[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