Thursday, September 14, 2000
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 148 et al. Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste: Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes; Land Disposal Restrictions for Newly Identified Wastes; and CERCLA Hazardous Substance Designation and Reportable Quantities; Proposed Rule
VerDate 11
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION made to RCRA Information Center, to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, AGENCY Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 40 CFR Parts 148, 261, 268, 271, and You also may submit comments Washington, D.C. 20460. Any CBI data 302 electronically by sending electronic should be specifically and clearly [SWH±FRL±6864±5] mail through the Internet to: marked. In addition, please submit a [email protected]. You non-CBI version of your comments for RIN 2050±AE49 should identify comments in electronic inclusion in the public record. format with the docket number F–2000– Supporting documents in the docket Hazardous Waste Management ICMP–FFFFF. You must submit all System; Identification and Listing of for this proposal are also available in electronic comments as an ASCII (text) electronic format on the Internet:
VerDate 11
SUMMARY OF FACILITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE USEPA'S 2000 INORGANIC CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING WASTE LISTING PROPOSAL
Number of U.S. relevant Item SIC code Industry sector name inorganic mfg. facilities
1 ...... 2816 Inorganic Pigments ...... 3 1 ...... 2819 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, not elsewhere classified ...... 3
VerDate 11
The list of potentially affected entities II. Background wastes are also classified as hazardous in the above table may not be wastes based on the ‘‘derived-from’’ rule A. How Does EPA Define a Hazardous exhaustive. Our aim is to provide a (see 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)). For example, Waste? guide for readers regarding entities ash or other residuals from the likely to be regulated by this action. Section 3001 of RCRA and EPA’s treatment of a listed waste generally This table lists those entities that we are regulations establish two ways of carries the original hazardous waste aware potentially could be affected by identifying wastes as hazardous under code and is subject to the hazardous this action. However, this action may RCRA. A waste may be hazardous either waste regulations. Also, the ‘‘mixture’’ affect other entities not listed in the if it exhibits certain properties (called rule (see 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii) and (iv)) table. To determine whether your ‘‘characteristics’’) which pose threats to provides that, with certain limited facility is regulated by this action, you human health and the environment, or exceptions, any mixture of a listed should examine 40 CFR Parts 260 and if it is included on a specific list of hazardous waste and a solid waste is 261 carefully in concert with the wastes EPA has evaluated and found to itself a RCRA hazardous waste. proposed rules amending RCRA that are pose unacceptable risks. EPA’s Some materials that would otherwise found at the end of this Federal Register regulations in the Code of Federal be classified as hazardous wastes under document. If you have questions Regulations (CFR) define four hazardous the rules described above are excluded regarding the applicability of this action characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, from jurisdiction under RCRA if they to a particular entity, consult the person reactivity, or toxicity. (See 40 CFR are recycled in certain ways. The listed in the preceding section entitled 261.21 through 261.24.) As a generator, current definition of solid waste at 40 CFR 261.2 excludes secondary materials FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. you must determine whether or not a waste exhibits any of these from the definition of solid waste that B. Why Does This Rule Read Differently characteristics by testing the material or are used directly (i.e., without From Other Listing Rules? by using your knowledge of the process reclamation) as ingredients in that produced the waste. (See 40 CFR manufacturing processes to make new Today’s proposed listing 262.11(c).) products, used directly as effective determination preamble and regulations EPA may also conduct a more specific substitutes for commercial products, or are written in ‘‘readable regulations’’ assessment of a waste or category of returned directly to the original process format. The authors tried to use active wastes and ‘‘list’’ them if they meet from which they are generated as a rather than passive voice, plain criteria set out in 40 CFR 261.11. As substitute for raw material feedstock. language, a question-and-answer format, described in 40 CFR 261.11, we may list (See 40 CFR 261.2(e).) As discussed in the pronouns ‘‘we’’ for EPA and ‘‘you’’ a waste as hazardous if it: the January 4, 1985, rulemaking that for the owner/generator, and other —Exhibits any of the characteristics promulgated this regulatory framework, techniques to make the information in noted above , i.e., ignitability, these are activities which, as a general today’s rule easier to read and corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity matter, resemble ongoing manufacturing understand. This new format is part of operations more than conventional (261.11(a)(1)); waste management and so are more our efforts toward regulatory re- —Is ‘‘acutely’’ hazardous, i.e., if they are appropriately classified as not involving invention, and it makes today’s rule fatal to humans or in animal studies solid wastes. (See 50 FR 637–640). Our read differently from other listing rules. at low doses, or otherwise capable of approach to these issues is described in We believe that this new format will causing or significantly contributing more detail below in section III.D.4. help readers understand the regulations, to an increase in serious illness which should then increase compliance, (261.11(a)(2)); or B. How Does EPA Regulate RCRA make enforcement easier, and foster —Is capable of posing a substantial Hazardous Wastes? better relationships between EPA and present or potential hazard to human the regulated community. Wastes exhibiting any hazardous health or the environment when characteristic or listed as hazardous are C. What Are the Statutory Authorities improperly managed (261.11(a)(3)). subject to federal requirements under for This Proposed Rule? Under the third criterion at 40 CFR RCRA. These regulations affect persons 261.11(a)(3), we may decide to list a who generate, transport, treat, store or These regulations are proposed under waste as hazardous (1) if it contains dispose of such waste. Facilities that the authority of Sections 2002(a), hazardous constituents identified in must meet the hazardous waste 3001(b), 3001(e)(2), 3004(d)–(m) and Appendix VIII to 40 CFR Part 261, and management requirements, including 3007(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, (2) if, after considering the factors noted the need to obtain permits to operate, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6921(b) and (e)(2), in this section of the regulations, we commonly are referred to as ‘‘Subtitle 6924(d)–(m)and 6927(a), as amended ‘‘conclude that the waste is capable of C’’ facilities. Subtitle C is Congress’ several times, most importantly by the posing a substantial present or potential original statutory designation for that Hazardous and Solid Waste hazard to human health or the part of RCRA that directs EPA to issue Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). These environment when improperly treated, those regulations for hazardous wastes statutes commonly are referred to as the stored, transported, or disposed of, or as may be necessary to protect human Resource Conservation and Recovery otherwise managed.’’ We place a health or the environment. EPA Act (RCRA), and are codified at Volume chemical on the list of hazardous standards and procedural regulations 42 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), constituents on Appendix VIII only if implementing Subtitle C are found Sections 6901 to 6992(k) (42 U.S.C. scientific studies have shown a generally at 40 CFR Parts 260 through 6901–6992(k)). chemical has toxic effects on humans or 272. Section 102(a) of the Comprehensive other life forms. When listing a waste, All RCRA hazardous wastes are also Environmental Response, we also add the hazardous constituents hazardous substances under the Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 that serve as the basis for listing to Comprehensive Environmental (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9602(a) is the Appendix VII to part 261. Response, Compensation, and Liability authority under which the CERCLA Residuals from the treatment, storage, Act (CERCLA), as described in section aspects of this rule are proposed. or disposal of most listed hazardous 101(14)(C) of the CERCLA statute. This
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
1. What Risk Thresholds Were Used? hazard quotient (HQ) of one (1) solution which mimics acid rain, while EPA’s listing program generally indicates that the estimated dose is the TCLP uses a leach solution which defines risk levels of concern for equal to the reference dose (RfD) and, mimics acids formed in municipal carcinogens as risks within or above a therefore an HQ of 1 is EPA’s threshold landfills. In past actions, EPA has range of 1×10-6 to 1×10-4 (from 1 in of concern for non-cancer effects. recognized that the TCLP’s use of 1,000,000 to 1 in 10,000) at the upper Usually, doses less than the RfD (HQ<1) organic acids may not be appropriate for end of the risk distribution (e.g., 90th or are not likely to be associated with disposal scenarios that do not involve 95th percentile risk for a particular adverse health risks and, therefore, are municipal landfills. For example, in the exposure scenario). The level of concern less likely to be of regulatory concern. proposed rule for management and for non-cancer effects is generally As the frequency and/or magnitude of disposal of lead-based paint debris, EPA indicated by a hazard quotient (HQ) of the exposures exceeding the RfD used the SPLP to assess leaching from 1 or greater at the upper end of the increase (HQ>1), the probability of landfills that do not accept municipal distribution. Consistent with the listing adverse effects in a human population wastes (see 63 FR 70189; December 18, policy described in the dyes and increases. However, it should not be 1998). Similarly, EPA utilized the SPLP pigments proposal (59 FR 66075–66078) categorically concluded that all doses in screening low hazard wastes as part we used a 1×10-5 risk level and/or HQs below the RfD are ‘‘acceptable’’ (or will of its 1989 Bevill determination (see 54 of one to identify which wastes are be risk-free) and that all doses in excess FR 36592; September 1, 1989). of the RfD are ‘‘unacceptable’’ (or will In the context of EPA’s more recent candidates for listing. To make a listing result in adverse effects). mineral processing sector actions, we determination, we then used a weight- The values of the CSF and RfD that considered the relative merits of both of-evidence approach that considers the we use for assessing risks are generally the TCLP and the SPLP for various risk estimates along with other taken from EPA’s on-line toxicity data wastes in the mineral processing information related to the factors base called IRIS. However, in some industries; EPA decided to continue to described in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3). For cases we used EPA’s compilation of rely on the TCLP for defining cancer, a risk threshold of one in toxicity benchmarks known as HEAST characteristically hazardous Bevill 1,000,000 represents the probability that or other sources, such as toxicological wastes, in part because we found that an individual will develop cancer over issue papers prepared by EPA’s National disposal in municipal landfills did a lifetime as a result of exposure to a Center for Environmental Assessment occur for some sectors. See the Land chemical contaminant. When we (NCEA).7 Disposal Restrictions Phase IV Final estimate the lifetime excess cancer risk, Rule at 63 FR 28598 (May 26, 1998). For 2. What Leaching Procedures Were we use an upper bound estimate of the today’s rule, however, we have specific Used? carcinogenic slope factor (CSF) as data showing that some wastes do not derived from laboratory studies in As noted in III.C, we used the TCLP go to municipal landfills and are animals or from human epidemiological and SPLP leaching procedures to unlikely to be disposed of in municipal studies. In addition, because the CSF evaluate the wastes in today’s rule. EPA landfills. We used the SPLP sampling typically relies on a number of developed the TCLP as a tool to predict results for wastes that were not likely to extrapolations (e.g., from animals to the leaching of constituents from the go to municipal landfills, and we used humans and from high doses to low waste in a municipal solid waste the TCLP results for wastes going to doses) there is some uncertainty in the landfill, and the TC regulations use this municipal landfills. value of the CSF. method to determine if a waste is For non-cancer effects, which include hazardous under 261.24 (see the 3. How Were Wastes Screened To a wide variety of health effects, we used Toxicity Characteristic rule, 55 FR Determine If Further Assessment Was EPA’s reference dose (RfD) as a risk 46369; November 2, 1990). We have also Needed? threshold. A reference dose is an used the TCLP in the listing program to We used a number of approaches to estimate of an oral exposure that is estimate leaching concentrations for use eliminate from further consideration likely to be without an appreciable risk in groundwater modeling (for example, those wastes that could not plausibly of adverse effects in the general see the recent petroleum listing, 63 FR pose unacceptable risks. This served to population, including sensitive 42110, August 6, 1998). We believe the identify those wastes and chemical individuals, over a lifetime. The RfD can TCLP is the most appropriate leaching constituents that required further be derived from a NOAEL, LOAEL, or procedure to use for wastes in assessment. Different screening benchmark dose. Uncertainty factors are municipal landfills, because the approaches were used depending on the applied to address limitations of the leaching solution is similar to the type type of waste management practices available toxicological data and are of leachate generated from the employed in the industry and, in some necessary to ensure the RfD is protective decomposition of municipal waste. The instances, the waste volume and the of individuals in the general population. TCLP leaching solution is a solution location of the waste management units. The use of uncertainty factors is based containing acetic acid that is adjusted to For wastes that are managed in on long-standing scientific practice. a pH of 4.93 or 2.88, depending on the landfills, groundwater contamination is Uncertainty factors when combined acidity of the waste sample. the primary source of human exposures, commonly range from 10 to 1000 EPA developed the SPLP as a method particularly for certain metals and other depending on the nature and quality of to predict leaching from wastes or soils inorganic compounds that are the underlying data. The RfD under exposure to the slightly acidic, nonvolatile, such as those present in the methodology is expected to have an dilute solution generated by normal wastes that are the subject of today’s uncertainty spanning perhaps an order rainfall. The SPLP test uses a leach rule. We compared leachate of magnitude. To assess risks associated concentrations derived from the TCLP with non-cancer effects, we used a 7 EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) or SPLP test measurements to levels in hazard quotient (HQ), which is defined may be found at http://www.epa.gov/iris. See also drinking water that are protective of ‘‘Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for as the ratio of the estimated dose of a Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes’’ (August human health. These levels, referred to given chemical to an individual to the 2000) for a discussion of the toxicity benchmark as health-based levels (HBLs), are reference dose for that chemical. A values used in today’s rule. designed to be protective of both
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
EPA derived HBLs for chemical have the potential to adversely impact defines high end as the 90th percentile contaminants from toxicity benchmarks surface waters before eliminating the and greater of the distribution of and a set of exposure assumptions that wastes from further consideration. We exposures in the population. Central differ depending on the type of health used EPA’s national water quality tendency generally refers to the mean or effect and exposure pathway. For criteria for this purpose. Specifically, 50th percentile of the distribution. carcinogenic effects, HBLs were derived we compared waste concentrations (i.e., Central tendency and high end from a cancer slope factor (CSF) for the SPLP measurements for wastes managed estimates may be generated using either oral route of exposure. For non-cancer in on-site landfills and SPLP filtrate probabilistic or deterministic effects, HBLs were derived from EPA’s measurements for wastes managed in approaches.14 oral reference dose (RfD) for the surface impoundments) directly to We evaluated potential groundwater compound. Risk thresholds were as ambient water quality criteria that have exposures over a 10,000 year time described previously. Drinking water been established for the protection of period. Evaluating peak doses over this and soil ingestion HBLs for individual both human health and aquatic life. Any time horizon allows the model to chemical contaminants are presented chemical contaminant in a waste capture the slow movement of some elsewhere.12 The exposure assumptions managed under these circumstances that chemicals through the subsurface. we used for deriving the HBLs are did not screen out against ambient water While exposure assumptions (e.g., land described as follows. quality criteria (within a factor of 2) we use patterns, climate, environmental For drinking water exposures, we identified as a constituent of concern and other exposure assumptions) are derived HBLs for carcinogenic effects (CoC) requiring further assessment. expected to change over 10,000 years, for an adult exposed for 30 years and EPA recently republished ambient such changes are difficult to predict. We having a tap water intake of 1.4 liters water quality criteria for a large number believe such a time period is per day. This represents 21 milliliters of chemical contaminants (see 63 FR appropriate to ensure human health is per day on a per kilogram body weight 68354; December 10, 1998). Separate protected. Even with long time periods, basis, which is the mean tap water criteria for the protection of aquatic life we are still concerned with the risk that intake for adults. A duration of exposure have been established for fresh water would result once contamination of 30 years represents the 95th and salt water. In a number of instances reaches potential drinking water wells. percentile of the distribution of waste management units are located Given that the metals of concern do not residential occupancy periods for adults adjacent to estuarine environments. In degrade in the environment, we believe nationwide. We derived HBLs for non- these cases, for screening purposes, we a long modeling time period is cancer effects for a child having a tap used the lower of the fresh water and necessary. Further, there is uncertainty water intake of 1.3 liters per day. This salt water criteria. in when peak concentrations at the represents 64 milliliters per day on a per receptor well may occur, and using the 4. How Was the Groundwater Pathway kilogram body weight basis and 10,000 year time frame makes it more Evaluated? corresponds to the 90th percentile of the likely that we will capture the peak risk distribution of tap water intakes in We conducted modeling analyses to in our evaluation. EPA has used similar children that are 1 to 10 years of age.13 assess possible risks to human health time horizons for groundwater modeling Because the drinking water HBLs from wastes managed in land-based in past hazardous waste rules. 15 incorporate conservative exposure units such as landfills and surface For modeling chemical concentrations assumptions, we consider them to be impoundments. We used fate and in ground water, many input parameters appropriate for screening purposes. transport models to estimate were varied. These included waste Soil ingestion HBLs were derived contaminant concentrations that might characterization data (e.g., chemical from either the CSF or the RfD assuming occur in a residential drinking water concentrations and waste volumes), a soil ingestion rate of 200 milligrams well from migration of uncontrolled waste management practices (e.g., waste per day and an exposure duration of 8 releases of leachate from a waste management unit size and infiltration years. A soil ingestion rate of 200 management unit through the rates), hydrogeological parameters (e.g., milligrams per day (about 3/100th of a subsurface environment. We assessed depth to water table, hydraulic teaspoon) is a conservative estimate of human exposures to these contaminants conductivity, and aquifer thickness), the mean intake rates for children in the from information on the amount of tap and chemical parameters (e.g., soil- age range of 1 to 7. An exposure water an individual drinks and the water partition coefficient). We duration of 8 years is an estimate of the length of time an individual might conducted extensive sensitivity analyses mean residential occupancy period for a reside at a residence and utilize water to determine which of these parameters 6 year old child. In selecting these from a residential well. We then had the greatest influence on the risk values for use in deriving soil ingestion assessed what the human health risks results. For a detailed discussion of the HBLs, we considered the likelihood that would be as a consequence of such ground water analysis, including children would actually come into exposures. parameter distributions, input direct contact with the wastes. We took a probabilistic approach to assumptions, and sensitivity analyses, In cases where wastes are known to be the assessment of human exposures. In see the risk assessment background managed in on-site landfills or surface this approach, we used Monte Carlo document for today’s proposal, ‘‘Risk impoundments that are located adjacent simulation techniques to determine the Assessment for the Listing to or in close proximity to surface distribution of groundwater Determinations for Inorganic Chemical waters, we used additional screening concentrations to which an individual Manufacturing Wastes’’ (August 2000). criteria to identify wastes that could could be exposed and combined this with distributional data for the general 14 We relied upon the probabilistic risk estimates 12 See the risk assessment background document population on the intake rates of tap for today’s proposal. However, both deterministic for today’s proposal, ‘‘Risk Assessment for the water and the duration of exposure. We and probabilistic approaches are presented in the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical then assessed the risks to human health risk assessment background document. Manufacturing Wasters’’ (August 2000). 15 See HWIR proposal at 64 FR 63429, November 13 See EPA’s ‘‘Exposure Factors Handbook’’ (EPA/ from both the middle (central tendency) 19, 1999, and the final rule for the recent listing of 600/P–95/002Fa), August 1997, for additional and upper (high end) portions of the wastes from petroleum refining at 63 FR 42157, details on human exposure factors. distribution of human exposures. EPA August 6, 1998.
VerDate 11
In assessing groundwater exposures from the uppermost aquifer where surface runoff and depends on the type for wastes managed in off-site landfills, contaminant concentrations are of soil and the climate where the we considered the locations of every expected to be the highest. landfill is located. For surface industrial and municipal landfill known Equilibrium sorption of chemical impoundments, the infiltration rate is to receive the wastes and the volume of contaminants onto soil and aquifer estimated from the liquid depth in the wastes managed at each of these sites. materials is parameterized in the impoundment and from the hydraulic In so doing, we considered only that EPACMTP model using a soil-water conductivities and thicknesses of the volume of waste that is currently not partition coefficient (Kd). For today’s sediments and the underlying soil. We being managed as hazardous waste. For proposed rule, we used values for Kd assumed that surface impoundments wastes managed on-site by multiple that have been derived from field have no liner or leachate collection facilities, we generally considered only studies and have been published in the system. Unconsolidated or loose those facilities where groundwater scientific literature. An empirical sediments are treated as free liquid so exposures are expected to be the distribution was used to characterize the that the pressure head on the highest. These locations were identified variability of Kd for chemical underlying, consolidated sediments is by considering the concentration levels contaminants for which sufficient determined by the depth of the liquid in of chemical constituents in the waste published data were available. However, the impoundment and the depth of the managed at the site and the proximity for several chemical contaminants unconsolidated sediments. As sediment of on-site waste management units, having relatively few published values accumulates at the base of the namely landfills and surface (e.g., antimony and thallium), a log impoundment, the weight of the liquid impoundments, to potential off-site uniform distribution was used.16 Our and upper sediments acts to compress receptors. Our rationale for selecting use of empirically derived partition (or consolidate) the lower sediments. particular locations for conducting coefficients assumes that sorption is The result is the formation of a modeling analyses is discussed in linear with respect to groundwater consolidated sediment layer having a section III.F for the specific inorganic concentration (i.e., the Kd isotherm is hydraulic conductivity that is much sectors. linear). However, sorption is not lower than the previously unconsolidated sediment. a. How were contaminant unlimited and will tend to level off as We assumed that landfills have an concentrations in groundwater groundwater concentrations increase operational life of 30 years.17 In modeled? For modeling fate and beyond the linear range (i.e., the Kd landfills, leaching of contaminants from transport in the subsurface isotherm becomes non-linear). This condition is most likely to occur in the the waste leads to an exponential environment, we used the groundwater decrease in the leachate concentration model EPACMTP (EPA’s Composite unsaturated zone where dilution is limited, if leachate concentrations are with time. The rate at which this occurs Model for Leachate Migration with depends on the volume of waste Transformation Products). The model sufficiently high. EPA has sometimes used the disposed of in the landfill and the total consists of two coupled modules: (1) A MINTEQA2 equilibrium speciation concentration of chemical contaminants one-dimensional module that simulates model to estimate Kd’s for a variety of in the waste. We used the measured infiltration and dissolved contaminant metals rather than relying solely on field TCLP concentration (for disposal in a transport through the unsaturated zone, measurements. However, recently a municipal landfill) or SPLP and (2) a three-dimensional saturated number of technical issues have been concentration (for disposal in an zone flow and transport module. Fate raised concerning the model and its industrial landfill) as the initial leachate and transport processes accounted for in application. EPA is in the process of concentration for modeling. In contrast, the model are advection, hydrodynamic evaluating the model to address those we assumed that surface impoundments dispersion, sorption equilibria, 18 issues. Therefore, we have decided not have an operational life of 50 years. hydrolysis, and dilution from recharge to use MINTEQA2 for today’s proposed Many surface impoundments are to the saturated zone. The model rule. Once the evaluation is completed periodically dredged and, therefore, can assumes that the soil and aquifer are and the issues are satisfactorily be maintained in service for longer uniform porous media. EPACMTP (as resolved, EPA may again choose to use periods of time. With surface used in this analysis) does not account the model in an appropriate form in impoundments, leachate concentrations for heterogeneity of the aquifer or for future rulemakings. are not expected to decrease over time preferential migration pathways such as Infiltration of leachate from landfills and, therefore, leachate concentrations fractures and macro-pores or for into the subsurface is modeled using the are assumed to remain constant during colloidal transport, any or all of which HELP model (Hydrologic Evaluation for their operational life. We used the total could be important at a particular site. Landfill Performance), a quasi-two- concentration of chemical contaminant Although EPACMTP simulates steady- dimensional hydrologic model used to measured in the wastewater or (for state groundwater flow in both the compute water balances for landfills. wastewaters with high levels of solids) unsaturated zone and the saturated We assumed that landfills have a final the concentration measured in the SPLP zone, the model (as used in this earthen cover but no liner or leachate filtrate as the leachate concentration for analysis) simulates contaminant collection system. The net infiltration modeling. transport from a finite source and rate that is calculated by the model The fate and transport simulation predicts the peak contaminant considers, among other factors, modules in EPACMTP are linked to a concentration arriving at a down- precipitation, evapotranspiration, and Monte Carlo module to allow gradient groundwater well. Only quantitative consideration of variability migration of chemical contaminants 16 A log uniform distribution is a distribution that within the surficial aquifer is modeled has equal probabilities at all percentiles when the 17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Draft by EPACMTP. We did not model parameter is transformed into logarithms. For these National Survey of Solid Waste (Municipal) migration of contaminants to deeper chemical constituents, we used a log uniform Landfill Facilities,’’ Office of Solid Waste, distribution that was centered on the geometric Washington, D.C., 1988 (EPA/530–SW–88–034). aquifers but, instead, based our mean of the available data and had a width of 3 18 See assumptions made for the recent proposed assessment on exposures that might logs. This was done to better account for the hazardous waste identification rule at 64 FR 63382; occur from groundwater withdrawn variability normally seen in measurements of Kd. November 19, 1999.
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
TABLE III±1.ÐANTIMONY OXIDE PRODUCTION WASTES
Number of Waste category reported 1998 volume Reported waste Management practices generators (MT) hazard codes
Antimony slag not recycled in process ...... 3 113 D008 ...... Sent to lead smelters for lead and/or anti- mony recovery; or on-site drum storage prior to future on-site land disposal. Baghouse filters ...... 4 9 No code reported ..... In-process antimony recovery; off-site anti- mony recovery; industrial Subtitle D landfill; or non-hazardous waste inciner- ator. Empty supersacks ...... 1 15 No code reported ..... Disposal in off-site Subtitle D landfill or re- cycled.
In addition to these wastes, there are site engineered ‘‘slag storage pit’’ to be unit for this waste, we assessed the on- other materials produced that are reused constructed in the next two to three site landfill scenario for this waste. in the antimony oxide production years. How Was This Waste Category process. Antimony oxide and antimony We assessed the on-site disposal Characterized? slag are captured at various points in the scenario, reflecting the projected facility and reinserted into a furnace to We selected two of the three facilities management practice for this waste. For produce antimony oxide, either on-site for sampling and analysis. At the site a number of years, the facility has been or off-site. Because these materials are which stores the slag indefinitely, we managed prior to reuse in ways that placing approximately 20 MT/yr in steel collected one sample of ‘‘reduction present low potential for release, and drums on pallets on the ground. The furnace slag’’ that was designated as because we evaluated process waste facility reported that they intend to containing less than 5 percent antimony generated after the secondary materials reclaim the antimony from this slag (AC–1–AO–01) and one sample of are reinserted into the process, we do when antimony prices are favorable. We ‘‘reduction furnace slag’’ that was not believe that these secondary consider storage on-site for more than designated as containing between 5 and materials present significant risks. one year to be speculative accumulation 10 percent antimony (AC–1–AO–06). e. Agency evaluation. (1) Antimony and consider these materials to be solid Based on characterization information slag not recycled in antimony oxide wastes. We believe that the length of provided by the facility in its RCRA process. time secondary materials are Section 3007 Survey response, we accumulated before being recycled is an believe these samples are representative How Are These Wastes Currently important indicator of whether or not of all of the slags generated at the Managed? they are wastes. This is supported by facility. We conducted total, TCLP and Three facilities produced antimony the large number of recycling damage SPLP analyses of these slags. The slag that is not recycled in the antimony cases where secondary materials that analytical results for the constituents oxide process. Two of these facilities were overaccumulated over time caused found to be present in the leachates at send the slag to lead smelters. One of extensive harm. (See 50 FR 614) ‘‘Under levels exceeding the HBLs are presented the two facilities reported its slag to be RCRA and the implementing in Table III–2. TC hazardous because of its lead regulations, permanent placement of We collected a third sample (LI–1– content (D008). The third facility, hazardous waste, including perpetual AO–01) at a facility that reclaims its slag however, has historically stored a for lead. This sample failed the TC for ‘‘storage’’ falls into the regulatory portion of its slag on-site in drums, lead, as the facility reported in its RCRA category of land disposal.’’ 25 (See also reporting that they plan to reclaim Section 3007 Survey response. The American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, antimony when antimony prices are results are available in ‘‘Waste more favorable. Recent revisions to the 216 F. 3d 50 (D.C. Cir. 2000).) Since the Characterization Report, Laurel facility’s Operating Permit,24 however, Operating Permit requires the facility to Industries Inc., La Porte, Texas’’ in the require that the slag be placed in an on- build and use an on-site, land-based docket for today’s proposal.
TABLE III±2.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF SPECULATIVELY ACCUMULATED ANTIMONY SLAG
AC±1±AC±01 AC±1±AO±06 HBL Constituent of concern Total TCLP SPLP Total TCLP SPLP mg/L mg/kg mg/L mg/L mg/kg mg/L mg/L
Antimony ...... 11,500 55.8 114 127,000 110 211 0.006 Arsenic ...... 301 2.0 2.9 478 3.1 3.8 0.0007 Boron ...... <500 9.8 9.3 <2,500 8.5 8.1 1.4 Selenium ...... <50 0.6 0.6 <250 0.6 0.3 0.08 Vanadium ...... <50 1.3 1.1 <250 0.6 1.0 0.14
24 ‘‘United States Antimony Corp. Stibnite Hill the State of Montana on August 12, 1999 (with a Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Mine Project Operating Permit 00045’’, 6th review number of stipulations), and subsequently approved Transportation, and Tourism, Committee on Energy draft, January 1999. This draft permit is issued by the Forest Service. and Commerce, House of Representatives, from J. under the Metal Mine Reclamation Act, 82–4–301 25 ‘‘Above Ground Land Emplacement Facilities, Winston Porter, Administrator, EPA, dated March MCA. It was prepared by the facility, approved by N.J. Law,’’ Letter to Honorable James J. Florio, 26, 1986.
VerDate 11
How Was the Groundwater Ingestion results are higher than the TCLP results, facility and any potential groundwater Risk Assessment Established? making the industrial landfill the worst plumes associated with its operation. case scenario. Specifically, we modeled potential We modeled the annual volume We examined records available from distances to wells from the facility’s reported to be stored on-site indefinitely the State where the slag is stored to southern boundary to one mile. (20 MT). (The facility reports that it determine the appropriate distance-to- processes sodium antimonate from two We used a regional site-based well to model. We identified four approach in modeling this unit, as facilities and returns the resultant slag residential wells within several miles of to the process for further processing. We described in section III.E.4. We the facility. These data demonstrate that modified this to enable us to use did not include these recycled slag groundwater is a viable and actively volumes in our modeling.) available depth to groundwater used resource in this area. One well is information at this particular site. We used the total and SPLP results as located 1.4 miles directly downgradient. model inputs, reflecting the industrial Based on local topography and What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This nature of the on-site unit. We used only groundwater information, we do not Waste? the analytical results for the facility that believe the other identified wells could stores the slag indefinitely. Both of the be affected by releases to groundwater Where these slags are reused and samples for this facility are relevant from the facility. We modeled potential present no exposure route of concern, because they represent the material releases to a downgradient residential we did not evaluate these secondary stored on-site and destined for the on- well. Given that our groundwater model materials further. site slag pit. We did not model the is not configured at this time to model The results of the risk assessment for sample from the other sampled facility releases further than one mile, we did the on-site disposal scenario for boron, because they acknowledged that their not assess the full distance to the known selenium, and vanadium were very low. waste exhibited the TC. Both this well. In our probabilistic analysis, we In the 90th to the 95th percentile range, facility and the facility that was not varied the well distance from the closest the highest hazard quotient for these sampled reclaim these wastes in a property boundary that appeared to be three constituents was in the range of manner that is excluded from regulation potentially downgradient to the limit of 0.001. For this reason, the full results for under Subtitle C. We believe that it is the model (one mile). Our results these three constituents are not reasonable to assume that they will therefore are conservative with respect presented here. The results of the risk continue to manage their slags in ways to this particular well, but otherwise assessment for the on-site disposal that do not violate Subtitle C reflect the fact that future residences scenario for antimony and arsenic are regulations. Also, in this case, the SPLP and wells may be placed closer to the presented in Table III–3:
TABLE III±3.ÐPROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR SPECULATIVELY ACCUMULATED ANTIMONY SLAG
Percentile Adult risk Child risk Adult risk Child risk
1Antimony hazard quotient 1ArsenicÐcancer risk
90th% ...... 2.2 4.6 4 E±07 3 E±07 95th% ...... 4.5 9.4 1 E±06 9 E±07
For a more complete description of this place the waste in an on-site lined More generally, we considered the analysis, see ‘‘Risk Assessment for the storage pit, upon completion of efficacy of landfills (and any liners) over Listing Determinations for Inorganic construction, that will be governed by a the modeled risk assessment period, Chemical Manufacturing Wastes’’ state mining permit. We considered which covers 10,000 years. Landfills are (August 2000) in the docket for today’s whether our decisionmaking should used actively until their capacity is proposal. account for the added protection reached (our models assume an active In our modeling results, the dilution provided by a liner system. Our first life of 30 years), and at the end of their and attenuation factors (DAFs) were consideration is the current uncertainty active life, we assume landfills are relatively high. For example, high end regarding this waste’s disposition. closed and the wastes remain in the unit antimony DAFs were as high as 8,000. While the facility has stated its intended indefinitely. The effectiveness of liner This is the result of the hydrogeological placement of this waste in a lined unit, systems depends on how they are setting of the site evaluated. Due to the our most recent information indicates designed. Composite and double liners high hydraulic conductivity we used in that construction had not yet begun. The that combine two or more layers of liner modeling, the landfill leachate is readily facility may in fact choose to place this material with leachate collection and diluted into a large volume of waste in an off-site commercial landfill leak detection will no doubt minimize groundwater. Given the uncertainty that would not necessarily be lined. leakage to the subsurface during the about the actual ultimate management This uncertainty is greater than in most period when the leachate collection practice and the site-specific nature of waste management scenarios that we system is actively managed. However, the modeling, DAFs could be have assessed in this rulemaking, where depending on the regulatory controls considerably lower in other disposal there is a long term history of relevant for a particular unit, monitoring scenarios, resulting in much higher management in a particular type of would continue for a limited post- hazard quotients and, therefore, higher management unit (e.g., an operating on- closure period. There is also uncertainty potential risks. site landfill, a local off-site landfill). associated with liner performance, in Our modeling approach assumes that Because of this uncertainty, we are the near term as well as in the long term. the slag will be placed in an unlined hesitant to give much weight to a liner There are a variety of factors that may unit. Information from the facility, system that may be constructed in the influence longevity and performance, however, indicates that they plan to future. such as poor construction, installation
VerDate 11
LI±1±AO±03 AC±1±AC±03 AC±1±AO±07 TC Constituent of Concern HBL Total TCLP SPLP Total TCLP SPLP Total TCLP SPLP Limit
Antimony ...... 91,400 9.3 6.2 150,000 9.9 4.3 145,000 68.7 287 0.006 ...... Arsenic ...... 114 <0.5 0.6 <250 <0.5 0.09 <250 1 6.9 6.9 0.0007 5.0 Boron ...... 24.0 6.5 1.0 <2500 <2 0.2 <2500 <2 0.7 1.4 ...... Cadmium ...... 5.3 0.3 0.5 <250 0.3 0.3 411 <0.05 0.9 0.0078 1.0 Lead ...... 3.1 1 8.5 16.9 <2500 2.8 1.0 <250 <0.5 <0.05 0.015 5.0 Mercury ...... 0.9 <0.002 0.001 0.1 <0.002 <0.0002 95.2 0.03 0.4 0.0047 0.2 Thallium ...... <2 <2 0.06 <1000 <2 0.06 <1000 <2 0.1 0.0013 ...... 1 Exceeds Toxicity Characteristic level.
What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This regulations. We propose to list this risk assessment modeling of the off-site Waste? waste under the 261.11(a)(1) criteria: landfill scenario, as we would traditionally do to support a 261.11(a)(3) We propose to list the baghouse filters K176 Baghouse filters from the production of antimony oxide (E). listing. Such modeling would reflect waste because our data show it reported management practices. routinely exhibits one or more of the Because we believe we have sufficient Antimony is not a TC constituent and, characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e., reason to list this waste under therefore, was not considered in the TC lead or arsenic), yet the generators 261.11(a)(1) based on the TC 261.11(a)(1) listing decision. However, do not identify their wastes as exceedences and lack of compliance exhibiting the toxicity characteristic and with hazardous waste regulation, we antimony levels are high and would the generators that dispose of this waste chose to conserve our time and likely result in risk if modeled. Leach do not comply with Subtitle C resources and did not conduct formal results for the waste exceed the HBLs by
26 A material is not accumulatively speculatively, the calendar year (commencing on January 1)—the material accumulated at the beginning of the however, if the person accumulating it can show amount of material that is recycled or transferred period. (40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)) that the material is potentially recyclable and has to a different site for recycling equals at least 75 a feasible means of being recycled and that—during percent by weight or volume of the amount of that
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
TABLE III±5.ÐBARIUM CARBONATE PRODUCTION WASTES
Reported RCRA Waste category 1998 volume (MT) hazard codes Sequential residual management practices
Barite Ore Feedstock ProcessÐGeorgia Facility
Treated barium wastes (D005 barium wastes in- 18,300 ...... None (D005 prior Disposal in local, captive, industrial Subtitle D clude barite ore leaching waste, barium sulfide to treatment). landfill (after treatment of D005 wastes in on- filtration sludge, and barium carbonate produc- site Subtitle C treatment unit). tion area cleaning and maintenance wastes). Wastewater from BaCO3 precipitate dewatering .. 313,000 ...... None ...... Treatment in on-site, tank-based WWTP prior to NPDES discharge to Etowah River. WWTP sludge ...... 11,000 ...... None ...... (1) Dewatered; (2) Treated on-site; (3) Disposal in local, captive, industrial Subtitle D landfill. Spent polypropylene and nylon filter media and 3 (filter media) ...... None ...... (1) Washed and washwaters re-inserted to bar- baghouse dust collector bags. ∼1.5 (baghouse ium carbonate production process. Solids bags). managed as barium carbonate production area cleaning and maintenance wastes. (2) Treated materials disposed in off-site munic- ipal Subtitle D landfill.
High Purity Barium Chloride Feedstock ProcessÐPennsylvania Facility
Ammonia vapor scrubber water and ammonia Not reported ...... D002 ...... Treatment in on-site, tank-based WWTP. reclamation unit wastewaters. Barium carbonate precipitate washwater ...... 1,600 ...... None ...... Treatment in on-site, tank-based WWTP prior to NPDES discharge to Susquehanna River. WWTP sludge ...... 8,200 ...... None ...... (1) Stored in roll-off bin; (2) Disposal in off-site municipal Subtitle D land- fill. Ammoniated spent process solution storage tank 1 ...... None ...... Disposal in off-site municipal Subtitle D landfill. solids. Sludge and spent filter media from filtration of <1.23 ...... D005 ...... (1) Stored in closed container; barium chloride solution and BaCO3 drying and (2) Sent to off-site Subtitle C facility for treatment sizing unit dusts. and disposal.
In addition to these wastes, the two material is a gas from a production unit, production of ammonium bicarbonate barium carbonate manufacturing rather than from a waste management solution for use in the barium carbonate facilities also produce other materials unit, and is conveyed to its destination production process. Because the spent which are either piped directly back to through piping, the gas is not a solid solution is piped to the reclamation unit the production process or are used for waste. RCRA Section 1004(27) excludes with no significant potential for other purposes. Residues from the barite non-contained gases from the definition exposure to the environment, we did ore feedstock production process, ore of solid waste, and therefore they cannot not evaluate the solution further. crusher/grinder, kiln, barium carbonate be considered a hazardous waste (see 54 Both facilities produce barium drier, granulation and packaging FR 50973). carbonate from a saleable mineral processes are directly returned to their The facility using barium chloride as product.29 Under the Bevill exemption unit of origin with no significant its feedstock reclaims ammonia in the (54 FR 36620–21), chemical pathways for exposure of these form of ammonium hydroxide from manufacturing begins if there is any materials to the environment prior to barium carbonate production wastes further processing of a saleable mineral reuse. Barium carbonate production area and uses this material throughout the product. Since these facilities use cleaning and maintenance wastewaters facility as a feedstock and reagent. Spent saleable mineral products as feedstock, are also re-inserted to the barium ammoniated process solution is piped their processes are chemical carbonate production process with no from the process unit where it forms to manufacturing, and are not classified as significant pathways for exposure of a storage tank where it is commingled mineral processing. Therefore none of these materials to the environment prior with ammoniated spent process the wastestreams generated by these to reuse. Because these materials are solutions from several other on-site facilities during the production of managed prior to reuse in ways that manufacturing processes. The barium carbonate are Bevill exempt. present low potential for release, and ammoniated spent process solutions See the ‘‘Barium Carbonate Listing because we evaluated all wastes from these other manufacturing Background Document for the Inorganic generated after they are reinserted into processes are beyond the scope of this Chemical Listing Determination’’ for the process, we do not believe that these listing determination. From the storage more details on these residuals. secondary materials present significant tank, the facility pipes the commingled threats. ammoniated spent process solutions to 29 Note that primary barite ore has wide use in The barite ore feedstock facility also an ammonia reclamation unit which drilling muds for the petroleum industry and produces molten sulfur or sodium reclaims the ammonia in the form of numerous other industrial uses, including use as feedstock for barium chemicals; see ‘‘Barite’’ U.S. hyposulfate from hydrogen sulfide gas ammonium hydroxide. Ammonium Geological Survey—Minerals Information, 1997, piped from the barium carbonate hydroxide is used on-site in various http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/ manufacturing process. Because the manufacturing processes, including the commodity/barite/index.htm.
VerDate 11
d. Waste characterization and Agency characteristically hazardous for barium that exceeded the health-based levels by evaluation. Barium is the primary (D005) before treatment (or are more than a factor of 2 (see section constituent of potential concern in the consistently assumed by the facility to III.E.3 for a discussion of this risk- wastes from both facilities. Barium be D005 wastes), include: screening criterion). See the ‘‘Barium occurs in several production wastes at —Barite ore leaching waste, which is Carbonate Listing Background high levels, in some cases exceeding the solids from the filtration of the liquid Document for the Inorganic Chemical TC level (100 mg/L) in TCLP leachate product stream from the barite ore Listing Determination’’ for further samples. These TC wastes are coded and roasting and leaching units, details on the available data. treated as hazardous (D005). The —Barium sulfide sludge, which is from In addition, we found only one Georgia facility holds a hazardous waste polishing filtration of liquid barium exceedence of AWQC standards among treatment permit to allow on-site sulfide, and, the SPLP leaching data for treated stabilization of barium, and the —Wastes from cleaning and barium wastes. Selenium was found at Pennsylvania facility sends all of their maintenance of the barium carbonate a level of 0.04–0.06 mg/L, which D005 wastes off-site for treatment and production area. exceeds the AWQC standard (0.0050 mg/L) by a factor of 8 to 12. However, disposal at a hazardous waste treatment A RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste the landfill in which the treated barium and disposal facility. treatment facility permit governs the on- We decided not to do characterization wastes are placed is 1,700 feet from the site treatment process for these barium sampling for wastes from either facility nearest downgradient water body, the wastes. The three wastes are sent because both facilities submitted Etowah River, and also lies beyond the directly to the treatment unit, or they information to us on the nature of their river’s 100 year flood plain. In recent are stored prior to treatment for short wastes. We also received some years, the Etowah River in the vicinity additional analytical data from the State time periods in Subtitle C closed of the landfill has had a flow rate of Georgia for the Georgia facility. These containers. The treatment process is a varying between 9.9 to 230 m 3 per data provided information on the stabilization process for barium using second on a daily basis. Given the concentrations (or absence) of the metal gypsum (primarily calcium sulfate) to distance over which leachate from the constituents of potential concern in the precipitate soluble barium as less treated barium wastes would need to wastes and in test leachates from the soluble barium sulfate. According to travel before reaching the river, dilution wastes. We believe the available RCRA Subtitle C regulations, the treated and attenuation during transport in information is sufficient to adequately barium waste must meet the LDR UTS. local groundwater, and further dilution characterize the wastes and to allow us Treatment takes place in concrete in the Etowah River, we believe the to evaluate their risk potential for the mixer-type trucks. Once treatment is levels of selenium in the leachate would purposes of a listing decision. ‘‘Barium complete, the treatment trucks decrease to a level which would no Carbonate Listing Background immediately transport the waste to the longer pose a risk to the environment. Document for the Inorganic Chemical facility’s captive Subtitle D landfill for We do not believe it is necessary to Listing Determination’’ summarizes the disposal, located approximately 2 miles assess other management practices for analytical data and other information from the production facility on facility- the treated barium wastes. The facility available for these wastes. owned property. has treated and disposed of their We propose not to list any of the State and facility information indicate treatment residues in a similar manner wastes from the barium carbonate that the treated barium wastes no longer for over 15 years. The production manufacturing industry. Many wastes exceed the TC level for barium (100 mg/ facility itself relies on a local source of from this industry are characteristically L from TCLP analysis) and typically barite ore, has operated from its current hazardous and managed as hazardous leach less than 1 mg/L barium, location since 1942 and is therefore not wastes either on-site or at permitted according to both SPLP and TCLP likely to change its location in the near Subtitle C treatment facilities off-site. analyses. In addition, according to data future. The dedicated landfill has a Other wastes did not exhibit the facility and the state of Georgia remaining life of nearly 20 years and is constituents at levels of concern for submitted to EPA from sampling events located approximately 2 miles from the purposes of a listing given the nature of conducted during the past two years at production facility. Given the dedicated their management and disposal. the facility, the waste meets the LDR nature of the landfill, its proximity to Several groups of wastes from each of UTS for all regulated constituents. the production facility, and the the facilities are disposed of in a treated The treated barium wastes are significant remaining capacity, we form, rather than an as-generated form. disposed of in the landfill without daily believe it is unlikely that the Georgia In general, therefore, we focused our cover. However, the waste has a facility will dispose of their wastes in evaluation on the treated form of the relatively high moisture content any other unit in the near future. Thus wastes. (approximately 50%) when placed in there is no need to assess additional The paragraphs below describe how the landfill and, according to the management scenarios for this the wastes are generated and managed facility, hardens over time and does not wastestream. for the two processes and our rationale create dust. In addition, the waste does Given the facility’s Subtitle C waste for proposing not to list the wastes. We not contain any known volatile treatment permit, we believe that the solicit comments on the proposed constituents of concern. facility’s untreated D005 wastes are listing decisions described below. To assess the potential for adequately managed with respect to this (1) Wastes from the production of groundwater releases from the captive, rulemaking. In addition, we have found barium carbonate from barite ore industrial landfill, we compared the no potential for releases to air, feedstock. (a) Treated barium wastes. SPLP leaching data from the facility and groundwater, or surface water at levels The waste category, ‘‘treated barium the state of Georgia to existing HBLs for of concern from the treated wastes. wastes,’’ is the treatment residue from ingestion of groundwater. SPLP data are Therefore we propose not to list these the commingling and treatment of appropriate for evaluating this waste wastes. several barium wastes in an on-site because it is placed in a Subtitle D (b) Wastewater from barium carbonate hazardous waste treatment unit. The industrial landfill. We did not find any precipitate dewatering. The facility barium wastes, which are consistently constituents in the available SPLP data filters barium carbonate precipitate from
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
TABLE III.±6.ÐBORIC ACID: BRINE RECOVERY PROCESS WASTES
Waste category 1998 volume (MT) Sequential management practices
Fuel oil from crud treatment facility ...... 690 ...... (1) Stored in covered tank; (2) Sent off-site to a Subtitle C permitted used oil refinery. Miscellaneous wastewaters ...... 194,040 (The Bevill exempt partially depleted (1) Combined wastewaters; discharged to brine volume is 4.6 million MT). Trona skimmer with the Bevill exempt par- tially depleted brine; (2) Removal of organics in skimmer unit; (3) Commingled partially depleted brine and process wastewaters are returned to Searles Dry Lake for recharging. Organics from Trona skimmer ...... 10 ...... (1) Stored in covered tank; (2) Sent to off-site Subtitle C blender; (3) Burned for energy recovery. Sludges from containment areas ...... 20 ...... (1) Drum storage; (2) 20 cubic yard roll-off bins; (3) Transported with manifest off-site to Sub- title C landfill as California-only hazardous waste. Spent activated carbon ...... 43 ...... (1) Washed; (2) Reclaimed in an on-site furnace; (3) Reused in the process.
Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination’’ in the docket.
VerDate 11
What Is EPA’s Decision About Whether hydrocarbons). This wastewater is section, LLX strippers, Wemco flotation to List These Wastes as Hazardous? generated at the carbon column. cells and API settlers. The facility We propose not to list any wastes However, it only represents 0.03 percent reported a California-only hazardous from the brine recovery process for the of the total volume that is returned to waste code CA611 (petroleum production of boric acid. Our rationale the dry lake. Also, the reported level of contaminated soils) for the waste but for each waste is presented below. formaldehyde in the waste would be did not report any federal characteristic (1) Fuel oil from the crud treatment well below the HBL for this chemical (3 codes. The facility stores the waste on- 31 facility. We propose not to list the fuel mg/L) after mixing with other site in drums, transfers to it to 20 cubic oil generated at the crud treatment wastewaters. We are not concerned with yard roll-off bins and mixes the sludge facility. The facility characterized the potential air releases because the Trona with soil, and then ships the waste off- fuel oil as 100 percent hydrocarbons. skimmer, where the wastes are mixed, is site with a manifest as a California-only The fuel oil is stored on-site in a covered. The facility also mixes a hazardous waste to a Subtitle C landfill. covered tank prior to being shipped off- characteristic (D002) HCl acid waste The facility is tied to its location in site to a Subtitle C permitted used oil stream with the Bevill exempt depleted California so we believe it is plausible refinery. For those scenarios where brine prior to reaching the Trona that the waste will always be treated as a California-only hazardous waste. We wastes are managed in a tank, the skimmer. The resultant mixture is not characteristic and the mixing takes do not believe there would be any impervious nature of the construction place within a pipeline where there is significant benefit to the environment materials (concrete, fiberglass, or steel) no opportunity for exposure to the by listing this waste. of tanks is unlikely to result in releases characteristic waste before or during the (5) Spent activated carbon. We to groundwater in all but the most mixing. Given the factors listed above, propose not to list the carbon that is catastrophic scenarios. We also are not particularly the lack of an exposure regenerated on-site. The carbon is concerned with potential air releases pathway, we propose not to list the regenerated in an on-site furnace. The because the tank is covered. The miscellaneous wastewaters. carbon filtration process occurs later in subsequent treatment at the permitted (3) Organics from the Trona skimmer. the process after much of the organic used oil refinery is already regulated We propose not to list the organics additives have settled out of the borate under Subtitle C and the used oil (chlorinated hydrocarbons) recovered liquor. Consequently, we expect that the regulations. Therefore, we propose not from the Trona skimmer. The organics filters will not collect high to list this waste. are stored in a covered tank before being concentrations of constituents of (2) Miscellaneous wastewaters. We shipped off-site. For those scenarios concern, except perhaps kerosene propose not to list the miscellaneous where wastes are managed in a tank, the related organics. We expect any such wastewaters. We evaluated the potential impervious nature of the construction constituents that are filtered out using for an exposure pathway via materials (concrete, fiberglass, or steel) carbon adsorption to be combustible. groundwater ingestion and determined of tanks is unlikely to result in releases There is no potential for exposure prior that no such pathway exists. The facility to groundwater in all but the most to the regeneration process or during the producing boric acid by recovering catastrophic scenarios. We also are not return of the activated carbon to the borates mined from Searles Dry Lake is concerned with potential air releases carbon filter. The furnace is permitted located in California’s Mojave Desert. because both the Trona skimmer and by the State of California Air Control The process and associated wastewaters tank are covered. The waste is shipped Board. Although the permit does not are tied to the Mojave Desert location off-site to a Subtitle C permitted blender contain any requirements for emission because it is the source of the borate prior to being burned for energy controls, it does require annual rich brine. The environment is arid with recovery in cement kilns. Burning by reporting. We reviewed the emissions only 4 inches of precipitation annually. cement kilns is regulated under MACT data and do not believe that the The groundwater under the facility has standards for cement kilns (64 FR emissions from the furnace are of total dissolved solids (TDS) levels as 31989, June 14, 1999 and 64 FR 52827, concern. The reported emission levels high as 450,000 ppm. All wastewaters, September 30, 1999). Therefore, we did are significantly below the MACT including the Bevill exempt depleted not further evaluate potential risks from standards for permitted hazardous waste brine, are co-managed and ultimately burning the organics under this listing. incinerators (64 FR 52827, September returned to the dry lake resource. Due The facility reported a California-only 30, 1999). We expect the use of this to the extremely high TDS levels in the hazardous waste code CA343 (organic furnace to continue because it is area, the water is non-potable. The liquids, unspecified) for the waste but expedient to regenerate the carbon on- surrounding communities have drinking did not report any federal characteristic site, and the facility is unlikely to water piped in from 25 miles away. codes. The facility manifests the waste relocate given the proximity of the Therefore, no groundwater exposure using the California code when they mineralized brine source. Therefore, we pathway exists. send it to the blender. Because this propose not to list this waste. Furthermore, the total volume of the waste has significant BTU value and d. Agency evaluation of wastes miscellaneous wastewaters is 4 percent also carries a state hazardous waste generated by the kernite ore process. of the volume of the depleted brine; any code, we expect this management contaminants in these wastewaters What Kinds of Wastes Are Generated by practice to continue; we do not believe would therefore be diluted by a factor of the Kernite ore Process? there would be any significant benefit to 25 prior to return to the dry lakebed. The facility generates two primary the environment by listing this waste. Most of the miscellaneous wastewaters wastestreams: Tailings and gangue. The (4) Sludges from containment areas. are generated in the later part of the tailings include the wastewaters and We propose not to list the sludges process and thus we do not expect they fine insolubles from ore processing and collected from containment areas will contain constituents of concern at boric acid production. The tailings are around the process tanks, the loading significant levels. There is one managed in tanks and then pumped to wastewater that contains organic 31 Based on the RfD in IRIS (2E–1 mg/kg-day) and on-site evaporation ponds/surface constituents not found in the influent a 90th percentile drinking water intake rate in impoundments. The boric acid gangue brine (formaldehyde and fuel children (64 mL/Kg/day). which includes clay, sand and other
VerDate 11
TABLE III±7.ÐBORIC ACID: KERNITE ORE PROCESS WASTES
Waste category 1998 volume Sequential management practices
Tailings ...... Up to 750,000 gallons/day1 ...... (1) Stored in tank; (2) Pumped to evaporation ponds/surface im- poundments. Gangue ...... Portion of 900,000 MT2 ...... (1) Placed on slab for drainage; (2) Trucked to on-site waste piles. Spent filters ...... 3 ...... (1) Stored in solid waste bin; (2) On-site industrial Subtitle D landfill. 1 Capacity volume for boric acid surface impoundments. Current daily quantity is lower. Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board permit, board order 6±93±17. 2 The boric acid coarse gangue is co-mingled with gangue from the other production process at the facility. That process is outside the scope of the consent decree. The boric acid gangue represents only a minor proportion of the total 900,000 tons of gangue typically deposited annually on the waste piles. Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board permit, board order 6±93±17.
What Is EPA’s Decision About Whether potential release from the facility’s and the affinity of these constituents to To List These Wastes as Hazardous? evaporation ponds unlikely. bind with soil.33 The area under the The groundwater under the off-site facility has several geologic faults that For the reasons set out below, we area of land closest to the waste act as groundwater barriers. The South propose not to list any wastes from the management units is not suitable for use Borax fault is likely to prevent any kernite ore process for the production of as drinking water. The ore body, which potential release from the waste boric acid. is the raw material for the process, has management units from reaching the (1) Tailings. We propose not to list the a localized impact on the groundwater drinking water source for the existing tailings from boric acid production. The in its vicinity. Monitoring wells in the community well. The fault is located tailings are managed in a tank and then area show that the groundwater in the just south of the waste management pumped to evaporation ponds. The geologic strata underneath the off-site units, between the units and the well. In facility provided TCLP data for the area adjacent to the waste management addition, the groundwater underlying tailings. Those data show waste units has total dissolved solids (TDS) the waste management units is contains arsenic and antimony above levels in excess of three times the contained in the tertiary soil layer health-based drinking water levels. The maximum level for an aquifer to be whereas the community well draws Agency also assumed that boron was considered a drinking water source in from the quaternary layer. We believe present in significant levels due to the California.32 Additional factors such as that migration between these two layers nature of the ore. The facility provided low flow rate and high treatment cost would be limited. (The facility total levels for the boron concentration make the potential for a private well in submitted a detailed summary of the in the waste. We conducted an in-depth that area highly unlikely. Municipalities geologic conditions at the site. This review of the groundwater conditions at can tap into an alternative water source information has been placed in the the site and have concluded that a through a regional pipeline and need docket for this rulemaking. See groundwater exposure pathway does not not rely on groundwater. ‘‘Summary of Boron Operations exist. No one is currently living near the The geology of the area has several Hydrogeology, Potential Groundwater facility boundary closest to the waste characteristics that reduce the potential Receptors and BAP Waste Management management unit areas and it is for releases from the impoundments Parameters’’). Finally, we note that the unlikely that future development will from reaching known drinking water impoundments in question are designed occur. The closest existing drinking sources. The transport time to with a triple liner and leachate water well is two miles away from the groundwater for the constituents of collection system, making any waste management units. It is a concern appears to be significant given significant release less likely over the community well and is subject to all the depth to groundwater under the active life of the units. Based on these applicable drinking water standards. In waste management units (170–220 feet) factors, we do not believe there is a addition, there are several factors described below which make 32 California Water Quality Control Plan for the 33 Source: California Regional Water Quality contamination of this well from a Lathontan Regions, revised 1991 (p. 4.6–1) Control Board permit, board order 6–93–17.
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
TABLE III±8.ÐCADMIUM PIGMENT PRODUCTION WASTES
Reported 1998 waste Waste category waste volume Management practice codes (MT)
Non-wastewaters
Miscellaneous solid wastes, including materials from D005 33.5 ...... Each waste is drummed (separately or sometimes dust collectors, plant cleanup, filtered pigments from D006 combined) and shipped to a commercial off-site the presses, and from the on-site wastewater pre- D010 hazardous waste treatment facility to be treated and treatment process. decharacterized before placing in a Subtitle D land- fill. Note: D005Ðbarium D006Ðcadmium D010Ðselenium Contaminated paper and cloth, including filter bags, fil- D005 9.3 ter cloths, filter cartridges, and dust collector bags. D006 D010 Contaminated gaskets generated from the red and yel- D005 0.3 low calciners. D006 D010 Iron press residue generated from digestion of cad- D005 4.5 mium metal. D006 D010
Wastewaters
Gas scrubber wastewater (spent caustic from scrub- Not reported ..... pH adjusted, treated to re- All these wastewaters are bing vapors generated from calcination process). move zinc and cad- then combined and fur- mium. The resulting ther treated in on-site sludge is a part of the closed tanks for pH ad- miscellaneous solid justment; 2-step filtra- wastes. tion; monitoring for tur- bidity prior to discharge to a POTW. Process wastewater from filtering the greencake ...... Not reported ..... pH adjusted, treated to re- cover cadmium. Process wastewaters from wet washing system ...... Not reported.
34 minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/ USGS Minerals Information, Mineral cadmium/140396.txt) Commodity Summary, 1996 (see http://
VerDate 11
c. Agency evaluation. After evaluating production wastes. The landfill waste management practices and the characteristics and current information and leachate data are potential exposure pathways, we management practices of all the waste provided in the ‘‘Cadmium Pigments concluded that there are no risk residuals, we determined that: (1) all the Listing Background Document for the pathways of concern. These wastes do non-wastewater wastes are being Inorganic Chemical Listing not meet the criteria set out at 40 CFR properly treated and managed as Determination’’ in the docket for today’s 261.11(a)(3) for listing as hazardous. hazardous wastes under RCRA proposal. We recognize that the residues They do not pose a substantial present regulations, and (2) all the wastewaters from commercial treatment facilities or potential hazard to human health or are being treated on-site in closed tanks represent the commingling of wastes the environment. and discharged to a permitted POTW, from a variety of facilities and wastes. b. Description of the inorganic where they are subject to the Clean Therefore, information on the landfill hydrogen cyanide industry. Hydrogen Water Act. Therefore, we did not pursue leachate from treated material is of cyanide (HCN) is used in the risk assessment modeling for any of limited use. However, the data available manufacture of a number of important these wastes. The following are the indicate that the cadmium pigment chemicals including: adiponitrile to details of our evaluation: wastes do not present a substantial produce nylon, methyl methacrylate to (1) Non-wastewaters. In its RCRA hazard when disposed. Given that the produce clear acrylic plastics, sodium Section 3007 Survey, the facility generating facility has followed the cyanide for the recovery of gold, classified all four wastes of this category reported management practice for seven triazines for agricultural herbicides, as characteristic hazardous, as years, we believe use of this or methionine for animal food generated, for barium, cadmium, and comparable treatment and disposal will supplements, and chelating agents for selenium. The facility also provided continue. water treatment. data characterizing each non-wastewater HCN is manufactured via two primary What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for inorganic synthesis processes: residual for total and TCLP These Wastes? ¨ concentrations of eight TC metals. Andrussow and Blausaure-Methan- Except for chromium (which was We propose not to list any of the four Ammoniak (BMA). The Andrussow detected in the TCLP leachate of one wastes in this category as hazardous process involves the reaction of waste below its health-based level), no because they are already managed in ammonia, methane (natural gas) and air other hazardous constituents were compliance with existing hazardous over a platinum catalyst; the BMA reported. The total volume of these four waste regulations, including full process is similar except the reaction wastes was 47.6 metric tons in 1998. compliance with the BDAT occurs in the absence of air. The Over the past seven years the requirements for treatment prior to land reaction products are quenched with generator has managed all its non- disposal. We conclude that available water. Excess ammonia reactant is wastewater wastes generated from the data on the specific cadmium pigment recovered for reuse in the reaction or production of cadmium pigments as TC manufacturing wastes do not support a converted to an ammonium salt. The hazardous wastes. These wastes are decision to list the wastes as hazardous. aqueous HCN product is purified and (2) Wastewaters. We propose not to drummed and shipped with manifests concentrated for use as a liquid list the wastewaters as hazardous to a commercial off-site Subtitle C feedstock for manufacturing of one or because the gas scrubber and the facility for treatment. The off-site more of the final products mentioned process wastewaters are pretreated on- treatment includes mixing and treating above. Two of the Andrussow process site in closed tanks prior to discharge to the wastes with other solid wastes and manufacturers do not produce a liquid a POTW. The wastewater treatment the addition of lime and fly ash to meet hydrogen cyanide intermediate product tanks provide sufficient structural but immediately convert the hydrogen the current LDR treatment standards integrity to minimize potential releases cyanide in the reactor gases in a sodium (via stabilization). The resultant mixture to groundwater. We are unlikely to find hydroxide contactor to produce liquid forms a concrete-like residue, which no potential air releases from these tanks as sodium cyanide. longer exhibits a characteristic and is neither volatile contaminants nor There are ten manufacturers of managed in a Subtitle D landfill. We airborne particulates are likely to be hydrogen cyanide in the United States believe this management, which present in these wastewaters. During who use the Andrussow or the BMA complies with existing Subtitle C treatment, the closed tanks present no process. Of these ten manufacturers, regulations, adequately protects human significant threat of release to the only one uses the BMA process. Two of health and the environment. environment. After treatment, the the nine Andrussow manufacturers use Although we generally believe that an abbreviated version of the Subtitle C regulations for characteristic wastewaters are subject to the Clean Water Act program. We conclude that Andrussow process to produce sodium wastes adequately prevent cyanide. Manufacture of sodium mismanagement, we have additional the wastewaters do not warrant listing. We assessed solids from the on-site cyanide as a final product results in data that help confirm our conclusion fewer wastes and significantly lower for this waste. The landfill information treatment as miscellaneous wastes discussed above in section (1). wastewater volumes. and leachate data provided by the local The inorganic hydrogen cyanide and state governments (per our request) 5. Inorganic Hydrogen Cyanide industry subject to this rulemaking is indicate that the landfill has a liner with a. Summary. We propose not to list composed only of the facilities that a leachate collection system. The any wastes from the production of produce hydrogen cyanide as an 35 landfill leachate data we have to date inorganic hydrogen cyanide (HCN) as intermediate product or feedstock to demonstrate that constituents detected hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA. manufacture a variety of commercial in the landfill leachates are not These wastes are managed in on-site chemicals using the Andrussow and attributable to the cadmium pigments wastewater treatment processes, BMA processes. This proposal industrial landfills, municipal landfills, specifically does not cover wastes from 35 Quarterly leachate monitoring data from March 95 to September 98, provided by Michigan’s hazardous waste incinerators, hazardous the manufacturing of HCN as a Department of Environment, Wayne County District waste landfills, and hazardous waste byproduct in the manufacture of Office and Local Office. injection wells. After analysis of these acrylonitrile by the ammoxidation of
VerDate 11
TABLE III±9.ÐINORGANIC HYDROGEN CYANIDE PRODUCTION WASTES
Waste Category Reported 1998 (Number of facilities) Waste volume Management practices Codes 1 (MT)
Commingled wastewaters (8) ...... D002 ...... 5,600,000 On-site wastewater treatment in tanks or surface impoundments, dis- charge to NPDES outfall or POTW. Ammonia recycle cartridge and spent carbon filters (5) ...... none ...... 73 Off-site municipal D landfill; off-site in- dustrial D landfill; on-site Subtitle C landfill; on-site Subtitle C inciner- ation. Biological wastewater treatment solids (4) ...... none; 45,397 Off-site industrial Subtitle D landfill; F0393. off-site municipal Subtitle D landfill; on-site Subtitle C landfill. Feed gas cartridge and spent carbon filters (9) ...... none ...... 9.7 Off-site municipal D landfill; off-site in- dustrial D landfill; on-site Subtitle C landfill as non-hazardous waste; off- site recycle/reuse via return to man- ufacturer. Process air cartridge filters (8) ...... none ...... 7.5 Off-site municipal D landfill; off-site in- dustrial D landfill; reclamation.
VerDate 11
TABLE III±9.ÐINORGANIC HYDROGEN CYANIDE PRODUCTION WASTESÐContinued
Waste Category Reported 1998 (Number of facilities) Waste volume Management practices Codes 1 (MT)
Acid spray cartridge filters (1) ...... none ...... 1.1 On-site Subtitle C landfill as nonhaz- ardous waste. Spent catalyst (10) ...... none ...... 4.06 Off-site reclamation. Ammonium sulfate and ammonium phosphate (3) ...... none ...... 27,425 Off-site use as fertilizer. Miscellaneous wastewaters (4) ...... none ...... 209,000 Managed with commingled wastewaters described above. HCN polymer and sump wastes (1) ...... none ...... 0.7 Off-site industrial D landfill Sludge from wastewater collection tank (2) ...... D001;D018 23.9 Stabilization/off-site Subtitle C landfill; off-site Subtitle C incineration. HCN storage tank solids (1) ...... none ...... 0.3 Off-site municipal D landfill Wastewater filters (1) ...... none ...... 450 Captive off-site Subtitle C incineration. Ammonium sulfate filters (1) ...... none ...... 1.1 Off-site industrial D landfill Spent Ammonium Phosphate (1) ...... none ...... 230 On-site reuse as biological treatment system nutrient source or on-site nonhazardous waste incineration Organic layer from wastewater collection tank (1) ...... D001 ...... 43.3 Off-site Subtitle C incineration (1993) 1 D001 (ignitability), D002 (corrosivity), D018 (benzene). 2 Includes 2.1 MT reported for 1993. 3 One facility commingles wastewater to generate a hazardous waste derived from F039 wastewater.
d. Agency evaluation. We selected commingled wastewaters by filtration impoundments in question would not three facilities in Alabama, Tennessee, and disposal via deepwell injection. be moved off-site or to different locations. and Texas to collect record samples of What Management Scenarios Were wastes for the listing determination. Assessed? Our decision on what scenario to These facilities were selected based on assess was based on review of our the survey information for the entire Based on the reported management practices, we assessed the potential for analytical data and the characteristics of industry sector and collectively the surface impoundments used at the represent all the wastes generated and releases from tanks and surface impoundments. We decided that risks three facilities. We evaluated the all of the waste management practices potential for groundwater releases to used by the manufacturing sector. from the ultimate discharges to NPDES outfalls and POTWs are adequately drinking water wells at the Alabama (1) Commingled wastewaters. controlled by the Clean Water Act. Risks site, and potential surface water impacts from discharges to Class I injection at the Tennessee facility. The analytical How Many Facilities Generate This data for the wastewater managed in the Waste Category and How Is It Managed? wells with RCRA ‘‘no-migration’’ variances are adequately regulated surface impoundment at the Texas Eight of the ten facilities generated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and facility showed that all levels of the commingled wastewaters from the RCRA (see section III.D.3). toxicants of concern are below health- inorganic hydrogen cyanide process. Potential releases to groundwater. We based levels, or are associated with The total volume of commingled assessed both the tank and surface other commingled on-site production wastewaters reported by these facilities impoundment scenarios for potential processes and are not due to HCN was 5.5 million MT in 1998. Six of these releases to groundwater and determined production. eight facilities treat the commingled that the unlined surface impoundment The Alabama facility manages wastewaters using one or more of the scenario poses a more significant wastewater in a series of surface following operations in their on-site potential risk to groundwater than the impoundments and tanks that provide wastewater treatment processes: (a) tank scenario. We focused on the equalization, oxidation, maturation, steam stripping to remove cyanide and surface impoundment pathway because rock-reed filtration, and mixing. In ammonia, with off-gasses vented to several of the reported surface addition, the facility has an emergency flares, scrubbers or incinerators; (b) pH impoundments are unlined, posing a holding basin which has also been used adjustment; (c) aerated or non-aerated potential direct release pathway to for HCN process wastewaters. The biological treatment in tanks or lined/ groundwater. We take the position that surface impoundments are equipped unlined surface impoundments; (d) tanks, by the impervious nature of the with double synthetic liners with ozone treatment in tanks; (e) construction materials (concrete, leachate detection and collection oxychlorination in surface fiberglass, or steel) are not likely to systems. The oxidation basin is a impoundments; (f) settling in surface result in significant releases to concrete-lined structure with an impoundments; and NPDES outfalls, or groundwater. We conducted sampling additional synthetic liner. Our POTWs. In addition to commingling of and analysis of these wastewaters at the analytical data indicates that the hydrogen cyanide process three facilities located in Alabama, concentrations at the inlet to the wastewaters, some facilities also Tennessee, and Texas currently using impoundments would exceed the HBLs commingle these wastewaters with surface impoundment-based wastewater for one constituent of concern wastewaters from other non-HCN treatment systems. We assessed each (acetonitrile). A study of existing wells processes generated in the same site individually, because we believe it near the facility indicates the presence chemical manufacturing complex. The is reasonable to assume that large of private water wells within a one-mile remaining two facilities manage their volume wastewaters managed in radius of the property boundary. We
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
TABLE III±10.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM INORGANIC HCN PRODUCTION (MG/L)
Sample Sample DM±2±HC± Sample 1 Constituent of concern DM±1±HC± 08 DG±1±HC±07 HBL AWQC 08 2nd Rnd
Amenable CN ...... 0.638 <0.01 0.509 0.3 0.005 Nitrite as N ...... 11.5 no analysis <2.5 2 1 Vinyl chloride ...... 0.029 3 0.0066 L <0.001 0.0009 (0.1) 0.002 Acetonitrile ...... 4 50 K 28 L 190 0.09 (0.045) 2 N/A Acrylonitrile ...... 0.013 <0.001 <0.0005 0.002 (0.03) 5.9E±05 1 HBL in parenthesis based on inhalation pathway from residential use of water (e.g., showering). 2 N/A: Not Applicable. 3 L: Qualified result with a low bias for positive result. 4 K: Qualified result with a high bias for positive result.
How Was the Groundwater-To-Drinking the most likely direction of groundwater TABLE III±11.ÐGROUNDWATER RISK Water Risk Assessment Established? flow is to the low-lying areas to the RESULTS FOR COMMINGLED The Alabama facility’s surface north-northeast of the surface WASTEWATERS FROM THE PRODUC- impoundments are located in the center impoundments. We found there are TION OF INORGANIC HYDROGEN CY- of an industrial park on the west side of drinking water wells located due east of ANIDE Mobile Bay. The wastewater treatment the equalization surface impoundment. impoundments are located near the Although the wells are located east of Acetonitrile eastern property boundary of the facility the surface impoundment instead of the Percentile hazard and approximately 4,000 feet south of quotient estimated north-northeast groundwater (HQ) 1 the State of Alabama barge canal. We flow direction, they are at somewhat chose to assess surface water risks at the lower ground elevation than the surface 90th % ...... 0.3 Tennessee facility, which is closer to a impoundment. Given the uncertainty in 95th % ...... 0.5 surface water body. However, given the the direction of the groundwater flow, 1 Risk from inhalation scenario during show- use of groundwater in the area around we assumed that contaminated ering included exposure factors for both adult the Alabama facility, we assessed the groundwater from the surface and child in the analysis. possible impact on drinking water impoundment could migrate to the east wells. We selected the equalization How Was The Groundwater-To-Surface and reach these wells. Based on the basin as the unit for quantitative Water Risk Assessment Established? available land use and groundwater use modeling. This is the first surface The Tennessee facility and its surface information for this area, we performed impoundment in the series and is likely impoundments are sited on the banks of to hold the highest level of constituents risk modeling for potential releases to the Loosahatchie River. The surface of concern. We elected not to assess the drinking water wells located between impoundments are located emergency holding pond, which is used 3,100 and 5,280 feet east of the surface approximately 800 feet from the river. primarily during high stormwater impoundment. The minimum distance Based on information available in the events. Due to the intermittent use of of 3,100 feet is based on the distance Remedial Facility Investigation (RFI),38 the holding pond, we expect the from the impoundment to the eastern the direction of the groundwater flow is potential for significant groundwater boundary of the industrial area documented to be south towards the releases to be greater for the controlled by the facility. The maximum Loosahatchie River. The possibility of a equalization pond. In addition, the distance of 5,280 is the distance east public water supply well or private well equalization pond is covered with a from the impoundment to the closest being located downgradient of the floating synthetic membrane, while the known well. This drinking water well Tennessee surface impoundments is holding pond is not.37 Our modeling of appears to be located just inside the unlikely because the facility boundary the covered equalization pond did not eastern boundary of the state property, extends to the river to the south. Hence, assume any loss of the volatile which lies to the east of the industrial based on the geologic setting of the constituents of concern, thus allowing park where the facility is located. We facility as detailed above, we believe it more of the constituents to infiltrate to also assumed that a future well may be is highly unlikely that these the groundwater rather than volatilize to placed in the same State property impoundments could impact drinking the air. directly east of the facility’s water wells via migration of a Based on information available in a undeveloped tract at approximately contaminated groundwater plume. Based on these facts we did not assess corrective action plan related to a 3,100 feet from the surface product spill on-site (Risk-Based the groundwater-to-drinking water well impoundment. The details of this Corrective Action Plan for the Sodium pathway further at this site. We did, assessment are presented in the ‘‘Risk Cyanide Production Unit at Degussa however, conduct a screening analysis Assessment for the Listing Corporation Alabama Facility, of potential releases of groundwater to Theodore, Alabama; March 19, 1998), Determinations for Inorganic Chemical surface water and subsequent exposure Manufacturing Wastes’’ in the docket for via ingestion because of the proximity of 37 The facility reported that the cover on the today’s proposal. The results of the risk the unit to the river. We calculated the equalization unit was installed to ensure modeling for the only drinking water concentrations in the river that would compliance with expected new regulations to constituent of concern are presented in control volatile organic carbon emissions from result from discharge of contaminated wastewater sources for the Synthetic Organic Table III–11 below. Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) 38 U.S. EPA Phase II RFI Workplan, (proposal, 59 FR 46780, September 9, 1994). Potentiometric Surface Plan, March 3 & 4, 1999.
VerDate 11
TABLE III±12.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF AMMONIA RECYCLE FILTERS [mg/L]
RH±1±HC±05 (1st RH±2±HC±05 (2nd DM±1±HC±04 (1st DM±02±HC±04 (2nd Parameter data set) data set) data set) data set) HBL TCLP SPLP TCLP SPLP TCLP SPLP TCLP SPLP
Antimony ...... 1 0.55 J 0.59 <0.5 0.237 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 0.08 0.006 Arsenic ...... 2 0.045 L 0.039 <0.5 0.0137 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5 0.0112 0.0007 Nickel ...... 0.50 J 0.61 <0.2 0.303 <0.2 0.0654 <0.2 0.0178 0.31 Total CN ...... N/A 2.4 L 0.230 0.243 0.218 0.187 L 3 0.222 0.303 4 0.31 1 J: Estimated result, due to poor field duplication. 2 L: Qualified result with a low bias for positive result. 3 Average of duplicate sample results. 4 HBL for hydrogen cyanide.
How Was the Groundwater Ingestion the wastes are reported to be managed. constraints of this listing determination, Risk Assessment Established? As noted in section III.C., we used the we could not delay the risk assessment TCLP results for the municipal landfill modeling until the validated results of We assessed the off-site landfill scenario and the SPLP for the industrial the second round of analyses became scenario for the ammonia recycle filter landfill scenario. available, and thus used the first round cartridges, reflecting the types of of samples for the Texas facility as management reported for this waste. We As described above, we had some assessed the groundwater ingestion initial concerns about our analytical model input. Subsequently, having pathway for these landfills. Our model data and determined that re-analysis reviewed all the analytical data, we inputs included different hydrogeologic would serve to demonstrate the validity believe that the modeled data set settings reflecting the two regions where of these data. Due to the time appropriately characterizes the risks of
VerDate 11
TABLE III±13.ÐGROUNDWATER RISK RESULTS FOR AMMONIA RECYCLE FILTERS 1
Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Percentile Adult cancer Child cancer Adult HQ Child HQ risk risk Adult HQ Child HQ
Industrial Landfill: 90th ...... 7.9E±02 1.6E±01 3.8E±08 2.8E±08 3.6E±04 7.7E±04 95th ...... 1.9E±01 3.9E±01 1.6E±07 1.2E±07 1.6E±03 3.4E±03 Municipal Landfill: 90th ...... 8.7E±02 1.8E±01 3.9E±08 3.1E±08 4.0E±04 8.5E±04 95th ...... 2.0E±01 4.2E±01 1.8E±07 1.3E±07 1.7E±03 3.7E±03 1 Modeling for two other constituents (nickel and cyanide) yielded HQs that were extremely small (<1E±16) even at the 95th%.
(3) Biological wastewater treatment leaching results to the HBLs. In all cases off-site municipal D landfill, off-site solids. the SPLP and TCLP levels industrial D landfill, and on-site C corresponding to the management hazardous landfill. The facility using How Many Facilities Generate This practice were below the HBLs. the hazardous C landfill for disposal of Waste Category and How Is It Managed? For the agricultural liming scenario, the filters is managing the filters as Four facilities reported a total volume we compared the total concentrations in nonhazardous waste in a captive on-site of 45,397 MT/year for this waste. The the waste to the soil screening levels; no C landfill. management methods reported are off- constituents exceeded these screening site municipal and industrial Subtitle D levels, i.e., all constituents were below What Management Scenarios Were landfills, on-site Subtitle C landfill, and background or direct soil ingestion Assessed? off-site use as agricultural liming agent levels. We assessed the municipal and (volume not reported). The full analyses are summarized in industrial Subtitle D landfill scenarios What Management Scenarios Were the ‘‘Inorganic Hydrogen Cyanide using our TCLP and SPLP results, Assessed? Listing Background Document for the respectively. No volatile constituents Inorganic Chemicals Listing were detected in this waste (only non- We evaluated the Subtitle D landfill Determination’’ and the analytical volatile metals were detected; see and the agricultural liming agent results are reported in detail in the following section), thus volatilization scenario reflecting the reported Waste Characterization Reports for this management practices. We assessed the from landfills to the air was not a sector; these documents are available in pathway of concern. We did not assess landfill scenario using our TCLP and the docket for today’s proposal. SPLP results for the wastes reported the voluntary Subtitle C landfill managed in such landfills. We assessed What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This scenario because we assumed that the agricultural use scenario by Waste? listing would not significantly increase regulatory control. Note that the on-site comparing total constituent We propose not to list this waste as unit has sufficient capacity to continue concentrations to the soil screening hazardous because the levels of toxicant to accept this small volume waste. levels (see section III.C.3). constituents found in the waste are How Was This Waste Category below the levels of concern. How Was This Waste Category Characterized? (4) Feed gas cartridge and spent Characterized? carbon filters. We collected two samples of this We collected one sample of this waste at two different facilities. We How Many Facilities Generate This waste. The analytical results showed conducted total and leaching analyses of Waste Category and How Is It Managed? that SPLP levels for all constituents are these samples. To evaluate the Nine facilities reported a total volume below drinking water HBLs. The TCLP industrial landfill disposal scenario we of 9.7 MT/year for this waste. The results showed levels that exceeded compared the SPLP leaching results to management methods reported are off- HBLs for the constituents summarized constituent HBLs, and for the municipal site manufacturer refurbishing for reuse, below in Table III–14: landfill scenario we compared TCLP
VerDate 11
TABLE III±14.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF FEED GAS FILTERS FROM INORGANIC HCN PRODUCTION [mg/kg or mg/L]
Constituent Total TCLP SPLP HBL
Boron ...... 17,900 7.4 <0.5 1.4 Lead ...... 18.5 1 0.03 1 0.003 0.015 Nickel ...... 91.0 0.4 <0.05 0.31 Zinc ...... 1,060 13 <0.5 5 1 Results are less than the typical laboratory reporting limit, but are greater than the calculated instrument detection limits.
Split sample results provided by the the environment. For a more complete management method reported was on- facility were comparable. We did not description of this analysis, see ‘‘Risk site Subtitle C disposal as a find cyanide in these wastes. Assessment for the Listing nonhazardous waste. The cartridge-type The full analytical results are Determinations for Inorganic Chemical filter elements are used in the process summarized in the ‘‘Inorganic Hydrogen Manufacturing Wastes’ in the docket. to prevent clogging of spray nozzles Cyanide Listing Background Document Thus, we propose not to list this waste used to inject the hydrogen cyanide for the Inorganic Chemicals Listing as hazardous. intermediate product into the HCN Determination’’ and are reported in stripper. The filters remove process detail in the Waste Characterization TABLE III±15.ÐGROUNDWATER RISK particulates, including rust, from the Reports for this sector; these documents RESULTS FOR FEED GAS FILTERS hydrogen cyanide intermediate product. are available in the docket for today’s FOR BORON The waste is generated when the spent proposal. filter elements are replaced weekly. While this waste is classified as How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Percentile Adult Child HQ HQ nonhazardous, the generator disposes of Risk Assessment Established? it in the facility’s on-site Subtitle C We assessed the groundwater 90th ...... 0.007 0.01 landfill. ingestion pathway for the off-site 95th ...... 0.01 0.05 landfill scenario for this waste, How Was This Waste Category reflecting the types of management (5) Process air cartridge filters. Characterized? reported. As noted in section III.E., we How Many Facilities Generate This No sample of this waste was collected used the TCLP results for the municipal Waste Category and How Is It Managed? because of unavailability during the landfill scenario and the SPLP for the Eight facilities reported a total volume sampling time frame and because the industrial landfill scenario. We found of 7.5 MT/year for this waste. The level of toxic constituents is expected to that the industrial Subtitle D landfill management methods reported are off- be low. The filters are used to remove scenario screened out because all site industrial D landfill, off-site inert impurities such as pipe scale. The constituents in the SPLP analysis were manufacturer refurbishing for reuse, off- facility washes the filters prior to below their respective HBLs. site municipal D landfill, and on-site removal of the filters from the process. The constituents of concern that industrial D landfill. Most facilities We expect that any hydrogen cyanide exceeded their respective HBLs in the reported the practice of filtering the air contamination is removed during this TCLP results were boron, lead, nickel, that they feed to the reactors. Very small washing. The facility reported in its and zinc. We evaluated these volumes of spent filters are generated RCRA Section 3007 Survey that the constituents using the de minimis periodically. We did not assess these waste contains a total concentration of volume screening analysis, as described wastes beyond the characterization cyanide of one ppm. in section III.E.3 of today’s proposal. provided in the RCRA Section 3007 The analysis suggests that lead, nickel What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This Survey results because no wastes were Waste? and zinc are not of concern. We available to sample when we conducted We propose not to list this waste as modeled the remaining constituent, our sampling. The level of toxic hazardous because the level of toxic boron, using our standard groundwater constituents is expected to be low model for the municipal landfill because the filters are only used to constituents found in this waste are scenario. We modeled the municipal remove airborne solids from the ambient expected to be below levels of concern. landfill scenario, using a hydrogeologic air used in the process. While we do not have any leaching test setting reflecting the region where the data, we can conservatively estimate waste was reported to be managed. What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This that any leachable level of cyanide Waste? would be at least 20-fold less than the What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This 1 ppm total level reported, i.e, less than Waste? We propose not to list this waste as hazardous because we do not believe 0.05 mg/L. This is well below the HBL As noted above, the industrial landfill that the level of any toxic constituents for amenable cyanide (0.3 mg/L). scenario screened out. For the in these small waste volumes would Furthermore, this small volume waste is municipal landfill scenario, the results exceed levels of concern that would already managed in a Subtitle C landfill. in Table III–15 show that the HQs are pose a risk based on management in (7) Spent catalyst. All ten facilities well below one at both the 90th and Subtitle D landfills. reported generation of this waste, with 95th% for the constituent of concern. (6) Acid spray cartridge filters. a combined total volume of 4.1 MT/ Thus, our risk assessment results year. The management method reported suggest that the only constituent of How Many Facilities Generate This was off-site metals reclamation or concern that required modeling (boron) Waste Category and How Is It Managed? regeneration. These catalysts gradually does not pose a substantial present or One facility reported a total volume of lose their effectiveness over time and potential hazard to human health and 1.1 MT/year for this waste. The are periodically reclaimed. Due to the
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
c. Agency evaluation. PMA is not identified fourteen waste categories —Spent filters for product are generated produced within the United States and from the production of phosphoric acid when product is filtered prior to is not widely used in domestic (via the dry process) that required loading into tank cars and trucks to manufacturing processes. Therefore, we assessment. These waste categories are remove settled solids. The filters are have no reason to believe that wastes described briefly and in more detail in changed periodically and rinsed with from the production of PMA are the following subsections.40 water prior to disposal. generated within the U.S. Given the —Arsenic filter cake is the result of —Spent activated carbon for off- compound’s limited market within the filtering the phosphoric acid after the specification product is generated U.S., it is highly unlikely that new addition of sodium hydrosulfide or when carbon is used to remove traces production of PMA will occur within hydrogen sulfide gas and a filter aid. of contaminants from the off- the U.S. in the future. As a result of The precipitate consists of arsenic specification product. these market conditions, there are no trisulfide and other heavy metal —Spent filters for off-specification wastes that can be assessed for this sulfides which are essentially product is generated when filters are sector. Therefore, we propose not to list insoluble in strong acid. used to remove solids from the off- any PMA production wastes as —Combustion chamber slag specification product. hazardous. (infrequently generated) is the result —Wastewater treatment sludges are 7. Phosphoric Acid From the Dry of residue buildup on the walls of the generated when wastewaters from the Process chamber. phosphoric acid and other processes —Off-specification phosphoric acid is are treated. These sludges are only a. Summary. We have evaluated the generated when the product does not marginally derived from phosphoric wastes from the production of meet color or concentration acid wastewaters due to commingling phosphoric acid manufactured via the specifications. with large volumes of other non- dry process, and propose not to list any —Spent filters (from purification) are phosphoric acid wastewaters. The wastes from this process as hazardous generated from the units that are used solids that are removed by filtration wastes. These wastestreams do not meet to remove arsenic from the are landfilled or sold. the criteria set out at 40 CFR phosphoric acid. 261.11(a)(3) for listing wastes as Three facilities reported that they —Caustic scrubber water is generated hazardous. They do not pose a collect phosphoric acid in air pollution when air used to remove hydrogen substantial present or potential threat to control devices (i.e., vent scrubbers, human health or the environment. We sulfide gas at the acid purification absorbers, mist eliminator). Each site have identified no risks of concern step is scrubbed. This scrubbing reported that they then recycle these associated with the current management operation controls odor and acid mist acids into the production process. This of these wastes. before the air is discharged to the material is continuously reused in the b. Description of the phosphoric acid atmosphere. production process. Based on our site industry. —Phosphoric acid spills occur around visits, the material is piped from the Phosphoric acid was produced by the the process or storage tanks area. generating unit to the production dry process by eight facilities in the These materials are collected in process, minimizing the potential for United States in 1998. The majority of contained areas and pumped to releases to the environment prior to phosphoric acid is consumed in the management units. reuse. We evaluated all wastes manufacture of phosphate salts. These —Clean-up and washdown water from generated after the materials are reused phosphorus-containing compounds are across the units is collected in a sump and concluded that none merited used in detergents, animal feed and discharged to the wastewater listing. Consequently, we do not believe supplements, dentifrices, fertilizers, treatment system. that these materials present significant metal treating, water softening, —Process acid leaks occur when piping threats. leavening agents, and flame and fire and coupling break, or during At two of the facilities, the caustic retardants. equipment maintenance. These scrubber water, generated from In the dry process, elemental materials are collected in contained scrubbing the air to remove hydrogen phosphorous is burned in excess air areas and pumped to management sulfide gas, is returned as makeup generating phosphorous pentoxide units. solution to the purification process. (P2O5). The resulting phosphorus —Spent mist eliminator packing (filters) Based on information from one of the pentoxide is hydrated with a spray of are used in the scrubber system to facilities and our site visit, the material recycled phosphoric acid and water, remove gas and acid particulates from is piped from the generating unit to the forming phosphoric acid that is the phosphoric acid. The filter production process, and there is no collected as product. Scrubbers are packing material is reported to consist significant potential for exposure. Also, employed for the hydrator off-gases to of polyester fibers, stainless steel, process acid leaks are collected in tanks absorb as much phosphoric acid mist as steel wool or fiberglass. The filters are at one facility and piped back to the possible from the excess air. The strong periodically replaced and the spent acid process, with no significant phosphoric acid stream from the packing is washed prior to disposal. exposure route for this material. As hydrator is purified with hydrogen —Rubber liners of product storage tanks stated above, we evaluated all wastes sulfide to precipitate out arsenic are periodically replaced. generated after the materials are reused trisulfide. This sludge is removed by and concluded that none merited filtration. In some cases, off- 40 One facility has shut down their phosphoric listing. Consequently, we do not believe acid process and reported few wastes generated in specification product is filtered and 1998. This facility’s wastes therefore are not that these materials present significant recycled into the process. The product included in the following overview, but were threats. may also be filtered after it leaves the evaluated to determine their potential threat to We have organized our discussion of storage tank and prior to loading in human health or the environment. The details of these wastes in terms of how they are this facility’s waste generation and management truck and railcars. practices are included in the ‘‘Phosphoric Acid currently managed: characteristic c. Description of wastes generated by Listing Background Document for the Inorganic wastes, wastewaters, and non- the phosphoric acid process. We have Chemical Listing Determination’’. characteristic solid wastes.
VerDate 11
d. Agency evaluation. (1) they exhibit the characteristics of prior to land disposal. Furthermore, Characteristic wastes. The RCRA corrosivity or toxicity for arsenic. We these wastes are managed or disposed in Section 3007 Surveys show that a believe that these wastes are managed Subtitle C management units. Table III– number of wastes are managed as RCRA according to the applicable RCRA 16 summarizes our information characteristic wastes at all times. These Subtitle C regulations, including LDR regarding the generation and wastes are hazardous wastes because standards. The LDR restrictions apply management of these wastes.
TABLE III±16.ÐCHARACTERISTIC WASTES FROM PHOSPHORIC ACID PRODUCTION DISPOSED IN SUBTITLE C UNITS
Number of Waste category reported 1998 Volume Reported hazard codes Final management practices generators (MT)
Arsenic filter cake ...... 7 614 D002, D004 ...... Subtitle C landfill Combustion chamber slag ...... 1 0.1 D002 ...... Subtitle C incineration Off-specification phosphoric acid ... 1 0.71 D002 ...... Subtitle C landfill Spent filters (from purification) ...... 2 4.6 D004 ...... Subtitle C incineration or Subtitle C landfill
We propose not to list these four materials as hazardous from the point of believe that the rules applying to waste categories as hazardous wastes generation through disposal, because characteristic wastes adequately protect under RCRA. All generators of these they exhibit one or more of the against mismanagement. wastes already report managing these hazardous waste characteristics. We (2) Other characteristic waste.
TABLE III±17.ÐOTHER CHARACTERISTIC WASTES FROM THE PRODUCTION OF PHOSPHORIC ACID
Number of Waste category reported 1998 Volume Reported hazard codes Sequential management practices generators (MT)
Phosphoric acid spills ...... 2 2.2 D002 ...... (1) Neutralized, (2) roll-off bin, (3) Subtitle D landfill; (1) Tanks, (2) neutralized in sur- face impoundment, (3) NPDES
We assessed the specific management tanks because we assume that they (3) Wastewaters. Wastewaters are practices employed for this function effectively. With regard to the generated at various points in the wastestream, as summarized in Table surface impoundment, we note that the process as a result of scrubbing III–17, and determined that no exposure facility has estimated that these small operations, equipment cleanup, and scenarios of concern exist. One facility volume spills make up less than 0.001% management of leaks and spills. As reported that the wastestream is of the total wastewater volumes. We reported by the facilities, the primary managed as hazardous (D002), expect that dilution of this magnitude constituents of concern in these neutralized, and disposed of in a would effectively treat the spills wastewaters are phosphoric acid and Subtitle D landfill. These product spills rapidly. Further, the facility reported traces of hydrogen sulfide, which are are expected to be mostly phosphoric that the wastewaters in the readily treated and controlled via acid, which is hazardous because it is impoundment are neutralized. neutralization. Phosphoric acid, when corrosive. The facility effectively treats Consequently, we do not anticipate that neutralized, forms various phosphate and neutralizes these wastes prior to any potential releases from the surface disposal. There is no significant risk impoundment would pose a significant salts, none of which are known to pose expected from the disposal of the small threat to groundwater. Ultimately, the a significant risk to human health and volume (0.5 MT/yr) of treated spills to spills are discharged, along with the the environment. Similarly, hydrogen the landfill. much larger volume of wastewaters sulfide is neutralized to form The second facility reported placing generated on-site, to surface waters nonvolatile salts. All facilities report the untreated spills into its wastewater under a NPDES permit, which provides that these wastewaters comprise very treatment system, which includes both effective control and an exemption from small portions of the overall wastewater tanks and impoundments. Again, we RCRA regulations. We also note that we treatment throughput, which contains expect that this waste presents hazards expect no release of constituents of wastewaters from other unrelated on- because of its corrosivity, not because it concern to the air from either the tank site processes. Table III–18 summarizes contains hazardous constituents. We do or the impoundments, because the our information on these wastewaters. not expect releases to groundwater from waste contains no volatile constituents.
TABLE III±18.ÐWASTEWATERS FROM PHOSPHORIC ACID PRODUCTION
Number of Waste category reported 1998 Volume Reported hazard Sequential management practices generators (MT) codes
Caustic scrubber water ...... 1 36 none ...... (1) pretreatment in covered tanks, (2) POTW
VerDate 11
TABLE III±18.ÐWASTEWATERS FROM PHOSPHORIC ACID PRODUCTIONÐContinued
Number of Waste category reported 1998 Volume Reported hazard Sequential management practices generators (MT) codes
Cleanup water ...... 1 small volume none ...... (1) pretreatment in covered tanks, (volume not (2) POTW reported) Process acid leaks ...... 1 251 none ...... (1) pretreatment in covered tanks, (2) NPDES 1 The 25 tons include leaks from eight processes, of which one is phosphoric acid production. The individual volume of leaks from phosphoric acid production is unknown.
We have assessed the management wastewater releases. Thus, based on the designed to neutralize this compound, practices employed for these wastes and lack of any significant likelihood of reducing the potential for volatilization. determined that no exposure pathway of release of the constituents to In addition, the facilities have installed concern exists. We believe these groundwater, we did not project tank covers, further reducing the wastewaters will continue to be significant risks to groundwater from likelihood of release to the air. As a managed in existing tank-based these wastes in the tank-based result, we did not model releases to air treatment systems. We believe the wastewater treatment scenario. from tanks from the production of manufacturers have made a Furthermore, discharges to POTWs and phosphoric acid. Thus, we propose not considerable investment in wastewater surface waters under NPDES are to list these wastewaters as hazardous treatment systems using tanks and will regulated under the Clean Water Act wastes under RCRA. continue to use them. Further, we and are exempt from RCRA Subtitle C (4) Non-characteristic solid wastes. assumed that wastewater treatment regulation and thus were not assessed. The phosphoric acid sector reported six tanks retain sufficient structural We also considered the possibility of waste categories that do not routinely integrity to prevent wastewater releases air releases from tanks. The only exhibit any of the hazardous waste to the subsurface (and therefore to potential volatile constituent of concern characteristics and that are often groundwater), and that overflow and in these wastes is hydrogen sulfide. The managed in Subtitle D landfills, as spill controls prevent significant treatment processes employed are summarized in Table III–19:
TABLE III±19.ÐNON-CHARACTERISTIC SOLID WASTES
Number of Waste category reported 1998 Volume Reported hazard Sequential management generators (MT) codes practices
Spent mist eliminator packing ...... 5 28.4 None ...... (1) storage in containers, (2) treatment to control acid (washing, neutralization, or off-site stabilization by one facility), (3) re- cycling or disposal in Subtitle C or D land- fills. Rubber liners ...... 2 19.8 None ...... (1) storage in containers, (2) Subtitle C in- cineration or neutralization before Subtitle D landfill. Spent filters for product ...... 1 0.5 None ...... (1) storage in containers, (2) off-site sta- bilization, (3) Subtitle D landfill. Spent activated carbon for off-specification 1 1 3 None ...... (1) storage in containers, (2) off-site sta- product. bilization, (3) Subtitle D landfill. Spent filters for off-specification product ...... 1 0.5 None ...... (1) storage in containers, (2) off-site sta- bilization, (3) Subtitle D landfill. Wastewater treatment sludges ...... 3 2 0.005 None ...... (1) storage in containers, (2) Subtitle D landfill. 1 1996 volume; none generated in 1997 or 1998. 2 Two facilities did not report volumes due to very small input of phosphoric acid production wastes to the WWT system; one facility estimated that 0.0001% of 4,640 MT sludge generated (or 0.005 MT) was from phosphoric acid production.
The spent mist filters collect constituents. Thus, arsenic is not it is unlikely that they contain any phosphoric acid mist before arsenic expected to adhere to the filters as constituent at levels of concern (i.e., trisulfide is precipitated out. The condensate drops back into process. The above health-based limits for ingestion). material which condenses in the filters generators treat the spent filters prior to We also note that both wastes are is expected to be corrosive and may disposal to remove or immobilize any treated prior to disposal in landfills. contain some arsenic. However, the low levels of constituents that may Similarly, we do not expect the spent material used for filter packing in the remain. carbon or spent filters associated with mist eliminators is typically polyester, The rubber liners and spent filters for off-specification product to contain fiberglass, or steel wool. The filter product are associated with food-grade significant levels of constituents of packing provides surface area for products. We expect any contaminant concern. Product is classified as ‘‘off- condensation, not absorption, and is not levels to be extremely low due to purity specification’’ due to color and expected to accumulate waste or requirements. Consequently, we believe concentration of acid, rather than
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
TABLE III±20.ÐCHARACTERISTIC WASTES FROM PHOSPHORUS PENTASULFIDE PRODUCTION DISPOSED IN SUBTITLE C UNITS
Number of Waste category reported 1998 volume Reported hazard Final management practices generators (MT) codes
Still residue/reactor waste ...... 2 4.6 D003, D007 ...... Subtitle C incineration. Phosphorus pentasulfide scrap waste ...... 3 67.75 D001, D003, Subtitle C incineration. U189. Contaminated absorbent ...... 1 1.2 (1996) D003 ...... Subtitle C incineration. Waste Therminol ...... 1 1.4 D018 ...... Subtitle C incineration.
We propose not to list these four percent of the waste are already listed hydrogen sulfide which are readily waste categories as hazardous wastes as commercial chemical product (U189). controlled via neutralization. The under RCRA. All generators of these Therefore, we propose not to list these management practices for these wastes already report managing these wastes. wastewaters do not allow for the release materials as hazardous from the point of (2) Wastewaters. Wastewaters are of phosphoric acid and hydrogen sulfide generation through incineration because generated at various points in the to the environment in an undiluted or they exhibited one or more of the process as a result of scrubbing unneutralized state. Table III–21 hazardous waste characteristics. Again, operations and tote bin washing. As summarizes our information on these the rules applying to characteristic identified by the facilities, the primary wastewaters: wastes adequately protect against constituents of concern in these mismanagement. Furthermore, ninety wastewaters are phosphoric acid and
TABLE III±21.ÐWASTEWATERS FROM PHOSPHORUS PENTASULFIDE PRODUCTION
Number of Waste category reported 1998 Volume Reported hazard Sequential management practices generators (MT) codes
Process scrubber water ...... 1 77,377 none ...... (1) Sewer, (2) POTW Caustic scrubber water ...... 2 2,177 none ...... (1) Covered tanks, (2) off-site treatment, (3) NPDES; (1) Treatment in covered tanks, (2) POTW. Tote bin wash water ...... 2 188 (1) D003 ...... (1) Covered tanks, (2) none ...... (2) off-site treatment, (3) NPDES; (1) Treatment in covered tanks, (2) POTW.
We assessed the management periodically exhibit a characteristic, the b. Description of the phosphorus practices for these wastes and generator always manages the waste in trichloride industry. Six facilities in the determined that no exposure pathway of a Subtitle C incinerator. We believe this United States reported producing concern exists. Thus, we propose not to management practice is likely to phosphorus trichloride in 1997 or 1998. list these wastes as listed hazardous continue because the cost to treat it as We are assessing wastes from the five wastes under RCRA. The covered tanks hazardous is low for such a small facilities that still produce this employed minimize potential for volume wastes, and because the waste product.41 releases to groundwater and air. may be TC hazardous as generated. This Phosphorus trichloride is used as an Discharges to surface waters under waste is also small volume and highly intermediate in the production of a NPDES are exempt from RCRA unlikely to present a significant risk. variety of chemicals. These chemicals regulation. Discharges to POTWs via the are used to make pesticides, herbicides, 9. Phosphorus Trichloride facility’s common sewage line are antiscaling additives, corrosion excluded from RCRA (40 CFR a. Summary. We have evaluated the inhibitors for cooling towers and heat 261.4(a)(1)(ii)). wastes from the production of exchangers, surfactants, sequestrants, (3) Scrap sulfur. One facility reported phosphorus trichloride and propose not and textile-treating agents. Phosphorus generation of scrap sulfur that to list any wastes from this process as occasionally exhibits the characteristic hazardous wastes. These wastes do not 41 One facility discontinued production as of of TC for lead. This sulfur is managed meet the criteria set out at 40 CFR November 1999 and has no future plans to resume production of phosphorus trichloride. This facility’s as hazardous in a Subtitle C incinerator. 261.11(a)(3) for listing a waste as wastes therefore are not included in the following The 1998 waste volume was 0.12 MT. hazardous. They do not pose a overview, but were evaluated to determine their We do not believe this material substantial present or potential threat to potential threat to human health or the warrants listing as hazardous waste and, human health or the environment. We environment. The details of this facility’s waste generation and management practices are included therefore, propose not to list this waste have identified no risks of concern in the ‘‘Phosphoric Acid Listing Background as hazardous under RCRA. While this associated with the current management Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing waste category was reported to of these wastes. Determination.’’
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
TABLE III±22.ÐCHARACTERISTIC WASTES FROM PHOSPHORUS TRICHLORIDE PRODUCTION
Number of Waste category reported 1998 Volume Reported hazard Sequential management practices generators (MT) codes
Reactor cleanout sludge ...... 4 1 66 D001±004, (1) container D006±009, (2) Subtitle C incineration D010, D011. Initial washout water from reactor ...... 4 1 478 (1) D002, D004, (1) off-site pretreatment, D006, D007. (2) POTW; (2) D002, D004 (1) neutralized in tanks, (3) D004, D007 (2) surface impoundment, (3) biotreat in tank, (4) NPDES; (1) tank, (2) off-site biotreatment, (3) NPDES Product storage tank cleanout with nonreac- 1 10 D002, D003 ...... (1) container tive phosphate ester. (2) Subtitle C incineration Product storage tank cleanout with water ..... 1 15 D002 ...... (1) neutralized in tanks, (2) NPDES Spent filter wash for product ...... 1 15 D002 ...... (1) pretreatment in tanks, (2) NPDES Process area wash water ...... 1 1,400 D002 ...... (1) tanks, (2) NPDES 1 Volumes from 1996 or 1997 are included in the totals when the wastes were not generated by a facility in 1998.
For all but one of the wastes in the treated waste that enters the (2) Non-characteristic wastewaters. above table, the generators report impoundment, we do not believe this Wastewaters are generated at various managing these materials as hazardous waste is likely to pose significant risk. points in the process as a result of from the point of generation through The waste is generated infrequently scrubbing operations, equipment disposal (or the point at which they (once a year) and combined with cleanup, and washing the process area. become discharges to surface water wastewaters from other processes. Based According to the data submitted by the regulated under NPDES or POTW on information supplied by the facility, facility, the primary constituents of regulations). We believe these wastes we estimated that the washout water concern in these wastewaters are are sufficiently regulated such that would be diluted at least a hundred-fold hydrochloric acid and phosphorous by the daily throughput to the mismanagement is unlikely. Thus, we acid, which are readily controlled via wastewater treatment system. Any propose not to list these seven waste neutralization. The management categories. potential releases from the practices for these wastewaters One facility appears to treat initial impoundment after dilution with other washout reactor water in tanks and then wastewaters would be unlikely to result minimize opportunities for the release pass it through a nonhazardous waste in any significant long-term risk. of hydrochloric acid or phosphorous surface impoundment. (All other units Therefore, we believe that this specific acid to the environment in an undiluted used to manage this waste have RCRA waste also does not pose significant or unneutralized state. Table III–23 permits or are exempt from permitting.) threats to human health or the summarizes our information on these While we have no analytical data on the environment. wastewaters.
TABLE III±23.Ð WASTEWATERS FROM PHOSPHORUS TRICHLORIDE PRODUCTION
Number of Waste category reported 1998 Volume Reported hazard Sequential management practices generators (MT) codes
Final washout water from reactor ...... 1 not reported none ...... (1) pretreatment in tanks, (2) POTW. Caustic scrubber water ...... 3 4,236 1 none ...... (1) pretreatment in tanks, (2) POTW or NPDES. Process scrubber water ...... 3 12,528 1 D002 (one facil- (1) pretreatment or neutralized in tanks, ity). (2) POTW or NPDES. 1 Volumes from 1996 or 1997 are included in the totals when the wastes were not generated by a facility in 1998.
We have assessed the management concern exists that warrants listing. We management in existing tank-based practices employed for these wastes and have determined that plausible treatment systems. We believe the determined that no exposure pathway of management would be continued manufacturers have made a
VerDate 11
TABLE III±24.ÐNON-CHARACTERISTIC SOLID WASTES
Number of re- Waste category ported genera- 1998 Volume Reported hazard Management practices tors (MT) codes
Spent filters for product ...... 1 0.1 none ...... industrial Subtitle D landfill. Wastewater treatment sludges ...... 4 1 1,100 none 2 ...... Subtitle D landfill or Subtitle C landfill. 1 Volumes from 1997 are included in the totals when the wastes were not generated by a facility in 1998. 2 One facility reported that this wastewater treatment sludge is occasionally characteristically hazardous for D028 (dichloroethane), and the waste is then sent to a Subtitle C landfill. The dichloroethane is used in a process unrelated to the phosphorus trichloride process of interest in today's proposal.
The phosphorus trichloride product is They do not pose a substantial present levels are so high, we believe this waste filtered to remove PCl4 and PCl5. These or potential hazard to human health or will always exhibit the toxicity compounds produce a slime on the the environment. characteristic. product and are more viscous than the b. Description of the potassium d. Agency evaluation. We propose not product. The facility washes the filters dichromate industry. Potassium to list this waste as hazardous under before sending them to disposal. The dichromate, which has a wide variety of Subtitle C of RCRA. This waste is contaminants are easily washed off industrial uses, was produced by a currently managed as hazardous from because of their ready solubility in single facility in the United States in the point of generation through ultimate water. The spent filters are generated in 1998. The U.S. demand for this disposal because it is characteristically very small volumes. We are proposing chemical is very limited and has mostly hazardous. The composition of the not to list them because we do not been replaced by sodium dichromate for waste is such that it is likely to always expect the washed filters to contain industrial use. Any demand not met by be characteristic for chromium. The significant levels of contaminants of the U.S. facility is met by imports to rules applying to characteristic wastes concern. U.S. distributors. Potassium dichromate adequately protect against All four of the facilities that generate is produced by reacting chromium mismanagement. wastewater treatment sludges trioxide with potassium hydroxide. The 11. Sodium Chlorate commingle wastewaters from PCl3 reactants are mixed in a reactor along production with wastewaters from other with a crystal modifier. The potassium a. Summary. We propose not to list processes. The wastewater contribution dichromate is crystallized, sent through any wastes from the production of from the phosphorus trichloride process a centrifuge to remove any remaining sodium chlorate (NaClO3) as hazardous is very small compared to volumes of mother liquor, dried and packaged for under Subtitle C of RCRA. Process wastewaters from the other processes. sale. The single waste is filtered out sludges, spent filters, wastewaters and Therefore, the phosphorus trichloride from the mother liquor. The mother hydrogen gas are generated from the process does not contribute significant liquor is recycled back into the process. production of sodium chlorate. These amounts of constituents to this sludge. c. What kinds of wastes are generated wastes and materials are managed in a We do not believe any of these by this process? There is one waste variety of ways. After analysis of the materials warrant listing as hazardous category generated from this process: management practices and potential wastes from the production of filter solids and spent filter media. exposure pathways of these wastes and phosphorus trichloride. Therefore, we According to data submitted by the materials, we concluded that there are propose not to list these wastes as facility, this waste typically contains no risk pathways of concern. These hazardous wastes under RCRA in this 12.5 percent chromium. The facility wastes and materials do not meet the rulemaking. reports the waste as hazardous for criteria set out at 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) for chromium and manages it as hazardous listing as hazardous. They do not pose 10. Potassium Dichromate (D007). The reported waste volume for a substantial present or potential hazard a. Summary. We evaluated the wastes 1998 was 0.6 MT. The waste is stored to human health or the environment. from the production of potassium on-site in drums and is shipped off-site b. Description of the sodium chlorate dichromate and propose not to list any to a commercial Subtitle C facility for industry. There were ten facilities wastes from this process as hazardous stabilization to meet the land disposal producing sodium chlorate in 1999. wastes under RCRA. These wastes do restrictions (40 CFR 268.40 and 268.48) This industry manufactures sodium not meet the criteria set out at 40 CFR and final disposal in a Subtitle C chlorate crystals and solutions from 261.11(a)(3) for listing as hazardous. landfill. Because the total chromium electrolysis of a sodium chloride brine.
VerDate 11
Sodium chlorate is the raw material lead. The sodium chlorate industry in Scrubber waters and filtrates are piped used for the production of chlorine general characterizes wastes that have to on-site sodium chlorate production dioxide, which is replacing chlorine and been in contact with chromium or lead units for use. Because these materials sodium hypochlorite to be used as an as hazardous (D007 or D008). Chromium are managed prior to reuse in ways that oxidizing bleaching agent by the pulp is introduced into the process by the present low potential for releases to the and paper industry. The replacement of addition of sodium dichromate into environment, and because we evaluated elemental chlorine with chlorine electrolytic cells to protect electrodes process wastes generated after they are dioxide reduces effluent emissions of from corrosion and to improve product reused, we do not believe that these dioxin formed in the bleaching process yields. The presence of lead in the secondary materials present significant of paper and pulp. Approximately wastes results from the deterioration of threats. At all ten facilities, hydrogen ninety-eight percent of sodium chlorate anodes that can be used in the gas is produced by the electrolysis units is used to generate chlorine dioxide. electrolytic cells. The six waste and is either piped to on-site boilers, The other important use of sodium categories are: vented, or in one case, piped to a chlorate is as an intermediate in the —Process sludges with chromium or compression plant where it is production of other chlorates, lead. These include electrolytic cells compressed and sold. Because the perchlorates, and chlorites. sludge, product filter press sludge, material is a gas produced from a All ten facilities use a similar process and those brine treatment sludges production unit rather than a waste in producing sodium chlorate. These generated from purification where management unit and is conveyed to its facilities dissolve sodium chloride salt brine is formed by mixing salts with destination via piping, the gas is not a in water to create a liquid brine. The chrome-laden wastewaters recycled solid waste. RCRA Section 1004(27) brine is treated to remove impurities, from various steps of the process. excludes non-contained gases from the such as calcium carbonate and —Process sludges without chromium definition of solid waste and thus they magnesium hydroxide. The treated and lead. These wastes include filter cannot be considered a hazardous brine is filtered and pumped into press sludge or drum sludge from waste. (See 54 FR 50973) Because the electrolytic cells. In the cells, sodium treatment of brine, when recycled gaseous materials are not solid wastes chloride is converted to chlorine and chrome-laden wastewater is not used when produced, we did not evaluate sodium hydroxide which further react in the brine dissolution step. them further for purposes of listing. to form sodium chlorate and hydrogen —Spent filters with chromium or lead. One facility reports generating a gas. This reaction is catalyzed by The filters are generated at several wastewater (sulfate solution) from brine sodium dichromate. Sodium chlorate is points in the production process, but treatment. The wastewater is then treated with heat and urea to most are generated after the transported to an off-site facility and remove residual sodium hypochlorite. electrolysis of the brine solution when used in their black liquor pulping Sodium chlorate is then processed the mother liquor is filtered to remove process. The sulfate solution is added to further for crystallization, centrifuging, impurities. black liquor for use in a wood digester. drying, and packaging. A more complete —Spent filters without chromium and The process in the digester is outside discussion of this process and the lead. Examples include disposable the scope of the consent decree and we industry can be found in ‘‘Sodium cartridge and sock filters from have not evaluated risks from wastes Chlorate Listing Background Document treatment of brine, when recycled that it produces. We note, however, that for the Inorganic Chemical Listing chrome-laden wastewater is not used the reuse of black liquor is excluded Determination’’ in the docket for today’s in the brine dissolution step. from regulation (40 CFR 261.4(a)(6)). proposal. —Wastewaters with chromium that are The sulfate solution is stored in tanks c. What kinds of wastes are generated not recycled back to the process. prior to use in the pulping process, by this process? Wastes generated from —Other wastewaters that do not contain which minimizes the potential for the production of sodium chlorate chromium or lead and are not releases. consist of process sludges, spent filters recycled (condensate, cooling water, and ion-exchange wastewater). How Are These Wastes Currently Being and wastewaters. Based on an Managed? evaluation of survey responses from the In addition to these wastes, other ten sodium chlorate producers, we materials are produced by all ten Table III–25 summarizes the six waste divided the wastes further into six facilities during the production of categories, waste characteristics, waste general waste categories based on the sodium chlorate that are piped directly volumes, and their current management presence or absence of chromium and back to the production process. practices:
TABLE III±25.ÐWASTE FROM SODIUM CHLORATE PRODUCTION
1 1998 Volume Waste category (number of facilities) Reported Waste Codes (MT) Management practices
Process sludges with chromium or lead D001, D002, D007, D008 ...... 28,547 Nine facilities store the waste on site in (10). containers and then send it to Subtitle C landfills or incinerators; one facility decharacterizes the waste in tanks be- fore managing it in on-site surface im- poundments. Two facilities did not re- port hazard codes.
VerDate 11
TABLE III±25.ÐWASTE FROM SODIUM CHLORATE PRODUCTIONÐContinued
1 1998 Volume Waste category (number of facilities) Reported Waste Codes (MT) Management practices
Process sludges without chromium and none reported ...... 1,886 Three facilities store the waste on site in lead (5 2). containers and then send it off-site to municipal Subtitle D landfills; one facil- ity stores the waste on a concrete pad with secondary containment before applying it to an on-site land farm; one facility stores the waste on site in con- tainers and then sends it off-site to an industrial Subtitle D landfill; one facility stores the waste on site in containers before sending it off-site for recycling. Spent filters with chromium or lead (7) ... D001, D007, D008 ...... 82.9 All seven facilities classify the waste as hazardous; six send the waste to Sub- title C landfills or incinerators; one fa- cility decharacterizes the waste on-site in tanks, stores it in a closed com- pactor, then ships the waste off-site to an industrial Subtitle D landfill. Spent filters without chromium and lead none reported ...... 3.52 Three facilities store the waste on site in (4). containers and send it off-site to Sub- title D landfills. One facility stores the waste with process sludge in on-site containers and then sends it off-site to a Subtitle C facility for stabilization prior to disposal in a Subtitle C landfill. Wastewaters with chromium that are not D002, D007 ...... 26,736 One facility sends the wastewater to an recycled back to the process (2). off-site Subtitle C facility for treatment and disposal. One facility combines and treats the wastewater with other process wastewaters in tanks prior to discharge to on-site surface impound- ments. Other wastewaters that do not contain none reported ...... 10,744 3 Discharged via NPDES permit or to a chromium or lead and are not recycled POTW. (condensate, cooling water, ion-ex- change wastewater). 1 D001 (ignitability); D002 (corrosivity); D007 (chromium); D008 (lead). 2 One facility contributes more than one residuals to this waste group. 3 Two facilities did not report volumes of this wastewater.
d. Agency evaluation. We selected generate this waste. Seven facilities How Was This Waste Characterized? wastes from three facilities for sampling. classify their wastes as characteristic We collected a total of six samples to As described in detail in ‘‘Sodium and send it off-site to Subtitle C landfills assess this waste categories. Three Chlorate Listing Background Document or incinerators. Two facilities do not samples of the sludge from electrolytic for the Inorganic Chemical Listing classify their wastes as characteristic but cells were collected at two facilities Determination’’ in the docket for today’s nevertheless send their wastes to where the wastes were destined for proposal, we selected these facilities Subtitle C landfills. Subtitle C treatment and disposal. These and wastes because based on the survey The tenth facility, located in two facilities generate and manage this information collected, we believe that waste as characteristically hazardous. the wastes generated by these three Hamilton, Mississippi, reports this waste to be characteristic and treats it in These samples were part of the record facilities are fully representative of the characterizing this waste category, but wastes generated by this industry and tanks to reduce hexavalent chromium to the relatively stable trivalent state. The were not used for risk assessment. their management practices. We collected another three samples We evaluated the characteristics and facility commingles this sludge with wastes from the production of titanium from the Hamilton, Mississippi facility current management practices of each of that classifies this waste as dioxide (TiO ) in these tanks. The the six waste categories. The details of 2 characteristically hazardous and treats it treated mixture is subsequently our evaluation follow. in tanks to remove the characteristic (1) Process sludge with chromium or managed in a series of four surface prior to pumping the effluent to on-site lead. impoundments, three of which are lined surface impoundments. One sample with leachate collection systems. How Is This Waste Managed? (KM–SC–01) reflects the untreated Today’s proposal separately addresses sodium chlorate sludge collected from a The predominant source of process the titanium dioxide wastes that are dedicated sump prior to commingling sludge with chromium or lead is from commingled with this sodium chlorate with the titanium dioxide wastewaters. the periodic cleanout of electrolytic sludge (see section III.F.14.c.(14)). The second sample (KM–SI–01) is the cells used to convert the brine solution treated combined wastes collected at the to sodium chlorate. All ten facilities inlet to the surface impoundments. The
VerDate 11
TABLE III±26.ÐANALYTICAL DATA FOR SODIUM CHLORATE
KM±SC±01 KM±SI±01 KM±SI±04 (Untreated (Treated commingled (Treated commingled NaC1O3 NaC1O3 and TiO2 wastes) NaC1O3 and TiO2 sludge Constituents of concern wastes only) in impoundment) HBL Total Total SPLP Total SPLP (mg/1) (mg/kg) (mg/l) (mg/kg) (mg/l)
Chromium ...... 0.99 31.1 <0.05 1,140 0.05 23 Hexavalent Chromium ...... 0.85 L <0.02 <0.02 <0.8 0.03 0.05 L: Concentration reported from analysis performed outside method recommended holding time. Value should be considered biased low.
The total chromium concentration in characteristic hazardous wastes) treats (2) Process sludge without chromium the treated waste is higher than the the sludge in tanks to reduce hexavalent and lead. untreated waste due to commingling chromium to trivalent chromium prior with other wastes from the titanium to placement in on-site surface How Is This Waste Managed? dioxide production process. There are impoundments. We found that the This sludge is produced as part of the other constituents detected in the waste did not pose risks during initial purification of the brine solution. treated commingled waste sample (KM– treatment because there are no exposure Five facilities report generating this type SI–01) that are attributable to the pathways of concern for the on-site of waste and managing it as titanium dioxide production process; treatment tanks. The wastes are treated nonhazardous. Four facilities manage these constituents are assessed in in concrete tanks with secondary the waste in an on-site land farm, off- containment which minimize potential section III.F.14.c.(14) of today’s site municipal Subtitle D landfills, and releases to groundwater. We also are not proposal. an industrial Subtitle D landfill. One concerned with potential air releases What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This facility ships their waste off-site for from these tanks as neither volatile recycling. Waste? contaminants nor airborne particulates We propose not to list this waste are likely to be present in the wastes. As We collected a total of four samples category. Seven facilities consider discussed above, the primary of this waste category from two wastes in this category to be constituent of concern in this waste is facilities. Two of the four samples (HT– characteristically hazardous (for D001, hexavalent chromium, which is treated SN–01 and EC–SN–03) are D002, D007 or D008) and manage the to form relatively stable trivalent representative of wastes that are land wastes under Subtitle C regulations. We chromium. The physical form of the disposed. The other two samples (EC– believe that these regulations adequately wastes (i.e., sludge with high water SN–01 and EC–SN–02) are protect against mismanagement. Two content) eliminates the potential for a representative of wastes that are facilities do not classify their wastes as significant release of airborne generally recycled and occasionally also characteristic but send them to Subtitle particulates. Furthermore, our analytical landfilled. Table III–27 identifies the C landfills. We also believe that this data show that the waste, after constituents of concern that we found to practice adequately prevents treatment, does not contain any be present in the waste at levels mismanagement. The remaining facility constituents of concern at levels exceeding their respective HBLs and/or (which does not identify its sludges as exceeding health-based levels. soil screening levels. TABLE III±27.ÐANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SODIUM CHLORATE PROCESS SLUDGE WITHOUT CHROMIUM AND LEAD (PPM)
HT±SN±01 EC±SN±03 EC±SN±01 EC±SN±02 Parameter HBL 1SSL Total TCLP SPLP Total TCLP SPLP Total TCLP SPLP Total TCLP SPLP
Arsenic ...... 14.3 20.03 <0.05 <5 <0.005 <0.05 <5 <0.005 <0.05 <5 <0.005 <0.05 0.0007 5.2 Cadmium ...... 27.4 <0.05 <0.05 <5 <0.05 <0.05 <5 <0.05 <0.05 <5 <0.05 <0.05 0.0078 4.3 Chromium ...... 57.3 <0.05 <0.05 15.3 <0.05 <0.05 <5 <0.05 <0.05 10.1 <0.05 <0.05 23 37 Copper ...... 17.2 <0.25 <0.05 15.3 <0.05 <0.05 <5 <0.25 <0.05 5.3 <0.25 <0.05 1.3 17 Lead ...... 14.8 0.024 <0.03 139 <0.03 <0.03 19.3 0.12 E 0.001 34.9 0.05 E 0.002 E 0.015 400* Manganese ...... 69.2 0.08 <0.05 238 4.5 <0.05 125 0.5 <0.05 51.9 0.7 <0.05 0.73 330 Mercury ...... 0.5 L <0.002 <0.0002 <0.1 <0.002 <0.0002 <0.1 <0.002 <0.0002 <0.1 <0.002 <0.0002 0.0047 24* Nickel ...... 7.4 <0.2 <0.05 12.1 0.4 <0.05 <5 <0.2 <0.05 <5 <0.2 <0.05 0.31 13 Silver ...... 1.1 <0.1 <0.01 <1 <0.1 <0.01 <1 <0.1 <0.01 <1 <0.1 <0.01 0.078 400* Zinc ...... 111 <2 <0.5 279 10.6 <0.5 <50 <2 <0.5 <50 <2 <0.5 4.7 48
1 SSL: Soil Screening Level based on geometric mean background concentration (mg/kg) in soils in conterminous U.S. or soil ingestion HBL (marked *). 2 Results are less than the typical laboratory reporting limit, but are greater than the calculated instrument detection limit. E: Analysis performed outside recommended holding time. Reported value should be considered as estimated.
VerDate 11
What Management Scenarios Did We treatment scenario. Finally, we We used the SPLP results of all four Aassess? compared the total concentrations of relevant samples to evaluate the We evaluated wastes managed under copper, lead, mercury, and silver of all industrial Subtitle D landfill the four identified management samples to the soil ingestion HBL management scenario. We found that scenarios: on-site land farm, municipal because these constituents were not the waste poses no substantial present Subtitle D landfill, industrial Subtitle D assessed in the chlorinated aliphatics or potential hazard to human health and landfill, and recycling. risk analyses. The maximum total the environment when managed in an Land farm scenario. One facility concentrations of lead, mercury, and industrial Subtitle D landfill because the reports managing 37 MT/year of this silver are well below the soil ingestion SPLP leachate concentration of all waste in an on-site permitted land farm. HBL, and the maximum total constituents of the four samples of this EPA previously assessed this same land concentration of copper in this waste waste category are below their farm as part of the chlorinated aliphatics (i.e., 17.2 mg/kg) is very close to the soil respective HBLs. ingestion HBL (i.e., 17 mg/kg). We listing determinations (see proposed We used the TCLP results of all four believe that after mixing with soil in the rule at 64 FR 46475, August 25, 1999). relevant samples to assess the municipal Today’s assessment of sodium chlorate land application unit, the copper Subtitle D landfill scenario. We waste placed in the same unit is based concentration in the unit will be even modeled all three volumes reported on our earlier modeling of this unit for lower. We do not believe this waste being sent to municipal Subtitle D a waste from the production of poses risk via volatilization to the air chlorinated aliphatics (EDC/VCM pathway because it does not contain any landfills. We focused our assessment on sludges). significant toxic volatile chemicals. In the geological regions in the In assessing this management addition, the comparison described northwestern and southeastern areas of scenario, we first compared the total above for this unit, where we the country because of the locations of constituent concentrations of all four determined that the detected waste the facilities and the landfills currently record samples to background soil constituents are present in the waste at being used. The constituents we concentrations. The following metals levels below or very close to the soil modeled are arsenic, lead, manganese, exceeded this screening criteria: arsenic, ingestion levels, suggests that any wind nickel, and zinc. The details regarding cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, blown dust from the unit should not our modeling inputs and assumptions mercury, silver, and zinc. We then used pose risk at levels of concern. are provided in ‘‘Sodium Chlorate the metal modeling results generated Based on our analysis, we conclude Listing Background Document for the from the chlorinated aliphatics listing that the waste does not present a Inorganic Chemical Listing determination to calculate the substantial risk to human health or the Determination’’ and ‘‘Risk Assessment proportional sodium chlorate risk. The environment when land applied. for the Listing Determinations for calculated modeling results of arsenic, Landfill scenarios. Three facilities Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and manage their wastes in municipal Wastes’ in the docket for today’s zinc for the same land farm are all Subtitle D landfills and one facility proposal. The results of our risk below a hazard quotient (HQ) of 1 and manages its waste in an industrial assessment are summarized below in 10¥6 risk thresholds for the land Subtitle D landfill. Table III–28.
TABLE III±28.ÐGROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR PROCESS SLUDGE WITHOUT CHROMIUM AND LEAD
Arsenic Manganese Nickel Zinc Percentile Adult can- Child can- cer risk cer risk Adult HQ Child HQ Adult HQ Child HQ Adult HQ Child HQ
90th ...... 3E±08 ...... 2E±08 ...... 2E±04 ...... 4E±04 ...... 2E±06 ...... 3E±06 ...... 5E±08 ...... 1E±07 95th ...... 2E±07 ...... 2E±07 ...... 6E±04 ...... 1E±03 ...... 2E±05 ...... 3E±05 ...... 5E±06 ...... 1E±05
Based on these risk assessment Determinations for Inorganic Chemical the off-site facility. We believe that the results, we conclude that process sludge Manufacturing Wastes’’ in the docket for constituent concentrations in the final without chromium and lead does not this proposal. cement product would be even lower pose a substantial present or potential Recycling scenario.—One facility due to mixing with other materials. hazard to human health and the ships their wastes to an off-site facility What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale For environment when managed in for reuse. The material is added to This Waste? municipal Subtitle D landfills. We mined gypsum used to retard the setting calculated hazard quotients for non- of concrete. We assessed this use Based on our assessments of the four carcinogenic compounds (lead, because it involves land placement, management scenarios (on-site land manganese, nickel, and zinc), and all of with higher likelihood of releases to the farm, municipal Subtitle D landfill, these were well below a value of one. environment. Two samples of this waste industrial Subtitle D landfill, and We found no adult or child cancer risk category were collected from the facility recycling), we found that the wastes do for arsenic in excess of 1E–06 at the that produces and manages this waste in not present a substantial risk to human 95th percentile. Based on these results such a fashion. We compared this use to health or the environment. Therefore, we conclude that this waste does not a less protective landfarming scenario, we propose not to list these wastes. pose risk to human health and the which we modeled, and found no risk environment. For a more complete of concern. The volume of the waste is (3) Spent filters with chromium or description of this analysis, see ‘‘Risk quite small (<1%) when compared to lead. Assessment for the Listing the volume of mined gypsum used by
VerDate 11
How Is This Waste Managed? UTS) before being landfilled at an off- spent filter sample (KM–FB–01) for site industrial Subtitle D landfill. arsenic, lead, total chromium, and Spent filters are generated at several How Was This Waste Characterized? hexavalent chromium. Chromium and points in the production process but lead are the two primary constituents of most are generated after the electrolysis We collected one sample of the spent concern in wastes of this category. The of the brine solution. Seven facilities filter that was decharacterized prior to sample was not collected from the report generating this waste. Six of the being sent to an industrial Subtitle D facility that uses anodes with lead seven facilities report this waste to be landfill. We did not sample any of the coating, thus lead was not present in characteristic and ship it to off-site six facilities that already adequately this sample. Arsenic was the only Subtitle C landfills or incinerators. The managed the waste under Subtitle C seventh facility generates a very small regulations. Table III–29 presents the constituent detected in the SPLP volume of D007 waste that is acid- analytical results for the total and analysis of this sample at levels washed and decharacterized (to meet leaching analyses of the decharacterized exceeding the HBL.
TABLE III±29.ÐANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SPENT FILTERS WITH CHROMIUM (KM±FB±01)
Total TCLP SPLP Drinking water Parameter (mg/kg) (mg/l) (mg/l) HBLs (mg/l)
Arsenic ...... <0.5 <0.5 10.005 0.0007 Chromium ...... 41.0 <0.05 <0.05 20 Hexavalent Chromium ...... 16.8 2NA 2<0.022 0.05 Lead ...... <5 <0.5 <0.03 0.015 1 Results are less than the typical laboratory reporting limit, but are greater than the calculated instrument detection. 2 NA Not applicable. Typical TCLP leaching solution is not suitable for leachable hexavalent chromium because most (or all) hexavalent chro- mium in TCLP waste leachates were converted to trivalent chromium. The leach test for hexavalent chromium was modified by replacing the typ- ical (TCLP/SPLP) solution with deionized water.
What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale For concern. For a more complete type of waste. Two of these four This Waste? description of this analysis, see ‘‘Risk facilities manage their wastes as Assessment for the Listing As previously noted, six of the seven nonhazardous in municipal Subtitle D Determinations for Inorganic Chemical generators of this waste report managing landfills. One facility manages its waste Manufacturing Wastes’’ in the docket for their wastes in Subtitle C facilities as as nonhazardous in an industrial this proposal. characteristically hazardous from the Subtitle D landfill. One facility sends Our analytical data demonstrate that their spent filters along with process point of generation through ultimate the waste is effectively decharacterized disposal. We did not conduct risk sludge off-site to a Subtitle C facility for and does not pose risks warranting stabilization prior to disposal in a assessment on wastes identified as listing for chromium, the primary hazardous wastes and managed in Subtitle C landfill. These wastes are constituent of concern in this waste. generated in very small volumes. Subtitle C facilities because listing The result of the screening analysis for would not provide any significant arsenic, the only constituent present in How Was This Waste Characterized? incremental control of wastes already the waste’s leachate at levels exceeding managed under Subtitle C. We the HBL, shows that the arsenic in this We collected two samples (HT–FB–01 evaluated the small volume waste (i.e., waste does not pose risk to human and HT–FB–02) from one facility. These 2.3 MT/yr) generated by the seventh health and the environment. Therefore, two samples are representative of wastes facility that decharacterizes its waste we propose not to list spent filters with in this category that are land disposed. before landfilling in an industrial chromium. We found that antimony, arsenic, boron, Subtitle D landfill. (4) Spent filters without chromium hexavalent chromium, and lead in the Because the volume of this waste is and lead. TCLP or SPLP waste leachates exceeded relatively small, we used a screening their HBLs. We also found that analysis (described in section III.E.3) to How Is This Waste Managed? cadmium was not detected in the screen the potential risk to groundwater This residual is usually generated as leachates at a detection level of six associated with landfilling this waste. part of the initial brine purification times higher than its HBL. The detection We found that the SPLP data for arsenic steps, where impurities are removed limit was high due to dilution to screens out because the volume of the from the brine solution, and from minimize sample matrix interferences. waste generated by the facility is filtering of product during packaging. Information on constituents of concern insufficient to release arsenic at levels of Four facilities report generating this is summarized in Table III–30.
TABLE III±30.ÐANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SPENT FILTERS WITHOUT CHROMIUM OR LEAD
HT±FB±01 HT±FB±02 HBL Parameter Total TCLP SPLP Total TCLP SPLP (mg/l) (mg/kg) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/kg) (mg/l) (mg/l)
Antimony ...... 34.1 0.018 <0.005 <5 0.012 <0.005 0.006 Arsenic ...... 7.3 0.014 0.003 5.3 <0.005 <0.005 0.0007 Boron ...... <50 6.1 <0.05 <50 0.67 <0.5 1.4 Cadmium ...... 22.5 <0.05 <0.05 <5 <0.05 <0.05 0.008 Cr, +6 ...... <0.8 NA <0.02 2.8 L NA 0.19 L 0.05
VerDate 11
TABLE III±30.ÐANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SPENT FILTERS WITHOUT CHROMIUM OR LEADÐContinued
HT±FB±01 HT±FB±02 HBL Parameter Total TCLP SPLP Total TCLP SPLP (mg/l) (mg/kg) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/kg) (mg/l) (mg/l)
Lead ...... 8.7 0.024 0.06 7.1 0.020 0.012 0.015 L: Concentration reported from analysis performed outside required holding time. Value should be considered biased low.
What Management Scenarios Were below in Table III–31, suggest that the What Are the Results of EPA’s Risk Assessed? only constituent of concern that Assessment for This Waste When We modeled both the industrial (0.6 required modeling (arsenic) does not Managed in Municipal Subtitle D MT/year) and municipal (2.8 MT/year) pose a substantial present or potential Landfills? landfill scenarios, based on the reported hazard to human health and the management practices. environment. We found no arsenic Our risk assessment results for the We used the SPLP leachate cancer risk in excess of 1E–08 at the municipal landfill scenario, concentrations to evaluate the industrial 95th percentile for either adult or child summarized below in Table III–32, landfill scenario. The constituents of exposure scenarios. Therefore, we suggest that the three constituents of concern that exceeded their respective believe that this waste when managed in concern (antimony, arsenic, and HBLs in the SPLP results were arsenic, industrial Subtitle D landfills clearly cadmium) do not pose a substantial hexavalent chromium, and lead. We does not warrant listing. For a more present or potential hazard to human evaluated these constituents using the complete description of this analysis, health and the environment. The hazard de minimis volume screening analysis, see ‘‘Risk Assessment for the Listing quotients, for both the adult and child as described in section III.E.3 of today’s Determinations for Inorganic Chemical exposure scenarios, of antimony are less proposal. The analysis suggests that Manufacturing Wastes’’ in the docket for than 0.01 at the 95th percentile, and of hexavalent chromium and lead are not this proposal. cadmium, are less than 0.001 at the 95th of concern. We then modeled arsenic percentile. We found no arsenic cancer using our standard groundwater model TABLE III±31.ÐRISK RESULTS FOR risk in excess of 1E–08 at the 95th for the industrial landfill scenario. percentile for either adult or child We used the TCLP leachate FILTERS WITHOUT CHROMIUM AND exposure scenarios. Therefore, we concentrations to evaluate the LEADÐINDUSTRIAL SUBTITLE D believe that this waste when managed in municipal landfill scenario. Using the LANDFILL SCENARIO de minimis volume analysis, we municipal Subtitle D landfills does not screened out boron, hexavalent Arsenic warrant listing. For a more complete description of this analysis, see ‘‘Risk chromium, and lead. We then Percentile Adult can- Child can- Assessment for the Listing conducted full groundwater modeling cer risk cer risk for the municipal scenario for antimony, Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes’’ in the docket for arsenic, and cadmium. 90th ...... 1E±09 8E±10 this proposal. What Are the Results of EPA’s Risk 95th ...... 5E±09 4E±09 Assessment for This Waste When Managed in an Industrial Subtitle D Landfill? Our risk assessment results for the industrial landfill scenario, summarized
TABLE III±32. RISK RESULTS FOR FILTERS WITHOUT CHROMIUM AND LEAD MUNICIPAL SUBTITLE D LANDFILL SCENARIO
Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Percentile Adult can- Child can- Adult HQ Child HQ cer risk cer risk Adult HQ Child HQ
90th ...... 5E±04 1E±03 5E±10 4E±10 3E±05 6E±05 95th ...... 2E±03 4E±03 5E±09 4E±09 1E±04 3E±04
(5) Wastewaters with chromium that electrolytic cells, the excess caustic metals on the surface. The facility are not recycled back to the process. from the hydrogen purification step, and combines the wastewaters with the the wastewater from the production of How Is This Waste Managed and How wastewaters from its titanium dioxide sodium chlorate crystals. The facility Is It Characterized? production process and treats the stores the wastewater on-site in closed commingled wastewaters in tanks. The Two facilities report generating this tanks before sending it off-site to a treated wastewater is then discharged to wastewater and characterize it as hazardous waste facility for treatment on-site surface impoundments. hazardous (D002 and D007). One facility and disposal. The other facility generates 11 MT per year of this generates 26,725 MT per year of this wastewater from its on-site laboratory wastewater from acid washing filters testings of the electrolyte in the and anodes to remove buildup of trace
VerDate 11
What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This facility provide sufficient structural The two facilities’ processes diverge Waste? integrity and have secondary significantly at this point. At the Texas One facility identifies the waste as containment areas to minimize potential facility, the sodium chromate solution is hazardous and manages it in accordance releases to groundwater. We are either crystallized and sold or processed with Subtitle C regulations. We believe unlikely to find potential air releases electrolytically to convert the sodium from these tanks or the permitted that applicable Subtitle C regulations chromate to sodium dichromate. The facility as neither volatile contaminants adequately protect against electrolytic cell system also produces nor airborne particulates are likely to be mismanagement, and we did not sodium hydroxide solution which, the present in these wastewaters. investigate it further. facility reports, they sell. The North For the other facility, in Hamilton, 12. Sodium Dichromate Carolina facility converts the sodium Mississippi, we evaluated its combined chromate solution to sodium a. Summary. We have evaluated the dichromate through acidification, and wastewaters and solids as described wastes, waste management practices, above in the ‘‘process sludges with the sodium dichromate is then partially and potential risk exposure pathways evaporated. The acidification process chromium or lead’’ category. Today’s associated with the sodium dichromate proposal separately addresses the also produces sodium sulfate and lower production processes and propose not to purity sodium sulfate ‘‘saltcake,’’ both titanium dioxide wastes that are list any wastes from this industry as commingled with this sodium chlorate of which the facility sells. The sodium hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of dichromate is then either used in liquid waste. We propose not to list these RCRA. These wastes do not meet the wastes. form or further evaporated to produce a criteria listed under 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) crystalline product. (6) Other wastewaters that do not for listing a waste as hazardous. They do c. How does the Bevill Exclusion contain chromium or lead and are not not pose a substantial present or apply to wastes from the sodium recycled. potential threat to human health or the dichromate manufacturing processes? environment. We have identified no How Is This Waste Managed? The sodium dichromate manufacturing risks of concern associated with the facilities produce two types of residuals There are other wastewaters generated current management of these wastes. which are eligible for the Bevill from several points of the process, Note that certain wastes from this sector exemption once disposed: beneficiation including process condensate, cooling are exempt mineral processing wastes wastes (See 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7)(i)) and waters, and ion-exchange wastewater. which are not within the scope of Four facilities reported generating these today’s listing proposal. mineral processing wastes referred to as wastewaters. Two facilities generate b. Description of the sodium treated residue from roasting/leaching of process condensates from condensing dichromate industry. Two facilities in chromium ore (see 40 CFR water vapor from their crystalizers, the United States produce sodium 261.4(b)(7)(ii)(N)). steam jets, or pad water evaporator. dichromate; one in North Carolina and Under the Bevill exemption, any Both facilities store their process one in Texas. Both facilities sell their wastes generated from beneficiation of condensates in closed tanks. One product on the open market in addition ores, such as crushing, mixing, and facility neutralizes the condensate prior to using the material as a feedstock for milling, are Bevill exempt. Both to discharging it to an NPDES permitted various manufacturing processes on- facilities beneficiate ore by drying and outfall. The other facility does not treat site. The majority of sodium dichromate grinding chromite ore and mixing the the condensate, but tests to ensure it is used as a feedstock for the production ore with other ingredients prior to meets its State Pollutant Discharge of chromic acid. It is also used in a wide placement in the roasting kiln and Elimination System permit prior to variety of other uses. For more detailed generate air pollution control dusts from discharge to a river. One facility information concerning this industry, these processes. However, the residuals generates wastewater from regeneration see ‘‘Sodium Dichromate Listing from these processes, which would be of the ion-exchange unit that is used for Background Document for the Inorganic Bevill exempt, are not disposed of but purification of the brine. The Chemical Listing Determination’’ in the rather captured and returned to the wastewater is collected in a tank for pH docket for today’s proposal. process from which they originated for neutralization before it is discharged to The two sodium dichromate chromium recovery. a POTW. One facility generates production facilities use somewhat In terms of when beneficiation stops wastewater from cooling tower different manufacturing processes and and mineral processing starts, EPA blowdown, chemical storage tank generate somewhat different wastes. determined in 1989 that the roasting/ scrubber pad, hydrogen scrubber pad, Both facilities use imported chromite leaching of chromium ore to produce and water demineralization area. These ore as their primary feedstock. They dry sodium chromate is mineral processing wastewaters are piped to its on-site and grind the ore and feed it into a rather than beneficiation. 54 FR 36592 NPDES facility to be processed and roasting kiln or hearth with other (September 1, 1989) stated: discharged. materials such as soda ash, lime, and ‘‘A specific exception to the above sodium hydroxide. The facilities roast, categorization system applies when the What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This then quench and leach the ore with Waste? roasting/leaching sequence produces a final water, producing sodium chromate or intermediate product that does not We propose not to list these solution and solid ore residues. Both undergo further beneficiation or processing wastewaters as hazardous. We evaluated facilities return the ore residues to the steps (e.g., the leach liquor serves as an input these wastewaters that are stored and manufacturing process for further to inorganic chemical manufacturing). In this treated in tanks or in a NPDES roasting and leaching. The facilities type of situation, the Agency believes that the permitted facility. We found that these purify the resulting sodium chromate operation is most appropriately considered a processing, rather than a beneficiation, wastewaters do not pose risks solution product stream by adjusting its operation. In the context of this rulemaking, warranting regulation during treatment pH, treating it with sodium carbonate, one candidate Bevill waste (roast/leach ore because there are no exposure pathways and, at the Texas facility, sodium residue from primary chrome ore processing) of concern. The wastewater treatment dichromate, and filtering out the is affected by this distinction; EPA believes tanks and the wastewater treatment resulting solid impurities. that this material is clearly a waste from
VerDate 11
TABLE III±33.ÐSODIUM DICHROMATE PRODUCTION RESIDUALS
1998 volumes Reported waste Waste category (MT) codes Sequential management practices
North Carolina Facility
Residuals commingled in spent ore residue treat- ment unit 1: Spent post-neutralization ore residue (Bevill ex- 146,937 ...... D007 ...... Sent on-site to tank-based spent ore residue treat- empt after treatment). ment unit with NPDES permitted discharge. Spent post-leach ore residue (Bevill exempt 25,930 ...... D007 ...... Sent on-site to tank-based spent ore residue treat- after treatment). ment unit with NPDES permitted discharge. Saltcake drier scrubber wastewater ...... 13,851 ...... D007 ...... Sent on-site to tank-based spent ore residue treat- ment unit with NPDES permitted discharge. Waste heat boiler washout (Bevill exempt after 70 ...... D007 ...... Sent on-site to tank-based spent ore residue treat- treatment). ment unit with NPDES permitted discharge. Residuals disposed of on-site: Reduced chromium treatment residues (com- 129,503 ...... None ...... Sent to on-site industrial Subtitle D disposal unit. mingled Bevill exempt and non-exempt resi- dues). Commingled treated wastewaters (commingled 920,161 ...... None ...... Passed through sand filters then discharged directly Bevill exempt and non-exempt residues). under NPDES permit or sent to on-site industrial Subtitle D disposal unit. Residuals disposed of off-site: Chromium-contaminated filters, membranes, 67 ...... D007 ...... Stored in on-site roll-off bin before off-site treatment and other plant waste. and landfill disposal at Subtitle C facility. Spent sand filter sands (commingled Bevill ex- 21.7 (1997) ...... None ...... Stored in on-site drums or roll-off bins before dis- empt and non-exempt residues). posal in off-site industrial Subtitle D landfill.
Texas Facility
Residuals commingled in spent ore residue treat- ment unit: Spent post-neutralization ore residue (Bevill ex- 60,000 ...... D007 ...... Sent to on-site, covered, tank-based, spent ore res- empt after treatment). idue treatment unit with NPDES permitted dis- charge. Caustic filter sludge ...... 80 ...... D002 ...... Sent to on-site, covered, tank-based, spent ore res- idue treatment unit with NPDES permitted dis- charge. Residuals commingled in wastewater treatment unit 2: Sodium dichromate evaporation unit wastewater ∼2,500 ...... None ...... Sent to on-site, tank-based wastewater treatment unit with NPDES permitted discharge. Sodium chromate evaporation unit wastewater ∼300 ...... None ...... Sent to on-site, tank-based wastewater treatment unit with NPDES permitted discharge.
VerDate 11
TABLE III±33.ÐSODIUM DICHROMATE PRODUCTION RESIDUALSÐContinued
1998 volumes Reported waste Waste category (MT) codes Sequential management practices
Residuals disposed of on-site: Reduced chromium treatment residues from 60,000 ...... None ...... Sent to on-site industrial Subtitle D, double-lined spent ore residue treatment unit (commingled surface impoundment for dewatering and dis- Bevill exempt and non-exempt residues). posal. Impoundment has NPDES permitted out- flow. Reduced chromium treatment residues from ∼30,000 (1999) None ...... Sent to on-site industrial Subtitle D, double-lined wastewater treatment unit (commingled Bevill surface impoundment for dewatering and dis- exempt and non-exempt residues). posal. Impoundment has NPDES permitted out- flow. Commingled treated wastewaters (commingled 186,515 ...... None ...... Sent to on-site industrial Subtitle D surface im- Bevill exempt and non-exempt residues). poundment, filtered through sand filters, then dis- charged directly under NPDES permit. Residuals disposed of off-site: Process filters and membranes, baghouse 24 ...... D007 ...... Stored in on-site roll-off box before treatment and bags, chromium-contaminated empty con- landfill disposal at Subtitle C facility. tainers, and other plant wastes. Spent sand filter sands (commingled Bevill ex- ∼2 MT once None ...... Placed in on-site non-hazardous soil waste bin and empt and non-exempt wastes). every two then disposed of in off-site industrial Subtitle D years. landfill. 1 Remediation well water, cooling tower blowdown, and stormwater are also treated in this unit. These materials are beyond the scope of this listing determination. 2 Stormwater and remediation well water are also treated in this unit. Contaminated media are not within the scope of this listing determination.
In addition to these wastes, the disposal). Since these processes are We propose not to list any of the sodium dichromate manufacturers outside the scope of the consent decree wastes from the sodium dichromate produce residuals which are either we did not evaluate any of these manufacturing industry. Many wastes piped back to the production process or materials further. We did however, from this industry are Bevill exempt sold for use in other manufacturing evaluate some residuals produced on- once treated, and therefore not within processes. Air pollution control devices site at the North Carolina and Texas the scope of the consent decree capture materials that are returned to facilities during the preparation of the requirements. Other wastes are their units of origin or to other materials that are sold. See the characteristically hazardous and are manufacturing process units. At the discussions in the sections below of salt managed at permitted Subtitle C North Carolina facility, ore residue cake drier scrubber water and caustic facilities off-site. Some wastes did not washwaters and calcium carbonate filter sludge. Finally, the North Carolina exhibit constituents at levels of concern residuals are returned to the production facility produces some off-specification for purposes of a listing given the nature process for chromium recovery. product, which it reinserts into the of their management and disposal. The Chromium-bearing solution from the sodium dichromate manufacturing main constituent of concern, chromium, saltcake purification process is directly process. Off-specification product, when is treated on-site for many of the wastes. reused in the roasted ore quench, leach reinserted without reclamation into the Several wastes from each of the and filter process. At the Texas facility, process from where it originated, is not facilities are disposed of in a treated chromium-containing residuals from a solid waste. See the ‘‘Sodium form, rather than an as-generated form. scrubbers on the hearth and on the Dichromate Listing Background In general, we focused our evaluation on sodium chromate and dichromate Document for the Inorganic Chemical the treated form of wastes because it is ultimately only the treated wastes evaporation/crystallization units are Listing Determination’’ for more details which are disposed. reused in the hearth kiln and quench on these residuals. tank units. Because these materials are The sections below describe how reused in production units in ways that e. Waste characterization and Agency wastes are generated and managed at the present low potential for release, and evaluation. Chromium is the primary two sodium dichromate manufacturing because we evaluated process wastes constituent of concern in the wastes facilities, each with its own production generated after the secondary material is from both facilities. Chromium occurs process, and our rationale for proposing reinserted into the process, we do not in several production wastes at high not to list the wastes. We solicit believe that these materials present levels, in some cases exceeding the TC comments on the proposed listing significant risk. level (5.0 mg/L) in TCLP leachate decisions described below. The North Carolina facility also samples. These wastes are coded as (1) North Carolina Facility. produces for sale sodium sulfate hazardous (D007). Both facilities treat (a) Residuals Commingled in Spent ‘‘saltcake’’ and purified sodium sulfate some of their D007 wastes on-site and Ore Residue Treatment Unit. The North anhydrous from the sodium dichromate send other D007 wastes off-site for Carolina facility commingles and treats production process. The Texas facility treatment and disposal at permitted several characteristic wastes from sells hydroxide solution from their Subtitle C hazardous waste facilities. sodium dichromate manufacturing in an sodium dichromate production process. Various other wastes which fall below on-site, tank-based treatment unit at the We found no information indicating that D007 regulatory levels are either treated North Carolina facility. These four the facilities which purchase these on-site or sent off-site for disposal. No sodium dichromate manufacturing materials burn them for energy recovery other constituents of concern were wastes are: or incorporate them into products that reported to be present in the wastes at —Waste heat boiler washout, which are are used on the land (use constituting levels of concern. accumulated solids from the internal
VerDate 11
components of the roasting kiln waste intact structures with minimal potential We found the treatment residues from heat boilers (Bevill exempt after for releases to groundwater. We do not saltcake drier scrubber solution to pose treatment) anticipate significant air releases no significant risks to groundwater. —Spent post-leach ore residue (Bevill because the wastes do not contain After treatment for hexavalent exempt after treatment) volatile constituents and have high chromium, the commingled reduced —Spent post-neutralization ore residue moisture content. Also, some of the chromium treatment residues from 1998 (Bevill exempt after treatment) tanks have covers which further reduce showed weekly TCLP analysis levels of —Saltcake drier scrubber wastewater the possibility of air releases. We are leachable chromium in the range of We consider the saltcake drier proposing not to list any of these four 0.01–1.00 mg/L for composite samples scrubber wastewater to be a wastestream wastestreams undergoing treatment in and <0.01–0.76 mg/L for grab samples. associated with the production of this tank system. Assuming that the saltcake drier sodium sulfate at the North Carolina (b) Residuals Disposed of On-Site. (i) scrubber wastewater’s percent facility, rather than a sodium Commingled reduced chromium contribution to total chromium in the dichromate manufacturing waste. treatment residues. The reduced commingled residues is equal to its Nevertheless, we chose to exercise our chromium sludge from the on-site spent percent contribution to total chromium discretion to evaluate the risk posed by ore residue treatment unit is slurried leaching from the commingled residues the treated and untreated form of this and conveyed directly from the (0.001%), the saltcake scrubber solution residue. As explained below, we did not treatment unit to one of two on-site was responsible for TCLP leaching × ¥7 × ¥5 find risks warranting listing. industrial Subtitle D disposal units levels of 1 10 to 1 10 mg/L for × ¥7 All four wastes catalogued above go (former limestone quarries). Of the composite samples and <3 10 to × ¥5 directly from their points of generation several treatment residues contributing 2.28 10 mg/L for grab samples. The to the on-site spent ore residue to the final commingled treatment HBL for ingestion of hexavalent treatment unit without intervening residue, only one falls within the scope chromium is 0.047 mg/L and 23 mg/L storage. The facility treats non-contact of today’s listing proposal; residue from for trivalent chromium. The AWQC for cooling tower blowdown, remediation treatment of saltcake drier scrubber hexavalent chromium is 0.011 mg/L and well water, and stormwater in the wastewater (we believe this is not 0.74 mg/L for trivalent chromium. Even at a maximum leaching level of 1×10¥5 treatment unit as well. The four within scope of the consent decree but mg/L, the leachable chromium manufacturing wastes comprise are evaluating it in this rule making). contribution of the saltcake drier approximately 60–65% by volume of Residues from the treatment of waste scrubber wastewater indicates a very the wastes entering the treatment unit. heat boiler washout, spent post-leach low level of risk to groundwater. The entire treatment process takes place ore residue, and spent post- neutralization ore residue are Bevill The treated wastes are disposed in an in a series of tanks with secondary uncovered disposal unit that resembles exempt mineral processing wastes containment. Treatment consists of a surface impoundment. However, given beyond the scope of today’s listing conversion of hexavalent chromium in the inorganic, nonvolatile nature of the proposal (see Section III.F.12(c)). the wastes to trivalent chromium with treated wastes, we do not believe they Stormwater and remediation well water pickle liquor (ferrous chloride reducing pose a risk through airborne pathways. are contaminated media whose agent). Trivalent chromium is a Given the low level of chromium treatment residues we also consider to generally less toxic and less soluble leaching attributable to the one be beyond the scope of the consent form of chromium. Wastes containing a treatment residue within the scope of decree (see section III.B of today’s high percentage of solids (waste heat today’s listing proposal and the lack of proposal). Therefore, we do not consider boiler washout, spent post-leach ore volatile constituents of concern, we residue, and spent post-neutralization the risks posed by these treatment propose not to list residues deriving ore residue) are also neutralized with residues. from the treatment of saltcake drier lime slurry in order to increase According to information the facility scrubber wastewater. precipitation of trivalent chromium submitted in their RCRA Section 3007 (ii) Commingled treated wastewaters. compounds out of solution. Survey response, the only potential The spent ore residue treatment unit The treatment sludge is then constituent of concern in the untreated described in the sections above has thickened in a series of clarifier tanks. saltcake drier scrubber wastewater is clarifier units which discharge a Limestone is added to the thickened chromium, detected at a level of 6 mg/ wastewater stream to tank-based sand sludge to further stabilize chromium L. Therefore, chromium is the only filters. After passing through sand and other metals. All of the tanks in the constituent we considered when filters, the treated wastewaters discharge treatment train have secondary assessing the level of risk from saltcake through an NPDES-permitted outfall. containment and some are covered. drier scrubber wastewater treatment These wastewaters are a mixture of non- Treated wastewaters, after passing residues. Bevill exempt and Bevill exempt through sand filters, discharge from the Of the total mass of chromium found treatment residues, and other treatment treatment unit under an NPDES permit in the commingled reduced chromium residues beyond the scope of the or travel with the treated solid residues treatment residues, the saltcake drier consent decree. The solids suspended in to the on-site industrial Subtitle D scrubber wastewater contributes the wastewaters are a mixture of Bevill disposal unit (see section approximately 0.001%. This estimate is exempt and non-Bevill exempt III.F.12.e(1)(b)ii below regarding the based on calculations using information treatment residues. The liquid portion, commingled treated wastewaters). the North Carolina facility provided to the majority of this wastestream, is a The Bevill exemption applies to the us on chromium contents and tonnages mixture of non-Bevill exempt residues, waste heat boiler washout, spent post- of waste exiting the spent ore residue some of which are within the scope of leach ore residue, and spent post- treatment unit. Both the information this listing determination, and some of neutralization ore residue only after the and the calculations are further detailed which derive from treatment of wastes are treated. We evaluated the in the ‘‘Sodium Dichromate Listing contaminated media and are therefore potential for releases from the treatment Background Document for the Inorganic not with the scope of this listing tanks. We assumed that the tanks were Chemical Listing Determination.’’ determination. We did not find any
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
TABLE III±34.ÐSODIUM PHOSPHATE PRODUCTION WASTES
1998 Volume Waste category (MT) Source Management practices
Filter press cakes ...... 120 ...... Product polishing ...... Recycled or Subtitle D landfill. Mix area filters ...... 0.009 ...... Product polishing ...... Subtitle D landfill. Dust collector filter bags ...... 2.1 ...... Drying and grinding processes ...... Subtitle D landfill. Scrubber waters and effluents ...... 32 ...... Process vapor scrubbers ...... POTW or recycled. Product dust collected ...... Not reported ..... Drying and grinding processes ...... Recycled or Subtitle D landfill. Off-specification product...... 771 ...... Off-specification grinding or customer Recycled or Subtitle D landfill. returns.
For those scenarios where secondary into the process from where it How Was This Waste Characterized? materials (filter press cakes, product originated, is not a solid waste. For dust, off-specification product, and those scenarios where wastes are We collected two samples of this scrubber water) are piped back to the discharged via the facility’s common residual at one facility. Based on our production process, we could identify sewage line to permitted publicly- assessment of the raw materials and no potential route for significant owned treatment works (POTWs), these production processes used across the exposure prior to reuse. In addition, we wastes are excluded from RCRA (40 CFR industry, we believe these samples are evaluated all wastes generated after 261.4(a)(1)(ii)). For those scenarios representative of the range of waste reinsertion of these materials into the where wastes are sent to industrial characteristics at the other three sodium process and we do not believe that these subtitle D landfills, we performed a risk phosphate production facilities. assessment to help us determine secondary materials present significant Constituents detected above their HBLs whether these risks warranted listing. are summarized in Table III–35. threats. Also, off-specification product, d. Agency evaluation. (1) Filter press when reinserted without reclamation cake and mix area filters.
TABLE III±35.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF FILTER PRESS CAKES FROM SODIUM PHOSPHATE PRODUCTION
Total TCLP SPLP HBL Parameter (mg/kg) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)
Primary filter press cake (Sample RCH±1±SP±01): Antimony ...... 0.5 <0.5 0.0298 0.006 Thallium ...... <2 <2 0.0055 0.001
45 In this preamble, we often refer to sodium safe’’ (GRAS). The FDA states that: ‘‘This substance considers the composition and properties of the phosphate produced for the food industry as ‘‘food is generally recognized as safe when used as in substance, the amount likely to be consumed, its grade.’’ The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), accordance with good manufacturing practice.’’ probable long-term effects and various safety Department of Health and Human Services, refers (See, for example, 21 CFR 182.1778, 182.6290, factors. to the various sodium phosphates used in the food 182.6778, and 182.8778.) In deciding whether a industry as ‘‘substances generally recognized as food additive should be approved, the FDA
VerDate 11
TABLE III±35.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF FILTER PRESS CAKES FROM SODIUM PHOSPHATE PRODUCTIONÐContinued
Total TCLP SPLP HBL Parameter (mg/kg) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)
Tray filter cake (Sample RCH±1±SP±02): Antimony ...... <0.5 <0.5 <0.025 0.006 Thallium ...... <2 <2 0.0079 0.001
What Management Scenarios Were Chemical Manufacturing Wastes’’ in the concern. For a more complete Assessed and How Was the Risk docket for this proposed rulemaking. description of this analysis, see ‘‘Risk Assessment Established? Assessment for the Listing These wastes go to industrial subtitle TABLE III±36.ÐPROBABILISTIC RISK Determinations for Inorganic Chemical D landfills and we therefore determined RESULTS FOR FILTER PRESS CAKES Manufacturing Wastes’’ in the docket for that we would model the scenario of off- this proposed rulemaking. site disposal in an industrial D landfill. Antimony Thallium The detected SPLP levels for antimony did not screen out using the We assessed the off-site landfill scenario Percentile Adult Child Adult Child using the hydrogeologic properties HQ HQ HQ HQ de minimis volume analysis. We associated with the geographic areas conducted full groundwater modeling where the landfills reported in the Industrial for the industrial landfill scenario for survey are located. landfill: this constituent. We assessed the off-site We gave the SPLP results primary 90th ...... 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.003 landfill scenario using the probabilistic consideration as there is no reported 95th ...... 0.004 0.008 0.004 0.008 approach for off-site landfills described management in municipal landfills in section III.E. (2) Dust collector filter bags. (where the TCLP results would be What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This relevant). Based on the sampling results How Was This Waste Characterized? Waste? summarized above, we decided that We collected one sample of this modeling was necessary for two From the results of the risk residual. Based on our assessment of the constituents of concern: antimony and assessment, summarized below in Table raw materials and production processes thallium. For antimony, we used one- III–38, antimony (the constituent of used across the industry, we believe this half of the detection limit as a model concern) does not pose a substantial sample is representative of similar input for sample RCH–1–SP–02. We present or potential hazard to human wastes at the other three sodium used the probabilistic approach for an health and the environment. The hazard phosphate production facilities. The off-site industrial Subtitle D landfill quotients for antimony, for both the waste constituents detected at levels described in section III.E of today’s adult and child exposure scenarios, are above their HBLs are summarized in proposal. less than 0.007 at the 95th percentile. As Table III–37: a matter of policy, EPA generally does What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This not consider listing wastes with Waste? TABLE III±37.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF predicted hazard quotients of less than From the results of the risk DUST COLLECTOR FILTER BAG 1.0. We see no special concerns assessment, summarized below in Table FROM SODIUM PHOSPHATE PRO- warranting an exception to this policy. III–36, neither antimony nor thallium DUCTION Therefore, we believe that this waste (the constituents of concern) pose a [Sample RCH±1±SP±03] does not warrant listing. For a more substantial present or potential hazard complete description of this analysis, to human health and the environment. see ‘‘Risk Assessment for the Listing Param- Total TCLP SPLP HBL The hazard quotients for both eter (mg/ (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) Determinations for Inorganic Chemical constituents, for both the adult and kg) Manufacturing Wastes’’ in the docket for child exposure scenarios, are less than this proposed rulemaking. Antimony 48.8 <0.5 0.309 0.006 0.008 at the 95th percentile. As a matter Arsenic .. <0.5 <0.5 0.0064 0.0007 of policy, EPA generally does not TABLE III±38.ÐPROBABILISTIC RISK consider listing wastes with predicted What Management Scenarios Were RESULTS FOR DUST COLLECTOR BAGS hazard quotients of less than 1.0. We see Assessed and How Was the Risk no special concerns warranting an Antimony Assessment Established? exception to this policy. Therefore, we Percentile Industry reported that this waste is Adult Child believe that these wastes do not warrant HQ HQ listing. managed in off-site industrial D For the mix area filters, the location landfills. We assessed this scenario. Industrial landfill: of these filters indicates that any Antimony and arsenic are the 90th ...... 0.001 0.002 contaminants found would be similar to constituents of concern. 95th ...... 0.003 0.003 those of the filter press cake. Given that Because the volume of this waste is our evaluation of the much larger relatively small, we first used the de (3) Scrubber waters and effluents. We volume filter press cake yielded no minimis waste quantity screening did not evaluate scenarios where these significant risk, we are also proposing analysis (described in section III.E.3) to secondary materials are piped back into not to list the very small volume mix screen the potential risk to groundwater the production process because there is area filters. associated with landfilling this waste. no potential for exposure. For those For a more complete description of We found that the SPLP data for arsenic scenarios where wastes are managed in these analyses, see ‘‘Risk Assessment for screens out because the waste volume is a tank, the impervious nature of the the Listing Determinations for Inorganic insufficient to release arsenic at levels of construction materials (concrete,
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
—Wastewater treatment sludges with wastewaters from the chloride oxidation unit tank and equipment generated by facilities that have process. vents, supernatant or filtrate from chloride-only processes (exempt —Wastewater treatment sludges. These coke and ore solids management and mineral processing wastes at those wastewater treatment sludges are wastewater treatment disposal facilities with no contribution of generated from commingled chloride impoundments. The wastewaters are solids from oxidation and finishing) process and sulfate process commingled prior to being introduced —Waste sands from finishing (milling) wastewaters by facilities that have into the wastewater treatment system. of the titanium dioxide product and both processes. The wastewater —Other spent scrubber waters from the scouring of oxidation process units. treatment consists of elementary reaction fume disposal system. The —Vanadium wastes generated in the neutralization and precipitation or wastewaters are pretreated and are purification process. filtration. subsequently commingled with other The wastes generated by the sulfate —Acids from intermediate titanium wastewaters prior to being introduced process (used at two plants that also use product filtration/bleaching units and to the wastewater treatment system. the chloride process) include: product calciner overhead scrubbers. —Non-exempt non-wastewaters, —Primary and secondary gypsum, —Product milling sand from finishing including the portion of wastewater which is produced when the waste operations. treatment solids derived from the sulfuric acid generated from the The wastes generated by the chloride- neutralization of process and non- filtering of titanium dioxide hydrate ilmenite process include: process wastewaters from oxidation solution is neutralized with calcium —Coke and ore solids (exempt as and finishing, and solids from ferric carbonate. mineral processing wastes, see 40 CFR chloride filtration. —Digestion sludge from the clarification 261.4(b)(7)) that are not consumed by —HCl from the reaction scrubber. of the titanyl sulfate liquor that is the chlorination process. These solids —Additive feeder vent filter solids produced during the acid digester are conveyed through the process as generated in the oxidation process. step. part of various wastestreams. —Vanadium waste generated in the —Wastewaters from the sulfuric acid —Waste acid (metal chloride) solution, purification process. digestion scrubber which removes usually called ferric or iron chloride, —Off-specification titanium dioxide acidic components and entrained that is separated from the gaseous product. solids from reaction gases, evaporator titanium tetrachloride product stream condensate from the precipitation and acidified. —Rail car product washout wastewater. unit, the calciner scrubber, the sulfate —Process and non-process wastewaters —Waste sand removed from a reactor waste sludge settling pond from reaction and oxidation purge stream (coke and ore solids) supernatant, and the primary and scrubbers, reactant and treatment Table III–39, below, summarizes our secondary gypsum precipitation units. chemical storage scrubbers, product information about the wastes generated These wastewaters are commingled finishing, HCl storage vent scrubber, rom the production of titanium dioxide.
TABLE III±39.ÐTITANIUM DIOXIDE WASTES
Number of 1998 Reported hazard Waste category generators volumes (MT) codes Management practices
Commingled chloride process wastewaters .. 4 7,614,358 ...... D002, D007 ...... Neutralization, solids settling, NPDES dis- charge. Chloride process solids (Bevill exempt) ...... 6 1,200,000 ...... none ...... On-site impoundments, on-site Subtitle D landfills. Waste sands from oxidation, milling and 3 9,485 ...... none ...... On-site industrial Subtitle D landfill; off-site scouring. industrial Subtitle D landfill. Gypsum from sulfate process ...... 2 46 69,500 ...... none ...... On-site waste pile storage; on-site industrial Subtitle D landfill; sold for various uses. Digestion scrubber water...... 2 2,000,333 ...... Neutralization in dedicated impoundment; commingled with other wastewaters. Digestion sludge from sulfate process ...... 2 41,494 ...... D002 ...... Unlined impoundment, dewatering, on-site industrial Subtitle D landfill. Commingled wastewaters from the chloride 2 16,184,031 ...... none ...... Neutralization, solids settling in unlined sur- and sulfate process. face impoundments, NPDES discharge. Wastewater treatment sludges from commin- 2 159,121 ...... none ...... Dewatering, on-site industrial Subtitle D gled chloride and sulfate process (partially landfill. Bevill exempt). Waste acid (ferric chloride) from chloride-il- 3 1,883,000 ...... D002, D007, On-site hazardous waste underground injec- menite process. D008. tion; reuse as raw material in sodium chloride production; storage in tanks and unlined impoundment prior to sale as water and wastewater treatment reagent. Chloride ilmenite process solids (Bevill ex- 3 not reported ...... none ...... On-site dewatering; on-site Subtitle D indus- empt). trial landfill; on-site unlined impoundment; various reuses. Non-exempt nonwastewaters from the chlo- 3 14,600 ...... none ...... On-site dewatering; on-site Subtitle D indus- ride-ilmenite process. trial landfill; on-site unlined impoundment; various reuses. HCl from reaction scrubber, chloride-ilmenite 3 not reported ...... D002 ...... On-site wastewater treatment, on-site reuse. process. Commingled wastewaters from the chloride- 3 13,556,000 ...... none ...... On-site neutralization, solids settling, ilmenite process. NPDES discharge.
VerDate 11
TABLE III±39.ÐTITANIUM DIOXIDE WASTESÐContinued
Number of 1998 Reported hazard Waste category generators volumes (MT) codes Management practices
Additive vent filter solids from chloride-ilmen- 1 < 1 ...... none ...... Off-site Subtitle D industrial landfill. ite process. Vanadium waste from the chloride-ilmenite 4 not reported ...... none ...... Returned to reaction area for TiCl 4 recov- and chloride process. ery, remaining vanadium wastes are in- corporated in solids streams. Off-spec titanium dioxide product ...... 2 563 ...... none ...... Off-site Subtitle D industrial landfill. Railcar/trailer product washout ...... 1 <10,000 ...... none ...... On-site storage in unlined surface impound- ment, on-site wastewater treatment. 46 Additional volumes are used as products.
The manufacturers also produce The industry reported a number of discussed these solids, we believe that materials that are reused in other wastes generated from the storage and they also fall within the exemption. processes that are outside the scope of handling of various raw materials which While they are removed from the the consent decree. With one exception are exempt because they are associated product stream and various other wastes described below, we did not evaluate with beneficiation. Solid wastes from at points other than where the majority these materials, or wastes generated the extraction/beneficiation of ores and of the solids are separated from the during co-product production for the minerals are Bevill exempt solid wastes TiCl4 gas stream, they are similarly purposes of today’s listing (see 51 FR 24496, July 3, 1986 and 54 composed of unreacted ore and coke determinations, because they were FR 36592, September 1, 1989). These solids from the chlorination reactor. outside the scope of the consent decree. wastes are described in the background They fit within the plain language of the One facility produces sulfur from the document for this sector. We have not exemption. assessed these wastes because they are treatment of off-gases. Because the off- Solids also are generated from the exempt under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7). gas is produced from a production unit oxidation and finishing stages of The only relevant mineral processing rather than a waste management unit titanium dioxide production. These waste exemption consists of ‘‘chloride solids are non-exempt solid wastes (not and is conveyed to its destination via process waste solids from titanium piping, the gas is not a solid waste. covered by the exemption). Most tetrachloride production’’ (see 40 CFR titanium dioxide producers commingle RCRA Section 1004(27) excludes non- 261.4(b)(7)(ii)(S)). The consent decree contained gases from the definition of wastewaters from titanium tetrachloride mandating today’s proposal states in production with wastewaters from solid waste and thus they cannot be paragraph 1.g that Bevill exempt wastes considered a hazardous waste. (See 54 oxidation and finishing. To the extent are not within the scope of the consent that the resultant sludges contain non- FR 50973) Because this gas is not a solid decree as it applies to the inorganic waste when produced, we did not exempt solids, we have assessed that chemical listing determinations, and portion of those solids. evaluate it further for purposes of specifically that ‘‘chloride process waste listing. Due to process variations, each solids’’ need not be assessed within the facility using the chloride or chloride- d. What wastes from these processes titanium dioxide sector. Titanium ilmenite process generates its exempt are exempt mineral processing wastes? tetrachloride production occurs in both solids in slightly different ways. The In July of 1988, the U.S. Court of the chloride and chloride-ilmenite general principles that we used to 47 Appeals, for the D.C. Circuit in processes. determine the Bevill status of these Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA The chloride process waste solids are wastes include the following: (EDF II), 852 F.2d 1316 (D.C. Cir. 1988), generated during the chlorination cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1011(1989), reaction of the titanium ore in the —Extraction and beneficiation ends just ordered EPA to restrict the scope of the reducing presence of coke at elevated before chlorination occurs. Wastes temperatures, and are generated from generated prior to this point are Bevill Bevill mining waste exclusion, as it exempt, outside the scope of the consent applied to mineral processing wastes. In both the chloride process and the decree and therefore not addressed in this response, EPA promulgated rules on chloride-ilmenite process. The majority rulemaking. The chlorinator marks the September 1, 1989 (54 FR 36592) and on of these solids are removed from the beginning of mineral processing because January 23, 1990 (55 FR 2322), issued a reaction area as a mass and are the ore undergoes a physical/chemical Report to Congress on Wastes from quenched, neutralized, settled and change (see 54 FR 36619, September 1, Mineral Processing on July 31, 1990, disposed as exempt materials. 1989). 54 FR 36621 further notes, and published a regulatory Additional solids from the reactor are ‘‘Likewise, EPA considered titanium determination published on June 13, carried overhead with the TiCl4 product tetrachloride produced during the titanium gas stream and are subsequently chloride [sic] process to be a saleable 1991 (56 FR 27300). The list of Bevill product; any further processing subsequent exempt wastes is set out at 40 CFR removed in various scrubbing units. to its production is considered to be 261.4(b)(7). We relied on these Bevill Although EPA has not previously chemical manufacturing.’’ rulemakings to determine the Bevill —Mineral processing ends when titanium status of waste streams in the titanium 47 All sulfate process waste solids and liquids are dioxide is produced in the oxidation unit. dioxide sector. non-exempt mineral processing wastes (see 55 FR Further steps are chemical manufacturing. 2322, January 23, 1990). 55 FR 2392 noted that all The Agency defines the beginning of The production of titanium dioxide sulfate process waste solids and wastewaters from oxidation as the beginning of chemical results in the generation of 2 categories the production of titanium dioxide do not meet the high volume/low hazard criteria established in the manufacturing because the facility is using of exempt waste: beneficiation wastes September 1, 1989 Bevill rule and therefore were a saleable mineral product, titanium and exempt mineral processing wastes. not eligible for continued coverage under the Bevill tetrachloride, to produce titanium dioxide These categories are described below. exclusion (see 54 FR 36592). (see 54 FR 366211).
VerDate 11
—The mineral processing exemption only presence of coke, and in fact we found risk assessment to fully evaluate the covers solids from the production of measurable levels of these compounds potential for risks. See section titanium tetrachloride. These solids, in wastes from the chloride and III.F.14.e(10) below. therefore, are outside of the consent decree. chloride-ilmenite processes. These data At least six streams of solid-bearing 5. Agency Evaluation material leave the chlorination reaction are presented in the Titanium Dioxide area. The status of these streams is as Listing Background Document and (1) Commingled wastewaters from the follows: associated analytical data reports in the chloride process, including wastewaters (1) Titanium tetrachloride going on for docket for today’s notice. As explained from coke and ore recovery, scrubber further production. All wastes formed during in this background document, we water, finishing wastewaters and sludge further processing of this gaseous product believe that these compounds are supernatants. stream are chemical manufacturing wastes formed in the chlorinator, and are How Many Facilities Generate This that are outside the scope of the Bevill predominantly associated with the Waste Category and How Is It Managed? exemption. exempt mineral processing solids (2) Solids removed from the gaseous (additional details regarding this Four facilities generated commingled titanium tetrachloride stream. These solids wastewaters from the chloride process. are associated with the production of conclusion are provided in the referenced background document). (As will be discussed further in titanium tetrachloride. These solids are III.F.14.e(7), two additional facilities typically slurried to impoundments for These compounds were not assessed, storage or disposal and are Bevill-exempt however, as part of the rulemakings generate the same wastewaters and (with one exception described below). which established the mineral commingle them with wastewaters from (3) Waste acids. In 1990 and 1998 processing exemptions, and so these the sulfate process.) Three of the four rulemakings for LDR Phase IV (see 63 FR results could present new issues for ‘‘chloride only’’ facilities treat their 28601), EPA took the position that the waste these wastes if such compounds were wastewaters in surface impoundment- acids do not meet the high-volume, low- based treatment systems; the fourth toxicity test and thus are not exempt mineral found to pose unacceptable risks. During the development of the mineral facility uses a tank-based wastewater processing wastes. treatment system. Each of the (4) Gases going to scrubbers. Offgases from processing exemption, EPA anticipated the chlorinators pass through various air certain conditions might suggest the impoundment systems include unlined pollution control systems which generate appropriateness of re-opening these units. These large volume wastes are scrubber waters. In 1998, EPA stated that exemptions.48 We are considering generated in excess of 29 million metric scrubber waters and sludges from scrubber whether we should re-assess the status tons per year. These wastewaters are not waters were not Bevill-exempt. However, as of these wastes as exempt mineral Bevill-exempt (but convey exempt a result of the information collection processing wastes. Any reassessment of solids into the wastewater treatment activities associated with today’s proposal, it these wastes would involve a separate system where those solids are removed is now clear to EPA that gases from the to form sludges that are comprised of chlorinator contain some solids from the analysis and opportunity for notice and chlorinator. We are interpreting the comment. exempt solids and non-exempt solids, exemption today to cover these particles depending on the specific piping of the when they drop out of scrubber waters to How Did EPA Assess Mixtures of plants). form sludges. (Gas streams and wastewaters Exempt and Non-Exempt Wastes From Many facilities commingle waste are not Bevill exempt, even when they are the Production of Titanium Dioxide? hydrochloric acids (generated as carrying solid particles from chlorinator.) There are a number of wastes from the scrubber water) with their combined (5) Solids purged from the reactor. A purge titanium dioxide sector that remain wastewaters. Three other facilities, stream from the reactor may be taken to partially within the scope of the consent however, return waste acids on site or reduce silica levels in the reactor. This sell the acids for reuse. Because these stream is Bevill exempt. decree because they are composed of (6) Recovered solids from the reaction area. both exempt and non-exempt solids. materials have no exposure route of Housekeeping results in the collection of Because they are not ‘‘100 percent concern, we did not further evaluate coke and ore solids from the vicinity of the exempt’’ in composition, we have risk scenarios associated with reuse of reaction area. These wastes are Bevill assessed their potential impacts on the this material. exempt. environment, and attempted to isolate In one case, the facility conducts some What Management Scenarios Were the risks associated with the non- Assessed? processing of their ferric chloride waste acid exempt solids and wastewaters. Any (which is subsequently sold as a water and For this rulemaking, we determined wastewater reagent), and generates a solids assessment of the CDD and CDF loading in exempt wastes will involve a separate that the surface impoundment scenario stream. We consider the processing that this poses a more significant potential risk facility conducts to be either an ancillary analysis and opportunity for notice and process or chemical manufacturing, and thus comment. than the tank scenario, and thus the subsequent solids stream is not generated Finally, we are assessing one non- assessed the groundwater pathway for from mineral processing and therefore is not exempt waste generated at the Delaware surface impoundments. We assessed exempt. facility, non-exempt non-wastewaters potential groundwater releases to both surface water and drinking water wells. What Is The Status of the Mineral from the chloride-ilmenite process, We concluded that the air pathway does Processing Exemption for ‘‘Chloride which contains some CDDs and CDFs at not present significant risks for these Waste Solids From Titanium levels exceeding our initial screening wastes because the wastes do not Tetrachloride Production’? criteria. We did not, as part of today’s listing determination, conduct sufficient contain volatile organics or other As part of our waste characterization constituents that pose risk due to air of the titanium dioxide sector, we 48 ‘‘If EPA finds that this exemption is not releases. conducted analyses for chlorinated protective of human health and the environment dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and dibenzo- and if an examination of titanium tetrachloride How Was This Waste Category p-furans (CDFs). We were concerned waste management shows any continuing or new Characterized? problems, the Agency will reconsider this subtitle that these compounds might be present D determination for chloride process waste solids One of the four facilities, located in in the wastes as a result of the from titanium tetrachloride production.’’ 56 FR Hamilton, Mississippi, was selected for chlorination step which occurs in the 273000, June 13, 1991. sampling and analysis. This facility’s
VerDate 11
TABLE III±40.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE
Detected levels in Sample KM±SI±01 Constituent of concern (mg/L) HBL AWQC SPLP Total Filtrate
Antimony ...... <0.05 0.044 0.006 0.014 Arsenic ...... 0.04 0.001 0.0007 0.000018 Manganese ...... 25.9 0.46 0.73 0.05 Molybdenum ...... 0.53 0.23 0.078 NA Thallium ...... 0.086 1 <0.005 0.001 0.0017 1 Thallium is identified as a potential constituent of concern because it was detected in the totals analysis at levels exceeding the HBL and AWQC, and the SPLP filtrate analysis detection limit was too high to confirm that mobile levels of thallium do not exceed these standards. One half the detection limit was used as input to the risk assessment (see III.E.3).
How Was the Groundwater-to-Surface overall flow being toward the river. We amount of available information best Water Risk Assessment Established? calculated infiltration rates for the supported our data requirements for We assumed that surface unlined impoundment, and divided this modeling and because we believe this impoundments present greater risks to flow rate into the flow rate of the river facility is representative of other the environment than tanks. Therefore to determine potential concentrations of generators of this waste category in we focused on the 3 facilities that the five metals of concern in the river terms of hydrogeological setting and manage wastewaters in impoundments. as a result of recharge with waste characterization. Based on We selected the sampled facility for contaminated groundwater. The results information presented in the RFA for modeling because (1) its management of this screening (see ‘‘Risk Assessment the facility of concern, as well as from practices (i.e., treatment in surface Support to the Inorganic Chemical the U.S. Geological Survey Ground- impoundments) are representative of 3 Industry Listing: Background water Site Inventory, there are of the 4 chloride-only facilities, (2) the Information Document’’) demonstrate groundwater wells north of the plant. that concentrations of the constituents analytical data for this waste were The RFA also indicates that of concern are likely to be well below obtained from this site, and (3) its groundwater flow direction in the setting is similar to the other 2 facilities risk thresholds for both human health and aquatic life in surface water. localized vicinity of the surface that use surface impoundments. The impoundments is to the northwest. We facility selected for modeling is How Was the Groundwater Ingestion modeled the potential impact of the bounded on two sides by a river, Risk Assessment Established? unlined portion of the surface tributary creeks, and swamps. The RCRA Facility Assessment 50 for this site We were able to collect specific impoundment train on drinking water provides maps showing distances to information regarding the physical wells located within 2,000–5,000 feet these potential receptors and setting of the modeled facility, and thus (based on well locations and the closest groundwater flow directions in the used primarily site-specific data as facility property lines). The resultant vicinity of the surface impoundments input to the risk assessment. We chose concentrations are presented below in and plant-wide flow directions, with the this site for modeling because the Table III–41.
TABLE III±41.ÐGROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE
Risk or hazard quotient Constituent of concern 90th% 95th% Adult Child Adult Child
Antimony HQ ...... 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 Arsenic cancer risk ...... 2E±08 2E±08 8E±08 6E±08 Molybdenum HQ ...... 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.1
50 U.S. EPA RCRA Facility Assessment of Kerr 49 This facility also commingles wastewaters from McGee Chemical Corporation; Hamilton, MS. June sodium clorate production, which account for 16, 1995. approximately 1.7 percent of the total 4aste volume.
VerDate 11
TABLE III±41.ÐGROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDEÐContinued
Risk or hazard quotient Constituent of concern 90th% 95th% Adult Child Adult Child
Thallium HQ ...... 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.07
What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This contributions of non-exempt solids to wastewater treatment solids are Waste? their waste solids. Two of these described separately in section facilities, both located in Ohio, We propose not to list commingled III.F.14.e(8). They contain significant commingle wastewaters from oxidation wastewaters from the production of volumes of non-exempt solids (>35%). and finishing (i.e., generated after the titanium dioxide via the chloride (3) Various sands from oxidation, production of titanium tetrachloride and process. The results of our risk milling and scouring. therefore potentially bearing non- assessment show that this waste exempt solids) with the wastewaters How Many Facilities Generate This category does not pose significant risk to from titanium tetrachloride production Waste Category and How Is It Managed? human health and the environment. Our that bear exempt solids. Neither facility assessment of the air and surface water Two facilities using the chloride reported any solids in their oxidation exposure pathways shows no risk of process reported disposal of 250 MT of and finishing wastewaters, although concern. Our assessment of the milling sand in off-site and dedicated data from similar wastewaters from the groundwater exposure pathway on-site Subtitle D landfills. One facility chloride-ilmenite process indicate that also reported landfilling over 2,300 MT similarly shows no risk of concern for very low levels of solids can be present the constituents of concern. of scouring sand. One facility reported in similar wastewaters. (We assess 6,935 MT/yr of waste oxidation sand (2) Chloride process solids (Bevill solids from the chloride-ilmenite that is managed in an on-site industrial exempt). Six facilities generate waste process in section III.F.14.e(10) of this Subtitle D landfill. All of these sands are solids from the chloride process. As proposal.) At the third facility (located similar and are associated with titanium previously discussed, the Agency in Mississippi), which operates a dioxide finishing operations. All of determined at 56 FR 27312 (June 13, slightly different process, there were no these sands are produced after the 1991) that chloride process waste solids reported wastewaters or solids from beginning of chemical manufacturing from titanium tetrachloride production oxidation and finishing. Note that the and therefore are not exempt. are Bevill exempt mineral processing wastewaters bearing the exempt solids wastes (40 CFR 261.4(b)(7)(ii)(S)). Five at this facility are commingled with What Management Scenarios Were of the six facilities generate their solids comparatively small volumes of Assessed? in surface impoundments; the sixth, wastewaters from sodium chlorate We assessed the off-site industrial located in Louisiana, uses tank-based production (described in section III.F.11 landfill scenario for milling sand and a settling to segregate the solids from their 52 of today’s proposal). We believe that dedicated on-site landfill for scouring wastewaters. All six facilities dispose of the contribution of any non-exempt sand, reflecting the types of their solids in their surface solids to the volume of exempt solids management reported for these wastes. impoundments or on-site landfills. from these three facilities would be very We assessed the groundwater ingestion Approximately 1.2 million MT of this small. Thus, we have chosen not to pathway for these landfills. The on-site waste was generated in 1998.51 The attribute any risks to the nonexempt landfill scenario for scouring sand waste solids at each of these sites portion of these commingled solids. screened out when we compared the contains contributions from Bevill Two of the six facilities generating SPLP results for this waste directly to exempt solids ranging from 100% to chloride process waste solids also the HBLs. 40%, as discussed further below. operate sulfate-based titanium dioxide At the two facilities located in Georgia production lines. These plants are sited How Was This Waste Category and Louisiana, coke and ore solids are in Georgia and Maryland. Wastewaters Characterized? generated as entirely segregated wastes from the chloride process and sulfate We collected samples of both the that are not commingled with non- processes are commingled and results in milling sand and the scouring sand. We exempt solids; these exempt wastes are commingled wastewater treatment conducted total, TCLP and SPLP clearly outside the scope of the consent solids that are partially composed of analyses on the waste matrix. We used decree dictating today’s proposal and exempt solids. The non-exempt the SPLP results (rather than the TCLP) have not been assessed further. to assess potential releases to 52 At three other facilities, the facilities The sodium chlorate wastewaters account for groundwater because there is no contact conduct some commingling of their only 1.7% of the total volume of managed wastewater, and for only 4.4% of the solids with municipal landfill leachate in the wastewaters, resulting in small potential generated. The predominant potential constituent of reported management practices, and no concern in the sodium chlorate solids is chromium; indication that other practices are likely. 51 This waste volume includes the non-exempt analytical data for the commingled solids (KM–SI– sulfate solids generated at one of the 2 facilities that 04) show that the SPLP concentration is <0.05 mg/ The SPLP analytical results of concern commingle wastes from the chloride and sulfate L and not of concern. See section III.F.11 for further for the milling sand are presented below processes. discussion of this facility’s sludge. in Table III–42.
VerDate 11
TABLE III±42.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF acid directly to their gypsum plants pathways. The primary gypsum MILLING SAND FROM TITANIUM DI- where it is neutralized to form gypsum. contained lower levels of leachable OXIDE PRODUCTION We found no significant potential for metals than the secondary gypsum; we release of this acid waste prior to its focused our modeling efforts on the Detected treatment in the gypsum plant. The two higher volume secondary gypsum as it SPLP lev- HBL facilities reported production of 69,500 was more likely to show risk when Constituent of concern els in MT/yr of gypsum that is landfilled.53 KP±SO± (mg/L) modeled and the management scenarios 05 (mg/L) We chose to look further at this material are identical (they are placed in the because it is disposed of in a landfill same on-site industrial landfill). The Antimony ...... 0.024 0006 and used in a manner constituting screening results are discussed further disposal (i.e., as fertilizer), and because in the ‘‘Titanium Dioxide Listing the generators conduct on-site land How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Background Document for the Inorganic Risk Assessment Established? placement (piles). Specifically, the Georgia facility places their gypsum in Chemical Listing Determination,’’ As described in Section III.D.4. we piles prior to sale for use in agricultural available in the docket for today’s used our standard distance-to-well chemicals, cement, chemical products, notice. assumptions for an off-site landfill, and and wall board. The Maryland facility assumed hydrogeologic conditions We assessed the landfill scenario for generates primary and secondary would be comparable to those for the potential impacts to both surface water gypsum, both of which are also placed reported off-site landfill. As shown in and drinking water wells. The facility in piles prior to use in wall board Table III–43, the resultant risks were selected for modeling is bounded to the manufacture or disposal in an on-site calculated. north and east by the Patapsco River, landfill. As described above, the which is an estuary. The expected gypsum is not an exempt mineral TABLE III±43.ÐGROUNDWATER PATH- groundwater flow, while not processing waste because this sulfate characterized definitively, is expected to WAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS process wastestream did not meet the be eastward, toward the river.54 FOR MILLING SAND FROM TITANIUM high volume/low toxicity criteria noted DIOXIDE PRODUCTION in 54 FR 36592 (September 1, 1989). How Was This Waste Category Characterized? Antimony HQ What Management Scenarios Were Assessed? Adult Child We collected three samples of this Percentile risk risk We assessed each of the reported waste for analysis. We conducted total, management scenarios that involve land TCLP and SPLP analyses on the waste 90th ...... 0.003 0.006 placement: agricultural chemicals, matrices. We used the SPLP results 95th ...... 0.008 0.02 cement, piles and landfills. We (rather than TCLP) to assess potential evaluated potential releases to both air releases to groundwater and surface What is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This and groundwater. Samples were water because there is no contact with Waste? collected at both facilities, and included municipal landfill leachate in the We propose not to list this waste both primary and secondary gypsum reported management practices. We because the modeled and screening risk samples at the Maryland site. The used total results to assess potential air for antimony, the sole constituent of management scenarios were assessed releases, and this pathway screened out. using the appropriate sample for the concern, is well below a hazard quotient The SPLP analytical results for the type of gypsum reported for that of unity. secondary gypsum that we used to (4) Gypsum from the sulfate process. scenario. All pathways screened out assess groundwater releases from except for the landfill scenario at the How Many Facilities Generate This Maryland site. For the Maryland landfill landfilling are presented below in Table Waste Category and How Is It Managed? we found constituent concentrations at III–44. The Maryland and Georgia facilities levels of potential concern for the generate this waste. Both sites pipe their groundwater and surface water
TABLE III±44.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF SECONDARY GYPSUM FROM SULFATE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE
Detected SPLP levels Constituent of concern in MI±SO± HBL AWQC 03 (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Antimony ...... 0.055 0.006 0.014 Arsenic ...... <0.0035 0.0007 0.000018 Manganese ...... 3.1 0.73 0.05
53 Additional volumes are used as products. Department of the Environment. RCRA Operation (now Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc.); 54 See ‘‘Update of the Hazardous Waste and Maintenance Inspection of SCM Chemicals Hawkins Point Plant; Baltimore, MD. October 1994. Groundwater Task Force’’, April 1998. Maryland
VerDate 11
How Was the Groundwater-to-Surface concentrations of the constituents of area to the south of the facility, or that Water Risk Assessment Established? concern are expected to be well below potentially contaminated groundwater We calculated infiltration rates for the risk thresholds for human health and would not reach this neighborhood. We unlined landfill, and divided this flow aquatic life in surface water. thus decided to model potential rate into the flow rate of the river to How Was the Groundwater Ingestion exposure at this neighborhood. We determine potential concentrations of Risk Assessment Established? modeled the potential impact of the the three metals of concern (see Table unlined landfill on drinking water wells III–44) in the river as a result of recharge While we are not aware of any actual located within 2,500–5,000 feet (based with contaminated groundwater. The drinking water wells in the vicinity of on distances to the nearest residential results of this screening (available in the the Maryland facility, we were unable to area). The resultant risks were Risk Assessment Background determine definitively that there are not calculated and are summarized in Table Document) demonstrate that private wells in use in the residential III–45.
TABLE III±45.ÐGROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR SECONDARY GYPSUM FROM SULFATE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE
Antimony HQ ArsenicÐcancer risk Manganese HQ Adult risk Child risk Adult risk Child risk Adult risk Child risk
90th ...... 0.23 0.49 6.E±07 4.E±07 0.1 0.2 95th ...... 0.35 0.75 1.E±06 1.E±06 0.1 0.3
What is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This (5) Digestion scrubber water from the section III.F.14.e(7). We also modeled Waste? sulfate process. the dedicated surface impoundment We propose not to list gypsum from How Many Facilities Generate This scenario using the physical parameters the sulfate process. The results of our Waste Category and How Is It Managed? describing the dedicated Georgia risk assessment demonstrate that there impoundment. This impoundment is is no significant risk associated with The Maryland and Georgia facilities placed directly on the banks of a river, this material, and that it does not reported generation of digestion and thus we were primarily concerned warrant control as a listed hazardous scrubber water from the sulfate process. with potential releases to surface water. waste. At the 95th percentile, the risks The Maryland facility manages this We did not model a drinking water well for antimony (HQ=0.75) and arsenic wastewater in a dedicated surface scenario because there are no ¥ (1E 6), approach levels at which EPA impoundment after neutralization. The constituents of concern in this considers listing wastes (HQ=1.0 and other facility commingles this wastewater at levels exceeding HBLs. cancer risk>10¥6, respectively). We wastewater with other wastewaters from believe that our modeled exposure their chloride and sulfate processes. As How Was This Waste Category scenario, while plausible, contains a described above, the gypsum is not an Characterized? number of conservative assumptions exempt mineral processing waste that likely overstate these marginal because this sulfate process wastestream We collected one sample of this waste risks. In particular, our assumptions did not meet the high volume/low for analysis. We conducted total regarding groundwater flow direction toxicity criteria noted in 54 FR 36592 analyses (leaching was not conducted (i.e., that a contaminated plume from (September 1, 1989). (See 40 CFR given the low levels of percent solids in the landfill would flow to the south 261.4(b)(7)(ii).) this waste), which are summarized below in Table III–46 for the toward the nearest residences, rather What Management Scenarios Were constituents of potential concern. than due west toward the river) and the Assessed? use of groundwater for drinking water at these residences (records indicate this We assessed the waste in its community uses public water) may commingled form as managed by the overstate actual risks. Maryland facility, as described below in
TABLE III±46.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF DIGESTION SCRUBBER WATER FROM SULFATE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE
Detected levels in HBL AWQC Constituent of concern MI±WW±03 (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Aluminum ...... 0.58 16 0.087 Manganese ...... 0.58 0.73 0.05 Mercury ...... 0.0032 0.005 0.000050
How Was the Groundwater-to-Surface of the river to determine potential screening (available in the Risk Water Risk Assessment Established? concentrations of the three metals of Assessment Background Document) concern (see Table III–46) in the river as demonstrate that concentrations of the We calculated infiltration rates for the a result of recharge with contaminated constituents of concern are likely to be unlined surface impoundment, and divided this flow rate into the flow rate groundwater. The results of this
VerDate 11
TABLE III±47.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF DIGESTION SLUDGE FROM SULFATE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE
Detected SPLP Lev- Constituent of concern els in MI± HBL (mg/L) AWQC SO±02 (mg/L) (mg/L)
Aluminum ...... 2.0 16 0.087 Antimony ...... 0.023 0.006 0.014 Copper ...... 0.37 1.3 0.0031 Iron ...... 12.0 5 1 Lead ...... 1 0.004 0.015 0.0025 Manganese ...... 0.36 0.73 0.05 Vanadium ...... 0.42 0.14 Zinc ...... 0.30 4.7 0.12 1 Results are less than the typical laboratory reporting limit, but are greater than the calculated instrument detection limits.
How Was the Groundwater-to-Surface (8). The results of this screening ingestion scenario was assessed for Water Risk Assessment Established? (available in the Risk Assessment antimony and vanadium because the Background Document) demonstrate detected SPLP concentrations exceeded We calculated infiltration rates for the that concentrations of the constituents their respective HBLs. We did not assess landfill, and divided this flow rate into of concern are likely to be well below the iron HBL exceedence because the the flow rate of the river to determine risk thresholds for human health and HBL is at or above the solubility limit potential concentrations of the three aquatic life in surface water. in ground water under most conditions. metals of concern (see preceding table) in the river as a result of recharge with How Was the Groundwater Ingestion The resultant risks were calculated and contaminated groundwater. Note that Risk Assessment Established? are summarized in Table III–48. this is the same Maryland landfill See the comparable discussion for the described elsewhere in III.F.14.e(4) and gypsum (III.F.14.e(4)). The groundwater
TABLE III±48.ÐGROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR DIGESTION SLUDGE FROM SULFATE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE
Antimony HQ Vanadium HQ Adult risk Child risk Adult risk Child risk
90th ...... 0.13 0.27 0.02 0.03 95th ...... 0.18 0.39 0.03 0.07
What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This How Many Facilities Generate This sludges that are comprised of exempt Waste? Waste Category and How Is It Managed? solids and non-exempt solids, We propose not to list this waste. The The Maryland and Georgia facilities depending on the specific piping of the results of our risk assessment modeling generate this waste category. Both plants). show that this waste does not contain facilities neutralized their commingled What Management Scenarios Were mobile metals that are likely to pose risk wastewaters and manage them in Assessed? to human health and the environment surface impoundments prior to NPDES due to transport through the subsurface. discharge (but convey exempt solids We collected samples at both facilities (7) Commingled wastewaters from the into the wastewater treatment system at the influent to their surface chloride and sulfate process. where those solids are removed to form impoundment trains. We screened the
VerDate 11
TABLE III±49.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE AND SULFATE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE [mg/L]
Detected levels in sample Constituent of concern MI±WW±04 HBL AWQC Total SPLP Filtrate
Arsenic ...... 0.022 <0.005 (1) 0.0007 0.000018 Manganese ...... 119 9.95 0.73 0.05 Thallium ...... 0.005 0.004 0.001 0.0017 (1) 1/2 the detection limit was used as input to the risk assessment.
How Was the Groundwater-to-Surface of recharge with contaminated How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Water Risk Assessment Established? groundwater. The results of this Risk Assessment Established? screening (available in the Risk We calculated infiltration rates for the See the comparable discussion for the surface impoundment, and divided this Assessment Background Document) gypsum (III.F.14.e(4)). The resultant flow rate into the flow rate of the river demonstrate that concentrations of the risks were calculated and are to determine potential concentrations of constituents of concern are likely to be the two metals of concern (see well below risk thresholds for human summarized in Table III–50. preceding table) in the river as a result health and aquatic life in surface water.
TABLE III±50.ÐGROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE AND SULFATE PROCESSES, TITANIUM DIOXIDE
90th percentile 95th percentile Constituent of concern Adult Child Adult Child
Arsenic cancer risk ...... 5E±08 3E±08 2E±07 1E±07 Manganese HQ ...... 0.009 0.02 0.02 0.04
What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This sludges in on-site landfills. Over slurry and scrubber water from the Waste? 159,000 MT of this waste was generated reaction area) as identified in We propose not to list commingled in 1998. 261.4(b)(7)(ii)(S) and discussed above in wastewaters from the production of What Is the Bevill Exemption Status of III.F.14.e(2). Two scrubber waters from 55 titanium dioxide from the chloride and This Waste Category? the calcination and finishing portion sulfate processes. The results of our risk of the sulfate process contribute non- assessment demonstrate that this waste As discussed above, the chloride exempt solids to the wastewater category does not pose risks warranting process waste solids are exempt mineral treatment solids (sulfate process wastes listing as hazardous waste. Arsenic processing wastes, to the extent that levels at the receptor result in cancer they are associated with the titanium 55 Although wastes from calcining are generally risks well below 1E–06, and manganese tetrachloride process. Data provided by treated as Bevill exempt extraction/beneficiation levels at the receptor are similarly well these two facilities, however, show that wastes, wastes from titanium dioxide calcination these waste contain at least 35% non- are post-mineral processing, chemical below a hazard quotient of one. manufacturing wastes. The Agency noted at 54 FR (8) Wastewater treatment sludges from exempt solids. Our quantitative 36619, ‘‘As discussed in the April NPRM, the commingled chloride-and sulfate- assessment of the potential risk Agency considers any operations following the process wastewaters. associated with these non-exempt solids initial [mineral] processing operation to be is provided here. [mineral] processing operations, regardless of How Many Facilities Generate This whether the activity was included on the list of RTC The wastewater treatment solids at beneficiation activities or has traditionally been Waste Category and How Is It Managed? the Maryland site are derived from at considered beneficiation.’’ Therefore, since mineral processing ends and chemical manufacturing starts Two facilities, sited in Georgia and least four primary sources. Two at the beginning of oxidation, and the calcining step Maryland, generate this waste category, residuals from the chloride process occurs after oxidation, all wastes generated from the and after de-watering, place their contribute exempt solids (i.e., solids calcining step are non-exempt wastes.
VerDate 11
TABLE III±51.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF COMMINGLED WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGES FROM CHLORIDE AND SULFATE PROCESSES, TITANIUM DIOXIDE
Detected SPLP levels Constituent of concern in MI±SO± HBL AWQC 01 (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Aluminum ...... 0.24 16 0.087 Arsenic ...... 1 0.00005 0.0007 0.000018 Manganese ...... 2.63 0.73 0.05 Thallium ...... 1 0.003 0.001 0.0017 1 Estimated results are less than the typical laboratory reporting limit, but are greater than the calculated instrument detection limits.
In addition to the metals described of magnitude), which segregates the screening (available in the Risk above, our analytical data show that this majority of its exempts solids from its Assessment Background Document) waste contains polychlorinated dioxins wastewater treatment solids. demonstrate that concentrations of the and furans (PCDD/F). These data are constituents of concern are likely to be How Was the Groundwater-to-Surface provided in the background document well below risk thresholds in surface Water Risk Assessment Established? for the titanium dioxide sector. As water. discussed previously (III.F.14.d), we The Maryland facility selected for How Was the Groundwater Ingestion believe that these contaminants are modeling this scenario was also Risk Assessment Established? clearly associated with the exempt modeled for several other wastes, and is solids contained in this waste, and thus described further in section III.F.14.e(5) The facility selected for modeling this we did not assess them. Samples above. We calculated infiltration rates scenario was also modeled for several collected at these two facilities bear out for the unlined landfill, and divided this other wastes, and is described further in this association with the exempt solids. flow rate into the flow rate of the river section III.F.14.e(4) above. The resultant The Maryland facility, which does not to determine potential concentrations of risks were calculated and are segregate any of its exempt solids from the four metals of concern (see summarized in Table III–52. other wastewater treatment solids, has preceding table) in the river as a result significantly higher PCDD/F levels than of recharge with contaminated the Georgia facility (i.e., several orders groundwater. The results of this
VerDate 11
TABLE III±52.ÐGROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR COMMINGLED WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGES FROM CHLORIDE AND SULFATE PROCESSES, TITANIUM DIOXIDE
Manganese HQ Thallium HQ Adult risk Child risk Adult risk Child Risk
90th ...... 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 95th ...... 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.4
What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This rather than the storage of products, What Is the Bevill Status of Solids Waste? because of their potential for releases to Removed From This Waste? We are proposing not to list the environment.56 In addition, we Prior to disposal or reuse of their commingled wastewater treatment sampled the ferric chloride at the waste acids, both the Mississippi and sludges from chloride and sulfate Delaware facility and found that it Tennessee plants filter their waste acid processes because our modeling of contains a variety of metals, as well as to remove the exempt solids. At the potential groundwater releases shows some chlorinated dioxins and furans. Delaware site, however, the waste acid no risk at levels which warrant listing (See the background document for this is processed via the addition of a this waste as hazardous. No scenario sector for more details on this sampling chemical prior to solids removal. The modeled (groundwater-to-surface water and analysis). These factors may lead to purpose of the chemical addition is to and groundwater-to-drinking water concerns about the legitimacy of the use modify the properties of the waste acid wells) showed risk at levels of of this material as a drinking water and to enhance its value as a saleable regulatory concern. wastewater treatment reagent. However, potable water and wastewater treatment (9) Waste acid (ferric chloride) from as explained below, we do not need to reagent. the chloride-ilmenite process. resolve this issue to make a decision The addition of this chemical at the Delaware plant marks the end of How Many Facilities Generate This about listing ferric chloride. titanium tetrachloride production (i.e., Waste Category and How Is It Managed? This waste routinely exhibits the mineral processing) and the beginning All three facilities that utilize the characteristic of corrosivity and the of ferric chloride production (assuming chloride-ilmenite process generate this toxicity characteristic for chromium and ferric chloride is a legitimate product). waste category. The DeLisle, Mississippi lead. All three generators of the ferric Ferric chloride production can be facility identifies the waste as chloride waste acid acknowledge the considered either chemical characteristic for corrosivity, chromium hazardous nature of this waste. Each manufacturing 57 or an ancillary and lead and disposes of its waste in an generator reported pH levels at 1 or less, process.58 Consequently, as explained on-site underground injection well. The and the one facility that disposes of this below in section III.F.14.e(10), solids Tennessee facility pipes its ferric waste via deep well injection assigns removed from the ferric chloride at the chloride to an on-site sodium chloride three separate characteristic codes to Delaware plant are not Bevill-exempt. plant. Both the Mississippi and this material. EPA sampled the ferric Tennessee facilities generate the What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This majority of their exempt-mineral chloride at the Delaware facility, and Waste? processing solids from the filtration of both EPA and the facility analyzed the We are proposing to not list this waste this waste acid. The Delaware facility’s waste. The results showed that this and rely instead on the existing process is slightly different in that the material exhibits the characteristics of regulatory controls provided by the majority of their exempt solids are D001, D007, and D008. hazardous waste characteristics. Data generated prior to the generation of the What Is the Bevill Status of This Waste? from all three facilities clearly waste acid, and only a relatively small demonstrates that this waste exhibits portion of their solids are generated Ferric chloride waste acid is a liquid several of the characteristics. At this from the removal of solids from this mineral processing waste that did not time we have not determined whether waste. The Delaware facility adds a meet the high volume/low toxicity any of the facilities are out of processing chemical to their waste acid, criteria for determining eligibility for compliance. State and EPA authorities removes solids, stores the acid in tanks the Bevill exemption and therefore is are examining these sites in detail for (as well as an on-site surface not Bevill-exempt (see 63 FR 28601). compliance with the existing impoundment when their tank capacity regulations. Listing would not serve to is exceeded), and sells the acid to a better establish this jurisdiction. 56 Surface impoundments pose essentially broker for resale as a wastewater and inherent risks of groundwater contamination due to The Mississippi facility that injects drinking water treatment reagent. the hydraulic pressure created by the contained this waste identifies the waste as However, EPA is not at this time liquids. Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 919 hazardous and manages it as a assessing whether the ferric chloride is F.2d 158, 166 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Material that is hazardous waste under Subtitle C a legitimate product. We did not attempt placed in a surface impoundment, where it is regulations. Within the context of this to address this complex and site-specific capable of posing a substantial present or potential consent decree, we did not investigate hazard to human health or the environment when issue in this proposal. We note that the improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed in depth the Tennessee facility’s use of Delaware facility uses a surface of or otherwise managed, ‘‘by leaching into the this material in production of sodium impoundment to store a portion of the ground, is ‘discarded material’ and hence a solid ferric chloride prior to its sale as a water waste.’’ (AMC II, 907 F.2d) Although secondary 57 54 FR 36616, September 1, 1989. and wastewater treatment reagent. EPA materials may have value and be reused, their value 58 All wastes from ancillary activities are not does not protect them from being considered solid uniquely associated with extraction/beneficiation has often considered land-based units, wastes for the purposes of RCRA regulation if they and processing of ores and minerals (see 45 FR and impoundments in particular, to be are discarded prior to use (API, 906 F.2d at 741 76619, November 19, 1980, and 63 FR 28590, May associated with the discard of wastes, n.16). 26, 1998).
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
(associated with the titanium dioxide What Management Scenarios Were relevant. Our assessment addresses the production process). The commingled Assessed? municipal scenario qualitatively. These wastewaters are managed in on-site scenarios were assessed for potential surface impoundments and the dredged The Delaware facility asserts that releases to drinking water wells and air solids from these units (comprised of there are a variety of end uses for the releases. In addition, we modeled the exempt and nonexempt materials) are Iron Rich. The predominant recent use on-site landfill at the Tennessee facility placed in an on-site landfill. The facility has been for the construction of dikes to for potential releases to surface water. contain dredged river sediments at U.S. provided detailed information regarding Army Corp of Engineer disposal sites in How Was This Waste Category the amounts of solids present in each of the vicinity of the titanium dioxide Characterized? the wastewaters managed in this system, plant. We assessed this scenario as demonstrating that there is a small We collected samples of this waste at comparable to an industrial D landfill the Tennessee and Delaware facilities. contribution (∼3%) of non-exempt scenario. The Iron Rich has also been For the Tennessee facility, we collected solids (i.e., solids in wastewaters from used as daily cover at a municipal the sample directly from a holding/ oxidation and finishing) in the landfill (demonstration project) and as dewatering pond where the dredged wastewater treatment sludge. We did final cover for a closed on-site landfill. wastewater treatment solids are not select this facility for site visits and These uses clearly constitute disposal. dewatered prior to landfilling on site. thus did not sample this waste. We Other proposed uses include use as We collected the sample from the believe our sampling and modeling of subsidence fill at a closed municipal Delaware facility directly from the Iron the Tennessee and Delaware sites is an landfill, structural fill by the local Port Rich dewatering unit press; this sample appropriate surrogate for this waste Authority, surcharge for road bed consisted of commingled chlorinator given the similar nature of the processes compaction, and construction of a solids, ferric chloride solids, and at the three facilities (with particular wildlife refuge at the site of the closed wastewater treatment solids. This similarities between the wastewater on-site industrial landfill. These uses all material is sometimes mixed with fly treatment facilities at Mississippi and involve placement on the ground and ash prior to use; our sample was Tennessee). Furthermore, the also appear to also be uses that collected prior to fly ash addition. Both percentages of non-exempt solids in the constitute disposal (see 40 CFR 266.20). samples were analyzed for total, TCLP commingled wastes at the Tennessee We chose to model risks for disposal in and SPLP constituent analyses. These and Delaware sites are higher than at the an off-site industrial D landfill because data are summarized below in Table III– Mississippi site. this seemed to fit the largest number of 54 for the constituents of concern that the varied potential disposal or land- were present in the wastes at levels based use scenarios. We believe the exceeding the health-based levels and/ municipal landfill scenario is also or ambient water quality criteria.
TABLE III±54.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT SOLIDS FROM THE CHLORIDE-ILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE
Detected levels, Delaware site Detected levels, AWQC Soil Tennessee site HBL (mg/L) screening Constituent of concern Total TCLP SPLP (mg/L) levels Total SPLP Human Aquatic 1 (mg/kg) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/kg) (mg/L) health life (mg/kg)
Antimony ...... 0.9 2 0.021 0.02 0.7 0.021 0.006 0.014 n/a 32 Arsenic ...... 2.2 <0.0035 2 0.001 2.8 3 <0.0035 0.0007 1.8E±05 0.15 4.7 Barium ...... 178 2 2.4 0.92 49.6 0.12 1.1 n/a n/a 5600 Boron ...... 30 1.7 0.61 24.5 0.45 1.4 n/a n/a 7,200 Lead ...... 309 2 0.032 2 0.0032 42.4 2 0.002 0.015 ...... 0.0025 400 Manganese ...... 10,600 252 16.3 2,890 1.5 0.7 0.05 n/a 4 3,800 Nickel ...... 91.8 0.5 <0.005 59.8 0.007 0.31 0.61 0.052 1,600 Thallium ...... 3.7 0.28 0.012 7.2 <0.0022 0.001 0.0017 n/a 6.4 Vanadium ...... 240 2 0.0003 <0.005 1,060 <0.005 0.14 n/a n/a 720 n/a: not applicable. 1 Soil ingestion health-based levels. 2 Results are less than the typical laboratory reporting limit, but are greater than the calculated instrument detection limits. 3 One half the detection limit was used as model input. 4 The air characteristic level is 3,000 mg/kg at 25m and drops to 30,000 at 150m.
VerDate 11
In addition, our analytical data show TABLE III±55.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF flow will generally follow the natural that chlorinated dioxins and furans are WASTEWATER TREATMENT SOLIDS topography. A ridgeline running north present in these wastes. As discussed FROM THE CHLORIDE-ILMENITE and south is located just east of the previously, we believe these compounds PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE facility boundary. This ridge is are associated with the exempt solids. approximately 200 feet higher in CHLORINATED DIBENZO-P-DIOXINS However, the Delaware waste contains elevation than the elevation at the the ferric chloride solids; these solids (CDD) AND FURANS (CDF)ÐCon- facility. Based on this topography, we have lost their exempt status because of tinued expect that the groundwater flow the facility’s chemical manufacturing/ direction is to the west towards the ancillary activities necessary for the Total De- tected levels river. We calculated the concentrations production of ferric chloride for sale as in Delaware in the river that would result from a water and wastewater treatment Constituent of concern waste discharge of contaminated ground water reagent. As a result, we have considered (ng/kg, wet by estimating the infiltration rate for the the chlorinated dioxin and furan basis) unlined landfill, and (given the area of content of the waste as part of today’s 1234789-HeptaCDF ...... 126 the landfill) diluting the resulting listing determination. The PCDD/PCDF OctaCDF ...... 24,000 leachate volume into the river under analytical results for the Delaware site OctaCDD ...... 22.2 various design flow conditions. The are summarized below (detected 2378±TetraCDD Equivalent1 .... 57.2 results of this screening level analysis homologs only) in Table III–55. (available in the Risk Assessment 1 12378±TetraCDD equivalent calculated using the World Health Organization Toxic Background Document) demonstrate TABLE III±55.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF Equivalency Factors (WHO±TEF). Van den that concentrations of the constituents WASTEWATER TREATMENT SOLIDS Berg, et al. 1998. Toxic Equivalency Factors of concern in the river are likely to be FROM THE HLORIDE LMENITE (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for Human well below the national AWQC for C -I and Wildlife. Environmental Health Perspec- PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE tives, v.106, n.12, pp. 775±792. December. human health and aquatic life for these CHLORINATED DIBENZO-P-DIOXINS constituents. How Was the Groundwater-to-Surface (CDD) AND FURANS (CDF) Water Risk Assessment Established? How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Risk Assessment Established? Total De- The Tennessee facility is bounded to tected levels the west by the Tennessee River. The The Delaware facility reported actual in Delaware facility indicated that the overall or contemplated use of the Iron Rich at Constituent of concern waste (ng/kg, wet groundwater flow is toward the river. a variety of landfills and land placement basis) There have been several projects to usages in the general vicinity of the determine placement of down gradient plant. We used our usual distance-to- 2378-TetraCDF ...... 12.2 monitoring wells for individual on-site well assumptions for an off-site landfill, 12378-PentaCDF ...... 21.8 landfill units. These borings indicate and assumed hydrogeologic conditions 23478-PentaCDF ...... 48.1 that the groundwater elevation declines 123478-HexaCDF ...... 237 that are representative of the principal 123678-HexaCDF ...... 8.1 to the northwest towards the river. In soil and aquifer types present regionally 234678-HexaCDF ...... 2.5 addition, a contract geologist familiar (within a 100 mile radius) of the facility. 123789-HexaCDF ...... 5.6 with the local hydrogeology has The resultant risk assessment results are 1234678-HeptaCDF ...... 189 indicated that shallow groundwater presented below in Table III–56.
TABLE III±56.ÐGROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR NON-WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE- ILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE
Hazard quotient or cancer risk Constituents of concern 90th% adult 90th% child 95th% adult 95th% child
Antimony ...... 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.8 Arsenic (cancer risk) ...... 3E±07 2E±07 1E±06 9E±07 Manganese ...... 0.8 1.6 1.6 3.3 Thallium ...... 0.7 1.4 1.1 2.4
What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This these listed materials remain In addition, the management practices Waste? commingled with solids that would reported for this waste, particularly as otherwise be exempt, the entire reported for the Delaware site, are We propose to list as hazardous the commingled mass is subject to the expected to provide less control than non-exempt portion of the solid wastes listing (see § 261.3(b)(2)). Our risk the scenario modeled (i.e., an industrial generated from the production of results indicate that metals in these landfill). Potential future management titanium dioxide via the chloride- materials leach at levels that may pose practices include use at municipal ilmenite process. This listing covers the a risk to human health and the landfills for interim and final cover, as non-exempt portions of the wastewater environment. Specifically, in the well as subsidence fill at a closed treatment solids generated at all three commingled wastes, the risks exceed an municipal landfill. These scenarios, facilities, any non-exempt portions of HQ of one for both manganese (3.3) and particularly the interim cover scenario, the chlorinator solids (e.g., any mass thallium (2.4) at the 95th percentile; the indicate that the waste may come in derived from the vanadium wastes), and risks similarly exceed an HQ of one for contact with municipal landfill leachate ferric chloride solids generated at the both manganese (1.6) and thallium (1.4) in the future, if not listed. The TCLP Delaware facility. To the extent that at the 90th percentile. results for this waste indicate even
VerDate 11
TABLE III±57.ÐREDUCED VOLUME ANALYSIS; GROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR NON- WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE-ILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE
Hazard quotient or cancer risk Constituents of concern 90th % adult 90th % child 95th % adult 95th % child
Antimony ...... 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 Arsenic ...... not modeled Manganese ...... 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.2 Thallium ...... 0.4 0.9 0.8 1.6
This waste also contains 57 ppt TCDD (these solids were part of the Iron Rich (11) HCl from reaction scrubber, equivalents. This concentration exceeds sample collected by EPA to support this chloride-ilmenite process. All three the background level in soils (8 ppt) and listing determination). Similarly, at the chloride-ilmenite facilities reported the soil ingestion HBL of 45 ppt59. We Delaware facility, solids that collect in generating HCl from scrubbing reactor were not able to compare this the ferric chloride product storage tanks off-gasses. These wastes are stored in concentration with a screening level and impoundments would be covered covered tanks with vent scrubbers and from the Air Characteristics Study by the listing as these solids are are re-used on site, predominantly as pH because the study did not establish ineligible for the mineral processing control in wastewater treatment levels for TCDD. While we did not exemption (because they are generated systems. We assessed this waste as part conduct a risk assessment of the after the initiation of chemical of the following category, ‘‘Commingled detected TCDD TEQ, the presence of manufacturing and/or ancillary wastewaters from chloride-ilmenite TCDD equivalents in the wastes is an operations), they are comparable to the process’’. additional factor that supports a listing ferric chloride solids that are determination, particularly in light of commingled in the Iron Rich, and they (12) Commingled wastewaters from the fact that the management practices are derived to some degree from non- the chloride-ilmenite process. reported by the facility were varied and, exempt vanadium materials. The How Many Facilities Generate This in many cases, would constitute releases proposed listing, therefore, reads: Waste Category and How Is It Managed? to the circulating environment with a K178 Non-wastewaters from the production greater potential for a variety of of titanium dioxide by the chloride- All three chloride-ilmenite facilities exposure pathways than would occur ilmenite process. (T) [This listing does not commingle their wastewaters and treat from a well managed landfill. apply to chloride process waste solids from them on-site. The Delaware facility The proposed listing address all non- titanium tetrachloride production exempt utilizes a tank-based system, with final wastewaters that are not covered by the under section 261.4(b)(7)] NPDES discharge through an unlined mineral processing waste exemption, cooling pond to the adjacent river. Both and is not limited to non-exempt We are also proposing to add the Tennessee and Mississippi facilities wastewater treatment solids. The listing manganese and thallium to Appendix utilized surface impoundment based therefore would cover non-exempt non- VII to Part 261, which designates the wastewater treatment systems. These hazardous constituents for which K178 wastewaters from the removal of wastewaters are not Bevill-exempt (but would be listed. In addition, we are vanadium wastes from the product convey exempt solids into the proposing to add manganese to the list titanium tetrachloride stream that are wastewater treatment system where of hazardous constituents in Appendix currently returned to the reaction area those solids are removed to form VIII to Part 261. We believe the available and ultimately commingled with the sludges that are comprised of exempt exempt reactor solids or ferric chloride studies clearly show that manganese has toxic effects on humans and other life solids and non-exempt solids, 60 depending on the specific piping of the 59 forms. EPA is currently evaluating the health risks plants). from 2,3,7,8-TCDD and once the review process is completed, EPA may re-examine the soil ingestion 60 See information in EPA’s IRIS database, which HBL. See http://www.epa.gov.ncea.dioxin.htm for may be found at http://www.epa.gov/iris, and ‘‘Risk for the Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes’’ additional information. Assessment Support to the Listing Determinations (August 2000) in the docket for today’s rule.
VerDate 11
What Management Scenarios Were potential drinking water wells. The the Mississippi facility’s surface Assessed? RFI 61 for this site indicates that the impoundments on surface water local groundwater flow is generally because the facility is bounded to the We modeled the surface toward the south and east. It is unclear south by the Bay of St. Louis. impoundment scenarios at both the what the patterns are off site and how We did not conduct sampling and Tennessee and Mississippi sites. (We these patterns might change seasonally, analysis at the Mississippi facility. Our assumed any releases from the unlined but the groundwater elevation maps risk assessment inputs for this facility cooling pond at the Delaware facility included in the RFI indicated that the used the combined analytical data set would be intercepted by the river, and direction of groundwater flow does vary for the Delaware and Tennessee would be comparable in concentration, seasonally and that a shift to a more facilities, which are sister plants of the but much less volume than the actual westerly direction may occur under NPDES discharge point.) some conditions. Information from the Mississippi plant. We used the physical At the Tennessee site, we assessed the U.S. Geological Survey’s Ground-water parameters for the Mississippi site to potential releases from the Site Inventory, available in the docket describe wastewater flows, surface impoundment system to the adjacent for today’s proposal, shows numerous impoundment sizes, and distances to river. We do not believe any drinking drinking water wells in the vicinity of potential receptors for this modeling. water wells could possibly be impacted the plant, both to the east and How Was This Waste Category by these impoundments given their southwest. The facility also reported Characterized? placement on the river banks and within wells on their property which they the facility property. We sampled at this believe are cross-gradient and, in some The analytical results for the facility at the headworks to the cases, unused. We chose to model the constituents found to be present in the impoundment train. groundwater scenario because of wastewaters at levels exceeding HBLs We assessed the Mississippi facility’s potential impacts on these known wells. and/or AWQC are presented below in impact on both surface water and We also assessed the potential impact of Table III–58.
TABLE III±58.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE-ILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE
Detected Detected levels in levels in AWQCÐ Constituent of concern Delaware Tennessee HBL Aquatic life sample sample (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Aluminum ...... 0.65 3.1 16 0.087 Copper ...... 0.03 0.007 1.3 0.0031 Lead ...... <0.003 0.005B 0.015 0.0025 Manganese ...... 3.3 3.34 0.73 N/A Nickel ...... 0.013 0.020 0.3 0.052 Thallium ...... <0.005 0.013 0.001 N/A Vanadium ...... 0.018 0.63 0.14 N/A B: also detected in blank N/A: not available
How Was the Groundwater-to-Surface unlined surface impoundment, and How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Water Risk Assessment Established? (given the area of the impoundment) Risk Assessment Established? diluting the resulting leachate volume The Tennessee facility is bounded to Based on information presented in the the west by a river. As noted above, the into the river under various design flow RFI for the Mississippi facility, as well facility indicated that the overall conditions. The results of this screening as from the U.S. Geological Survey groundwater flow is toward the river. level analysis (available in Risk Ground-water Site Inventory, there are The Mississippi facility is bounded to Assessment Support to the Inorganic groundwater wells to the east and the south by the Bay of St. Louis, which Chemical Industry Listing: Background southwest of the plant within 2,000– is fed by 2 rivers to the east and west Information Document’’) demonstrate 5,000 feet. We modeled the potential of the plant. Additional details are that concentrations of the constituents impact of the unlined surface available in the docket. We calculated of concern in the river are likely to be impoundment train on drinking water the concentration in the river that well below the human health and wells located within this range. The would result from discharge of aquatic life AWQC for these results are presented below in Table III– contaminated groundwater by constituents. 59. estimating the infiltration rate for the
61 Draft RCRA Facility Investigation Report; DuPont DeLisle, NS. December 7, 1999.
VerDate 11
TABLE III±59.ÐGROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE-ILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE
Hazard quotient Constituent of concern 90th % adult 90th % child 95th % adult 95th % child
Manganese ...... 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 0.0007 Thallium ...... 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.009 Vanadium ...... 0.00009 0.0002 0.0003 0.0006
What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This therefore, contamination of ground How Many Facilities Generate This Waste? water is not likely to pose a significant Waste Category and How is it Managed? We propose not to list commingled risk to human health. Based on this fact, and the very small volume generated by Two facilities reported generating this wastewaters from the production of waste, although we believe that all titanium dioxide via the chloride- one facility, we propose not to list this material as a hazardous waste. titanium dioxide manufacturers may ilmenite process. The results of our risk generate this waste at some time. The assessment demonstrate that this waste (14) Vanadium waste from the chloride-ilmenite and chloride process. two reporting facilities both describe category poses no risks that warrant off-site Subtitle D landfills that accept listing as hazardous waste. The Vanadium containing material is generated from the production of both municipal and industrial wastes as concentrations of the constituents of the final management practice for this concern at the modeled exposure points titanium dioxide via the chloride and waste. As noted in the September 1, are well below an HQ of one. the chloride-ilmenite processes. This is 1989 Bevill rulemaking, off- (13) Additive vent filter solids from not an exempt mineral processing waste specification commercial product the chloride-ilmenite process. One because it is not a solid (see also 63 FR wastes are non-exempt solid wastes. facility reported production of vent 28602). This waste is generally returned filter solids from additive handling. to the reaction area where titanium What Management Scenarios Were This material is placed in an off-site tetrachloride is recovered and the Assessed? industrial D landfill. Small amounts of remainder of the vanadium waste is this waste are generated (<1 MT). This incorporated into the mass of the We modeled the off-site municipal D material is not Bevill exempt. Handling unreacted coke and ore solids (i.e., the landfill scenario using the regional of this additive is an ancillary activity. exempt solids) and/or the waste acid. locations of the reported landfills. All wastes from ancillary activities are There is no potential for exposure prior How Was This Waste Category not uniquely associated with extraction/ to mixing with the exempt waste or Characterized? beneficiation and processing of ores and waste acid. We assessed the mixtures of minerals (see 45 FR 76619, November exempt and non-exempt wastes as We collected one sample of this waste 19, 1980, and 63 FR 28590, May 26, discussed above in III.D.14.e(8) and (10). and conducted totals, TCLP, and SPLP 1998). Specifically, we assessed the wastewater analyses. The analytical results for the Information from the facility indicates treatment solids at the Maryland one constituent found to be present in that a constituent of concern in this facility, the Iron Rich material at the the waste TCLP sample at a level material is aluminum. The drinking Delaware facility, and the waste acid. exceeding its HBL are presented below water HBL for aluminum is higher than (15) Off-specification titanium in Table III–60 (no constituent exceeded the solubility limit in ground water and, dioxide product. HBLs in the SPLP).
TABLE III±60.ÐCHARACTERIZATION OF OFF-SPECIFICATION TITANIUM DIOXIDE PRODUCT
Detected levels in sample Constituent of concern DPN±SO±02 (mg/L) HBL (mg/L) Total TCLP
Lead ...... 0.6 1 0.06 0.015 1 Results are less than the typical laboratory reporting limit, but are greater than the calculated instrument detection limits.
How Was the Groundwater Ingestion our usual distance-to-well assumptions a 100 mile radius) for the particular Risk Assessment Established? for an off-site landfill, and assumed landfill sites that were reported for these hydrogeologic conditions that are wastes. The resultant groundwater The facilities reported use of landfills representative of the principal soil and concentrations were very low and are in the vicinity of their plant. We used aquifer types present regionally (within presented below in Table III–61.
TABLE III±61.ÐGROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR OFF-SPECIFICATION TITANIUM DIOXIDE
Predicted well concentrations (mg/L) HBL Constituent of concern (mg/L) 90th% 95th%
Lead ...... 2.5E±08 1.1E±06 0.015
VerDate 11
The modeled levels of lead were so far Of course, as set out in detail in the propose deferrals for similar wastes below the HBL that we determined it August 1988 notice, this does not mean derived from landfills. was unnecessary to further assess the that landfills holding wastes that are At the time this issue was brought to risks from lead. Clearly those risks listed now as hazardous become subject the Agency’s attention in the context of would be well below an HQ of one. to Subtitle C regulation. However, the petroleum refinery waste listings, previously disposed wastes now What Is EPA’s Listing Rationale for This meeting a listing description, including EPA’s Office of Water had recently Waste? residues such as leachate that are proposed national effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards We propose not to list off- derived from such wastes, and that are for wastewater discharges—most specification titanium dioxide as a managed actively do become subject to notably, leachate—from certain types of hazardous waste. Our risk analysis Subtitle C regulation. See 53 FR at shows that this waste does not pose 31149, August 17, 1988. In many, landfills. See 63 FR 6426, February 6, risks that warrant listing. indeed most, circumstances, active 1998. In support of this proposal, EPA management of leachate would be conducted a study of the volume and (16) Railcar/trailer product washout. exempt from Subtitle C regulation chemical composition of wastewaters One facility reported generation of this because the usual pattern of generated by both subtitle C (hazardous residual (<10,000 MT). The washwater, management is discharge either to waste) and subtitle D (non-hazardous containing titanium dioxide, is placed POTWs via the sewer system, where waste) landfills, including treatment in a surface impoundment. This waste leachate mixes with domestic sewage is not Bevill exempt because it is a technologies and management practices and is excluded from RCRA jurisdiction currently in use. Most pertinent to liquid and it is associated with the (see RCRA Section 1004(27) and 40 CFR chemical manufacturing part of the finalizing the temporary deferral for the 261.4(a)(1)), or to navigable waters, also petroleum refining wastes, EPA did not process. The water from this pond is excluded from RCRA jurisdiction (see subsequently sent to wastewater propose (or subsequently finalize) RCRA Section 1004(27) and 40 CFR pretreatment standards for subtitle D treatment where it is commingled with 261.4(a)(2)). In addition, management of landfill wastewaters sent to POTWs all other chloride-ilmenite wastewaters leachate in wastewater treatment tanks (assessed in III.D.14.e(12)). The titanium prior to discharge under the CWA is because the Agency’s information dioxide product that settles to the exempt from RCRA regulation (40 CFR indicated that such standards were not bottom of this pond is mechanically 264.1(g)(6)). required (see 65 FR 3008, January 19, recovered and returned to the If actively managed, landfill leachate 2000). production process. We assessed the and gas condensate derived from the The conditions included in the potential impact of this impoundment newly-listed wastes proposed for listing temporary deferral we published on via the SPLP analytical data collected in today’s proposal could be classified February 11, 1999 are that the leachate for off-specification product (previously as K176, K177, or K178. In such is subject to regulation under the Clean discussed in III.D.14.e(15)). These data circumstances, we would be concerned Water Act, and the leachate cannot be are available in the background about the potential disruption in current document for this sector, and show no stored in surface impoundments after leachate management that could occur, February 13, 2001. See 40 CFR constituents of concern. We chose the and the possibility of redundant 261.4(b)(15). We believe that it was SPLP to assess this management regulation. This issue was raised to the appropriate to temporarily defer the scenario because there is no potential Agency in the context of the petroleum for contact with municipal landfill refinery waste listings (see 63 FR 42173, application of the new waste codes to leachate. We therefore do not propose to August 6, 1998). A commenter such leachate in order to avoid list this waste. expressed concern that, because some of disruption of ongoing leachate the commenter’s non-hazardous waste management activities while the Agency G. What Is the Status of Landfill decides if any further integration is Leachate From Previously Disposed landfills received newly-listed needed of the RCRA and CWA Wastes? petroleum wastes prior to the effective date of the listing decision, the leachate regulations consistent with RCRA Leachate derived from the treatment, that is collected and managed from Section 1006(b)(1). We believe that it is storage, or disposal of listed hazardous these landfills would be classified as still appropriate to defer regulation and wastes is classified as a hazardous waste hazardous. The commenter argued that avoid leachate management activities, by virtue of the ‘‘derived-from’’ rule in this could lead to vastly increased and to permit the Agency to decide 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2). The Agency has treatment and disposal costs without whether any further integration of the been clear in the past that hazardous necessarily any environmental benefit. two programs is needed. As such, we waste listings apply to wastes disposed After examining and seeking comment would be concerned about forcing of prior to the effective date of a listing, on this issue, we published a final rule pretreatment of leachate even though even if the landfill ceases disposal of the that temporarily defers regulation of pretreatment is neither required by the waste when the waste becomes landfill leachate and gas condensate CWA, nor needed. Therefore, we are hazardous. (See 53 FR 31147, August derived from certain listed petroleum proposing to temporarily defer the 17, 1988). We also have a well- refining wastes (K169-K172) that were regulation of landfill leachate and gas established interpretation that listings disposed before, but not after, the new condensate derived from the wastes we apply to leachate derived from the listings became effective, provided are proposing for listing in today’s rule, disposal of listed hazardous wastes, certain conditions are met. See 64 FR with the same conditions as described including leachate derived from wastes 6806, February 11, 1999. Since then, we in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(15) for petroleum meeting the listing description that were have published proposed rules for wastes. We seek comment on our disposed before the effective date of a wastes from the dye and pigment listing. We are not reopening any of industries (64 FR 40192, July 23, 1999) proposed decision to extend the these issues with this proposed and the chlorinated aliphatics industry temporary deferral to include the wastes rulemaking. (64 FR 46476, August 25, 1998) that also proposed for listing in today’s notice.
VerDate 11
IV. Proposed Treatment Standards proposed regulated hazardous Therefore, the nonwastewater treatment Under RCRA’s Land Disposal constituents and the proposed treatment standard for antimony is 1.15 mg/L Restrictions limits can be found in the following TCLP, for arsenic is 5.0 mg/L TCLP, and preamble sections and in the proposed for lead is 0.75 mg/L TCLP. In the event A. What Are EPA’s Land Disposal regulatory Table 268.40—Treatment that there are wastewater treatment Restrictions (LDRs)? Standards for Hazardous Wastes. If we residuals from treatment of K177 (which RCRA requires us to establish make a final decision to list the under the derived-from rule also would treatment standards for all wastes identified wastes, these constituents and be considered K177), the wastewater destined for the land disposal. These are treatment standards would apply. treatment standard for antimony is 1.9 the ‘‘land disposal restrictions’’ or LDRs. We have provided in the BDAT mg/L, for arsenic is 1.4 mg/L, and for For any hazardous waste identified or background document a review of lead is 0.69 mg/L. listed after November 8, 1984, we must technologies that can be used to meet We are requesting data and comment promulgate these LDR treatment the proposed numerical concentration on the stabilization of antimony. standards within six months of the date limits for K176, K177, and K178, Available stabilization data for of identification or final listing (RCRA assuming optimized design and antimony show effective treatment for Section 3004(g)(4), 42 U.S.C. 6924(g)(4)). operation. Where we are proposing wastes with initial antimony RCRA also requires us to set as these numerical concentration limits, the use concentrations below those found in treatment standards ‘‘* * * levels or of other technologies capable of K177. Therefore, based on the available methods of treatment, if any, which achieving the proposed treatment data, we are uncertain if stabilization substantially diminish the toxicity of standards would be allowed, except for will be effective for the antimony in this the waste or substantially reduce the those treatment or reclamation practices waste. likelihood of migration of hazardous constituting land disposal or D. What Are the Treatment Standards constituents from the waste so that impermissible dilution (see 40 CFR for K178 (Nonwastewaters From the short-term and long-term threats to 268.3). human health and the environment are Production of Titanium Dioxide by the minimized.’’ (RCRA Section 3004(m)(1), B. What Are the Treatment Standards Chloride-Ilmenite Process)? 42 U.S.C. 6924(m)(1)). for K176 (Baghouse Filters From The constituents of concern in this Once a hazardous waste is prohibited Production of Antimony Oxide)? waste are the chlorinated congeners of from land disposal, the statute provides The constituents identified to require dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran, only two options for legal land disposal: treatment in this waste are antimony, thallium and manganese. We are Meet the treatment standard for the arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. proposing to apply the UTS levels to the waste prior to land disposal, or dispose We are proposing to apply the UTS chlorinated congeners of dibenzo-p- of the waste in a land disposal unit that levels to these constituents as the dioxin and dibenzofuran, and thallium, satisfies the statutory no migration test. treatment standards. Therefore, the as indicated in Table V–1. In addition A no migration unit is one from which nonwastewaters treatment standard we are also proposing the option of there will be no migration of hazardous proposed for antimony is 1.15mg/L complying with the technology standard constituents for as long as the waste TCLP; arsenic is 5.0 mg/L TCLP; of combustion (CMBST) for the remains hazardous. RCRA sections 3004 cadmium is 0.11 mg/L TCLP; lead is chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and (d), (e), (f), and (g)(5). Each waste 0.75 mg/L TCLP; and, mercury is 0.025 dibenzofuran (dioxins and furans) identified for listing as hazardous in this mg/L TCLP. In the event that there are constituents present in K178. rule will be subject to all the land wastewater treatment residuals from We note at the outset that we typically disposal restrictions on the same day treatment of K176 (which under the promulgate numerical performance their respective listing becomes derived-from rule would also be standards to allow facilities maximum effective. considered as K176), the wastewater flexibility in determining for themselves We gathered data on waste treatment standards are as follows: how best to achieve compliance with characteristics and current management Antimony is 1.9 mg/L; arsenic is 1.4 mg/ the LDR treatment standards. By practices for wastes proposed to be L; cadmium is 0.69 mg/L; lead is 0.69 promulgating combustion as an listed in this action. These data can be mg/L; and, mercury is 0.15 mg/L. alternative compliance option, we are found in the administrative record for We are requesting data and comment not disturbing the degree of flexibility this rule. An examination of the on the stabilization of antimony. afforded to facilities; rather, we are constituents that are the basis of the Available stabilization data for enhancing it. proposed listings shows that we have antimony show effective treatment for However, when we specify a previously developed numerical wastes with initial antimony treatment technology like CMBST as the treatment standards for most of the concentrations below those found in treatment standard, the analytical constituents. We have determined that it K176. Therefore, based on the available elements of compliance change. is technically feasible and justified to data, we are uncertain if stabilization Typically, with specified technologies, apply existing universal treatment will be effective for the antimony in this no testing and analysis of treatment standards (UTS) to the hazardous waste. residuals is required because we are constituents in the wastes proposed to confident that use of the specified be listed as K176, K177, and K178 that C. What Standards Are the Treatment technology will reduce the level of were found to be present at Standards for K177 (Slag From the target organic constituents to levels that concentrations exceeding the treatment Production of Antimony Oxide That is minimize threats to human health and standards, because the waste Disposed of or Speculatively the environment. For K178, the compositions are similar to other wastes Accumulated)? regulated organic constituents of for which applicable treatment The constituents identified to require concern are dioxin/furan congeners. If technologies have been demonstrated. treatment in this waste are antimony, combustion in well designed and Also see LDR Phase II final rule, 59 FR arsenic, and lead. We are proposing to operated units is used to treat K178, the 47982, September 19, 1994, for a further apply the UTS levels to these dioxin/furan congeners in the K178 discussion of UTS. A list of the constituents as the treatment standards. should be substantially destroyed. By
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
TABLE IV±1.ÐTREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K178
Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters Concentration in mg/kg4 un- 1 2 Common name CAS Concentration in mg/L , less noted as No. or technology code 3 ``mg/L TCLP'', or technology code
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ...... 35822±39±4 0.000035 or CMBST 5 ...... 0.0025 or CMBST 5 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran ...... 67562±39±4 0.000035 or CMBST 5 ...... 0.0025 or CMBST 5 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran ...... 55673±89±7 0.000035 or CMBST 5 ...... 0.0025 or CMBST 5 HxCDDs (All Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins) ...... 34465±46±8 0.000063 or CMBST 5 ...... 0.001 or CMBST 5 HxCDFs (All Hexachlorodibenzofurans) ...... 55684±94±1 0.000063 or CMBST 5 ...... 0.001 or CMBST 5 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD) ...... 3268±87±9 0.000063 or CMBST 5 ...... 0.005 or CMBST 5 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF) ...... 39001±02±0 0.000063 or CMBST 5 ...... 0.005 or CMBST 5 PeCDDs (All Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins) ...... 36088±22±9 0.000063 or CMBST 5 ...... 0.001 or CMBST 5 PeCDFs (All Pentachlorodibenzofurans) ...... 30402±15±4 0.000035 or CMBST 5 ...... 0.001 or CMBST 5 TCDDs (All tetrachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxins) ...... 41903±57±5 0.000063 or CMBST 5 ...... 0.001 or CMBST 5 TCDFs (All tetrachlorodibenzofurans) ...... 55722±27±5 0.000063 or CMBST 5 ...... 0.001 or CMBST 5 Manganese ...... 7439±96±5 17.1 ...... 3.6 mg/L TCLP Thallium ...... 7440±28±0 1.4 ...... 0.20 mg/L TCLP 1 CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a combination of a chemical with its salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only. 2 Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/L and are based on analysis of composite samples. 3 All treatment standards expressed as a Technology Code or combination of Technology Codes are explained in detail in 40 CFR 268.42 Table 1-Technology Codes and Descriptions of Technology-Based Standards. 4 Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards expressed as a concentration were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O or 40 CFR part 265, subpart O, or based upon combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical require- ments. A facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40(d). All concentration standards for nonwastewaters are based on analysis of grab samples. 5 For these wastes, the definition of CMBST is limited to: (1) combustion units operating under 40 CFR 266, (2) combustion units permitted under 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart O, or (3) combustion units operating under 40 CFR 265, Subpart O, which have obtained a determination of equivalent treatment under 268.42(b).
What Other LDR Provisions Are with these wastes would have to be the LDR treatment standards being Proposed to Apply? treated prior to land disposal, meeting proposed today, or if they are disposed 1. Debris. We propose to apply the either alternative treatment standards in a deep injection well that has been regulations at 40 CFR 268.45 to (i.e., 10 times UTS or 90 percent granted a no migration petition for those hazardous debris contaminated with reduction in initial constituent wastes. K176, K177 or K178. Debris concentrations) or the standards at 40 E. Is There Treatment Capacity for the contaminated with these wastes would CFR 268.40 being proposed today. Non- Proposed Wastes? have to be treated prior to land disposal, soil residuals generated from the using specific technologies from one or treatment of soil contaminated with 1. What Is a Capacity Determination? more of the following families of debris K176, K177, or K178 would remain EPA must determine whether treatment technologies: extraction, subject to the treatment standards adequate alternative treatment capacity destruction, or immobilization. proposed today. See 63 FR 28602, May exists nationally to manage the wastes Hazardous debris contaminated with a 26, 1998, for additional information on subject to LDR treatment standards. listed waste that is treated by an the applicability, scope, and content of RCRA section 3004 (h)(2). Thus, LDRs immobilization technology specified in the alternative soil treatment standard are effective when the new listings are 40 CFR 268.45 Table 1 is a hazardous provisions. effective (typically 6 months after the waste and must be managed in a 3. Underground Injection Wells that new listings are published in the hazardous waste facility. Residuals can be found in the administrative Federal Register), unless EPA grants a generated from the treatment of debris record for this rule. Finally, because national capacity variance from the contaminated with K176, K177, or K178 land disposal also includes placement otherwise-applicable date and would remain subject to the treatment in injection wells (40 CFR 268.2(c)) establishes a different date (not to standards proposed today. See 57 FR application of the land disposal exceed two years beyond the statutory 37277, August 18, 1992, for additional restrictions to K176, K177, and K178 deadline) based on ‘‘* * * the earliest information on the applicability, scope, requires the modification of injection date on which adequate alternative and content of the hazardous debris well requirements found in 40 CFR 148. treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity provisions. We propose that K176, K177, and K178 which protects human health and the 2. Soil. In addition, we propose to be prohibited from underground environment will be available’’ (RCRA apply the regulations at 40 CFR 268.49 injection. Therefore, these wastes could section 3004(h)(2), 42 U.S.C.6924(h)(2)). to hazardous soil contaminated with not be underground injected unless they Our capacity analysis methodology K176, K177, or K178. Soil contaminated have been treated in compliance with focuses on the amount of waste
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
Further, for soil and debris Should this occur, we will revise the requirements were promulgated or contaminated with the newly listed capacity analysis accordingly. enacted, the state was obligated to enact wastes (K176, K177, and K178), we equivalent authority within specified V. Compliance Dates believe that the vast majority of time-frames. New Federal requirements contaminated soil and debris We seek comment on the proposed did not take effect in an authorized state contaminated with these wastes will be decisions in this section. until the state adopted the requirements managed on-site and therefore will not A. Notification as state law. require substantial commercial By contrast, under Section 3006(g) of treatment capacity. Therefore, we are Under the RCRA Section 3010 any RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), new not proposing to grant a national person generating, transporting, or requirements and prohibitions imposed capacity variance for hazardous soil and managing a hazardous waste must notify by the HSWA (including the hazardous debris contaminated with these wastes EPA (or an authorized state) of its waste listings in this proposal) take covered under this proposal. Based on activities. Section 3010(a) allows us to effect in authorized states at the same the 1999 RCRA § 3007 Survey followed waive, under certain circumstances, the time that they take effect in non- by record sampling and site visits, there notification requirement under Section authorized states. EPA is directed to are no data showing the newly listed 3010 of RCRA. If these hazardous waste implement those requirements and wastes managed by underground listings are promulgated, we propose to prohibitions in authorized states, injection wells. Also, based on the 1999 waive the notification requirement as including the issuance of permits, until RCRA § 3007 Survey followed by record unnecessary for persons already the state is granted authorization to do sampling and site visits, there are no identified within the hazardous waste so. While states must still adopt HSWA- data showing mixed radioactive wastes management universe (i.e., persons who related provisions as state law to retain associated with the proposed listings. have an EPA identification number final authorization, the Federal HSWA EPA is proposing to not grant a national under 40 CFR 262.12). We do not requirements apply in authorized states capacity variance for underground propose to waive the notification in the interim. requirement for waste handlers who injected wastes, mixed radioactive B. Effect on State Authorizations wastes, or soil and debris contaminated have neither notified us that they may with these mixed radioactive wastes, if manage hazardous wastes nor received Because this proposal (with the such wastes are generated. an EPA identification number. Such exception of the actions proposed under Therefore, we propose that LDR individuals will have to provide CERCLA authority) will be promulgated treatment standards for the affected notification under RCRA Section 3010. pursuant to the HSWA, a state wastes covered under today’s rule thus B. Interim Status and Permitted submitting a program modification is become effective when the listing Facilities able to apply to receive either interim or determinations become effective—the final authorization under Section earliest possible date (see RCRA section Because HSWA requirements are 3006(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively, on 3004(h)(1)—land disposal prohibitions applicable in authorized states at the the basis of requirements that are must take effect immediately when same time as in unauthorized states, we substantially equivalent or equivalent to there is sufficient protective treatment will regulate the newly identified EPA’s requirements. The procedures capacity for the waste available). wastes listed under HSWA until states and schedule for state program However, we may need to revise are authorized to regulate these wastes. modifications under 3006(b) are capacity analyses or capacity variance Thus, once this regulation becomes described in 40 CFR 271.21. It should be decisions if final listing determinations effective as a final rule, we will apply noted that all HSWA interim are changed or if we receive data and Federal regulations to these wastes and authorizations are currently scheduled information to warrant any revision. to their management in both authorized to expire on January 1, 2003 (see 57 FR Finally, we request comments on the and unauthorized states. 60129, February 18, 1992). estimated quantities requiring VI. State Authority Section 271.21(e)(2) of EPA’s state alternative treatment and information authorization regulations (40 CFR Part on characteristics of the affected wastes, A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized 271) requires that states with final management practices for these wastes, States authorization modify their programs to and available treatment, recovery or Under Section 3006 of RCRA, we may reflect federal program changes and disposal capacity for the wastes. We authorize qualified states to administer submit the modifications to EPA for also request comments concerning and enforce the RCRA program within approval. The deadline by which the alternative management for any of these the state. (See 40 CFR Part 271 for the states must modify their programs to wastes managed in surface standards and requirements for adopt this proposed regulation, if it is impoundments, including new piping authorization.) Following authorization, adopted as a final rule, will be or tank systems, and the length of time we retain enforcement authority under determined by the date of promulgation required for such activities. In addition, Sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003 of of a final rule in accordance with 40 we solicit comments on our decision not RCRA, although authorized states have CFR 271.21(e)(2). If the proposal is to grant a national capacity variance or primary enforcement responsibility. adopted as a final rule, Table 1 at 40 delay the effective date for any of the Before the Hazardous and Solid Waste CFR 271.1 will be amended accordingly. affected wastes. We will consider all Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) amended Once we approve the modification, the available data and information provided RCRA, a state with final authorization state requirements become RCRA during the public comment period and administered its hazardous waste Subtitle C requirements. revise our capacity analysis accordingly program entirely in lieu of the Federal States with authorized RCRA in making the final capacity program in that state. The Federal programs already may have regulations determinations. Please note, the requirements no longer applied in the similar to those in this proposed rule. ultimate volumes of wastes estimated to authorized state, and we could not issue These state regulations have not been require alternative or additional permits for any facilities located in the assessed against the Federal regulations commercial treatment may change if the state with permitting authorization. being proposed to determine whether final listing determinations change. When new, more stringent Federal they meet the tests for authorization.
VerDate 11
Thus, a state would not be authorized to been released in a quantity that is equal chronic toxicity, and potential implement these regulations as RCRA to or exceeds its RQ must immediately carcinogenicity. requirements until state program notify the NRC as soon as that person Generally, for each intrinsic property, modifications are submitted to EPA and has knowledge of the release. The toll- we rank the hazardous substance on a approved, pursuant to 40 CFR 271.21. free telephone number of the NRC is 1– five-tier scale, associating a specific Of course, States with existing 800–424–8802; in the Washington, DC, range of values on each scale with an regulations that are more stringent than metropolitan area, the number is (202) RQ value of 1, 10, 100, 1,000, or 5,000 or broader in scope than current Federal 267–2675. In addition to this reporting pounds. Based on the various primary regulations may continue to administer requirement under CERCLA, Section criteria, the hazardous substance may and enforce their regulations as a matter 304 of the Emergency Planning and receive several tentative RQ values. The of state law. Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 lowest of the tentative RQs becomes the It should be noted that authorized (EPCRA) requires owners or operators of ‘‘primary criteria RQ’’ for that states are required to modify their certain facilities to report releases of substance. programs only when EPA promulgates extremely hazardous substances and After the primary criteria RQ is Federal standards that are more CERCLA hazardous substances to State assigned, the substance is evaluated stringent or broader in scope than and local authorities. Immediately after further for its susceptibility to certain existing Federal standards. Section 3009 the release of an RQ or more of an degradative processes, which are used of RCRA allows states to impose extremely hazardous substance or a as secondary RQ adjustment criteria. standards more stringent than those in CERCLA hazardous substance, EPCRA These natural degradative processes are the Federal program. For those Federal Section 304 notification must be given biodegradation, hydrolysis, and program changes that are less stringent to the community emergency photolysis (BHP). If a hazardous or reduce the scope of the Federal coordinator of the local emergency substance, when released into the program, states are not required to planning committee for any area likely environment, degrades relatively modify their programs. See 40 CFR to be affected by the release, and to the rapidly to a less hazardous form by one 271.1(I). This proposed rule, if finalized, State emergency response commission or more of the BHP processes, its is neither less stringent than nor a of any State likely to be affected by the primary criteria RQ is generally raised reduction in the scope or the current release. one level. Conversely, if a hazardous Federal program, and, therefore, states Under Section 102(b) of CERCLA, all substance degrades to a more hazardous would be required to modify their product after its release, the original programs to retain authorization to hazardous substances (as defined by CERCLA Section 101(14)) have a substance is assigned an RQ equal to the implement and enforce these RQ for the more hazardous substance, regulations. statutory RQ of one pound, unless and until the RQ is adjusted by regulation. which may be one or more levels lower VII. Designation of Inorganic Chemical In today’s proposed rule, we propose: than the RQ for the original substance. Wastes under the Comprehensive (1) to list the following three The standard methodology used to Environmental Response, wastestreams as RCRA hazardous adjust the RQs for RCRA hazardous Compensation, and Liability Act wastes; (2) to designate these wastestreams differs from the (CERCLA) wastestreams as CERCLA hazardous methodology applied to individual All hazardous wastes listed under substances, and (3) to adjust the one- hazardous substances. The procedure RCRA and codified in 40 CFR 261.31 pound statutory RQs for two of these for assigning RQs to RCRA wastestreams through 261.33, as well as any solid wastestreams. The proposed is based on an analysis of the hazardous waste that is not excluded from wastestreams are as follows: constituents of the wastestreams. The constituents of each RCRA hazardous regulation as a hazardous waste under K176 Baghouse filters from the production wastestream are identified in 40 CFR 40 CFR 261.4(b) and that exhibits one or of antimony oxide more of the characteristics of a RCRA K177 Slag from the production of antimony part 261, Appendix VII. We determine hazardous waste (as defined in 40 CFR oxide that is disposed of or speculatively an RQ for each constituent within the 261.21 through 261.24), are hazardous accumulated wastestream and establish the lowest substances under the Comprehensive K178 Nonwastewaters from the production of RQ value of these constituents as the Environmental Response, titanium dioxide by the chloride-ilmenite adjusted RQ for the wastestream. Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 process. [This listing does not apply to In today’s proposed rule, we propose (CERCLA), as amended (see CERCLA chloride process waste solids from to assign a one-pound adjusted RQ to Section 101(14)(C)). CERCLA hazardous titanium tetrachloride production exempt the K176 wastestream and 5,000 pounds substances are listed in Table 302.4 at under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7).] to the K177 wastestream. The proposed 40 CFR 302.4 along with their reportable B. Basis for Proposed RQ Adjustment adjusted RQs for both of these quantities (RQs). If a hazardous wastestreams are based on the lowest substance is released in an amount that Our methodology for adjusting the RQ value of the constituents present in equals or exceeds its RQ, the release RQs of individual hazardous substances each wastestream, are presented in must be reported immediately to the begins with an evaluation of the Table VII–1 below. We seek comment National Response Center (NRC) intrinsic physical, chemical, and our proposed adjustments to the RQ pursuant to CERCLA Section 103. toxicological properties of each values for these wastes. We are not hazardous substance. The intrinsic adjusting the RQ for K178 at this time A. Reporting Requirements properties examined—called ‘‘primary because we have not yet developed a Under CERCLA Section 103(a), the criteria’’—are aquatic toxicity, ‘‘waste constituent RQ’’ for manganese, person in charge of a vessel or facility mammalian toxicity (oral, dermal, and one of the constituents of concern in from which a hazardous substance has inhalation), ignitability, reactivity, this waste.
VerDate 11
TABLE VII±1.ÐPROPOSED ADJUSTED RQS FOR WASTESTREAMS K176, K177, AND K178
Wastestream constituent Wastestream Wastestream Wastestream constituent RQ RQ (lb.) (lb.)
K176 ...... arsenic ...... 1 1 lead ...... 10 ...... K177 ...... antimony ...... 5,000 5,000
VIII. Administrative Assessments followed by a presentation of the cost, The Agency has modeled the most economic impact and benefit results, likely post-regulatory scenario resulting A. Executive Order 12866 may be found in the background from the listing (e.g., disposal in a Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR document: ‘‘Economic Analysis of the Subtitle C hazardous waste landfill, 51,735 (October 4, 1993)] the Agency Proposed Rule For Listing Hazardous recycling) and estimated the cost of must determine whether the regulatory Waste From Inorganic Chemical complying with it. The difference action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore Production,’’ which was placed in the between the baseline management cost subject to OMB review and the docket for today’s proposed rule. We and the post-regulatory cost is the requirements of the Executive Order. seek comment on the methodology incremental cost of the rulemaking. The Order defines ‘‘significant used, the projected economic impacts, To estimate the economic impact of regulatory action’’ as one that is likely and the benefits assumed for the today’s proposed rulemaking, we to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an proposed listings. annual effect on the economy of $100 compared the incremental cost of the million or more or adversely affect in a 1. Methodology Section rulemaking with model firm sales and material way the economy, a sector of To estimate the cost, economic either net profit or product value. The the economy, productivity, competition, impacts to potentially affected firms and Agency has also considered the ability jobs, the environment, public health or benefits to society from this proposed of potentially affected firms to pass safety, or State, local, or tribal rulemaking, We evaluated § 3007 compliance costs on in the form of governments or communities; (2) create Survey responses from inorganic higher prices. a serious inconsistency or otherwise chemical producers, firm financial To estimate the benefits of today’s interfere with an action taken or reports, and chemical production data. proposal, we evaluated risk assessment planned by another agency; (3) The Agency has developed model results and as well as a qualitative materially alter the budgetary impact of facilities that represent composite assessment of benefits including natural entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan information about inorganic chemical resource protection of groundwater. programs or the rights and obligations of producers at both the facility and firm recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel, level. We also evaluated two scenarios. 2. Results legal or policy issues arising out of legal The first scenario evaluates the cost of a. Volume Results. Data reviewed by mandates, the President’s priorities, or listing all wastes that we propose to list the Agency indicates that there are 9 the principles set forth in the Executive in today’s proposal. The second inorganic chemical producers Order. scenario includes not only wastes that potentially affected by today’s proposed The Agency estimated the costs of EPA has proposed to list but also any rule. The data report that these firms today’s proposed rule to determine if it waste that has exceeded risk screens (or generated 700,000 tons of inorganic is a significant regulation as defined by other screening criteria) and had chemical production waste annually the Executive Order. The analysis quantitative risk assessment completed. that are potentially affected by today’s considered compliance costs and Analysis of these scenarios allows the proposed rule and modeled under economic impacts for inorganic public to understand what costs would Scenario 1. Data also indicate that there chemical producers affected by this have resulted from this rule making if rule. We estimate the total cost of the all of the quantitative risk assessments are 26 inorganic chemical producers rule to be $3 million annually. This involving fate and transport modeling who have generated wastes that are analysis suggests that this rule is not had shown risk to human health. either being listed because they exhibit economically significant according to To estimate the incremental cost of a characteristic or have been evaluated the definition in E.O. 12866. The Office this rule making, we reviewed baseline for quantitative risk assessment of Management and Budget has deemed management practices and costs of involving fate and transport modeling this rule to be significant for novel potentially affected firms. Where more by the Agency to evaluate their potential policy reasons and has reviewed this than one baseline management method effect on human health and the rule. was used (e.g. municipal incineration environment. These wastes are being Detailed discussions of the and landfilling), we either modeled modeled under Scenario 2. methodology used for estimating the more than one form of baseline b. Cost Results. For today’s proposed costs, economic impacts and the management or selected the least rule, we estimate the total annual benefits attributable to today’s proposed expensive form of baseline management incremental costs from today’s proposal rule for listing hazardous wastes from (which would overestimate rather than to be $ 2.5 million for all facilities. inorganic chemical production, underestimate the cost of the rule). Sectors costs are summarized in Table 2.
VerDate 11
TABLE VIII±1.ÐESTIMATED INCREMENTAL COST BY INORGANIC CHEMICAL SECTOR
Estimated incremental annual costs Number of affected $ 000s facilities Sector (1999 $) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Antimony Oxide ...... 1.6 (recycling), 1.6 (recycling), 33 35 (disposal). 35 (disposal). Hydrogen Cyanide ...... 215 ...... 3 5 Sodium Chlorate ...... 225 ...... 0 5 Sodium Phosphate ...... 76 ...... 0 4 Titanium Dioxide ...... 2900 ...... 6500 ...... 3 9 Total ...... 2937 ...... 7051 ...... 9 26
c. Economic Impact Results. To and comment rulemaking requirements in the potential impacts of the proposed estimate potential economic impacts under the Administrative Procedures rule on small entities and welcome resulting from today’s proposed rule, we Act or any other statute unless the comments on issues related to such used first order economic impacts agency certifies that the rule will not impacts. measures such as the estimated have a significant economic impact on C. Paperwork Reduction Act incremental costs of today’s proposed a substantial number of small entities. rule as a percentage of both affected Small entities include small businesses, The information collection firms’ sales and estimated profits 64. We small organizations, and small requirements in this proposed rule have applied these measures to affected governmental jurisdictions. been submitted for approval to the inorganic chemical producers. For For purposes of assessing the impacts Office of Management and Budget affected inorganic chemical producers of today’s rule on small entities, a small (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction in the antimony oxide and sodium entity is defined as: (1) A small business Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An chlorate sectors, we estimated the costs that has fewer than 1000 or 100 Information Collection Request (ICR) to be less than 3 percent of a typical employees per firm depending upon the document has been prepared (ICR No. firm’s sales and less than 2 percent of SIC code the firm primarily classified 1968.01) and a copy may be obtained a firm’s estimated profits. For affected in 65; (2) a small governmental from Sandy Farmer by mail at inorganic chemical producers in the jurisdiction that is a government of a Collection Strategies Division; U.S. hydrogen cyanide sector, we estimated city, county, town, school district or Environmental Protection Agency the cost to be less than 1 percent of a special district with a population of less (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, typical firm’s sales and estimated than 50,000; and (3) a small Washington, DC 20460,by email at profits. More detailed information on organization that is any not-for-profit [email protected], or by this estimate can be found in the enterprise which is independently calling (202) 260–2740. A copy may also economic analysis placed into today’s owned and operated and is not be downloaded off the internet at http:/ docket. dominant in its field. /www.epa.gov/icr. d. Benefits Assessment. EPA has not After considering the economic This rule is proposed under the conducted a quantitative assessment of impacts of today’s proposed rule on authority of sections 3001(e)(2) and actual benefits from this proposed rule. small entities, I certify that this action 3001(b)(1) of the Hazardous and Solid Because today’s proposed rule results in will not have a significant economic Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. new hazardous waste management impact on a substantial number of small The effect of listing the wastes described requirements for K176, K177, and K178 entities. earlier will be to subject industry to wastes, the Agency believes that there There are two potentially affected management and treatment standards inorganic producing firms that may be a reduction in releases of under the Resource Conservation and constitute small entities. These firms are hazardous constituents to the Recovery Act (RCRA). located in the antimony oxide sector. environment. This proposed rule does not contain We have determined that these two any new information collection B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as firms would under this proposal incur requirements, nor does it propose to amended by the Small Business costs of less than 1 percent of both the modify any existing information Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of firm’s sales and estimated profits under collection requirements. As a result, this 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et. seq. one scenario analyzed for the wastes in proposed rule represents only an The RFA generally requires an agency this sector. We continue to be interested incremental increase in burden for to prepare a regulatory flexibility generators and subsequent handlers of 65 The Small Business Administration has analysis of any rule subject to notice classified firms in the manufacturing sector (SIC the newly listed wastes in complying Codes 20–39) and wholesale trade sector (SIC Codes with existing RCRA information 64 Because profit information is often either 50–51) as small businesses within the sector based collection requirements. unavailable or more variable from year to year than on the number of employees per firm. See Small The total annual respondent burden sales measures, the Agency has chose to use a profit Business Size Standards, 61 FR 3280, 3289 (January surrogate in completing the economic impact 31, 1996). Thus, to determine if a inorganic and cost for all existing paperwork analysis of this proposal. According to Dun and chemical producer is a small business, the primary associated with this proposed rule Bradstreet’s Industry Norms and Key Business SIC code of the firm would have to be determined. presented here represents the Indicators (1995) the average net after tax profit for The small entities in today’s rulemaking are in two incremental increase in paperwork inorganic chemical producers in the 2819 SIC code SIC codes: (1) 2812 Alkalies and Chlorine, size was 6.3 percent. This percentage is applied to standard 1000 employees and (2) 5082 Construction burden under six existing Information reported sales of affected firms in order to estimate and Mining (except Petroleum) Machinery and Collection Requests (ICRs). We estimate their profits. Equipment size standard 100 employees. the total annual respondent burden for
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
4. Section 261.4 is amended by (iii) The leachate or gas condensate do impoundment is used to temporarily revising paragraph (b)(15) to read as not exhibit any characteristic of store leachate or gas condensate in follows: hazardous waste nor are derived from response to an emergency situation (e.g., any other listed hazardous waste; shutdown of wastewater treatment § 261.4 Exclusions. (iv) Discharge of the leachate or gas system), provided the impoundment has * * * * * condensate, including leachate or gas a double liner, and provided the (b) * * * condensate transferred from the landfill leachate or gas condensate is removed (15) Leachate or gas condensate to a POTW by truck, rail, or dedicated from the impoundment and continues to collected from landfills where certain pipe, is subject to regulation under be managed in compliance with the solid wastes have been disposed, Sections 307(b) or 402 of the Clean conditions of paragraph (b)(15)(v) after provided that: Water Act. the emergency ends. (v) After February 13, 2001, leachate (i) The solid wastes disposed would or gas condensate derived from K169– * * * * * meet one or more of the listing K172 will no longer be exempt if it is 5. In § 261.32, the table is amended by descriptions for Hazardous Waste Codes stored or managed in a surface adding in alphanumeric order (by the K169, K170, K171, K172, K174, K175, impoundment prior to discharge. After first column) the following K176, K177, and K178, if these wastes [date 24 months after publication date of wastestreams to the subgroup had been generated after the effective the final rule], leachate or gas ‘‘Inorganic Chemicals’’ to read as date of the listing; condensate derived from K176, K177, follows: (ii) The solid wastes described in and K178 will no longer be exempt if it paragraph (b)(15)(i) of this section were is stored or managed in a surface § 261.32 Hazardous waste from specific disposed prior to the effective date of impoundment prior to discharge. There sources. the listing: is one exception: if the surface * * * * *
Industry and EPA haz- Hazardous ardous waste No. Hazardous waste code
******* Inorganic chemicals:
******* K176 ...... Baghouse filters from the production of antimony oxide ...... (E) K177 ...... Slag from the production of antimony oxide that is disposed of or speculatively accumulated ...... (T) K178 ...... Nonwastewaters from the production of titanium dioxide by the chloride-ilmenite process. [This listing (T) does not apply to chloride process waste solids from titanium tetrachloride production exempt under section 261.4(b)(7)].
*******
* * * * * APPENDIX VII TO PART 261ÐBASIS * * * * * 6. Appendix VII to Part 261 is FOR LISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE 7. Appendix VIII to Part 261 is amended by adding the following amended by adding in alphabetical wastestreams in alphanumeric order (by EPA hazardous Hazardous constituents for sequence of common name the waste No. which listed the first column) to read as follows: following entries:
***** K176 ...... Arsenic, lead. K177 ...... Antimony. K178 ...... Manganese, thallium.
APPENDIX VIII TO PART 261ÐHAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
Chemical Common name Chemical abstracts name abstracts Hazardous No. waste No.
******* Manganese ...... Same ...... 7439±96±5 ......
*******
PART 268ÐLAND DISPOSAL Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, Subpart CÐProhibitions on Land RESTRICTIONS and 6924. Disposal
8. The authority citation for Part 268 9. Section 268.36 is added to read as continues to read as follows: follows:
VerDate 11
§ 268.36 Waste specific prohibitionsÐ to those wastes and units covered by the depending on whether the treatment inorganic chemical wastes. petition; standards are expressed as (a) Effective [date six months from (3) The wastes meet the applicable concentrations in the waste extract or date of publication of final rule], the treatment standards established the waste, or the generator may use wastes specified in 40 CFR Part 261 as pursuant to a petition granted under knowledge of the waste. If the waste EPA Hazardous Wastes Numbers K176, § 268.44; contains regulated constituents in K177, and K178, and soil and debris (4) Hazardous debris has met the excess of the applicable Subpart D treatment standards in § 268.40 or the contaminated with these wastes, levels, the waste is prohibited from land radioactive wastes mixed with these alternative treatment standards in disposal, and all requirements of Part wastes, and soil and debris § 268.45; or 268 are applicable, except as otherwise contaminated with radioactive wastes (5) Persons have been granted an mixed with these wastes are prohibited extension to the effective date of a specified. from land disposal. prohibition pursuant to § 268.5, with 10. In § 268.40, the Table is amended (b) The requirements of paragraph (a) respect to these wastes covered by the by adding in alphanumeric order new of this section do not apply if: extension. entries for K176, K177, and K178 to read (1) The wastes meet the applicable (c) To determine whether a hazardous as follows: treatment standards specified in Subpart waste identified in this section exceeds D of this Part; the applicable treatment standards § 268.40 Applicability of treatment (2) Persons have been granted an specified in § 268.40, the initial standards. exemption from a prohibition pursuant generator must test a sample of the * * * * * to a petition under § 268.6, with respect waste extract or the entire waste,
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES [Note: NA means not applicable]
Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters
Waste Waste description and treat- Concentration in mg/ Concentration in mg/ code ment/regulatory subcategory 1 kg5 unless noted as Common name CAS 2 number L3, or technology 4 ``mg/L TCLP'', or code technology code
******* K176 ...... Baghouse filters from the pro- Antimony ...... 7440±36±0 1.9 ...... 1.15 mg/L TCLP duction of antimony oxide. Arsenic ...... 7440±38±2 1.4 ...... 5.0 mg/L TCLP Cadmium ...... 7440±43±9 0.69 ...... 0.11 mg/L TCLP Lead ...... 7439±92±1 0.69 ...... 0.75 mg/L TCLP Mercury ...... 7439±97±6 0.15 ...... 0.025 mg/L TCLP K177 ...... Slag from the production of an- Antimony ...... 7440±36±0 1.9 ...... 1.15 mg/L TCLP timony oxide that is dis- Arsenic ...... 7440±38±2 1.4 ...... 5.0 mg/L TCLP posed of or speculatively ac- Lead ...... 7439±92±1 0.60 ...... 0.75 mg/L TCLP cumulated. K178 ...... Nonwastewaters from the pro- 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 35822±39±4 0.000035 or CMBST11 0.0025 or CMBST11 duction of titanium dioxide Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 67562±39±4 0.000035 or CMBST11 0.0025 or CMBST11 by the chloride-ilmenite proc- (1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD). 0.0025 or CMBST11 ess. [This listing does not 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- apply to chloride process Heptachlorodibenzofuran waste solids from titanium (1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF). tetrachloride production ex- empt under section 261.4(b)(7).]. 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 55673±89±7 0.000035 or CMBST11 0.0025 or CMBST11 Heptachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF). HxCDDs (All 34465±46±8 0.000063 or CMBST11 0.001 or CMBST11 Hexachlorodibenzo-p- dioxins). HxCDFs (All 55684±94±1 0.000063 or CMBST11 0.001 or CMBST11 Hexachlorodibenzofurans). 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 3268±87±9 0.000063 or CMBST11 0.005 or CMBST11 Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD). 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 39001±02±0 0.000063 or CMBST11 0.005 or CMBST11 Octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF). PeCDDs (All 36088±22±9 0.000063 or CMBST11 0.001 or CMBST11 Pentachlorodibenzo-p- dioxins). PeCDFs (All 30402±15±4 0.000035 or CMBST11 0.001 or CMBST11 Pentachlorodibenzofurans). TCDDs (All tetrachlorodibenzo- 41903±57±5 0.000063 or CMBST11 0.001 or CMBST11 p-dioxins). TCDFs (All 55722±27±5 0.000063 or CMBST11 0.001 or CMBST11 tetrachlorodibenzofurans).
VerDate 11
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTESÐContinued [Note: NA means not applicable]
Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters
Waste Waste description and treat- Concentration in mg/ Concentration in mg/ code ment/regulatory subcategory 1 kg5 unless noted as Common name CAS 2 number L3, or technology 4 ``mg/L TCLP'', or code technology code
Manganese ...... 7439±96±5 17.1 ...... 3.6 mg/L TCLP Thallium ...... 7440±28±0 1.4 ...... 0.20 mg/L TCLP ******* ******* FOOTNOTES TO TREATMENT STANDARD TABLE 268.40 1 The waste descriptions provided in this table do not replace waste descriptions in 40 CFR part 261. Descriptions of Treatment/Regulatory Subcategories are provided, as needed, to distinguish between applicability of different standards. 2 CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a combination of a chemical with its salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only. 3 Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/L and are based on analysis of composite samples. 4 All treatment standards expressed as a Technology Code or combination of Technology Codes are explained in detail in 40 CFR 268.42 Table 1ÐTechnology Codes and Descriptions of Technology-Based Standards. 5 Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards expressed as a concentration were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 264, Subpart O or 40 CFR part 265, Subpart O, or based upon combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical require- ments. A facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40(d). All concentration standards for nonwastewaters are based on analysis of grab samples. ******* 11 For these wastes, the definition of CMBST is limited to: (1) combustion units operating under 40 CFR 266, (2) combustion units permitted under 40 CFR part 264, Subpart O, or (3) combustion units operating under 40 CFR 265, Subpart O, which have obtained a determination of equivalent treatment under 268.42(b).
11. In § 268.48, the Table is amended a new entry to read as follows: (The § 268.48 Universal treatment standards. by adding in alphabetical order under footnotes are republished without * * * * * the heading of ‘‘Inorganic Constituents’’ change.)
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS [Note: NA means not applicable]
Wastewater Nonwastewater standard standard
Regulated Constituent common name CAS 1 number Concentration in Concentration mg/kg 3 unless in mg/l 2 noted as ``mg/l TCLP'
******* Inorganic Constituents ******* Manganese 7439±96±5 17.1 3.6 mg/l TCLP ******* ******* 1 CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a combination of a chemical with its salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only. 2 Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/L and are based on analysis of composite samples. 3 Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards expressed as a concentration were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart O, or Part 265, Subpart O, or based upon combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical requirements. A facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40(d). All concentration standards for nonwastewaters are based on analysis of grab samples.
* * * * * Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and § 271.1 Purpose and scope. 6926. * * * * * PART 271ÐREQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE 13. Section 271.1(j) is amended by (j) * * * HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS adding the following entries to Table 1 and Table 2 in chronological order by 12. The authority citation for Part 271 date of publication to read as follows. continues to read as follows:
VerDate 11
TABLE 1.ÐREGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date
******* [insert date of signature of final Listing of Hazardous Wastes [insert Federal Register page [insert effective date of final rule] rule] K176, K177, and K178 numbers] *******
TABLE 2.ÐSELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Effective date Self-implementing provision RCRA citation Federal Register reference
******* [effective date of final rule]. Prohibition on land disposal of 3004(g)(4)(C) and 3004(m). [date of publication of final rule] K176, K177, and K178 wastes, [FR page numbers]. and prohibition on land disposal of radioactive waste mixed with K176, K177, and K178 wastes, including soil and debris. *******
PART 302ÐDESIGNATION, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604; alphanumeric order at the end of the REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361. table to read as follows: NOTIFICATION 15. In § 302.4, Table 302.4 is amended § 302.4 Designation of hazardous 14. The authority citation for Part 302 by adding the following new entries in substances continues to read as follows: * * * * *
TABLE 302.4.ÐLIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES [Note: All Comments/Notes Are Located at the End of This Table]
Regu- Statutory Final RQ Hazardous substance CASRN latory RCRA syno- RQ Code ² Waste Category Pounds nyms Number (Kg)
******* K176 ...... *1 4 K176 X 1 (0.454) Baghouse filters from the production of antimony oxide. K177 ...... *1 4 K177 X 5,000 (2,270) Slag from the production of antimony oxide. K178 ...... *1 4 K178 X # Nonwastewaters from the production of titanium dioxide by the chloride-ilmenite process. [This listing does not apply to chloride process waste solids from titanium tetra- chloride production exempt under section 261.4(b)(7).]. ² Indicates the statutory source as defined by 1, 2, 3, and 4 below. ******* 4-Indicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is RCRA Section 3001. 1* Indicates that the 1-pound RQ is a CERCLA statutory RQ. # The Agency may adjust the statutory RQ for this hazardous substance in a future rulemaking; until then the statutory RQ applies. *******
[FR Doc. 00–22810 Filed 9–13–00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560±50±U
VerDate 11