sampling crew labor, and analytical capacity) for unnecessary further remedial action. Example 1 Appendix I 281 Error A, incorrectly deciding that the mean PCP concentration is less than the action level of 10 mg/ kg, posed more severe consequences for human health plus liability and compliance concerns. Consequently, the baseline condition chosen for the SWMU was that the mean PCP concentration within the SWMU is truly greater than or equal to the action level of 10 mg/ kg. Table I­ 1. Null Hypothesis and Possible Decision Errors for Example 1 "Null Hypothesis" (baseline condition) Possible Decision Errors Type I Error ( ), False Rejection Type II Error ( ), False Acceptance The true mean concentration of PCP in the SWMU is greater than or equal to the risk­ based cleanup standard (i. e., the SWMU is contaminated). Concluding the site is "clean" when, in fact, it is contaminated. Concluding the site is still contaminated when, in fact, it is "clean." ° Next, it was necessary to specify the boundaries of the gray regions. The gray region defines a range that is less than the action limit, but too close to the Action Level to be considered "clean," given uncertainty in the data. When the null hypothesis (baseline condition) assumes that the site is contaminated (as in this example), the upper limit of the gray region is bounded by the Action Level; the lower limit is determined by the decision maker. The project team sets the lower bound of the gray region at 7.5 mg/ kg, with the understanding that this bound could be modified after review of the outputs of Step 7 of the DQO Process. ° The planning team set the acceptable probability of making a Type I (false rejection) error at 5 percent ( ) based on guidance provided by the State = 005 . regulatory agency. In other words, the team was willing to accept a 5 percent chance of concluding the SWMU was clean, if in fact it was not. While a Type II (false acceptance) error could prove to be costly to the company, environmental protection and permit compliance are judged to be most important. The planning team decides to set the Type II error rate at only 20 percent. ° The information collected in Step 6 of the DQO Process is summarized below. Appendix I Example 1 282 Table I­ 2. Initial Outputs of Step 6 of the DQO Process Needed Parameter Output Action Level (AL) 10 mg/ kg Gray Region 7.5 ­ 10 mg/ kg (width of gray region, = 2.5) Relative Width of Gray Region (10 ­ 7.5)/ 7.5 = 0.33 Null Hypothesis (Ho ) Mean (PCP) 10 mg/ kg False Rejection Decision Error Limit (probability of a Type I error) = 005 . False Acceptance Decision Error Limit (probability of a Type II error) = 020 . DQO Step 7: Optimizing the Data Collection Design 1. Review outputs from the first six steps of the DQO Process. The project team reviewed the outputs of the first six steps of the DQO Process. They expected the PCP concentration to be near the cleanup standard (Action Level); thus, it was decided that a probabilistic sampling design would be used so that the results could be stated with a known probability of making a decision error. 2. Consider various data collection designs. The objective of this step was to find cost­ effective design alternatives that balance the number of samples and the measurement performance, given the feasible choices for sampling designs and measurement methods. Based on characterization data from the excavated soil, the planning team assumed that the between­ sample unit variability or population variability would remain relatively stable at approximately , sb = 050 . independent of the sampling and analytical methods used. The planning team investigated various combinations of sampling and analytical methods (with varying associated levels of precision and cost) as a means find the optimal study design. The planning team considered three probabilistic sampling designs: simple random, stratified random, and systematic (grid­ based) designs. A composite sampling strategy also was considered. All designs allowed for an estimate of the mean to be made. Because the existence of strata was not expected (although could be discovered during the investigation), the stratified design was eliminated from consideration. A simple random design is the simplest of the probabilistic sampling methods, but it may not provide very even coverage of the SWMU; thus, if spatial variability becomes a concern, then it may go undetected with a simple random design. The systematic design provides more even coverage of the SWMU and typically is easy to implement. The practical considerations were considered for each alternative design, including site access and conditions, equipment selection/ use, experience Example 1 Appendix I 283 needed, special analytical needs, health and safety requirements, and scheduling. There were no significant practical constraints that would limit the use of either the systematic or the simple random sampling designs; however, the systematic design was preferred because it provides sampling locations that are easier to survey and locate in the field, and it provides better spatial coverage. Ultimately, two sampling designs were evaluated: a systematic sampling design and a systematic sampling design that incorporates composite sampling. The acceptable mass of each primary field sample was determined using the particle size­ weight relationship required to control fundamental error. The soil in the SWMU is a granular solid, and the 95 th percentile particle size (d) was estimated at 1.5 mm (0.15 cm). To maintain the relative standard deviation of the fundamental error at 0.10, a sample mass of at least 8.2 grams was required (using Equation D. 4 in Appendix D). To maintain the relative standard deviation of the fundamental error at 0.05, a sample mass of at least 30 grams would be required. There were no practical constraints on obtaining samples of these sizes. Next, it was necessary to estimate unit costs for sampling and analysis. Based on prior experience, the project team estimated the cost of collecting a grab sample at $40 – plus an additional $30 per sample for documentation, processing of field screening samples, and $60 per sample for documentation, processing, and shipment for samples sent for fixed laboratory analysis. 3. Select the optimal number of samples. Using the initial outputs of Step 6, the appropriate number of samples was calculated for each sampling design: For the systematic sampling design (without compositing), the following formula was used (Equation 8 from Section 5.4.1): n z zsz T = + + () 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 where = the quantile of the standard normal distribution (from z 1 pth the last row of Table G­ 1, Appendix G), where is the probability of making a Type I error (the significance level of the test) set in DQO Step 6. = the quantile of the standard normal distribution (from z1 pth the last row of Table G­ 1, Appendix G), where is the probability of making a Type II error set in DQO Step 6. = an estimate of the total study relative standard deviation. sT = the width of the gray region from DQO Step 6 (expressed as the relative error in this example). Appendix I Example 1 284 [EPA's DEFT software could be used to calculate the appropriate number of samples (see Data Quality Objectives Decision Error Feasibility Trials Software (DEFT) ­ User's Guide, USEPA 2001h). Note, however, that the DEFT program asks for the bounds of the gray region specified in absolute units. If the planning team uses the relative standard deviation (or coefficient of variation) in the sample size equation rather than the absolute standard deviation, then the bounds of the gray region also must be input into DEFT as relative values. Thus, the Action Level would be set equal to 1, and the other bound of the gray region would be set equal to 1 ­ (relative width of gray region) or 1 + (relative width of gray region) depending what baseline condition is selected.] Note that if there were more than one constituent of concern, then the appropriate number of samples would need to be calculated for each constituent using preliminary estimates of their standard deviations. The number of samples would then be determined by the highest number of samples obtained for any single constituent of concern. The sample size for systematic composite sampling also was evaluated. In comparison to non­ composite sampling, composite sampling can have the effect of minimizing between­ sample variation, thereby reducing somewhat the total number of composite samples that must be submitted for analysis. In addition, composite samples are expected to generate normally distributed data thereby allowing the team to apply normal theory statistical methods. To estimate the sample size, the planning team again required an estimate of the standard deviation. However, since the original estimate of the standard deviation was based on available individual or "grab" sample data rather than composite samples, it was necessary to adjust the variance term in the sample size equation for the appropriate number of composite samples. In the sample size equation, the between­ unit (population) component of variance ( ) was sb 2 replaced with , where is the number of individual or "grab" samples s g b 2 g used to form each composite. Sample sizes were then calculated assuming . g = 4 Table I­ 3 and Table I­ 4 summarize the inputs and outputs of Step 7 of the DQO Process and provides the estimated costs for the various sampling and analysis designs evaluated. Example 1 Appendix I 285 Table I­ 3. Summary of Inputs for Candidate Sampling Designs Parameter Systematic Sampling ­ Fixed Lab Analyses Systematic Sampling ­ Field Analyses Systematic Composite Sampling ­ Fixed Lab Analyses Systematic Composite Sampling ­ Field Analyses Inputs Sampling Costs Collection Cost (per "grab") $40 ea. $40 ea. $40 ea. $40 ea. Documentation, processing, shipment $60 ea. $30 ea. $60 ea. $30 ea. Analytical Costs SW­ 846 Method 3550/ 8270 (fixed lab) $110 ea. $110 ea.* $110 ea. $110 ea.* SW­ 846 Method 4010A (field screening) NA $20 ea. NA $20 ea. Relative Width of Gray Region ( ) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Null Hypothesis (Ho ) Mean (PCP) 10 mg/ kg Mean (PCP) 10 mg/ kg Mean (PCP) 10 mg/ kg Mean (PCP) 10 mg/ kg False Rejection Decision Error Limit = 005 . = 005 . = 005 . = 005 . False Acceptance Decision Error Limit = 0 20 . = 0 20 . = 0 20 . = 0 20 . Relative Std. Dev. Sampling ( ) ss 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Analytical ( ), SW­ sa 846 Method 8270 0.10 NA 0.10 NA Analytical ( ) SW­ sa 846 Method 4010A NA 0.40 NA 0.40 "Population" ( ) sb 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Total Study s T s s s a s b = + + 2 2 2 0.52 0.65 0.29** 0. 48** NA: Not applicable * Assumes 20­ percent of all field analyses must be confirmed via fix laboratory method. ** For composite sampling, the total study relative standard deviation ( ) was estimated by replacing with sT sb 2 , where = the number of "grabs" per composite. s g b 2 g Appendix I Example 1 286 Table I­ 4. Summary of Outputs for Candidate Sampling Designs Parameter Systematic Sampling ­ Fixed Lab Analyses Systematic Sampling ­ Field Analyses Systematic Composite Sampling ­ Fixed Lab Analyses Systematic Composite Sampling ­ Field Analyses Outputs Number of Samples ( ) n 17 25 6 15 Cost Estimate "Grab" Sampling $40 x 17 $40 x 25 $40 x 4 x 6 (see note 1) $40 x 4 x 15 (see note 1) Documentation, processing, and shipment $60 x 17 ($ 30 x 25) + ($ 60 x 5) (see note 2) $60 x 6 ($ 30 x 15) + ($ 60 x 3) (see note 2) SW­ 846 Method 3550/ 8270 (fixed lab) $110 x 17 $110 x 5 (see note 2) $110 x 6 $110 x 3 (see note 2) SW­ 846 Method 4010A (field screening) NA $20 x 25 NA $20 x 15 Cost $3,570 $3,100 $1,980 $3,660 1. The calculation assumes four grabs per composite sample. 2. The calculation includes costs for shipment and analysis of 20% of field screening samples for fixed laboratory analysis. NA: Not applicable 4. Select a resource­ effective design. It was determined that all of the systematic designs and systematic composite sampling designs would meet the statistical performance requirements for the study in estimating the mean PCP concentration in the SWMU. The project team selected the systematic composite sampling design ­ with fixed laboratory analysis ­ based on the cost savings projected over the other sampling designs. The planning team decided that one additional field quality control sample (an equipment rinsate blank), analyzed by SW­ 846 Method 8720, was required to demonstrate whether the sampling equipment was free of contamination. The outputs of the DQO Process were summarized in a memo report which was then used help prepare the QAPP. 5. Prepare a QAPP. The operational details of the sampling and analytical activities were documented in the QAPP using EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/ G­ 5 (USEPA 1998a) and Chapter One of SW846 for guidance. Example 1 Appendix I 287 Implementation Phase The QAPP was implemented in accordance with the schedule, sampling plan, and safety plan. The exact location of each field sample was established using a grid on a map of the SWMU. The start point for constructing the grid was selected at random. The QAPP established the following DQOs and performance goals for the sampling equipment: ° The correct orientation and shape of each sample is a vertical core. ° Each sample must capture the full depth of interest (six inches). ° The minimum mass of each sample is 10 g. ° The device must be constructed of materials that will not alter analyte concentrations due to loss or gain of analytes via sorption, desorption, degradation, or corrosion. ° The device must be easy to use, safe, and low cost. A sampling device was selecting using the four­ steps described in Figure 28 in Section 7.1. Step 1 ­ Identify the Medium to be Sampled The material to be sampled is a soil. Using Table 8 in Section 7.1, we find the media descriptor that most closely matches the waste in the first column of the table: "Soil and other unconsolidated geologic material." Step 2 ­ Select the Sample Location The second column of Table 8 in Section 7.1 provides a list of possible sampling sites (or units types) for soil (i. e., surface or subsurface). In this example, the sampling location is surface soil and "Surface" is found in the second column in the table. Step 3 ­ Identify Candidate Sampling Devices The third column of Table 8 in Section 7.1 provides a list of candidate sampling devices. For the waste stream in this example, the list includes bucket auger, concentric tube thief, coring type sampler, miniature core sampler, modified syringe, penetrating probe sampler, sampling scoop/ trowel/ shovel, thin­ walled tube, and trier. Step 4 ­ Select Devices Sampling devices were selected from the list of candidate sampling devices after review of Table 9 in Section 7.1. Selection of the equipment was made after consideration of the DQOs for the sample support (i. e., required volume, depth, shape, and orientation), the performance goals established for the sampling device, ease of use and decontamination, worker safety issues, cost, and any practical considerations. Appendix I Example 1 288 Table I­ 5 demonstrates how the DQOs and performance goals can be used together to narrow the candidate devices down to just one or two. Table I­ 5. Using DQOs and Performance Goals to Select a Final Sampling Device Candidate Devices Data Quality Objectives and Performance Goals Required Depth Orientation and Shape Sample Volume Operational Considerations Desired Material of Construction 6 inches Vertical undisturbed core >10 g Device is portable, safe, & low cost? Stainless or carbon steel Bucket auger Y N Y Y Y Concentric tube thief Y NYYY Coring Type Sampler Y NYYY Miniature core sampler Y YNYN Modified syringe sampling N NNYN Penetrating Probe Sampler Y YY YY Scoop, trowel, or shovel Y NYYY Thin­ walled tube Y Y Y Y Y Trier Y N Y Y Y Key: Y = The device is capable of achieving the specified DQO or performance goal. N = The device is not capable of achieving the DQO or performance goal. The "penetrating probe sampler" and the "thin­ walled tube" were identified as the preferred devices because they could satisfy all of the DQOs and performance goals for the sampling devices. The penetrating probe was selected because it was easy to use and was readily available to the field sampling crew. A penetrating probe sampler was then used to take the field samples at each location on the systematic square grid (see Figure I­ 1). Each composite sample was formed by pooling and mixing individual samples collected from within each of four quadrants. The process was repeated until six composite samples were obtained. Because the total mass of each individual (grab) sample used to form composite samples exceeded that required by the laboratory for analysis, a field subsampling routine was used to reduce the volume of material submitted to the laboratory. The field samples and associated field QC samples were submitted to the laboratory where a subsample was taken from each field sample for analysis. The samples were analyzed in accordance with the QAPP. Example 1 Appendix I 289 Boundary of SWMU 80 ft. 125 ft. Field Sample No. 6 Mixture of four "grab" samples Field Subsampling 1 2 3 4 5 6 L A n ft = = = 24 20 2 10,000ft 20.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not to scale Figure I­ 1. Systematic sampling with compositing. The distance between sampling points (L) is determined using the approach described in Section 5.2.3 (Box 5). Samples with the same number are pooled and mixed to form each composite sample. A field sample is formed from each composite using one of the subsampling methods described in Section 7.3.2 (e. g., by fractional shoveling). Assessment Phase Data Verification and Validation Sampling and analytical records were reviewed to check compliance with the QAPP. The data collected during the study met the measurement objectives. Sampling and analytical error were minimized through the use of a statistical sampling design, correct field sampling and subsampling procedures, and adherence to the requirements of the analytical methods. The soil that was sampled did not present any special problems concerning access to sampling locations, equipment usage, particle­ size distribution, or matrix interferences. A quantitation limit of 0.5 mg/ kg was achieved. The analytical package was verified and validated, and the data generated were judged acceptable for their intended purpose. Data Quality Assessment (DQA) DQA was performed using the approach outlined in Section 8.2: 1. Review DQOs and sampling design. The DQO planning team reviewed the original objectives: "If the mean concentration for PCP in the soil is less than 10 mg/ kg, then the cleanup standard is attained. Otherwise, the SWMU will be considered contaminated and additional remedial action will be required." Appendix I Example 1 290 STATISTICAL QUANTITIES Number of Observations: 6 Minimum: 6.000 Maximum: 10.500 Mean: 7. 833 Median: 7. 750 Variance: 2. 267 Std De: 1. 506 Range: 4.500 IQR: 1. 000 Coefficient of Variation: 0. 192 Coefficient of Skewness: 0. 783 Coefficient of Kurtosis: ­0. 087 Percentiles: 1st: 6.000 75th: 8.000 7th: 6.000 90th: 10. 500 10th: 6. 000 95th: 10. 500 25th: 7. 000 99th: 10. 500 50th: 7. 750 (median) DataQUEST Figure I­ 2. Statistical quantities using DataQUEST software 2. Prepare the data for statistical analysis. The summary of the verified and validated data were received in hard­ copy format and an electronic data base was created by manual data entry into spreadsheet software. The data base was checked by a second person for accuracy. The results for the data collection effort are listed in Table I­ 6. A data file was created in a format suitable for import into EPA's DataQUEST software. Table I­ 6. Soil Sample Analysis Results for PCP (mg/ kg) Sample Identification Result (PCP, mg/ kg) 1 8. 0 2 8. 0 3 7. 0 4 6. 0 5 10.5 6 7. 5 3. Conduct preliminary analysis of data and check distributional assumptions: Using EPA's DataQUEST, statistical quantities were computed as shown in Figure I­ 2. On a normal probability plot, the data plot as a straight line, indicating approximate normality (see Figure I­ 3). Example 1 Appendix I 291 N: 6 StDev: 1.506 Average: 7.833 10 9 8 7 6 .999 .99 .95 .80 .50 .20 .05 .01 .001 Probability PCP (mg/ kg) Normal Probability Plot Figure I­ 3. Normal probability plot Shapiro­ Wilk Test Null Hypothesis: `Data are normally distributed' Sample Value: 0.914 Tabled Value: 0.788 There is not enough evidence to reject the assumption of normality with a 5% significance level. DataQUEST Figure I­ 4. Results of the Shapiro­ Wilk test using EPA's DataQUEST software The data also were checked for normality by the Shapiro­ Wilk test. Using the DataQUEST software, the Shapiro­ Wilk test was performed at the 0.05 percent significant level. The Shapiro­ Wilk test did not reject the null hypothesis of normality (see Figure I­ 4). Appendix I Example 1 292 4. Select and perform the statistical test: The analysis of the data showed there were no "non­ detects" and a normal distribution was an acceptable model. Using the guidance in Figure 38 (Section 8.2.4), a parametric upper confidence limit (UCL) on the mean was selected as the correct statistic to compare to the regulatory level. The 95% UCL on the mean was calculated as follows: UCL x t s n n 0. 95 0.95, 1 7 833 2 015 1506 6 91 = + = + = .. . .mg/ kg The tabulated "t value" (2.015) was obtained from Table G­ 1 in Appendix G and based on a 95­ percent one­ tailed confidence interval with and 5 = 005 . degrees of freedom. 5. Draw conclusions and report results: The 95% UCL for the mean of the sample analysis results for PCP, 9.1 mg/ kg, was less than the specified cleanup level of 10 mg/ kg. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected, and the owner made the determination that the soil remaining in the SWMU attains the cleanup standard for PCP based on the established decision rule. A summary report including a description of all planning, implementation, and assessment activities was submitted to the regulatory agency for review. Example 2 Appendix I 293 Example 2: Sampling of a Process Waste to Make a Hazardous Waste Determination Introduction An aircraft manufacturing and maintenance facility strips paint from parts before remanufacturing them. The facility recently switched its paint stripping process from a solventbased system to use of an abrasive plastic blasting media (PBM). The waste solvent, contaminated with stripped paint, had to be managed as a hazardous waste. The facility owner changed the process to reduce ­ or possibly eliminate ­ the generation of hazardous waste from this operation and thereby reduce environmental risks and lower waste treatment and disposal costs. The plant operators thought the spent PBM could include heavy metals such as chromium and cadmium from the paint, and therefore there was a need to make a hazardous waste determination in order to comply with the RCRA regulations at 40 CFR Part 262.11. The facility owner determined that the spent PBM is a solid waste under RCRA but not a listed hazardous waste. The facility owner then needed to determine if the solid waste exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous waste: ignitability (§ 261.21), corrosivity (§ 261.22), reactivity (§ 261.23), or toxicity (§ 261.24). Using process and materials knowledge, the owner determined that the waste blasting media would not exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. The facility owner elected to conduct waste testing to determine if the waste blasting media exhibits the characteristic of toxicity. This hypothetical example describes how the planning, implementation, and assessment activities were conducted. Planning Phase The planning phase comprises the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Process and preparation of a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) including a sampling and analysis plan. A DQO planning team was assembled and the DQO Process was implemented following EPA's guidance in Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process EPA QA/ G­ 4 (USEPA 2000b) and SW­ 846. The outputs of the seven steps of the DQO Process are outlined below. DQO Step 1: Stating the Problem ° The DQO planning team included the plant manager, a technical project manager, a consulting chemist, and the paint stripping booth operator who also served as the sampler. ° The conceptual model of the waste generation process was developed as follows: The de­ painting operation consists of a walk­ in blast booth with a reclamation floor. After blasting, the plastic blast media, mixed with paint fines, is passed through a reclamation system; the reusable media is separated out for reloading to the blast unit, while the spent media and paint waste is discharged to a container. Appendix I Example 2 294 ° A concise description of the problem was developed as follows: The problem was described as determining whether the new waste stream (the spent plastic blasting media and waste paint) should be classified as a hazardous waste that requires treatment and subsequent disposal in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill (at $300 per ton), or whether it is a nonhazardous industrial waste that can be landdisposed in an industrial landfill (at $55 per ton). ° The plant manager gave the plant staff and consultant 60 days to complete the study. The turn­ around time was established to minimize the amount of time that the waste was stored at the facility while the data were being generated, and to allow adequate time to have the waste shipped off site ­ if it were found to be a hazardous waste ­ within the 90­ day accumulation time specified at 40 CFR Part 262.34( a). DQO Step 2: Identifying Possible Decisions ° Decision statement: The decision statement was determining whether the spent PBM paint waste was hazardous under the RCRA regulations. ° Alternative actions: If the waste was hazardous, then treatment and subsequent disposal in a RCRA landfill would be required. DQO Step 3: Identifying Inputs to the Decision ° The decision was to be based on the quantity of waste generated over approximately a one­ month period, but not to exceed the quantity placed in a single 10­ cubic yard roll off box. ° Based on process and materials knowledge, the team specified cadmium and chromium as the constituents of concern. ° To resolve the decision statement, the planning team needed to determine if, using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) SW­ 846 Method 1311, the extract from a representative sample of the waste contained the constituents of concern at concentrations equal to or greater than their regulatory levels as required by the RCRA regulations at 40 CFR 261.24. The chemist noted, however, that the TCLP method allows the following: "If a total analysis of the waste demonstrates that individual analytes are not present in the waste, or that they are present but at such low concentrations that the appropriate regulatory levels could not possibly be exceeded, the TCLP need not be run." With that flexibility in mind, the planning team identified a candidate method for total analysis (including SW­ 846 Method 3050B/ 6010), and noted that the TCLP would be required if the total analysis indicated TC levels could be exceeded. ° The project chemist found that SW­ 846 Methods 3010A (prep) and 6010B were suitable for analysis of the TCLP extracts at quantitation limits at or below the applicable regulatory levels. Example 2 Appendix I 295 ° The minimum sample "support" was determined as follows: Method 1311 (TCLP) specifies a minimum sample mass of 100 grams for analysis of nonvolatile constituents and a maximum particle size of 9.5 mm. The waste stream, composed of dry fine to medium­ grained plastic and paint chips, was well within the particle size requirements of the TCLP. During Step 7 of the DQO Process, the planning team revisited this step to determine whether a sample mass larger than 100­ grams would be necessary to satisfy the overall decision performance criteria. DQO Step 4: Defining Boundaries ° The paint stripping operation includes a blast booth, a PBM reclamation unit, and a waste collection roll­ off box that complies with the applicable container requirements of Subparts I and CC of 40 CFR part 265. The spent blast media and paint waste is discharged to the roll­ off box from the reclamation unit. Each discharge event was considered a "batch" for the purposes of the waste classification study. ° When testing a solid waste to determine if it exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, the determination must be made when management of the solid waste would potentially be subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations at 40 CFR Part 262 through 265. Accordingly, the planning team decided samples should be obtained at the point where the waste discharges from the reclamation unit into the roll­ off container (i. e., the point of generation). Until such time that the generator determined that the waste is not a hazardous waste, the generator complied with the applicable pre­ transport requirements at 40 CFR Part 262 ­ Subpart C (i. e., packaging, labeling, marking, and accumulation time). ° The boundary of the decision was set as the extent of time over which the decision applies. The boundary would change only if there were a process or materials change that would alter the composition of the waste. Such a process or materials change could include, for example, a change in the composition, particle size or particle shape of the blasting media, or a significant change in the application (pressure) rate of the blast media. DQO Step 5: Developing Decision Rules ° The planning team reviewed the RCRA regulations at for the Toxicity Characteristic at 40 CFR 261.24 and found the regulation does not specify a parameter of interest (such as the mean or a percentile). They observed, however, that the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) regulatory levels specified in Table 1 of Part 261.24 represent "maximum" concentrations that cannot be equaled or exceeded; otherwise, the solid waste must be classified as hazardous. While the regulations for hazardous waste determination do not require the use of any statistical test to make a hazardous waste determination, the planning team decided to use a high percentile value as a reasonable approximation of the maximum TCLP sample analysis result that could be obtained from a sample of the waste. Their objective was to "prove the negative" ­ that is, to demonstrate Appendix I Example 2 296 with a desired level of confidence that the vast majority of the waste was nonhazardous. The upper 90th percentile was selected. The team specified an additional constraint that no single sample could exceed the standard. Otherwise, there may be evidence that the waste is hazardous at least part of the time. ° The Action Levels were set at the TC regulatory limits specified in Table 1 of 40 CFR Part 261.24: Cadmium: 1.0 mg/ L TCLP Chromium: 5. 0 mg/ L TCLP ° The decision rule was then established as follows: "If the upper 90 th percentile TCLP concentration for cadmium or chromium in the waste and all samples analysis results are less than their respective action levels of 1.0 and 5.0 mg/ L TCLP, then the waste can be classified as nonhazardous waste under RCRA; otherwise, the waste will be considered a hazardous waste." DQO Step 6: Specifying Limits on Decision Errors ° The null hypothesis was that the waste is hazardous, i. e., the true proportion (P) of samples with concentrations of cadmium or chromium less than their regulatory thresholds is less than 0.90, or Ho: P < 0.90. ° Two potential decision errors could be made based on interpreting sampling and analytical data: Decision Error A: Concluding that the true proportion (P) of the waste that is nonhazardous was greater than 0.90 when it was truly less than 0.90, or Decision Error B: Concluding that the true proportion (P) of the waste that is nonhazardous was less than 0.90 when it was truly greater than 0.90. The consequences of Decision Error A ­ incorrectly deciding the waste was nonhazardous ­ would lead the facility to ship untreated hazardous waste off site for disposal in solid waste landfill, likely increase health risks for onsite workers, and pose potential future legal problems for the owner. The consequences of Decision Error B ­ incorrectly deciding the waste was hazardous when in fact it is not hazardous ­ would cause the needless costs for treatment and disposal, but with no negative environmental consequences. Error A, incorrectly deciding that a hazardous waste is a nonhazardous waste, posed more severe consequences for the generator in terms of liability and compliance concerns. Consequently, the baseline condition (null hypothesis) chosen was that the true proportion of waste that is nonhazardous is less than 90 percent. Example 2 Appendix I 297 Table I­ 7. Null Hypothesis and Possible Decision Errors for Example 2 "Null Hypothesis" (baseline condition) Possible Decision Errors Type I Error ( ), False Rejection Type II Error ( ), False Acceptance The true proportion (P) of waste that is nonhazardous is less than 0.90. Concluding the waste is nonhazardous when, in fact, it is hazardous. Concluding the waste is hazardous when, in fact, it is nonhazardous. ° Next, it was necessary to specify the boundaries of the gray region. When the null hypothesis (baseline condition) assumes that the waste is hazardous (as in this example), one limit of the gray region is bounded by the Action Level and the other limit is set at a point where it is desirable to control the Type II (false acceptance) error. The project team set one bound of the gray region at 0.90 (the Action Level). Since a "no exceedance" criterion is included in the decision rule, the other bound of the gray region is effectively set at 1. ° The DQO planning team then sets the acceptable probability of making a Type I (false rejection) error at 10 percent ( ). In other words, they are willing = 010 . to accept a 10 percent chance of concluding the waste is nonhazardous when at least a portion of the waste is hazardous. The use of the exceedance rule method does not require specification of the Type II (false acceptance) error rate. ° The information collected in Step 6 of the DQO Process is summarized below. Table I­ 8. Initial Outputs of Step 6 of the DQO Process ­ Example 2 Needed Parameter Output Action Level 0.90 Gray Region 0.90 to 1.0 ( = 0.10) Null Hypothesis (Ho ) P < 0.90 False Rejection Decision Error Limit (probability of a Type I error) = 010 . False Acceptance Decision Error Limit (probability of a Type II error) Not specified Appendix I Example 2 298 DQO Step 7: Optimizing the Data Collection Design ° Review outputs from the first six steps of the DQO Process. The planning team reviewed the outputs of the first six steps of the DQO Process. ° Consider various data collection designs. The DQO planning team considered two probabilistic sampling designs: simple random and systematic (random within time intervals). Both the simple random and the systematic design would allow the facility owner to estimate whether a high percentage of the waste complies with the standard. The team also considered using an authoritative "biased" sampling design to estimate the high end or "worst case" waste characteristics. Two analytical plans were then considered: One in which the full TCLP would be performed on each sample, and one in which TCLP concentrations could be estimated from total concentration by comparing each total sample analysis result to 20 times the TC regulatory limit (to account for the 20: 1 dilution used in the TCLP). The laboratory requested a sample mass of at least 300 grams (per sample) to allow the laboratory to perform the preliminary analyses required by the TCLP and to provide sufficient mass to perform the full TCLP (if required). The practical considerations were then evaluated for each alternative design, including access to sampling locations, worker safety, equipment selection/ use, experience needed, special analytical needs, and scheduling. ° Select the optimal number of samples. Since the decision rule specified no exceedance of the standard in any sample, the number of samples was determined from Table G­ 3a in Appendix G. The table is based on the formula . For a desired and , the number n p = log( ) log( ) p = 090 . (). 1 090 = of samples ( ) for a simple random or systematic sampling design was 22. n The team also considered how many samples might be required if a nonprobabilistic authoritative sampling design were used. Some members of the planning team thought that significantly fewer samples (e. g., four) could be used to make a hazardous waste determination, and they pointed out that the RCRA regulations do not require statistical sampling for waste classification. On the other hand, other members of the planning team argued against the authoritative design. They argued that there was insufficient knowledge of the waste to implement authoritative sampling and noted that a few samples taken in a nonprobabilistic manner would limit their ability to quantify any possible decision errors. ° Select a resource­ effective design. The planning team evaluated the sampling and analytical design options and costs. The following table summarizes the estimated costs for the four sampling designs evaluated. Example 2 Appendix I 299 Table I­ 9. Estimated Costs for Implementing Candidate Sampling Designs Simple Random or Systematic Sampling (total metals only) Simple Random or Systematic Sampling (TCLP metals) Authoritative (Biased) Sampling (total metals only) Authoritative (Biased) Sampling (TCLP metals) Sample collection cost (per sample) $50 $50 $50 $50 Analysis cost ° SW­ 846 Methods 3050B/ 6010B (total Cd and Cr) (per sample) $40 $40 ° SW­ 846 TCLP Method 1311. Extract analyzed by SW­ 846 Methods 3010A/ 6010B (per sample) $220 $220 Number of samples 22 22 4 4 Total Estimated Cost $1,980 $5,940 $360 $1,080 While the authoritative design with total metals analysis offered the least cost compared to the probabilistic designs, the team decided that they did not have sufficient knowledge of the waste, its leaching characteristics, or the process yet to use an authoritative sampling approach with total metals analysis only. Furthermore, the team needed to quantify the probability of making a decision error. The planning team selected the systematic design with total metals analysis for Cd and Cr with the condition that if any total sample analysis result indicated the maximum theoretical TCLP result could exceed the TC limit, then the TCLP would be performed for that sample. This approach was selected for its ease of implementation, it would provide adequate waste knowledge for future waste management decisions (assuming no change in the waste generation process), and would satisfy other cost and performance objectives specified by the planning team. ° Prepare a QAPP/ SAP. The operational details of the sampling and analytical activities are documented in a Quality Assurance Project Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan (QAPP/ SAP). Implementation Phase The QAPP/ SAP was implemented in accordance with the schedule and the facility's safety program. Based on the rate of waste generation, it was estimated that the roll­ off box would be filled in about 30 work days assuming one "batch" of waste was placed in the roll off box each day. It was decided to obtain one random sample from each batch as the waste was discharge from the reclamation unit to the roll­ off container (i. e., at the point of waste generation). See Figure I­ 5. Appendix I Example 2 300 Roll­ Off Box Blast Booth Waste Point of waste generation and sampling point If hazardous, accumulation less than 90 days prior to shipment off site per 40 CFR Part 262.34( a). Random Sampling Within Batches Batch 1 Batch 2, etc Reclaimed Blast Media Recoveryreclamation system Not to scale Figure I­ 5. Systematic sampling design with random sampling times selected within each batch The QAPP/ SAP established the following DQOs and performance goals for the equipment. The sampling device must meet the following criteria: ° Be able to obtain a minimum mass of 300 grams for each sample ° Be constructed of materials that will not alter analyte concentrations due to loss or gain of analytes via sorption, desorption, degradation, or corrosion ° Be easy to use, safe, and low cost ° Be capable of obtaining increments of the waste at the discharge drop without introducing sampling bias. The following four steps were taken to select the sampling device (from Section 7.1): Step 1 ­ Identify the Medium To Be Sampled Based on a prior inspection, it was known that the waste is a unconsolidated dry granular solid. Using Table 8 in Section 7.1, we find the media descriptor that most closely matches the waste in the first column of the table: "Other Solids ­ Unconsolidated." Step 2 ­ Select the Sample Location The second column of Table 8 provides a list of common sampling locations for unconsolidated solids. The discharge drop opening is four inches wide, and the waste is released downward into the collection box. "Pipe or Conveyor" found in the table is the closest match to the Example 2 Appendix I 301 configuration of the waste discharge point. Step 3 ­ Identify Candidate Sampling Devices The third column of Table 8 provides a list of candidate sampling devices for sampling solids from a pip or conveyor. For this waste stream, the list of devices for sampling a pipe or conveyor includes bucket, dipper, pan, sample container, miniature core sampler, scoop/ trowel/ shovel, and trier. The planning team immediately eliminated miniature core sampler, scoop/ trowel/ shovel, and trier because they are not suitable for obtaining samples from a falling stream or vertical discharge. Step 4 ­ Select Devices From the list of candidate sampling devices, one device was selected for use in the field from Table 9 in Section 7.1. Selection of the equipment was made after consideration of the DQOs for the sample support (i. e., required volume, width, shape, and orientation), the performance goals established for the sampling device, ease of use and decontamination, worker safety issues, cost, and any practical considerations. Table I­ 10 demonstrates how the DQOs and performance goals were used to narrow the candidate devices down to just one or two. Table I­ 10. Using DQOs and Performance Goals To Select a Final Sampling Device Candidate Devices Data Quality Objectives and Performance Goals Required Width Orientation and Shape Sample Volume Operational Considerations Desired Material of Construction 4 inches Cross­ section of entire stream >300 g Device is portable, safe, and low cost? Polyethylene or PTFE Bucket Y Y Y Y Y Dipper N Y Y Y Y Pan Y Y Y Y Y Sample container N NYYY Key: Y = The device is capable of achieving the specified DQO or performance goal. N = The device is not capable of achieving the specified DQO or performance goal. The sampling mode was "one­ dimensional," that is, the material is relatively linear in time and space. The ideal sampling device would obtain a sample of constant thickness and must be capable of obtaining the entire width of the stream for a fraction of the time (see discussion at Section 6.3.2.1). Either a bucket or pan wide enough (preferably 3 times the width of the stream) to obtain all of the flow for a fraction of the time are identified as suitable devices because they are capable of achieving all the performance goals. A flat 12­ inch wide polyethylene pan with vertical sides was used to collect each primary field sample. Each primary field sample was approximately 2 kilograms, therefore, the field team used the "fractional shoveling" technique (see Section 7.3.2) to reduce the sample mass to a subsample of approximately 300 grams. The field samples (each in a 32­ oz jar) and associated Appendix I Example 2 302 field QC samples were submitted to the laboratory in accordance with the sample handling and shipping instructions specified in the QAPP/ SAP. A total of 30 samples were obtained by the time the roll­ off box was filled, so it was necessary to randomly select 22 samples from the set of 30 for laboratory analysis. All 22 samples were first analyzed for total cadmium and chromium to determine if the maximum theoretical TCLP concentration in any one sample could exceed the applicable TC limit. Samples whose maximum theoretical TCLP value exceeded the applicable TC limit were then analyzed using the full TCLP. For the TCLP samples, no particle­ size reduction was required for the sample extraction because the maximum particle size in the waste passed through a 9.5 mm sieve (the maximum particle size allowed for the TCLP). (On a small subsample of the waste, however, particle size reduction to 1 mm was required to determine the TCLP extract type (I or II)). A 100­ gram subsample was taken from each field sample for TCLP analysis. Assessment Phase Data Verification and Validation Sampling and analytical records were reviewed to check compliance with the QAPP/ SAP. The data collected during the study met the DQOs. Sampling and analytical error were minimized through the use of a statistical sampling design, correct field sampling and subsampling procedures, and adherence to the requirements of the analytical methods. The material that was sampled did not present any special problems concerning access to sampling locations, equipment usage, particle­ size distribution, or matrix interferences. Quantitation limits achieved for total cadmium and chromium were 5 mg/ kg and 10 mg/ kg respectively. Quantitation limits achieved for cadmium and chromium in the TCLP extract were 0.10 mg/ L and 1.0 mg/ L respectively. The analytical package was validated and the data generated were judged acceptable for their intended purpose. Data Quality Assessment DQA was performed using the approach outlined in Section 9.8.2 and EPA QA/ G­ 9 (USEPA 2000d): 1. Review DQOs and sampling design. The DQO planning team reviewed the original objectives: "If the upper 90 th percentile TCLP concentration for cadmium or chromium in the waste and all samples analysis results are less than their respective action levels of 1.0 and 5.0 mg/ L TCLP, then the waste can be classified as nonhazardous waste under RCRA; otherwise, the waste will be considered a hazardous waste." 2. Prepare the data for statistical analysis. The summary of the verified and validated data were received in hard copy format, and summarized in a table. The table was checked by a second person for accuracy. The results for the data collection effort are listed in Table I­ 11. Example 2 Appendix I 303 Table I­ 11. Total and TCLP Sample Analysis Results Sample No. Cadmium Chromium Total (mg/ kg) Total / 20 (TC limit = 1 mg/ L) Total (mg/ kg) Total / 20 (TC limit = 5 mg/ L) 1 <5 <0.25 11 0.55 2 6 0.3 <10 <0. 5 3 29 1.45 (full TCLP = 0.72) <10 <0. 5 4 <5 <0.25 <10 <0.5 5 <5 <0.25 42 2.1 6 7 0.35 <10 <0.5 7 7 0.35 <10 <0.5 8 13 0. 65 26 1. 3 9 <5 <0.25 19 0.95 10 <5 <0. 25 <10 <0. 5 11 36 1.8 (full TCLP = 0.8) <10 <0. 5 12 <5 <0. 25 <10 <0. 5 13 <5 <0. 25 <10 <0. 5 14 <5 <0. 25 12 0. 6 15 <5 <0. 25 <10 <0. 5 16 9 0. 45 <10 <0. 5 17 <5 <0. 25 <10 <0. 5 18 <5 <0. 25 <10 <0. 5 19 <5 <0. 25 31 1. 55 20 20 1 (full TCLP = <0. 10) <10 <0. 5 21 <5 <0. 25 <10 <0. 5 22 <5 <0. 25 <10 <0. 5 3. Conduct preliminary analysis of data and check distributional assumptions. To use the nonparametric "exceedance rule" no distributional assumptions are required. The only requirements are a random sample, and that the quantitation limit is less than the applicable standard. These requirements were met. 4. Select and perform the statistical test: The maximum TCLP sample analysis results for cadmium and chromium were compared to their respective TC regulatory limits. While several of the total results indicated the maximum theoretical TCLP result could exceed the regulatory limit, subsequent analysis of the TCLP extracts from these samples indicated the TCLP concentrations were below the regulatory limits. Appendix I Example 2 1 Note that if fewer than 22 samples were analyzed ­ for example, due to a lost sample ­ and all sample analysis results indicated concentrations less than the applicable standard, then one still could conclude that 90­ percent of all possible samples are less than the standard but with a lower level of confidence. See Section 5.5.2, Equation 17. 304 5. Draw conclusions and report results. All 22 sample analysis results were less than the applicable TC limits, therefore the owner concluded with at least 90­ percent confidence that at least 90­ percent of all possible samples of the waste would be below the TC regulatory levels. Based on the decision rule established for the study, the owner decided to manage the waste as a nonhazardous waste. 1 A summary report including a description of all planning, implementation, and assessment activities was placed in the operating record. 305 Contact ASTM For more information on ASTM or how to purchase their publications, including the standards referenced by this appendix, contact them at: ASTM, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428­ 2959; telephone: 610­ 832­ 9585; World Wide Web: http:// www. astm. org. APPENDIX J SUMMARIES OF ASTM STANDARDS ASTM (the American Society for Testing and Materials) is one of the entities that can provide additional useful information on sampling. This appendix references many of the standards published by ASTM that are related to sampling. ASTM is a not­ for­ profit organization that provides a forum for writing standards for materials, products, systems, and services. The Society develops and publishes standard test methods, specifications, practices, guides, classifications, and terminology. Each ASTM standard is developed within the consensus principles of the Society and meets the approved requirements of its procedures. The voluntary, full­ consensus approach brings together people with diverse backgrounds and knowledge. The standards undergo intense round­ robin testing. Strict balloting and due process procedures guarantee accurate, upto date information. To help you determine which ASTM standards may be most useful, this appendix includes text found in the scope of each standard. The standards, listed in alpha­ numerical order, each deal in some way with sample collection. ASTM has future plans to publish these standards together in one volume on sampling. D 140 Standard Practice for Sampling Bituminous Materials This practice applies to the sampling of bituminous materials at points of manufacture, storage, or delivery. D 346 Standard Practice for Collection and Preparation of Coke Samples for Laboratory Analysis This practice covers procedures for the collection and reduction of samples of coke to be used for physical tests, chemical analyses, and the determination of total moisture. D 420 Guide to Site Characterization for Engineering, Design, and Construction Purposes This guide refers to ASTM methods by which soil, rock, and ground­ water conditions may be determined. The objective of the investigation should be to identify and locate, both horizontally and vertically, significant soil and rock types and ground­ water conditions present within a given site area and to establish the characteristics of the subsurface materials by sampling or in situ testing, or both. Appendix J 306 D 1452 Standard Practice for Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings This practice covers equipment and procedures for the use of earth augers in shallow geotechnical exploration. It does not apply to sectional continuous flight augers. This practice applies to any purpose for which disturbed samples can be used. Augers are valuable in connection with ground water level determinations, to help indicate changes in strata, and in the advancement of a hole for spoon and tube sampling. D 1586 Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split­ Barrel Sampling of Soils This test method describes the procedure, generally known as the Standard Penetration Test, for driving a split­ barrel sampler. The procedure is used to obtain a representative soil sample and to measure the resistance of the soil to penetration of the sampler. D 1587 Standard Practice for Thin­ Walled Tube Geotechnical Sampling of Soils This practice covers a procedure for using a thin­ walled metal tube to recover relatively undisturbed soil samples suitable for laboratory tests of structural properties. Thin­ walled tubes used in piston, plug, or rotary­ type samplers, such as the Denison or Pitcher sampler, should comply with the portions of this practice that describe the thin­ walled tubes. This practice is used when it is necessary to obtain a relatively undisturbed sample. It does not apply to liners used within the above samplers. D 2113 Standard Practice for Diamond Core Drilling for Site Investigation This practice describes equipment and procedures for diamond core drilling to secure core samples of rock and some soils that are too hard to sample by soil­ sampling methods. This method is described in the context of obtaining data for foundation design and geotechnical engineering purposes rather than for mineral and mining exploration. D 2234 Standard Practice for Collection of a Gross Sample of Coal This practice covers procedures for the collection of a gross sample of coal under various conditions of sampling. The practice describes general and special purpose sampling procedures for coals by size and condition of preparation (e. g., mechanically cleaned coal or raw coal) and by sampling characteristics. The sample is to be crushed and further prepared for analysis in accordance with ASTM Method D 2013. This practice also gives procedures for dividing large samples before any crushing. D 3213 Standard Practices for Handling, Storing, and Preparing Soft Undisturbed Marine Soil These practices cover methods for project/ cruise reporting; and for the handling, transporting and storing of soft cohesive undisturbed marine soil. The practices also cover procedures for preparing soil specimens for triaxial strength, and procedures for consolidation testing. These practices may include the handling and transporting of sediment specimens contaminated with hazardous materials and samples subject to quarantine regulations. Appendix J 307 D 3326 Standard Practice for Preparation of Samples for Identification of Waterborne Oils This practice covers the preparation for analysis of waterborne oils recovered from water. The identification is based on the comparison of physical and chemical characteristics of the waterborne oils with oils from suspect sources. These oils may be of petroleum or vegetable/ animal origin, or both. The practice covers the following seven procedures (A through G): Procedure A, for samples of more than 50­ mL volume containing significant quantities of hydrocarbons with boiling points above 280° C; Procedure B, for samples containing significant quantities of hydrocarbons with boiling points above 280° C; Procedure C, for waterborne oils containing significant amounts of components boiling below 280° C and to mixtures of these and higher boiling components; Procedure D, for samples containing both petroleum and vegetable/ animal derived oils; Procedure E, for samples of light crudes and medium distillate fuels; Procedure F, for thin films of oil­ on­ water; and Procedure G, for oil­ soaked samples. D 3370 Standard Practices for Sampling Water from Closed Conduits These practices cover the equipment and methods for sampling water from closed conduits (e. g., process streams) for chemical, physical, and microbiological analyses. It provides practices for grab sampling, composite sampling, and continual sampling of closed conduits. D 3550 Standard Practice for Ring­ Lined Barrel Sampling of Soils This practice covers a procedure for using a ring­ lined barrel sampler to obtain representative samples of soil for identification purposes and other laboratory tests. In cases in which it has been established that the quality of the sample is adequate, this practice provides shear and consolidation specimens that can be used directly in the test apparatus without prior trimming. Some types of soils may gain or lose significant shear strength or compressibility, or both, as a result of sampling. In cases like these, suitable comparison tests should be made to evaluate the effect of sample disturbance on shear strength and compressibility. This practice is not intended to be used as a penetration test; however, the force required to achieve penetration or a blow count, when driving is necessary, is recommended as supplemental information. D 3665 Standard Practice for Random Sampling of Construction Materials This practice covers the determination of random locations (or timing) at which samples of construction materials can be taken. For the exact physical procedures for securing the sample, such as a description of the sampling tool, the number of increments needed for a sample, or the size of the sample, reference should be made to the appropriate standard method. D 3975 Standard Practice for Development and Use (Preparation) of Samples for Collaborative Testing of Methods for Analysis of Sediments This practice establishes uniform general procedures for the development, preparation, and use of samples in the collaborative testing of methods for chemical analysis of sediments and similar materials. The principles of this practice are applicable to aqueous samples with suitable technical modifications. Appendix J 308 D 3976 Standard Practice for Preparation of Sediment Samples for Chemical Analysis This practice describes standard procedures for preparing test samples (including the removal of occluded water and moisture) of field samples collected from locations such as streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, and oceans. These procedures are applicable to the determination of volatile, semivolatile, and nonvolatile constituents of sediments. D 3694 Standard Practices for Preparation of Sample Containers and for Preservation of Organic Constituents These practices cover the various means of (1) preparing sample containers used for collection of waters to be analyzed for organic constituents and (2) preservation of such samples from the time of sample collection until the time of analysis. The sample preservation practice depends on the specific analysis to be conducted. Preservation practices are listed with the corresponding applicable general and specific constituent test method. The preservation method for waterborne oils is given in Practice D 3325. Use of the information given will make it possible to choose the minimum number of sample preservation practices necessary to ensure the integrity of a sample designated for multiple analysis. D 4136 Standard Practice for Sampling Phytoplankton with Water­ Sampling Bottles This practice covers the procedures for obtaining quantitative samples of a phytoplankton community by the use of water­ sampling bottles. D 4220 Standard Practices for Preserving and Transporting Soil Samples These practices cover procedures for preserving soil samples immediately after they are obtained in the field and accompanying procedures for transporting and handling the samples. These practices are not intended to address requirements applicable to transporting of soil samples known or suspected to contain hazardous materials. D 4342 Standard Practice for Collecting of Benthic Macroinvertebrates with Ponar Grab Sampler This practice covers the procedures for obtaining qualitative or quantitative samples of macroinvertebrates inhabiting a wide range of bottom substrate types (e. g., coarse sand, fine gravel, clay, mud, marl, and similar substrates. The Ponar grab sampler is used in freshwater lakes, rivers, estuaries, reservoirs, oceans, and similar habitats. D 4343 Standard Practice for Collecting Benthic Macroinvertebrates with Ekman Grab Sampler This practice covers the procedures for obtaining qualitative or quantitative samples of macroinvertebrates inhabiting soft sediments. The Ekman grab sampler is used in freshwater lakes, reservoirs, and, usually, small bodies of water. Appendix J 309 D 4387 Standard Guide for Selecting Grab Sampling Devices for Collecting Benthic Macroinvertebrates This guide covers the selection of grab sampling devices for collecting benthic macroinvertebrates. Qualitative and quantitative samples of macroinvertebrates in sediments or substrates are usually taken by grab samplers. The guide discusses the advantages and limitations of the Ponar, Peterson, Ekman and other grab samplers. D 4411 Standard Guide for Sampling Fluvial Sediment in Motion This guide covers the equipment and basic procedures for sampling to determine discharge of sediment transported by moving liquids. Equipment and procedures were originally developed to sample mineral sediments transported by rivers but they also are applicable to sampling a variety of sediments transported in open channels or closed conduits. Procedures do not apply to sediments transported by flotation. This guide does not pertain directly to sampling to determine nondischarge­ weighted concentrations, which in special instances are of interest. However, much of the descriptive information on sampler requirements and sediment transport phenomena is applicable in sampling for these concentrations and the guide briefly specifies suitable equipment. D 4448 Standard Guide for Sampling Groundwater Monitoring Wells This guide covers procedures for obtaining valid representative samples from ground­ water monitoring wells. The scope is limited to sampling and "in the field" preservation and does not include well location, depth, well development, design and construction, screening, or analytical procedures. This guide provides a review of many of the most commonly used methods for sampling ground­ water quality monitoring wells and is not intended to serve as a ground­ water monitoring plan for any specific application. Because of the large and ever­ increasing number of options available, no single guide can be viewed as comprehensive. The practitioner must make every effort to ensure that the methods used, whether or not they are addressed in this guide, are adequate to satisfy the monitoring objectives at each site. D 4489 Standard Practices for Sampling of Waterborne Oils These practices describe the procedures to be used in collecting samples of waterborne oils, oil found on adjoining shorelines, or oil­ soaked debris, for comparison of oils by spectroscopic and chromatographic techniques, and for elemental analyses. Two practices are described. Practice A involves "grab sampling" macro oil samples. Practice B involves sampling most types of waterborne oils and is particularly applicable in sampling thin oil films or slicks. Practice selection will be dictated by the physical characteristics and the location of the spilled oil. Specifically, the two practices are (1) Practice A, for grab sampling thick layers of oil, viscous oils or oil soaked debris, oil globules, tar balls, or stranded oil, and (2) Practice B, for TFE­ fluorocarbon polymer strip samplers. Each of the two practices collect oil samples with a minimum of water, thereby reducing the possibility of chemical, physical, or biological alteration by prolonged contact with water between the time of collection and analysis. Appendix J 310 D 4547 Standard Guide for Sampling Waste and Soils for Volatile Organic Compounds This guide describes recommended procedures for the collection, handling, and preparation of solid waste, soil, and sediment subsamples for subsequent determination of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). This class of compounds includes low molecular weight aromatics, hydrocarbons, halogenated hydrocarbons, ketones, acetates, nitriles, acrylates, ethers, and sulfides with boiling points below 200° C that are insoluble or slightly soluble in water. Methods of subsample collection, handling, and preparation for analysis are described. This guide does not cover the details of sampling design, laboratory preparation of containers, and the analysis of the subsamples. D 4687 Standard Guide for General Planning of Waste Sampling This guide provides information for formulating and planning the many aspects of waste sampling that are common to most waste­ sampling situations. This guide addresses the following aspects of sampling: Sampling plans, safety plans, quality assurance considerations, general sampling considerations, preservation and containerization, cleaning equipment, labeling and shipping procedures, and chain­ of­ custody procedures. This guide does not provide comprehensive sampling procedures for these aspects, nor does it serve as a guide to any specific application. D 4696 Standard Guide for Pore­ Liquid Sampling from the Vadose Zone This guide discusses equipment and procedures used for sampling pore­ liquid from the vadose zone (unsaturated zone). The guide is limited to in­ situ techniques and does not include soil core collection and extraction methods for obtaining samples. The term "pore­ liquid" is applicable to any liquid from aqueous pore­ liquid to oil, however, all of the samplers described in this guide are designed to sample aqueous pore­ liquids only. The abilities of these samplers to collect other pore­ liquids may be quite different than those described. Some of the samplers described in the guide currently are not commercially available. These samplers are presented because they may have been available in the past, and may be encountered at sites with established vadose zone monitoring programs. In addition, some of these designs are particularly suited to specific situations. If needed, these samplers could be fabricated. D 4700 Standard Guide for Soil Sampling from the Vadose Zone This guide addresses procedures that may be used for obtaining soil samples from the vadose zone (unsaturated zone). Samples can be collected for a variety of reasons, including the following: ° Stratigraphic description ° Hydraulic conductivity testing ° Moisture content measurement ° Moisture release curve construction ° Geotechnical testing ° Soil gas analyses ° Microorganism extraction ° Pore­ liquid and soil chemical analyses. Appendix J 311 This guide focuses on methods that provide soil samples for chemical analyses of the soil or contained liquids or contaminants. Comments on how methods may be modified for other objectives, however, also are included. This guide does not describe sampling methods for lithified deposits and rocks (e. g., sandstone, shale, tuff, granite). D 4823 Standard Guide for Core Sampling Submerged, Unconsolidated Sediments This guide covers core­ sampling terminology, advantages and disadvantages of various core samplers, core distortions that may occur during sampling, techniques for detecting and minimizing core distortions, and methods for dissecting and preserving sediment cores. In this guide, sampling procedures and equipment are divided into the following categories (based on water depth): sampling in depths shallower than 0.5 m, sampling in depths between 0.5 m and 10 m, and sampling in depths exceeding 10 m. Each category is divided into two sections: (1) equipment for collecting short cores and (2) equipment for collecting long cores. This guide also emphasizes general principles. Only in a few instances are step­ by­ step instructions given. Because core sampling is a field­ based operation, methods and equipment usually must be modified to suit local conditions. Drawings of samplers are included to show sizes and proportions. These samplers are offered primarily as examples (or generic representations) of equipment that can be purchased commercially or built from plans in technical journals. This guide is a brief summary of published scientific articles and engineering reports, and the references are listed. These documents provide operational details that are not given in the guide but are nevertheless essential to the successful planning and completion of core sampling projects. D 4840 Standard Guide for Sampling Chain­ of­ Custody Procedures This guide contains a comprehensive discussion of potential requirements for a sample chain­ of­ custody program and describes the procedures involved in sample chain­ of­ custody. The purpose of these procedures is to provide accountability for and documentation of sample integrity from the time of sample collection until sample disposal. These procedures are intended to document sample possession during each stage of a sample's life cycle, that is, during collection, shipment, storage, and the process of analysis. Sample chain of custody is just one aspect of the larger issue of data defensibility. A sufficient chain­ of­ custody process (i. e., one that provides sufficient evidence of sample integrity in a legal or regulatory setting) is situationally dependent. The procedures presented in this guide are generally considered sufficient to assure legal defensibility of sample integrity. In a given situation, less stringent measures may be adequate. It is the responsibility of the users of this guide to determine their exact needs. Legal counsel may be needed to make this determination. D 4854 Standard Guide for Estimating the Magnitude of Variability from Expected Sources in Sampling Plans The guide explains how to estimate the contributions of the variability of lot sampling units, laboratory sampling units, and specimens to the variation of the test result of a sampling plan. The guide explains how to combine the estimates of the variability from the three sources to obtain an estimate of the variability of the sampling plan results. The guide is applicable to all sampling plans that produce variables data. It is not applicable to plans that produce attribute data, since such plans do not take specimens in stages, but require that specimens be taken at random from all of the individual items in the lot. Appendix J 312 D 4916 Standard Practice for Mechanical Auger Sampling This practice describes procedures for the collection of an increment, partial sample, or gross sample of material using mechanical augers. Reduction and division of the material by mechanical equipment at the auger also is covered. D 5013 Standard Practices for Sampling Wastes from Pipes and Other Point Discharges These practices provide guidance for obtaining samples of waste at discharge points from pipes, sluiceways, conduits, and conveyor belts. The following are included: Practice A – Liquid or Slurry Discharges, and Practice B – Solid or Semisolid Discharges. These practices are intended for situations in which there are no other applicable ASTM sampling methods for the specific industry. These practices do not address flow and time­ proportional samplers and other automatic sampling devices. Samples are taken from a flowing waste stream or moving waste mass and, therefore, are descriptive only within a certain period. The length of the period for which a sample is descriptive will depend on the sampling frequency and compositing scheme. D 5088 Standard Practice for Decontamination of Field Equipment Used at Nonradioactive Waste Sites This practice covers the decontamination of field equipment used in the sampling of soils, soil gas, sludges, surface water, and ground water at waste sites that are to undergo both physical and chemical analyses. This practice is applicable only at sites at which chemical (organic and inorganic) wastes are a concern and is not intended for use at radioactive or mixed (chemical and radioactive) waste sites. Procedures are included for the decontamination of equipment that comes into contact with the sample matrix (sample contacting equipment) and for ancillary equipment that has not contacted the portion of sample to be analyzed (nonsample contacting equipment). This practice is based on recognized methods by which equipment may be decontaminated. When collecting environmental matrix samples, one should become familiar with the site­ specific conditions. Based on these conditions and the purpose of the sampling effort, the most suitable method of decontamination can be selected to maximize the integrity of analytical and physical testing results. This practice is applicable to most conventional sampling equipment constructed of metallic and synthetic materials. The manufacturer of a specific sampling apparatus should be contacted if there is concern regarding the reactivity of a decontamination rinsing agent with the equipment. D 5092 Standard Practice for Design and Installation of Ground Water Monitoring Wells in Aquifers This practice addresses the selection and characterization (by defining soil, rock types, and hydraulic gradients) of the target monitoring zone as an integral component of monitoring well design and installation. The development of a conceptual hydrogeologic model for the intended monitoring zone( s) is recommended prior to the design and installation of a monitoring well. The guidelines are based on recognized methods by which monitoring wells may be designed and installed for the purpose of detecting the presence or absence of a contaminant, and collecting representative ground water quality data. The design standards and installation procedures in the practice are applicable to both detection and assessment monitoring programs for facilities. The recommended monitoring well design, as presented in this practice, Appendix J 313 is based on the assumption that the objective of the program is to obtain representative groundwater information and water quality samples from aquifers. Monitoring wells constructed following this practice should produce relatively turbidity­ free samples for granular aquifer materials ranging from gravels to silty sand and sufficiently permeable consolidated and fractured strata. Strata having grain sizes smaller than the recommended design for the smallest diameter filter pack materials should be monitored by alternative monitoring well designs not addressed by this practice. D 5283 Standard Practice for Generation of Environmental Data Related to Waste Management Activities Quality Assurance and Quality Control Planning and Implementation This practice addresses the planning and implementation of the sampling and analysis aspects of environmental data generation activities. It defines the criteria that must be considered to assure the quality of the field and analytical aspects of environmental data generation activities. Environmental data include, but are not limited to, the results from analyses of samples of air, soil, water, biota, waste, or any combinations thereof. DQOs should be adopted prior to application of this practice. Data generated in accordance with this practice are subject to a final assessment to determine whether the DQOs were met. For example, many screening activities do not require all of the mandatory quality assurance and quality control steps found in this practice to generate data adequate to meet the project DQOs. The extent to which all of the requirements must be met remains a matter of technical judgment as it relates to the established DQOs. This practice presents extensive management requirements designed to ensure high­ quality environmental data. D 5314 Standard Guide for Soil Gas Monitoring in the Vadose Zone This guide covers information pertaining to a broad spectrum of practices and applications of soil atmosphere sampling, including sample recovery and handling, sample analysis, data interpretation, and data reporting. This guide can increase the awareness of soil gas monitoring practitioners concerning important aspects of the behavior of the soil­ water­ gas contaminant system in which this monitoring is performed, as well as inform them of the variety of available techniques of each aspect of the practice. Appropriate applications of soil gas monitoring are identified, as are the purposes of the various applications. Emphasis is placed on soil gas contaminant determinations in certain application examples. This guide suggests a variety of approaches useful in monitoring vadose zone contaminants with instructions that offer direction to those who generate and use soil gas data. This guide does not recommend a standard practice to follow in all cases, nor does it recommend definite courses of action. The success of any one soil gas monitoring methodology is strongly dependent upon the environment in which it is applied. D 5358 Standard Practice for Sampling with a Dipper or Pond Sampler This practice describes the procedure and equipment for taking surface samples of water or other liquids using a dipper. A pond sampler or dipper with an extension handle allows the operator to sample streams, ponds, waste pits, and lagoons as far as 15 feet from the bank or other secure footing. The dipper is useful in filling a sample bottle without contaminating the outside of the bottle. Appendix J 314 D 5387 Standard Guide for Elements of a Complete Data Set for Non­ Cohesive Sediments This guide covers criteria for a complete sediment data set, and it provides guidelines for the collection of non­ cohesive sediment alluvial data. This guide describes what parameters should be measured and stored to obtain a complete sediment and hydraulic data set that could be used to compute sediment transport using any prominently known sediment­ transport equations. D 5451 Standard Practice for Sampling Using a Trier Sampler This practice covers sampling using a trier. A trier resembles an elongated scoop, and is used to collect samples of granular or powdered materials that are moist or sticky and have a particle diameter less than one­ half the diameter of the trier. The trier can be used as a vertical coring device only when it is certain that a relatively complete and cylindrical sample can be extracted. D 5495 Standard Practice for Sampling with a Composite Liquid Waste Sampler (COLIWASA) This practice describes the procedure for sampling liquids with the composite liquid waste sampler (COLIWASA). The COLIWASA is an appropriate device for obtaining a representative sample from stratified or unstratified liquids. Its most common use is for sampling containerized liquids, such as tanks, barrels, and drums. It may also be used for pools and other open bodies of stagnant liquid. (A limitation of the COLIWASA is that the stopper mechanism may not allow collection of approximately the bottom inch of material, depending on construction of the stopper.) The COLIWASA should not be used to sample flowing or moving liquids. D 5608 Standard Practice for Decontamination of Field Equipment Used at Low Level Radioactive Waste Sites This practice covers the decontamination of field equipment used in the sampling of soils, soil gas, sludges, surface water, and ground water at waste sites known or suspected of containing low­ level radioactive wastes. This practice is applicable at sites where low­ level radioactive wastes are known or suspected to exist. By itself or in conjunction with Practice D 5088, this practice may also be applicable for the decontamination of equipment used in the vicinity of known or suspected transuranic or mixed wastes. Procedures are contained in this practice for the decontamination of equipment that comes into contact with the sample matrix (sample contacting equipment), and for ancillary equipment that has not contacted the sample, but may have become contaminated during use (noncontacting equipment). This practice is applicable to most conventional sampling equipment constructed of metallic and hard and smooth synthetic materials. Materials with rough or porous surfaces, or having a high sorption rate, should not be used in radioactive­ waste sampling due to the difficulties with decontamination. In those cases in which sampling will be periodically performed, such as sampling of wells, consideration should be given to the use of dedicated sampling equipment if legitimate concerns exist for the production of undesirable or unmanageable waste byproducts, or both, during the decontamination of tools and equipment. This practice does not address regulatory requirements for personnel protection or decontamination, or for the handling, labeling, shipping, or storing of wastes, or samples. Specific radiological release requirements and limits must be determined by users in accordance with local, State and Federal regulations. Appendix J 315 D 5633 Standard Practice for Sampling with a Scoop This procedure covers the method and equipment used to collect surface and near­ surface samples of soils and physically similar materials using a scoop. This practice is applicable to rapid screening programs, pilot studies, and other semi­ quantitative investigations. The practice describes how a shovel is used to remove the top layers of soil to the appropriate sample depth and either a disposable scoop or a reusable scoop is used to collect and place the sample in the sample container. D 5658 Standard Practice for Sampling Unconsolidated Waste from Trucks This practice covers several methods for collecting waste samples from trucks. These methods are adapted specifically for sampling unconsolidated solid wastes in bulk loads using several types of sampling equipment. D 5679 Standard Practice for Sampling Consolidated Solids in Drums or Similar Containers This practice covers typical equipment and methods for collecting samples of consolidated solids in drums or similar containers. These methods are adapted specifically for sampling drums having a volume of 110 U. S. gallons (416 L) or less, and are applicable to a hazardous material, product, or waste. D 5680 Standard Practice for Sampling Unconsolidated Solids in Drums or Similar Containers This practice covers typical equipment and methods for collecting samples of unconsolidated solids in drums or similar containers. These methods are adapted specifically for sampling drums having a volume of 110 U. S. gallons (416 L) or less, and are applicable to a hazardous material, product, or waste. D 5730 Standard Guide for Site Characterization for Environmental Purposes with Emphasis on Soil, Rock, the Vadose Zone and Ground Water This guide covers a general approach to planning field investigations that is useful for any type of environmental investigation with a primary focus on the subsurface and major factors affecting the surface and subsurface environment. Generally, such investigations should identify and locate, both horizontally and vertically, significant soil and rock masses and groundwater conditions present within a given site area and establish the characteristics of the subsurface materials by sampling or in situ testing, or both. The extent of characterization and specific methods used will be determined by the environmental objectives and data quality requirements of the investigation. This guide focuses on field methods for determining site characteristics and collection of samples for further physical and chemical characterization. It does not address special considerations required for characterization of karst and fractured rock terrain. Appendix J 316 D 5743 Standard Practice for Sampling Single or Multilayered Liquids, with or without Solids, in Drums or Similar Containers This practice covers typical equipment and methods for collecting samples of single or multilayered liquids, with or without solids, in drums or similar containers. These methods are adapted specifically for sampling drums having a volume of 110 gallons (416 L) or less, and are applicable to a hazardous material, product, or waste. D 5792 Standard Practice for Generation of Environmental Data Related to Waste Management Activities: Development of Data Quality Objectives This practice covers the development of data quality objectives (DQOs) for the acquisition of environmental data. Optimization of sampling and analysis design is a part of the DQO Process. This practice describes the DQO Process in detail. The various strategies for design optimization are too numerous to include in this practice. Many other documents outline alternatives for optimizing sampling and analysis design, therefore, only an overview of design optimization is included. Some design aspects are included in the examples for illustration purposes. D 5903 Standard Guide for Planning and Preparing for a Groundwater Sampling Event This guide covers planning and preparing for a ground­ water sampling event. It includes technical and administrative considerations and procedures. Example checklists are also provided as appendices. This guide may not cover every consideration and procedure that is necessary before all ground­ water sampling projects. This guide focuses on sampling of ground water from monitoring wells; however, most of the guidance herein can apply to the sampling of springs as well. D 5911 Standard Practice for Minimum Set of Data Elements to Identify a Soil Sampling Site This practice covers what information should be obtained to uniquely identify any soil sampling or examination site where an absolute and recoverable location is necessary for quality control of the study, such as for a waste disposal project. The minimum set of data elements was developed considering the needs for informational data bases, such as geographic information systems. Other distinguishing details, such as individual site characteristics, help in singularly cataloging the site. For studies that are not environmentally regulated, such as for an agricultural or preconstruction survey, the data specifications established by a client and the project manager may be different from that of the minimum set. As used in this practice, a soil sampling site is meant to be a single point, not a geographic area or property, located by an X, Y, and Z coordinate position at land surface or a fixed datum. All soil data collected for the site are directly related to the coordinate position, e. g., a sample is collected from a certain number of feet (or meters) or sampled from a certain interval to feet (or meters) below the X, Y, and Z coordinate position. A soil sampling site can include a test well, augered or bored hole, excavation, grab sample, test pit, sidewall sample, stream bed, or any other site where samples of the soil can be collected or examined for the purpose intended. Samples of soil (sediment) filtered from the water of streams, rivers, or lakes are not in the scope of this practice. Appendix J 317 D 5956 Standard Guide for Sampling Strategies for Heterogeneous Wastes This guide is a practical nonmathematical discussion for heterogeneous waste sampling strategies. This guide is consistent with the particulate material sampling theory, as well as inferential statistics, and may serve as an introduction to the statistical treatment of sampling issues. This guide does not provide comprehensive sampling procedures, nor does it serve as a guide to any specification. D 6001 Standard Guide for Direct­ Push Water Sampling for Geoenvironmental Investigations This guide reviews methods for sampling ground water at discrete points or in increments by insertion of sampling devices by static force or impact without drilling and removal of cuttings. By directly pushing the sampler, the soil is displaced and helps to form an annular seal above the sampling zone. Direct­ push water sampling can be one­ time or multiple­ sampling events. Methods for obtaining water samples for water quality analysis and detection of contaminants are presented. Field test methods described in this guide include installation of temporary well points and insertion of water samplers using a variety of insertion methods. The insertion methods include (1) soil probing using combinations of impact, percussion, or vibratory driving with or without additions of smooth static force; (2) smooth static force from the surface using hydraulic penetrometer or drilling equipment and incremental drilling combined with direct­ push water sampling events. Methods for borehole abandonment by grouting are also addressed. D 6008 Standard Practice for Conducting Environmental Baseline Surveys The purpose of this practice is to define good commercial and customary practice in the United States for conducting an environmental baseline survey (EBS). Such surveys are conducted to determine certain elements of the environmental condition of Federal real property, including excess and surplus property at closing and realigning military installations. This effort is conducted to fulfill certain requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) section 120( h), as amended by the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act of 1992 (CERFA). As such, this practice is intended to help a user to gather and analyze data and information in order to classify property into seven environmental condition of property area types (in accordance with the Standard Classification of Environmental Condition of Property Area Types). Once documented, the EBS is used to support Findings of Suitability to Lease, or uncontaminated property determinations, or a combination thereof, pursuant to the requirements of CERFA. Users of this practice should note that it does not address (except where explicitly noted) requirements of CERFA. The practice also does not address (except where explicitly noted) requirements for appropriate and timely regulatory consultation or concurrence, or both, during the conduct of the EBS or during the identification and use of the standard environmental condition of property area types. D 6009 Standard Guide for Sampling Waste Piles This guide provides guidance for obtaining representative samples from waste piles. Guidance is provided for site evaluation, sampling design, selection of equipment, and data interpretation. Waste piles include areas used primarily for waste storage or disposal, including above­ grade dry land disposal units. This guide can be applied to sampling municipal waste piles, and it addresses how the choice of sampling design and sampling methods depends on specific Appendix J 318 features of the pile. D 6044 Standard Guide for Representative Sampling for Management of Waste and Contaminated Media This guide covers the definition of representativeness in environmental sampling, identifies sources that can affect representativeness (especially bias), and describes the attributes that a representative sample or a representative set of samples should possess. For convenience, the term "representative sample" is used in this guide to denote both a representative sample and a representative set of samples, unless otherwise qualified in the text. This guide outlines a process by which a representative sample may be obtained from a population, and it describes the attributes of a representative sample and presents a general methodology for obtaining representative samples. It does not, however, provide specific or comprehensive sampling procedures. It is the user's responsibility to ensure that proper and adequate procedures are used. D 6051 Standard Guide for Composite Sampling and Field Subsampling for Environmental Waste Management Activities This guide discusses the advantages and appropriate use of composite sampling, field procedures and techniques to mix the composite sample and procedures to collect an unbiased and precise subsample from a larger sample. Compositing and subsampling are key links in the chain of sampling and analytical events that must be performed in compliance with project objectives and instructions to ensure that the resulting data are representative. This guide discusses the advantages and limitations of using composite samples in designing sampling plans for characterization of wastes (mainly solid) and potentially contaminated media. This guide assumes that an appropriate sampling device is selected to collect an unbiased sample. It does not address where samples should be collected (depends on the objectives), selection of sampling equipment, bias introduced by selection of inappropriate sampling equipment, sample collection procedures or collection of a representative specimen from a sample, or statistical interpretation of resultant data and devices designed to dynamically sample process waste streams. It also does not provide sufficient information to statistically design an optimized sampling plan, or to determine the number of samples to collect or to calculate the optimum number of samples to composite to achieve specified data quality objectives. The mixing and subsampling described in this guide is expected to cause significant losses of volatile constituents. Specialized procedures should be used for compositing samples for determination of volatiles. D 6063 Standard Guide for Sampling of Drums and Similar Containers by Field Personnel This guide covers information, including flow charts, for field personnel to follow in order to collect samples from drums and similar containers. The purpose of this guide is to help field personnel in planning and obtaining samples from drums and similar containers, using equipment and techniques that will ensure that the objectives of the sampling activity will be met. It can also be used as a training tool. Appendix J 319 D 6169 Standard Guide for Selection of Soil and Rock Sampling Devices Used With Drill Rigs for Environmental Investigations This guide covers the selection of soil and rock sampling devices used with drill rigs for the purpose of characterizing in situ physical and hydraulic properties, chemical characteristics, subsurface lithology, stratigraphy, and structure, and hydrogeologic units in environmental investigations. D 6232 Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities This guide covers criteria that should be considered when selecting sampling equipment for collecting environmental and waste samples for waste management activities. This guide includes a list of equipment that is used and is readily available. Many specialized sampling devices are not specifically included in this guide, however, the factors that should be weighed when choosing any piece of equipment are covered and remain the same for the selection of any piece of equipment. Sampling equipment described in this guide include automatic samplers, pumps, bailers, tubes, scoops, spoons, shovels, dredges, and coring and augering devices. The selection of sampling locations is outside the scope of this guide. D 6233 Standard Guide for Data Assessment for Environmental Waste Management Activities This guide covers a practical strategy for examining an environmental project data collection effort and the resulting data to determine conformance with the project plan and impact on data usability. This guide also leads the user through a logical sequence to determine which statistical protocols should be applied to the data. D 6250 Standard Practice for Derivation of Decision Point and Confidence Limit for Statistical Testing of Mean Concentration in Waste Management Decisions This practice covers a logical basis for the derivation of a decision point and confidence limit when the mean concentration is used for making environmental waste management decisions. The determination of a decision point or confidence limit should be made in the context of the defined problem. The main focus of this practice is on the determination of a decision point. In environmental management decisions, the derivation of a decision point allows a direct comparison of a sample mean against this decision point. Similar decisions can be made by comparing a confidence limit against a concentration limit. This practice focuses on making environmental decisions using this kind of statistical comparison. Other factors, such as any qualitative information that also may be important to decision making, are not considered in the practice. This standard derives the decision point and confidence limit in the framework of a statistical test of hypothesis under three different presumptions. The relationship between decision point and confidence limit also is described. D 6282 Standard Guide for Direct Push Soil Sampling for Environmental Site Characterizations This guide addresses direct push soil samplers, which may be driven into the ground from the surface or through pre­ bored holes. The samplers can be continuous or discrete interval Appendix J 320 units. The samplers are advanced to the depth of interest by a combination of static push, or impacts from hammers, or vibratory methods, or a combination thereof. Field methods described in this guide include the use of discreet and continuous sampling tools, split and solid barrel samplers and thin walled tubes with or without fixed piston style apparatus. Insertion methods described include static push, impact, percussion, other vibratory/ sonic driving, and combinations of these methods using direct push equipment adapted to drilling rigs, cone penetrometer units, and specially designed percussion/ direct push combination machines. Hammers described by this guide for providing force for insertion include drop style, hydraulically activated, air activated and mechanical lift devices. The guide does not cover open chambered samplers operated by hand such as augers, agricultural samplers operated at shallow depths, or side wall samplers. D 6286 Standard Guide for Selection of Drilling Methods for Environmental Site Characterization This guide provides descriptions of various drilling methods for environmental site characterization, along with the advantages and disadvantages associated with each method. This guide is intended to aid in the selection of drilling method( s) for environmental soil and rock borings and the installation of monitoring wells and other water­ quality monitoring devices. This guide does not address methods of well construction, well development, or well completion. D 6311 Standard Guide for Generation of Environmental Data Related to Waste Management Activities: Selection and Optimization of Sampling Design This guide provides practical information on the selection and optimization of sample designs in waste management sampling activities, within the context of the requirements established by the data quality objectives or other planning process. Specifically, this document provides (1) guidance for the selection of sampling designs; (2) techniques to optimize candidate designs; and (3) descriptions of the variables that need to be balanced in choosing the final optimized design. D 6323 Standard Guide for Laboratory Subsampling of Media Related to Waste Management Activities This guide covers common techniques for obtaining representative subsamples from a sample received at a laboratory for analysis. These samples may include solids, sludges, liquids, or multilayered liquids (with or without solids). The procedures and techniques discussed in this guide depend upon the sample matrix, the type of sample preparation and analysis performed, the characteristic( s) of interest, and the project specific instructions or data quality objectives. This guide includes several sample homogenization techniques, including mixing and grinding, as well as information on how to obtain a specimen or split laboratory samples. This guide does not apply to air or gas sampling. D 6418 Standard Practice for Using the Disposable EnCore™ Sampler for Sampling and Storing Soil for Volatile Organic Analysis This practice provides a procedure for using the disposable EnCore™ sampler to collect and store a soil sample of approximately 5 grams or 25 grams for volatile organic analysis. The EnCore™ sampler is designed to collect and hold a soil sample during shipment to the Appendix J 321 laboratory. It consists of a coring body/ storage chamber, O­ ring sealed plunger, and O­ ring sealed cap. In performing the practice, the integrity of the soil sample structure is maintained and there is very limited exposure of the sample to the atmosphere. Laboratory subsampling is not required; the sample is expelled directly from the sampler body into the appropriate container for analysis. D 6538 Standard Guide for Sampling Wastewater With Automatic Samplers This guide covers the selection and use of automatic wastewater samplers including procedures for their use in obtaining representative samples. Automatic wastewater samplers are intended for the unattended collection of samples that are representative of the parameters of interest in the wastewater body. While this guide primarily addresses the sampling of wastewater, the same automatic samplers may be used to sample process streams and natural water bodies. D 6582 Standard Guide for Ranked Set Sampling: Efficient Estimation of a Mean Concentration in Environmental Sampling This guide describes ranked set sampling, discusses its relative advantages over simple random sampling, and provides examples of potential applications in environmental sampling. Ranked set sampling is useful and cost­ effective when there is an auxiliary variable, which can be inexpensively measured relative to the primary variable, and when the auxiliary variable has correlation with the primary variable. The resultant estimation of the mean concentration is unbiased, more precise than simple random sampling, and more representative of the population under a wide variety of conditions. D 6771 Standard Practice for Low­ Flow Purging and Sampling for Wells and Devices Used for Ground­ Water Quality Investigations This practice covers the method for purging and sampling wells and devices used for ground­ water quality investigations and monitoring programs known as low­ flow purging and sampling. The method is also known by the terms minimal drawdown purging or low­ stress purging. The method could be used for other types of ground­ water sampling programs but these uses are not specifically addressed in this practice. This practice applies only to wells sampled at the wellhead. This practice does not address sampling of wells containing either light or dense non­ aqueous­ phase liquids (LNAPLs or DNAPLs). E 122 Standard Practice for Choice of Sample Size to Estimate the Average for a Characteristic of a Lot or Process This practice covers methods for calculating the sample size (the number of units to include in a random sample from a lot of material) in order to estimate, with a prescribed precision, an average of some characteristic for that lot or process. The characteristic may be either a numerical value of some property or the fraction of nonconforming units with respect to an attribute. If sampling from a process, the process must be in a state of statistical control for the results to have predictive value. E 178 Standard Practice for Dealing with Outlying Observations This practice covers outlying observations in samples and how to test the statistical significance Appendix J 322 of them. An outlying observation, or "outlier," is an observation that appears to deviate markedly from other members of the sample in which it occurs. An outlying observation may be merely an extreme manifestation of the random variability inherent in the data. If this is true, the value should be retained and processed in the same manner as the other observations in the sample. On the other hand, an outlying observation may be the result of gross deviation from prescribed experimental procedure or an error in calculating or recording the numerical value. In such cases, it may be desirable to institute an investigation to ascertain the reason for the aberrant value. The observation may even actually be rejected as a result of the investigation, though not necessarily so. At any rate, in subsequent data analysis the outlier or outliers probably will be recognized as being from a different population than that of the other sample values. The procedures covered herein apply primarily to the simplest kind of experimental data; that is, replicate measurements of some property of a given material, or observations in a supposedly single random sample. Nevertheless, the tests suggested do cover a wide enough range of cases in practice to have broad utility. E 300 Standard Practice for Sampling Industrial Chemicals This practice covers procedures for sampling several classes of industrial chemicals, as well as recommendations for determining the number and location of such samples to ensure representativeness in accordance with accepted probability sampling principles. Although this practice describes specific procedures for sampling various liquids, solids, and slurries, in bulk or in packages, these recommendations only outline the principles to be observed. They should not take precedence over specific sampling instructions contained in other ASTM product or method standards. E 1402 Standard Terminology Relating to Sampling This standard includes those items related to statistical aspects of sampling. It is applicable to sampling in any matrix and provides definitions, descriptions, discussions, and comparisons of trends. E 1727 Standard Practice for Field Collection of Soil Samples for Lead Determination by Atomic Spectrometry Techniques This practice covers the collection of soil samples using coring and scooping methods. Soil samples are collected in a manner that will permit subsequent digestion and determination of lead using laboratory analysis techniques such as Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP­ AES), Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (FAAS), and Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (GFAAS). F 301 Standard Practice for Open Bottle Tap Sampling of Liquid Streams This practice covers a general method to take samples of liquid streams in such a way so that the samples are representative of the liquid in the sampled stream and that the sample acquisition process does not interfere with any operations taking place in the stream. The practice is particularly applicable for sampling the feed and filtrate streams around a filter medium. The practice includes consideration of potential limits in the sample size or sample flow rate observation capability of the device used to measure particle content in the sample. 323 REFERENCES Note: Due to the dynamic nature of the Internet, the location and content of World Wide Web sites given in this document may change over time. If you find a broken link to an EPA document, use the search engine at http:// www. epa. gov/ to find the document. Links to web sites outside the U. S. EPA web site are provided for the convenience of the user, and the U. S. EPA does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these external web sites. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE). 1995. "Disposal of Construction and Demolition Debris." Pro­ Act Fact Sheet TI5040. Brooks Air Force Base, TX. American Society for Quality (ASQ). 1988. Sampling Procedures and Tables for Inspection of Isolated Lots by Attributes. American National Standard ANSI/ ASQC Standard Q3­ 1988. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. ASQ. 1993. Sampling Procedures and Tables for Inspection By Attributes. American National Standard ANSI/ ASQC Z1.4­ 1993. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 1452­ 80. 1980. Standard Practice for Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings. West Conshohocken, PA. http:// www. astm. org/ ASTM D 1586­ 84. 1984. Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split­ Barrel Sampling of Soils. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 1587­ 94. 1994. Standard Practice for Thin­ Walled Tube Geotechnical Sampling of Soils. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 3665­ 95. 1995. Standard Practice for Random Sampling of Construction Materials. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 4220­ 95. 1995. Standard Practices for Preserving and Transporting Soil Samples. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 4342­ 84. 1984. Standard Practice for Collecting of Benthic Macroinvertebrates with Ponar Grab Sampler. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 4387­ 97. Standard Guide for Selecting Grab Sampling Devices for Collecting Benthic Macroinvertebrates. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 4448­ 85a. 1985. Standard Guide for Sampling Groundwater Monitoring Wells. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 4489­ 95. 1995. Standard Practices for Sampling of Waterborne Oils. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 4547­ 98. 1998. Standard Guide for Sampling Waste and Soils for Volatile Organics. West Conshohocken, PA. References 324 ASTM D 4700­ 91. 1991. Standard Guide for Soil Sampling from the Vadose Zone. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 4823­ 95. 1995. Standard Guide for Core Sampling Submerged, Unconsolidated Sediments. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 4840­ 95. 1995. Standard Guide for Sampling Chain­ of­ Custody Procedures. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 5013­ 89. 1989. Standard Practices for Sampling Wastes from Pipes and Other Point Discharges. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 5088­ 90. 1990. Standard Practice for Decontamination of Field Equipment Used at Nonradioactive Waste Sites. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 5092­ 90. 1990. Standard Practice for Design and Installation of Ground Water Monitoring Wells in Aquifers. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 5283­ 92. 1992. Standard Practice for Generation of Environmental Data Related to Waste Management Activities Quality Assurance and Quality Control Planning and Implementation. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 5314­ 92. 1992. Standard Guide for Soil Gas Monitoring in the Vadose Zone. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 5358­ 93. 1993. Standard Practice for Sampling with a Dipper or Pond Sampler. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 5387­ 93. 1993. Standard Guide for Elements of a Complete Data Set for NonCohesive Sediments. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 5451­ 93. 1993. Standard Practice for Sampling Using a Trier Sampler. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 5495­ 94. 1994. Standard Practice for Sampling with a Composite Liquid Waste Sampler (COLIWASA). West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 5633­ 94. 1994. Standard Practice for Sampling with a Scoop. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 5658­ 95. 1995. Standard Practice for Sampling Unconsolidated Waste from Trucks. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 5679­ 95a. 1995. Standard Practice for Sampling Consolidated Solids in Drums or Similar Containers. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 5680­ 95a. 1995. Standard Practice for Sampling Unconsolidated Solids in Drums or Similar Containers. West Conshohocken, PA. References 325 ASTM D 5730­ 96. 1996. Standard Guide for Site Characterization for Environmental Purposes with Emphasis on Soil, Rock, the Vadose Zone and Ground Water. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 5743­ 97. 1997. Standard Practice for Sampling Single or Multilayered Liquids, With or Without Solids, in Drums or Similar Containers. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 5792­ 95. 1995. Standard Practice for Generation of Environmental Data Related to Waste Management Activities: Development of Data Quality Objectives. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 5956­ 96. 1996. Standard Guide for Sampling Strategies for Heterogeneous Waste. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 6009­ 96. 1996. Standard Guide for Sampling Waste Piles. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 6044­ 96. 1996. Standard Guide for Representative Sampling for Management of Waste and Contaminated Media. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 6051­ 96. 1996. Standard Guide for Composite Sampling and Field Subsampling for Environmental Waste Management Activities. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 6063­ 96. 1996. Standard Guide for Sampling of Drums and Similar Containers by Field Personnel. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 6169­ 98. 1998. Standard Guide for Selection of Soil and Rock Sampling Devices Used With Drill Rigs for Environmental Investigations. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 6232­ 98. 1998. Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection Activities. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 6233­ 98. 1998. Standard Guide for Data Assessment for Environmental Waste Management Activities. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 6250­ 98. 1998. Standard Practice for Derivation of Decision Point and Confidence Limit for Statistical Testing of Mean Concentration in Waste Management Decisions. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 6282­ 98. 1998. Standard Guide for Direct Push Soil Sampling for Environmental Site Characterizations. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 6286­ 98. 1998. Standard Guide for Selection of Drilling Methods for Environmental Site Characterization. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 6311­ 98. 1998. Standard Guide for Generation of Environmental Data Related to Waste Management Activities: Selection and Optimization of Sampling Design. West Conshohocken, PA. References 326 ASTM D 6323­ 98. 1998. Standard Guide for Laboratory Subsampling of Media Related to Waste Management Activities. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM D 6418­ 99. 1999. Standard Practice for Using the Disposable EnCore™ Sampler for Sampling and Storing Soil for Volatile Organic Analysis. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM E 1727­ 95. 1995. Standard Practice for Field Collection of Soil Samples for Lead Determination by Atomic Spectrometry Techniques. West Conshohocken, PA. Barth, D. S., B. J. Mason, T. H. Starks, and K. W. Brown. 1989. Soil Sampling Quality Assurance User's Guide. 2 nd ed. EPA 600/ 8­ 89/ 046. NTIS PB89­ 189864. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory. Las Vegas, NV. Blacker, S. and D. Goodman. 1994a. "An Integrated Approach for Efficient Site Cleanup." Environmental Science & Technology 28( 11). Blacker, S. and D. Goodman. 1994b. "Case Study: Application at a Superfund Site." Environmental Science & Technology 28( 11). Cameron, K. 1999. Personal communication between Dr. Kirk Cameron (Statistical Scientist, MacStat Consulting, Ltd.) and Bob Stewart (Science Applications International Corporation), March 9. Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. 3 rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Cohen, A. C., Jr. 1959. "Simplified Estimator for the Normal Distribution When Samples Are Single Censored or Truncated." Technometrics 1: 217­ 37. Conover, W. J. 1999. Practical Nonparametric Statistics, Third Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Crockett, A. B., H. D. Craig, T. F. Jenkins, and W. E. Sisk. 1996. Field Sampling and Selecting OnSite Analytical Methods For Explosives in Soil. EPA/ 540/ R­ 97/ 501. Office of Research and Development and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. Crumbling, D. M. Current Perspectives in Site Remediation and Monitoring: Clarifying DQO Terminology Usage to Support Modernization of Site Cleanup Practice. EPA542­ R­ 01­ 014. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. October. Department of Defense (DoD). 1996. DOD Preferred Methods for Acceptance of Product. Department of Defense Test Method Standard MIL­ STD­ 1916 (April). Edland, S. D. and G. van Belle. 1994. Decreased Sampling Costs and Improved Accuracy with Composite Sampling in Environmental Statistics, Assessment and Forecasting. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. Edmondson, B. 1996. "How to Spot a Bogus Poll." American Demographics. October. References 327 Efron, B. 1981. "Nonparametric Estimates of Standard Error: The Jackknife, the Bootstrap, and Other Resampling Plans," Biometrika. Transactions on Reliability, 40, 547­ 552. Exner, J. H., W. D. Keffer, R. O. Gilbert, and R. R. Kinnison. 1985. "A Sampling Strategy for Remedial Action at Hazardous Waste Sites: Clean­ up Soil Contaminated by Tetrachlorodibenzo­ p­ Dioxin." Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Materials 2( 2): 503­ 21. Fabrizio, M. C., A. M. Frank, and J. F. Savino. 1995. "Procedures for Formation of Composite Samples from Segmented Populations." Environmental Science & Technology 29( 5): 1137­ 44. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR). 1999. http:// www. frtr. gov/ Filliben, J. J. 1975. "The Probability Plot Correlation Coefficient Test for Normality." Technometrics 17: 111­ 17. Flatman, G. T. and A. A. Yfantis. 1996. "Geostatistical Sampling Designs for Hazardous Waste Sites." Principles of Environmental Sampling. 2 nd ed. L. H. Keith, ed. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Garner, F. C., M. A. Stapanian, and L. R. Williams. 1988. "Composite Sampling for Environmental Monitoring." Principles of Environmental Sampling, L. H. Kieth, ed. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Garner, F. C., M. A. Stapanian, E. A. Yfantis, and L. R. Williams. 1989. "Probability Estimation with Sample Compositing Techniques." Journal of Official Statistics 5( 4): 365­ 74. Gerlach, R. W., D. E. Dobb, G. A. Raab, and J. M. Nocerino. 2002. Gy Sampling Theory in Environmental Studies. 1. Assessing Soil Splitting Protocols. Journal of Chemometrics. 16: 321­ 328. Jon Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Gilbert, R. O. 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Gilliom, R. J. and D. R. Helsel. 1986. "Estimation of Distributional Parameters for Censored Trace Level Water Quality Data: Part I Estimation Techniques." Water Resources Research 22( 2): 135­ 46. Guttman, I. 1970. Statistical Tolerance Regions: Classical and Bayesian. London: Charles Griffin & Co. Gy, P. 1982. Sampling of Particulate Materials: Theory and Practice. 2 nd ed. New York: Elsevier. Gy, P. 1998. Sampling for Analytical Purposes. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hahn, G. J. and W. Q. Meeker. 1991. Statistical Intervals: A Guide for Practitioners. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. References 328 Helsel, D. R. 1990. "Less than Obvious: Statistical Treatment of Data Below the Detection Limit." Environmental Science & Technology 24( 12): 1766­ 74. Ingamells, C. O. and F. F. Pitard. 1986. Applied Geochemical Analysis. Vol. 88. New York: John Wiley. Ingamells, C. O. 1974. "New Approaches to Geochemical Analysis and Sampling." Talanta 21: 141­ 55. Ingamells, C. O. and P. Switzer. 1973. "A Proposed Sampling Constant for Use in Geochemical Analysis." Talanta 20: 547­ 68. Isaaks, E. H. and R. M. Srivastava. 1989. An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics. New York: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, T. F, C. L. Grant, G. S. Brar, P. G. Thorne, T. A. Ranney, and P. W. Schumacher. 1996. Assessment of Sampling Error Associated with Collection and Analysis of Soil Samples at Explosives­ Contaminated Sites. Special Report 96­ 15. September. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (USACE CRREL). Hanover, NH. http:// www. crrel. usace. army. mil/ techpub/ CRREL_ Reports/ reports/ SR96_ 15. pdf Jenkins, T. F., M. E. Walsh, P. G. Thorne, S. Thiboutot, G. Ampleman, T. A. Ranney, and C. L. Grant. 1997. Assessment of Sampling Error Associated with Collection and Analysis of Soil Samples at a Firing Range Contaminated with HMX. Special Report 97­ 22. September. USACE CRREL. Hanover, NH. http:// www. crrel. usace. army. mil/ techpub/ CRREL_ Reports/ reports/ SR97_ 22. pdf Jessen, R. J. 1978. Statistical Survey Techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Journel, A. G. 1988. "Non­ parametric Geostatistics for Risk and Additional Sampling Assessment." Principles of Environmental Sampling. L. H. Keith, ed. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Keith, L. H., ed. 1996. Principles of Environmental Sampling. 2 nd ed. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. King, J. A. 1993. "Wastewater Sampling." The National Environmental Journal 3( 1). Koski, W. M., R. Troast, and W. Keffer. 1991. "Contaminated Structures and Debris– Site Remediation." In: Hazardous Materials Control/ Superfund '91 ­ Proceedings of the 12th National Conference. Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute. Greenbelt, MD. Land, C. E. 1971. "Confidence Intervals for Linear Functions of the Normal Mean and Variance." The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 42: 1187­ 1205. Land, C. E. 1975. "Tables of Confidence Limits for Linear Functions of the Normal Mean and Variance." In: Selected Tables in Mathematical Statistics. Vol III. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. References 329 Madansky, A. 1988. Prescription for Working Statisticians. New York: Springer­ Verlag. Mason, B. J. 1992. Preparation of Soil Sampling Protocols: Sampling Techniques and Strategies. EPA/ 600/ R­ 92/ 128. NTIS PB 92­ 220532. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Las Vegas, NV. http:// www. epa. gov/ swerust1/ cat/ mason. pdf McIntyre, G. A. 1952. "A Method for Unbiased Selective Sampling Using Ranked Sets." Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 3: 385­ 390. Miller, R. 1974. "The Jackknife ­ A Review," Biometrika, 61, 1­ 15. Miller, R. G., Jr. 1986. Beyond ANOVA, Basics of Applied Statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Myers, J. C. 1997. Geostatistical Error Management: Quantifying Uncertainty for Environmental Sampling and Mapping. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Natrella, M. G. 1966. Experimental Statistics. National Bureau of Standards Handbook 91. United States Department of Commerce. Washington, DC. Neptune, D., E. P. Brantly, M. J. Messner, and D. I. Michael. 1990. "Quantitative Decision Making in Superfund: A Data Quality Objectives Case Study." Hazardous Materials Control 44( 2): 358­ 63. Newman, M. C., K. D. Greene, and P. M. Dixon. 1995. UnCensor Version 4.0. University of Georgia, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Aiken, SC. UnCensor is public domain software. http:// www. vims. edu/ env/ research/ risk/ software/ vims_ software. htm Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 1985. Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities. Revised 1998. Prepared by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the U. S. Coast Guard, and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. Ott, L. 1988. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. 3 rd ed. Boston: PWSKent Publishing Co. Perez, A. and J. Lefante. 1996. "How Much Sample Size Is Required To Estimate the True Arithmetic Mean of a Lognormal Distribution?" In: Proceedings from the 1996 Joint Statistical Meetings in Chicago. American Statistical Association. Alexandria, VA. Perez, A. and J. Lefante. 1997. "Sample Size Determination and the Effect of Censoring When Estimating the Arithmetic Mean of a Lognormal Distribution." Communications in Statistics– Theory and Methods 26( 11): 2779­ 2801. Pitard, F. F. 1989. Pierre Gy's Sampling Theory and Sampling Practice. Vols. 1 and 2. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC. References 330 Pitard, F. F. 1993. Pierre Gy's Sampling Theory and Sampling Practice: Heterogeneity, Sampling Correctness, and Statistical Process Control. 2 nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC. Porter, P. S, S. T. Rao, J. Y. Ku, R. L. Poirot, and M. Dakins. 1997. "Small Sample Properties of Nonparametric Bootstrap t Confidence Intervals– Technical Paper." Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 47: 1197­ 1203. Puls, R. W. and M. J. Barcelona. 1996. Low­ Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground­ Water Sampling Procedures. EPA/ 540/ S­ 95/ 504. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ r10earth/ offices/ oea/ gwf/ lwflw2a. pdf Ramsey, C. A., M. E. Ketterer, and J. H. Lowry. 1989. "Application of Gy's Sampling Theory to the Sampling of Solid Waste Materials." In: Proceedings of the EPA Fifth Annual Waste Testing and Quality Assurance Symposium, Vol. II. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. Rendu, J­ M. 1980. Optimization of Sampling Policies: A Geostatistical Approach. Tokyo: MMIJAIME Rupp, G. 1990. Debris Sampling at NPL Sites– Draft Interim Report. Prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Exposure Assessment Division, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, by the Environmental Research Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, under Cooperative Agreement Number 814701. Ryan, T. A. and B. L. Joiner. 1990. "Normal Probability Plots and Tests for Normality." Minitab Statistical Software: Technical Reports November 1­ 1 to 1­ 14. Schilling, E. G. 1982. Acceptance Sampling in Quality Control . Marcel Dekker. NY. Schulman, R. S. 1992. Statistics in Plain English with Computer Applications. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Schumacher, B. A., Shines, K. C., Burton, J. V. and Papp, M. L. 1991. "A Comparison of Soil Sample Homogenization Techniques." In: Hazardous Waste Measurements. M. S. Simmons, ed. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. Shapiro, S. S. and R. S. Francia. 1972. "An Approximate Analysis of Variance Test for Normality." Journal of American Statistical Association 67( 337): 215­ 16. Shapiro, S. S. and M. B. Wilk. 1965. "An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples)." Biometrika 52: 591­ 611. Shefsky, S. 1997. "Sample Handling Strategies for Accurate Lead­ In­ Soil Measurements in the Field and Laboratory." Presented at the International Symposium of Field Screening Methods Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals, Las Vegas, NV. References 331 Singh, A. K., A. Singh, and M. Engelhardt. 1997. The Lognormal Distribution in Environmental Applications. EPA/ 600/ R­ 97/ 006. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ nerlesd1/ pdf/ lognor. pdf Skalski, J. R. and J. M. Thomas. 1984. Improved Field Sampling Designs and Compositing Schemes for Cost Effective Detection of Migration and Spills at Commercial Low­ level Radioactive or Chemical Wastes Sites. PNL­ 4935. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Richland, WA. United States Department of Energy (USDOE). 1996. "Statistical Methods for the Data Quality Objective Process." In: DQO Statistics Bulletin vol. 1. PNL­ SA­ 26377­ 2. Prepared by Joanne Wendelberger, Los Alamos National Laboratory, for the U. S. Department of Energy. Washington, DC. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980. Samplers and Sampling Procedures for Hazardous Waste Streams. EPA­ 600/ 2­ 80­ 018. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH. USEPA. 1984. Characterization of Hazardous Waste Sites– A Methods Manual. Volume I Site Investigations. EPA/ 600/ 4­ 84­ 075. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Las Vegas, NV. (Available on CD­ ROM. See USEPA 1998c) USEPA. 1985. Characterization of Hazardous Waste Sites– A Methods Manual. Volume II: Available Sampling Methods. EPA/ 600/ 4­ 84­ 076. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Las Vegas, NV. (Available on CDROM See USEPA 1998c) USEPA. 1986a. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIA. SW­ 846. NTIS publication no. PB97­ 156111 or GPO publication no. 955­ 001­ 00000­ 1. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ test/ sw846. htm USEPA. 1986b. Permit Guidance Manual on Unsaturated Zone Monitoring for Hazardous Waste Land Treatment Units. EPA/ 530­ SW­ 86­ 040. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1987. RCRA Guidance Manual for Subpart G Closure and Post­ Closure Care Standards and Subpart H Cost Estimating Requirements. 530­ SW­ 87­ 010 (NTIS: PB87­ 158 978). USEPA. 1988. Methodology for Developing Best Demonstrated Available (BDAT) Treatment Standards. EPA/ 530­ SW­ 89­ 017L. Treatment Technology Section, Office of Solid Waste. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1989a. Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of Cleanup Standards. Volume 1: Soils and Solid Media. EPA 230/ 02­ 89­ 042. NTIS PB89­ 234959. Statistical Policy Branch, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ tio/ stats/ vol1soils. pdf References 332 USEPA, 1989b, Statistical Analysis of Ground­ Water Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities (Interim Final Guidance). Office of Solid Waste (NTIS, PB89­ 151047). USEPA. 1989c. RCRA Facility Investigation Guidance. Vols. 1 ­ 4. EPA 530/ SW­ 89­ 031. OSWER Directive 9502.00­ 6D. NTIS PB89­ 200299. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, DC. (Available on CD­ ROM. See USEPA 1998g.) USEPA. 1990. "Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities: Proposed Rule." Federal Register (55 FR 30798, July 27, 1990). USEPA. 1991a. GEO­ EAS 1.2.1 User's Guide. EPA/ 600/ 8­ 91/ 008. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. USEPA. 1991b. Description and Sampling of Contaminated Soils– A Field Pocket Guide. EPA/ 625/ 12­ 91/ 002. Center for Environmental Research Information. Cincinnati, OH. USEPA. 1991c. Final Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background Document for Quality Assurance/ Quality Control Procedures and Methodology. NTIS PB95­ 230926. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1991d. Site Characterization for Subsurface Remediation. EPA/ 625/ 4­ 91/ 026. Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1992a. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term 1( 1). OERR Publication 9285.7­ 08I. NTIS PB92­ 963373. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Cincinnati, OH. USEPA. 1992b. Statistical Analysis of Ground­ Water Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities Addendum to Interim Final Guidance (July 1992). Office of Solid Waste. http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ ca/ resource/ guidance/ sitechar/ gwstats/ gwstats. htm USEPA. 1992c. RCRA Ground­ Water Monitoring: Draft Technical Guidance. EPA/ 530/ R93 001. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1992d. Specifications and Guidance for Contaminant­ Free Sample Containers. Publication 9240.05A. EPA/ 540/ R­ 93/ 051. USEPA. 1992e. Multi­ Media Investigation Manual. EPA/ 330/ 9­ 89/ 003­ R. National Enforcement Investigation Center. Denver, CO. USEPA. 1992f. Management of Investigation­ Derived Wastes. Directive 9345.3­ 03FS. NTIS PB92­ 963353. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1992g. Guidance for Data Usability in Risk Assessment. Final. 9285.7­ 09A and B. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1992h. 40 CFR Parts 268 and 271 Land Disposal Restrictions No Migration Variances; Proposed Rule. Federal Register: August 11, 1992. References 333 USEPA. 1992i. Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of Cleanup Standards. Volume 2: Ground Water. EPA 230­ R­ 92­ 14. Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1993a. Data Quality Objectives Process for Superfund. Interim Final Guidance. EPA/ 540. G­ 93/ 071. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1993b. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA­ 840­ B­ 93­ 001c. Office of Water. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1993c. Subsurface Characterization and Monitoring Techniques– A Desk Reference Guide. Vols. 1 and 2. EPA/ 625/ R­ 93/ 003a and EPA/ 625/ R­ 93/ 003b. Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1993d. Petitions to Delist Hazardous Waste– A Guidance Manual. 2 nd ed. EPA 530­ R93 007. NTIS PB 93­ 169365. Office Of Solid Waste. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1994a. Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Wastes, a Guidance Manual. OSWER 9938.4­ 03. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ ldr/ wap330. pdf USEPA. 1994b. "Drum Sampling." Environmental Response Team SOP #2009, Revision #0.0. Edison, NJ. http:// www. ert. org/ USEPA. 1994c. "Tank Sampling." Environmental Response Team SOP #2010, Revision #0.0. Edison, NJ. http:// www. ert. org/ USEPA. 1994d. "Waste Pile Sampling." Environmental Response Team SOP #2017, Revision #0.0. Edison, NJ. http:// www. ert. org/ USEPA. 1994e. "Sediment Sampling." Environmental Response Team SOP #2016, Revision #0.0. Edison, NJ. http:// www. ert. org/ USEPA. 1994f. "Sampling Equipment Decontamination." Environmental Response Team SOP #2006, Revision #0.0. Edison, NJ. http:// www. ert. org/ USEPA. 1995a. Determination of Background Concentrations of Inorganics in Soils and Sediment at Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA/ 540/ S­ 96/ 500. Office of Research and Development and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ nerlesd1/ pdf/ engin. pdf USEPA. 1995b. EPA Observational Economy Series, Volume 2: Ranked Set Sampling. EPA/ 230­ R­ 95­ 006. Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1995c. EPA Observational Economy Series, Volume 1: Composite Sampling. EPA230 R­ 95­ 005. Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1995d. QA/ QC Guidance for Sampling and Analysis of Sediments, Water, and Tissues for Dredged Material Evaluations. EPA/ 823­ B­ 95­ 001. References 334 USEPA. 1995e. Superfund Program Representative Sampling Guidance Volume 5: Water and Sediment, Part I– Surface Water and Sediment. Interim Final Guidance. Environmental Response Team. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1995f. Guidance for the Sampling and Analysis of Municipal Waste Combustion Ash for the Toxicity Characteristic. Office of Solid Waste. EPA 530­ R­ 95­ 036. USEPA. 1996a. Soil Screening Guidance User's Guide (9355.4­ 23). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund/ resources/ soil/ index. htm USEPA. 1996b. Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual. Region 4, Science and Ecosystem Support Division. Athens, GA. http:// www. epa. gov/ region04/ sesd/ eisopqam/ eisopqam. html USEPA. 1996c. "Soil Gas Sampling." Environmental Response Team SOP #2042, Revision #0.0. Edison, NJ. USEPA. 1996d. Region 6 RCRA Delisting Program Guidance Manual for the Petitioner. Region 6, RCRA Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Dallas, TX. (Updated March 23, 2000). USEPA. 1997a. "Geostatistical Sampling and Evaluation Guidance for Soils and Solid Media." Draft. Prepared by Dr. Kirk Cameron, MacStat Consulting, Ltd. and SAIC for the Office of Solid Waste under EPA contract 68­ W4­ 0030. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1997b. Data Quality Assessment Statistical Toolbox (DataQUEST), EPA QA/ G­ 9D. User's Guide and Software. EPA/ 600/ R­ 96/ 085. Office of Research and Development. Las Vegas. http:// www. epa. gov/ quality/ dqa. html USEPA. 1998a. EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/ G­ 5. EPA/ 600/ R98 018. Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ quality/ qs­ docs/ g5­ final. pdf USEPA. 1998b. Final Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume VI Development of Comparable Fuels Standards. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D. C. (May 1998). USEPA. 1998c. Site Characterization Library, Volume 1. Release 2. EPA/ 600/ C­ 98/ 001. Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL). Las Vegas, NV. USEPA. 2000a. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process for Hazardous Waste Site Operations EPA QA/ G­ 4HW, EPA/ 600/ R­ 00/ 007. Quality Staff, Office of Environmental Information, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. January 2000. http:// www. epa. gov/ quality/ qs­ docs/ g4hw­ final. pdf References 335 USEPA. 2000b. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process EPA QA/ G­ 4, EPA/ 600/ R­ 96/ 055. Quality Staff, Office of Environmental Information, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. August 2000. http:// www. epa. gov/ quality/ qs­ docs/ g4­ final. pdf USEPA. 2000c. Guidance for Choosing a Sampling Design for Environmental Data Collection, EPA QA/ G­ 5S. PEER REVIEW DRAFT. Quality Staff, Office of Environmental Information, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. August 2000. USEPA. 2000d. Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, EPA QA/ G­ 9 (QA00 Update). Quality Staff, Office of Environmental Information, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. July 2000. http:// www. epa. gov/ quality1/ qs­ docs/ g9­ final. pdf USEPA. 2001a. Data Quality Objectives Decision Error Feasibility Trials Software (DEFT) User's Guide. EPA/ 240/ B­ 01/ 007. (User's guide and software) Office of Environmental Information. Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ quality/ qa_ docs. html USEPA. 2001b. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/ R­ 5. EPA/ 240/ B­ 01/ 003. Office of Environmental Information. Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ quality/ qa_ docs. html USEPA. 2001c. Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation EPA QA/ G­ 8. Quality Staff, Office of Environmental Information, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. PEER REVIEW DRAFT. June 2001. USEPA. 2001d. Land Disposal Restrictions: Summary of Requirements. EPA530­ R­ 01­ 007. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Revised August 2001. USEPA. 2001e. Guidance on Data Quality Indicators EPA QA/ G­ 5i. PEER REVIEW DRAFT. Office of Environmental Information, Washington, D. C. September 2001. USEPA. 2001f. EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans, EPA QA/ R­ 2. EPA/ 240/ B01 002. Office of Environmental Information. Washington, DC. March. http:// www. epa. gov/ quality/ qa_ docs. html USEPA. 2001g. Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Guidance for Field Samplers ­ Draft Final. OSWER 9240.0­ 35. EPA540­ R­ 00­ 003. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. June. http:// www. epa. gov/ oerrpage/ superfund/ programs/ clp/ guidance. htm USEPA. 2002a. Guidance on Demonstrating Compliance With the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Alternative Soil Treatment Standards, Final Guidance. EPA530­ R­ 02­ 003. Office of Solid Waste. July. http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ ldr/ soil_ f4. pdf USEPA and USDOE. 1992. Characterizing Heterogeneous Wastes: Methods and Recommendations. EPA/ 600/ R­ 92/ 033. NTIS PB 92­ 216894. EPA Office of Research and Development, Las Vegas, NV and USDOE Office of Technology Development, Washington, DC. References 336 van Ee, J. J., L. J. Blume, and T. H. Starks. 1990. A Rationale for the Assessment of Errors in the Sampling of Soils. EPA 600/ 4­ 90/ 013. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory. Las Vegas, NV. Visman, J. 1969. "A General Sampling Theory. Materials Research and Standards." MTRSA 9( 11): 8­ 13. Wald, A. 1973. Sequential Analysis. New York: Dover Publications. Williams, L. R., R. W. Leggett, M. L. Espegren, and C. A. Little. 1989. "Optimization of Sampling for the Determination of Mean Radium 226 Concentration in Surface Soil." Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 12: 83­ 96. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 337 INDEX Note: Bold page numbers indicate where the primary discussion of the subject is given. Acceptance sampling, 27 Accuracy, 22, 57, 134, 157­ 158, 160 Action level, 22, 31, 35, 39­ 41, 45­ 47, 49, 51, 54, 61­ 63, 72, 78­ 79, 81­ 82, 84, 157, 163, 253, 278­ 282, 284, 296­ 297, 302 Additivity of errors in sampling and analysis of biases, 89 of variances, 89 Alpha ( ), 42, 83 Alternative hypothesis, 43, 157 Analytical methods, 1, 12, 36, 40, 51, 70, 86­ 87, 108, 122, 131, 139, 144, 161, 164, 169 Analytical design, 50, 51, 183, 298 Arithmetic mean, 77, 165, 170, 187, 243 ASTM, 2, 16, 17, 35, 60, 63­ 65, 69, 74, 84, 101, 103, 106, 107, 122, 124­ 126, 130, 134­ 137, 157­ 159, 163­ 164, 166, 168­ 169, 175, 191­ 192, 195­ 196, 201­ 240 how to contact and obtain standards, 103 summaries of standards, 305­ 322 Attribute, 27, 39, 311, 321 Auger, bucket, 100, 111­ 113, 115, 225­ 226, 287­ 288 Automatic sampler, 109­ 110, 159, 202, 319, 321 Auxiliary variable, 54, 60, 321 Background, 15, 24, 28, 33, 37, 41, 42, 44, 181, 183 Bacon bomb sampler, 109, 110, 115, 209 Bailer, 109, 110, 115, 230, 234­ 235, 319 Beta ( ), 42, 162 Bias, 22­ 24, 41, 49­ 50, 88­ 89, 95, 108, 118, 119, 123, 128, 141, 142, 144, 150, 157, 160, 164­ 165, 167­ 168, 200, 240, 249, 252, 274, 318 analytical, 23, 89, 163 sampling, 23, 89, 93­ 94, 104, 119, 124, 128, 244, 300 statistical, 23, 89 Binomial distribution, 18 Bladder pump, 109, 110, 115, 202­ 203 Bootstrap, 152, 250, 252 Bottles, see containers Boundaries defining, 15, 26, 30, 36­ 37, 45, 49, 52, 59, 63, 66, 76, 79, 82, 158, 160, 279, 295 spatial, 14, 23, 32, 36­ 37, 39, 49 ,158 temporal, 14, 23, 32, 36­ 38, 49, 158 Box and whisker plot, 147, 148 Bucket, 110­ 112, 301 Calibration, 23, 86, 124, 140­ 143, 158 Central limit theorem (CLT), 67, 244 Centrifugal pump, 109, 110, 116, 205 CERCLA, 2 , 317 Chain­ of­ custody, 4, 86, 122, 124, 125­ 127, 132, 139­ 141, 143, 146, 158, 180, 310, 311 Cleanup (of a waste site), 8, 13, 28, 32, 33, 37­ 40, 43­ 44, 51, 57, 62, 64, 68, 79, 82, 196, 261, 277 Closure, 7, 8, 10, 61, 181, 185 Coefficient of variation (CV), 147, 158, 250, 284 Cohen's Adjustment, 152­ 153, 241, 257­ 261 COLIWASA, 100, 108­ 111, 116, 228­ 229, 314 Component stratification, 58, 194– 196 Comparing, populations, 24, 28, 150 to a fixed standard, 24, 25, 27, 65, 71, 150, 152, 153, 155, 241, 242, 247­ 249, 251, 253­ 255, 258 Composite sample, 64­ 73, 80, 108, 115, 140, 158­ 9, 172, 187, 249, 284, 288­ 289, 318 Composite sampling, 52, 64­ 73 advantages, 65 approach, 66­ 67 limitations, 65­ 66 number of samples, 73 simple random, 67 systematic, 68– 69 Computer codes, see software Conceptual site model (CSM), 32 Cone and quartering, 134 Confidence interval, 25­ 27, 61­ 62, 70, 150, 155, 247­ 250, 252­ 254, 259 Confidence level, 47­ 48, 61, 74, 84, 159 Confidence limits, 25, 69, 155, 159 for a lognormal mean, 75, 249 for a normal mean using simple random or systematic sampling, 247­ 249 for a normal mean using stratified random sampling, 248 for a percentile, 253­ 255 nonparametric confidence limits, 252 using composite sampling, 249 Consensus standard, 17, 103, 159 Containers, sample, 23, 62, 84, 96, 104, 122­ 123, 128, 131­ 132, 138, 141 Control samples, 74, 96, 124­ 125, 139, 142, 280 duplicate, 51, 74, 142, 143, 161, 162 equipment blank, 51, 74, 96, 125, 142, 162, 286 field blank, 51, 74, 96, 125, 162 rinsate, 96, 168, 286 spikes, 74, 142, 143, 162, 163 trip blank, 51, 74, 96, 125, 142, 162 Conveyor, 37, 52, 60, 95, 96, 98, 103, 104, 106­ 107, 111, 112, 312 belt, 52, 95, 98, 106­ 107, 312 screw, 106­ 107 Coring type sampler, 111­ 113, 116, 214, 221 Corrosivity, 7, 8, 13, 26, 27, 35, 40, 66, 173, 293 Corrective action (RCRA), 1, 8, 10, 29, 40, 44, 79, 185, 277 Index 338 Data quality assessment, 1, 2, 4, 139, 145, 160, 241,275, 289, 302 Data quality objectives, 1, 2, 10, 24, 25, 145, 154, 160 process, 30­ 87, 160 seven steps, 30 Data (also see distributions) collection design, 38, 50, 51, 159 gaps, 50, 143 DataQUEST software, 146­ 149, 244, 270 Debris, 10, 58, 94, 97, 104, 106, 107, 113, 121, 160, 191­ 196 sampling methods, 191­ 196 Decision error, 31, 38, 41­ 48, 73, 75, 76, 82, 142, 155, 160 Decision maker, 28, 31, 32, 39­ 41, 43, 45, 49 Decision unit, 4, 15, 16, 26, 38­ 39, 41, 47­ 49, 57, 67, 68, 76, 79, 81, 82, 84, 90, 91, 94, 99, 146, 161, 193, 194, 244 Decision rule, 30, 39­ 41, 49, 76, 79, 82, 83, 150, 279, 295 Decision support, see Decision Unit Decontamination, 23, 51, 100, 117, 118, 122, 124, 125, 128­ 130, 141, 312, 314 DEFT software, 31, 45, 73, 84, 273, 284 Degrees of freedom (df), 268 simple random or systematic sampling, 248, 249 stratified random sampling, 78, 79, 243 Delta ( ), 45 Detection limit, 40, 161, 258 Dilution, 10, 58, 71, 72 Dipper, 106, 109­ 112, 116, 236­ 237, 313 Dispersion, 19, 22, 169, 170, 193 Displacement pump, 109, 110, 116, 206­ 207 Distributions, 14, 16, 17 binomial, 18 non normal, 18, 252 normal, 17­ 21, 67, 75, 81, 147, 148, 150, 158, 170, 244 lognormal, 17­ 19, 75, 149, 150, 154, 195, 244, 249­ 250 Distributional assumptions, 87, 145, 148, 244 Distribution heterogeneity, 91 Documentation, 86, 87, 95, 96, 122, 124­ 126, 139­ 144, 336 DOT, 131, 133, 174 Drum thief, 108, 230­ 231 Drums, 15, 37, 39, 72, 73, 95, 99, 100, 103, 104­ 105, 314, 315, 316 Duplicate, 51, 74, 142, 143, 161, 162 Dynamic work plan, 161 Ease of use, 100 Effluent, 68, 94 Enforcement, 10­ 12, 27, 43, 63 Errors, 3, 13, 16, 88­ 101 analytical, 3, 69, 88, 90 components of, 88, 89 contamination, 94, 96 decision, 31, 38, 41­ 48, 73, 75, 76, 82, 142, 155, 160 delimitation, 94­ 96, 99, 100, 102, 106, 136, 137, 211, 229 extraction, 94, 95, 99, 100, 102, 136, 137 fundamental, 69, 91, 92­ 94, 96­ 98, 135, 136, 197­ 200 preparation, 94, 95, 96 segregation and grouping, 91 Example calculations Cohen's Adjustment, 261 confidence level when using a simple exceedance rule, 256 locating a hot spot using composite sampling, 73 mean, 19 mean and variance using composite sampling, 71 number of samples for simple random sampling, 76 number of samples for stratified random sampling, 79 number of samples to estimate a percentile, 82 number of samples using a "no exceedance" rule, 82 Shapiro­ Wilk test, 246­ 247 standard deviation, 20 upper confidence limit for a normal mean, 249 upper confidence limit for a lognormal mean, 251 upper confidence limit for a percentile, 255 variance, 20 Examples of the DQO/ DQA processes, 277­ 304 Exceedance rule method, 27­ 28, 255­ 256 Exploratory study, 74 False positive (false rejection), 42, 162 False negative (false acceptance), 42, 162 Familiarization (analytical), 50 Field QC samples, see control samples Filliben's Statistic, 148, 244 Finite population correction, 77 Flash point, 66 Flowing or moving materials, sampling of, 15, 52, 91, 95, 96, 98, 106, 309, 312, 314 Fragments, 92, 94, 99, 134, 141, 163, 192, 197 Frequency plot, 148 Fundamental error, 69, 91, 92­ 94, 96­ 98, 135, 136, 197­ 200 controlling, 97 definition, 163 derivation, 197­ 200 description, 92 Gases, 104, 114, 121, 173, 174 Geometric standard deviation (GSD), 75 Geostatistics and geostatistical methods, 15, 29, 58, 59, 80, 90, 151, 163, 192, 273 Goodness­ of­ fit, 163, 244 Grab sample, 64, 66, 73, 80, 163, 176 Graded approach, 32, 163 Gravitational segregation, 91 Index 339 Gray region, 41, 45­ 47, 49, 75, 76, 79, 81­ 84, 163, 281, 297 Grid, 56, 57, 59, 68,80, 159, 274 Ground­ water monitoring, 7, 10, 15, 28, 39, 44, 45, 114, 121, 180, 181, 185, 309, 316, 321 Grouping error, 65, 91, 93, 96, 134, 137, 138 Gy's sampling theory, 88– 101 Haphazard sampling, 57 Hazardous waste: determination, 8 regulations, 6­ 10, 171­ 189 Hazardous waste characteristics, 164– 165 corrosivity, 7, 8, 13, 26, 27, 35, 40, 66, 173 ignitability, 7, 8, 13, 26, 27, 35, 40, 66, 173 reactivity, 7, 8, 13, 26, 27, 35, 40, 66, 174 toxicity, 7, 8, 13, 26, 27, 35, 40, 66, 73, 120, 173 Health and safety, 38, 50, 84, 97, 130 Heterogeneity, 4, 26, 52, 53, 66, 68, 69, 88, 90­ 91, 93, 106, 137, 138, 163, 191­ 196 large­ scale, 91, 191,192 periodic, 91 short­ range, 68, 91, 93, 191 Heterogeneous waste, 4, 57, 58, 94, 107, 191­ 196 Histogram, 17, 18, 147, 148, 255 Holding time, 66, 74, 122, 123­ 124, 131, 141, 143, 163 Homogenization, 4, 23, 66, 69, 91, 92, 102, 134, 320 stationary processes, 134 dynamic processes, 134 Homogeneity, 164, 192 Homogeneous, 92, 93, 97, 98, 134, 136 Hot spots, 38, 39, 53, 57, 59, 65, 67, 71­ 73, 164, 274 Hypothesis, 40, 41 alternative, 43, 157 null, 41­ 47, 49, 76, 79, 82, 150, 152­ 155, 157 Hypothesis testing versus statistical intervals, 25 Increments, 61, 65, 91, 93, 94, 96, 134, 135, 138, 158, 164, 194 Independence or independent samples, 69, 71 International Air Transport Association (IATA), 131, 133 Interpolation, 261 Ignitability, 7, 8, 13, 26, 27, 35, 40, 66, 173 Investigation derived waste (IDW), 118, 129­ 130 Jackknife, 152, 250, 252 Judgment sampling, 48, 51, 55, 63­ 64 Kemmerer depth sampler, 100, 108, 109, 117, 210­ 211 Labels, sample, 96, 124, 125, 131, 141, 310, 314 Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs), 7, 8, 9­ 10, 13, 26, 27, 35, 40, 44,66, 82, 113, 160, 171, 176, 177 Landfill, 28, 34, 52, 82, 104, 106 Land treatment, 8, 28, 33, 37, 41, 52, 121, 183 Large­ scale heterogeneity, 91, 191,192 Less­ than values, see nondetects Liquid grab sampler, 109­ 111, 237 Liquids, 90, 98, 100, 109, 110, 120, 136 Logbook, 124, 140, 143, 146 Lognormal distribution, 17­ 19, 75, 149, 150, 154, 195, 244, 249­ 250 Maps, 29, 33, 37, 58, 59, 124, 141 Margin of error, 13 Mass of a sample, 4, 23, 36, 92, 96­ 97, 136, 137, 197­ 200 Mean, 14, 17, 18­ 19, 40, 165 Mean square error, 89, 165 Measurement: 15­ 16 bias, 23 random variability, 23­ 24 Median, 17, 19, 39, 40, 88, 155, 165, 249, 252 Miniature core sampler, 111­ 113, 117, 222­ 223 Modified syringe sampler, 111­ 113, 117, 224 Multi­ phase mixtures, 98 Nondetects, 146, 147, 150, 154, 257­ 258 Nonparametric methods, 18, 83, 150, 153, 165, 252, 255, 256 Nonprobability sampling, 51, 55, 63, 193 Normal distribution, 17­ 18, 20, 21, 67, 75, 147, 148, 150, 244 Normal probability plot, 18, 147, 148, 290­ 291 Nuggets, 92 Number of samples composite sampling, 80 mean, normal distribution, using simple random sampling or systematic sampling, 73, 80 mean, normal distribution, using stratified random sampling, 77 mean, lognormal distribution, 75 percentile or proportion, 81 using an exceedance rule, 83 Optimal design, 50, 78, 96 Outliers, 145, 147, 148­ 149, 165, 250, 322 OSHA, 130 Packaging and shipping, 131 sample packaging, 131 sample shipping, 133 Parameter (statistical), 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 39­ 40, 166 Particle size distribution, 16, 94­ 95 Particle size reduction, 69, 91, 93, 96, 97, 98, 136, 137, 138, 192, 198, 200 Particulate, 90, 95, 97, 134, 137, 317 Pass or fail data, 18, 28, 35, 40, 81, 153 Percentile, 20, 21, 26­ 27, 39­ 40, 45, 81, 151, 153, 166, 253 Performance­ based measurement system (PBMS), 86 Peristaltic pump, 109– 111, 118, 202, 204­ 205 pH, 66, 173, 174 Photoionization detector, 60 Index 340 Piles: elongated, 52, 138 staging, 37, 120 waste, 16, 37, 104, 106, 168, 178, 187, 317 Pilot study, 43, 50, 74, 80, 93, 315 Pipes, 37, 52, 60, 94, 95, 98, 104, 105, 106, 109­ 112, 120, 196, 312 Plunger type sampler, 109­ 111, 118, 232– 234 Point estimate, 21, 27, 252 Point of (waste) generation, 6, 15, 33, 37, 39, 52, 73, 76, 82, 104, 106, 171, 193, 255, 295, 299, 300 Point source discharge, 106, 182, 236, 238 Ponar dredge, 111, 118, 207­ 209, 308, 309 Populations, 13, 14­ 15, 16, 17, 24, 28, 194, 250 Pore water, 15, 42, 182 Precision, 11, 14, 22­ 24, 25, 26, 52, 58, 64, 65, 69, 70, 74, 80, 125, 134, 166, 194 Preliminary study, see pilot study Preparation error, 94, 95, 96 Preservation, 92, 94, 96, 123­ 124, 131, 180, 308, 309 Probability plot, 18, 21, 147­ 149, 245, 255, 257 Process knowledge or knowledge of the waste, 1, 9, 10, 13, 27, 28, 34, 40, 43, 64, 175, 293 Proving the negative, 11­ 12, 13, 295 Proving the positive, 11­ 12, 13, 63 Quality assurance project plan (QAPP), 1, 3, 4, 30, 33, 34, 48, 50, 51, 84­ 87, 139­ 142, 144, 146, 166 Quality control, 1, 11, 24, 30, 51, 87, 96, 122, 124­ 125, 167, 313 Quick Safety Rule (Pitard's), 97, 198 Random number, 57 Random variability, 3, 24, 26, 88­ 89, 322 Randomization, 51 Range, 17, 41, 43, 45, 75, 167 Ranked set sampling: 54 description, 60 procedure, 61 RCRA: summary of regulatory citations, 171­ 189 Reactivity, 7, 8, 13, 26, 27, 35, 40, 66, 174 Regulatory threshold, 11, 26, 27, 35, 63, 72, 82, 124 Relative standard deviation, 97, 156, 167 Relative variance, 97, 197, 279 Remediation, 31, 33, 37, 44, 167, 179 Repeatability, see precision Representative sample, 7, 9, 13, 16, 17, 168, 173­ 175, 178, 179, 180, 191 Riffle splitter, 134­ 135 Rinsate, 96, 168, 286 Risk assessment, 29, 139 Roll­ off bin or container, 15, 37, 39, 52, 82, 95, 96, 99, 104, 106, 113, 255 Rotating coring device, 113, 118, 225, 227­ 228 Rosner's Test, 149 Sample: biased, 55, 64 correct, 96 discrete, 26, 64, 66, 100 duplicate, 51, 74, 142, 161 grab, 64, 66, 73, 80, 163, 176 individual, 47, 64 random, 19, 57­ 60, 67, 77, 79, 80, 243 representative, 7, 9, 13, 16, 17, 168, 173­ 175, 178, 179, 180, 191 split, 72, 95, 123, 125, 135, 168 statistical, 14, 16, 19, 21, 27, 169 Sample collection design, see sampling design Sampling design, 51 authoritative, 62 biased, 64 judgmental, 63 probabilistic, 51 ranked set, 60­ 61 simple random, 57 stratified, 57– 58 systematic, 59­ 60 Sampling in space and time, 52 Sampling devices, 109­ 114 limitations, 102 selecting, 95 Scientific method, 160, 168 Scoop, 98, 100, 107, 111­ 113, 118, 135, 137, 239­ 240, 315, 319 Sediment, 104, 105, 114, 121, 133 Segregation error, 91 Sequential sampling, 54, 61­ 62 Settleable solids profiler, 109­ 111, 118, 233­ 234 Shapiro­ Wilk test, 147, 148, 244­ 246 Sheet mixing, 134 Shelby tube, 100 Shipping samples, 133 Short range heterogeneity, 68, 91, 93, 191 Shovel, 99, 100, 111­ 113, 119, 239­ 241 Significance level, 47 Simple random sampling, 57 Slurry, 52, 106, 111, 120, 312 Software: ASSESS, 275 DataQUEST, 275 DEFT, 31, 45, 73, 84, 273 DQOPro, 274 ELIPGRID­ PC, 274 GeoEAS, 29, 273 MTCAStat, 275 UnCensor, 257 Visual Sample Plan (VSP), 274 Soil: background concentrations, 28, 33, 37, 41 volatiles in soil, 101 Soil gas, 104, 114, 121, 310, 312, 313, 314 Solid waste, 1, 8­ 9, 13, 15, 16, 26, 173, 174, 178 Solid waste management unit (SWMU), 15, 33, 37, 44, 52, 67, 79, 113, 185, 277 Spatial correlation, 29, 68, 68, 80, 163 Spatula, 137, 138, 239 Index 341 Split barrel sampler, 104, 112, 113, 119, 216­ 217, 306 Splitting of samples, 135 Standard deviation: definition, 19­ 20, 169 for composite sampling, 70 for simple random or systematic sampling, 19­ 20, 242 for stratified random sampling, 243 Standard error of the mean, 21, 242 description, 21 for composite sampling, 71 for simple random or systematic sampling, 21, 242 for stratified random sampling, 77, 243 Standard operating procedures (SOPs), 51, 86, 87, 124, 135, 136, 140, 142, 169 Statistical intervals, 25 Statistical methods, 241­ 261 Statistical tables, 263­ 272 Statistical software, 273­ 275 Stratification, 194, 196 by component, 58 Stratified random sampling, 53, 57­ 58 Stratum, 57, 58, 59, 77­ 79, 169, 194, 195, 243 Student's t distribution, 248­ 250, 263 Subsampling, 135 liquids, 136 mixtures of liquids and solids, 136 soils and solid media, 136 Superfund, 2, 15, 38, 94 Support, 16 decision, see decision unit sample, 94­ 95 Swing jar sampler, 109­ 111, 119, 238 Syringe sampler, 109­ 113, 119, 211­ 212 Systematic sampling, 53, 59­ 60 Tank( s), 7, 37, 52, 104, 105, 106, 109­ 111, 115, 117, 120, 121, 129, 182 Target population, 36, 37, 53, 57, 58 t distribution, see Student's t distribution Thief, 100, 108­ 113, 116, 117, 217­ 219, 230­ 231 Thin­ walled tube, 112, 113, 119, 219­ 221 Time (sampling over), 52 Tolerance limit, 27 Transformations of data, 150, 249 Trends, 29, 53, 57, 59, 60, 91, 150 Trier, 100, 111­ 113, 119, 218­ 219, 314 Trowel, 99, 100, 111­ 113, 119, 239­ 240 Two­ sample tests, 28, 151 Type I error, 42, 43, 44, 47, 75, 76, 79, 83, 162, 170 Type II error, 42, 43, 44, 47, 75, 76, 78, 83, 155, 162, 170 Universal treatment standards (UTS), 33, 151, 177, 256 Upper confidence limit (UCL), see confidence limit Used oil, 7, 8, 120, 172, 189 Vadose zone, 107, 114, 121, 170, 217, 221, 226, 310, 313, 315 Valved drum sampler, 109, 110, 119, 231­ 232 Variance, 19­ 20, 23 additivity of variances, 89 for composite samples, 70 simple random or systematic sampling, 242 stratified random sampling, 243 Verification and validation, 2, 87, 139­ 144 Volatiles, sampling, 101 Volume or mass of a sample, 94, 96­ 97, 108 Walsh's Test, 149 Waste: debris, 10, 58, 94, 97, 104, 106, 107, 113, 121, 160, 191­ 196 investigation derived, 118, 129­ 130 hazardous, 6­ 10, 171­ 189 heterogeneous, 4, 57, 58, 94, 107, 191­ 196 multi­ phase, 98 nonhazardous, 13, 34, 38, 58, 82, 129, 194, 255 one­ dimensional, 52, 56, 95, 96, 98, 102, 138 three­ dimensional, 95, 96, 99 two­ dimensional, 56, 59, 95, 99, 102 Waste analysis plan (WAP), 1, 3, 4, 10, 30, 50, 84, 85, 139 Weighting factor, 58, 77­ 79, 243 X­ ray fluorescence, 60

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:49.973810

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0025-0008

Supporting & Related Material

RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMITTED REGARDING THE MAY 8, 1998 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE (64 FR 2635) OF EPA'S INTENT TO PROPOSE REMOVING REQUIRED USES OF SW­ 846 METHODS FROM THE RCRA REGULATIONS September 2002 Prepared by: Science Applications International Corp. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive Reston, VA 20190 Prepared for: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20460 EPA Contract No. 68­ W0­ 0122, WA No. 0­ 5 SAIC Project No. 06­ 6312­ 08­ 4045­ XXX Introduction On May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25430), the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (the Agency or EPA) published a notice of intent to reform the implementation of RCRA­ related methods and monitoring. One reform measure included removing unnecessary required uses of SW­ 846 methods from the RCRA regulations. The Agency posed four specific questions to the public regarding this topic. This document summarizes the public comments on each of the four questions and provides the Agency's responses. This response to comment document was developed for inclusion in the docket to the proposed rule to remove unnecessary required uses of SW­ 846 methods (Methods Innovation Rule or MIR). Any mention of a proposed rule in the comment responses refers to the MIR. I ­ 1 I. Are Any of the Required Uses of SW­ 846 Methods in the RCRA Regulations for Other than Method­ defined Parameters Necessary? 1. Comment: One commenter (Washington State Dept. of Ecology) believed that some regulations should include testing requirements and indicate which testing method is appropriate. The commenter gave the following regulations as examples: 40 CFR 261.21( a)( 2), characteristic of ignitable solids; 40 CFR 261.23, characteristic of reactivity; 40 CFR 261.3( a)( 2)( v), rebuttable presumption for used oil; and Appendix III to Part 261. The commenter also stated that his State government needs assurance that EPA will dedicate personnel to provide training and guidance documents regarding which methods will satisfy regulatory requirements. Response: The Agency does not agree with the commenter's examples of regulations that should include method­ specific testing requirements. The 40 CFR 261.21( a)( 2) (characteristic for ignitable solids) and 40 CFR 262.23 (reactivity characteristic) regulations currently do not mention any specific methods and a demonstration of whether a waste exhibits these hazardous waste characteristics instead relies on generator knowledge. The Agency believes that there are no test methods capable of accurately identifying those characteristics in a waste. If such methods existed, EPA would revise the regulations to require use of the methods, since they would be used to analyze a method­ defined parameter. Regarding the third example, 40 CFR 261.3( a)( 2)( v), the MIR proposed rule is revising this used oil rebuttable presumption regulation to clarify that appropriate methods other than SW­ 846 methods are options for the demonstration. EPA does not believe it is necessary to require specific methods because this demonstration could be made for many different types of wastes or analytes and is not dependent on any particular method technology to generate a correct answer. Regarding the last example, Appendix III to Part 261, "Chemical Analysis Test Methods," purposely does not include testing requirements. Its role is only to refer readers to Chapter Two of SW­ 846 for guidance on method selection. Regarding the need for training of regulatory personnel, the Agency will offer guidance to the States, EPA Regions and the regulated community regarding the implementation of this rule by means of training modules, workshops, and fact sheets. The Agency has already developed and presented at many different national locations a relevant training module entitled "Analytical Strategy for the RCRA Program." The Agency is currently developing another module to assist regulated entities and others in the determination of applicable methods. EPA is also developing checklists and other tools that may be used to document appropriate method performance. 2. Comment: One commenter (California Dept. of Toxic Substances Control) agreed that EPA should limit required uses of SW­ 846 methods to method­ defined parameters. The commenter added that EPA should provide a list of these methods for public comment. The commenter believed that Method 3050 is used for a method­ defined parameter, and that this method should be included in the aforementioned list. The Agency should continue to require SW­ 846 methods for all other uses, but allow a PBMS approach in specific instances upon approval of the regulating agency. Response: The Agency agrees that any required uses of SW­ 846 methods should be restricted to method­ defined parameters. The MIR proposed rule lists those SW­ 846 methods that will remain incorporated by reference in the RCRA regulations at 40 CFR 260.11( a). The public can I ­ 2 comment on the list. The list does not include Method 3050, "Acid Digestion of Sediments, Sludges, and Soils," because it is a preparatory method that is not required by RCRA regulation for analysis of a method­ defined parameter. The Agency disagrees that a PBMS approach should only be allowed on an individual basis if approved by the regulatory agency. EPA currently allows a PBMS approach throughout many of its RCRA regulations and does not normally require approval or advanced notification to use it. Such an approach would be counter to the purpose of adopting PBMS. When regulated entities decide to use a PBMS approach, EPA does recommend that they consult with their regulating authorities (State or Federal) during development of performance goals and during method selection. 3. Comment: One commenter (Laidlaw Environmental Services) noted that additional methods "should be required." The commenter listed Method 1312 "Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure," Method 1320 "Multiple Extraction Procedure," and Method 5035, "Closed System Purge­ and­ Trap and Extraction for Volatile Organics in Soil and Waste Samples." The commenter also noted that "holding times for analytical parameters specified in SW­ 846 must remain defined." However, the commenter stated that many of the currently defined holding times have no technical basis and review and revision is very much needed. Response: The methods listed by the commenter are not required by any RCRA regulation and EPA does not plan to add regulations which require those methods. There is no regulatory reason to do so at this time. Two of them (Methods 1312 and 1320) are used in the analysis of method­ defined parameters. (A method may exist for the analysis of an MDP and still not be part of a regulation.) Method 5035 is not used in the analysis of a method­ defined parameter. Regarding holding times specified in SW­ 846, the Agency believes that this issue is outside the scope of the present proposed rule. However, the Agency is developing new guidance on holding times for volatile compounds. The appropriate SW­ 846 methods will be revised as necessary to reflect that guidance once it is issued. Alternate holding times to those published may be employed provided that the generator or analyst can demonstrate appropriate analyte stability. 4. Comment: One commenter (ACIL Environmental Sciences Section) agreed that there are no necessary required uses of SW­ 846 for other than method­ defined parameters. The commenter supported removal of SW­ 846 "incorporation by reference" in 40 CFR 260.11, and any other specific mention of the manual in the RCRA regulations, except for method­ defined parameters. In addition, the commenter believed that EPA should provide guidance on which SW­ 846 methods are appropriate for given monitoring applications (e. g., similar to the list of recommended methods in Part 264 for Appendix IX groundwater monitoring). However, this guidance should clearly indicate that other options are possible under a PBMS approach. Response: A complete list of appropriate or recommended methods for all RCRA monitoring requirements is not practical. Whether any method is appropriate for any given monitoring situation is a project­ and matrix­ specific issue. It was relatively easy to provide examples in Appendix IX to Part 264 for a matrix such as groundwater. However, any list of example appropriate methods, including the one in Part 264 for groundwater monitoring, becomes quickly outdated due to the many and frequent advances in method development. (It is for this I ­ 3 reason that the Agency is proposing to remove the SW­ 846 methods listed in Appendix IX to Part 264.) Given this environment and the Agency's plan to promote a PBMS approach, it is not likely that the Agency will publish any more similar lists in the regulations. In addition, developing a list of SW­ 846 methods to cover most circumstances would be very difficult, and may discourage the consideration of other methods from other sources. Instead, EPA recommends that regulated entities consult with their regulating authorities for guidance during method selection. In addition, the Agency does not plan on issuing lists of "recommended" methods, because "recommended" is too easily misconstrued to be "required" and thus defeats the purpose of this rulemaking and goes counter to EPA's policy on PBMS. 5. Comment: Two commenters (Chemical Manufacturer's Association and Ford Motor Company) requested clarification regarding the term "method­ defined" parameter and more method examples. In addition, one commenter (Ford Motor Company) believed that all parameters are "method­ defined" because any change made to a method will have an impact on the end result with a strong dependence on the matrix. The commenter cited the following example actions as capable of altering results: altering the pH, solvent, reagents, extraction time or conditions in a preparation step; the manner in which the reagents, glassware and equipment are prepared, calibrated and maintained; changing the chromatographic or chemical separation technique; and altering the use of the determinative step (e. g., Office of Water's Streamlining Proposal). Response: In the proposed rule, the Agency clarifies the term "method­ defined parameter (MDP)" and provides several examples of methods used for such a parameter. An MDP is a measurable property where the analytical result is wholly dependant on the process or technology used to make the measurement. The property can be correctly measured by only one particular method. Some method­ defined properties are not required analyses in the RCRA regulations and some are. Examples of RCRA­ required method­ defined parameters and their SW­ 846 methods include Method 1311, "The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure" (TCLP), used to determine whether waste leaching potential is greater than the levels specified in the toxicity characteristic at 40 CFR 261.24; Method 9040, "pH Electrometric Measurement," used to demonstrate whether a waste exhibits the corrosivity characteristic based on pH levels; and Method 9095, "Paint Filter Liquids Test," used to demonstrate the absence or presence of free liquids in wastes managed in RCRA­ regulated treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Some of the method changes mentioned by one of the commenters might affect a result. However, such changes are part of the process to optimize a particular method to maximize analytical performance, e. g., recovery of the analytes of concern from a given matrix, and should not be confused with method use to analyze a method­ defined parameter as defined by this proposed action. Also, for the purposes of this rulemaking, whether or not any method change would change a result is not what defines an MDP. What defines an MDP method, in the context of this rule, is whether it is, as written, used to define a regulatory parameter. Sometimes the "parameter" cited by the regulation was developed in conjunction with the method. For example, the TCLP test is used to determine if a waste exhibits the characteristic of toxicity. The TCLP was the test used to develop the particular leachate of concern (a waste extract) and the regulatory thresholds specified in the regulations. The TCLP was developed to emulate the leachate that might be generated if the waste was co­ disposed. No other method is known to yield the same leachate from a waste as the TCLP. Also, the TCLP is used only to generate the leachate itself, I ­ 4 and is not used to specifically determine the analyte levels in the leachate. Any reliable and appropriate method can be used to determine the total constituent levels in a TCLP leachate. The determinative measurement of the leachate itself does not involve measurement of an MDP. The Agency also notes that adoption of a PBMS approach does not mean that any change to a method should be made. As noted above, method modifications are primarily done to improve characterization performance for certain analytes in a given sample matrix. Obviously, method changes should be avoided if they will adversely affect its ability to accurately characterize the analytes of concern in the matrix of concern and if performance objectives cannot be met. Performance factors of concern might include precision, accuracy (or bias), recovery, representativeness, comparability, and sensitivity (detection, quantitation, or reporting limits). Regulated entities should demonstrate and document that any procedure, even an unchanged method, is capable of providing appropriate performance for its intended application. 6. Comment: One commenter (American Petroleum Institute) said that EPA should provide more specific information as to its plans for revising the regulations to remove SW­ 846 requirements. The FR notice merely stated that EPA may "remove" required uses of SW­ 846 except where SW­ 846 defines the regulatory parameters. The commenter added that this explanation does not identify specifically which rules the EPA believes require use of SW­ 846, or which of those rules use SW­ 846 to define parameters. The commenter provided a listing of regulations that specify the use of SW­ 846. Response: The Agency provides specific information in the MIR proposed rule on how the regulations will be revised to remove unnecessary required uses of SW­ 846 methods. With the exception of 40 CFR 261.24 (toxicity characteristic), all the regulatory references listed by the commenter are proposed for revision by the MIR rule. The Agency believes that these required uses of SW­ 846 methods are unnecessary and should be removed from the RCRA regulations. The Agency intends to restrict the required uses of SW­ 846 to only those cases where the SW846 method defines the regulatory parameter. Such is the case of 40 CFR 261.24, the toxicity characteristic, which specifies the use of SW­ 846 Method 1311, "The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure" (TCLP). II ­ 1 II. What Might Be the Economic Impact on the Regulated Community and Other Entities (e. g., Small Businesses) as a Direct Result of the Removal of Certain Required Uses of SW­ 846 Methods? 1. Comment: One commenter (Washington State Dept. of Ecology) believed that the immediate impact on the regulated community may be a feeling of uncertainty as a result of the removal of certain required uses of SW­ 846 methods. Members of the regulated community may wonder if they have spent their money to use a correct test method. Regulating agencies may experience a degree of uncertainty as well. The commenter also anticipated cost increases to State governments that are associated with training regulatory staff, such as compliance personnel, to evaluate analytical results. Another commenter (EDF) stated that, given limited program resources at the State and Federal levels, it may not be either feasible or appropriate to devote substantial program resources toward the review of new and unproven testing methods selected by various members of the regulated community. At a minimum, EPA must carefully evaluate each proposed rule change in this regard. Response: The Agency believes that communication and training, at all levels, will help address any concerns that the regulated community and regulatory agencies may have regarding implementation of the proposed revisions. The Agency plans to provide guidance to all parties through training modules, workshops and other outreach activities. The Agency believes that such communication and training efforts will help ensure consistency in implementation of this rule and help limit any associated costs. Each data generating effort is project­ specific and has different analytical needs, and this approach to monitoring is more adaptable to those differences. The Agency recommends that members of the regulated community work with the regulating authorities during development of performance criteria and method selection. This approach in particular should help diminish uncertainty within the regulated community. A strong EPA Headquarters leadership will be present to enable implementation of this approach to RCRA­ related monitoring. The Agency does not believe that the proposed revisions will result in significant cost increases to State governments for training staff on how to evaluate data. Under RCRA, regardless of the method used, the States should already be conducting reviews of analytical results. If States and regulated entities are not currently evaluating the data against project DQOs and other project­ specific requirements, then they are not adequately documenting the effectiveness of the data and the correctness of related decisions. Finally, as noted in the proposed rule, we specify that only appropriate methods should be used in lieu of the required SW­ 846 methods (e. g., and thus not just any new method), and that such methods should be published by reliable sources and accepted as such by the scientific community. This process for method selection is no different then that generally practiced during compliance with existing regulations which do not explicitly require a particular method. 2. Comment: One commenter (Chemical Manufacturer's Association) believed that functioning under PBMS as a result of the removal of certain required uses of SW­ 846 methods could have a favorable economic impact if certain controls are put into place to limit costs connected to demonstrating and documenting method performance. II ­ 2 Response: Although the commenter did not provide specific examples of method performance cost controls, the Agency generally disagrees that controls in demonstrating method performance should be put in place to limit costs. The Agency believes that QC measures or other activities to demonstrate adequate method performance should be identified during the planning stage. The types and numbers of such measures are project­ specific considerations and should not be controlled in general terms. EPA expects project planners to try to control costs through all stages of the project, to the degree possible without sacrificing effective data. In addition, the Agency believes that demonstrating that a method other than SW­ 846 is appropriate should not involve much more than what already is done for any sampling and analysis effort under RCRA, e. g., when showing that SW­ 846 methods are appropriate for a given analyte and matrix. The proposed action does not add any new regulatory requirements or require any additional reports beyond those already required. 3. Comment: Two commenters (ACIL Environmental Sciences Section and American Petroleum Institute) believed that the regulated community should benefit from cost effective monitoring programs as a result of the removal of certain required uses of SW­ 846 methods. However, both commenters stated that there will be little economic benefit to the regulated community if EPA/ OSW­ HQ and EPA/ ORD do not provide effective guidance and support to the EPA Regions and States. Another commenter believed that there will be no beneficial impact on the regulated, unless and until authorized States incorporate the changes. The commenter was confident that, if guidance is provided, the States will implement the changes and allow use of the PBMS approach, in lieu of strict use of SW­ 846 methods. Response: The Agency agrees with the commenters that the regulated community stands to benefit from the use of cost­ effective monitoring technologies once the unnecessary required uses of SW­ 846 methods are eliminated. The Agency believes that additional flexibility in method use, as provided by the proposed revisions, will provide opportunities for cost savings in RCRA­ relating sampling and analysis efforts. Appropriate project planning leading to proper cost­ effective method selection will have a significant effect on reduction of analytical costs, an option which is currently available under the many existing regulations which do not unnecessarily require specific methods. Adoption of the proposed revisions by authorized States is one key factor for successful nationwide implementation of this rule. State participation will help ensure that all members of the regulated community fully benefit from the new flexibility allowed as a result of removing unnecessary requirements to use SW­ 846 methods. However, authorized States are not required to adopt the regulatory revisions. The Agency also agrees that training of all parties involved ­­ the States, EPA Regions, and the regulated community ­­ is important to successful implementation of this rule. The Agency plans to offer training at all levels in order to ensure that the proposed revisions are implemented in as consistent manner as possible (given the project­ specific nature of the sampling and analysis efforts) and that any associated costs are kept to a minimum. The Agency plans to offer guidance regarding the implementation of this rule by means of training modules, workshops, fact sheets and other outreach activities. Over the past few years, the Agency has provided relevant program­ specific training (e. g., "Analytical Strategy for the RCRA Program: A II ­ 3 Performance­ Based Approach") for EPA Headquarters, Regional, and State personnel involved in RCRA activities that include sampling and analysis. The Agency also plans to offer other courses on the evaluation of data and permit writing from a PBMS and effective data standpoint. 4. Comment: One commenter (Ford Motor Company) noted that the impact on the regulated community and other entities is wholly dependent upon the Agency's PBMS implementation plan which has yet to be defined. The commenter stated that this could have a negative impact on independent testing laboratories. The impact on small businesses will be influenced by how much PBMS drives the cost of analysis up. Large corporations with their own analytical testing capabilities will likely save money in testing costs under PBMS. However, the compliance and enforcement issues could easily outweigh any benefits gained through the system. Response: The commenter did not give specific examples of negative impacts and compliance issues that might outweigh any benefits, therefore, the Agency cannot fully respond to the comment. However, the Agency provides in the proposed rule some information on how it plans to implement a PBMS approach for RCRA­ related sampling and analysis efforts. In addition, the OSW Methods Team web site provides information regarding the RCRA methods program approach to PBMS implementation. A copy of the OSW's PBMS implementation plan (which addresses PBMS implementation within the RCRA Program) can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ test/ pbms. htm. The Agency expects that the proposed action to remove unnecessary required uses of SW­ 846, when finalized, will promote overall cost effectiveness and help reduce costs. The proposed action lifts restrictions to use methods other than SW­ 846, effectively increasing the choices of appropriate analytical methods available to the regulated community. Thus, regulated entities can select methods that are more appropriate and cost­ effective for their particular applications. The Agency also believes that demonstrating and documenting method performance under a PBMS approach generally should not entail additional costs. Demonstrating that a method is appropriate, whether it is an SW­ 846 method or another method, should not involve much more that what already should be done for any RCRA sampling and analysis effort. As part of the proposed rule, the Agency is seeking more comments from the regulated community regarding any concerns related to implementation and compliance assessments. The public should provide specific examples or reasons for any concerns. III ­ 1 III. What Concerns Exist Regarding Implementation and Enforcement of the Allowed Use of "Other Appropriate Methods" in lieu of a Specific SW­ 846 Method for RCRA­ related Monitoring? 1. Comment: Some commenters (Washington State Dept. of Ecology and Ford Motor Company) were concerned about inconsistent implementation from state to state. One commenter (Washington State Dept. of Ecology) believed that without clear guidance from the EPA, the use of "other appropriate methods," in lieu of a specific SW­ 846 method for RCRArelated monitoring, would leave room for differing interpretations among the States as to which analyses meet the regulatory intent. The commenter felt that this situation could cause a great deal of confusion and frustration in the regulated community. This problem could arise due to the shift in the onus of determining what test method would meet the regulatory intent. As individual State authorities become responsible for implementing RCRA regulations, selecting methods from SW­ 846, or some other source of analytical test methods such as ASTM, may result in a wide variance of acceptable methods between the States. Another commenter (Ford Motor Company) noted that most of the authorized States will need to revise their programs to adopt equivalent requirements under State law. Otherwise, different methods may be acceptable for the same waste analysis in different states. The commenter stated that this situation is a result of the PBMS requirements being imposed pursuant to preHSWA authority. Response: In the proposed rule, the Agency provides more guidance regarding what constitutes an appropriate method for a sampling and analysis activity under RCRA. In general, such a method is reliable and accepted as such by the scientific community and is applicable to its intended use – i. e., the method will generate effective data. It is not problematic that different methods can be used for the same analytical determination, provided that the correct answer is reached. Each method could be appropriate and meet the performance goals of the project. Therefore, different methods can be used by different States or other entities for related decision­ making, provided that appropriate methods are used and project­ specific performance objectives are met. Method selection and use decisions are project­ specific, and should be, given the wide variety of matrices and analytes of concern under the RCRA regulations. Second, there are no "PBMS requirements" which must be adopted by the States. While the Agency encourages the adoption of the PBMS approach, authorized States are not required to revise their regulations and programs to incorporate this flexibility in method selection and use. This is because the proposed rule regulatory changes do not impose additional requirements (in fact, they instead remove existing requirements) and do not broaden the scope of the RCRA regulations. The revisions will be applicable only in those States that do not have final authorization. Therefore, in authorized States, the changes will not be applicable until and unless the State revises its program to adopt the revisions. Finally, the Agency believes that guidance or training of all parties involved is needed to assure successful implementation of the revisions proposed in this rule. The Agency will provide training to States, Regions and the regulated community in the form of training modules, workshops, fact sheets and other outreach efforts to ensure consistent implementation. III ­ 2 2. Comment: One commenter (California Dept. of Toxic Substances Control) noted that the term "other appropriate methods" needs to be defined in a way that is consistent with legal standards. The commenter offered the example of California standards which require that data be generated by techniques which are "generally accepted in the scientific community." The commenter suggested that in order to determine compliance with Federal law, the definition should be consistent with guidance created by the Supreme court in the Daubert vs. Merrill­ Dow case. Response: In the proposed rule, the Agency clarifies the term "other appropriate methods." In general, the Agency considers a method appropriate for sampling and analysis activities under RCRA if it is reliable and accepted as such by the scientific community and applicable to its intended use – i. e., the method will generate effective data. The Agency believes this description is consistent with the case cited by the commenter, which addresses the concept of acceptance in the scientific community. 3. Comment: A few commenters were concerned about the impact on regulatory and enforcement practices. One commenter (ACIL Environmental Sciences Section) noted that the use of "other appropriate methods" in lieu of a specific SW­ 846 method for RCRA­ related monitoring will require more training and knowledge of regulatory personnel. This represents risk for regulatory agencies without apparent reward. The commenter also believed that discretionary enforcement policy will be an issue. The commenter stated that regulatory limits are enforced without real consideration of confidence limits and measurement variability. However, approaches such as the DQO process and PBMS require consideration of these factors. Another commenter (American Petroleum Institute) stated that, a final concern with implementation of "other appropriate methods," in lieu of a specific SW­ 846 method, is the need to demonstrate that the method will meet the intended use. Also, regulatory personnel presently accept SW­ 846 because it is the "RCRA Methods Manual." Regulatory personnel not trained in chemistry are inclined to select SW­ 846 without further thought. The commenter noted, however, that PBMS for RCRA­ related monitoring will require more training and knowledge on the part of regulatory personnel. PBMS may, in some cases, be perceived by regulatory personnel as entailing some burden without regulatory benefit. Another commenter (EDF) stated that the PBMS approach presents potentially significant enforcement hurdles. This commenter was concerned about the removal of required uses of methods involved in self­ implementing regulations, such as the land disposal treatment standards, whereby there is no opportunity prior to an enforcement action to review the validity of an alternative test method. Response: The Agency will offer training to the States, Regions and the regulated community regarding implementation of this rule to ensure consistency and to minimize any associated implementation and enforcement costs. The Agency's goal is to make the RCRA Program more effective and efficient by focusing monitoring regulations on what is to be accomplished by the monitoring rather than by focusing on the technologies used for the measurements. Rewards will include the cost effectiveness and flexibility in employing analytical test methods for RCRArelated testing and in the use of new and innovative technologies. III ­ 3 The Agency disagrees with one of the commenters that RCRA enforcement personnel do not consider the performance or appropriateness of a method. Enforcement personnel should verify that the method used by the regulated entity is appropriate for its intended use. For example, today some of the regulations require SW­ 846 use in general. However, many methods in SW­ 846 may have the same target analyte and yet all are not appropriate for a given matrix and project­ specific data quality objective. It is still the responsibility of the regulated entity to demonstrate that any method used for compliance purposes, whether it is an SW­ 846 method or not, meets the data quality requirements for its intended application. Therefore, both the regulated entity and the regulating authority must evaluate which method is most appropriate for a given analyte and waste matrix. Promulgation of the MIR will not change this approach. Regarding the methods required as part of the self­ implementing regulations of the land disposal treatment standards, EPA has carefully considered the impacts of each proposed revision to the regulations, and determined that the cyanide methods of concern to the commenter should remain as required methods. 4. Comment: One commenter (American Petroleum Institute) posed two questions to the Agency. First, "How does the EPA intend to revise rules which currently allow the use of generator process knowledge as an alternative to the required or permitted use of SW­ 846 methods?" Second, "How will EPA address past delisting petitions that have been granted based upon the continuing condition that testing be performed under SW­ 846?" Response: Any allowance to use generator "process knowledge" will not be affected by the proposed revisions and, therefore, will remain in the regulations unchanged. Regarding past delisting petitions that require use of SW­ 846 methods, the Agency is proposing to remove required uses of SW­ 846 methods from all conditional delistings. This is consistent with the other proposed revisions to remove unnecessary required uses of SW­ 846. The public may comment on the proposed changes to each of the delistings. 5. Comment: Several commenters (American Petroleum Institute, Ford Motor Company and (Chemical Manufacturer's Association) were concerned about the issue of method primacy. One commenter (Ford Motor Company) stated that method primacy is the key concern that exists regarding implementation and enforcement of the allowed use of other appropriate methods in lieu of a specific SW­ 846 method for RCRA­ related monitoring. The commenter asked: ° How will either the regulator or regulated entity know that results generated by a PBMS cannot be challenged? ° How will the regulated community know that the "other appropriate method" has been properly validated, documented and is in compliance when a sample is analyzed? ° When differing results are obtained using two approved performance­ based methods, which result is correct and how is that determined? ° Will the regulator's method always be given primacy over the regulated entity? Another commenter (American Petroleum Institute) noted that a barrier to implementation might be the reluctance of members of the regulated community to use "other appropriate methods" III ­ 4 because test results generated by different methods performed by EPA or other regulatory agencies may be disputed. Another commenter (Chemical Manufacturer's Association) noted that the system, if implemented, will not be viable unless the method chosen by the regulated entity is the exclusive means by which compliance is judged. Response: Many concerns about method primacy disputes are not well founded. Also, the first commenter made several incorrect assumptions, such as the one that a regulator's method always would be given primacy and that PBMS results cannot be challenged. Under RCRA, the regulated entity is responsible for making the correct regulatory decision based on analytical data or other means. Even using required SW­ 846 methods does not relieve them of this responsibility. The regulated entity establishes performance criteria and demonstrates the performance results to verify that a method is appropriate. Sometimes, more than one method will lead to the right compliance decision, which is not a surprise given the wide variety of method technologies and performance capabilities (more than one may meet or exceed project­ specific performance criteria). Regulatory personnel in turn evaluate the completeness of the method performance demonstration to determine if the method used was appropriate and if the correct decision was made. Therefore, under RCRA, making the correct regulatory decision is of primary importance, not how (e. g., method used) one gets to it. Even during the use of required methods, the performance data must be evaluated and compared with project performance objectives. A decision should not be made based on results assumed to be adequate just because one used the method that was required or mentioned by a particular regulation. The Agency hopes that information in the proposed rule and EPA­ developed training and guidance will help all affected parties better understand these principles. The Agency also believes that regulated entities should consult with their regulating authority during identification of performance goals and the selection of appropriate methods. Working closely with their regulating agency, they should identify potentially appropriate methods for a specific project before sampling and analysis begins. This is recommended even for required uses of SW­ 846. Regulated entities should include performance goals in the QAPP or SAP and evaluate how well the method meets them based on the results of the QC data or other performance indicators. If a method does not meet the criteria, another might be selected, again in consultation with the regulating authority. The Agency acknowledges that an appropriate method may give different waste analysis results at different times and two appropriate methods may give different results, for various reasons. Also, any result can be "challenged," even one based on a required SW­ 846 method. For these and other reasons, the Agency believes that it is important that adequate performance data be generated. These data can then be used to settle any disputes that arise. 6. Comment: One commenter (American Petroleum Institute) believed that, for groundwater monitoring, the EPA should specify designated reference methods (DRMs), both for sample preparation and for instrumental analysis. DRMs should be used in resolving compliance issues. The commenter believed that DRMs would not preclude the use of PBMS, and could provide an agreed­ upon baseline method for the purpose of dispute resolution. Another commenter III ­ 5 suggested that clearly defined standard reference or referee methods are needed in order to validate performance­ based methods and settle disputes which may arise. Response: The Agency disagrees that it should specify reference methods for ground water monitoring, or any other RCRA­ related monitoring, for the purpose of resolving disputes regarding method results. This approach is not appropriate given that a wide variety of matrices and analytes of concern may be encountered by the regulated community under the RCRA Program, and any one reference method specified by the Agency may not be appropriate for all situations and thus would not work well for resolving all disputes. Instead, the Agency currently recommends the use of reference materials or standards during demonstrations of a method's performance. Unfortunately, for the RCRA Program, such materials are not available in a wide enough variety of matrices and analytes to serve all program needs. Nevertheless, although reference materials may not be available for every analysis, QC checks such as matrix spikes, matrix spike duplicates and use of the method of standard additions can be used to accurately demonstrate method performance (precision and bias). 7. Comment: One commenter (Ford Motor Company) stated that some parts of the RCRA regulations allow both SW­ 846 methods and "alternate methods approved by the administrator." In most cases, few or no alternate methods have been approved by the administrator, which has restricted the regulated community to using the SW­ 846 methods. Second, the commenter raised an issue regarding the impression that most laboratories and auditors simply interpret SW­ 846 word­ by­ word to be conservative due to discrepancies that exist between the editions. The commenter stated that, if the first or second editions of SW­ 846 are specified in a State rule or permit, flexibility may be denied. The commenter noted that the first and second editions of SW­ 846 gave no indication that they were only intended to be used as guidelines. However, the third edition of SW­ 846 indicates that the methods can be used with some flexibility. Response: Regarding the commenter's complaint about method approval times, the proposed rule will solve such problems by allowing the use of alternative methods without a lengthy approval process. EPA disagrees with the commenter's second concern. Within the Federal regulations and those of any authorized States, only the Third Edition of SW­ 846 should be cited for the purposes of waste analysis under the RCRA Program. The Third Edition replaced previous editions in 1986. The Third Edition and its first update were promulgated in 1993. IV ­ 1 IV. What Concerns Exist Regarding the Impact on State RCRA Programs of the Removal of Certain Required Uses of SW­ 846 Methods from the Federal RCRA Regulations? 1. Comment: One commenter (Eastman Chemical Company) expressed concerns that States will not adopt PBMS and will continue to require specified methods. Response: It is true that authorized States are not required to change their regulations and programs based on this proposed rule. Thus, States may continue to require specific SW­ 846 methods in their regulations for other than method­ defined parameters. The Agency will recommend that States adopt the revisions proposed as part of this rule and will provide guidance regarding implementation of the Federal changes. EPA hopes that such guidance will mitigate some State concerns regarding adoption of a PBMS approach in their hazardous waste regulations. 2. Comment: One commenter (Washington State Dept. of Ecology) noted that States will need to create a training program for development of analytical methods that comply with the regulations. In addition, training will have to be provided to acquaint regulatory staff with appropriate new methods. Another commenter (Chemical Manufacturer's Association) stated that States will need technical assistance and training. Response: EPA is providing and will continue to provide training to the States and other regulating entities (e. g., EPA Regions) on the principals of this rule, through such mechanisms as training modules, workshops, and fact sheets. EPA currently provides program­ specific training through the training module "Analytical Strategy for the RCRA Program: A Performance­ Based Approach" for EPA Headquarters, Regional, and State personnel. EPA plans to offer other courses on the evaluation of data and permit writing from a PBMS and effective data standpoint. Through this training effort, the Agency hopes to ensure consistency in implementation of this rule by the States, Regions, and regulated community and help limit any associated costs. The proposed revisions will not require that States institute a training program on development of analytical methods, although they can do so if they wish. In addition, new method development will not always be necessary, given the many potentially appropriate methods that exist in SW­ 846 and other scientifically­ accepted sources. The users of the methods will just have to continue to demonstrate that any method used is appropriate based on performance data, which is not different from what is currently done. 3. Comment: One commenter (California Dept. of Toxic Substances Control) believed that difficulties in enforcement and compliance as well as delays in issuance of permits will be the main impact on state RCRA programs. The commenter recommended that authorized State agencies maintain the required uses of SW­ 846 for all analyses, but be given the discretion of allowing an alternative performance­ based method measurement system in lieu of SW­ 846. The commenter believed that in this way, the EPA could make suggested changes to SW­ 846 available to the regulated community and authorized agencies would have the discretion of allowing these changes to be implemented. Furthermore, the EPA could periodically update SW­ 846 by rulemaking, but, in the meantime, a mechanism would be in place to allow more flexibility and innovative technologies. IV ­ 2 Response: First, authorized States will not be required to adopt the Federal changes and remove required uses of SW­ 846 from their regulations, although EPA encourages them to do so. In addition, the commenter's suggested approach is not logical and would be very difficult to legally implement and enforce. States could not both keep required uses of specific methods in their regulations and also allow the flexibility to use other methods ­­ it has to be one or the other. A method can be either required or not required ­­ not both. States may adopt the Federal agency's approach of mentioning a specific SW­ 846 method as an example of a potentially appropriate method. Regarding the updating of SW­ 846, the Agency wishes to avoid the rulemaking process for most future SW­ 846 updates. The rulemaking process is lengthy and delays the timely use of new and improved monitoring technologies in RCRA­ related testing. Because of the required uses of SW­ 846, the Agency has to issue the updates as a proposed rule, request public comment, and then promulgate the update in a final rule. Removal of most required uses of SW­ 846 methods from the RCRA regulations will promote more efficient and timely releases of new and revised SW­ 846 methods. A rulemaking will be necessary only when revising SW­ 846 to add or change a method­ defined parameter in the RCRA regulations (e. g., a revision to Method 1311, the TCLP). 4. Comment: One commenter (American Petroleum Institute) believed that there may be little incentive for States to use "other appropriate methods" and incur the costs of demonstrating equivalency and reconciling potential bias between methods. The commenter believed that the current lack of statistical understanding by regulatory agency personnel, engineering/ project management firms, laboratories and the regulated community make the prescriptive approach appear less risky than a PBMS approach. Response: The Agency agrees that States may be hesitant about adopting the new approach, but also believes that demonstrating that a method is appropriate for its intended use does not represent an additional burden to States, other regulators, or the regulated community. After all, currently under RCRA, regardless of the method used ­­ even if it is an explicitly required method ­­ regulated entities should be demonstrating that the method is appropriate for its intended use, e. g., that it can adequately quantitate the analytes of concern in the particular waste matrix. Following a so­ called more "prescriptive" approach does not relieve the regulated community from such a demonstration. The States in turn should be evaluating the completeness of such a demonstration, regardless of which method is used, when determining compliance. Therefore, this rule does not directly or indirectly propose new information collection requirements that must be processed by a State. The Agency will need more information on the concerns regarding method equivalency, reconciling bias, and statistical understanding before responding further to this kind of comment. There might be a number of different issues of concern to the commenter. For instance, regarding "bias between methods," it will not be necessary to show equivalency with a previously required method. The regulated entity needs to only show that a particular method is appropriate to its current use and meets project objectives. 5. Comment: One commenter (Ford Motor Company) noted that a determination must first be made on whether or not existing methods are able to meet project DQOs. The commenter pointed out that even now there are no methods available which can meet delisting requirements IV ­ 3 when all Appendix VIII compounds must be determined. SW­ 846 methods are unable to meet QA/ QC criteria in many complex waste matrices. The commenter questioned whether the EPA will identify suitable alternate methods or performance­ based methods which can meet the analysis requirement set forth under RCRA. Response: In general, the proposed flexibility will help resolve problems regarding method availability by allowing selection from a larger universe of potentially applicable methods. Regarding delisting demonstrations, delisting petitioners usually do not have to analyze for every analyte in Appendix VIII. Petitioners need only address constituents of concern to their particular waste. If no method is available, then delisting petitioners can use other approaches to demonstrate that an Appendix VIII analyte would not be present at levels of concern, such as use of a mass balance demonstration. Also, the proposed action will help solve any problems with the scope of appropriate methods in SW­ 846 because it will allow the use of other methods from other sources. In addition, the flexibility inherent in proper use of SW­ 846 methods allows method modifications that could expand the scope of analytes and increase sensitivity. The Agency will retain mention of SW­ 846 methods in some of the regulations as examples of possible appropriate methods for RCRA­ related sampling and analysis.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:50.100458

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0025-0009

Supporting & Related Material

1010A ) 1 Revision 1 August 2002 METHOD 1010A PENSKY­ MARTENS CLOSED­ CUP METHOD FOR DETERMINING IGNITABILITY 1.0 SCOPE AND APPLICATION 1.1 Method 1010 uses the Pensky­ Martens closed­ cup tester to determine the flash point of liquids including those that tend to form a surface film under test conditions. Liquids containing non­ filterable, suspended solids can also be tested using this method. 1.2 This method is one of two method options required by 40 CFR 261.21( a)( 1) in the determination of the hazardous waste ignitability characteristic. Method 1020 is the other method option. 2.0 SUMMARY OF METHOD 2.1 The sample is heated at a slow, constant rate with continual stirring. A small flame is directed into the cup at regular intervals with simultaneous interruption of stirring. The flash point is the lowest temperature at which application of the test flame ignites the vapor above the sample. 2.2 For complete instructions on how to conduct a test by this method, see Reference 4 below, " D 93­ 99c, Standard Test Methods for Flash­ Point by Pensky­ Martens Closed Cup Tester." 3.0 METHOD PERFORMANCE 3.1 The Pensky­ Martens and Setaflash Closed Testers ( Revision 0 of Method 1020) were evaluated using five industrial waste mixtures and p­ xylene. The results of these studies are shown below in ° F along with other data. The sample footnote numbers refer to the source documents identified under Sec. 4.0 of this method. Sample Pensky­ Martens ( ° F) Setaflash ( ° F) 12 143.7 + 1.5 139.3 + 2.1 22 144.7 + 4.5 129.7 + 0.6 32 93.7 + 1.5 97.7 + 1.2 42 198.0 + 4.0 185.3 + 0.6 52 119.3 + 3.1 122.7 + 2.5 p­ xylene2 81.3 + 1.1 79.3 + 0.6 p­ xylene3 77.7 + 0.5a ­­ Tanker oil 125, 135 ­­ Tanker oil 180, 180 Tanker oil 110, 110 DIBK/ xylene 102 + 4b 107 a12 determinations over five­ day period. b75/ 25 v/ v analyzed by four laboratories. 1010A ) 2 Revision 1 August 2002 4.0 REFERENCES 1. D 93­ 80, Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky­ Martens Closed Tester, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, 04.09, 1986. 2. Umana, M., Gutknecht, W., Salmons, C., et al., Evaluation of Ignitability Methods ( Liquids), EPA/ 600/ S4­ 85/ 053, 1985. 3. Gaskill, A., Compilation and Evaluation of RCRA Method Performance Data, Work Assignment No. 2, EPA Contract No. 68­ 01­ 7075, September 1986. 4. D 93­ 99c, Standard Test Methods for Flash­ Point by Pensky­ Martens Closed Cup Tester, originally published by the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. Available from Global Engineering Documents, 15 Iverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112, 1­ 800­ 854­ 7179, http:// global. ihs. com

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:50.109072

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0025-0010

Supporting & Related Material

1020B ­ 1 Revision 2 August 2002 METHOD 1020B SMALL SCALE CLOSED­ CUP METHOD FOR DETERMINING IGNITABILITY 1.0 SCOPE AND APPLICATION 1.1 Method 1020 makes uses the small scale closed­ cup apparatus ( formerly the Setaflash closed tester) to determine the flash point of liquids that have flash points between 0 ° and 110 ° C ( 32 and 230 ° F) and viscosities lower than 150 stokes at 25 ° C ( 77 ° F). 1.2 The procedure may be used to determine whether a material will or will not flash at a specified temperature or to determine the finite temperature at which a material will flash. 1.3 This method is one of two method options required in 40 CFR 261.21( a)( 1) for the determination of the hazardous waste ignitability characteristic. Method 1010 ( Pensky­ Martens Closed­ Cup Method for Determining Ignitability) is the other method option. Liquids that tend to form surface films under test conditions or those that contain non­ filterable suspended solids should be tested for the hazardous waste ignitability characteristic using Method 1010. 2.0 SUMMARY OF METHOD 2.1 By means of a syringe, 2­ mL of sample is introduced through a leak­ proof entry port into the tightly closed small scale tester or directly into the cup which has been brought to within 3 ° C ( 5 ° F) below the expected flash point. 2.2 As a flash/ no­ flash test, the expected flash­ point temperature may be a specification ( e. g., 60 ° C). For specification testing, the temperature of the apparatus is raised to the precise temperature of the specification flash point by slight adjustment of the temperature dial. After 1 minute, a test flame is applied inside the cup and note is taken as to whether the test sample flashes or not. If a repeat test is necessary, a fresh sample should be used. 2.3 For a finite flash management, the temperature is sequentially increased through the anticipated range, the test flame being applied at 5 ° C ( 9 ° F) intervals until a flash is observed. A repeat determination is then made using a fresh sample, starting the test at the temperature of the last interval before the flash point of the material and making tests at increasing 0.5 ° C ( 1 ° F) intervals. 2.4 For the complete instructions on how to conduct the ignitability test by this method, see Reference 4 below, " D 3278­ 96, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point of Liquids by Small Scale Closed­ Cup Apparatus." 3.0 METHOD PERFORMANCE See Method 1010. 4.0 REFERENCES 1. D 3278­ 78, Test Method for Flash Point of Liquids by Setaflash Closed Tester, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. 1020B ­ 2 Revision 2 August 2002 2. Umana, M., Gutknecht, W., Salmons, C., et al., Evaluation of Ignitability Methods ( Liquids), EPA/ 600/ S4­ 85/ 053, 1985. 3. Gaskill, A., Compilation and Evaluation of RCRA Method Performance Data, Work Assignment No. 2, EPA Contract No. 68­ 01­ 7075, September 1986. 4. D 3278­ 96, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point of Liquids by Small Scale Closed­ Cup Apparatus, American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA. http// www. astm. org/. Also available from Global Engineering Documents, 15 Iverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112, 1­ 800­ 854­ 7179, http:// global. ihs. com.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:50.111607

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0025-0011

Supporting & Related Material

1110A ) 1 Revision 1 August 2002 A ' 3.14 ( D 2 & d 2) 2 % ( t)( 3.14)( D) % ( t)( 3.14)( d) METHOD 1110A CORROSIVITY TOWARD STEEL 1.0 SCOPE AND APPLICATION 1.1 Method 1110 is used to measure the corrosivity toward steel of both aqueous and nonaqueous liquid wastes. 2.0 SUMMARY OF METHOD 2.1 This test exposes coupons of SAE Type 1020 steel to the liquid waste to be evaluated and, by measuring the degree to which the coupon has been dissolved, determines the corrosivity of the waste. 3.0 INTERFERENCES 3.1 In laboratory tests, such as this one, corrosion of duplicate coupons is usually reproducible to within 10%. However, large differences in corrosion rates may occasionally occur under conditions where the metal surfaces become passivated. Therefore, at least duplicate determinations of corrosion rate should be made. 4.0 APPARATUS AND MATERIALS 4.1 An apparatus should be used, consisting of a kettle or flask of suitable size ( usually 500 to 5,000 mL), a reflux condenser, a thermowell and temperature regulating device, a heating device ( mantle, hot plate, or bath), and a specimen support system. A typical resin flask set up for this type of test is shown in Figure 1. 4.2 The supporting device and container shall be constructed of materials that are not affected by, or cause contamination of, the waste under test. 4.3 The method of supporting the coupons will vary with the apparatus used for conducting the test, but it should be designed to insulate the coupons from each other physically and electrically and to insulate the coupons from any metallic container or other device used in the test. Some common support materials include glass, fluorocarbon, or coated metal. 4.4 The shape and form of the coupon support should ensure free contact with the waste. 4.5 A circular specimen of SAE 1020 steel of about 3.75 cm ( 1.5 in.) diameter is a convenient shape for a coupon. With a thickness of approximately 0.32 cm ( 0.125 in.) and a 0.80­ cm ( 0.4­ in.)­ diameter hole for mounting, these specimens will readily pass through a 45/ 50 groundglass joint of a distillation kettle. The total surface area of a circular specimen is given by the following equation: 1110A ) 2 Revision 1 August 2002 where: t = thickness. D = diameter of the specimen. d = diameter of the mounting hole. If the hole is completely covered by the mounting support, the last term in the equation, ( t)( 3.14)( d), is omitted. 4.5.1 All coupons should be measured carefully to permit accurate calculation of the exposed areas. An area calculation accurate to + 1% is usually adequate. 4.5.2 More uniform results may be expected if a substantial layer of metal is removed from the coupons prior to testing the corrosivity of the waste. This can be accomplished by chemical treatment ( pickling), by electrolytic removal, or by grinding with a coarse abrasive. At least 0.254 mm ( 0.0001 in.) or 2­ 3 mg/ cm2 should be removed. Final surface treatment should include finishing with # 120 abrasive paper or cloth. Final cleaning consists of scrubbing with bleach­ free scouring powder, followed by rinsing in distilled water and then in acetone or methanol, and finally by air­ drying. After final cleaning, the coupon should be stored in a desiccator until used. 4.5.3 The minimum ratio of volume of waste to area of the metal coupon to be used in this test is 40 mL/ cm2. 5.0 REAGENTS 5.1 Sodium hydroxide ( NaOH), ( 20%): Dissolve 200 g NaOH in 800 mL Type II water and mix well. 5.2 Zinc dust. 5.3 Hydrochloric acid ( HCl): Concentrated. 5.4 Stannous chloride ( SnCl 2). 5.5 Antimony chloride ( SbCl 3). 6.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION, PRESERVATION, AND HANDLING This method does not provide sample collection, preservation, and handling guidelines. 7.0 PROCEDURE 7.1 Assemble the test apparatus as described in Paragraph 4.0, above. 7.2 Fill the container with the appropriate amount of waste. 7.3 Begin agitation at a rate sufficient to ensure that the liquid is kept well mixed and homogeneous. 7.4 Using the heating device, bring the temperature of the waste to 55 E C ( 130 E F). 1110A ) 3 Revision 1 August 2002 7.5 An accurate rate of corrosion is not required; only a determination as to whether the rate of corrosion is less than or greater than 6.35 mm per year is required. A 24­ hr test period should be ample to determine whether or not the rate of corrosion is > 6.35 mm per year. 7.6 In order to determine accurately the amount of material lost to corrosion, the coupons have to be cleaned after immersion and prior to weighing. The cleaning procedure should remove all products of corrosion while removing a minimum of sound metal. Cleaning methods can be divided into three general categories: mechanical, chemical, and electrolytic. 7.6.1 Mechanical cleaning includes scrubbing, scraping, brushing, and ultrasonic procedures. Scrubbing with a bristle brush and mild abrasive is the most popular of these methods. The others are used in cases of heavy corrosion as a first step in removing heavily encrusted corrosion products prior to scrubbing. Care should be taken to avoid removing sound metal. 7.6.2 Chemical cleaning implies the removal of material from the surface of the coupon by dissolution in an appropriate solvent. Solvents such as acetone, dichloromethane, and alcohol are used to remove oil, grease, or resinous materials and are used prior to immersion to remove the products of corrosion. Solutions suitable for removing corrosion from the steel coupon are: Solution Soaking Time Temperature 20% NaOH + 200 g/ L zinc dust 5 min Boiling Conc. HCl + 50 g/ L SnCl 2 + 20 g/ L SbCl 3 Until clean Cold 7.6.3 Electrolytic cleaning should be preceded by scrubbing to remove loosely adhering corrosion products. One method of electrolytic cleaning that can be employed uses: Solution: 50 g/ L H 2 SO 4 Anode: Carbon or lead Cathode: Steel coupon Cathode current density: 20 amp/ cm2 ( 129 amp/ in. 2) Inhibitor: 2 cc organic inhibitor/ liter Temperature: 74 E C ( 165 E F) Exposure Period: 3 min. NOTE: Precautions must be taken to ensure good electrical contact with the coupon to avoid contamination of the cleaning solution with easily reducible metal ions and to ensure that inhibitor decomposition has not occurred. Instead of a proprietary inhibitor, 0.5 g/ L of either diorthotolyl thiourea or quinolin ethiodide can be used. 7.7 Whatever treatment is employed to clean the coupons, its effect in removing sound metal should be determined by using a blank ( i. e., a coupon that has not been exposed to the waste). The blank should be cleaned along with the test coupon and its waste loss subtracted from that calculated for the test coupons. 1110A ) 4 Revision 1 August 2002 Corrosion Rate ( mmpy) ' weight loss x 11.145 area x time 7.8 After corroded specimens have been cleaned and dried, they are reweighed. The weight loss is employed as the principal measure of corrosion. Use of weight loss as a measure of corrosion requires making the assumption that all weight loss has been due to generalized corrosion and not localized pitting. In order to determine the corrosion rate for the purpose of this regulation, the following formula is used: where: weight loss is in milligrams, area is in square centimeters, time is in hours, and corrosion rate is in millimeters per year ( mmpy). 8.0 QUALITY CONTROL 8.1 All quality control data should be filed and available for auditing. 8.2 Duplicate samples should be analyzed on a routine basis. 9.0 METHOD PERFORMANCE 9.1 No data provided. 10.0 REFERENCES 1. National Association of Corrosion Engineers, " Laboratory Corrosion Testing of Metals for the Process Industries," NACE Standard TM­ 01­ 69 ( 1972 Revision), NACE, 3400 West Loop South, Houston, TX 77027. 1110A ) 5 Revision 1 August 2002 Figure 1. Typical resin flask that can be used as a versatile and convenient apparatus to conduct simple immersion tests. Configuration of the flask top is such that more sophisticated apparatus can be added as required by the specific test being conducted. A = thermowell, B = resin flask, C = specimens hung on supporting device, D = heating mantle, E = liquid interface, F = opening in flask for additional apparatus that may be required, and G = reflux condenser. 1110A ) 6 Revision 1 August 2002

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:50.114392

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0025-0012

Supporting & Related Material

1310B ­ 1 Revision 2 August 2002 METHOD 1310B EXTRACTION PROCEDURE ( EP) TOXICITY TEST METHOD AND STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY TEST 1.0 SCOPE AND APPLICATION 1.1 This method is used to determine whether a waste exhibits the characteristic of Extraction Procedure Toxicity. 1.2 The procedure may also be used to simulate the leaching which a waste may undergo if disposed of in a sanitary landfill. Method 1310 is applicable to liquid, solid, and multiphase samples. 2.0 SUMMARY OF METHOD 2.1 If a representative sample of the waste contains > 0.5% solids, the solid phase of the sample is ground to pass a 9.5 mm sieve and extracted with deionized water which is maintained at a pH of 5 + 0.2, with acetic acid. Wastes that contain < 0.5% filterable solids are, after filtering, considered to be the EP extract for this method. Monolithic wastes which can be formed into a cylinder 3.3 cm ( dia) x 7.1 cm, or from which such a cylinder can be formed which is representative of the waste, may be evaluated using the Structural Integrity Procedure instead of being ground to pass a 9.5­ mm sieve. 3.0 INTERFERENCES 3.1 Potential interferences that may be encountered during analysis are discussed in the individual analytical methods. 4.0 APPARATUS AND MATERIALS 4.1 Extractor ­ For purposes of this test, an acceptable extractor is one that will impart sufficient agitation to the mixture to ( 1) prevent stratification of the sample and extraction fluid and ( 2) ensure that all sample surfaces are continuously brought into contact with well­ mixed extraction fluid. Examples of suitable extractors are shown in Figures 1­ 3 of this method and are available from: Associated Designs & Manufacturing Co., Alexandria, Virginia; Glas­ Col Apparatus Co., Terre Haute, Indiana; Millipore, Bedford, Massachusetts; and Rexnard, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 4.2 pH meter or pH controller ­ Accurate to 0.05 pH units with temperature compensation. 4.3 Filter holder ­ Capable of supporting a 0.45­ µ m filter membrane and of withstanding the pressure needed to accomplish separation. Suitable filter holders range from simple vacuum units to relatively complex systems that can exert up to 5.3 kg/ cm3 ( 75 psi) of pressure. The type of filter holder used depends upon the properties of the mixture to be filtered. Filter holders known to EPA and deemed suitable for use are listed in Table 1. 1310B ­ 2 Revision 2 August 2002 4.4 Filter membrane ­ Filter membrane suitable for conducting the required filtration shall be fabricated from a material that ( 1) is not physically changed by the waste material to be filtered and ( 2) does not absorb or leach the chemical species for which a waste's EP extract will be analyzed. Table 2 lists filter media known to the Agency to be suitable for solid waste testing. 4.4.1 In cases of doubt about physical effects on the filter, contact the filter manufacturer to determine if the membrane or the prefilter is adversely affected by the particular waste. If no information is available, submerge the filter in the waste's liquid phase. A filter that undergoes visible physical change after 48 hours ( i. e., curls, dissolves, shrinks, or swells) is unsuitable for use. 4.4.2 To test for absorption or leaching by the filter: 4.4.2.1 Prepare a standard solution of the chemical species of interest. 4.4.2.2 Analyze the standard for its concentration of the chemical species. 4.4.2.3 Filter the standard and reanalyze. If the concentration of the filtrate differs from that of the original standard, then the filter membrane leaches or absorbs one or more of the chemical species and is not usable in this test method. 4.5 Structural integrity tester ­ A device meeting the specifications shown in Figure 4 and having a 3.18­ cm ( 1.25­ in) diameter hammer weighing 0.33 kg ( 0.73 lb) with a free fall of 15.24 cm ( 6 in) shall be used. This device is available from Associated Design and Manufacturing Company, Alexandria, VA 22314, as Part No. 125, or it may be fabricated to meet these specifications. 5.0 REAGENTS 5.1 Reagent grade chemicals shall be used in all tests. Unless otherwise indicated, it is intended that all reagents shall conform to the specifications of the Committee on Analytical Reagents of the American Chemical Society, where such specifications are available. Other grades may be used, provided it is first ascertained that the reagent is of sufficiently high purity to permit its use without lessening the accuracy of the determination. 5.2 Reagent water. All references to water in this method refer to reagent water, as defined in Chapter One. 5.3 Acetic acid ( 0.5N), CH 3 C00H. This can be made by diluting concentrated glacial acetic acid ( 17.5N) by adding 57 mL glacial acetic acid to 1,000 mL of water and diluting to 2 liters. The glacial acetic acid must be of high purity and monitored for impurities. 5.4 Analytical standards should be prepared according to the applicable analytical methods. 6.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION, PRESERVATION, AND HANDLING 6.1 Preservatives must not be added to samples. 1310B ­ 3 Revision 2 August 2002 weight of filtered solid and filters tared weight of filters initial weight of waste material 100 % solids - = x 6.2 Samples can be refrigerated if it is determined that refrigeration will not affect the integrity of the sample. 7.0 PROCEDURE 7.1 If the waste does not contain any free liquid, go to Step 7.9. If the sample is liquid or multiphase, continue as follows. Weigh filter membrane and prefilter to + 0.01 g. Handle membrane and prefilters with blunt curved­ tip forceps or vacuum tweezers, or by applying suction with a pipet. 7.2 Assemble filter holder, membranes, and prefilters following the manufacturer's instructions. Place the 0.45­ µ m membrane on the support screen and add prefilters in ascending order of pore size. Do not prewet filter membrane. 7.3 Weigh out a representative subsample of the waste ( 100 g minimum). 7.4 Allow slurries to stand, to permit the solid phase to settle. Wastes that settle slowly may be centrifuged prior to filtration. 7.5 Wet the filter with a small portion of the liquid phase from the waste or from the extraction mixture. Transfer the remaining material to the filter holder and apply vacuum or gentle pressure ( 10­ 15 psi) until all liquid passes through the filter. Stop filtration when air or pressurizing gas moves through the membrane. If this point is not reached under vacuum or gentle pressure, slowly increase the pressure in 10­ psi increments to 75 psi. Halt filtration when liquid flow stops. This liquid will constitute part or all of the extract ( refer to Step 7.16). The liquid should be refrigerated until time of analysis. NOTE: Oil samples or samples containing oil are treated in exactly the same way as any other sample. The liquid portion of the sample is filtered and treated as part of the EP extract. If the liquid portion of the sample will not pass through the filter ( usually the case with heavy oils or greases), it should be carried through the EP extraction as a solid. 7.6 Remove the solid phase and filter media and, while not allowing them to dry, weigh to + 0.01 g. The wet weight of the residue is determined by calculating the weight difference between the weight of the filters ( Step 7.1) and the weight of the solid phase and the filter media. 7.7 The waste will be handled differently from this point on, depending on whether it contains more or less than 0.5% solids. If the sample appears to have < 0.5% solids, determine the percent solids exactly ( see Note below) by the following procedure: 7.7.1 Dry the filter and residue at 80 E C until two successive weighings yield the same value. 7.7.2 Calculate the percent solids, using the following equation: 1310B ­ 4 Revision 2 August 2002 NOTE: This procedure is used only to determine whether the solid must be extracted or whether it can be discarded unextracted. It is not used in calculating the amount of water or acid to use in the extraction step. Do not extract solid material that has been dried at 80 E C. A new sample will have to be used for extraction if a percent solids determination is performed. 7.8 If the solid constitutes < 0.5% of the waste, discard the solid and proceed immediately to Step 7.17, treating the liquid phase as the extract. 7.9 The solid material obtained from Step 7.5 and all materials that do not contain free liquids shall be evaluated for particle size. If the solid material has a surface area per g of material > 3.1 cm2 or passes through a 9.5­ mm ( 0.375­ in.) standard sieve, the operator shall proceed to Step 7.11. If the surface area is smaller or the particle size larger than specified above, the solid material shall be prepared for extraction by crushing, cutting, or grinding the material so that it passes through a 9.5­ mm ( 0.375­ in.) sieve or, if the material is in a single piece, by subjecting the material to the " Structural Integrity Procedure" described in Step 7.10. 7.10 Structural Integrity Procedure ( SIP) 7.10.1 Cut a 3.3­ cm diameter by 7.1­ cm long cylinder from the waste material. If the waste has been treated using a fixation process, the waste may be cast in the form of a cylinder and allowed to cure for 30 days prior to testing. 7.10.2 Place waste into sample holder and assemble the tester. Raise the hammer to its maximum height and drop. Repeat 14 additional times. 7.10.3 Remove solid material from tester and scrape off any particles adhering to sample holder. Weigh the waste to the nearest 0.01 g and transfer it to the extractor. 7.11 If the sample contains > 0.5% solids, use the wet weight of the solid phase ( obtained in Step 7.6) to calculate the amount of liquid and acid to employ for extraction by using the following equation: W = W f ­ W t where : W = Wet weight in g of solid to be charged to extractor. W f = Wet weight in g of filtered solids and filter media. W t = Weight in g of tared filters. If the waste does not contain any free liquids, 100 g of the material will be subjected to the extraction procedure. 7.12 Place the appropriate amount of material ( refer to Step 7.11) into the extractor and add 16 times its weight with water. 1310B ­ 5 Revision 2 August 2002 7.13 After the solid material and water are placed in the extractor, the operator shall begin agitation and measure the pH of the solution in the extractor. If the pH is > 5.0, the pH of the solution should be decreased to 5.0 + 0.2 by slowly adding 0.5N acetic acid. If the pH is < 5.0, no acetic acid should be added. The pH of the solution should be monitored, as described below, during the course of the extraction, and, if the pH rises above 5.2, 0.5N acetic acid should be added to bring the pH down to 5.0 + 0.2. However, in no event shall the aggregate amount of acid added to the solution exceed 4 mL of acid per g of solid. The mixture should be agitated for 24 hours and maintained at 20­ 40 E C ( 68­ 104 E F) during this time. It is recommended that the operator monitor and adjust the pH during the course of the extraction with a device such as the Type 45­ A pH Controller, manufactured by Chemtrix, Inc., Hillsboro, Oregon 97123, or its equivalent, in conjunction with a metering pump and reservoir of 0.5N acetic acid. If such a system is not available, the following manual procedure shall be employed. NOTE: Do not add acetic acid too quickly. Lowering the pH to below the target concentration of 5.0 could affect the metal concentrations in the leachate. 7.13.1 A pH meter should be calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 7.13.2 The pH of the solution should be checked, and, if necessary, 0.5 N acetic acid should be manually added to the extractor until the pH reaches 5.0 + 0.2. The pH of the solution should be adjusted at 15­, 30­, and 60­ minute intervals, moving to the next longer interval if the pH does not have to be adjusted > 0.5 pH units. 7.13.3 The adjustment procedure should be continued for at least 6 hours. 7.13.4 If, at the end of the 24­ hour extraction period, the pH of the solution is not below 5.2 and the maximum amount of acid ( 4 mL per g of solids) has not been added, the pH should be adjusted to 5.0 + 0.2 and the extraction continued for an additional 4 hours, during which the pH should be adjusted at 1­ hour intervals. 7.14 At the end of the extraction period, water should be added to the extractor in an amount determined by the following equation: V = ( 20)( W) ­ 16( W) ­ A where: V = mL water to be added. W = Weight in g of solid charged to extractor. A = mL of 0.5N acetic acid added during extraction. 7.15 The material in the extractor should be separated into its component liquid and solid phases in the following manner: 7.15.1 Allow slurries to stand to permit the solid phase to settle ( wastes that are slow to settle may be centrifuged prior to filtration) and set up the filter apparatus ( refer to Steps 4.3 and 4.4). 1310B ­ 6 Revision 2 August 2002 ( ) ( ) 50 1000 x x contaminant conc. in oil contaminant conc. of aqueous phase 1050 + , 7.15.2 Wet the filter with a small portion of the liquid phase from the waste or from the extraction mixture. Transfer the remaining material to the filter holder and apply vacuum or gentle pressure ( 10­ 15 psi) until all liquid passes through the filter. Stop filtration when air or pressurizing gas moves through the membrane. If this point is not reached under vacuum or gentle pressure, slowly increase the pressure in 10­ psi increments to 75 psi. Halt filtration when liquid flow stops. 7.16 The liquids resulting from Steps 7.5 and 7.15 should be combined. This combined liquid ( or waste itself, if it has < 0.5% solids, as noted in Step 7.8) is the extract. 7.17 The extract is then prepared and analyzed using the appropriate analytical methods described in Chapters Three and Four of this manual. NOTE: If the EP extract includes two phases, concentration of contaminants is determined by using a simple weighted average. For example: An EP extract contains 50 mL of oil and 1,000 mL of an aqueous phase. Contaminant concentrations are determined for each phase. The final contamination concentration is taken to be: NOTE: In cases where a contaminant was not detected, use the MDL in the calculation. For example, if the MDL in the oily phase is 100 mg/ L and 1 mg/ L in the aqueous phase, the reporting limit would be 6 mg/ L ( rounded to the nearest mg). If the regulatory threshold is 5 mg/ L, the waste may be EP toxic and results of the analysis are inconclusive. 8.0 QUALITY CONTROL 8.1 All quality control data should be maintained and available for easy reference or inspection. 8.2 Employ a minimum of one blank per sample batch to determine if contamination or any memory effects are occurring. 8.3 All quality control measures described in Chapter One and in the referenced analytical methods should be followed. 9.0 METHOD PERFORMANCE 9.1 The data tabulated in Table 3 were obtained from records of state and contractor laboratories and are intended to show the precision of the entire method ( 1310 plus analysis method). 1310B ­ 7 Revision 2 August 2002 10.0 REFERENCES 1. Rohrbough, W. G.; et al. Reagent Chemicals, American Chemical Society Specifications, 7th ed.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1986. 2. 1985 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.01; " Standard Specification for Reagent Water"; ASTM: Philadelphia, PA, 1985; D1193­ 77. 3. Gaskill, A., Compilation and Evaluation of RCRA Method Performance Data, Work Assignment No. 2, EPA Contract No. 68­ 01­ 7075, September 1986. 1310B ­ 8 Revision 2 August 2002 TABLE 1. EPA­ APPROVED FILTER HOLDERS Manufacturer Size Model No. Comments Vacuum Filters Gelman 47 mm 4011 Nalgene 500 mL 44­ 0045 Disposable plastic unit, including prefilter, filter pads, and reservoir; can be used when solution is to be analyzed for inorganic constituents. Nuclepore 47 mm 410400 Millipore 47 mm XX10 047 00 Pressure Filters Nuclepore 142 mm 425900 Micro Filtration Systems 142 mm 302300 Millipore 142 mm YT30 142 HW 1310B ­ 9 Revision 2 August 2002 TABLE 2. EPA­ APPROVED FILTRATION MEDIA Supplier Filter to be used for aqueous systems Filter to be used for organic systems Coarse prefilter Gelman 61631, 61635 61631, 61635 Nuclepore 210907, 211707 210907, 211707 Millipore AP25 035 00, AP25 127 50 AP25 035 00, AP25 127 50 Medium prefilters Gelman 61654, 61655 Nuclepore 210905, 211705 210905, 211705 Millipore AP20 035 00, AP20 124 50 AP20 035 00, AP20 124 50 Fine prefilters Gelman 64798, 64803 64798, 64803 Nuclepore 210903, 211703 210903, 211703 Millipore AP15 035 00, AP15 124 50 AP15 035 00, AP15 124 50 Fine filters ( 0.45 µ m) Gelman 63069, 66536 60540 or 66149, 66151 Pall NX04750, NX14225 Nuclepore 142218 142218a Millipore HAWP 047 00, HAWP 142 50 FHUP 047 00, FHLP 142 50 Selas 83485­ 02, 83486­ 02 83485­ 02, 83486­ 02 a Susceptible to decomposition by certain polar organic solvents. 1310B ­ 10 Revision 2 August 2002 TABLE 3. PRECISIONS OF EXTRACTION­ ANALYSIS PROCEDURES FOR SEVERAL ELEMENTS Element Sample Matrix Analysis Method Laboratory Replicates Arsenic 1. Auto Fluff 2. Barrel sludge 3. Lumber treatment company sediment 7060 7060 7060 1.8, 1.5 µ g/ L 0.9, 2.6 µ g/ L 28, 42 mg/ L Barium 1. Lead smelting emission control dust 2. Auto Fluff 3. Barrel Sludge 6010 7081 7081 0.12, 0.12 mg/ L 791, 780 µ g/ L 422, 380 µ g/ L Cadmium 1. Lead smelting emission control dust 2. Wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating 3. Auto fluff 4. Barrel sludge 5. Oil refinery tertiary pond sludge 3010/ 7130 3010/ 7130 7131 7131 7131 120, 120 mg/ L 360, 290 mg/ L 470, 610 µ g/ L 1100, 890 µ g/ L 3.2, 1.9 µ g/ L Chromium 1. Wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating 2. Paint primer 3. Paint primer filter 4. Lumber treatment company sediment 5. Oil refinery tertiary pond sludge 3010/ 7190 7191 7191 7191 7191 1.1, 1.2 mg/ L 61, 43 µ g/ L 0.81, 0.89 mg/ L Mercury 1. Barrel sludge 2. Wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating 3. Lead smelting emission control dust 7470 7470 7470 0.15, 0.09 µ g/ L 1.4, 0.4 µ g/ L 0.4, 0.4 µ g/ L 1310B ­ 11 Revision 2 August 2002 TABLE 3 ( Continued) Element Sample Matrix Analysis Method Laboratory Replicates Lead 1. Lead smelting emission control dust 2. Auto fluff 3. Incinerator ash 4. Barrel sludge 5. Oil refinery tertiary pond sludge 3010/ 7420 7421 7421 7421 7421 940, 920 mg/ L 1540, 1490 µ g/ L 1000, 974 µ g/ L 2550, 2800 µ g/ L 31, 29 µ g/ L Nickel 1. Sludge 2. Wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating 7521 3010/ 7520 2260, 1720 µ g/ L 130, 140 mg/ L Chromium ( VI) 1. Wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating 7196 18, 19 µ g/ L 1310B ­ 12 Revision 2 August 2002 FIGURE 1. EXTRACTOR 1310B ­ 13 Revision 2 August 2002 FIGURE 2. ROTARY EXTRACTOR 1310B ­ 14 Revision 2 August 2002 FIGURE 3. EPRI EXTRACTOR 1310B ­ 15 Revision 2 August 2002 FIGURE 4. COMPACTION TESTER 1310B ­ 16 Revision 2 August 2002 METHOD 1310B EXTRACTION PROCEDURE ( EP) TOXICITY TEST METHOD AND STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY TEST 1310B ­ 17 Revision 2 August 2002 METHOD 1310B ( Continued) 1310B ­ 18 Revision 2 August 2002 METHOD 1310B ( Continued)

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:50.118677

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0025-0013

Supporting & Related Material

9010C ­ 1 Revision 3 August 2002 METHOD 9010C TOTAL AND AMENABLE CYANIDE: DISTILLATION 1.0 SCOPE AND APPLICATION 1.1 Method 9010 is reflux­ distillation procedure used to extract soluble cyanide salts and many insoluble cyanide complexes from wastes and leachates. It is based on the decomposition of nearly all cyanides by a reflux distillation procedure using a strong acid and a magnesium catalyst. Cyanide, in the form of hydrocyanic acid ( HCN) is purged from the sample and captured into an alkaline scrubber solution. The concentration of cyanide in the scrubber solution is then determined by Method 9014 or Method 9213. Method 9010 may be used as a reflux­ distillation procedure for both total cyanide and cyanide amenable to chlorination. The " reactive" cyanide content of a waste is not determined by this method. Refer to 40 CFR 261.23 for information on the characteristic of reactivity. 1.2 This method was designed to address the problem of " trace" analyses (< 1000 ppm). The method may also be used for " minor" ( 1000 ppm ­ 10,000 ppm) and " major" (> 10,000 ppm) analyses by adapting the appropriate sample dilution. However, the amount of sodium hydroxide in the standards and the sample analyzed must be the same. 2.0 SUMMARY OF METHOD 2.1 The cyanide, as hydrocyanic acid ( HCN), is released from samples containing cyanide by means of a reflux­ distillation operation under acidic conditions and absorbed in a scrubber containing sodium hydroxide solution. The cyanide concentration in the absorbing solution is then determined colorimetrically or titrametrically by Method 9014 or by ion­ selective electrode by Method 9213. 3.0 INTERFERENCES 3.1 Interferences are eliminated or reduced by using the distillation procedure. Chlorine and sulfide are interferences in Method 9010. 3.2 Oxidizing agents such as chlorine decompose most cyanides. Chlorine interferences can be removed by adding an excess of sodium arsenite to the waste prior to preservation and storage of the sample to reduce the chlorine to chloride which does not interfere. 3.3 Sulfide interference can be removed by adding an excess of bismuth nitrate to the waste ( to precipitate the sulfide) before distillation. Samples that contain hydrogen sulfide, metal sulfides, or other compounds that may produce hydrogen sulfide during the distillation should be treated by the addition of bismuth nitrate. 3.4 High results may be obtained for samples that contain nitrate and/ or nitrite. During the distillation, nitrate and nitrite will form nitrous acid, which will react with some organic compounds to form oximes. These compounds once formed will decompose under test conditions to generate HCN. The possibility of interference of nitrate and nitrite is eliminated by pretreatment with sulfamic acid just before distillation. Nitrate and nitrite are interferences when present at levels higher than 10 mg/ L and in conjunction with certain organic compounds. 9010C ­ 2 Revision 3 August 2002 3.5 Thiocyanate is reported to be an interference when present at very high levels. Levels of 10 mg/ L were not found to interfere. 3.6 Fatty acids, detergents, surfactants, and other compounds may cause foaming during the distillation when they are present in high concentrations and may make the endpoint for the titrimetric determination difficult to detect. Refer to Sec. 6.8 for an extraction procedure to eliminate this interference. 4.0 APPARATUS AND MATERIALS 4.1 Reflux distillation apparatus such as shown in Figure 1 or Figure 2. The boiling flask should be of one liter size with inlet tube and provision for condenser. The gas scrubber may be a 270­ mL Fisher­ Milligan scrubber ( Fisher, Part No. 07­ 513) or equivalent. The reflux apparatus may be a Wheaton 377160 distillation unit or equivalent. 4.2 Hot plate stirrer/ heating mantle. 4.3 pH meter. 4.4 Amber light. 4.5 Vacuum source. 4.6 Refrigerator. 4.7 Erlenmeyer flask ­ 500 mL. 4.8 KI starch paper. 4.9 Class A volumetric flasks ­ 1000,250, and 100 mL. 5.0 REAGENTS 5.1 Reagent grade chemicals shall be used in all tests. Unless otherwise indicated, it is intended that all reagents shall conform to the specifications of the Committee on Analytical Reagents of the American Chemical Society, where such specifications are available. Other grades may be used, provided it is first ascertained that the reagent is of sufficiently high purity to permit its use without lessening the accuracy of the determination. 5.2 Reagent water. All references to water in this method refer to reagent water, as defined in Chapter One. 5.3 Reagents for sample collection, preservation, and handling 5.3.1 Sodium arsenite ( 0.1N), NaAsO 2. Dissolve 3.2 g NaAsO 2 in 250 mL water. 5.3.2 Ascorbic acid, C 6 H 8 O 6. 5.3.3 Sodium hydroxide solution ( 50%), NaOH. Commercially available. 9010C ­ 3 Revision 3 August 2002 5.3.4 Acetic acid ( 1.6M) CH 3 COOH. Dilute one part of concentrated acetic acid with 9 parts of water. 5.3.5 2,2,4­ Trimethylpentane, C 8 H 18. 5.3.6 Hexane, C 6 H 14. 5.3.7 Chloroform, CHCl 3. 5.4 Reagents for cyanides amenable to chlorination 5.4.1 Calcium hypochlorite solution ( 0.35M), Ca( OCl) 2. Combine 5 g of calcium hypochlorite and 100 mL of water. Shake before using. 5.4.2 Sodium hydroxide solution ( 1.25N), NaOH. Dissolve 50 g of NaOH in 1 liter of water. 5.4.3 Sodium arsenite ( O. 1N). See Sec. 5.3.1. 5.4.4 Potassium iodide starch paper. 5.5 Reagents for distillation 5.5.1 Sodium hydroxide ( 1.25N). See Sec. 5.4.2. 5.5.2 Bismuth nitrate ( 0.062M), Bi( NO) 3 C 5H 2 O. Dissolve 30 g Bi( NO) 3 C 5H 2 O in 100 mL of water. While stirring, add 250 mL of glacial acetic acid, CH 3 COOH. Stir until dissolved and dilute to 1 liter with water. 5.5.3 Sulfamic acid ( 0.4N), H 2 NSO 3 H. Dissolve 40 g H 2 NSO 3 H in 1 liter of water. 5.5.4 Sulfuric acid ( 18N), H 2 SO 4. Slowly and carefully add 500 mL of concentrated H 2 SO 4 to 500 mL of water. 5.5.5 Magnesium chloride solution ( 2.5M), MgCl 2 C 6H 2 O. Dissolve 510 g of MgCl 2 C 6H 2 O in 1 liter of water. 5.5.6 Lead acetate paper. 5.5.7 Stock potassium cyanide solutions ­ Refer to Method 9014 for the preparation of stock cyanide solutions and calibration standards. 6.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION, PRESERVATION AND HANDLING 6.1 Samples should be collected in plastic or glass containers. All containers must be thoroughly cleaned and rinsed. 6.2 Oxidizing agents such as chlorine decompose most cyanides. To determine whether oxidizing agents are present, test a drop of the sample with potassium iodide­ starch test paper. A blue color indicates the need for treatment. Add 0.1N sodium arsenite solution a few mL at a time until a drop of sample produces no color on the indicator paper. Add an additional 5 mL of sodium arsenite solution for each liter of sample. Ascorbic acid can be used as an alternative although it 9010C ­ 4 Revision 3 August 2002 is not as effective as arsenite. Add a few crystals of ascorbic acid at a time until a drop of sample produces no color on the indicator paper. Then add an additional 0.6 g of ascorbic acid for each liter of sample volume. 6.3 Aqueous samples must be preserved by adding 50% sodium hydroxide until the pH is greater than or equal to 12 at the time of collection. 6.4 Samples should be chilled to 4 E C. 6.5 When properly preserved, cyanide samples can be stored for up to 14 days prior to sample preparation steps. 6.6 Solid and oily wastes may be extracted prior to analysis by method 9013. It uses a dilute NaOH solution ( pH = 12) as the extractant. This yields extractable cyanide. 6.7 If fatty acids, detergents, and surfactants are a problem, they may be extracted using the following procedure. Acidify the sample with acetic acid ( 1.6M) to pH 6.0 to 7.0. CAUTION: This procedure can produce lethal HCN gas. Extract with isooctane, hexane, or chloroform ( preference in order named) with solvent volume equal to 20% of the sample volume. One extraction is usually adequate to reduce the compounds below the interference level. Avoid multiple extractions or a long contact time at low pH in order to keep the loss of HCN at a minimum. When the extraction is completed, immediately raise the pH of the sample to above 12 with 50% NaOH solution. 7.0 PROCEDURE 7.1 Pretreatment for cyanides amenable to chlorination 7.1.1 This test must be performed under amber light. K 3[ Fe­( CN) 6] may decompose under UV light and hence will test positive for cyanide amenable to chlorination if exposed to fluorescent lighting or sunlight. Two identical sample aliquots are required to determine cyanides amenable to chlorination. 7.1.2 To one 500 mL sample or to a sample diluted to 500 mL, add calcium hypochlorite solution dropwise while agitating and maintaining the pH between 11 and 12 with 1.25N sodium hydroxide until an excess of chlorine is present as indicated by KI­ starch paper turning blue. The sample will be subjected to alkaline chlorination by this step. CAUTION: The initial reaction product of alkaline chlorination is the very toxic gas cyanogen chloride; therefore, it is necessary that this reaction be performed in a hood. 7.1.3 Test for excess chlorine with KI­ starch paper and maintain this excess for one hour with continuous agitation. A distinct blue color on the test paper indicates a sufficient chlorine level. If necessary, add additional calcium hypochlorite solution. 7.1.4 After one hour, add 1 mL portions of 0.1N sodium arsenite until KI­ starch paper shows no residual chlorine. Add 5 mL of excess sodium arsenite to ensure the presence of excess reducing agent. 9010C ­ 5 Revision 3 August 2002 7.1.5 Analyze the total cyanide concentration of both the chlorinated and the unchlorinated samples by Method 9014 or 9213. The difference between the total cyanide concentration in the chlorinated and unchlorinated samples is equal to the cyanide amenable to chlorination. 7.2 Distillation procedure 7.2.1 Place 500 mL of sample, or sample diluted to 500 mL in the one liter boiling flask. Pipet 50 mL of 1.25N sodium hydroxide into the gas scrubber. If the apparatus in Figure 1 is used, add water until the spiral is covered. Connect the boiling flask, condenser, gas scrubber and vacuum trap. 7.2.2 Start a slow stream of air entering the boiling flask by adjusting the vacuum source. Adjust the vacuum so that approximately two bubbles of air per second enter the boiling flask through the air inlet tube. 7.2.3 If samples are known or suspected to contain sulfide, add 50 mL of 0.062M bismuth nitrate solution through the air inlet tube. Mix for three minutes. Use lead acetate paper to check the sample for the presence of sulfide. A positive test is indicated by a black color on the paper. 7.2.4 If samples are known or suspected to contain nitrate or nitrite, or if bismuth nitrate was added to the sample, add 50 mL of 0.4N sulfamic acid solution through the air inlet tube. Mix for three minutes. NOTE: Excessive use of sulfamic acid could create method bias. 7.2.5 Slowly add 50 mL of 18N sulfuric acid through the air inlet tube. Rinse the tube with water and allow the airflow to mix the flask contents for three minutes. Add 20 mL of 2.5M magnesium chloride through the air inlet and wash the inlet tube with a stream of water. 7.2.6 Heat the solution to boiling. Reflux for one hour. Turn off heat and continue the airflow for at least 15 minutes. After cooling the boiling flask, and closing the vacuum source, disconnect the gas scrubber. 7.2.7 Transfer the solution from the scrubber into a 250­ mL volumetric flask. Rinse the scrubber into the volumetric flask. Dilute to volume with water. 7.2.8 Proceed to the cyanide determinative methods given in Methods 9014 or 9213. If the distillates are not analyzed immediately, they should be stored at 4 E C in tightly sealed flasks. 8.0 QUALITY CONTROL 8.1 All quality control data should be maintained and available for easy reference or inspection. 8.2 Employ a minimum of one reagent blank per analytical batch or one in every 20 samples to determine if contamination or any memory effects are occurring. 8.3 Analyze check standards with every analytical batch of samples. If the standards are not within 15% of the expected value, then the samples must be reanalyzed. 9010C ­ 6 Revision 3 August 2002 8.4 Run one replicate sample for every 20 samples. A replicate sample is a sample brought through the entire sample preparation and analytical process. The CV of the replicates should be 20% or less. If this criterion is not met, the samples should be reanalyzed. 8.5 Run one matrix spiked sample every 20 samples to check the efficiency of sample distillation by adding cyanide from the working standard or intermediate standard to 500 mL of sample to ensure a concentration of approximately 40 µ g/ L. The matrix spiked sample is brought through the entire sample preparation and analytical process. 8.6 It is recommended that at least two standards ( a high and a low) be distilled and compared to similar values on the curve to ensure that the distillation technique is reliable. If distilled standards do not agree within + 10% of the undistilled standards, the analyst should find the cause of the apparent error before proceeding. 8.7 The method of standard additions shall be used for the analysis of all samples that suffer from matrix interferences such as samples which contain sulfides. 9.0 METHOD PERFORMANCE 9.1 The titration procedure using silver nitrate is used for measuring concentrations of cyanide exceeding 0.1 mg/ L. The colorimetric procedure is used for concentrations below 1 mg/ L of cyanide and is sensitive to about 0.02 mg/ L. 9.2 EPA Method 335.2 ( sample distillation with titration) reports that in a single laboratory using mixed industrial and domestic waste samples at concentrations of 0.06 to 0.62 mg/ L CN­, the standard deviations for precision were + 0.005 to + 0.094, respectively. In a single laboratory using mixed industrial and domestic waste samples at concentrations of 0.28 and 0.62 mg/ L CN­, recoveries ( accuracy) were 85% and 102%, respectively. 9.3 In two additional studies using surface water, ground water, and landfill leachate samples, the titration procedure was further evaluated. The concentration range used in these studies was 0.5 to 10 mg/ L cyanide. The detection limit was found to be 0.2 mg/ L for both total and amenable cyanide determinations. The precision ( CV) was 6.9 and 2.6 for total cyanide determinations and 18.6 and 9.1 for amenable cyanide determinations. The mean recoveries were 94% and 98.9% for total cyanide, and 86.7% and 97.4% for amenable cyanide. 10.0 REFERENCES 1. 1985 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.01; " Standard Specification for Reagent Water"; ATSM: Philadelphia, PA, 1985,; D1193­ 77. 2. 1982 Annual Book ASTM Standards, Part 19; " Standard Test Methods for Cyanide in Water"; ASTM: Philadelphia, PA, 1982; 2036­ 82. 3. Bark, L. S.; Higson, H. G. Talanta 1964, 2, 471­ 479. 4. Britton, P.; Winter, J.; Kroner, R. C. " EPA Method Study 12, Cyanide in Water"; final report to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Technical Information Service: Springfield, VA, 1984; PB80­ 196674. 9010C ­ 7 Revision 3 August 2002 5. Casey, J. P.; Bright, J. W.; Helms, B. D. " Nitrosation Interference in Distillation Tests for Cyanide"; Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority: Houston, Texas. 6. Egekeze, J. O.; Oehne, F. W. J. Anal. Toxicology 1979, 3, 119. 7. Elly, C. T. J. Water Pollution Control Federation 1968, 40, 848­ 856. 8. Fuller, W. Cyanide in the Environment; Van Zyl, D., Ed.; Proceedings of Symposium; December, 1984. 9. Gottfried, G. J. " Precision, Accuracy, and MDL Statements for EPA Methods 9010, 9030, 9060, 7520, 7521,7550, 7551, 7910, and 7911"; final report to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory. Biospheric: Cincinnati, OH, 1984. 10. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory. ORD Publication Offices of Center for Environmental Research Information: Cincinnati, OH, 1983; EPA­ 600/ 4­ 79­ 020. 11. Rohrbough, W. G.; et al. Reagent Chemicals, American Chemical Society Specifications, 7th ed.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1986. 12. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th ed.; Greenberg, A. E.; Clesceri, L. S.; Eaton, A. D.; Eds.; American Water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation, American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, 1992. 13. Umaña, M.; Beach, J.; Sheldon, L. " Revisions to Method 9010"; final report to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste. Research Triangle Institute: Research Triangle Park, NC, 1986. 14. Umaña, M.; Sheldon, L. " Interim Report: Literature Review"; interim report to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste. Research Triangle Institute: Research Triangle Park, NC, 1986. 9010C ­ 8 Revision 3 August 2002 FIGURE 1. APPARATUS FOR CYANIDE DISTILLATION 9010C ­ 9 Revision 3 August 2002 FIGURE 2. APPARATUS FOR CYANIDE DISTILLATION 9010C ­ 10 Revision 3 August 2002 METHOD 9010C TOTAL AND AMENABLE CYANIDE: DISTILLATION

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:50.123987

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0025-0014

Supporting & Related Material

9012B­ 1 Revision 2 August 2002 METHOD 9012B TOTAL AND AMENABLE CYANIDE ( AUTOMATED COLORIMETRIC, WITH OFF­ LINE DISTILLATION) 1.0 SCOPE AND APPLICATION 1.1 Method 9012 is used to determine the concentration of inorganic cyanide ( CAS Registry Number 57­ 12­ 5) in wastes or leachate. The method detects inorganic cyanides that are present as either soluble salts or complexes. It is used to determine values for both total cyanide and cyanide amenable to chlorination. The " reactive" cyanide content of a waste is not determined by this method. Refer to 40 CFR 261.23 for information on the characteristic of reactivity. 2.0 SUMMARY OF METHOD 2.1 The cyanide, as hydrocyanic acid ( HCN), is released from samples containing cyanide by means of a reflux­ distillation operation under acidic conditions and absorbed in a scrubber containing sodium hydroxide solution. The cyanide ion in the absorbing solution is then determined by automated UV colorimetry. 2.2 In the automated colorimetric measurement, the cyanide is converted to cyanogen chloride ( CNCl) by reaction with Chloramine­ T at a pH less than 8 without hydrolyzing to the cyanate. After the reaction is complete, color is formed on the addition of pyridine­ barbituric acid reagent. The concentration of NaOH must be the same in the standards, the scrubber solutions, and any dilution of the original scrubber solution to obtain colors of comparable intensity. 3.0 INTERFERENCES 3.1 Interferences are eliminated or reduced by using the distillation procedure. Chlorine and sulfide are interferences in Method 9012. 3.2 Oxidizing agents such as chlorine decompose most cyanides. Chlorine interferences can be removed by adding an excess of sodium arsenite to the waste prior to preservation and storage of the sample to reduce the chlorine to chloride which does not interfere. 3.3 Sulfide interference can be removed by adding an excess of bismuth nitrate to the waste ( to precipitate the sulfide) before distillation. Samples that contain hydrogen sulfide, metal sulfides, or other compounds that may produce hydrogen sulfide during the distillation should be treated by the addition of bismuth nitrate. 3.4 High results may be obtained for samples that contain nitrate and/ or nitrite. During the distillation, nitrate and nitrite will form nitrous acid, which will react with some organic compounds to form oximes. These compounds once formed will decompose under test conditions to generate HCN. The possibility of interference of nitrate and nitrite is eliminated by pretreatment with sulfamic acid just before distillation. Nitrate and nitrite are interferences when present at levels higher than 10 mg/ L and in conjunction with certain organic compounds. 3.5 Thiocyanate is reported to be an interference when present at very high levels. Levels of 10 mg/ L were not found to interfere in Method 9010. 9012B­ 2 Revision 2 August 2002 3.6 Fatty acids, detergents, surfactants, and other compounds may cause foaming during the distillation when they are present in large concentrations and will make the endpoint of the titration difficult to detect. They may be extracted at pH 6­ 7. 4.0 APPARATUS AND MATERIALS 4.1 Reflux distillation apparatus such as shown in Figure 1 or Figure 2. The boiling flask should be of one liter size with inlet tube and provision for condenser. The gas scrubber may be a 270­ mL Fisher­ Milligan scrubber ( Fisher, Part No. 07­ 513 or equivalent). The reflux apparatus may be a Wheaton 377160 distillation unit or equivalent. 4.2 Automated continuous­ flow analytical instrument with: 4.2.1 Sampler. 4.2.2 Manifold. 4.2.3 Proportioning pump. 4.2.4 Heating bath with distillation coil. 4.2.5 Distillation head. 4.2.6 Colorimeter equipped with a 15­ mm flowcell and 570 nm filter. 4.2.7 Recorder. 4.3 Hot plate stirrer/ heating mantle. 4.4 pH meter. 4.5 Amber light. 4.6 Vacuum source. 4.7 Refrigerator. 4.8 5 mL microburette. 4.9 7 Class A volumetric flasks ­ 100 and 250 mL. 4.10 Erlenmeyer flask ­ 500 mL. 5.0 REAGENTS 5.1 Reagent grade chemicals shall be used in all tests. Unless otherwise indicated, it is intended that all reagents shall conform to the specifications of the Committee on Analytical Reagents of the American Chemical Society, where such specifications are available. Other grades may be used, provided it is first ascertained that the reagent is of sufficiently high purity to permit its use without lessening the accuracy of the determination. 9012B­ 3 Revision 2 August 2002 5.2 Reagent water. All references to water in this method refer to reagent water, as defined in Chapter One. 5.3 Reagents for sample collection, preservation, and handling 5.3.1 Sodium arsenite ( 0.1N), NaAsO 2. Dissolve 3.2 g NaAsO 2 in 250 mL water. 5.3.2 Ascorbic acid, C 6 H 8 O 6. 5.3.3 Sodium hydroxide solution ( 50%), NaOH. Commercially available. 5.3.4 Acetic acid ( 1.6M) CH 3 COOH. Dilute one part of concentrated acetic acid with 9 parts of water. 5.3.5 2,2,4­ Trimethylpentane, C 8 H 18. 5.3.6 Hexane, C 6 H 14. 5.3.7 Chloroform, CHCl 3. 5.4 Reagents for cyanides amenable to chlorination 5.4.1 Calcium hypochlorite solution ( 0.35M), Ca( OCl) 2. Combine 5 g of calcium hypochlorite and 100 mL of water. Shake before using. 5.4.2 Sodium hydroxide solution ( 1.25N), NaOH. Dissolve 50 g of NaOH in 1 liter of water. 5.4.3 Sodium arsenite ( O. 1N). See Sec. 5.3.1. 5.4.4 Potassium iodide starch paper. 5.5 Reagents for distillation 5.5.1 Sodium hydroxide ( 1.25N). See Sec. 5.4.2. 5.5.2 Bismuth nitrate ( 0.062M), Bi( NO) 3 C 5H 2 O. Dissolve 30 g Bi( NO) 3 C 5H 2 O in 100 mL of water. While stirring, add 250 mL of glacial acetic acid, CH 3 COOH. Stir until dissolved and dilute to 1 liter with water. 5.5.3 Sulfamic acid ( 0.4N), H 2 NSO 3 H. Dissolve 40 g H 2 NSO 3 H in 1 liter of water. 5.5.4 Sulfuric acid ( 18N), H 2 SO 4. Slowly and carefully add 500 mL of concentrated H 2 SO 4 to 500 mL of water. 5.5.5 Magnesium chloride solution ( 2.5M), MgCl 2 C 6H 2 O. Dissolve 510 g of MgCl 2 C 6H 2 O in 1 liter of water. 5.5.6 Lead acetate paper. 5.6 Reagents for automated colorimetric determination 9012B­ 4 Revision 2 August 2002 5.6.1 Pyridine­ barbituric acid reagent: Place 15 g of barbituric acid in a 250­ mL volumetric flask, add just enough reagent water to wash the sides of the flask, and wet the barbituric acid. Add 75 mL of pyridine and mix. Add 15 mL of concentrated HCl, mix, and cool to room temperature. Dilute to 250 mL with reagent water and mix. This reagent is stable for approximately six months if stored in a cool, dark place. 5.6.2 Chloramine­ T solution: Dissolve 2.0 g of white, water soluble chloramine­ T in 500 mL of reagent water and refrigerate until ready to use. 5.6.3 Sodium hydroxide, 1 N: Dissolve 40 g of NaOH in reagent water, and dilute to 1 liter. 5.6.4 All working standards should contain 2 mL of 1 N NaOH ( Sec. 5.6.3) per 100 mL. 5.6.5 Dilution water and receptacle wash water ( NaOH, 0.25 N): Dissolve 10.0 g NaOH in 500 mL of reagent water. Dilute to 1 liter. 6.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION, PRESERVATION, AND HANDLING 6.1 Samples should be collected in plastic or glass containers. All containers must be thoroughly cleaned and rinsed. 6.2 Oxidizing agents such as chlorine decompose most cyanides. To determine whether oxidizing agents are present, test a drop of the sample with potassium iodide­ starch test paper. A blue color indicates the need for treatment. Add 0.1N sodium arsenite solution a few mL at a time until a drop of sample produces no color on the indicator paper. Add an additional 5 mL of sodium arsenite solution for each liter of sample. Ascorbic acid can be used as an alternative although it is not as effective as arsenite. Add a few crystals of ascorbic acid at a time until a drop of sample produces no color on the indicator paper. Then add an additional 0.6 g of ascorbic acid for each liter of sample volume. 6.3 Aqueous samples must be preserved by adding 50% sodium hydroxide until the pH is greater than or equal to 12 at the time of collection. 6.4 Samples should be chilled to 4 E C. 6.5 When properly preserved, cyanide samples can be stored for up to 14 days prior to sample preparation steps. 6.6 Solid and oily wastes may be extracted prior to analysis by Method 9013 ( Cyanide Extraction Procedure for Solids and Oils). It uses a dilute NaOH solution ( pH = 12) as the extractant. This yields extractable cyanide. 6.7 If fatty acids, detergents, and surfactants are a problem, they may be extracted using the following procedure. Acidify the sample with acetic acid ( 1.6M) to pH 6.0 to 7.0. CAUTION: This procedure can produce lethal HCN gas. Extract with isooctane, hexane, or chloroform ( preference in order named) with solvent volume equal to 20% of the sample volume. One extraction is usually adequate to reduce the compounds below the interference level. Avoid multiple extractions or a long contact time at low pH in order to 9012B­ 5 Revision 2 August 2002 keep the loss of HCN at a minimum. When the extraction is completed, immediately raise the pH of the sample to above 12 with 50% NaOH solution. 7.0 PROCEDURE 7.1 Pretreatment for cyanides amenable to chlorination 7.1.1 This test must be performed under amber light. K 3[ Fe­( CN) 6] may decompose under UV light and hence will test positive for cyanide amenable to chlorination if exposed to fluorescent lighting or sunlight. Two identical sample aliquots are required to determine cyanides amenable to chlorination. 7.1.2 To one 500 mL sample or to a sample diluted to 500 mL, add calcium hypochlorite solution dropwise while agitating and maintaining the pH between 11 and 12 with 1.25N sodium hydroxide until an excess of chlorine is present as indicated by KI­ starch paper turning blue. The sample will be subjected to alkaline chlorination by this step. CAUTION: The initial reaction product of alkaline chlorination is the very toxic gas cyanogen chloride; therefore, it is necessary that this reaction be performed in a hood. 7.1.3 Test for excess chlorine with KI­ starch paper and maintain this excess for one hour with continuous agitation. A distinct blue color on the test paper indicates a sufficient chlorine level. If necessary, add additional calcium hypochlorite solution. 7.1.4 After one hour, add 1 mL portions of 0.1N sodium arsenite until KI­ starch paper shows no residual chlorine. Add 5 mL of excess sodium arsenite to ensure the presence of excess reducing agent. 7.1.5 Test for total cyanide as described below in both the chlorinated and the unchlorinated samples. The difference of total cyanide in the chlorinated and unchlorinated samples is the cyanide amenable to chlorination. 7.1.6 If samples are known or suspected to contain sulfide, add 50 mL of 0.062M bismuth nitrate solution through the air inlet tube. Mix for three minutes. Use lead acetate paper to check the sample for the presence of sulfide. A positive test is indicated by a black color on the paper. 7.2 Distillation procedure 7.2.1 Place 500 mL of sample, or sample diluted to 500 mL in the one liter boiling flask. Pipet 50 mL of 1.25N sodium hydroxide into the gas scrubber. If the apparatus in Figure 1 is used, add water until the spiral is covered. Connect the boiling flask, condenser, gas scrubber and vacuum trap. 7.2.2 Start a slow stream of air entering the boiling flask by adjusting the vacuum source. Adjust the vacuum so that approximately two bubbles of air per second enter the boiling flask through the air inlet tube. 7.2.3 If samples are known or suspected to contain nitrate or nitrite, or if bismuth nitrate was added to the sample, add 50 mL of 0.4N sulfamic acid solution through the air inlet tube. Mix for three minutes. 9012B­ 6 Revision 2 August 2002 NOTE: Excessive use of sulfamic acid could create method bias. 7.2.4 Slowly add 50 mL of 18N sulfuric acid through the air inlet tube. Rinse the tube with water and allow the airflow to mix the flask contents for three minutes. Add 20 mL of 2.5M magnesium chloride through the air inlet and wash the inlet tube with a stream of water. 7.2.5 Heat the solution to boiling. Reflux for one hour. Turn off heat and continue the airflow for at least 15 minutes. After cooling the boiling flask, and closing the vacuum source, disconnect the gas scrubber. 7.2.6 Transfer the solution from the scrubber into a 250­ mL volumetric flask. Rinse the scrubber into the volumetric flask. Dilute to volume with water. 7.3 Automated colorimetric determination 7.3.1 Set up the manifold in a hood or a well­ ventilated area as shown in Figure 3. 7.3.2 Allow colorimeter and recorder to warm up for 30 min. Run a baseline with all reagents, feeding reagent water through the sample line. 7.3.3 Place appropriate standards in the sampler in order of increasing concentration. Complete loading of the sampler tray with unknown samples. 7.3.4 When the baseline becomes steady, begin the analysis. 7.4 Standard curve for samples without sulfide 7.4.1 Prepare a series of standards by pipetting suitable volumes of working standard potassium cyanide solution into 250­ mL volumetric flasks. To each flask, add 50 mL of 1.25N sodium hydroxide and dilute to 250 mL with water. Prepare using the following table. The sodium hydroxide concentration will be 0.25N. mL of Working Standard Solution ( 1 mL = 10 µ g CN­) Concentration ( µ g CN­/ L) 0.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Blank 40 80 200 400 600 800 7.4.2 After the standard solutions have been prepared according to the table above, pipet 50 mL of each standard solution into a 100­ mL volumetric flask and proceed to Secs 7.3.2 and 7.3.3 to obtain absorbance values for the standard curve. The final concentrations for the standard curve will be one half of the amounts in the above table ( final concentrations ranging from 20 to 400 µ g/ L). 9012B­ 7 Revision 2 August 2002 7.4.3 It is recommended that at least two standards ( a high and a low) be distilled and compared to similar values on the curve to ensure that the distillation technique is reliable. If distilled standards do not agree within + 10% of the undistilled standards, the analyst should find the cause of the apparent error before proceeding. 7.4.4 Prepare a standard curve ranging from 20 to 400 µ g/ L by plotting absorbance of standard versus the cyanide concentration 7.5 Standard curve for samples with sulfide 7.5.1 It is imperative that all standards be distilled in the same manner as the samples using the method of standard additions ( for example, bismuth nitrate must also be added to the standards). Standards distilled by this method will give a linear curve, at low concentrations, but as the concentration increases, the recovery decreases. It is recommended that at least five standards be distilled. 7.5.2 Prepare a series of standards similar in concentration to those mentioned in Sec. 7.4.1 and analyze as in Sec. 7.3. Prepare a standard curve by plotting absorbance of standard versus the cyanide concentration. 7.6 Calculation: Prepare a standard curve by plotting peak heights of standards against their concentration values. Compute concentrations of samples by comparing sample peak heights with the standard curve. 8.0 QUALITY CONTROL 8.1 Refer to Chapter One for specific quality control procedures. 8.2 Verify the calibration curve with an independent calibration check standard. If the standards are not within 15% of the expected value, a new recalibration curve is required. Verify the calibration curve with every sample batch by analyzing a mid­ range standard. 8.3 Run one matrix spike sample for every 10 samples to check the efficiency of sample distillation. A matrix spike should be prepared by adding cyanide from the working standard or intermediate standard to 500 mL of sample to ensure a concentration of approximately 40 µ g/ L. Both the matrix duplicate and matrix spike duplicate are brought through the entire sample preparation and analytical process. 8.4 The method of standard additions shall be used for the analysis of all samples that suffer from matrix interferences such as samples which contain sulfides. 9.0 METHOD PERFORMANCE 9.1 Precision and accuracy data are not available at this time. 10.0 REFERENCES 1. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 31, " Water," Standard D2036­ 75, Method B, p. 505 ( 1976). 9012B­ 8 Revision 2 August 2002 2. Goulden, P. D., B. K. Afghan, and P. Brooksbank, Determination of Nanogram Quantities of Simple and Complex Cyanides in Water, Anal. Chem., 44( 11), pp. 1845­ 49 ( 1972). 3. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 14th ed., pp. 376 and 370, Method 413F and D ( 1975). 4. Technicon AutoAnalyzer II Methodology, Industrial Method No. 315­ 74 WCUV Digestion and Distillation, Technicon Industrial Systems, Tarrytown, New York, 10591 ( 1974). 9012B­ 9 Revision 2 August 2002 Figure 1. Apparatus for Cyanide Distillation 9012B­ 10 Revision 2 August 2002 Figure 2. Cyanide Distillation Apparatus 9012B­ 11 Revision 2 August 2002 Figure 3. Cyanide Manifold AA11 9012B­ 12 Revision 2 August 2002 METHOD 9012B TOTAL AND AMENABLE CYANIDE ( AUTOMATED COLORIMETRIC WITH OFF­ LINE DISTILLATION ) 9012B­ 13 Revision 2 August 2002 METHOD 9012B ( continued)

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:50.129356

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0025-0015

Supporting & Related Material

9040C ­ 1 Revision 3 August 2002 METHOD 9040C pH ELECTROMETRIC MEASUREMENT 1.0 SCOPE AND APPLICATION 1.1 Method 9040 is used to measure the pH of aqueous wastes and those multiphase wastes where the aqueous phase constitutes at least 20% of the total volume of the waste. 1.2 The corrosivity of concentrated acids and bases, or of concentrated acids and bases mixed with inert substances, cannot be measured. The pH measurement requires some water content. 2.0 SUMMARY 2.1 The pH of the sample is determined electrometrically using either a glass electrode in combination with a reference potential or a combination electrode. The measuring device is calibrated using a series of standard solutions of known pH. 3.0 INTERFERENCES 3.1 The glass electrode, in general, is not subject to solution interferences from color, turbidity, colloidal matter, oxidants, reductants, or moderate (< 0.1 molar solution) salinity. 3.2 Sodium error at pH levels > 10 can be reduced or eliminated by using a low­ sodiumerror electrode. 3.3 Coatings of oily material or particulate matter can impair electrode response. These coatings can usually be removed by gentle wiping or detergent washing, followed by rinsing with distilled water. An additional treatment with hydrochloric acid ( 1: 10) may be necessary to remove any remaining film. 3.4 Temperature effects on the electrometric determination of pH arise from two sources. The first is caused by the change in electrode output at various temperatures. This interference should be controlled with instruments having temperature compensation or by calibrating the electrode­ instrument system at the temperature of the samples. The second source of temperature effects is the change of pH due to changes in the sample as the temperature changes. This error is sample­ dependent and cannot be controlled. It should, therefore, be noted by reporting both the pH and temperature at the time of analysis. 4.0 APPARATUS AND MATERIALS 4.1 pH meter: Laboratory or field model. Many instruments are commercially available with various specifications and optional equipment. 4.2 Glass electrode. 4.3 Reference electrode: A silver­ silver chloride or other reference electrode of constant potential may be used. 9040C ­ 2 Revision 3 August 2002 NOTE: Combination electrodes incorporating both measuring and referenced functions are convenient to use and are available with solid, gel­ type filling materials that require minimal maintenance. 4.4 Magnetic stirrer and Teflon­ coated stirring bar. 4.5 Thermometer and/ or temperature sensor for automatic compensation. 5.0 REAGENTS 5.1 Reagent grade chemicals shall be used in all tests. Unless otherwise indicated, it is intended that all reagents shall conform to the specifications of the Committee on Analytical Reagents of the American Chemical Society, where such specifications are available. Other grades may be used, provided it is first ascertained that the reagent is of sufficiently high purity to permit its use without lessening the accuracy of the determination. 5.2 Primary standard buffer salts are available from the National Institute of Standards and Technology ( NIST) and should be used in situations where extreme accuracy is necessary. Preparation of reference solutions from these salts requires some special precautions and handling, such as low­ conductivity dilution water, drying ovens, and carbon­ dioxide­ free purge gas. These solutions should be replaced at least once each month. 5.3 Secondary standard buffers may be prepared from NIST salts or purchased as solutions from commercial vendors. These commercially available solutions have been validated by comparison with NIST standards and are recommended for routine use. 6.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION, PRESERVATION, AND HANDLING Samples should be analyzed as soon as possible. 7.0 PROCEDURE 7.1 Calibration 7.1.1 Because of the wide variety of pH meters and accessories, detailed operating procedures cannot be incorporated into this method. Each analyst must be acquainted with the operation of each system and familiar with all instrument functions. Special attention to care of the electrodes is recommended. 7.1.2 Each instrument/ electrode system must be calibrated at a minimum of two points that bracket the expected pH of the samples and are approximately three pH units or more apart. ( For corrosivity characteri­ zation, the calibration of the pH meter should include a buffer of pH 2 for acidic wastes and a pH 12 buffer for caustic wastes; also, for corrosivity characterization, the sample must be measured at 25 ± 1 E C if the pH of the waste is above 12.0.) Various instrument designs may involve use of a dial ( to " balance" or " standardize") or a slope adjustment, as outlined in the manufacturer's instructions. Repeat adjustments on successive portions of the two buffer solutions until readings are within 0.05 pH units of the buffer solution value. 9040C ­ 3 Revision 3 August 2002 7.2 Place the sample or buffer solution in a clean glass beaker using a sufficient volume to cover the sensing elements of the electrodes and to give adequate clearance for the magnetic stirring bar. If field measurements are being made, the electrodes may be immersed directly into the sample stream to an adequate depth and moved in a manner to ensure sufficient sample movement across the electrode­ sensing element as indicated by drift­ free readings (< 0.1 pH). 7.3 If the sample temperature differs by more than 2 E C from the buffer solution, the measured pH values must be corrected. Instruments are equipped with automatic or manual compensators that electronically adjust for temperature differences. Refer to manufacturer's instructions. 7.4 Thoroughly rinse and gently wipe the electrodes prior to measuring pH of samples. Immerse the electrodes into the sample beaker or sample stream and gently stir at a constant rate to provide homogeneity and suspension of solids. Note and record sample pH and temperature. Repeat measurement on successive aliquots of sample until values differ by < 0.1 pH units. Two or three volume changes are usually sufficient. 8.0 QUALITY CONTROL 8.1 Refer to Chapter One for the appropriate QC protocols. 8.2 Electrodes must be thoroughly rinsed between samples. 9.0 METHOD PERFORMANCE 9.1 Forty­ four analysts in twenty laboratories analyzed six synthetic water samples containing exact increments of hydrogen­ hydroxyl ions, with the following results: Accuracy as Standard Deviation Bias Bias pH Units pH Units % pH Units 3.5 0.10 ­ 0.29 ­ 0.01 3.5 0.11 ­ 0.00 7.1 0.20 + 1.01 + 0.07 7.2 0.18 ­ 0.03 ­ 0.002 8.0 0.13 ­ 0.12 ­ 0.01 8.0 0.12 + 0.16 + 0.01 10.0 REFERENCES 1. National Bureau of Standards, Standard Reference Material Catalog 1986­ 87, Special Publication 260. 9040C ­ 4 Revision 3 August 2002 METHOD 9040C pH ELECTROMETRIC MEASUREMENT

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:50.132908

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0025-0016

Supporting & Related Material

9045D ­ 1 Revision 4 August 2002 METHOD 9045D SOIL AND WASTE pH 1.0 SCOPE AND APPLICATION 1.1 Method 9045 is an electrometric procedure for measuring pH in soils and waste samples. Wastes may be solids, sludges, or non­ aqueous liquids. If water is present, it must constitute less than 20% of the total volume of the sample. 2.0 SUMMARY OF METHOD 2.1 The sample is mixed with reagent water, and the pH of the resulting aqueous solution is measured. 3.0 INTERFERENCES 3.1 Samples with very low or very high pH may give incorrect readings on the meter. For samples with a true pH of > 10, the measured pH may be incorrectly low. This error can be minimized by using a low­ sodium­ error electrode. Strong acid solutions, with a true pH of < 1, may give incorrectly high pH measurements. 3.2 Temperature fluctuations will cause measurement errors. 3.3 Errors will occur when the electrodes become coated. If an electrode becomes coated with an oily material that will not rinse free, the electrode can ( 1) be cleaned with an ultrasonic bath, or ( 2) be washed with detergent, rinsed several times with water, placed in 1: 10 HCl so that the lower third of the electrode is submerged, and then thoroughly rinsed with water, or ( 3) be cleaned per the manufacturer's instructions. 4.0 APPARATUS AND MATERIALS 4.1 pH Meter with means for temperature compensation. 4.2 Glass electrode. 4.3 Reference electrode: A silver­ silver chloride or other reference electrode of constant potential may be used. NOTE: Combination electrodes incorporating both measuring and referenced functions are convenient to use and are available with solid, gel­ type filling materials that require minimal maintenance. 4.4 Beaker: 50­ mL. 4.5 Thermometer and/ or temperature sensor for automatic compensation. 4.6 Analytical balance: capable of weighing 0.1 g. 9045D ­ 2 Revision 4 August 2002 5.0 REAGENTS 5.1 Reagent grade chemicals shall be used in all tests. Unless otherwise indicated, it is intended that all reagents shall conform to the specifications of the Committee on Analytical Reagents of the American Chemical Society, where such specifications are available. Other grades may be used, provided it is first ascertained that the reagent is of sufficiently high purity to permit its use without lessening the accuracy of the determination. 5.2 Reagent water. All references to water in this method refer to reagent water, as defined in Chapter One. 5.3 Primary standard buffer salts are available from the National Institute of Standards and Technology ( NIST) and should be used in situations where extreme accuracy is necessary. Preparation of reference solutions from these salts requires some special precautions and handling, such as low­ conductivity dilution water, drying ovens, and carbon­ dioxide­ free purge gas. These solutions should be replaced at least once each month. 5.4 Secondary standard buffers may be prepared from NIST salts or purchased as solutions from commercial vendors. These commercially available solutions, which have been validated by comparison with NIST standards, are recommended for routine use. 6.0 SAMPLE PRESERVATION AND HANDLING Samples should be analyzed as soon as possible. 7.0 PROCEDURE 7.1 Calibration: 7.1.1 Because of the wide variety of pH meters and accessories, detailed operating procedures cannot be incorporated into this method. Each analyst must be acquainted with the operation of each system and familiar with all instrument functions. Special attention to care of the electrodes is recommended. 7.1.2 Each instrument/ electrode system must be calibrated at a minimum of two points that bracket the expected pH of the samples and are approximately three pH units or more apart. Repeat adjustments on successive portions of the two buffer solutions until readings are within 0.05 pH units of the buffer solution value. If an accurate pH reading based on the conventional pH scale [ 0 to 14 at 25 E C] is required, the analyst should control sample temperature at 25 ± 1 E C when sample pH approaches the alkaline end of the scale ( e. g., a pH of 11 or above). 7.2 Sample preparation and pH measurement of soils: 7.2.1 To 20 g of soil in a 50­ mL beaker, add 20 mL of reagent water, cover, and continuously stir the suspension for 5 minutes. Additional dilutions are allowed if working with hygroscopic soils and salts or other problematic matrices. 7.2.2 Let the soil suspension stand for about 1 hour to allow most of the suspended clay to settle out from the suspension or filter or centrifuge off the aqueous phase for pH measurement. 9045D ­ 3 Revision 4 August 2002 7.2.3 Adjust the electrodes in the clamps of the electrode holder so that, upon lowering the electrodes into the beaker, the glass electrode will be immersed just deep enough into the clear supernatant solution to establish a good electrical contact through the ground­ glass joint or the fiber­ capillary hole. Insert the electrodes into the sample solution in this manner. For combination electrodes, immerse just below the suspension. 7.2.4 If the sample temperature differs by more than 2 E C from the buffer solution, the measured pH values must be corrected. 7.2.5 Report the results as " soil pH measured in water at E C" where " E C" is the temperature at which the test was conducted. 7.3 Sample preparation and pH measurement of waste materials 7.3.1 To 20 g of waste sample in a 50­ mL beaker, add 20 mL of reagent water, cover, and continuously stir the suspension for 5 minutes. Additional dilutions are allowed if working with hygroscopic wastes and salts or other problematic matrices. 7.3.2 Let the waste suspension stand for about 15 minutes to allow most of the suspended waste to settle out from the suspension or filter or centrifuge off aqueous phase for pH measurement. NOTE: If the waste is hygroscopic and absorbs all the reagent water, begin the experiment again using 20 g of waste and 40 mL of reagent water. NOTE: If the supernatant is multiphasic, decant the oily phase and measure the pH of the aqueous phase. The electrode may need to be cleaned ( Step 3.3) if it becomes coated with an oily material. 7.3.3 Adjust the electrodes in the clamps of the electrode holder so that, upon lowering the electrodes into the beaker, the glass electrode will be immersed just deep enough into the clear supernatant to establish good electrical contact through the groundglass joint or the fiber­ capillary hole. Insert the electrode into the sample solution in this manner. For combination electrodes, immerse just below the suspension. 7.3.4 If the sample temperature differs by more than 2 E C from the buffer solution, the measured pH values must be corrected. 7.3.5 Report the results as " waste pH measured in water at E C" where " E C" is the temperature at which the test was conducted. 8.0 QUALITY CONTROL 8.1 Refer to Chapter One for the appropriate QC protocols. 8.2 Electrodes must be thoroughly rinsed between samples. 9.0 METHOD PERFORMANCE 9.1 No data provided. 9045D ­ 4 Revision 4 August 2002 10.0 REFERENCES 1. Black, Charles Allen; Methods of Soil Analysis; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, 1973. 2. National Bureau of Standards, Standard Reference Material Catalog, 1986­ 87, Special Publication 260. 9045D ­ 5 Revision 4 August 2002 METHOD 9045D SOIL AND WASTE pH

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:50.137806

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0025-0017

Supporting & Related Material

9060A ) 1 Revision 1 August 2002 METHOD 9060A TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON 1.0 SCOPE AND APPLICATION 1.1 Method 9060 is used to determine the concentration of organic carbon in ground water, surface and saline waters, and domestic and industrial wastes. Some restrictions are noted in Sections 2.0 and 3.0. 1.2 Method 9060 is most applicable to measurement of organic carbon above 1 mg/ L. 2.0 SUMMARY OF METHOD 2.1 Organic carbon is measured using a carbonaceous analyzer. This instrument converts the organic carbon in a sample to carbon dioxide ( CO 2) by either catalytic combustion or wet chemical oxidation. The CO 2 formed is then either measured directly by an infrared detector or converted to methane ( CH 4) and measured by a flame ionization detector. The amount of CO 2 or CH 4 in a sample is directly proportional to the concentration of carbonaceous material in the sample. 2.2 Carbonaceous analyzers are capable of measuring all forms of carbon in a sample. However, because of various properties of carbon­ containing compounds in liquid samples, the manner of preliminary sample treatment as well as the instrument settings will determine which forms of carbon are actually measured. The forms of carbon that can be measured by Method 9060 are: 1. Soluble, nonvolatile organic carbon: e. g., natural sugars. 2. Soluble, volatile organic carbon: e. g., mercaptans, alkanes, low molecular weight alcohols. 3. Insoluble, partially volatile carbon: e. g., low molecular weight oils. 4. Insoluble, particulate carbonaceous materials: e. g., cellulose fibers. 5. Soluble or insoluble carbonaceous materials adsorbed or entrapped on insoluble inorganic suspended matter: e. g., oily matter adsorbed on silt particles. 2.3 Carbonate and bicarbonate are inorganic forms of carbon and must be separated from the total organic carbon value. Depending on the instrument manufacturer's instructions, this separation can be accomplished by either a simple mathematical subtraction, or by removing the carbonate and bicarbonate by converting them to CO 2 with degassing prior to analysis. 3.0 INTERFERENCES 3.1 Carbonate and bicarbonate carbon represent an interference under the terms of this test and must be removed or accounted for in the final calculation. 9060A ) 2 Revision 1 August 2002 3.2 This procedure is applicable only to homogeneous samples which can be injected into the apparatus reproducibly by means of a microliter­ type syringe or pipet. The openings of the syringe or pipet limit the maximum size of particle which may be included in the sample. 3.3 Removal of carbonate and bicarbonate by acidification and purging with nitrogen, or other inert gas, can result in the loss of volatile organic substances. 4.0 APPARATUS AND MATERIALS 4.1 Apparatus for blending or homogenizing samples: Generally, a Waring­ type blender is satisfactory. 4.2 Apparatus for total and dissolved organic carbon: 4.2.1 Several companies manufacture analyzers for measuring carbonaceous material in liquid samples. The most appropriate system should be selected based on consideration of the types of samples to be analyzed, the expected concentration range, and the forms of carbon to be measured. 4.2.2 No specific analyzer is recommended as superior. If the technique of chemical oxidation is used, the laboratory must be certain that the instrument is capable of achieving good carbon recoveries in samples containing particulates. 5.0 REAGENTS 5.1 ASTM Type II water ( ASTM D1193): Water should be monitored for impurities, and should be boiled and cooled to remove CO 2. 5.2 Potassium hydrogen phthalate, stock solution, 1,000 mg/ L carbon: Dissolve 0.2128 g of potassium hydrogen phthalate ( primary standard grade) in Type II water and dilute to 100.0 mL. NOTE: Sodium oxalate and acetic acid are not recommended as stock solutions. 5.3 Potassium hydrogen phthalate, standard solutions: Prepare standard solutions from the stock solution by dilution with Type II water. 5.4 Carbonate­ bicarbonate, stock solution, 1,000 mg/ L carbon: Weigh 0.3500 g of sodium bicarbonate and 0.4418 g of sodium carbonate and transfer both to the same 100­ mL volumetric flask. Dissolve with Type II water. 5.5 Carbonate­ bicarbonate, standard solution: Prepare a series of standards similar to Step 5.3. NOTE: This standard is not required by some instruments. 5.6 Blank solution: Use the same Type II water as was used to prepare the standard solutions. 9060A ) 3 Revision 1 August 2002 6.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION, PRESERVATION, AND HANDLING 6.1 Sampling and storage of samples in glass bottles is preferable. Sampling and storage in plastic bottles such as conventional polyethylene and cubitainers is permissible if it is established that the containers do not contribute contaminating organics to the samples. NOTE: A brief study performed in the EPA Laboratory indicated that Type II water stored in new, 1­ qt cubitainers did not show any increase in organic carbon after 2 weeks' exposure. 6.2 Because of the possibility of oxidation or bacterial decomposition of some components of aqueous samples, the time between sample collection and the start of analysis should be minimized. Also, samples should be kept cool ( 4 E C) and protected from sunlight and atmospheric oxygen. 6.3 In instances where analysis cannot be performed within 2 hr from time of sampling, the sample is acidified ( pH < 2) with HCl or H 2 SO 4. 7.0 PROCEDURE 7.1 Homogenize the sample in a blender. NOTE: To avoid erroneously high results, inorganic carbon must be accounted for. The preferred method is to measure total carbon and inorganic carbon and to obtain the organic carbon by subtraction. If this is not possible, follow Steps 7.2 and 7.3 prior to analysis; however, volatile organic carbon may be lost. 7.2 Lower the pH of the sample to 2. 7.3 Purge the sample with nitrogen for 10 min. 7.4 Follow instrument manufacturer's instructions for calibration, procedure, and calculations. 7.5 For calibration of the instrument, a series of standards should be used that encompasses the expected concentration range of the samples. 7.6 Quadruplicate analysis is required. Report both the average and the range. 8.0 QUALITY CONTROL 8.1 All quality control data should be maintained and available for easy reference or inspection. 8.2 Employ a minimum of one blank per sample batch to determine if contamination or any memory effects are occurring. 8.3 Verify calibration with an independently prepared check standard every 15 samples. 8.4 Run one spike duplicate sample for every 10 samples. A duplicate sample is a sample brought through the whole sample preparation and analytical process. 9060A ) 4 Revision 1 August 2002 9.0 METHOD PERFORMANCE 9.1 Precision and accuracy data are available in Method 415.1 of Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. 10.0 REFERENCES 1. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 31, " Water," Standard D 2574­ 79, p. 469 ( 1976). 2. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 14th ed., p. 532, Method 505 ( 1975). 9060A ) 5 Revision 1 August 2002 A

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:50.141899

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0025-0018

Supporting & Related Material

Revision 1 August 2002 9070A ­ 1 METHOD 9070A n­ HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL ( HEM) FOR AQUEOUS SAMPLES See Method 1664, Publication No. EPA­ 821­ R­ 98­ 002, for this method procedure.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:50.145788

regulations