[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 126 (Friday, June 30, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34172-34182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16184]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 372
[OPPTS-400032B; FRL-4962-4]
RIN 2070-AC00
Ammonia; Ammonium Sulfate (solution); Ammonium Nitrate
(solution); Water Dissociable Ammonium Salts; Toxic Chemical Release
Reporting; Community Right-to-Know
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking the following four actions in response to a
petition to delete ammonium sulfate (solution) from the list of toxic
chemicals subject to reporting under section 313 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA): (1) Deleting
ammonium sulfate (solution) from the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic
chemicals; (2) requiring that threshold and release determinations for
aqueous ammonia be limited to 10 percent of the total ammonia present
in aqueous ammonia solutions; (3) modifying the ammonia listing by
adding a qualifier; and (4) deleting ammonium nitrate (solution) as a
separately listed chemical on the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic
chemicals. EPA has concluded that the aqueous ammonia present in
ammonium sulfate (solution) is more appropriately reported under the
EPCRA section 313 ammonia listing, and that reporting 10 percent total
aqueous ammonia under the ammonia listing is appropriate and provides
sufficient information for the public to assess the impacts of releases
of aqueous ammonia. EPA has also concluded that releases of ammonium
nitrate (solution) are more appropriately reported under the EPCRA
section 313 listings for ammonia and the water dissociable nitrate
compounds category.
EFFECTIVE DATES: All provisions of this rule are final June 30, 1995.
For effective dates on the reporting requirements, see Unit IV. of this
preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria J. Doa, Petitions Coordinator,
202-260-9592, e-mail: [email protected], for specific
information on this final rule, or for more information on EPCRA
section 313, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Hotline,
[[Page 34173]]
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 5101, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Toll free: 1-800-535-0202, in Virginia and
Alaska: 703-412-9877 or Toll free TDD: 1-800-553-7672.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Authority
This action is promulgated under sections 313(d) and (e)(1) and 328
of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986
(EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11023. EPCRA is also referred to as Title III of the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) (Pub. L.
99-499).
B. Background
Section 313 of EPCRA requires certain facilities manufacturing,
processing, or otherwise using listed toxic chemicals to report their
environmental releases of such chemicals annually. Beginning with the
1991 reporting year, such facilities must also report pollution
prevention and recycling data for such chemicals, pursuant to section
6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 13106). When enacted,
section 313 established an initial list of toxic chemicals that was
comprised of more than 300 chemicals and 20 chemical categories.
Section 313(d) authorizes EPA to add chemicals to or delete chemicals
from the list, and sets forth criteria for these actions. EPA has added
chemicals to and deleted chemicals from the original statutory list.
Under section 313(e)(1), any person may petition EPA to add chemicals
to or delete chemicals from the list. Pursuant to EPCRA section
313(e)(1), EPA must respond to petitions within 180 days either by
initiating a rulemaking or by publishing an explanation of why the
petition is denied.
EPA issued a statement of petition policy and guidance in the
Federal Register of February 4, 1987 (52 FR 3479), to provide guidance
regarding the recommended content and format for petitions. On May 23,
1991 (56 FR 23703), EPA issued a statement of policy and guidance
regarding the recommended content of petitions to delete individual
members of the section 313 metal compound categories. EPA has published
a statement clarifying its interpretation of the section 313(d)(2) and
(d)(3) criteria for adding and deleting chemicals from the section 313
list (59 FR 61439, November 30, 1994).
Facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use ammonia,
ammonium sulfate (solution), ammonium nitrate (solution), and other
water dissociable ammonium salts may be affected by this final rule if
they meet the following criteria: (1) The facility has the equivalent
of 10 or more full-time employees; and (2) the facility is included in
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes 20 through 39; and (3)
the facility manufactures (defined to include importing), processes, or
otherwise uses the chemicals listed above in quantities equal to or
greater than the threshold quantities set under EPCRA section 313(f).
II. Description of Petition and Proposed Actions
A. Description of Petition
On January 23, 1989, EPA received a petition from Allied-Signal
Inc. to delete ammonium sulfate (solution) from the EPCRA section 313
list of toxic chemicals (EPA also received letters in support of this
petition from W. R. Grace Company and ITT Rayonier Inc.). The petition
was based on Allied-Signal Inc.'s contention that ammonium sulfate
(solution) does not meet the EPCRA section 313 criteria for listing.
Specifically, Allied-Signal Inc. claimed that: (1) Ammonium sulfate is
not known to cause and cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause
significant adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels
that are reasonably likely to exist beyond facility site boundaries as
a result of continuous, or frequently recurring releases, (2) ammonium
sulfate does not show potential for causing in humans cancer or
teratogenic effects, serious or irreversible reproductive dysfunction,
neurological disorders, heritable genetic mutations, or other chronic
health effects, and (3) ammonium sulfate does not show potential for
adverse effects on the environment due to toxicity, persistency in the
environment, and/or tendency to bioaccumulate in the environment.
B. Summary of Proposed Actions
Following a review of the petition, EPA issued a proposed rule in
the Federal Register of March 30, 1990 (55 FR 12144), proposing to
delete ammonium sulfate (solution) from the EPCRA section 313 list of
toxic chemicals. This proposal, hereafter referred to as ``the original
proposal,'' was based on EPA's belief that the only concerns identified
for ammonium sulfate (solution) were for the aqueous ammonia present in
the solution and that this aqueous ammonia is more appropriately
reported under the EPCRA section 313 listing for ammonia. EPA stated
that aqueous ammonia is manufactured when ammonium salts that
dissociate in water (such as ammonium sulfate) are dissolved in water.
EPA stated that therefore, releases of these ammonium salt solutions
are environmentally equivalent to the release of aqueous ammonia
generated by dissolving anhydrous ammonia in water.
In the original proposal, EPA preliminarily concluded that although
there are no known significant human health effects associated with
ammonium sulfate (solution), there are ecotoxic effects of concern. EPA
further preliminarily concluded that the ecotoxicity concerns for
ammonium sulfate (solution) were limited to the aqueous ammonia (i.e.,
total ammonia) present in these solutions and that the sulfate portion
was not of concern. EPA stated that the toxicity of aqueous ammonia to
aquatic organisms has been extensively studied and is well understood
and that the un-ionized form of ammonia is relatively more toxic than
the ionized form of ammonia. EPA stated that because the toxicity of
aqueous ammonia solutions is dependent on the pH and temperature of the
solution, the toxicity of aqueous ammonia is not dependent solely on
the amount of the un-ionized form present. For this reason, aqueous
ammonia toxicity cannot be represented solely by the concentration of
the un-ionized form of ammonia. Thus, EPA preliminarily concluded that
the toxicity of an aqueous solution of ammonia cannot be represented by
a single value but must be expressed as a function of pH and
temperature. Because the un-ionized ammonia concentration changes with
pH and temperature, and the toxicity is not due solely to the un-
ionized form, EPA reasoned that it is necessary to calculate the total
ammonia concentration in order to determine the toxicity of the
solution as the pH and temperature conditions change.
In the original proposal EPA also discussed how to address the fact
that certain facilities might not be aware of the chemistry of aqueous
solutions of ammonium salts. As a result, facilities that manufacture,
process, or otherwise use aqueous solutions of ammonium salts that
dissociate in water might not understand that they should make
threshold determinations under EPCRA section 313 to assess whether
reporting for releases under the ammonia listing is required.
Therefore, EPA discussed options concerning how to inform the regulated
community of the need to include these solutions in their calculations.
EPA preliminarily concluded that technical guidance should be issued
clarifying the reporting
[[Page 34174]]
requirements under the ammonia listing. In the same issue of the
Federal Register in which the original proposal was published, a notice
of availability was published (55 FR 12148, March 30, 1990) notifying
the public and the regulated community of the availability of a
guidance document on the reporting of ammonia releases.
In the original proposal, EPA also discussed two options for
reporting releases of aqueous ammonia:
(1) Report releases of total ammonia; or
(2) Report a proportion of the releases of total ammonia.
In discussing the two options, EPA stated that reporting total
ammonia would allow communities to determine the proportion of un-
ionized ammonia and ionized ammonia present in the receiving stream
based on the pH and temperature characteristics of the stream. This
information would allow communities to easily determine the un-ionized
ammonia and ionized ammonia loading resulting from facility releases of
aqueous ammonia. EPA stated that although the ionized form of ammonia
is less toxic to aquatic organisms than the un-ionized form of ammonia,
it is present in a higher proportion under most environmental
conditions and may present the greater hazard. EPA also stated that
reporting releases as a proportion of the amount of un-ionized ammonia
released would result in data that cannot be used as well since it must
be extrapolated to determine the amount of total ammonia released.
EPA proposed the second option in recognition of the fact that the
un-ionized form of ammonia is relatively more toxic than the ionized
form of ammonia and that under environmental conditions only a
proportion of total ammonia is in the un-ionized form. EPA requested
comment on whether a proportion, which would be the same for all
facilities, of releases of total ammonia should be reported. EPA
suggested that this proportion could be a worst-case estimate of the
proportion of the un-ionized form of ammonia present in processing
waters reflecting an upper bound level of the amount of the un-ionized
form of ammonia formed. EPA also requested comment on what proportion
of total ammonia should be used as an estimate.
In response to comments received on the original proposal and
issues raised in subsequent discussions with the regulated community,
EPA issued an amended proposed rule (60 FR 16830, April 3, 1995),
hereafter referred to as ``the amended proposal.'' The issue of what
forms of ammonia should be reportable under the ammonia listing had
been the source of ongoing discussions between EPA and affected parties
since publication of the original proposal. This resulted in a
significant amount of additional information becoming available to EPA,
and was one of the reasons EPA amended the proposed rule. This
information covered five main areas: (1) Data concerning the pH and
temperature of lakes, rivers, and streams in the U.S.; (2) additional
data concerning the toxicity of aqueous ammonia to one aquatic
organism; (3) data on the environmental fate of aqueous ammonia; (4)
additional exposure analysis of releases of aqueous ammonia; and (5) a
review of the scientific issues concerning the reporting of aqueous
ammonia under EPCRA section 313 by the Agency's Science Advisory Board
(SAB).
Also, due to the recent addition of a water dissociable nitrate
compounds category to the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic chemicals (59
FR 61439, November 30, 1994), EPA expanded the proposed rule to include
the deletion of ammonium nitrate (solution) as a separately listed
chemical under EPCRA section 313. Therefore, EPA decided to publish the
amended proposal to allow for adequate public notice and comment on the
ammonium nitrate (solution) issue.
In the amended proposal, EPA reaffirmed its preliminary conclusion
that ammonium sulfate (solution) should be deleted from the EPCRA
section 313 list of toxic chemicals. EPA proposed to take four specific
actions and asked for public comment on these proposed actions. The
four proposed actions are the same as those being promulgated in this
rule and are discussed below in Unit III. of this preamble. The amended
proposal contained a detailed rationale for each of these actions that
will not be repeated here. Unit III.B. of this preamble contains
additional discussion of the rationales and conclusions concerning
these actions.
The original proposal, the amended proposal, and the combined
docket for these two proposals and this final rule contain complete
discussions and documentation of EPA's technical review of ammonium
sulfate (solution), aqueous ammonia, ammonium nitrate (solution), and
the options EPA has considered for resolving the reporting requirements
under the ammonia listing.
III. Final Rule and Rationale for Actions
In response to the petition from Allied-Signal Inc., EPA is taking
the following four actions under EPCRA section 313: (1) Deleting
ammonium sulfate (solution) from the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic
chemicals; (2) requiring that threshold and release determinations for
aqueous ammonia be based on 10 percent of the total ammonia present in
aqueous solutions of ammonia; (3) modifying the ammonia listing by
adding the following qualifier: ammonia (includes anhydrous ammonia and
aqueous ammonia from water dissociable ammonium salts and other
sources; 10 percent of total aqueous ammonia is reportable under this
listing); and (4) deleting ammonium nitrate (solution) as a separately
listed chemical on the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic chemicals. Under
this action, facilities will be required to include 10 percent of the
total ammonia in aqueous solutions in all threshold and release
determinations under the EPCRA section 313 listing for ammonia. EPA has
concluded that ammonium sulfate (solution) does not meet the EPCRA
section 313 criteria based on human health concerns; however, there
remain concerns about ecotoxicity from the aqueous ammonia present in
this solution. Accordingly, EPA has determined that the aqueous ammonia
present in this solution is more appropriately reported under the EPCRA
section 313 ammonia listing. EPA has concluded that reporting 10
percent total aqueous ammonia under the ammonia listing is an
appropriate way to report aqueous ammonia and provides sufficient
information for the public to assess the impacts of releases of aqueous
ammonia. EPA has concluded that in order to avoid confusion over what
is reportable under the ammonia listing, the listing should be modified
to include a description of what is covered by the listing. EPA has
concluded that releases of ammonium nitrate (solution) are more
appropriately reported under the EPCRA section 313 listings for ammonia
and the water dissociable nitrate compounds category.
A. Response to Comments
EPA received 15 comments on the original proposal and 18 comments
on the amended proposal. All of the comments received were from members
or representatives of the industrial sectors that are subject to the
reporting requirements of EPCRA section 313. In this final rule, EPA is
providing responses to the major comments received that are relevant to
today's final action. In addition, EPA has prepared and placed in the
docket for this rulemaking a response to comment document that
addresses the additional comments received (Ref. 1). All commenters
support the deletion of
[[Page 34175]]
ammonium sulfate (solution) and ammonium nitrate (solution) from the
EPCRA section 313 list, therefore that aspect of the comments will not
be addressed further. Eight of the 18 companies that commented on the
amended proposal strongly urged EPA to promulgate this final rule prior
to July 1, 1995.
As a separate action, taken at the same time as the original
proposal, EPA requested comment on the revised guidance for reporting
aqueous ammonia under the ammonia listing (55 FR 12148). Several
commenters contended that EPA should not require the reporting of
aqueous ammonia from ammonium salts or any proportion of total ammonia
by revising guidance but rather should do this by rulemaking. As
discussed below, EPA believes that total aqueous ammonia is covered by
the EPCRA section 313 ammonia listing. EPA also believes that the
quantities of aqueous ammonia manufactured by dissolving water
dissociable ammonium salts in water are subject to release and
threshold determinations under the EPCRA section 313 ammonia listing.
However, one of the reasons EPA amended the original proposal was to
respond to these comments and concerns by making this position explicit
in the listing. EPA is also providing a new guidance document to
reflect the requirements of today's final rule; EPA's previous guidance
document on ammonia reporting is no longer applicable. Comments
received concerning the previous guidance document that are relevant to
today's final rule are addressed below and in the response to comment
document.
1. Neither total ammonia nor the ionized form of ammonia is
reportable under the ammonia listing. Several commenters stated that
EPA cannot require the reporting of any portion of the ionized form of
ammonia under the EPCRA section 313 ammonia listing because they
contend that only the un-ionized form of ammonia is covered by that
listing. Two commenters contended that aqueous ammonia is ammonium
hydroxide and that it is not listed on nor is it reportable under the
EPCRA section 313 ammonia listing. One of these commenters also
asserted that ammonium hydroxide is the ionized form of ammonia.
EPA believes that the ionized form of ammonia is covered by the
EPCRA section 313 listing for ammonia. The EPCRA section 313 listing
for ammonia is not limited to anhydrous forms, and, as such, quantities
of ammonia in water (i.e., aqueous ammonia) must be applied to
threshold and release determinations for this listing. Aqueous ammonia
consists of two forms of ammonia, the un-ionized form and the ionized
form. These are not two discrete chemicals; rather they are two forms
of the same chemical, ammonia. When placed in water, ammonia is not
destroyed or converted to a different chemical. It simply exists as an
equilibrium mixture of the ionized and un-ionized forms with the
concentration of each form mainly dependent on the pH and temperature
of the solution.
With regard to the purported chemical ammonium hydroxide
(NH4OH), this is a misnomer. It is a common name used to describe
a solution of ammonia in water, typically a concentrated solution of 28
to 30 percent ammonia. Aqueous ammonia is not ammonium hydroxide. The
true nature of aqueous ammonia ``deviates appreciably from the simple
composite of ammonium and hydroxide ions'' (Ref. 2). In the process of
dissolving ammonia in water (H2O + NH3 ---> 'A'), 'A' is not
ammonium hydroxide. ``There is clear evidence that it is not ammonium
hydroxide under two important conditions (1) in aqueous solution (Ref.
3); and (2) as a solid (which exists only at low temperatures) (Refs. 4
and 5)'' (Ref. 6). It is reasonable to conclude, in accord with modern
theories of bonding, that 'A' consists of ammonia and water molecules
engaged in hydrogen bonding (Refs. 6 and 7). It is clear that
dissolving ammonia in water does not result in a new chemical compound,
i.e., ammonium hydroxide, but rather results in hydrated ammonia. The
pH and temperature dependency of the equilibrium between the un-ionized
and ionized forms of ammonia reveal that the 28 to 30 percent solutions
of ammonia in water (which, as noted above, are sometimes referred to
as ammonium hydroxide) must consist almost entirely of the un-ionized
form of ammonia. EPA has consistently responded to questions regarding
the reportability of these purported ammonium hydroxide solutions under
the EPCRA section 313 ammonia listing by stating that these are 28 to
30 percent solutions of ammonia in water and that the ammonia in this
solution is reportable under the ammonia listing.
The issue of what is reportable under the ammonia listing should no
longer be a subject of debate since in today's final rule EPA is
modifying the ammonia listing to make it clear that 10 percent of total
aqueous ammonia from all sources is reportable under the ammonia
listing.
2. Total ammonia should not be reported under the ammonia listing.
All commenters responding to the original proposal stated that EPA
should not require the reporting of total aqueous ammonia (i.e., the
sum of the un-ionized and ionized forms of ammonia) under the ammonia
listing since this drastically overstates the amount of the toxic un-
ionized form of ammonia in a facility's releases. Commenters stated
that under environmental conditions aqueous ammonia consists mainly of
the relatively non-toxic ionized form of ammonia. Commenters stated
that reporting total aqueous ammonia would mislead the public as to the
volume of toxic chemical released.
EPA believes that the toxicity characteristics of aqueous ammonia
do not preclude the reporting of total aqueous ammonia. The consensus
of the scientific community is that the toxicity of a solution of
aqueous ammonia is dependent on the pH and temperature of the solution.
Studies of the pH and temperature dependency of aqueous ammonia
toxicity have led to the commonly held opinion that the ionized form of
ammonia is relatively less toxic than the un-ionized form, perhaps as
much as 100 times less toxic. However, the exact toxicity of each form
cannot be independently measured since under conditions that will
support most aquatic organisms each form is always present at some
level. In addition, the pH and temperature dependency of aqueous
ammonia toxicity is not simply a reflection of the amount of the un-
ionized form of ammonia present. Therefore, EPA does not believe that
reporting total aqueous ammonia in some manner would drastically
overstate the amount of toxic chemical released since both forms of
ammonia contribute to the toxicity of an aqueous solution of ammonia.
In today's final rule EPA is not requiring the reporting of total
aqueous ammonia under the ammonia listing. EPA is limiting the
reporting of aqueous ammonia to a proportion of total aqueous ammonia
in consideration of the fact that the un-ionized form of ammonia is
relatively more toxic than the ionized form. EPA believes that this
alternative is less burdensome since a smaller number of facilities
will meet the reporting thresholds based on 10 percent total aqueous
ammonia than would if EPA required the reporting of total aqueous
ammonia. In addition, EPA believes that this alternative addresses
concerns raised by the regulated community about how reporting total
aqueous ammonia would mislead the public as to the volume of the toxic
chemical released.
3. Under EPCRA section 313 reporters are not required to consider
chemical conversions that occur in the environment. Because some
commenters contend that ionized ammonia and un-
[[Page 34176]]
ionized ammonia are two different chemicals, they argue that by
requiring facilities to base release determinations on 10 percent of
total aqueous ammonia EPA is requiring facilities to report releases of
a chemical that is not listed on EPCRA section 313. They contend that
the statute does not require facilities to report on conversion of non-
listed chemicals into listed chemicals where such conversion takes
place after release to the environment.
EPA disagrees. As stated above in Unit III.A.1. of this preamble,
EPA believes that un-ionized ammonia and ionized ammonia are two forms
of one chemical not two separate chemicals. Therefore, EPA is requiring
that only a fraction of the total releases of the listed chemical be
reported. Further, even if EPA were to accept the argument that these
two forms were actually two separate chemicals, EPA believes that it
would be appropriate to list a chemical on EPCRA section 313 because
the chemical is transformed in the environment into a more toxic
chemical. EPCRA allows EPA to add a chemical to the section 313 list if
the chemical is ``known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to
cause'' certain adverse human health or environmental effects. The
statute and the legislative history do not specifically preclude the
consideration of whether the listed chemical is transformed in the
environment to a more toxic chemical that causes the adverse effects in
evaluating whether or not a chemical meets the statutory criteria for
listing under EPCRA section 313. EPA believes that environmental
transformations can and should be considered in determining whether or
not a chemical should be subject to reporting under EPCRA section 313.
When listing a chemical on the EPCRA section 313 list that is
transformed in the environment to a more toxic chemical, EPA requires
threshold and release determinations to be made only on quantities of
the listed chemical, not on quantities of the more toxic chemical
generated subsequent to release into the environment.
4. The un-ionized portion of aqueous ammonia should be calculated
based on the pH and temperature of the industrial effluent. Commenters
stated that only the un-ionized form of ammonia should be reported for
aqueous ammonia and that the reporting should be based on calculations
using the pH and temperature data of the facility's effluent.
Commenters state that this is the most accurate information that can be
provided concerning the amount of the toxic chemical released by the
facility.
EPA believes that reporting the amount of the un-ionized form of
ammonia in an aqueous ammonia release without reporting the pH and
temperature of the release would not adequately report or characterize
the toxic chemical released. For aqueous ammonia, in order to
appropriately characterize the toxic chemical released, not only would
the amount of the un-ionized form have to be reported but the pH and
temperature of the effluent solution (which are data not currently
required to be reported under EPCRA section 313) would have to be
reported as well. This is because the toxicity of aqueous ammonia
solutions is dependent on the pH and temperature of the solution; the
toxicity of aqueous ammonia is not dependent solely on the amount of
the un-ionized form of ammonia present. The pH and temperature
dependency of aqueous ammonia toxicity is not simply a reflection of
the amount of the un-ionized form of ammonia present since in the lower
pH range (where there is less un-ionized ammonia), aqueous ammonia is
more toxic when expressed in terms of the concentration of the un-
ionized form. Therefore effluent solutions cannot be appropriately
reported or characterized based solely on the amount of the un-ionized
form of ammonia present. For aqueous ammonia, the nature of the toxic
chemical released or its impact on the environment cannot be determined
unless, at a minimum, total aqueous ammonia can be determined from the
reported data. The pH and temperature data not only provide information
as to the true nature of the toxic chemical releases but can also be
used to determine total aqueous ammonia from the amount of un-ionized
ammonia present. The only alternatives to reporting the pH and
temperature data for releases are to report total aqueous ammonia or a
proportion of total aqueous ammonia which when combined with
environmental pH and temperature data are sufficient to characterize
the toxic chemical released. Under any of these reporting options, the
user of the data must still acquire environmental pH and temperature
data in order to fully characterize the environmental significance of a
release. However, this information can be readily obtained from public
sources and would not involve access to information from a facility's
private records. If facilities are allowed to report only the amount of
the un-ionized form of ammonia in a release, then the pH and
temperature of each release (to water, to POTWs, to land, to
underground injection) as well as off-site transfers for disposal would
need to be reported in order to appropriately report and characterize
the toxic chemical released. If this information is not collected, then
it is not possible for the public to determine the toxicity of the
chemical released or to assess the potential impact on the environment
from such a release. Reporting only the amount of the un-ionized form
of ammonia in a facility's effluent would not provide the public with
information sufficient to assess the volume and hazard of the toxic
chemical released. For example, a facility could reduce its reportable
releases by 10-fold simply by adjusting the pH of its effluent from 7
to 6. However, the same amount of total ammonia would be released under
both conditions and upon mixing in the receiving stream the same
potential hazard would result from both releases. Therefore, the public
would be misled as to the amount and significance of the toxic chemical
released.
EPA believes that it would be an unnecessary and overly burdensome
requirement to have facilities report the pH and temperature of each
release since the alternative of reporting a set percentage of total
ammonia without pH and temperature data provides sufficient information
to assess the impact of releases to the environment of aqueous ammonia
solutions while minimizing burden. Further, EPA believes that aqueous
ammonia meets the criteria of EPCRA section 313 primarily, but not
exclusively, based on the toxicity of the un-ionized form of ammonia.
Therefore, EPA believes it would be inappropriate to require reporting
of only the un-ionized form of ammonia.
5. The un-ionized portion of aqueous ammonia should be calculated
based on receiving stream conditions. Several commenters stated that
facilities should be allowed to calculate the concentration of the un-
ionized form of ammonia in a release based on the pH and temperature
data for the water bodies that they release to, either as the required
method or as an alternative to reporting a set percentage of total
ammonia.
EPA considered the option of reporting the amount of the un-ionized
form of ammonia released based on the pH and temperature of the
receiving streams. However, this option has the same problems that
occur when using the pH and temperature of the effluent, in that the
facility must report the pH and temperature data used to make the
calculations in order to appropriately report and characterize the
toxic chemical released (see Unit III.A.4. of this preamble). In
addition, the pH and
[[Page 34177]]
temperature of receiving streams are subject to seasonal variations
that are likely to vary much more than that of industrial effluent
streams. This would mean that reported releases of un-ionized ammonia
would be based on data with much more variability than those based on
effluent data. If the pH and temperature information is not reported,
then it is not possible to determine the toxicity of the chemical
released or to assess the impact on the environment from such a release
under various conditions. An additional burden of this option is that
it would require reporters to gather information about conditions
outside of their facility which is not currently a requirement for
reporting under EPCRA section 313. Although information on
environmental pH and temperature conditions should be available from
public sources, it would be an added reporting burden for reporters to
gather such data. The facilities would also still need to report the pH
and temperature of their other releases (to land, POTWs, underground
injection, etc.) in order to appropriately report and characterize the
toxic chemical present in these releases. EPA believes that it would be
an unnecessary and overly burdensome requirement to have facilities
report the pH and temperature data used to determine each release since
the alternative of reporting a set percentage of total ammonia provides
sufficient information to assess the impact of releases to the
environment of aqueous ammonia solutions and reduces reporting burdens.
Further, as stated above in Unit III.A.4. of this preamble, EPA
believes that it is inappropriate to require the reporting of only the
un-ionized form of ammonia.
6. Reporting a set proportion of total ammonia is not appropriate.
Commenters stated that reporting a set proportion of total aqueous
ammonia overestimates releases of the un-ionized form of ammonia for
some facilities and underestimates the releases for others, thus
misrepresenting the quantity of the un-ionized ammonia released.
Commenters state that the use of national conditions rather than local
conditions is inappropriate. Commenters stated that it is not
appropriate to mandate an estimation method (i.e., 10 percent total
aqueous ammonia) when the facility may have better information
available. Commenters contend that EPA reporting guidance and
enforcement policy states that all readily available information be
used to calculate releases as accurately as possible and that reporting
a set proportion violates this guidance.
EPA believes that reporting a proportion of total ammonia is
appropriate. A proportion is used to reflect a reasonable estimation of
the amount of the un-ionized form of ammonia that may be present under
environmental conditions and takes into account the contribution of the
ionized form of ammonia to the toxicity of aqueous ammonia. It also
serves as an alternative to the more burdensome reporting requirements
of either reporting the amount of the un-ionized form of ammonia in a
release along with the pH and temperature of each release or of the
receiving stream, or reporting total aqueous ammonia. Given that the
ionized form of ammonia contributes to the toxicity of aqueous ammonia
and that not all of the aqueous ammonia released will be in the more
toxic un-ionized form, EPA believes that it is appropriate to limit the
reporting of total aqueous ammonia to a proportion of total aqueous
ammonia. For aqueous ammonia, the pH and temperature of the solution
are not only used to estimate the proportion of aqueous ammonia
existing in the un-ionized form, but also to define the toxicity of the
solution at that pH and temperature. For example, the aquatic toxicity
of three solutions of aqueous ammonia that each contain 0.1 mg/l of the
un-ionized form of ammonia, but at different pH and temperatures (thus,
with differing amounts of total ammonia), will not be the same.
EPA does not agree that reporting a proportion of total aqueous
ammonia misrepresents the toxic chemical released. As discussed above
in Unit III.A.4. of this preamble, EPA believes that reporting only the
amount of the un-ionized form of ammonia in a facility's effluent, in
the absence of pH and temperature data, misleads the public as to the
volume and hazard of the toxic chemical released.
EPA is not mandating an estimation method, rather EPA is defining
the limits of the reportability of a listed chemical. How a facility
determines what represents 10 percent of total aqueous ammonia in their
threshold and release determinations is still determined by the
facility.
7. Reporting 10 percent of total aqueous ammonia overestimates the
releases of un-ionized ammonia. Of the 18 comments received on the
amended proposed rule, 10 commenters stated that reporting 10 percent
total ammonia was too high or inappropriate, while 5 other commenters
agreed with the proposal, and 2 other commenters agreed at least to
some degree with the Agency's proposal. Commenters also stated that EPA
should not use a percentage of total aqueous ammonia that it based on
``worst-case scenario'' environmental conditions. Of the commenters
that oppose the 10 percent standard, 8 suggested that 1 percent would
be a more realistic value (since it would be consistent with the 50th
percentile for pH and temperature data) as an alternative to
calculating the un-ionized portion based on pH and temperature of the
effluent. Two commenters on the original proposal stated that, as a
default value, 45 percent of total ammonia should be used since this
would represent the amount of un-ionized ammonia present at pH 9 and 30
deg.C and one commenter suggested 7.5 percent as the reporting level
which is based on pH 8 and 30 deg.C. Three commenters cited what they
contend are the SAB recommended standard conditions and suggested that
reporting 1 percent total aqueous ammonia would be closer to the SAB
standard conditions. None of these commenters indicated any support for
reporting the pH and temperature data for their releases of aqueous
ammonia.
EPA believes that for reporting purposes under EPCRA section 313,
10 percent of total aqueous ammonia is an appropriate proportion to
report under the ammonia listing. Both the un-ionized and ionized forms
of ammonia are toxic to aquatic organisms with the ionized form being
relatively less toxic, but not non-toxic. EPA believes that aqueous
ammonia meets the criteria of EPCRA section 313 primarily, but not
exclusively, based on the toxicity of the un-ionized form of this
chemical. Given the complexity of aqueous ammonia toxicity and the
scientific consensus that the un-ionized form is primarily responsible
for the aquatic toxicity, EPA believes that it is appropriate to limit
the amount of total aqueous ammonia that is reported.
EPA believes that setting the proportion of total aqueous ammonia
to be reported based on the 90th percentile for pH and temperature of
the Nation's waters is not overly conservative given the complex nature
of the toxicity of aqueous ammonia. By using 10 percent of total
aqueous ammonia EPA is discounting 90 percent of the releases. EPA
believes this addresses concerns raised by some commenters that
reporting 100 percent total aqueous ammonia misleads the public as to
the hazard associated with the release due to the high numbers
associated with such reporting. Ten percent total aqueous ammonia
reflects a reasonable estimation of the amount of un-ionized ammonia
that may be present under environmental conditions and takes into
account the contribution of the ionized
[[Page 34178]]
form to the toxicity of aqueous ammonia since total ammonia can be
derived from the data. It also serves as an alternative to the more
burdensome reporting requirement of reporting the amount of un-ionized
ammonia in a release along with the pH and temperature of each release
or of the receiving stream. EPA does not believe that discounting 99
percent of a release (i.e., reporting only 1 percent total aqueous
ammonia) is appropriate given the nature of the toxicity of aqueous
ammonia and the pH and temperature data for the Nation's waters.
EPA does not agree that 10 percent total aqueous ammonia represents
a ``worst-case scenario.'' EPA believes that a ``worst-case scenario''
would be to report a percentage of total ammonia based on the highest
pH and temperatures reported for the Nation's waters. A review of the
data indicates that the average of the highest reported pH and
temperature conditions for each State would result in aqueous ammonia
consisting of approximately 75 percent un-ionized ammonia. Therefore,
EPA believes that 10 percent is far from being a ``worst-case''
estimation of the amount of the un-ionized form of ammonia released
into the environment. Given the seasonal variations in pH and
temperature, it is reasonable to assume that many locations may equal
or exceed 10 percent at some point during the year even if the average
conditions would produce less than 10 percent un-ionized ammonia. One
added complexity is the timing of releases from facilities which may or
may not be consistent throughout the year. In fact, higher releases may
occur during periods when the pH and temperature of the receiving
stream is well above the average conditions resulting in higher
concentrations of the un-ionized form of ammonia in the receiving
stream than estimated by the average conditions. In addition, there are
some other types of releases, such as to deep wells, which may contain
aqueous ammonia at pH and temperature conditions that result in much
more than 10 percent of the un-ionized form of ammonia being present in
the environment. For these releases reporting only 10 percent total
aqueous ammonia clearly does not represent a ``worst-case scenario''
and is a significant reduction in reporting burden since a smaller
number of facilities will meet reporting thresholds. Again, as stated
above, EPA does not believe that reporting 10 percent total aqueous
ammonia is overly conservative or misrepresents the potential impact on
the environment or the toxicity of such releases.
The SAB letter received by EPA in response to the Agency's
requested review contained the following statement: ``For example, if
the policy concern is solely for aquatic toxicity, then reporting non-
ionized ammonia concentrations at a standard pH and temperature (e.g.,
pH 7 and 15 deg.C) would address this endpoint.'' EPA believes that
the important part of this statement is that ``a standard pH and
temperature'' be used. This is consistent with EPA's position that
unless a facility reports total aqueous ammonia, a proportion of total
aqueous ammonia, or the amount of the un-ionized form of ammonia along
with the pH and temperature of the solution released or of the
receiving stream, the toxic chemical is not appropriately reported or
characterized. With regards to the parenthetical ``(e.g., pH 7 and 15
deg.C)'', EPA does not believe that this should be considered as being
the recommended pH and temperature to be used. Since ``e.g.'' means
``for example'', EPA believes that the pH and temperature values in the
SAB letter were an example, not a recommended best set of conditions.
In fact, the SAB letter gave no justification for these conditions, nor
did it provide any discussion of the issue of the most appropriate or
standard conditions to use. The SAB letter went on to state, ``Thus,
the question of whether to list or how to list ammonia or any of its
forms is not a scientific issue but strictly a matter of policy for the
Agency to decide.'' EPA believes that reporting a proportion of total
aqueous ammonia that is based on reported pH and temperature data for
the Nation's waters provides the necessary standard conditions and
allows for appropriate reporting and characterization of the toxic
chemical released.
8. Releases of aqueous ammonia to Class I wells should be exempt
from reporting. Several commenters stated that since the only
identified concerned for aqueous ammonia is aquatic toxicity, then
discharges to Class I deep wells should not be reported since they do
not represent an aquatic environment and have no potential for release
to an aquatic environment.
EPA does not believe that, for reporting purposes under EPCRA
section 313, it is appropriate to exempt the reporting of releases to a
particular medium. Although the release of a toxic chemical to one type
of medium may have a greater or lesser potential for adverse impacts on
human health or the environment, there is always the potential for
released material to enter into more sensitive environments. In
addition, EPA does not believe that all of the release information
provided under EPCRA section 313 should be viewed as being negative.
The fact that one facility discharges to a medium that may pose less of
a direct threat to human health or the environment is useful data for
the public to know. In addition, there is some question as to whether
EPA would have the statutory authority to provide such an exemption:
section 313(g) requires facilities to report on the quantities of a
toxic chemical entering each environmental medium and does not
explicitly provide any mechanism to exempt releases to individual
media.
9. Aqueous solutions of ammonium salts are not equivalent to
aqueous ammonia from anhydrous ammonia. Some commenters stated that
they do not believe that aqueous ammonia from solutions of ammonium
salts is equivalent to aqueous ammonia produced from anhydrous ammonia.
EPA does not agree with this comment. As stated in the amended
proposed rule, there are differences in the concentrations of the un-
ionized form of ammonia between equimolar solutions of aqueous ammonia
generated by dissolving dissociable ammonium salts versus anhydrous
ammonia. These differences are due to the buffering effects (mainly
reflected as pH differences) of the counter ions from the ammonium
salts and disappear when both solutions are released to the
environment. It is clear that ammonium salt solutions do produce
aqueous ammonia since the sources of aqueous ammonia used to test the
aquatic toxicity of aqueous ammonia are often ammonium salts (see Ref.
8 and references therein). For example, some of the chemicals that have
been used as sources of aqueous ammonia are: Ammonium acetate, ammonium
bicarbonate, ammonium carbonate, ammonium chloride, ammonium hydrogen
phosphate, and ammonium sulfate. Clearly all of these ammonium salts
produce aqueous ammonia that does not significantly differ from that
produced from anhydrous ammonia.
B. Conclusion and Rationale for Actions
After reviewing comments received on the original proposal and the
amended proposal, EPA has concluded that the four actions proposed in
the amended proposal should be adopted as proposed. A brief discussion
of the rationale for each action is provided below. A more detailed
discussion of the rationales for each of these actions was provided in
the amended proposal (60 FR 16830, April 3, 1995).
1. Deletion of ammonium sulfate (solution). EPA has concluded that
the
[[Page 34179]]
sulfate portion of ammonium sulfate (solution) does not meet the EPCRA
section 313(d)(2)(A), (B), or (C) criteria. EPA has previously reviewed
the toxicity of sodium sulfate (54 FR 7217 and 54 FR 25850) and
concluded that sulfate from sodium sulfate did not meet the EPCRA
section 313(d)(2)(A), (B), or (C) criteria. EPA has concluded that the
only component of ammonium sulfate (solution) that meets the EPCRA
section 313 listing criteria is the aqueous ammonia present in this
solution. EPA has concluded that this aqueous ammonia is more
appropriately reported under the EPCRA section 313 ammonia listing,
therefore it is appropriate to delete ammonium sulfate (solution) from
the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic chemicals. EPA has concluded that
10 percent of the ammonium portion of ammonium sulfate (solution)
(i.e., 10 percent of the total aqueous ammonia present in this
solution) will remain reportable under the ammonia listing.
2. Reporting of 10 percent of total aqueous ammonia. EPA has
reviewed all available data and considered all comments concerning how
to report aqueous ammonia releases under EPCRA section 313. EPA has
concluded that reporting only the amount of the un-ionized form of
ammonia released does not provide sufficient information to describe
the toxicity of the aqueous ammonia released or the impact of such
releases. The toxicity of an aqueous solution of ammonia is not only
dependent on the amount of aqueous ammonia or either of the two forms
of ammonia present, but also on the pH and temperature of the solution.
In addition, as was discussed in Unit III.A.4. of this preamble,
reporting only the amount of the un-ionized form of ammonia in a
facility's effluent misleads the public as to the volume and hazard of
the toxic chemical released. Accordingly, EPA has concluded that
reporting total ammonia in some manner is the appropriate way to report
aqueous ammonia under EPCRA section 313.
EPA considered three total ammonia options for reporting aqueous
ammonia releases that would adequately report and characterize the
toxic chemical released. The first way is to report the pH and
temperature of each type of release or of the receiving stream. This
would better describe the toxicity of the aqueous ammonia released and
allow for assessing its impact on the environment since total ammonia
can be calculated from the pH and temperature data. The second way is
to report total aqueous ammonia. Although this does not in itself
better describe the toxicity of the solution released, it does report
all of the aqueous ammonia released and provides sufficient information
to assess the potential impact of releases. The third way is to report
a proportion of total aqueous ammonia, which provides a level of
information similar to reporting total aqueous ammonia but takes into
consideration the fact that the un-ionized form of ammonia contributes
more to the toxicity of the solution.
EPA has concluded that reporting the pH and temperature data for
each release would be an unnecessary reporting burden since a less
burdensome alternative to this requirement exists. In the original
proposal EPA favored the reporting of total aqueous ammonia under the
ammonia listing. However, based on comment, EPA has concluded that
another appropriate way to report releases of aqueous ammonia is to
report a uniform proportion of total aqueous ammonia. EPA has concluded
that reporting only a proportion of total aqueous ammonia is
appropriate since aqueous ammonia meets the EPCRA section 313 criteria
primarily, but not exclusively, based on the toxicity of the un-ionized
form of this chemical. EPA has concluded that reporting 10 percent
total aqueous ammonia would be appropriate since, based on the 90th
percentile for the pH and temperature conditions in the Nation's
waters, 10 percent represents the amount of the un-ionized form of
ammonia that would be present in receiving streams from releases of
aqueous ammonia. EPA has concluded that considering the variations in
the pH and temperature of the types of releases reported under EPCRA
section 313, the fact the ionized form of ammonia also contributes to
the toxicity of aqueous ammonia, and the potential impacts of aqueous
ammonia releases, that the reporting of 10 percent total aqueous
ammonia is appropriate. EPA has concluded that reporting 10 percent
total aqueous ammonia will not overestimate the potential impacts of
these releases and that this provides a much less burdensome method of
reporting than requiring the reporting of the pH and temperature data
for each release.
The reporting of 10 percent total aqueous ammonia will allow users
of the data to determine potential impacts on the environment from such
releases. Users of the data can calculate total aqueous ammonia
releases by multiplying the reported amount of aqueous ammonia released
by 10. The users can then use the amount of total aqueous ammonia
released along with the pH, temperature, and other characteristics of
the specific receiving stream to assess the potential impact of the
aqueous ammonia releases.
3. Modification of the ammonia listing. The quantities of aqueous
ammonia manufactured by dissolving water dissociable ammonium salts in
water are subject to release and threshold determinations under the
EPCRA section 313 ammonia listing. While clearly reportable, EPA
believes that there may be some confusion about this requirement. EPA
guidance in response to inquires concerning what is reportable under
the ammonia listing has been that aqueous ammonia from water
dissociable ammonium salts is reportable under the listing. However,
even after publishing this guidance in 1990 (55 FR 12148), EPA
continued to receive numerous inquires regarding what should be
reported. Therefore, EPA has concluded that a qualifier to the ammonia
listing should be added to clarify that aqueous ammonia from water
dissociable ammonium salts is reportable under the ammonia listing. EPA
believes that this modification of the ammonia listing, specifying that
the listing includes anhydrous ammonia and aqueous ammonia from water
dissociable ammonium salts and other sources, will aid the regulated
community in determining whether they are required to report and will
eliminate any confusion over what is reportable under the ammonia
listing. This modification also includes the 10 percent total aqueous
ammonia reporting limit.
4. Deletion of ammonium nitrate (solution). EPA has concluded that
deleting ammonium nitrate (solution) from the EPCRA section 313 list is
appropriate because the recent addition of the water dissociable
nitrate compounds category (59 FR 61432, November 30, 1994) and
reporting of aqueous ammonia from water dissociable ammonium salts
under the ammonia listing (as clarified in this final rule) negate the
need for a separate listing for this chemical solution. EPA has
concluded that this is not a significant change since the releases of
ammonium nitrate (solution) are still reportable under the EPCRA
section 313 listing for ammonia and the water dissociable nitrate
compounds category. Under the water dissociable nitrate compounds
category, the amount of ammonium nitrate in solution is counted in
threshold determinations for the category, but only the amount of
nitrate ion is counted in release and transfer determinations,
therefore no double counting of releases will occur. This deletion
simply consolidates the reporting of ammonium nitrate
[[Page 34180]]
(solution) under existing EPCRA section 313 listings.
IV. Effective Dates
All provisions of this rule are final June 7, 1995. However, these
changes (with the exception of the deletion of ammonium nitrate
(solution)) are effective for the 1994 reporting year. The deletion of
ammonium nitrate (solution) listing is effective for the 1995 reporting
year.
Section 313(d)(4) of EPCRA provides, ``Any revision [to the section
313 list] made on or after January 1 and before December 1 of any
calendar year shall take effect beginning with the next calendar year.
Any revision made on or after December 1 of any calendar year and
before January 1 of the next calendar year shall take effect beginning
with the calendar year following such next calendar year.'' EPA
interprets this delayed effective date provision to apply only to
actions that add chemicals to the section 313 list; EPA may, at its
discretion, make deletions from the list and amendments to listings
immediately effective.
EPA believes that the purpose behind section 313(d)(4) is to allow
facilities adequate planning time to incorporate newly added chemicals
to their TRI release data collection processes. A facility would not
need additional planning time not to report releases of a delisted
chemical. Moreover, where EPA has determined that a chemical does not
satisfy the criteria of section 313(d)(2)(A) through (C), no purpose is
served by requiring facilities to collect release data or file release
reports for that chemical, or, therefore, by leaving that chemical on
the section 313 list for any additional period of time. Nothing in the
legislative history suggests that section 313(d)(4) was intended to
apply to deletions as well as additions. Thus, a reasonable
construction of section 313(d)(4), given the overall purposes and
structure of EPCRA--to provide the public with information about
chemicals which meet the criteria for inclusion on the section 313
list--is to apply the delayed effective date requirement only to
additions to the list. This construction of section 313(d)(4) is also
consistent with previous rules deleting chemicals from the section 313
list.
An immediately effective date for two of the actions in this final
rule is also consistent with 5 U.S.C. section 553(d)(1), since a
deletion from the section 313 list relieves a regulatory burden. EPA
believes the combined effect of the changes in this final rule would be
to reduce the burden by clarifying what is reportable under the ammonia
listing and by simplifying the reporting requirements for ammonia. In
addition, the requirement that facilities include 10 percent of total
ammonia in aqueous solutions in threshold determinations might relieve
some facilities from the obligation to report for aqueous ammonia.
The following effective dates and requirements apply to this final
rule.
1. Deletion of ammonium sulfate (solution). The deletion of
ammonium sulfate (solution) is effective for the 1994 reporting year
(reports due July 1, 1995).
2. Deletion of ammonium nitrate (solution). The deletion of
ammonium nitrate (solution) is effective for the 1995 reporting year
(reports due July 1, 1996). EPA is delaying the effective date of this
provision to coincide with the effective date of the recently-added
water dissociable nitrate compounds category (59 FR 61432, November 30,
1994). The requirement that aqueous ammonia from ammonium nitrate
(solution) be reported under the ammonia listing as 10 percent of total
aqueous ammonia is also effective for the 1995 reporting year.
3. Reporting 10 percent of total aqueous ammonia. The requirement
that 10 percent of total aqueous ammonia be reported under the ammonia
listing for aqueous ammonia from all water dissociable ammonium salts
(except ammonium nitrate (solution)) is effective for the 1994
reporting year. EPA believes that facilities that have been subject to
record keeping requirements for ammonium sulfate (solution) already
have the information needed to calculate threshold and release
quantities for 10 percent total aqueous ammonia. Specifically, a
facility would multiply the appropriate ammonium sulfate (solution)
quantities by 2.7 percent, which represents 10 percent of the weight
percent of aqueous ammonia from ammonium sulfate (solution).
Facilities that currently report or make threshold determinations
for the aqueous ammonia from other water dissociable ammonium salts may
not be keeping the kind of information in their records that would
allow them to calculate 10 percent of total aqueous ammonia from their
un-ionized ammonia data. EPA recognizes that issuance of this final
rule has come so close to the reporting deadline that some of these
facilities may not be able to comply with this requirement before the
July 1, 1995 reporting date. Accordingly, for this one year, such
facilities can continue to use the pH and temperature of their process
and waste streams to estimate the quantities of un-ionized ammonia
present for threshold and release determinations, respectively.
Facilities that have already reported under the current
requirements are not required to resubmit their reports under the new
requirements. They can, however, withdraw their reports if they did not
meet the threshold for ammonia under the revised ammonia listing.
V. Rulemaking Record
The record supporting this final rule is contained in docket number
OPPTS-400032B. All documents, including an index of the docket, are
available in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center (NCIC), also
known as, TSCA Public Docket Office from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. TSCA NCIC is located at EPA
Headquarters, Rm. NE-B607, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
VI. References
(1) USEPA/OPPT. ``Response to Comments Received on the March 30,
1990 and April 3, 1995 Proposed and Amended Proposed Rules to Delete
Ammonium Sulfate (solution) from the EPCRA Section 313 List'', U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Washington, DC (1995).
(2) Tuttle, Jr., T. R., ``Ammonium Hydroxide: What is its
Structure?'', Letters to the Editor No. 1 and No. 3, Journal of
Chemical Education, 68, (1991), p. 533.
(3) Grunwald, E.; Ralph, E. K., ``Kinetic Studies of Hydrogen-
Bonded Solvation Complexes of Amines in Water and Hydroxylic
Solvents'', Accounts of Chemical Research, 4, (1971), pp. 107-113.
(4) Bertie, J.E.; Morrison, M. M., ``The Infrared Spectra of the
Hydrates of Ammonia, NH3 . H2O and NH3 .
2H2O'', Journal of Chemical Physics, 73, (1980), pp. 4832-4836.
(5) Bertie, J.E.; Shehata, M. R., ``Ammonia Dihydrate: Preparation,
X-Ray Powder Diffraction Pattern and Infrared Spectrum of NH3
. H2O and NH3 . 2H2O at 100 K'', Journal of
Chemical Physics, 81, (1984), pp. 27-29.
(6) Yoke, J., ``Ammonia and Water Molecules Engaged in Hydrogen
Bonding'', Letter to the Editor No.2, Journal of Chemical Education,
68, (1991), p. 533.
(7) Yoke, J., ``Ammonium Hydroxide Does Not Exist'', Journal of
Chemical Education, 66, (1989), p. 310.
(8) USEPA/OW. ``Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia -
1984'', U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Regulations and
[[Page 34181]]
Standards, Washington, DC, EPA 440/5-85-001 (1985).
VII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. Under section 3(f),
the order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action
likely to lead to a rule (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities
(also referred to as ``economically significant''); (2) creating
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary
impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4)
raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive
Order. Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, it has been
determined that this final rule is not ``significant'' and therefore
not subject to OMB review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the Agency must
conduct a small business analysis to determine whether a substantial
number of small entities would be significantly affected by the final
rule. Because the final rule does not create any new requirements and
consolidates other requirements, it would not significantly affect
facilities, including small entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule does not result in any new information collection
requirements subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA has assessed
the effects of this regulatory action on State, local and tribal
governments, and the private sector. This action does not result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local or tribal
governments, or by anyone in the private sector. The cost associated
with this action are described in the Executive Order 12866 unit above.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Community right-to-know,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Toxic chemicals.
Dated: June 26, 1995.
Lynn R. Goldman,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 372 is amended as follows:
PART 372--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 372 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.
2. In Sec. 372.65 by revising the entries for ammonia and ammonium
nitrate (solution) and removing the entire entry for ammonium sulfate
(solution) under paragraph (a), and revising the CAS No. entries for
6484-52-2 and 7664-41-7 and removing the entire CAS No. entry for 7783-
20-2 under paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 372.65 Chemicals and chemical categories to which this part
applies.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical name CAS No. Effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Ammonia (includes anhydrous ammonia and 7664-41-7 1/1/87
aqueous ammonia from water dissociable
ammonium salts and other sources; 10
percent of total aqueous ammonia is
reportable under this listing)
Ammonium nitrate (solution) 6484-52-2 1/1/87*
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: Ammonium nitrate (solution) is removed from this listing; the removal is effective July 2, 1995, for the
1995 reporting year.
(b) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS No. Chemical name Effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
6484-52-2 Ammonium nitrate (solution) 1/1/87*
* * * * * * *
7664-41-7 Ammonia (includes anhydrous ammonia and 1/1/87
aqueous ammonia from water dissociable
ammonium salts and other sources; 10
percent of total aqueous ammonia is
reportable under this listing)
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: CAS No. 6484-52-2 is removed from this listing; the removal is effective July 2, 1995, for the 1995
reporting year.
[[Page 34182]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-16184 Filed 6-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F