[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 205 (Friday, October 23, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56886-56891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-28487]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 268
[FRL-6179-4]
Land Disposal Restrictions: Notice of Intent To Grant a Site-
Specific Treatment Variance to Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or
Agency) is today proposing to grant a site-specific treatment variance
from the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) standards for two specific
hazardous wastes to be stabilized by Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
(CWM) at their Kettleman Hills facility in Kettleman City, California.
These wastes have been classified as D010, as well as D004, D006, D007,
and D008. CWM requests this variance because the wastes of concern
cannot be treated to the treatment standard of 5.7 mg/L TCLP (63 FR
28556, May 26, 1998) for nonwastewater forms of D010 waste. The
chemical properties of the wastes in question appear to differ
significantly from the waste used to establish the LDR standard.
Accordingly, the Agency today proposes to grant a site-specific
treatment variance to CWM from the selenium treatment standard for the
two wastes discussed in this proposal. The Agency is proposing an
alternate treatment standard of 51 mg/L TCLP for the waste generated by
Owens Brockway Glass Container Company, and 25 mg/L TCLP for the waste
generated by Ball-Foster Glass Container Corporation.
If this proposal is finalized, CWM may land dispose of these two
treated wastes in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill provided they comply with
the specified alternate treatment standard for selenium nonwastewaters
and they meet all other applicable LDR treatment standards.
Furthermore, the Agency proposes to grant this variance for a period of
three years. During this period, the Agency will request the petitioner
to submit information on whether new technologies have become available
to treat these wastes to the national treatment level of 5.7 mg/L TCLP
and also whether some type of vitrification or recovery technology can
be employed to recover and/or treat the selenium component of the waste
in lieu of stabilization. Note that waste already disposed of pursuant
to the standard established in a treatment variance would be lawfully
disposed, and would not have to be retreated if the standard in the
variance were altered or lapsed.
DATES: EPA is requesting comments on today's proposed decision.
Comments will be accepted until November 13, 1998. Comments postmarked
after the close of the comment period will be stamped ``late'' and may
or may not be considered by the Agency.
ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their
comments referencing Docket Number F-98-CWMP-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket
Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
DC 20460. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the Arlington,
VA, address below. Comments may also be submitted electronically
through the Internet to: [email protected]. Comments in
electronic format should also be identified by the docket number F-98-
CWMP-FFFFF. All electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file
avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential
business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be
submitted under
[[Page 56887]]
separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid
Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing
in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I,
First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is
open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal
holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public
make an appointment by calling (703) 603-9230. The public may copy a
maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge.
Additional copies cost $0.15/page. The index and some supporting
materials are available electronically. See the Supplementary
Information section for information on accessing them.
The index is available on the Internet. Follow these instructions
to access the information electronically:
WWW: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/hazwaste.htm#ldr
FTP: ftp.epa.gov
Login: anonymous
Password: your Internet address
Files are located in /pub/epaoswer
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline at 800 424-9346 or TDD 800 553-7672 (hearing impaired). In
the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call 703 412-9810 or TDD 703
412-3323. For more detailed information on specific aspects of this
rulemaking, contact Elaine Eby at (703) 308-8449 or
[email protected], or Josh Lewis at (703) 308-7877 or
[email protected], Office of Solid Waste (5302 W), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The official record for this action will be kept in paper form.
Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically
into paper form and place them in the official record, which will also
include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record
is the paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the
beginning of this document.
EPA responses to comments, whether the comments are written or
electronic, will be in a notice in the Federal Register or in a
response to comments document placed in the official record for this
rulemaking. EPA will not immediately reply to commenters electronically
other than to seek clarification of electronic comments that may be
garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form, as
discussed above.
Paperless Office Effort
EPA is asking prospective commenters to voluntarily submit one
additional copy of their comments on labeled personal computer
diskettes in ASCII (TEXT) format or a word processing format that can
be converted to ASCII (TEXT). It is essential to specify on the disk
label the word processing software and version/edition as well as the
commenter's name. This will allow EPA to convert the comments into one
of the word processing formats utilized by the Agency. Please use
mailing envelopes designed to physically protect the submitted
diskettes. EPA emphasizes that submission of comments on diskettes is
not mandatory, nor will it result in any advantage or disadvantage to
any commenter. This expedited procedure is in conjunction with the
Agency ``Paperless Office'' campaign. For further information on the
submission of diskettes contact Josh Lewis of the Waste Treatment
Branch at (703) 308-7877.
A. Authority
Under section 3004(m) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), EPA is required to set ``levels or methods of treatment, if
any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are minimized.'' EPA has interpreted
this language to authorize treatment standards based on the performance
of best demonstrated available technology (BDAT). This interpretation
was sustained by the court in Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA,
886 F. 2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1989). The Agency has recognized that there
may be wastes that cannot be treated to levels specified in the
regulations (see 40 CFR 268.40) because an individual waste matrix or
concentration can be substantially more difficult to treat than those
wastes the Agency evaluated in establishing the treatment standard (51
FR 40576, November 7, 1986). For such wastes, EPA established a
treatment variance (40 CFR 268.44) that, if granted, becomes the
treatment standard for the waste at issue.
B. Summary of Petition
On May 12, 1997, the Agency published ``Land Disposal Restrictions
Phase IV: Second Supplemental Proposal on Treatment Standards for Metal
Wastes and Mineral Processing Wastes, Mineral Processing and Bevill
Exclusion Issues, and the Use of Hazardous Waste as Fill'' (62 FR
26041). In this proposal, the Agency proposed to revise the Universal
Treatment Standard (UTS) for selenium nonwastewaters from 0.16 mg/L
TCLP to 5.7 mg/L TCLP. The Agency also proposed to apply the revised
UTS standard to D010 nonwastewaters (D010 denotes a waste that is
characteristically hazardous for selenium).
On August 12, 1997, CWM submitted comments on the supplemental
proposed rule. CWM stated that the standards for selenium should be
raised and reiterated an earlier suggestion that EPA establish a High
Selenium >200 ppm subcategory for nonwastewaters, with the
establishment of a treatment standard of 10 mg/L TCLP, because of the
technical problems in achieving lower levels for more highly-
concentrated selenium waste streams. CWM stated that it had
consistently experienced problems treating waste streams from glass
manufacturing companies to the current level of 5.7 mg/L TCLP. To
further illustrate this point, CWM provided treatability testing data
from a selenium-contaminated waste stream (untreated TCLP of 80.13 mg/
L), which showed that CWM formulated 16 different treatment recipes
prior to targeting one which could possibly treat a selenium waste to
below the 5.7 mg/L standard.
On October 20, 1997, per the Agency's request for additional
information on the facility's selenium treatment using stabilization,
CWM submitted additional testing data from their Kettleman Hills,
California facility. These data consisted of bench-scale stabilization
treatment testing for selenium-bearing wastes generated from various
glass manufacturing companies. The wastes contained leachate
concentrations of selenium ranging from 76.3 to 1024 mg/L TCLP.
Stabilization tests were submitted on three different selenium waste
streams using various combinations of the following stabilization
reagents: ferrous sulfate, calcium polysulfide, ferric chloride, sodium
bisulfate, portland cement, and cement kiln dust. Data from these tests
showed that more than 60 different stabilization recipes failed to meet
the selenium treatment standard of 5.7 mg/L TCLP, with only five
recipes achieving compliance.
In the Phase IV Final Rule, the Agency determined that a treatment
standard of 5.7 mg/L TCLP was appropriate for D010 nonwastewaters (63
FR 28556, May 26, 1998). However,
[[Page 56888]]
the Agency further concluded that high-level selenium waste streams, in
particular the waste streams for which data was submitted by CWM, were
unable to achieve the 5.7 mg/L TCLP standard. The Agency suggested that
it would propose a site-specific treatment variance for these high
selenium waste streams being treated by CWM in the near future. Id.
II. Basis for Determination
Under 40 CFR 268.44(h), EPA allows facilities to apply for a site-
specific variance in cases where a waste that is generated under
conditions specific to only one site cannot be treated to the specified
levels. In such cases, the generator or treatment facility may apply to
the Administrator, or EPA's delegated representative, for a site-
specific variance from a treatment standard. The applicant for a site-
specific variance must demonstrate that, because the physical or
chemical properties of the waste differ significantly from the waste
analyzed in developing the treatment standard, the waste cannot be
treated by BDAT to specified levels or by the specified methods. Note
that there are other grounds for obtaining treatment variances, but
this is the only provision relevant to the present petition.
CWM formally submitted their request for a treatment variance by
subsequent letter.1 CWM also sent comments in support of the
Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV--Second Supplemental (62 FR 26041,
May 12, l997) as well as additional supplemental information. The
Agency has used this information in evaluating the variance request by
CWM. All information and data used in the development of this proposed
treatment variance can be found in the RCRA docket supporting this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter to Fred Chanania, USEPA, from Mitchell Hahn, Chemical
Waste Management, Inc., July 30, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Establishment of BDAT for Selenium
In the Third Third rule (55 FR 22521, June 1, 1990), the Agency
developed performance standards for selenium based on stabilization as
BDAT. At that time, EPA had information indicating that wastes
containing high concentrations of selenium were rarely generated and
land disposed. The Agency also stated that it believed that for most
waste containing high concentrations of selenium, recovery of the
selenium was feasible using recovery technologies currently employed by
copper smelters and copper refining operations. The Agency further
stated that it did not have any performance data for selenium recovery,
but available information indicated that recovery of elemental selenium
out of certain types of scrap material and other types of waste was
practiced in the United States. No comments or data were received on
this issue in the Third Third rulemaking docket. Consequently, to
establish the treatment standard, the Agency used performance data from
the stabilization of a D010 mineral processing waste, which it
determined to be the most difficult to treat selenium waste. This waste
contained up to 700 ppm total selenium and 3.74 mg/L selenium in the
TCLP leachate. The selenium levels in treated residuals were between
1.80 and 0.154 mg/L TCLP. This waste also contained high concentrations
of arsenic, cadmium, and lead. The binder to waste ratios varied from
1.3 to 2.8.
B. Chemical Properties and Treatability Information on CWM's Selenium
Wastes
The two waste streams at issue here appear to be significantly
different from the wastes used to set the treatment standard, and the
current treatment standard of 5.7 mg/L TCLP for D010 nonwastewaters is
not attainable using BDAT on these two wastes. The first waste stream,
generated by Owens Brockway Glass Container Company, Vernon, California
and identified by CWM in the petition documents as D79726, is
electrostatic precipitator dust generated during glass manufacturing
operations. Presently, CWM is storing 130 cubic yards of this
unprocessed waste on-site. An additional forty cubic yards have been
treated but fail to meet the standard of 5.7 mg/L TCLP. The generator
estimates a monthly generation rate of 40 cubic yards.
D79726 is characterized as a grey and white solid containing no
free liquids or organic constituents. It consists of 50-60% salt cake
and 40-50% soda ash. Concentrations of selenium in the untreated waste
have been measured between 80.13 and 1024 mg/L TCLP. The waste also has
significant concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead and
has exhibited the following additional waste code listings: D004, D006,
D007, and D008.
Three samples or batches of the waste were tested to determine
appropriate stabilization recipes. A summary of these samples is
presented in Table I. For Batch 96222928 (581 mg/L TCLP selenium in the
untreated sample), CWM tested nine different recipes, with reagent to
waste ratios ranging between 0.6 and 4.3. Reagents included iron
sulfate, cement and cement kiln dust. Treated selenium TCLP
concentrations for Batch 96222928 ranged from 4.34 to 228 mg/L TCLP.
Batch 96222929 contained 1024 mg/L TCLP selenium in the untreated
waste. Thirty-three different recipes were tested with treated
concentrations of selenium ranging from 5.23 to 290.5 mg/L TCLP, with
reagent to waste ratios ranging from 0.6 to 5.0. Batch 96222930
contained 465 mg/L TCLP selenium in the untreated waste and was tested
using nine recipes with reagent to waste ratios ranging from 1.3 to
4.4. Concentrations of selenium in the treated waste ranged from 11.3
mg/L to 109 mg/L TCLP.
Table I.--Summary of Owens Brockway Selenium Waste
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Untreated
Batch No. Se TCLP Treated Se TCLP range
(mg/L) (mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
96222928............................ 581 4.34-228.
96222929............................ 1024 5.23-290.5.
96222930............................ 465 11.3-109.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second waste stream, generated by the Ball-Foster Glass
Container Corporation, El Monte, California and identified in CWM
documents as DZ2050, is dry scrubber solid from glass manufacturing.
CWM's waste profile identified the selenium concentrations in the
untreated waste as 20.9 mg/L TCLP. It also identifies the waste as
characteristic for lead (D008). Presently, none of this waste is being
stored at the CWM facility; however, the generator anticipates a
quarterly generation rate of twenty cubic yards. The untreated leachate
concentration for selenium in the waste stream sample used to develop a
treatment recipe was measured at 59.8 mg/L TCLP, with a lead
concentration of 5.79 mg/L TCLP and an arsenic concentration of 5.70
mg/L TCLP. CWM tested 20 different stabilization recipes on the waste.
Treated concentrations for selenium ranged from 1.83 mg/L TCLP to 50.6
mg/L TCLP, with reagent to waste ratios ranging from 0.3 to 5.0.
The Agency has reviewed the information submitted by CWM on these
two waste streams and believes that, as demonstrated by the data, both
wastes satisfy the criteria of differing significantly in chemical
composition from the waste that was used to generate the treatment
standard. Selenium TCLP concentrations in untreated D79726 waste are
one to three orders of magnitude higher than the waste used to
calculate the treatment standard. Similarly, untreated TCLP
concentrations of selenium in DZ2050 were measured an order of
magnitude
[[Page 56889]]
higher. Furthermore, the treatment being employed by the petitioner is
consistent with EPA's determination of BDAT and the process used is
well-designed and operated. It should be noted that it is difficult, if
not impossible, to optimize treatment for selenium when other metals
are being treated, because the selenium solubility curve differs from
that for most other metals. Thus, successfully stabilizing other metals
generally means that treatment for selenium cannot be optimized (see 63
FR 28569, plus further explanation provided below). Therefore, EPA is
seeking comment on this proposed site-specific treatment variance for
two high selenium waste streams generated by glass manufacturing
operations.
III. Alternative Treatment Standard for D010
As discussed above, the data demonstrate that the waste used to
generate the treatment standard differs significantly from the wastes
that may be treated by CWM, which supports our view that wastes
containing high concentrations of selenium are not easily treated using
the BDAT technology of stabilization. As previously acknowledged and
discussed by the Agency in a past rulemaking (see 62 FR 26041), wastes
with selenium concentrations greater than 1.0 mg/L TCLP in the presence
of other metals, e.g., cadmium, lead or chromium, may encounter
difficulties in stabilization. This is due to a difference in pH/
solubility curves: selenium's minimum solubility is at a neutral to
mildly acidic pH (6.5-7.5) while other characteristic metals have a
minimum solubility in the alkaline pH range (8-12) (62 CFR 26045).
EPA has determined, in analyzing the data on D79726 (waste
generated by Owens Brockway Glass Container Company), the most
effective stabilization recipe for this waste consists of 0.7 parts
iron sulfate combined with 2.0 parts cement, resulting in a reagent to
waste ratio of 2.7 to 1. For each of the three analytical trials
submitted for the waste stream, this specific recipe achieved 36.8,
34.08, and 43.7 mg/L selenium TCLP in the treated waste. While the data
indicated that other recipes achieved lower TCLP values (4.34 to 28.51
mg/L), these reagent to waste ratios all exceeded 4.0 to 1. The Agency
questions whether such a high reagent to waste ratio is either
effective or optimized treatment. High reagent to waste ratios can lead
to questions of impermissible dilution.
As part of their petition, CWM has stated that reagent to waste
ratios of 1 or less are preferred, and we generally concur. In the
Phase IV rule, the Agency did not generally use stabilization data with
reagent to waste ratios greater than 1 (See: ``Final Draft Site Visit
Report for the August 20-21 Site Visit to Rollins Environmental's
Highway 36 Commercial Waste Treatment Facility Located in Deer Trail,
Colorado'' November 21, 1996 and the economic analysis supporting the
Phase IV final rule). However, in the case for selenium, the existing
treatment standard, as discussed earlier, was calculated from data with
reagent to waste ratios ranging from 1.8 to 2.7. Based on the Agency's
review of the performance data and the reagent to waste ratios used to
calculate the current treatment standard of 5.7 mg/L TCLP, we conclude
that a reagent to waste ratio of 2.7 is optimized treatment for the
selenium waste generated by Owens Brockway Glass Container Company.
Using the BDAT methodology, 2 the Agency has calculated an
alternative treatment standard of 51 mg/L TCLP based on three data
points (36.8, 34.08 and 43.7) that were the result of stabilization
treatment using a reagent to waste ratio of 2.7 for the waste
identified as D79726 and generated by Owens Brockway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ BDAT Background Document for Quality Assurance/Quality
Control Procedures and Methodology, October 23, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the second waste stream, identified as DZ2050 and generated by
the Ball-Foster Glass Container Corporation, treatment data submitted
to the Agency indicate that the most effective treatment is achieved
using the reagent to waste ratios of 1.8, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.7.
Treated waste concentrations for selenium were as follows: 11.6, 7.47,
8.22, 15.6, and 4.82 mg/L TCLP. These treatment recipes are all
consistent with the reagent to waste ratios used to establish the
existing standard of 5.7 mg/L TCLP. Using these five data points, the
Agency has calculated an alternative treatment standard of 25 mg/L TCLP
for the D010 waste generated by Ball-Foster.
IV. Request for Comment
Based on the foregoing, the Agency proposes to grant CWM's petition
for a site-specific treatment variance for the two D010 waste streams
for a period of three years. We are proposing to limit the proposed
treatment variance to three years to encourage CWM to continue
researching new stabilization, vitrification, and recovery technologies
that may more effectively deal with these two waste streams. Again,
please note that waste already disposed of pursuant to the standard
established in a treatment variance would be lawfully disposed, and
would not have to be retreated if the standard in the variance were
altered or lapsed. The Agency requests comments on all aspects of this
proposal, especially with regard to the necessity for a separate high
selenium treatability group, the proposed reagent to waste ratio of 2.7
to 1 for the selenium waste generated by Owens Brockway, the
performance of stabilization technologies, and the proposed duration of
the variance. Any information on glass manufacturing wastes would also
be particularly useful to the Agency.
Should the Agency grant this variance, we would amend 40 CFR part
268 to note that the D010 waste from Ball-Foster Glass Container
Corporation would be subject to a selenium TCLP of 25 mg/L, and the
D010 waste from Owens Brockway Glass Container Company would be subject
to a selenium TCLP of 51 mg/L. Both wastes would be treated by Chemical
Waste Management, Inc. at their Kettleman Hills facility in Kettleman
City, California. This variance would be effective for three years.
V. Administrative Requirement
A. Executive Order 12866
This proposed treatment variance does not create any new regulatory
requirements. It merely establishes alternative treatment standards for
specific wastes which replace standards already in effect. This
proposed rule is, therefore, not a ``significant'' regulatory action
within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. Because this proposed
variance only changes the treatment standards applicable to two D010
waste streams at the Chemical Waste Management, Inc. facility in
Kettleman City, California, and does not change in any way the
paperwork requirements already applicable to these wastes, it does not
affect requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
B. Executive Order 12875
Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written
[[Page 56890]]
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's proposed rule does
not create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The
proposed rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these entities.
Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not
apply to this proposed rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
Today's proposed variance is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this action is not an
economically significant proposal, and it is not expected to create any
environmental health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately
affect children. The wastes described in this proposal will be treated
by Chemical Waste Management, Inc., and then disposed of in a RCRA
Subtitle C landfill, ensuring that there will be no risks that may
disproportionately affect children.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's proposed rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments. The proposal is to issue a variance from treatment
standards established in the recently promulgated LDR Phase IV Rule for
TC metal hazardous wastes. Accordingly, the requirements of section
3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this proposed rule.
E. Executive Order 12898
EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and
is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to
enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States.
The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population,
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income bears
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
impacts as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and
that all people live in clean and sustainable communities. In response
to Executive Order 12898 and to concerns voiced by many groups outside
the Agency, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response formed
an Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of
environmental justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop
an overall strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER
Directive No. 9200.3-17). Today's proposed variance applies to two D010
waste streams that will be treated by Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
at their Kettleman City, California facility and disposed of in a RCRA
Subtitle C landfill, ensuring protection to human health and the
environment. Therefore, the Agency does not believe that today's
proposal will result in any disproportionately negative impacts on
minority or low-income communities relative to affluent or non-minority
communities.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector, and does not impose any
Federal mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector within the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This proposed rule also does not create new regulatory requirements;
rather, it merely establishes alternative treatment standards for
specific wastes which replace standards already in effect. EPA has
determined that this proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector
in any one year. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. For the same reasons,
EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed treatment variance does not create any new regulatory
requirements. It merely establishes alternative treatment standards for
a specific waste which replace standards already in effect, and it only
applies to the Chemical Waste Management, Inc. facility in Kettleman
City, California. Thus, this proposed rule would not have a significant
impact on a
[[Page 56891]]
substantial number of small entities. Therefore, EPA provides the
following certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act:
Pursuant to the provision at 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. It does not impose any new
burdens on small entities. This proposed rule, therefore, does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
There are no voluntary consensus technical standards directly
applicable to metal contaminants in hazardous waste that exhibit the
toxicity characteristic for metals. Therefore, EPA did not consider the
use of any voluntary standards in this proposal.
I. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA) provides, with limited exceptions, that no rule promulgated on
or after March 29, 1996 may take effect until it is submitted to
Congress and the Comptroller General along with specified supporting
documentation. However, this requirement does not apply to ``any rule
of particular applicability. * * *'' 5 U.S.C. 804(3). The proposed rule
is of particular applicability, applying only to a particular waste at
one facility under particular (and, as noted, exceptional)
circumstances. Consequently, the Congressional review provisions of
SBREFA are not applicable and this rule, if accepted, can take effect
without submittal to Congress.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste.
Matthew Hale,
Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. 98-28487 Filed 10-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P