[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 26, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28387-28392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12945]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 268
[FRL-6346-2]
Land Disposal Restrictions: Site-Specific Treatment Variance to
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or
Agency) is today granting a site-specific treatment variance from the
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards for two selenium-
bearing hazardous wastes. EPA is granting this variance because the
chemical properties of these two wastes differ significantly from the
waste used to establish the current LDR standard for selenium (5.7 mg/L
TCLP) and Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWM) has adequately
demonstrated that the two wastes cannot be treated to meet this
treatment standard.
CWM intends to stabilize the wastes at their Kettleman City,
California facility. Upon promulgation of this final rule, CWM may
treat these two specific wastes to alternate treatment standards of 51
mg/L TCLP for the Owens-Brockway waste and 25 mg/L TCLP for the Ball-
Foster waste. After treatment to these alternative selenium standards,
CWM may dispose of the treated wastes in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill
provided they meet the applicable LDR treatment standards for the other
hazardous constituents in the wastes. We are granting this variance for
three years.
DATES: This final rule is effective on May 11, 1999.
ADDRESSES: The official record for this rulemaking is identified by
RCRA Docket Number F-1999-CWMF-FFFFF and is located at 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. 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, D.C., metropolitan area, call 703 412-9810 or TDD 703
412-3323. For more detailed information on specific aspects of this
rulemaking, contact Josh Lewis at (703) 308-7877 or [email protected],
or Elaine Eby at (703) 308-8449 or [email protected], Office of Solid
Waste (5302 W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. What Is the Basis for LDR Treatment Variances?
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 interprets this
language to authorize treatment standards based on the performance of
best demonstrated available technology (BDAT). This interpretation was
upheld by the D.C. Circuit in Hazardous Waste Treatment Council vs.
EPA, 886 F. 2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
The Agency recognizes 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 has a process by which a generator or
treater may seek a treatment variance. See 40 CFR 268.44. If granted,
the terms of the variance establish an alternative treatment standard
for the particular waste at issue.
B. What Is the Basis of the Current Selenium Treatment Standard?
In the Third rule (55 FR 22521, June 1, 1990), the Agency used
performance data from the stabilization of a selenium D010 mineral
processing waste, which we determined to be the most difficult to treat
selenium waste, to set the national treatment standard for selenium.
This waste contained up to 700 ppm total selenium and 3.74 mg/L
selenium in the TCLP leachate. The resulting post-treatment selenium
TCLP levels were between 1.80 and 0.154 mg/L TCLP, which led to our
establishment of a national treatment standard of 5.7 mg/L for D010
selenium nonwastewaters. At that time, EPA also had information
indicating that wastes containing high concentrations of selenium are
rarely generated and land disposed and, therefore, concluded that the
standard of 5.7 mg/L was achievable.
In the Phase IV final rule, the Agency determined that a treatment
standard of 5.7 mg/L TCLP continued to be appropriate for D010
nonwastewaters (63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998). The Agency also changed the
universal treatment standard (UTS) for selenium
[[Page 28388]]
nonwastewaters from 0.16 mg/L to 5.7 mg/L. In the preamble to the Phase
IV final rule, we noted that we received comments from one company,
CWM, indicating that it was attempting to stabilize selenium wastes
with concentrations much higher than those EPA was examining to
establish the national selenium standard. In response, we indicated
that for these high-level selenium waste streams, we would propose a
site-specific treatment variance, which we did on October 23, 1998 (63
FR 56886).
II. Basis for Today's Determination
A. What Does the CWM Petition Assert?
In their petition, CWM states that two companies, Owens Brockway
and Ball-Foster, generate hazardous wastes with relatively high
leachable selenium concentrations. CWM presents data showing that
selenium TCLP concentrations in the untreated wastes are one to three
orders of magnitude higher than the untreated mineral processing wastes
that EPA used to develop the current D010 selenium treatment standard.
The data also show that neither treated waste stream can reliably meet
the numerical standard of 5.7 mg/L TCLP, even though CWM shows that it
is using the treatment technology on which EPA based the selenium
treatment standard.
Specifically, CWM's testing data consisted of bench-scale
stabilization treatment testing for selenium-bearing wastes generated
by Owens Brockway and Ball-Foster. Three samples of the Owens Brockway
waste and one sample of the Ball Foster waste were tested to determine
appropriate stabilization recipes. Selenium concentrations in the
untreated Owens Brockway wastes were between 465 and 1024 mg/L TCLP,
while the selenium concentration in the Ball-Foster waste was 59.8 mg/L
TCLP. CWM submitted stabilization data from each facility using
combinations of the following stabilization reagents: ferrous sulfate,
calcium polysulfide, ferric chloride, sodium bisulfate, portland
cement, and cement kiln dust. For more detailed information about this
petition, see the proposed rule (63 FR 56886, October 23, 1998) and the
docket supporting this proposal (docket number F-98-CWMP-FFFFF).
B. What Criteria Govern a Treatment Variance?
Under 40 CFR 268.44(h), EPA allows facilities to apply for a site-
specific variance when a waste generated under conditions specific to
only one site cannot be treated to the specified level(s). 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.
In 40 CFR 268.44(h)(1) and (2), EPA describes the two main cases in
which we will grant a treatment variance. The case described in 40 CFR
268.44(h)(1) is applicable to this treatment variance, which addresses
process wastes that are generated on a routine basis by two glass
manufacturing companies. Basically, EPA must determine if the
petitioner has adequately shown that, ``It is not physically possible
to treat the waste to the level specified in the treatment standard . .
. because the physical or the chemical properties of the waste differ
significantly from the waste analyzed in developing the treatment
standard. . . .''
C. What Is the Basis for EPA's Approval of CWM's Request for an
Alternative D010 Treatment Standard?
After careful review of the data and petition submitted by CWM, we
conclude that CWM has adequately demonstrated that the wastes satisfy
the requirements for a treatment variance under 40 CFR 268.44(h)(1).
CWM has demonstrated that the two glass manufacturing waste streams
differ significantly in chemical composition from the waste used to
generate the original treatment standard. Selenium TCLP concentrations
in the untreated wastes are one to three orders of magnitude higher
than the waste used in developing the treatment standard for D010
hazardous wastes. Furthermore, CWM is using stabilization as the
treatment technology, which is consistent with EPA's determination of
BDAT, and the process is well-designed and operated.
Treatment of these two wastes is especially difficult because of
the presence of other metals (i.e., arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and
lead) above their respective characteristic levels. 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 of most other metals. 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) (see 62 FR
26045).
Therefore, EPA is today granting a site-specific variance from the
D010 treatment standards for the two waste streams in question since
the wastes cannot be physically treated to the level specified in the
regulations. Today's alternative treatment standards will provide
sufficient latitude for CWM to treat the other metals present in the
wastes to LDR treatment standards and, by raising the selenium
treatment standard, will avoid the difficulty posed by the different
metal solubility curves.
D. What Are the Terms and Conditions of the Variance?
This variance applies to two specific waste streams: electrostatic
precipitator dust generated during glass manufacturing operations at
Owens Brockway Glass Container Company, and dry scrubber solid from
glass manufacturing wastes at Ball-Foster Glass Container Corporation.
In analyzing the Owens Brockway data, 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. The treatment extract had a pH
ranging from 10.5-11.9, which encompasses the maximum solubility (and,
therefore, leaching potential) of selenium. This, in turn, suggests
that use of the TCLP in this particular case adequately reflects a
worst-case disposal scenario. (This is unlike the situation in Columbia
Falls Aluminum Co. v. EPA, 139 F.3d 914, in which the TCLP testing did
not reflect the post-treatment conditions). Using the BDAT
methodology,1 we calculated an alternative D010 standard of
51 mg/L TCLP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BDAT Background Document for Quality Assurance/Quality
Control Procedures and Methodology, October 23, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Ball-Foster's waste, the most effective treatment recipes have
reagent to waste ratios of 1.8, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.7. Selenium
concentrations in the treated wastes were 11.6, 7.47, 8.22, 15.6, and
4.82 mg/L TCLP. The treatment extract pH ranged from 11.9-12.0, which
again suggests that use of the TCLP adequately reflects the worst case
disposal scenario. 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, we calculated an alternative
treatment D010 standard of 25 mg/L TCLP.
After treatment to these alternative selenium standards, CWM may
dispose of the treated wastes in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill--since the
waste still exhibits the toxicity characteristic--provided they meet
all other applicable LDR treatment standards. We are granting this
variance for three years for reasons discussed in Section IV below.
[[Page 28389]]
Although the alternative selenium standards for these two wastes
are relatively high, this is a technically necessary compromise. As
noted above and in the May 12, 1997 Federal Register (62 FR 26045),
treatment cannot be optimized for both acid and base-soluble metals due
to their different solubility curves. Because all of the other toxic
metals (i.e., arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead) are being
immobilized to meet their respective universal treatment standards, we
consider, under the circumstances, that threats are being minimized if
the alternative selenium treatment standards are met, as required by
3004(m).
Not only are all of the other toxic metals meeting their respective
UTS standards, but the alternative selenium treatment standards
essentially require CWM to use a well-designed and well-operated
treatment system that is consistent, particularly in terms of the
selection of reagents and reagent to waste ratios, with the technical
basis for the current selenium treatment standard.
III. Response to Comments
The Agency received one comment on the proposed rule from a waste
treatment company that treats metal-bearing hazardous wastes, including
wastes contaminated with selenium. The commenter claims to have a
reagent capable of stabilizing the wastes in question so that less
selenium will leach out of the treated waste. The commenter submitted
data showing that its reagent is successful in stabilizing wastes
containing a variety of heavy metals, including selenium.
The commenter asked to perform a treatability study on the two
wastes to verify whether a variance is necessary, and to determine
whether a numerical treatment standard closer to the current regulatory
level of 5.7 mg/L TCLP would be achievable.
We agreed that the commenter should conduct a treatability study.
From December 1998 to February 1999, the commenter treated both of the
glass manufacturing waste streams using its reagent. The commenter
achieved selenium TCLP results ranging from 25.0-57.7 mg/L. These
results are comparable to the alternative treatment standards in the
proposed variance. However, we observe two significant points in the
treatability study data:
(1) The commenter treated wastes that had significantly higher selenium
concentrations than the wastes described in the proposed variance. The
untreated Ball-Foster and Owens Brockway samples used in the
treatability study had selenium concentrations of 2900 mg/L TCLP and
15,200 mg/L TCLP, respectively. The untreated wastes analyzed at the
time of the proposed variance had concentrations of 60-1000 mg/L TCLP.
(2) The commenter's reagent achieved treatment levels similar to those
we proposed, but with reagent to waste ratios of only 0.15-0.2 to 1. By
comparison, the reagent to waste ratios used in the proposed rule were
as high as 2.7 to 1.
Based on our review of the treatability study, we conclude that the
wastes used in the treatability study represent the most difficult to
treat Ball-Foster and Owens Brockway wastes, and that the proposed
alternative treatment standards are still appropriate for these two
waste streams. CWM also has indicated that the high concentration
selenium wastes from the treatability study are not strictly one-time
generated wastes, but rather are representative of the wastes that the
two facilities generate from time to time. Therefore, we are finalizing
the alternative treatment standards for the two waste streams as
proposed. Both CWM and the commenter support our decision to finalize
this variance at this time.
We note that, since this rule is approving a variance from a
numerical treatment standard, CWM may use any reagent it chooses in
meeting the alternative numerical standard. Finalization of this rule
does not preclude CWM from using the commenter's reagent in stabilizing
the two waste streams, which may be needed for any batches of higher
selenium concentrations. The Agency notes that, to avoid questions of
impermissible dilution, CWM will need to keep the reagent to waste
ratios within acceptable bounds. No specific ratios are being
established in today's rule because the Agency does not typically
circumscribe a treater's flexibility in this manner. However, the
Agency recommends that CWM use a reagent to waste ratio of 2.7 to 1 as
a benchmark. This is the ratio used by the Agency in establishing
today's alternative treatment standard.
IV. Reasons for the 3-Year Limitation
Because selenium is a non-renewable resource, and because the
wastes in question contain high selenium concentrations, one potential
avenue is that the selenium component could be recycled in an
environmentally sound manner instead of being stabilized and
landfilled. No secondary selenium recovery capacity currently exists in
the U.S.2 Further, the market for selenium appears to be
declining, selenium prices are low, and a surplus foreign secondary
capacity of selenium exists.3 All of these factors suggest
that development of an environmentally protective secondary selenium
recovery system in the U.S. is not reasonably to be expected in the
near future. That leaves stabilization as the best available treatment
technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Recycling-Metals.'' U.S. Geological Survey--Minerals
Information--1997.
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the next three years, EPA will determine whether this is still
the case, and also whether new technologies (e.g., more effective
stabilization reagents) have become available to treat these wastes to
the national treatment level of 5.7 mg/L TCLP. CWM should expect to
update us annually on the alternative treatment technologies it is
investigating, and to submit any analytical data from studies using
these alternative technologies. We will ask that CWM's submission also
include information showing which stabilization recipe it is using to
meet the alternative treatment standards, the selenium concentrations
in untreated wastes, and the analytical results from these treated
wastes. The Agency intends to use this information to determine if
today's alternative treatment standards (or some other levels) are
appropriate as a more permanent standard. Timely submittal of this
information will allow us to begin any necessary rulemaking process as
early as possible.
At the end of the three-year period, today's alternative treatment
standards expire. Thus, if CWM has not found a new treatment technology
to treat the two wastes to the national treatment level for D010
selenium wastes or if the Agency has not adopted more permanent
alternative treatment standards for these two wastes, then CWM will
have to submit a new petition to the Agency for a continuation of the
current treatment variance, or a new treatment variance if a different
alternative treatment standard is warranted.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual
effect on the economy of $100
[[Page 28390]]
million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Because this rule does not create any new regulatory requirements,
it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review. Also,
because this 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 Executive Order 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, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to 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, any written communications
from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 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 rule does not create
a mandate on state, local, or tribal governments. The rule does not
impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to
this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
Today's final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not
meet either of these criteria. The wastes described in this treatment
variance 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, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's
final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of
Indian tribal governments. This rule issues a variance from the LDR
treatment standards for two specific characteristic selenium wastes.
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084
do not apply to this 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 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 rule
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), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most 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
[[Page 28391]]
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 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 it 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
rule also does not create new regulatory requirements; rather, it
merely establishes alternative treatment standards for specific wastes
that replace standards already in effect. EPA has determined that this
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
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the
UMRA. For the same reasons, EPA has determined that this rule contains
no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This treatment variance does not create any new regulatory
requirements. Rather, it establishes alternative treatment standards
for two specific wastes that replace standards already in effect, and
it only applies to the CWM facility in Kettleman City, California.
Therefore, I hereby certify that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule,
therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action does not involve
technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
I. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801
because this is a rule of particular applicability, applying only to a
particular waste at one facility under particular (and, as noted,
exceptional) circumstances.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 11, 1999.
James R. Berlow,
Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, and 6924.
2. Section 268.44 is amended by adding two entries in alphabetical
order and three footnotes to ``TABLE--WASTES EXCLUDED FROM THE
TREATMENT STANDARDS UNDER Sec. 268.40'' in paragraph (o) to read as
follows:
Sec. 268.44 Variance from a treatment standard.
* * * * *
(o) * * *
Wastes Excluded From the Treatment Standards Under Sec. 268.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastewaters Nonwastewaters
Regulated hazardous -------------------------------------------------------
Facility name \1\ and address Waste code See also constituent Concentration Concentration
(mg/L TCLP) Notes (mg/L TCLP) Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ball-Foster Glass Container D010 Table CCWE in 268.40. Selenium............. NA NA 25 NA
Corporation, El Monte, CA (6),(7).
[[Page 28392]]
* * * * * * *
Owens Brockway Glass Container D010 Table CCWE in 268.40. Selenium............. NA NA 51 NA
Company, Vernon, CA (5),(7) .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A facility may certify compliance with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.7.
* * * * * * *
(5) Alternative D010 selenium standard only applies to dry scrubber solid from glass manufacturing wastes.
(6) Alternative D010 selenium standard only applies to electrostatic precipitator dust generated during glass manufacturing operations.
(7) D010 wastes generated by these two facilities are subject to the following conditions: (a) the wastes must be treated by Chemical Waste Management,
Inc. at their Kettleman Hills facility in Kettleman City, California; and (b) this treatment variance will be valid until May 11, 2002.
Note: NA means Not Applicable.
[FR Doc. 99-12945 Filed 5-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P